spin

The text of Ex 9:8-10 is quite clear that it was soot from a kiln. V.10 says that they took soot from the kiln. There is no indication that this was volcanic ash, let alone ash from Thera.

spin

We don't know that there was a David, but you assume it.
We don't know that there ever was a united monarchy, but you assume it.
We don't know that there is any veracity to the Davidic traditions, but you assume it.
There is no evidence that an Egyptian family ruled in Judea, but you assume it.
This stuff is just a flood of nonsense that you have twiddled out of material that doesn't support you, though has probably given you something better to do than watch repeats of Dr Who. Mangling cartouches and force-fitting Egyptian data to your theory. You don't have a scrap of evidence. Just drivel like this:

[T2]B .. Ram,
H .. Ram- -esses (Ramesses XI),

B .. Ammin- -nad -dab,
H .. Nes -ba -neb -djed,

B .. Nah- -shon,
H .. Amenem -Ne -shu,

B .. S- -almon,
H .. Si- -amun,

B .. B- -Oaz,
H .. Bas- -Uas- -orkon,

B .. Obed,
H .. Amenem- -Opet[/T2]
And if you squint you might convince yourself that there are similarities... until you stop squinting.

Hands up all you who find this pastiche of half-truths and nonsense credible. What, nobody? (You don't count, ralfellis: it's your nonsense.)

Chili

Oh yes I understand. We look for God all over to even among the stars. We see God in nature and stand in awe of the beauty that we see but fail to look in us wherein the source of beauty lies.

And yes, I live close to Mt. Saint Helen but did not know that the eruption was getting bigger by the day.

ralfellis

We will never know anything, until we look for it. That is the whole point of archaeology, is it not? Schliemann looking for Troy etc: How will you discover anything, if you do not search for it?


In the case of the United Monarchy, archaeologists have been looking for centuries, and found nothing. So either the biblical story is fictional (as I presume you would like it to be), or we are looking in the wrong location. I maintain the latter is true - instead of looking in Zion (Jerusalem), we should be looking in Zoan (Tanis in Egypt). It is in Tanis that you will find the United Monarchy. And it is in Tanis you will find that much of the Torah story is actually historical.


But what is your problem here? You seem to be almost afraid to discover Kings David and Solomon. Have you constructed a creed of rejection as inflexible as any religious creed, and are panic-stricken at the thought that some of the Torah may be historical?


If archaeologist had discovered a 3,000 year-old text, buried in Egypt, you would be wanting to decipher every word and sentence, to see how it aided our understanding of the past. The Torah is that 3,000 year-old text, but because it is 'religious' you are afraid of it - as though it might somehow 'infect' you.

Tell us, Spin, why are you afraid of mere words?



.

spin

Who knows how often Schliemann has been used as a posterboy for those people who turn their backs on good archaeological methodology as it has developed?

While I'm here, as there seems to be only one fragmentary epigraph of the reign of Osorkon the Elder ("Osochor" in Manetho) which does not supply the pharaoh's nomen, I see no reason for the apparently false representation of the name as "Bas- -Uas- -orkon". The cartouche used by Osorkon I & II reads w-sa-'-r-k-n mery-Amun. You seem to have misrepresented yet another pharaonic name.

Assertion leads to assertion which leads to further assertion in turn taking us to yet another assertion.

Cutting through the rhetoric, there is no argument here that you are advancing. Ad hominem is not argument.

You may assert that the torah is a 3,000 year-old text, but that is not a position one can meaningfully maintain. Our earliest copies of the torah come from Qumran and are minimally just over 2000 years old. You are 1000 years short and with no substantive evidence to bridge the gap.

We end where you started with contentless nonsense.

I'm glad you've stopped trying to argue your awful linguistic mess based on manipulations of pharaonic names in order to make them fit Jewish names. It is indefensible and does little positive for your credibility.

ralfellis

So you are being more cautious now. Fingers burned, eh?

Actually, if you go to Tanis you will realise that all the cartouches of Osorkon are prefixed by the 'bas' basket or jug. But that glyph is never reproduced in the literature, for some reason.

But then you have never done any real research, and been to Tanis, have you? That is the trouble with deskbound critics, they always end up lecturing from a position of ignorance.






Says the one who has launched the most strident of ad hominem attacks this site has ever seen. What did you say? Ah yes, "that is fraudulent, Mr Ellis", and "You have manipulated the data, omitted data, fixed data and misrepresented data."

But none of that is ad hominem, designed to undermine my integrity, was it? Oh no. An august member like yourself would never stoop to such levels.







And here is the man who is quite happy to accept the Greek names of these pharaohs, which are bigger barstardisations of these names that the Torah equivalents. Why are you happy to accept Smendes and Psusennes, eh?

Lets look at the first of those.

Egyptian ......................... Torah .......................... Manetho
Amen-Nesbanebdjed ........ Amen-Naddab .............. Smendes

Or what about Neferkare Amenemnisu.

Egyptian ......................... Torah .......................... Manetho
Amenem-Nisu ................... Nahshon .................... Nefercheres


So the Greeks got it perfectly right, when they coined the names Smendes and Nefercheres, did they? But the Torah scribes were completely and utterly wrong when they coined Amen-Nad-dab and Nahshon. Hmm. I think you will find that the Torah scribes knew more than the Greeks.

(And I bet you don't even know where Manetho's 'Cheres' suffix came from - because you refuse to read the biblical texts !!)

I think your irrational bias against religious texts is showing through, bright and clear. Here you have a 3,000 year-old text in front if you, whose datable provenance is indisputably ancient, and you refuse to even look at it.

That is not logical, rational, nor professional.



.

spin

More ralfellis nonsense:
So, if you've been there, you have a photo to demonstrate your claim.

I'm sure you know that the Greek city of Mendes was previously known by the Egyptian name of Per-Banebdjetet (the city of the Ram god, lord of Djed).

Manetho's Smendes, ie "the son of Mendes", is Nesbanebdjed ("he of Banebdjet", ie "he of the Ram god, lord of Djed"). The relationship between Manetho's Smendes and Nesbanebdjed cannot be plainer.

The torah scribes don't enter into the story. This is you perverting the torah scribes, ie not the torah scribes, but you are "completely and utterly wrong".

Neferkare => Nefercheres

ralfellis

.
Of course, no mention here that the Greeks are using the prenomen, rather than the nomen. You don't mind mixing the cartouches and glyphs, when it suits you.

But your explanation makes no sense. Why, if the khare glyph was intended here, were all of the Amarna pharaohs also given the 'cheres' suffix? Can you find 'kare' glyphs there too?



.

spin

You'd prefer to overlook the obvious relation between the pharaoh's praenomen and the form preserved by Manetho and go with an outlandish theory that the Greek rendering "cheres" is derived from an obscure Hebrew word for the sun. Very creative. Perhaps Manetho did exactly the same thing with the 2nd dynasty pharaoh Neferkare, which he recorded as, ummm, would you believe Nefercheres? Gosh, that's a coincidence, isn't it? Manetho also represents Menkaure as Mencheres and Djedkare as Tencheres.

We don't know the processes that led from the pharaonic to the Greek names recorded in Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius and Synchellus as coming from Manetho. Manetho was the best information available in the early 19th century, but it is very inaccurate, having passed through many hands. His representation of the 18th dynasty still doesn't have a consensus behind it. If, for example, Oros = Horus = Akhnaten, then his successor, Achencheres, could be Ankhkheferure (Smenkhkare). I don't know about Rathothis because of the Amarna complexities, but Chebres/Cencheres would be Nebkheferure (Tuthankhamun) and Acherres/Cencheres would be Kheferkheferure (Ay) and Armais would be Horemheb. It's not difficult to produced theories as to these names.

(ka-re were actually two glyphs, a) raised arms and b) the Ra sun disk.)

Naaa, just praenomen with -kheper(u)-re.

Back to your sad little manipulation of pharaonic names, I need to pick up on another of your manipulations:

[T2]B .. Nah- -shon,
H .. Amenem -Ne -shu, [/T2]
Notice that "sh" given in the second line, supposedly representing the hieroglyphics of the name. What glyph is used for that "sh", ralfellis? None of course. There isn't a "sh" in Egyptian, let alone in the name Amenemnisu.

We end up with the following correspondences after we remove your obfuscations.

[T2]B .. Ram,
H .. Ramesses (XI),

B .. Amminadab,
H .. Nesbanebdjed,

B .. Nahshon,
H .. Amenemnisu,

B ..
H .. Psibkhanno (Psusennes)

B .. Obed,
H .. Amenemopet

B .. Boaz,
H .. Osorkon,

B .. Salmon,
H .. Siamun,[/T2]
There is almost no similarity at all between the pharaonic names and those of David's ancestors. You've even changed the order to try to make them fit better. It all comes down to your theory and a lot of ralfellis intervention to make the names fit the theory. It's time for you to stop this nonsense. You've been at it too long.

:deadhorse:

The whole thing is:

:tombstone:

so

:wave:

ralfellis

I'll get back to you on that, when I get back to the office, and have some references.

But in the meantime, perhaps you could remind us of the trip you made to Tanis, so you know anything about this subject. When was it? Where did you stay? What was the site like?

We are all ears, waiting to hear of the depth of your research and understanding.


.