ralfellis

Ah, thanks for this.

I have now found that the Masons were correct, and the name is actually given in the Tanakh as הורם אביו . See 2Ch 4:16.

And this is transliterated by John Gill as Huram Abif. So yes, we do have an original source that gives the architect's name as Huram Abif. And so the standard biblical translation of "Huram my fathers" is incorrect. What the scribes and translators were grappling with here, is that there are many Egyptianisms in the Torah (that is, after all, where the Israelites came from), and they did not understand them. Not understanding the word Atif, but knowing it referred to a father in some manner, they transliterated this as Abif and thence Abi - because that made more sense in the Aramaic (but not in the Egyptian).

And instead of this name simply being written as 'Abif', which would have been correct, it became translated as 'my fathers'. Which is a bit like the Tanakh translating the name Ramesses as "Ra son of". Or Tuthmoses as "Djehuti son of". Both of these would be understandable, but completely incorrect. Likewise, "Huram My Father's" is completely incorrect, and the name/title should be rendered as Huram Abif (Hiram Abif). Or in the Egyptian Heru-em-Atif, or Herum Atif.)


So yes, my depending on Masonic scholarship was a very good idea. Thanks for pointing this out.




.

spin

So, after failing with אבי, ABY, you are now going to try to manipulate "his father" אביו, ABYW, into becoming "Abiff". Well, if first you don't succeed, try, try again.

All this means of course is that you are clueless about Hebrew grammar. There is no doubt about the significance of of אביו, ABYW. It is obviously not a name, but you wouldn't know that because you know nothing about Hebrew and are brazenly trying to bluff your way through this mess you've made for yourself. Here are some examples of the use of [FONT="Times New Roman"]אביו in conjunction with a name. Tell me what would make you think that [FONT="Times New Roman"]אביו could possibly be a name in the context of all the following uses.

אברהם אביו [ABRHM ABYW], "Abraham, his father". (Gen 26:18)
יצחק אביו [YCXQ ABYW], "Isaac, his father". (Gen 27:22)
חמור אביו [XMWR ABYW], "Hamor, his father". (Gen 34:13)
ישראל אביו [Y$RAL ABYW], "Israel, his father". (Gen 43:8)
יואש אביו [YWA$ ABYW], "Joash, his father". (Jdg 8:32)
מנוח אביו [MNWX ABYW], "Manoah, his father". (Jdg 16:31)
שאול אביו [$AWL ABYW], "Saul, his father". (1 Sam 19:4)
קיש אביו [QY$ ABYW], "Kish, his father". (2 Sam 21:14)

And so on. If none of these are names, then why looking at the Hebrew would you consider that (Hiram) Aby would be a name. But of course you're not interested in the fact that the Hebrew makes sense in itself and you are deliberately perverting it with your bogus nonsense, while at the same time perverting Haremsaf.

Your claimed logic is that there is really a djed in the Silsila stela, but that would make Haremdjedef, which is no help to you. You are wrong on every side of this schemozzle.

Which you know is totally irrelevant, when you have the original text which certainly doesn't say that. Gill has no direct line to any more trustworthy source.

That is an out-and-out lie.

You cannot get away with repeating lies.

Stiff upper lip as you continue off the cliff.

All you are doing is assuming your conclusion. That's convenient for you... well, if you were talking in a vacuum, but your claim regarding the origin of "Abi " in this case has no foundation, so it is meaningless here.

Conjecture based on your bullshit a priori nonsense.

You can keep farting this evidently false claim. You are wrong in your misrepresentation of Haremsaf. You change the form to make it closer to something you can change the Hebrew form to. You are manipulating on both sides of the process. It's therefore no wonder that you talk fluent rubbish.

I'd point out to anyone else that your nonsense is no different from the furthest off-the-wall christian concocting any stupidity to hang onto his beliefs. You have this wacky belief that you can revise history to fit your bewildered views of how the past should have been.

We've looked at your false equation of 21st dynasty pharaohs with David's ancestors and not one of them holds up under examination. Then, you spew more of these hopeless manipulations, expecting that they somehow will redeem the previous rubbish. Now we have Haremsaf, as every scholar represents the name, chief of works under Shoshenq I and who you claim without evidence was also at work under Psusennes unnumbered because you have conflated the two Psusennes, who you claim is David! This Haremsaf, you want to be represented as Heru'm-Atif, though the inscription doesn't support your representation. You claim that the name has a djed, when there is no sign of a djed. Next you want Ḥ r-m-s3f to end up XWRM ABYW, when the only thing they have in common is an R and an M. This is unfathomable piffle.

spin

You were supposed to provide a photo to justify your unsupported claims. Fail.

You didn't understand my comment, but that's understandable. There are three possibilities. Phonetic value, semantic value or determinative. I only talked of two of these. I didn't rule out the third. You imagined it.

Umm, gee that's a hard one. Could it be that Akheperre Setepenamun is a prenomen and Psusennes is a nomen and pharaohs so frequently use both names on their artefacts?? Doh!

This is so bizarrely false that I'm shocked. Psusennes Akheperre Setepenamun is so well documented due to Montet having exacavated his tomb and many of the finds are in Room 2 on the first floor of the Cairo Museum, where numerous items feature both catouches, nomen: Pasebakhaenniut Meriamun (Psusennes) and prenomen: Akheperre Setepenamun. Check the museum catalogue: p.410-411 has the sarcophagus with both cartouches.

Why did you make up such drivel?? It's funny that you can so dumbly declare that the Egyptologists have got it all wrong, when you blatantly have egg all over your face.

I didn't say you were a christian. I said you were unjustifiably shoehorning Egyptian history in the bible.

Conspiracy theory, eh? They all colluded with the support of Manetho and got it wrong, but you who know little about Egyptology got it right. YOu certainly have high hopes.

Spewing nonsense equivalents don't make a case for anything other than your inability to make sense.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, he said this with a straight face: "ergo"!!!! It doesn't matter that there is no way for this nonsense to follow. It sounded good in a hollow sort of way.

What I am saying is that you manipulate names non-stop.

I'm saying that you made all this up. It is a work of fiction that has no philological or historical basis. With enough manipulations you can turn something into something completely different. You see it in the newspapers as a passtime. It doesn't add up to anything.

Read it thus: Xuram, my father (abi - from alef bet yod).

That's still a lie. You look at it and alter it and say that something is something else, knowing that it isn't.

It would be if that's what it said, but naturally it doesn't. "my father" is in apposition as I've shown above in numerous other cases. Read what people say to you a bit more, please.

Just nonsense based on ignorance.

ralfellis

Clearly all of these references are to the father of the person mentioned. When it says: "And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father" (Gen 26:18) it is clearly talking about the father of Isaac, who was called Abraham. That is obvious.

But you cannot apply that to the sentence: "And the pots, and the shovels, and the forks, and all their instruments did Huram Abiv make" (2Ch 4:16). Who was the subject here, to which Huram was the father? Makes no sense, does it? That is why theologians say:

[COLOR="rgb(75, 0, 130)"]"Of Huram my father's; or, as some propose to render, Huram Abi. - Abi (my father), being an honorary title borne by this artificer, whose name was Huram or Hiram."

"Abi, we render "my father", his surname, that is, "Huram Abi"; and this is the opinion of several learned men {g}, and is very probable; for certain it is, that his name was Huram or Hiram, 1Ki 7:13, and so he is called "Huram his father, or Huram Abif". "

"His name appears to have been Hiram, or Hiram Abif."[/COLOR]

Read that again. Abi (my father) is a title. And being a title, it can be pronounced as Hiram Abif.
Face facts, Spin, you are not only in the minority here, but you are being outclassed in scholarship by the likes of Clarke and Gill.


And you did not answer my other question - how do you pronounce:

Thoth, Son Of?
Ra, Son Of?
Ah, Son Of?

How does Egyptology pronounce these names/titles, eh?




Ha, ha, priceless. Caught out not knowing anything of the Egyptian language, and so he is straight onto Wiki and backtracking furiously. What you said was:

"It is not the meaning of the glyph but its phonetic value, which is normal in
the use of hieroglyphics. Would you normally force a chick glyph to indicate
a chick or would you take it for its phonetic value?"

A statement that is so nonsensical and naive, it is worthy of first grade. But at least a first grader might appologise for the lack of knowledge and the obvious mistake (a chick-glyph can mean a 'chick').





Err, you don't understand do you. All Montet has done is to excavate the tomb of a Psusennes (a solitary Psusennes), while the other powerful Psusennes is a figment of your and Montet's imagination. Please do show us an image of Psusennes II's tomb. Can't do it can you? All you have is a few scraps of information.


Indeed, what we may have here, is a fragmentary reference to King David's son (Psusennes I's son), who tried to usurp his father and claimed the throne for a short while, before he was killed by his father, King David. Thus a few items claiming kingship of a High Priest Psusennes have surfaced. (It was common for sons of the king to become high priest, which is why this character was also a high priest.)

But the important thing here, is that these two Psusennes were contemporaries of each other, and not a century apart. And if you look at all the linen strips, from which the chronology of this royal line is calculated, they do indeed conform to that suggestion. All one needs to do, is offload those hotly debated references to Akheperre Setepenamun onto Uasorkon the Elder (for kings do not use different titles within the same king-list, or priest-list).

One presumes that this why the coffin of this supposed Psusennes II was shoved in the anti-chamber of the real Psusennes - because although he was a traitor, he was still the king's son. So the true chronology is that the grand tomb at Tanis belongs to Psusennes I (last of the 21st dynasty), while the coffin in the antichamber belongs to Psusennes the traitor, who never officially ruled.

The biblical chronology of the 21st dynasty then becomes:

Pharaoh .............................. High Priest
Smendes/Nesbanebdjed ......... Pinedjem I
[Amminadab] ....................... Masaharta / Pinedjem I
.......................................... Menkheperre / Pinedjem I
Amenemnisu [Nahshon] ......... Menkheperre / Pinedjem I
Siamun [Salmon] ................. Menkheperre / Pinedjem I
.......................................... HP Psusennes III
B-Uasorkon [Boaz] ................ Menkheperre
Amenemopet [Obed] .............. Pinedjem II
........................................... HP Smendes
Psusennes [David] ................. HP Smendes
Psusennes the traitor [Absalom] HP Psusennes


Egyptologists have devised a king-list derived from Manetho. I have devised a king-list derived from the Tanakh. Considering and analyzing both of these possibilities, it would appear that the biblical chronology and king list is much better than Manetho's.




Which spells Abif. So your point is?



.

Onias

But even the myth of Santa Claus can be traced to Saint Nicholas, an historical person. So isn't it plausible that some biblical 'mythical' figures can also be traced to real people?
Onias

spin

There are in fact two pharaohs commonly called Psusennes, one with a prenomen of Akheperre (as demonstrated by the numerous cartouches in his tomb found by Montet), the other with a prenomen of Tyetkheperure (as seen in a graffito from Abydos -- see A.J. Peden, The Graffiti of Pharaonic Egypt: Scope and Roles of Informal Writings, Leiden: Brill, 2001, p.266). Two distinct prenomen indicate two distinct pharaohs.

The former, who scholars refer to as Psusennes I, is chronologically related to Amenemnisu dues to bow-caps (Wente calls them "bow-finials") found in the tomb which feature both pharaohs' cartouches. (Kit. p.69) These two pharaohs at one time shared a co-regency. There is also a secondary burial in Mutnodjmet's chamber of the tomb of Psusennes I of Amenemope, which places that pharaoh after the time of Psusennes I. And there are items of the grave goods of Amenemope which mention Psusennes (Wente, JNES 26/3, p.156), securely placing a Psusennes before Amenemope, yet there is a pharaoh called Psusennes Tyetkheperure (Psusennes II) whose daughter married Osorkon I of the 22nd dynasty. These indications of a Psusennes early and one late in the dynasty support the current scholarly status quo pharaonic sequence against the revisionist approach that conflates these two pharaohs. There is of course a lot more rather complex evidence for the two separate Psusennes, so we can without problem dismiss the conflation as not reflecting any evidence, but should be seen as more ralfellis conclusion driven nonsense.

(Psusennes) Akheperre was given the ralfellis dismissal, "In reality, Akheperre Setepenamun actually referred to Uasorkon the Elder (because that was his name)". When it was shown that that Psusennes I was called Akheperre setepenamun, horns were pulled in and the subject was changed to: whatever, there was only one Psusennes--"All Montet has done is to excavate the tomb of a Psusennes (a solitary Psusennes), while the other powerful Psusennes is a figment of your and Montet's imagination."... and every other Egyptologist commenting on the 21st dynasty, who know of both Psusennes Akheperre and Psusennes Tyetkheperure. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that we are dealing with more ralfellis conclusion driven nonsense.

With no support for a conflation of the two Psusennes we are left with the standard 21st dynasty:

Smendes
Amenemnisu
Psusennes I
Amenemope
Osochor
Siamun
Psusennes II

The continuing saga of how Haremsaf could be disfigured into Huram-abi, by means of christian theologians and the masonic tradition is based on ignorance and further conclusion driven nonsense.

That's progress. You admit that much. ABYW is "father" with a suffix in all the above cases. Now we can go back to the first examples I gave in #87:

Are you going to admit that the use of "abi" in 1 Chr 2:13 is no different from the examples I've provided regarding Saul abi in 1 Sam 19:2 and David abi in 1 Kgs 2:24?

Reading them in context, you see that the use of abi in the context has nothing to do with genealogy, but is used as a sign of respect. Saul was not David's father, just as this Huram was not the father of the king of Tyre. It is as a sign of respect that it is used in 2 Chr 4:16. Huram was introduced 2 Chr 2:13, in the words of the king of Tyre, as Huram-abi, hence "Huram, my father". When we find mention of Huram in 2 Chr 4:16, it is in 3rd person narrative with ABYW, hence "Huram, his father". The grammar is transparent: in the first instance the king of Tyre calls him "Huram, my father" (Huram abi); in the second, the narrator calls him "Huram, his father" (Huram abiw), indicating the respect for the artist. It is plain that the suffixes to AB are pronominal and change according to 1st or 3rd person. Such grammatical changes, as from "my" to "his", show that we are not dealing with a name.

Only if you know nothing about Hebrew. I must note the use of "vav" for WAW, which is a European Jewish development influenced by a Germanic shift from the letter "w" = /w/ to = /v/. It has nothing to do with ancient Hebrew. Besides, you've then got to go from your "vav" to an "f", which is simply unavailable through Hebrew. The "f" is an allophone of Hebrew PE, not WAW. But all this is a typical use of your modus operandi of manipulating sources so make them look like other things.

It's interesting that you should depend on someone writing 200 years ago or more. The surname theory, unsupported in ancient tradition, is easily discounted by the grammatical indications of an ordinary noun with suffixes, ie "my father" and "his father".

Once again though we have another ralfellis conflation, one figure Haremsaf, the chief of works ("architect" according to you) under Shoshenq I, the other figure Huram "my father" (abi) a craftsman under Solomon who makes pots, shovels and basins. Besides a few letters in common, there is nothing else. Solomon is recorded as a direct son of David, but Shoshenq I was only married to the daughter of Psusennes II. It is left to the ralfellis fertile imagination to wave a magic wand and transmogrify them into one. Typical ralfellis conclusion driven nonsense.

Reading your stuff, ralfellis, gives the clear impression that we are dealing with a work of modern fiction with no real effort to get the historical data correct.

Chili

Of course it is plausible and necessary even to enter the imagination of 'his' followers as 'the way' to the end that all humans have in sight sooner of later in their own life.

His name was Joseph who was a Jew and he was an upright Jew, to say that that is what it takes to follow him and do the same as he.

spin

This is basically euhemerism, ie reverse engineering human origin for a deity. It may be that there was a historical person behind a biblical figure, but there is no necessity that there were. One could say there was a real person behind Sherlock Holmes, Joseph Bell, but what about the case of Bruce Wayne, was there a real person behind him? Or Clark Kent? Or the angel Moroni? An active imagination may have incorporated knowledge of Joseph Bell into the character of Sherlock Holmes, though maybe Holmes was a veiled portrait of Bell.

When confronted with situations you cannot make conclusions about, it's better to be agnostic about them.

aa5874

We can trace Adam back to God therefore Adam existed! :constern01:

Chili

Except that Adam was called 'like-god' and not God wherein now God has permanence that Adam was in likeness of and thus not God.