Bible maths

IceAgeCivilizations:

What proof do you have of Tut and Buddha's Judaism?

Because Buddha was an Aryan Kshyatriya prince. And last I checked, Indo-Europeans are not Jews.
 
Kinda silly isn't it? But maybe not, some here say that King David was an Egyptian, so there appears to be much history to be readdressed, I'm just joining the party!
 
IAC: Ah yes said:
*************
M*W: You know you're really showing your pathetic ignorance. Why don't you do some reading, so you could keep up with the research of biblical scholars and archeologists?
Click to expand...
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
Kinda silly isn't it? But maybe not, some here say that King David was an Egyptian, so there appears to be much history to be readdressed, I'm just joining the party!
Click to expand...

No, you are being childish and making unsupported assumptions to try murk the water up. I suppose that is to be expected. You are seriously not interested in finding the truth, are you?
 
So the Jews don't "really" know their own history
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, no. You'd be hard pressed to find a jew that even knows the majority of their months are named after Sumerian gods.
 
Hey Med Woman, let's see your "evidence" that King David was an Egyptian.

And Snak, the Sumerian Global Deluge lasted only 14 days, does this seem more plausible than the 1 year described in the Bible?
 
And Snak, the Sumerian Global Deluge lasted only 14 days, does this seem more plausible than the 1 year described in the Bible?
Click to expand...

While it has nothing whatsoever to do with my last post I shall answer the question:

1) There is no evidence to support claim that a global flood has ever happened - be it 14 days, 1 year or 32 seconds.

2) Yes it would seem more plausible - once you take all the details into account. The bible claims there were 2 of each animal and 7 of each 'clean' (kosher) animal. This would leave you with such a high number that any sane person already knows the story is fictional. Add to that the fact that you can't just lump animals next to each other, (you can't put a tiger next to a rabbit for example), but would require cages or something to keep the animals divided. Add to that the sheer amount of food/clean water that you would need. Add to that the daily amount of poo you would have to clean up. Add to that the different environmental conditions you would have to meet, (a penguin/polar bear needs ice/a koala bear needs eucalyptus etc), and you'd be hard pushed to find any sane human that would even give it 0 seconds serious consideration.

However, not that anyone would take it seriously, but if it had have happened 14 days survival would be a lot more plausible than an entire year.

3) The Sumerian flood epic predates the biblical one by over 1,500 years. In saying this the Sumerian account would instantly have more credibility than any version written later as they would have been closer in time to the events before too much Chinese whispers had taken hold. So yes, for the second time.
 
Prince_James;1276863]Medicine Woman:

I do not recall king David ever being counted as an Egyptian prince. Do your ecall where you read this and what that was based on?

Also, I am looking over some info on king David, and nothing says anything about him being an Egyptian prince.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Thanks for your comments. I shall try to answer them one-by-one. My first reference is: Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion, by Ahmed Osman, 1998. Osman goes on to say in Chapter 2 (The House of David):

"The task of identifying the historical David is complicated from the outset by the fact that the Old Testament provides us with two contrasting Davidic characters who cannot have been the same person. One is a warrior king who lived c. 1500 BC: the second is a tribal chief generally agreed by biblical scholars to have lived from 1000 to 960 BC, ruled over the traditional Promised Land--from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south of the Israel-Judean upland--and spent most of his life in conflict with the Philistines, the "Peoples of the Sea," who had invaded the coastal area of Canaan in the middle of the twelfth century BC and were trying to expand their territory."

"Scholars have largely chosen, despite the lack of any genealogical link between him and the start of the Christian era, to identify this tribal chief as King David, who is presented to us in a number of guises--shepard; rival to Saul and later Ishbosheth, one of Saul's surviving sons, for the Israelite lead epic duel; and a coward who fled from the wrath of ohis son, Absalom. However, he is also said to have been a warrior king who established an empire that stretched from the Nile to the Euphrates. The Book of II Samuel tells us: "David smote also Hadadezer . . . as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates . . . And David gat him a name [erected a stele] when he returned from smiting of the Syrians in the valley of salt . . . " (8:3 and 8:13)."

"However, amalgamating the stories of two Davids--one a warrior king who lived in the fifteenth century BC, the other a tribal chief who lived five centuries later--should be seen as another facet of the attempt by Old Testament editors (Jewish scribes living in Babylon between the sixth and third centuries BC) to conceal the fact that Tuthmosis III, not Abraham, was the father of Isaac, and therefore also the founding father of the 12 tribes of Israel. The first part of the Pharaoh's name, "Tuth" (or Thoth), becomes "DWD" in Hebrew, the word used for "David" in the Bible."

"The story of the epic duel between David and Goliath, inserted to enhance tribal David's repputation as a "man of war," is an adaptation of a much admired Egyptian literary work, The Autobiography of Sinube, describing events that tookplace 1,000 years earlier, and it iwould certainly have been familiar to the Israelites from the earlier period of their Sojourn, the four generations they spent in Egypt during the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC."

"By the time Tuthmosis III (David) became sole ruler of Egypt in his Year 22 after the death of Hatshepsut, four decades had passed without a major Egyptian military campaign in western Asia."

The question I present here: Was Tuthmosis III (David) the father (or grandfather) of Tuthmosis IV (Moses)?

I think you mean Moses? Moses was raised as an Egyptian prince, yes.

And what about Abraham makes you think he is thought of as Egyptian? They place him in Ur, a Mesopatamian capital, not Egypt at his birth and early life.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: I'll attempt to answer your question, but my comments may not be in the order you presented your questions. Taken from the above reference, Chapter 4 (A Coat of Many Colors), Osman states of "Sarah's family":

"When Isaac, the son of her (Sarah's) bigamous marriage to Tuthmosis III (David), grew to manhood he is said (Genesis 2.5) to have taken a wife, Rebekah. Like Sarah before her, Rebekah is described as infertile, but this may be simply an extravagant scriptural way of saying that, at a time when early marriage was the norm, a girl had been taken as a bride long before she reached childbearing age."

"Solomon cannot have succeeded his father David in the tenth century BC because David (Tuthmosis III), as we have seen, lived five centuries earlier and was, in fact, not his father but his great-grandfather; in the Old Testament one often comes across accounts where the oral memory of ancient events is retold in a fictionalized form with different characters and a different time-scale. I believe the David (Tuthmosis III)-Bathsheba-Uriah story found in the Book of II Samuel should be seen as another version of David (Tuthmosis III)-Sarah-Abraham story, related in the earlier Book of Genesis, in which--to refresh memories in the matter--the king married Sarah and, on discovering that Sarah was Abraham's wife, sent the couple back to Canaan where the pregnant Sarah gave birth to Isaac, the king's (pharaoh's) son."

"The statement that Solomon commanded avast army and was overlord of a huge empire that underwent decline during his reigh finds no historical support in the tenth century BC, by which time the empire founded 500 years earlier by Tuthmosis III, the great-grandfather of Amenhotep III, had ceased to exist. The description of Solomon as the husband of Pharaoh's daughter also cannot be true. He would have had to be a member of the royal house of Egypt rather than King of Israel before he was able to marry an Egyptian princess."

And finally, David's association with Egypt, Osman writes in Chapter 7 (The Wisdom of Solomon):

"The apparent contradiction is resolved, however, once identification of the historical David (Tuthmosis III) and Solomon (Amenhotep III) makes it clear that the sophisticated administration
described in the Old Testament is the administration established by these two monarchs in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC to deal with the day-to-day task of ruling Egypt and its empire."

Interesting, Strabo counts the Jews as descendent from Egyptians:
Click to expand...

Right beneath the above is also an interesting story by Tacitus.

Of course, none of these writers were even remotely near the history of Moses' time, as suggested by scholars of the Bible. So naturally, it is probably very ad hoc.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: My point in connecting Abraham, David, Solomon and Moses, to Egypt is that they were all forefathers of Moses, the Egyptian, which makes sense to me that Moses' forefathers would have alsl been Egyptian.

There are other references compatible with the works of Ahmed Osman. I just had this book handy at the moment.

Your comments are welcomed for discussion.
 
Duh, uh, Med Woman, Moses lived circa 1500 B.C., David at 1000 B.C.

At least you trust the Bible as a historical source, unfortunately though, you can't read it for comprehension, keep trying though.
 
It is very funny that you think that 14 days for a Global Deluge makes more sense than 1 year for its duration.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, tell me how a 1 year global flood would make more sense, (given what I have listed above).
 
IAC;1277143]Duh, uh, Med Woman, Moses lived circa 1500 B.C., David at 1000 B.C.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Why do you keep showing your vast stupidity? There were several "Moses/Mosis'" who lived through several Egyptian Royal Dynasties. The Moses you refer to was of the Eighteenth Dynasty c. 1350 BC. If you could read, which you can't, you would have read:

"...the second is a tribal chief (David) generally agreed by biblical scholars to have lived from 1000 to 960 BC, ruled over the traditional Promised Land...".

At least you trust the Bible as a historical source, unfortunately though, you can't read it for comprehension, keep trying though.
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: No, I do not trust the bible as an historical source. That is why I read an abundance of extra-biblical research by credible biblical scholars and archeologists. You are the one who is a failure in reading comprehension. Shall we take a poll?
 
Med Woman, you believe that King David existed, from where did you get that idea?

First you say the Bible is all lies, then you say King David existed, what are you, schizo?

In a previous post, you mention only one Moses, now there are several, so, Einstein, what's up with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top