Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Temple complex dedicated to Egyptian cult of Isis and Osiris

David · Guest

by Diana Stoykova
http://international.ibox.bg/news/id_1100761771

"Archaeologists Discover an Ancient Egyptian
Temple near Pomorie"

David Christainsen

benlizro@ihug.co.nz · Guest

On Oct 18, 4:33 am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]by Diana Stoykovahttp://international.ibox.bg/news/id_1100761771

"Archaeologists Discover an Ancient Egyptian
Temple near Pomorie"

David Christainsen
[/quote]
""
"There are many temples in Bulgaria, connected to Isis and Osiris, but
this is the first temple complex, discovered through the means of
archaeology", explains Sergey Torbanov, leader of the diggings.
""

Does this mean the others were not discovered through archaeology, but
are just regular village temples, in which ordinary Bulgarians worship
Isis and Osiris?

Or maybe the comma is important, and he means that this is the oldest,
or the major, such temple, and furthermore it has been discovered
through archaeology?

Whereas the others were discovered by pre-scientific fossickers?

Somebody who knows more about the Bulgarian scene may be able to
explain.

Ross Clark

Whiskers · Guest

On 2008-10-17, benlizro@ihug.co.nz <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 18, 4:33Â am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
by Diana Stoykovahttp://international.ibox.bg/news/id_1100761771

"Archaeologists Discover an Ancient Egyptian
Temple near Pomorie"

David Christainsen

""
"There are many temples in Bulgaria, connected to Isis and Osiris, but
this is the first temple complex, discovered through the means of
archaeology", explains Sergey Torbanov, leader of the diggings.
""

Does this mean the others were not discovered through archaeology, but
are just regular village temples, in which ordinary Bulgarians worship
Isis and Osiris?

Or maybe the comma is important, and he means that this is the oldest,
or the major, such temple, and furthermore it has been discovered
through archaeology?

Whereas the others were discovered by pre-scientific fossickers?

Somebody who knows more about the Bulgarian scene may be able to
explain.

Ross Clark
[/quote]
Could be a translation problem. This site
<http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/temple-to-iris-and-osiris-unearthed-near-
the-bulgarian-black-sea/id_32427/catid_70> has

[...]

Head archaeologist of the team Sergei Torbanov said, as reported by
Burgasinfo.net, that there were many monuments connected to the two
Ancient Egyptian gods in Bulgaria, but that the temple complex was the
first such to be found in an archaeological dig.

[...]

And <http://allaboutegypt.org/> says

[...]

The temple complex is the first such to be found in an archaeological
dig. Until the discovery of the temple plot, the only evidence of
worship of Isis and Osiris to have been found on Bulgarian territory
had been in written form.

[...]

It is interesting that a temple site seems to have changed deities in the
2nd century AD.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

benlizro@ihug.co.nz · Guest

On Oct 19, 1:43 am, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
[quote]On 2008-10-17, benli...@ihug.co.nz <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

On Oct 18, 4:33 am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
by Diana Stoykovahttp://international.ibox.bg/news/id_1100761771

"Archaeologists Discover an Ancient Egyptian
Temple near Pomorie"

David Christainsen

""
"There are many temples in Bulgaria, connected to Isis and Osiris, but
this is the first temple complex, discovered through the means of
archaeology", explains Sergey Torbanov, leader of the diggings.
""

Does this mean the others were not discovered through archaeology, but
are just regular village temples, in which ordinary Bulgarians worship
Isis and Osiris?

Or maybe the comma is important, and he means that this is the oldest,
or the major, such temple, and furthermore it has been discovered
through archaeology?

Whereas the others were discovered by pre-scientific fossickers?

Somebody who knows more about the Bulgarian scene may be able to
explain.

Ross Clark

Could be a translation problem. This site
http://www.sofiaecho.com/article/temple-to-iris-and-osiris-unearthed-...
the-bulgarian-black-sea/id_32427/catid_70> has

[...]

Head archaeologist of the team Sergei Torbanov said, as reported by
Burgasinfo.net, that there were many monuments connected to the two
Ancient Egyptian gods in Bulgaria, but that the temple complex was the
first such to be found in an archaeological dig.

[...]

And <http://allaboutegypt.org/> says

[...]

The temple complex is the first such to be found in an archaeological

dig. Until the discovery of the temple plot, the only evidence of
worship of Isis and Osiris to have been found on Bulgarian territory
had been in written form.

[...]

It is interesting that a temple site seems to have changed deities in the
2nd century AD.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
[/quote]
Thanks. But the two quotes still do not seem to be saying exactly the
same thing. I wonder if it>s possible that the Bulgarian word
pametnik, like its Russian cognate, can mean both "monument" and
"(ancient) document"?

It would be interesting to know what is the nature of this written
evidence, and also to see some of the evidence for Isis/Osiris worship
at this new site, rather than just a panorama of the beach.

Ross Clark

Whiskers · Guest

On 2008-10-18, benlizro@ihug.co.nz <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 19, 1:43Â am, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
On 2008-10-17, benli...@ihug.co.nz <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Oct 18, 4:33Â am, David <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[/quote]
[...]

[quote]Thanks. But the two quotes still do not seem to be saying exactly the
same thing. I wonder if it>s possible that the Bulgarian word
pametnik, like its Russian cognate, can mean both "monument" and
"(ancient) document"?
[/quote]
I don>t speak Bulgarian (or Russian, despite all the Russian spam I get!),
but that seems a plausible idea. There may be some similar confusion
relating to ancient constructions - in British English, the term "Ancient
Monument" can mean any sort of ancient construction or ruin, not only one
intended from the start as a record of something. (Stonehenge and other
such things are "ancient monuments", for example).

By the time you>ve got an article written in Bulgarian by a Journalist who
knows nothing about archaeology or history or religions, gets translated
into English by someone whose knowledge of all those things is equally
shaky and who is also not a fluent Bulgarian speaker, all sorts of
confusions can happen. Add more journalists and more translators, and you
soon end up with stories that barely match at all!

[quote]It would be interesting to know what is the nature of this written
evidence, and also to see some of the evidence for Isis/Osiris worship
at this new site, rather than just a panorama of the beach.

Ross Clark
[/quote]
.... or Iris and Osiris, as the Sofia Echo has it ...

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Matt Giwer · Guest

Whiskers wrote:
....
[quote]It is interesting that a temple site seems to have changed deities in the
2nd century AD.
[/quote]
Why? I know of a couple churches that changed denominations after being sold.
Why should we assume things were different back then? All temples were not
like the Temple of Doom.

I cannot show that is what happened what happened but I have come across
several ancient "mysteries" which are easily explained if we assume people did
the same things we do today.

But for a fact any assumption that it would have been like today selling a
church for a mosque or vice versa is totally wrong. There were no true
religions back then. Our hollywood imagery of ancient temples is based upon
the attitude of true religions these days.

--
When you see the film of the World Trade Center building falling you see
nearly 3000 people dying in seconds. When you see the film of the Hiroshima
bomb you see twenty times as many people dying in a fraction the time.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4071
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5

Whiskers · Guest

On 2008-10-19, Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]Whiskers wrote:
...
It is interesting that a temple site seems to have changed deities in the
2nd century AD.

Why? I know of a couple churches that changed denominations after
being sold. Why should we assume things were different back then?
[/quote]
That>s precisely why. Changing the religion of a place of worship or
prayer usually reflects some larger change, such as movement of people or
changes of ruler or patterns of trade bringing new ideas. Were the
changes involved in this case peaceful or otherwise? Was there an influx
of new people from somewhere elses? Was the change rapid or gradual?
Those are interesting questions - the sort of thing archaeology is about.

[quote]All temples were not like the Temple of Doom.
[/quote]
I doubt if any were, or are.

[quote] I cannot show that is what happened what happened but I have come
across several ancient "mysteries" which are easily explained if we
assume people did the same things we do today.
[/quote]
Absolutely. It>s rather silly to assume otherwise. But people do all
sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons.

[quote] But for a fact any assumption that it would have been like today
selling a church for a mosque or vice versa is totally wrong.
[/quote]
Changing the religion of a site isn>t always peaceful or voluntary. The
mosques of Spain were changed to churches by force - the Moslems were
expelled or forced to "convert". In Constantinople, the church of Hagia
Sophia became a mosque when a Moslem conqueror moved in. But in the East
End of London there is at least one building that has in turn been a
Hugenot church, a synagogue, and a mosque - all perfectly peacefully.
Early Christian churches were sometimes 'converted' pagan temples -
perhaps more often than is recognised now. (St. Peter>s Basilica in Rome
is the most famous example). In Palestine there are places shared by
Christians and Moslems - and of course, Jerusalem is notorious for its
confusing mosaic of Holy Places.

[quote]There were
no true religions back then. Our hollywood imagery of ancient temples is
based upon the attitude of true religions these days.
[/quote]
There we disagree.

The whole essence of a religion is that it, and no other, is the true one.
But sometimes we forget that some religions are only the true one in a
particular location - people believed (still do, in some places, probably)
that each place or region has its own deities - eg the Romans respected
the local deities wherever they went, either adding them to the Imperial
pantheon or conflating them with exisiting recognised deities. For
example, when they conquered southern Britain they recognised the Goddess
Sulis at the sacred springs in the place we now call Bath - and decided
that she was another aspect of the Goddess Minerva, whom they already knew
well. So the shrines they built there were dedicated to "Sulis Minerva".

When the Israelites conquered their Promised Land, one of the problems
they had was with followers of their own desert religion recognising or
even adopting the worship of the Gods already associated with that region
- despite the rather radical claims of the prophets of the Israelite
religion that their God is the only true one, everywhere.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Matt Giwer · Guest

Whiskers wrote:
[quote]On 2008-10-19, Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
Whiskers wrote:
...
It is interesting that a temple site seems to have changed deities in the
2nd century AD.
Why? I know of a couple churches that changed denominations after
being sold. Why should we assume things were different back then?

That>s precisely why. Changing the religion of a place of worship or
prayer usually reflects some larger change, such as movement of people or
changes of ruler or patterns of trade bringing new ideas. Were the
changes involved in this case peaceful or otherwise? Was there an influx
of new people from somewhere elses? Was the change rapid or gradual?
Those are interesting questions - the sort of thing archaeology is about.
[/quote]
We are talking a time when the choice of gods to worship was not particularly
different from changing denominations today. They were all equal before the
law. Granted there were almost certainly unofficial differences as the US
hierarchy of changing denominations with career advancement. (I forget the
details but came across it consistently years ago.)

That a local sect became more popular and traded up for a better temple means
no more than that. Or some benefactor higher up of Isis/Osiris financed the
upgraded temple. Or maybe the benefactor was looking to set up a temple in the
region and found one that was on hard financial times. There are a lot of
possibilities. All of them can be found in the everyday events of
denominations in the US.

The rest of your questions assume for NO REASON that this one temple is
representative of more than just one temple. Until someone removes everything
more recent than that temple from an area fifty miles around and produces some
statistics on the popular religions of the region there is no cause to say
this one temple represents more than itself. Arguing from the particular to
the general is a logical fallacy.

[quote]All temples were not like the Temple of Doom.

I doubt if any were, or are.
[/quote]
And therefore there is no reason to consider them any more than the churches
that are bought and sold by denominations all the time.

[quote] I cannot show that is what happened what happened but I have come
across several ancient "mysteries" which are easily explained if we
assume people did the same things we do today.

Absolutely. It>s rather silly to assume otherwise. But people do all
sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons.
[/quote]
And when we can find the same thing today for very obvious financial reasons
there is no cause to make something special of this sample size of one.

[quote] But for a fact any assumption that it would have been like today
selling a church for a mosque or vice versa is totally wrong.

Changing the religion of a site isn>t always peaceful or voluntary. The
mosques of Spain were changed to churches by force - the Moslems were
expelled or forced to "convert". In Constantinople, the church of Hagia
Sophia became a mosque when a Moslem conqueror moved in. But in the East
End of London there is at least one building that has in turn been a
Hugenot church, a synagogue, and a mosque - all perfectly peacefully.
Early Christian churches were sometimes 'converted' pagan temples -
perhaps more often than is recognised now. (St. Peter>s Basilica in Rome
is the most famous example). In Palestine there are places shared by
Christians and Moslems - and of course, Jerusalem is notorious for its
confusing mosaic of Holy Places.
[/quote]
For Rome we have no evidence of anything of anything particularly noteworthy
in which temple one worshiped. The Isis/Osiris is just one version of the same
story found in Persia, Babylon, Greece and Rome. It is also the Jesus story if
you are willing to look into it. I have not found a single indication that it
mattered which temple or if any temple save for a very few cases such as
trying to get relief from a famine or drought.

Rome itself sponsored "poly-denominational" temples and started melding the
gods. And I presume the melding was for economic as well as political reasons.

I used church and mosque as the example of being antithetical to Roman
practice and custom.

[quote]There were
no true religions back then. Our hollywood imagery of ancient temples is
based upon the attitude of true religions these days.

There we disagree.
[/quote]
Other than the myths in the Old Testament, can you give a single concrete
event which would indicate that?

[quote]The whole essence of a religion is that it, and no other, is the true one.
[/quote]
It is reasonable to ask for the evidence upon which that statement is based.
As a minimum I expect unambiguous statements which make that assertion. Even
the Christians do not make that claim as they used true in the sense of
faithful and trustworthy not as in true and false. You can look up the
original statements without the translation and see for yourself.

[quote]But sometimes we forget that some religions are only the true one in a
particular location - people believed (still do, in some places, probably)
that each place or region has its own deities - eg the Romans respected
the local deities wherever they went, either adding them to the Imperial
pantheon or conflating them with exisiting recognised deities. For
example, when they conquered southern Britain they recognised the Goddess
Sulis at the sacred springs in the place we now call Bath - and decided
that she was another aspect of the Goddess Minerva, whom they already knew
well. So the shrines they built there were dedicated to "Sulis Minerva".

When the Israelites conquered their Promised Land, one of the problems
they had was with followers of their own desert religion recognising or
even adopting the worship of the Gods already associated with that region
- despite the rather radical claims of the prophets of the Israelite
religion that their God is the only true one, everywhere.
[/quote]
Israelites along with the entire OT is nothing but myths as every educated
person knows. The only debate of interest is when the OT was created, in the
5th or 2nd c. BC. If you did not know it was all myth why did not the miracles
give you a hint?

--
When a hospital is said to be on the cutting edge of new treatments that
means it is following all the latest fads.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4069
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3

Whiskers · Guest

On 2008-10-20, Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]Whiskers wrote:
[/quote]
[...]

[quote] Israelites along with the entire OT is nothing but myths as every
educated person knows. The only debate of interest is when the OT was
created, in the 5th or 2nd c. BC. If you did not know it was all myth why
did not the miracles give you a hint?
[/quote]
Do you really not get the point, or are you just pretending?

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Matt Giwer · Guest

Whiskers wrote:
[quote]On 2008-10-20, Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
Whiskers wrote:
[...]
Israelites along with the entire OT is nothing but myths as every
educated person knows. The only debate of interest is when the OT was
created, in the 5th or 2nd c. BC. If you did not know it was all myth why
did not the miracles give you a hint?

Do you really not get the point, or are you just pretending?
[/quote]
As you apparently missed the fact that all those religions were related here
is a brief summary.

COFFIN NAILS

The following names are applied to local variations of a single
goddess, Ishtar, Isis, Ashara, Astarte, Aphrodite, Venus. These are the same
not just by name similarity but because the fundamental myths about them are
variations upon the same story. The same applies to the male gods.

The following names are applied to local variations of a single god,
Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Tammuz, Mithras and as we shall see, Jesus. Under the
first five names legend attributes him great physical beauty and hunting
skills. Jesus by tradition had perfect physical form and was a fisher of
men.

In the Hebrew bible the first commandment reads "I Adoni am your
god." Adoni is the word translated as lord in the Christian version. In
Greek Adon is lord. The oldest known version of the Old Testament is the
Greek Septuagint. When the Hebrew version was created it kept the Adoni as
the name of the god for some of the books although it generally defaults to
Yahweh Elohim. Yahweh is translated into lord in English and Elohim as the
singular god although it clearly has the plural suffix, im.

Yahweh and Ashara are a pair of deities found in the records of
Ugarit. An inscription referring to Yahweh and his Ashara has been found in
bibleland.

Adonis is the husband of Venus. In this imagining Adonis is the son
of King Cinyras and either the king>s daughter, Myrrha, or Astarte herself.
Astarte as Venus falls in love with Adonis. Mars becomes jealous of Adonis,
turns into a boar and kills Adonis. Venus travels to Hades (he descended in
to hell) to retrieve him. Pluto>s wife is also in love with him and they
agree each will have him half the year. Venus gets the summer so this is
celebrated on the Vernal Equinox as is Easter, the name Easter coming from
Ishtar.

It takes Astarte two days to broker this deal so he can be
resurrected. This explains the reason Christians insist upon three days in
the tomb -- from old testament prophecy -- while having only two calendar
days between death and resurrection which is from existing religious custom.

The Egyptian imagining of this story has Amun, Isis, Osiris and Set
as the main players. Amun is the chief god of Egypt who made the first men
out of clay. He was portrayed with the head of a ram, thus the Shofar horn.
He came before the other gods as does Adoni in the first commandment.

Plutarch, in his Lives ("Alcibiades," XVIII), speaking of the
sailing of the Greek fleet for Syracuse in the year 415 B.C., says: "It was
an evil omen that the festival of Adonis fell in those days. Numbers of
women bore images, like dead bodies, and held mock funerals; and they
mourned and chanted the solemn hymns."

Thus the festival of Adonis was well established at least four
centuries before the earliest incarnation of the Jesus story. The story
itself is much older. The Egyptian imagining is found on much older wall
inscriptions.

Most Christians accept the doctrine of the Trinity which holds
Yahweh and Jesus are the exactly the same god for this reason. One wonders
if Ishtar is the Holy Spirit which connects the two names -- an eternal love
triangle so to speak. The Holy Spirit is depicted as a dove. Ashara>s
symbol was primarily the tree but also the dove.

The name Easter comes from the goddess Ishtar the wife of Adonis
under the name of Attis. This is a vernal equinox celebration.

BYT YHWH and BYT STRT both refer to buildings in Jerusalem. They are
translated as Temple of Yahweh, YaHWeH, and Temple of Astarte, aSTaRTe.
Idols of Astarte and of the divine pair, Astarte and Yahweh, are found at
all levels in Jerusalem and around Judea. They abruptly stop appearing in
Jerusalem after Judeans (Iodiminae, commonly translated as Jews in English)
are forbidden to enter Jerusalem by Hadrian.

It is reported her temple there had eight sides suggesting the grand
mosque on the so-called temple mount was built on the foundation of her
temple. Or perhaps it was merely renovated.

The Christian story of Jesus is simply another imagining of the
common tale. Consider it a puritanical version leaving out the explicit
sex.

=====

Spare the rod and spoil the child.
Spare the flail and spoil the child.
Thy flail and thy staff do comfort me.

Image of King of Egypt with crossed arms and symbols.

=====

Purim is a classic Cinderella tale which comes in many forms some of
which are barely recognizable from the Disney version. Esther, a variation
on Ishtar from which we get Easter, is set in the last of the known
civilized world to the east where both the sun and Venus/Ishtar also rise.

=====

Far from being devoid of Vernal Equinox celebrations, the prophet
Mohamed was born close enough to it in some calendar that it does not
matter. The odd thing is male rather than female. Likely it replaced the
birth of some female deity.

=====

The story of Job is a dialog between Amun/Yahweh and Ra/Lucifer.

=====

Angels, aka messengers, are depicted as having wings as the ancients
gods used birds as messengers. The most commonly used bird was an owl, a
bird that appears to be standing upright when it perches. This is why angels
are depicted as having wings.

=====

Powerful rulers claimed to be gods in those days which seems
incongruous to us with our idea of God. But people did not expect much from
any particular god in the old days.

The claim to being a god was most commonly base upon the power of
life and death. The gods sent a angels, messengers, of death. Kings ordered
their messengers to kill. Also gods did not bring the dead back to life so
neither was that a requirement for kings. Similarly gods did not bring
inanimate objects to life so that was no expected of kings. Each god had
different powers (like the X-Men) and most were simply influential without
the power to force so a king did not have to do more than influence.

=====

The Apis Bull of Egypt was selected as one being completely black
except of a single white mark between its horns. It was not sacrificed and
was connected with the patron god of Memphis.

Jews connect a heifer with the arrival of their Messiah. It must be
completely red. It is intended for sacrifice. It is possibly connected with
the patron god of Jerusalem.

--
I have a Covenant with God, a new book exposing Abraham>s most
successful scam.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4064
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8

Matt Giwer · Guest

Whiskers wrote:
[quote]On 2008-10-20, Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
Whiskers wrote:
[...]
Israelites along with the entire OT is nothing but myths as every
educated person knows. The only debate of interest is when the OT was
created, in the 5th or 2nd c. BC. If you did not know it was all myth why
did not the miracles give you a hint?

Do you really not get the point, or are you just pretending?
[/quote]
What point are you trying to make? I stated facts. Archaeology has
established them as facts.

--
Of all the views of the afterlife including none at all, not a single one of
them suggests anyone dead gives a shit about being remembered.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4062
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6

Whiskers · Guest

On 2008-10-24, Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]Whiskers wrote:
[/quote]
[...]

[quote]Assuming you are talking about the creation of the Israelite/Hebrew
scriptures, the most plausible explanation is that they were composed by
many different people over a period of many centuries at least - and
mostly long before the rise of Rome. It>s likely that the composing of
some passages was aural long before they were first written down.

The older you wish them to have been created the more difficult to
explain how they are completely wrong about Egypt in both Genesis and
Exodus.

Can you explain how it is possible for a contemporary to write
Exodus when that person would know full well Egypt ruled the "promised
land" before, during and for centuries after Exodus was supposed to have
occurred?
[/quote]
What the Egyptian public inscriptions claim the Egyptians ruled, and the
actual extent and degree of their real power and control, are two different
things. Just as Biblical claims about the power and might and wealth (and
independence) of the Israelite states may not be a precise record of the
facts on the ground. That doesn>t totally invalidate either version of
history.

A more modern example: for centuries, English kings included 'King of
France' in their list of titles. That didn>t make it true, and it was
never true in the sense of them ruling the whole of what is now called
France. (And at times, the English felt that the situation was somewhat
reversed - England being ruled by French-speaking kings some of whom spent
little or no time at all in England).

To this day, the title 'Defender of The Faith' (Fidei Defensor - shown on
coins as F.D. or Fid Def) is claimed by our monarch - a title bestowed on
Henry VIII by the Pope, and following his ex-communication subverted ever
since by Henry and all his successors who (with one or two exceptions) have
not by any stretch of the imagination been loyal true followers of any
Pope.

All Royal and national claims and inscriptions, including ancient Egyptian
and Israelite ones, need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[quote] Can you explain how the living god-king of Egypt was flim-flammed
by Abraham
[/quote]
What makes you think anyone was "flim-flammed"?

[quote]and was approached by the smelly goatherd Moses?
[/quote]
Read your Bible. Moses was raised in the Royal household as a Prince of
Egypt.

[quote] Can you explain why the god-king of Egypt would have priests in his
court like a Babylonian king when he was the chief priest of all Egypt?
[/quote]
Whether you have a Chief Priest or a God-King, or both in one person, that
rather implies that other, lesser, priests will also be around. Ancient
Egypt seems to have abounded in priests - whole hierarchies of them, along
with a plethora of deities each with a cohort of priests, one of whom in
each hierarchy might well be described as 'Chief Priest' - particularly by
someone sceptical of the Pharaoh>s nature and status.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Matt Giwer · Guest

Elijahovah wrote:
[quote]Can you explain why the god-king of Egypt would have priests in his court
like a Babylonian king when he was the chief priest of all Egypt?

Pharaoh was not the chief priest between 1750-1738 BC
when Jospeh was in Egypt because after Joseph being
given position in 1738 BC he was given the daughter of
the chief priest.
[/quote]
The king of Egypt was as I say. That is in the archaeological record. The
Joseph story as well as the Abraham and Moses stories are all contrary to the
way Egypt was. That should be enough to show any rational person the stories
are myths.

So tell me how the bible gets everything wrong.

There were never any Hebrews in Egypt, no captivity there. Abraham and
Joseph, along with Adam and Noah, David and Solomon are all mythical people.
They never existed.

IF however you can produce physical evidence of their existence you are free
to post it.

--
God is a single parent who sent his son to earth on a suicide mission.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4065
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9

Matt Giwer · Guest

Whiskers wrote:
[quote]On 2008-10-24, Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
Whiskers wrote:
[...]
Assuming you are talking about the creation of the Israelite/Hebrew
scriptures, the most plausible explanation is that they were composed by
many different people over a period of many centuries at least - and
mostly long before the rise of Rome. It>s likely that the composing of
some passages was aural long before they were first written down.
The older you wish them to have been created the more difficult to
explain how they are completely wrong about Egypt in both Genesis and
Exodus.
Can you explain how it is possible for a contemporary to write
Exodus when that person would know full well Egypt ruled the "promised
land" before, during and for centuries after Exodus was supposed to have
occurred?

What the Egyptian public inscriptions claim the Egyptians ruled, and the
actual extent and degree of their real power and control, are two different
things.
[/quote]
Archaeological evidence from bibleland and all the way to the Euphrates shows
the Egyptians were not exaggerating at all. They did in fact rule it.

[quote]Just as Biblical claims about the power and might and wealth (and
independence) of the Israelite states may not be a precise record of the
facts on the ground. That doesn>t totally invalidate either version of
history.
[/quote]
There is no archaeological evidence of any biblical Israel whatsoever.
Therefore its existence is a myth.

....

The other examples are not needed as the facts regarding the two are as I
have stated above.

[quote] Can you explain how the living god-king of Egypt was flim-flammed
by Abraham

What makes you think anyone was "flim-flammed"?
[/quote]
If you are unfamiliar with Abraham>s racket you can read about it in Genesis.

[quote]and was approached by the smelly goatherd Moses?

Read your Bible. Moses was raised in the Royal household as a Prince of
Egypt.
[/quote]
He was not that when the bible says he returned. It does say he was a wanted
for murder. He was an unwashed nobody when he walked up to the king and
started making demands.

As to the claim of "prince" the story has it he was adopted by a daughter of
the king. The status of prince NEVER passed to the children of daughters even
if not adopted. Again the bible story is wrong about Egypt.

So how do you explain the bible being all wrong about Egypt?

[quote] Can you explain why the god-king of Egypt would have priests in his
court like a Babylonian king when he was the chief priest of all Egypt?

Whether you have a Chief Priest or a God-King, or both in one person, that
rather implies that other, lesser, priests will also be around. Ancient
Egypt seems to have abounded in priests - whole hierarchies of them, along
with a plethora of deities each with a cohort of priests, one of whom in
each hierarchy might well be described as 'Chief Priest' - particularly by
someone sceptical of the Pharaoh>s nature and status.
[/quote]
Attempts to make it appear plausible are not of interest. I am talking about
the real make up of the courts of Egypt and Babylon.

Then you can explain the REAL magic the priests performed. BTW: Ever see a
snake eating something? They usually time lapse as it is worse than watching
paint dry. The magic snake of Moses ate two snakes while people watched?

--
If abortion is murder the woman should receive
the death penalty.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4074
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8

Whiskers · Guest

On 2008-10-25, Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]Whiskers wrote:
On 2008-10-24, Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
Whiskers wrote:
[/quote]
[...]

[quote]What the Egyptian public inscriptions claim the Egyptians ruled, and the
actual extent and degree of their real power and control, are two different
things.

Archaeological evidence from bibleland and all the way to the
Euphrates shows the Egyptians were not exaggerating at all. They did in
fact rule it.
[/quote]
There are Ancient Egyptian monuments in London and Paris, too. Even if
one allows that the Egyptians themselves built monuments somewhere, that
isn>t evidence of anything beyond the locals not preventing them. There
were undoubtedly local tribes whose 'Egyptian-ness' was no greater than
the 'American-ness' of many tribes in modern Afghanistan - and the
Egyptians didn>t have spy-planes and helicopters and sat-nav, so it would
have been a lot harder for them to really control anything their trusted
officers couldn>t lay hands on. So when the big army with the better
weapons comes through, it>s sensible for the locals to let them get on
with whatever it is they want to do and wait for them to go away again so
that life can return to normal. Possibly with some friction or conflict
when a hot-head gets above his station, giving the Great Power another
battle-honour to claim and another monument to leave behind.

[quote]Just as Biblical claims about the power and might and wealth (and
independence) of the Israelite states may not be a precise record of the
facts on the ground. That doesn>t totally invalidate either version of
history.

There is no archaeological evidence of any biblical Israel
whatsoever.
[/quote]
That>s arguable. But what evidence would be expected or recognised
anyway? A people with unremarkable technology for the period and
deliberately not building permanent temples or alters, isn>t going to
leave distinctive traces in the ground. No matter how inflated the claims
of power and wealth of particular leaders might be. (Inflated claims
being obligatory for most tribal rulers in most periods).

[quote]Therefore its existence is a myth.
[/quote]
A false conclusion. Just because you can>t see something doesn>t mean it
doesn>t exist.

[quote]...

The other examples are not needed as the facts regarding the two are as I
have stated above.

Can you explain how the living god-king of Egypt was flim-flammed
by Abraham

What makes you think anyone was "flim-flammed"?

If you are unfamiliar with Abraham>s racket you can read about it
in Genesis.
[/quote]
So you believe Genesis 12 at face value. Do you believe Genesis 11 too?
Or do you only believe the bits of the Bible that suit you?

(Incidentally, I suspect the Pharaoh who took Sarai 'as his wife' knew
what he was doing - as is revealed when he blames his sin of taking
Abraham>s wife for the famine and sends them both away, with their
new-found wealth).

[quote]and was approached by the smelly goatherd Moses?

Read your Bible. Moses was raised in the Royal household as a Prince of
Egypt.

He was not that when the bible says he returned. It does say he was
a wanted for murder. He was an unwashed nobody when he walked up to the
king and started making demands.
[/quote]
He was still who he had been; just an old man. He was 80 and his brother
Aaron 83 when they spoke to the Pharaoh - who was not the same one as had
been angered by Moses killing his slave-driver all those years before.
It>s false to liken the story of Moses to a modern person being 'wanted
for murder'; the social and legal system was entirely unlike yours or
mine. The two old men were not 'nobodies' in any way; they were tribal
leaders in their own right, as well as at least one of them having been
raised in the Egyptian Royal family. (The tribe he joined, described him
as an Egyptian - not as a Hebrew or a slave).

[quote] As to the claim of "prince" the story has it he was adopted by a
daughter of the king. The status of prince NEVER passed to the children
of daughters even if not adopted. Again the bible story is wrong about
Egypt.

So how do you explain the bible being all wrong about Egypt?
[/quote]
The Egyptian Royal family was heavily inbred; marriage between siblings
and between parents and their own offspring was the norm. That was how
the divine seed was supposedly preserved. A child raised by a daughter
of a Pharaoh was next-thing to being a God.

The only gripe I have with the Bible>s Egyptian references, is that the
names and dates that would provide a firm link to the Egyptian records,
are missing. But that>s just what you get with things written 'in the
moment' - those there at the time knew that sort of stuff, and sadly
didn>t think of posterity wanting to assign 'absolute' dates to anything.

[quote] Can you explain why the god-king of Egypt would have priests in his
court like a Babylonian king when he was the chief priest of all Egypt?

Whether you have a Chief Priest or a God-King, or both in one person, that
rather implies that other, lesser, priests will also be around. Ancient
Egypt seems to have abounded in priests - whole hierarchies of them, along
with a plethora of deities each with a cohort of priests, one of whom in
each hierarchy might well be described as 'Chief Priest' - particularly by
someone sceptical of the Pharaoh>s nature and status.

Attempts to make it appear plausible are not of interest. I am
talking about the real make up of the courts of Egypt and Babylon.
[/quote]
I think it>s silly to claim that there would be no priests in the courts
of a God-king in a land where priests, and Gods, were rife. Are there no
priests in the Vatican?

[quote] Then you can explain the REAL magic the priests performed. BTW:
Ever see a snake eating something? They usually time lapse as it is worse
than watching paint dry. The magic snake of Moses ate two snakes while
people watched?
[/quote]
Magic tricks were the stock in trade of all ancient pagan priests.
Perhaps James Randi would be a better person to ask for explanations of
such things - supposing that it>s posible to determine exactly what people
there at the time might actually have experienced. Moses and Aaron might
well have been privy to all sorts of 'secret knowledge' or 'divine power'
not revealed to the common people. But doing magic tricks to impress the
crowd doesn>t really amount to anything beyond using what you have to get
people to do or think what you want - something you can experience at any
political 'rally' or any riot (and in some religious meetings too).

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Archaeology Forum	Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2