Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I have already done that. Again, studies are subject to the views and ideas of the one doing the study- they can change or be amended over time. Simply because someone has found writings from around 6,000 which suggested the people were polytheistic cannot and never will provide proof that the people prior to it were the same- of course, it cannot disprove it either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, andres said:

Archeology can also reveal what religious ideas people had before the written word by excavating graves. We have paintings in caves from people living 40.000 years ago in places like France and Australia that can give a hint of their beliefs. Graves from the Neanderthals, a close relative to us humans, extinct also about 40.000 years ago, show they had religios tradition. 

 

Paintings and artifacts in graves cannot reveal a people's or persons' religious concepts- they can only be used to surmise at what they might have been. There have been graves excavated with horse heads, but that doesn't mean the man was a horse worshipper; there are boats and gold buried with some Vikings, but they did not necessarily worship boats or gold. Just because I draw picture of a bull or horse does not- necessarily- mean I worship those things. Again, these are left to the imaginations of those doing the excavations- influenced by thousands of years worth of written accounts of polytheistic societies, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

Paintings and artifacts in graves cannot reveal a people's or persons' religious concepts- they can only be used to surmise at what they might have been. There have been graves excavated with horse heads, but that doesn't mean the man was a horse worshipper; there are boats and gold buried with some Vikings, but they did not necessarily worship boats or gold. Just because I draw picture of a bull or horse does not- necessarily- mean I worship those things. Again, these are left to the imaginations of those doing the excavations- influenced by thousands of years worth of written accounts of polytheistic societies, etc.

Boats and gold in graves are not to be worshipped but used in the next life. This is a tradition within reincarnation beliefs. 

Please do some studies yourself. Google is easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to read verses- as graffiti- which stated: We have revealed, We have created mankind, etc., without context I could assume the person who wrote such was a polytheist. Assumptions are not- necessarily- facts. According to some Islamic scholars, the plural personal pronouns used in these verses encompass the machinations of revelation, creation, etc. That is, the pronouns encompass the angels who brought revelation or who might help in creative or destructive acts- the angel of death, for instance.

Plurality does not necessarily mean a plurality of person. Many argue that the use of Elohim or Adonim in the Hebrew text reflected a polytheistic theme; that would be an incorrect assumption. The plural is used for any person of higher status than the one speaking or being spoken to; Pharaoh, Josef, Abraham, etc. are all referred to with plural titles, but they were never considered a plurality of person. This is just a form of address which expresses great respect to the one being addressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

Not reincarnation, but an afterlife. The idea of an afterlife does not prove polytheism.

Can you mention a monotheistic culture from the second milennium BC or older? I guess you cannot, but because the Quran cannot be wrong, you believe there must have been. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, May 01, 2017 at 4:19 PM, andres said:

Hi Yaaqov

It really does not matter to me how we spell Jshve as long as everybody understands who we mean.

The Quran was only sent to the Arabs, written in the Arabic. Jews, Romans, Russians and Swedes only recently recieved translations of it. 

 

Yes, the Qur'an was sent in Arabic but the message was for mankind. The Qur'an doesn't only address the pagans of Mecca, it even addresses the atheists, Bani Adam (Children of Adam) that is, all people from past, present and those who will come in the future. It calls the believers, the people of the Book, the descendants of Jacob alayhi salam. It narrates the stories about the past, other prophets alayhimusallam. 

The Prophet said: "If Moses was alive, he would have no choice but to follow me," 

"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other.  Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you.  And Allah has full knowledge and is well-acquainted.  (The Noble Quran, 49:13)"

"O mankind! verily there hath come to you a convincing proof from your Lord: For We have sent unto you a light (that is) manifest.   (The Noble Quran, 4:174)"

"O ye Children of Adam! We have bestowed raiment upon you to cover your shame, as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness,- that is the best. Such are among the Signs of God, that they may receive admonition! (The Noble Quran, 7:26)"

"O ye Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you, in the same manner as He got your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their raiment, to expose their shame: for he and his tribe watch you from a position where ye cannot see them: We made the evil ones friends (only) to those without faith.  (The Noble Quran, 7:27)"

"O Children of Adam! wear your beautiful apparel at every time and place of prayer: eat and drink: But waste not by excess, for God loveth not the wasters.  (The Noble Quran, 7:31)"

"O ye Children of Adam! whenever there come to you apostles from amongst you, rehearsing My signs unto you,- those who are righteous and mend (their lives),- on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve. (The Noble Quran, 7:35)"

"Did I not enjoin on you, O ye Children of Adam, that ye should not worship Satan; for that he was to you an enemy avowed? (The Noble Quran, 36:60)"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, andres said:

Can you mention a monotheistic culture from the second milennium BC or older? I guess you cannot, but because the Quran cannot be wrong, you believe there must have been. 

 
 

Lack of evidence or reference is not equivalent to lack of existence. Most archaeologists define polytheism by the statues or images built by various cultures- coupled with a preconceived notion that these represented deities. Without any Text or direct evidence to show what the images or statues were for, it leaves only conjecture.  I, personally, believe the Hebrew Text as well as the Qur'an when they explained humanity was created from a single person; they knew their Creator and communicated with HIm- they, more than likely, related this to their children. Thus humanity began as a monotheistic society and polytheism developed later. Simply because of the later ruins- which remain till today- and the written narratives- which also was recorded later- indicate polytheism does not- necessarily- prove polytheism was the original form of religious society. I respect your position, but I simply disagree with the conclusions of the mainstream researchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Yaaqov

Of course you disagree with the archeologists and historians. Had you agreed this would be to say the Quran is not perfect.

As you know I do not believe the Quran is from God. I could be wrong, or you could be wrong. It is a matter of belief. The problem as I see it us not som much that we differ on this, as that you believe that a Book written 1.400 years is up to date and 100% valid today. Muhammed lived in a world that did not know the stars were distant Suns, but that the sky was a Bulb on which they were fastened. A world that did not know about continental drift. Had God described the world and universe as we know it today, everybody had thougt Muhammed was out of his mind. Nor had the population back then been prepared to learn that human kind was a product of evolution. Adam and Eve was a much more suitable story. Quran was for Muhammeds contemporaries, and shall we live with Islam in a modern world, the Quran everything in it cannot be read and obeyed literally. Jews and Christians have largely accepted this with our Bibles. Muslims has not to the same degree. A Caliphate or an Islamic republic as in Iran, can not compete with nations that have free press, religion and democrasy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, andres said:

Quran was for Muhammeds contemporaries, and shall we live with Islam in a modern world, the Quran everything in it cannot be read and obeyed literally. Jews and Christians have largely accepted this with our Bibles. Muslims has not to the same degree.

If that is the case why did not God sent a new Book then?

The Quran and the Bible speak about timeless concepts concerning spriritual Guidance. The diffirence between Quran and Bible is that some of these conceptions were changed or misunderstood and that therefore the Quran corrected these misconceptions that crept in in time.

Bible and Quran are not scientifical books although they may contain some scientifical miracles but they are Books of spriritual Guidance in the first place.

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Faruk said:

If that is the case why did not God sent a new Book then?

The Quran and the Bible speak about timeless concepts concerning spriritual Guidance. The diffirence between Quran and Bible is that some of these conceptions were changed or misunderstood and that therefore the Quran corrected these misconceptions that crept in in time.

Bible and Quran are not scientifical books although they may contain some scientifical miracles but they are Books of spriritual Guidance in the first place.

Now that you are asking: Why did God wait 600 years after the Christian gospels were written until he sent the Quran? Actually, how many Books have God sent? If the Quran is the correct word of God, it must be the first Book God ever sent. The Bible has never been the Quran. They are too different. 

I agree that the Quran and the Bible contain spiritual guidance. But modern society is not like societies milenniuns ago. Many advices still are valid today, but fully follow the rules in the Bible or the Quran in a modern secular democrasy is not possible. Totalitarian regimes must opress opposition with violence. Does not matter what kind. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Communist, Fascist. Without religious and political freedom, free press and speach no nation can be successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

I agree that the Quran and the Bible contain spiritual guidance. But modern society is not like societies milenniuns ago. Many advices still are valid today, but fully follow the rules in the Bible or the Quran in a modern secular democrasy is not possible. Totalitarian regimes must opress opposition with violence. Does not matter what kind. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Communist, Fascist. Without religious and political freedom, free press and speach no nation can be successful.

We do not deal with opposition violent or non-violent. We actually do not have certain policies. How muslims govern their countries is according Islam but that's not how it is portrayed today by the media. It's as violent and non-violent as any capitalistic or democratic/secular society. It's however not based on interrests but principles.

 

Edited by Faruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

Why did God wait 600 years after the Christian gospels were written until he sent the Quran?

I don't know the exact reason and I do actually not care. My point is however that the concepts are timeless and that a new revelation is only then sent when these timeless concepts are corrupted.

But a new revelation was never sent down to change these concepts or to adapt them to the lusts and desires of the people.
 

 

1 hour ago, andres said:

Actually, how many Books have God sent?



As much as was needed but I do not believe you want to hear an exact number.

 

 

1 hour ago, andres said:

If the Quran is the correct word of God, it must be the first Book God ever sent. The Bible has never been the Quran. They are too different

There is a red line in both Books that is almost identical when it comes to certain concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Faruk said:

If that is the case why did not God sent a new Book then?

 

@andres

Based on this response, it is as if your comment has gone over his head, or perhaps in one ear and out the other.

understanding your words is something that is hard to do in a 10 minute forum discussion. It's as if you are speaking to a wall or a robot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

@andres

Based on this response, it is as if your comment has gone over his head, or perhaps in one ear and out the other.

understanding your words is something that is hard to do in a 10 minute forum discussion. It's as if you are speaking to a wall or a robot.

Then be my guest and explain what he actually meant mr. smartguy.

7 hours ago, andres said:

Quran was for Muhammeds contemporaries, and shall we live with Islam in a modern world

I don't know if you have some special powers or a key by which you can read underlying messages in the words I quoted but to me it seems that the Quran according to andres is outdated. Same counted for the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less.

What the Bible nowadays is good for anyway wasn't clear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, andres said:

Quran was for Muhammeds contemporaries, and shall we live with Islam in a modern world, the Quran everything in it cannot be read and obeyed literally. Jews and Christians have largely accepted this with our Bibles. Muslims has not to the same degree.

How and in what way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faruk said:

How and in what way?

Many Jews and Christians have understood that their Bibles are written by humans. Muslims are a couple of centuries behind. I am of course now generalising, it is more complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Faruk said:

Then be my guest and explain what he actually meant mr. smartguy.

I don't know if you have some special powers or a key by which you can read underlying messages in the words I quoted but to me it seems that the Quran according to andres is outdated. Same counted for the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less.

We who live today are not entirely different from our ancestors from 1400 years ago. We are still the same human race, but living conditions hav3 changed, especially in the developed western world. But this change is comming fast all over our globe. Had Muhammed and the Gospel writers delivered their testimonies today, it had been very different. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Faruk said:

I don't know the exact reason and I do actually not care. My point is however that the concepts are timeless and that a new revelation is only then sent when these timeless concepts are corrupted.

But a new revelation was never sent down to change these concepts or to adapt them to the lusts and desires of the people.
 

 



As much as was needed but I do not believe you want to hear an exact number.

 

 

There is a red line in both Books that is almost identical when it comes to certain concepts.

Which timeless concepts were broken in the 7th century forcing God to send a revelation? And since then there has not been concepts broken of such a degree that a new revelation was not necessary?? 

There is a read line between things very different. Can you be more specific? I would advice that you at the same time consider the differences.!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Faruk said:

We do not deal with opposition violent or non-violent. We actually do not have certain policies. How muslims govern their countries is according Islam but that's not how it is portrayed today by the media. It's as violent and non-violent as any capitalistic or democratic/secular society. It's however not based on interrests but principles.

 

Principles exist in every nation. So does the wish of influence and power. Men in power do not wish to step down. This is the same in a democrasy as in non democrasies. In democrasies however, things are more transparent, and opposition has  better chanse of being heard. Much easier to elect a new prime minister than to elect a new dictator. In  Syria this takes a civil war, and God knows how many years this war will take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2017 at 7:51 AM, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

the definition of the name Islam: to be perfect, complete, to fulfill, to surrender, pay, to make peace etc.

 

On 5/2/2017 at 9:42 AM, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

My theory is that the nations began to refer to God according to the different natures of the One True Deity- this is similar to the Asma'ul-Husna. Allah is the Giver of Life and the One Who Causes Death [al-Muhy wa al-Mumit]. Eventually, these natures began to take on a false idea of separate deities. 

Salam Alaikum,

That definition of Islam is the best one i've ever heard, and i feel the exact same way about the misunderstanding about polytheism and different aspects of the same God when looking back at ancient civilizations. I likewise believe in the strong possibility that 'deities' that at some point get separated and worshipped as separate entities, were originally manifestations, or attributes of the same God. The same counts for the extremely beautiful and complex ancient Egyptian religion. 

In any case, I would love to take a course with you and be your student over months or years. Rarely do I meet people here who have such deep knowledge of things, and I would have a thousand questions to ask you actually, which I am sure that you have an answer to. Masha Allah

I would like to ask you one thing, concerning the theory that Moses was Akhenaton, and that Joseph was Yuya. What is your opinion of those theories?

It is great to read humbling posts like yours' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 313 Seeker said:

 

Salam Alaikum,

That definition of Islam is the best one i've ever heard, and i feel the exact same way about the misunderstanding about polytheism and different aspects of the same God when looking back at ancient civilizations. I likewise believe in the strong possibility that 'deities' that at some point get separated and worshipped as separate entities, were originally manifestations, or attributes of the same God. The same counts for the extremely beautiful and complex ancient Egyptian religion. 

In any case, I would love to take a course with you and be your student over months or years. Rarely do I meet people here who have such deep knowledge of things, and I would have a thousand questions to ask you actually, which I am sure that you have an answer to. Masha Allah

I would like to ask you one thing, concerning the theory that Moses was Akhenaton, and that Joseph was Yuya. What is your opinion of those theories?

It is great to read humbling posts like yours' 

 
 

Thank you for the compliments. I do not believe Moshe(AS) was Akhenaton; I do believe, however, that the Exodus occurred in this time frame. There are two possibilities: 1) Akhenaton was the son of the Pharaoh to whom Moshe (AS) was sent and became a monotheist due to the miracles he witnessed; 2) Akhenaton was the Pharaoh to which Moshe (AS) was sent and became a monotheist due to the miracles he witnessed. 

There seems to be 19 years missing in the regnal years of the Kings of Israel. According to the Chronicles, Abijah ben Rehoboam became king in Jeroboam ben Nebat's 18th year (2Chronicles 13:1). According to the Kings' history, Rehoboam reigned for 17 years (1Kings 15:1). That would make Jeroboam king a year earlier than Rehoboam- which could be true since Ahijah the Shilonite delivered YEHEWAH's message that the kingdom was given to him before Shlomoh (AS) died (1Kings 11:29), but there was no date given there.

 

There was a war of rebellion between Omri and Tibni (1Kings 16) for approximately 4 years. Omri became king and ruled a total of 12 years- four of which are counted during the rebellion. There were several other assassinations among the Israelite kings as well. However, their total years, according to the Kings, was 240 years, 7 months, and 7 days to the deportation of Israel by Shalmaneser- in the 9th year of Hoshea ben Elah king of Israel and in the 5th year of Hezekiah ben Ahaz king of Judah.

 

According to the Kings and Chronicles, the 5th year of Hezekiah ben Ahaz was 259 years after Shlomoh (AS)- 19 years longer.

 

There was 869 years 6 months and 10 days from the entry of the Israelites into Cana'an until the deportation of Zedekiah ben Jehoiakim and the destruction of Jerusalem. Shlomoh (AS)'s reign began in the 476th year since the Israelites entered Cana'an and he ruled 40 years- until the 516th year after the entry to Cana'an. This means, according to the regnal years of the Judean kings, the Israelites were deported under Shalmaneser in the 775th year after the entry to Cana'an, but according to the regnal years of the Kings of Israel, it was in the 756th year after the entry to Cana'an. It doesn't matter how one counts the years, from entry to Cana'an to the deportation of Israel, or from Jeroboam's reign to the deportation of Israel- there will be 19 years missing.

 

The only way that I can reconcile the two dates is to consider that it was in the 21st year of Shlomoh (AS)'s reign that Jeroboam ben Nebat was made King over Israel; that would deduct 19 years from the reign of Shlomoh (AS) and make the dates match in every other place. There seemed to be a hint at this being the case when Shlomoh (AS) made Jeroboam ben Nebat the Paqid over the House of Yosef (AS) (1Kings 11:28). A Paqid is a governor- one who rules over a portion of land in behalf of a sovereign king much like Gedaliah ben Ahikam was when Nebuchadnezzar appointed him the Paqid over Judah (2Kings 25:22). In either case, this doesn't seem correct since Abijah ben Rehoboam became king in Jeroboam ben Nebat's 18th year (2Chronicles 13:1). What is also interesting in the Chronicles is that Shlomoh (AS) is never charged with idolatry nor was the kingdom rent away from him; in addition, the Chronicles are only concerned with the reigns of the Judean kings; it appears that the Chronicles did not register the regnal years of the Israelite kings.


 

Could it be that the regnal years of the Chronicles do not account for the removal of the kingdom from Shlomoh (AS) and thus adds 19 years to his reign? That hardly seems correct since the regnal years in the book of the Kings matches the regnal years of the book of the Chronicles exactly from Rehoboam to Ahaz and Hezekiah. There is only a 1 year difference- which is minor. 

 

Shlomoh (AS), at the beginning of the Temple project, was in his fourth year; according to Tenakh, the Israelites left Egypt 480 prior. 

Shishak, Pharaoh of Egypt, invaded Cana'an in the 5th year of Rehoboam; that is 480+36 years to the end of Shlomoh (AS)'s reign+5 years of Rehoboam= 521 years since Exodus.

According to the historians, Shishak invaded Cana'an around 926 BCE; adding 521 years to that date would place the Exodus around 1447 BCE. According to the Biblical chronology, that would have been the time the Israelites entered Cana'an- unless they entered Cana'an immediately upon the Exodus and there was no 40 years wondering in the wilderness.

Adding the 40 years to this date would give the Exodus as 1489-1488; according to both dates, the Pharaohs of Egypt would have been Thutmose I, Hatshepsut, and Thutmose III.

According to the Biblical timeline- if I am correct in my counting, Israel would have entered Egypt around 1889-1888. According to historians, there was a Semitic race which entered Egypt sometime in the 1800's. The Hyksos, a Semitic group which took over control of Egypt, emerged around 1650, but were defeated around 1550. 

Yosef (AS) entered Egypt, probably, at 17; he was made vicegerent of Egypt at 30 and died at 110- that is approximately 93 years of Yosef (AS)'s life. It was not until the time of Moshe (AS)' birth that a new king arose and enslaved the Israelites and put them to task. If the Hyksos were defeated in 1550, and it has been shown the Israelites were there at that time; that would give- approximately- 250 years from their rise to power till their defeat. Moshe (AS), who was a ruler in Egypt, fled at 40 and returned at 80= 330 years. If Israel entered in 1889-88, that would be approximately 239 years. If Israel entered in 1889 and left in 1489, that is 400 years. If the Hyksos entered, for the sake of argument, in 1889 and were defeated in 1550, that would be 339 years.

How interesting it would be if the Hyksos were defeated around the time of Moshe (AS)' birth, and he fled Egypt at 40, returned at 80 to free the Israelites. Add 80 years to 339 and there is exactly 419 years.

Of course there is, I think, a margin of error at around 50 years- give or take.

 

Shalmaneser V son of Tiglath-Pileser III reigned between 727-722 BCE

Albright and Thiele offer dates between 587 and 586 BCE for the destruction of Shlomoh’s (AS) Temple; if this is the case, then the Temple was complete between 1,009 and 1,008 BCE. 

Interestinlgy, this is also close to the date Albright suggested for Ahiram (1,000BCE), a Phoenician king- probably the same as Hiram in the Hebrew Text. Ethba'al was the king of Sidon; this is probably the Ittbo'al son of Ahiram.

These dates would place the entry to Cana'an at somewhere between 1,449 and 1,448 BCE and the Exodus at somewhere between 1,489 and 1,488 BCE. The Israelites would have entered Egypt around 1,889 to 1,888 BCE.

Using the same dating, based upon the regnal years (240 from the Israeli kings and 259 from the Judean kings), Albright's proposal would give the dates of the captivity of Israel from 740-721 BCE and Thiele's proposal of 739-720 BCE.

 

Ya’aqov (AS) was 130 when he entered Egypt- Yosef (AS) was 39 years old when he saw his father for the first time in Egypt; that was the 2nd year of the seven years of famine or the 9th year of Pharaoh's prophetic dream.

 

Yitzhaq (AS) was 60 when Ya’aqov (AS) was born and Avraham (AS) was 100 at the birth of Yitzhaq (AS). So, from the birth of Avraham (AS) to the date when Ya’aqov (AS) entered Egypt was 290 years.

 

If these dates are correct and the Israelites entered Egypt around 1889-1888, then that would place the birth of Avraham (AS) 290 years before- around 2,178-2,178 BCE. Avraham (AS) was 75 when he departed from Haran- 2,103-2,102 BCE. Avraham (AS) was 86 when Yishma’el (AS) was born- 2,092-2,091 BCE.

 

It was 390 years from Shem (AS) [2 years after the flood], the son of No’ach (AS), to the birth of Avraham (AS); 2 years after the deluge, then, would have been 2,568-2,567 BCE. Interestingly, scholars date the reign of Gilgamesh to around 2,600 BCE; Gilgamesh was a Mesopotamian ruler who met and spoke with Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim, according to the Epic of Gilgamesh, survived the flood by building a boat. The flood, then, happened some time just before 2,600 BCE.

 

Peleg (AS), the son of ‘Ever (AS), would have been born around 2,369-2,368 BCE; Peleg (AS) was named Peleg (AS) because in his day, the earth was divided- this is a reference to the dispersion of the nations at the Tower of Babel. This meant that the incident of Babel happened prior to Peleg (AS)'s birth. This is important because it gives a reference for the building of Babel- which must have been some time prior to 2,369 BCE.

 

Sargon of Akkad was the first Semitic ruler of Mesopotamia. Sargon was a Semite; this meant he was from the line of Shem (AS). Babylon and Akkad were both built by Nimrod the son of Ham, the son of No’ach (AS). Babylon and Akkad were both Hamitic kingdoms.

 

Ashshur was the son of Shem (AS) and the first to build a Semitic Empire in Mesopotamia; Sargon was a descendant of Ashshur the son of Shem (AS). Sargon, then, was Assyrian [the Greek name for Ashshur].

 

It was Sargon who conquered Akkad; this means that the conquering of Akkad happened during the reign of Sargon of Akkad- 2,334-2,279 BCE. Peleg (AS), the son of ‘Ever (AS), was born around 2,369-2,368; this means the events of Babel and the dispersion of the nations happened before Sargon conquered Akkad.

 

Consequently, when Sargon, the Semite, conquered Akkad, this began the dominance of the Semitic languages in Mesopotamia- supplanting the Hamitic Sumerian of ancient Babylon. This is when the historical records show the division of languages in the Middle East- just like the Hebrew Text explained.

 

Contemporary academics purport that Sargon was the Biblical Nimrod, but this isn't the case. Sargon was a Semite and Nimrod a Hamite.

 

Shu-Durul was the last Akkadian (Semite) king of Akkad- in the line of Sargon; his rule was 2104–2083 BCE- about the time Avraham (AS) left Haran and entered Cana'an. This means that the confederation of Kings in the days of Amraphel and Chedorlaomer were not Semitic, but were from central Asia- possibly the progenitors of the Chinese since the Gutian language is nearly identical to the Tocharian language- in modern Xinjiang, China.

All this is to prove that- according to the timeline provided in the Hebrew Text- Akhenaten was the Pharaoh or the son of the Pharaoh sitting on the throne when the Israelites left Egypt- 1,489 and 1,488 BCE. Since Akhenaten reigned between 1353 and 1334 BCE, it is likely that he was the grandson or even the great-grandson of the Pharaoh of the Exodus. In any case, I do not think Moshe (AS) was Akhenaton.

If I am correct in my dates, this would make Yuya too late to be Yosef (AS). What we should look for is a co-regent and not an adviser. However, I could be wrong about all of this- I am not opposed to the possibility.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yaaqov Ben Yisrael said:

However, I could be wrong about all of this- I am not opposed to the possibility.

I am far more ignorant than you when it comes to this topic. Unfortunately the person who could have betted his life away that Moses is Akhenaton, was my late uncle. Unfortunately he passed away, and I would love more than anything to put him in touch with you. I have been reading the book 'Moses and Akhenaten - The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus', which I found in a bookstore last year. But honestly, I don't have the background to really grasp this stuff. To understand Egyptology, one must study this stuff for a long time. I studied it a little bit, but nowhere near the amount to grasp it - yet!

But I do plan on mastering Egyptology soon God-Willing, and also to get to the bottom of this. 

What is interesting is that Akhenaton did pretty much the same thing that you explained above with cuneiform by Semites. How they took the symbol for their star God to be the basis of their expression of El. Prophets seem to work with availability, and instead of Akhenaton coming up with a new name to express his one God, he simply took one available name, and said "that's the one!". 

What was interesting with my uncle was that he did not really believe in the holy scriptures, but was able to prove existence of Jesus and Moses from historic scriptures. He was expert at them, and used religious scriptures only vaguely. I would like to become expert in the historic narrations as well some day before dying, and also learn it from the Hebrew point of view, which you are an expert at. 

If I understand correctly, then Akhenaton was off by 19 years from the recorded timing of the exodus, which for me personally would be an insignificant amount. I am actually impressed that we can come so close to categorizing the timing of events so long ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

I am far more ignorant than you when it comes to this topic. Unfortunately the person who could have betted his life away that Moses is Akhenaton, was my late uncle. Unfortunately he passed away, and I would love more than anything to put him in touch with you. I have been reading the book 'Moses and Akhenaten - The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus', which I found in a bookstore last year. But honestly, I don't have the background to really grasp this stuff. To understand Egyptology, one must study this stuff for a long time. I studied it a little bit, but nowhere near the amount to grasp it - yet!

But I do plan on mastering Egyptology soon God-Willing, and also to get to the bottom of this. 

What is interesting is that Akhenaton did pretty much the same thing that you explained above with cuneiform by Semites. How they took the symbol for their star God to be the basis of their expression of El. Prophets seem to work with availability, and instead of Akhenaton coming up with a new name to express his one God, he simply took one available name, and said "that's the one!". 

What was interesting with my uncle was that he did not really believe in the holy scriptures, but was able to prove existence of Jesus and Moses from historic scriptures. He was expert at them, and used religious scriptures only vaguely. I would like to become expert in the historic narrations as well some day before dying, and also learn it from the Hebrew point of view, which you are an expert at. 

If I understand correctly, then Akhenaton was off by 19 years from the recorded timing of the exodus, which for me personally would be an insignificant amount. I am actually impressed that we can come so close to categorizing the timing of events so long ago. 

 

The Hebrew Text, aside from the Torah- which is not what is commonly referred to as the "five books of Moshe (AS)-" was never meant to be a book of exact science; it was never meant to be held to a standard of exactness that many try to put forth. It, for the most part, is a general history of the Israelites and their traditional stories. The Torah, on the other hand, was a covenant made between God and Israel; it is more like a Land grant- a lease agreement. If we obeyed the contract, we were allowed to remain on the Land, but if we disobeyed the contract and after sufficient warnings and time for reform, we were evicted for breach of contract. In addition to the common theme of Tawhid, Adl, etc., there were ritual regulations which were meant to unify the people as a society. Today, in the absence of the Mishkan, there is no possibility to keep the ritual regulations- except as a commemoration. The main theme of the Torah remains- eternally. 

The dates which the Hebrew Text provided may not be exact- they may not even be correct at all; I use them, nonetheless, as a basis. If there is evidence which fits the narrative better, I am not averse to amending my opinions. Knowledge is knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×