*************
M*W: To keep it simple, what do we really know about the Egyptian royal heritage of the Old Testament?
When it comes to archeologists and biblical scholars researching ancient peoples, places and events, it can become frustrating and confusing, indeed. History has been taken at face value in the chapters of the OT and other ancient documents, but these historical truths provide absolutely no evidence for such occurrences. The characters we learned about become the dramatis personae of the Bible. The evidence has not and will not prevent its readers from believing these characters were real as they moved about their world and taking place in events that theoretically never happened.
From Abraham to Moses, history is deeply rooted in the ancient Egyptian past. There is a long history of the Hebrews in Egypt, yet, they weren't Jews, they were Egyptian. There has been no archeological evidence found to conclude positively that an Exodus even occurred. Does that mean Hebraic history was false?
The Egyptian versions of the biblical stories show no trace of Abraham or Moses. Neither Genesis nor Exodus contains the slightest reference to the great political events occuring when these characters were supposed to have lived.
The researchers who have taken the responsibility to prove the past have ended up disproving it. So what has become of these ancient characters we've all been taught to believe were true? Should we relook at ancient history to see what it really says?
Tuthmosis III, the real King David, according to biblical scholars, was the real father of the Biblical Isaac and (not Abraham!).
In his study, Ahmed Osman declares that he has proven the Old Testament character known as "King David," to be none other than the ancient Eighteenth Dynasty Pharaoh Tuthmosis III, and a succeeding Pharaoh, Amenhotep III, to be the "Jewish" king Solomon, one would think that the revelations should not only raise the proverbial eye-brow, but should cause world-wide discussion. We shall see if this is the truth.
When Laurence Gardner discovers that the prophet Enoch may be a character based on the ancient Sumerian Enki, and when Tony Bushby declares the Roman Emperor Tiberius to be the real father of Jesus, we should be taking notice! But are we?
When the author Mustafa Gadalla labors to prove that the New Testament character known as "Jesus Christ" was more than likely, the Eighteenth Dynasty boy-king Tutankhamen, then the world should grind to a halt to listen, but they didn't!
We do not pause to listen up, because of several factors. Nevertheless, the point is noted and accepted, that if such scholars can cast doubt on these characters of the Bible, which most people in this world have heard of, then the way is finally opened, once and for all, for a thorough investigation to proceed into every one of the major characters in these "holy books," and into every aspect of their theology.
Additionally, this kind of investigation can now be, and even must be, of a revisionist nature, and not just from within the usual academic establishment.
We are to understand that there is not a lot of authenticity to the characters enscripted into the tomes of Judeo-Christianity. Some are based on actual historical characters. Some are pure concoctions. Some are analogues of powerful men who desired to keep their true identities hidden from mankind, and some are flagrantly outlandish fictions (usually dismissed by scholars as "Biblical embroidery"). Some are based on actual known religious personalities, and others are the brain-children of clever duplicitous propagandists. Some characters are composites of several figures and icons, and some are analogues of psychic proclivities and states. Some are representatives of psychological "types," and more contentiously, some are analogues of zodiacal phenomena; in other words - they are Astrological Archetypes.
It is certainly this last thesis that most concerns these scholars. However, the other concepts are of great interest also, and cannot be underestimated. All in all, it remains a fact that the way is now open for a total overhaul of what we know concerning religion and the characters that we have accepted as historically legitimate. We can only benefit from such exploration.
Have the scholars of ancient determined this? Have the archeologists early in Egypt defined the truth? We will never know until we look at the characters and follow their leads. Was Jesus Tututkhamen? Was Tututkhamen Jesus? We will never know, unless we take the time to analyze the facts and present the truth.
M*W: To keep it simple, what do we really know about the Egyptian royal heritage of the Old Testament?
When it comes to archeologists and biblical scholars researching ancient peoples, places and events, it can become frustrating and confusing, indeed. History has been taken at face value in the chapters of the OT and other ancient documents, but these historical truths provide absolutely no evidence for such occurrences. The characters we learned about become the dramatis personae of the Bible. The evidence has not and will not prevent its readers from believing these characters were real as they moved about their world and taking place in events that theoretically never happened.
From Abraham to Moses, history is deeply rooted in the ancient Egyptian past. There is a long history of the Hebrews in Egypt, yet, they weren't Jews, they were Egyptian. There has been no archeological evidence found to conclude positively that an Exodus even occurred. Does that mean Hebraic history was false?
The Egyptian versions of the biblical stories show no trace of Abraham or Moses. Neither Genesis nor Exodus contains the slightest reference to the great political events occuring when these characters were supposed to have lived.
The researchers who have taken the responsibility to prove the past have ended up disproving it. So what has become of these ancient characters we've all been taught to believe were true? Should we relook at ancient history to see what it really says?
Tuthmosis III, the real King David, according to biblical scholars, was the real father of the Biblical Isaac and (not Abraham!).
In his study, Ahmed Osman declares that he has proven the Old Testament character known as "King David," to be none other than the ancient Eighteenth Dynasty Pharaoh Tuthmosis III, and a succeeding Pharaoh, Amenhotep III, to be the "Jewish" king Solomon, one would think that the revelations should not only raise the proverbial eye-brow, but should cause world-wide discussion. We shall see if this is the truth.
When Laurence Gardner discovers that the prophet Enoch may be a character based on the ancient Sumerian Enki, and when Tony Bushby declares the Roman Emperor Tiberius to be the real father of Jesus, we should be taking notice! But are we?
When the author Mustafa Gadalla labors to prove that the New Testament character known as "Jesus Christ" was more than likely, the Eighteenth Dynasty boy-king Tutankhamen, then the world should grind to a halt to listen, but they didn't!
We do not pause to listen up, because of several factors. Nevertheless, the point is noted and accepted, that if such scholars can cast doubt on these characters of the Bible, which most people in this world have heard of, then the way is finally opened, once and for all, for a thorough investigation to proceed into every one of the major characters in these "holy books," and into every aspect of their theology.
Additionally, this kind of investigation can now be, and even must be, of a revisionist nature, and not just from within the usual academic establishment.
We are to understand that there is not a lot of authenticity to the characters enscripted into the tomes of Judeo-Christianity. Some are based on actual historical characters. Some are pure concoctions. Some are analogues of powerful men who desired to keep their true identities hidden from mankind, and some are flagrantly outlandish fictions (usually dismissed by scholars as "Biblical embroidery"). Some are based on actual known religious personalities, and others are the brain-children of clever duplicitous propagandists. Some characters are composites of several figures and icons, and some are analogues of psychic proclivities and states. Some are representatives of psychological "types," and more contentiously, some are analogues of zodiacal phenomena; in other words - they are Astrological Archetypes.
It is certainly this last thesis that most concerns these scholars. However, the other concepts are of great interest also, and cannot be underestimated. All in all, it remains a fact that the way is now open for a total overhaul of what we know concerning religion and the characters that we have accepted as historically legitimate. We can only benefit from such exploration.
Have the scholars of ancient determined this? Have the archeologists early in Egypt defined the truth? We will never know until we look at the characters and follow their leads. Was Jesus Tututkhamen? Was Tututkhamen Jesus? We will never know, unless we take the time to analyze the facts and present the truth.