Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(02-05-2013 01:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-05-2013 08:16 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This is a great idea. We should devise a system of crazy "weight" classes.

featherweight = someone who is just too skeptical

middleweight = minor conspiracy theorists

middle-heavy = conspiracy theorists/cryptozoologists

heavy = theists

super heavy = fundamentalists

gargantuan = fucking nutters

Black hole = Ego®

Suggested modifications:

featherweight = someone who is just too credulous

bantamweight = deist/pantheist/New Age

lightweight = minor conspiracy theorists/crypto-zoologists

welterweight = conspiracy theorists

cruiserweight = theists

heavyweight = fundamentalists

cage fighters = fucking nutters

[Image: tumblr_mlxw87LlGp1rzianao1_500.gif]

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
02-05-2013, 06:06 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(02-05-2013 07:47 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:If you imply that a prophesy is something spiritual, you are much mistaken. I have prophecised many things correctly, including the recent economic crash, the failure of the Euro, the failure of the world to warm catastrophically, and the utter refusal of President Assad to give up his position. Does that make me a prophet of 'god', or just very astute?
And I predicted the restoration of unified Germany, based on my Bible studies. So what?

The Bible predicts to the day the restoration of secular Israel and the crucifixion of Jesus. The HB says of Jesus:

*Born of a virgin
*Die with wrist and feet pierces
*Etc.

Your prophecies and mine can't hold a candle there, sorry.

Please stop reminding everyone how ignorant you are. Go read some history about the gospels.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
03-05-2013, 08:55 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(02-05-2013 08:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-05-2013 07:47 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  And I predicted the restoration of unified Germany, based on my Bible studies. So what?

The Bible predicts to the day the restoration of secular Israel and the crucifixion of Jesus. The HB says of Jesus:

*Born of a virgin
*Die with wrist and feet pierces
*Etc.

Your prophecies and mine can't hold a candle there, sorry.

I'm having a hard time deciding who's nuttier, PleaseJesus or RalphEllis.Consider

But Ralph is cool. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
06-05-2013, 02:23 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(03-05-2013 08:55 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(02-05-2013 08:04 AM)Chas Wrote:  I'm having a hard time deciding who's nuttier, PleaseJesus or RalphEllis.Consider

But Ralph is cool. Tongue


A cool nutter. Is that vaguely a compliment? At least I don't make up prophesies after the event. If that was allowable, I would make a killing on the stockmarket.

Besides, everything I say is true. Whether you believe that I have joined up the historical dots in the correct fashion is up to you to decide. But the facts are there for all to see and read.

And talking of facts several challenges were made by academics regarding my assertion that the principality known as Adiabene was, in fact, a reference to Edessa. However, rather than destroying my arguments, the references cited actually reinforce this new assessment of Romo-Syriac history. But if Adiabene was Edessa, then the royal family who started the Jewish Revolt in AD 68 must have been the Edessan monarch of that era: King Izas-Manu VI.** However, my previous books have already proved that the minor revolt that the biblical Jesus was involved in was the Jewish Revolt. Ergo, the biblical King Jesus must have been King Izas-Manu VI of Edessa.

The new sections in v4.4 are reproduced here:
http://www.edfu-books.com/update1.html

And this certainly makes a great deal more sense than the Roman version of these eastern campaigns. And it also makes a great deal more sense than the sugar-coated biblical narrative.



** Josephus Flavius calls this king Izas.


.
Find all posts by this user
06-05-2013, 10:05 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
.

Quote:Isn't it plausible that some biblical 'mythical' figures can also be traced to real people?


Of course they can.

You just have to decide what a myth is. Is it a complete fiction, written for pleasure or profit, or is it something deliberately mis-written as a fantasy? The latter is a distinct possibility, if a powerful lobby (ie: the Church) threatens you with a horrible death if you say the wrong things.

Thus many mythologies may well be based upon historical facts that were now taboo. I think the King Arthur legend is one of those taboo mythologies. And another is the Adam and Eve story.



So who were Adam and Eve?

a. Well, Eden was in Egypt. We know this because the river ran through Eden and split into four branches. (Gen 2:10) Only one river in this region did this - the Nile.

b. But if you read the Genesis story, it is clear that this is a copy of the Hymn to the Aten (Hymn to the Aden), by Pharoh Akhenaton.

c. Thus the Garden of Eden was the Garden of Aden - the garden dedicated to the Aten-god in Amarna.

d. This is why the Hebrew god is called Adhon.

e. This is why Adam and Eve were said to be naked in the Garden. If you look at any imagery from Amarna, Akhenaton and Nefertiti are always shown near-naked or naked.

f. But when Amarna (Eden) collapsed and they were evicted, they would indeed have had to put on some clothes.

g. So Adam and Eve were actually Pharaoh Akhenaton and Queen Nefertiti.

h. Which is why the Nazarene (of Jesus) venerated the 'Primaeval Adam' as a 'hermaphrodite'.

i. As you may have noticed, Pharaoh Akhenaton was always depicted as being not exactly gender neutral, but more a pseudohermaphrodite.

j. Thus the Nazarene venerated Pharaoh Akhenaton. Which is interesting, because if this is so it implies that the true identity of Adam and Eve was known in the 1st century.




So who was King Arthur?

a. My analysis of Romo-biblical history indicates that King Jesus (King Izas of Adiabene-Edessa) was exiled to England in AD 70.

b. In Chester, the Romans built a 'prison fortress' in AD 72 called Dewa, which contained a Temple of Pisces (based upon the Vesica Piscis).

c. This Temple of Pisces is unique in the Roman Empire, and was the most prestigious building in England at the time.

d. The sect that venerated Pisces (the fish) was Christianity. These were the Fishers of Men whose symbol was the Vesica Piscis.

e. So the only sect who would want a Temple of Pisces (in a 'prison fortress) were the exiled leader(s) of the Jewish Revolt - who was King Izas.

f. But mentioning that Jesus was alive in the AD 70s in England was, well, akin to committing suicide - on a bonfire.

g. So an alternative mythology was essential for self-preservation. But what sort of mythology?

h. Ah, I know. King Jesus and the 12 armed disciples of the Last Supper Table could become ..... err ..... King Arthur and the 12 knights of the Round Table.

i. (The Vulgate Cycle says that the Round Table was a copy of the Last Supper Table, and the symbolism of the knights was based upon the symbolism of the disciples.)

j. But the symbolism of the Round (Last Supper) Table was based upon the 1st century Hamat Teverya zodiac in Galilee (which is a precessional zodiac).

k. Thus Jesus and the 12 disciples (or Arthur and his 12 knights) are merely the Sun (of God) surrounded by the 12 constellations on a circular 'table'.

l. So Jesus originally sat in the center of this symbolic Round (Last Supper) Zodiac Table, surrounded by his 12 disciple-constellations.

m. But why the name-change from King Izas to 'King Arthur'.

n. Well, a zodiac has two views - solar or celestial - the center of the zodiac is either the Sun (of God) or the northern stars of the celestial pole.

o. But the constellation of the northern celestial pole is Ursa Major, the Great Bear. But the Great Bear is called Arktos in Greek (meaning bear).

p. It is from the Greek Arktos (bear) that the Latin Arctus (north) the English Arctic (north) and the Celtic Art-fawr (Arthur-bear) were derived.

q. So the center of the Round (Last Supper) Zodiac Table can either be occupied by the Sun (of God), with his solar halo, or by Arthur (the Great Bear).

r. Ergo, King Izas (King Jesus) became the mythologized King Arthur.

s. And if you look at the Vulgate Cycle, most of the events take place in the 1st century, not the 6th century.

t. So now you were safe. You could wax lyrical about King Arthur and his daring battles with the Romans (in the 6th century?!?), and nobody could touch you. And the fact that you were talking about King Izas (King Jesus) fighting the Jewish Revolt against the Romans in Judaea, was only known to a select few initiates.



.
Find all posts by this user
06-05-2013, 10:10 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(06-05-2013 02:23 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Besides, everything I say is true. Whether you believe that I have joined up the historical dots in the correct fashion is up to you to decide. But the facts are there for all to see and read.

You are an arrogant buffoon. You make shit up. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
06-05-2013, 01:50 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
.
(06-05-2013 10:10 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are an arrogant buffoon. You make shit up. Drinking Beverage


Is that an argument, a rebuttal, or a capitulation?

Oh, and which bits, exactly, were fabricated?


.
Find all posts by this user
01-01-2014, 08:13 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
Don't know if anyone is still following this thread in any capacity, but I just came across this, and the unmitigated buffoonery of this post made me laugh out loud. Ralph asks for an argument or rebuttal, and I'm happy to provide one or two.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Of course they can.

You just have to decide what a myth is. Is it a complete fiction, written for pleasure or profit, or is it something deliberately mis-written as a fantasy? The latter is a distinct possibility, if a powerful lobby (ie: the Church) threatens you with a horrible death if you say the wrong things.

Ain't that the truth.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  Thus many mythologies may well be based upon historical facts that were now taboo.

A "mythology" is a studying of myth, not the myth itself. You mean "many myths." I think you may need to learn more about what a myth is before you start pontificating to others.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  I think the King Arthur legend is one of those taboo mythologies.

Yeah, we all know how people who make movies about it and get it wrong keep getting murdered.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  And another is the Adam and Eve story.

Holy Hanna.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  So who were Adam and Eve?

a. Well, Eden was in Egypt. We know this because the river ran through Eden and split into four branches. (Gen 2:10) Only one river in this region did this - the Nile.

The Nile does not split into four branches, it becomes an enormous and ever-changing delta that has two main distributaries and dozens of much smaller ones, and the geography is changing all the time because of silting, flood control, etc. Additionally, the Euphrates is one branch, another goes around the whole of Ethiopia, a third goes toward Assyria, and the fourth is described as going around a land full of gold that is located by other biblical authors in the Arabian peninsula. The notion that the Nile qualifies as that river coming out of Eden on the basis alone of having "branches" is sheer and utter nonsense.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  b. But if you read the Genesis story, it is clear that this is a copy of the Hymn to the Aten (Hymn to the Aden), by Pharoh Akhenaton.

It is absolutely no such thing whatsoever. The Hymn to Aten can be read here, and while Ps 104 has very clear connections to the hymn and to its divine imagery, Genesis 1 has absolutely nothing at all to do with it. The oblique references to the creative activity of a singular deity are in no way unique to either the hymn or to Genesis 1. The Great Hymn to Amun-Re has more in common with Genesis 1 than the Hymn to Aten, but no one in their right mind would ever suggest the two texts come from the same source.

Next, the similar appearance of Aten and Eden in English transliteration is about the most pathetic argument one could ever come up with for suggesting they're conceptually related. The Egyptian jtn is a proper name for the sun disc, a deity in Egyptian mythology that was promoted by Aten (Tutankhamun's dad) as the only actual deity (to the dismay and persecution of priests and priesthoods of other deities). The Hebrew Eden (עדן) comes from an entirely different language family (Afro-Asiatic v. Northwest Semitic) and means "delight," or "pleasure," and is related to the Ugaritic 'dn, which refers to a well-watered place. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Egyptian word transliterated Aten.

This is another connection that you've conjured up entirely in your mind.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  c. Thus the Garden of Eden was the Garden of Aden - the garden dedicated to the Aten-god in Amarna.

Of course, the Hebrew language didn't even exist during the very short period of Amarna's administrative centrality, and there's absolutely nothing at all in the text or the language of Genesis 1 that is even remotely reminiscent of the ideology, the language, or the literary stylings of the Amarna period.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  d. This is why the Hebrew god is called Adhon.

More pure and utter nonsense. The Hebrew god is never called "Adhon," but rather adonai. Also, the singular term "adhon" is the generic word for "Lord" in Hebrew, and is used in the singular only to refer to secular "Lords." The form used to refer to God is the frozen honorific form adonai.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  e. This is why Adam and Eve were said to be naked in the Garden. If you look at any imagery from Amarna, Akhenaton and Nefertiti are always shown near-naked or naked.

Uh, no. It's hot in Egypt, if you were not already aware, and Egyptians have, throughout their history, represented themselves with appropriate clothing. Additionally, the Amarna period is also characterized by a revolution in artistic styles (see here). The canon of forward facing idealized torsos and sideways facing feet and heads was done away with in favor of more rounded and less idealized figures. This is why the women and the men have similarly shaped stomachs and elongated faces.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  f. But when Amarna (Eden) collapsed and they were evicted, they would indeed have had to put on some clothes.

They were evicted? What leads you to believe such individuals would have been evicted? They would have been killed along with anyone else who refused to return to the old Amun-Re system.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  g. So Adam and Eve were actually Pharaoh Akhenaton and Queen Nefertiti.

Yeah, the Amarna period ended after they both died. That's why it ended: the king, who promoted the changes, died.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  h. Which is why the Nazarene (of Jesus) venerated the 'Primaeval Adam' as a 'hermaphrodite'.

Pure and utter nonsense. Nowhere is this suggested.

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  i. As you may have noticed, Pharaoh Akhenaton was always depicted as being not exactly gender neutral, but more a pseudohermaphrodite.

A "pseudohermaphrodite"? I guess you didn't bother reading anything about Amarna period art, did you?

(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  j. Thus the Nazarene venerated Pharaoh Akhenaton. Which is interesting, because if this is so it implies that the true identity of Adam and Eve was known in the 1st century.

No, that's not the "true identity" of Adam and Eve, and that has absolutely nothing to do with any conceptualization of Adam and Eve that has ever occurred anywhere outside of your noggin.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like maklelan's post
01-01-2014, 02:20 PM (This post was last modified: 01-01-2014 02:32 PM by ralphellis.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(01-01-2014 08:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  A "mythology" is a studying of myth, not the myth itself. You mean "many myths." I think you may need to learn more about what a myth is before you start pontificating to others.


Err, where did you get that from?
A mythology is defined as 'a collection of myths'. And the plural is mythologies.
And this is from one of your American dictionaries, so there is no excuse for you not knowing this !!!!

Dictionary quote:
mythology noun ( pl. mythologies )
1. a collection of myths, esp. one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition:


Not a good start, McClellan, not a good start. I hope you will improve as we go along…..



(01-01-2014 08:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  "King Arthur taboo"
Yeah, we all know how people who make movies about it and get it wrong keep getting murdered.

Well actually, it must be taboo, otherwise you would not be trying to make fun of it.

Two down, McClellan.




(01-01-2014 08:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  The Nile does not split into four branches, it becomes an enormous and ever-changing delta

The original names for the six branches of the Nile are the: Pelusiac, Saitic, Mendesian, Sebennytic, Rosetta and Canopic

But by the New Kingdom era, there were only four main branches, and these are the four branches of the Genesis story.

Three down, McClellan.



(01-01-2014 08:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  It is absolutely no such thing whatsoever. The Hymn to Aten can be read here, and while Ps 104 has very clear connections to the hymn and to its divine imagery, Genesis 1 has absolutely nothing at all to do with it.

Actually, they are quite similar. But you don't want them to be similar, McClellan, do you - because this was never mentioned in the Book of Mormon, was it? Anything to bolster the faith, eh?

Some of the many similarities are in a following post.

Four down, McClellan.



(01-01-2014 08:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Next, the similar appearance of Aten and Eden in English transliteration is about the most pathetic argument one could ever come up with

Actually, if you bothered to compare these languages, instead of regurgitating stale old academic material, you will find that Aramaic is a daughter language of Egyptian. Try reading: Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, by James Hoch
And Wallis Budge found another 250 Egyptian words in Coptic and Hebrew.

But even this dry old text tries by Hoch to convince us that these are Hebrew loan words in Egyptian. Err, no. The Israelites lived in Egypt for 400 years, according to Josephus, do you not think they might have spoken the same language after all that time? (Or adopted and assimilated so many words they became almost the same?) Most of what I speak is either French, Latin or Dutch - but I call my language English all the same.

Same goes for Hebrew, after 400 years in Egypt. In which case, these are actually Egyptian loan words in Hebrew.

Five down, McClellan. Not doing too well, are we?


(01-01-2014 08:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Of course, the Hebrew language didn't even exist during the very short period of Amarna's administrative centrality, and there's absolutely nothing at all in the text or the language of Genesis 1 that is even remotely reminiscent of the ideology, the language, or the literary stylings of the Amarna period.

Nothing? You mean nothing, as in:

Both inventing monotheism.
Both inventing an essentially invisible, non-anthropomorphic god.
Both being iconoclasts who destroyed the statues of old the gods.
Both having a god called Adon.
Both having temples facing the dawn Sun.
Both having curly side-locks of hair.
Both wearing earrings.
Both being circumcised.
Both indulging in incest.

And according to Manetho, via Josephus.
Both being banished to the eastbank of the Nile.
Both having 'maimed priests' (ie: non-conformist priests)
Both making bricks for the pharaoh.
etc: etc: etc:

Six down, McClellan.




(01-01-2014 08:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  More pure and utter nonsense. The Hebrew god is never called "Adhon," but rather adonai. Also, the singular term "adhon" is the generic word for "Lord" in Hebrew, and is used in the singular only to refer to secular "Lords." The form used to refer to God is the frozen honorific form adonai.


Which is, of course, complete bulldust. The term Adown (Nwda) is used for God on at least a dozen occasions, as it is here in Jos 3:11, where the Ark is called the Ark of the Covenant of Adon. You should try reading the Tanakh in the Hebrew.


Jos 3:11
Ndryb Mkynpl rbe Urah-lk Nwda tyrbh Nwra hnh (from the Leningrad MS B19A manuscript).
Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan. (King James)

Try also Zec 4:14, where he is called the Adon of the whole world.

Seven down, McClellan. Not doing too well, are we?



(01-01-2014 08:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  e. This is why Adam and Eve were said to be naked in the Garden. If you look at any imagery from Amarna, Akhenaton and Nefertiti are always shown near-naked or naked.

Uh, no. It's hot in Egypt, if you were not already aware, and Egyptians have, throughout their history, represented themselves with appropriate clothing.

This is why the women and the men have similarly shaped stomachs and elongated faces.


Err, no, they were often portrayed as being naked.


[Image: akhnaton-statue-nude.jpg] [Image: Nefertiti_Standing.jpg]




And this has nothing to do with climate. Do you think the modern wife of the Egyptian president (if they had one) would be shown naked like this? No.

And this was revolutionary even for the New Kingdom era, which is why it was remarked upon in the Book of Genesis.


And the long faces and wide hips were displayed because that is how the gods were supposed to look like. All the Amarna princes and princesses were cone-heads, just like the cone-heads of Central America - because the gods were cone-heads. Why do you think the Central Americans were doing the same as the Egyptians, eh? Because they just fancied it?


[Image: skull2c.jpg?pictureId=18585661] [Image: cone_head_NEW.jpg]

So which is Egyptian, and which is Central American? Please do tell.


Eight down, McClellan.




(01-01-2014 08:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  They were evicted? What leads you to believe such individuals would have been evicted? They would have been killed along with anyone else who refused to return to the old Amun-Re system.

Show me any evidence for the death of Akhenaton or Kiyah at Amarna. You cannot do it, can you. So why say this, as if it is a fact. As usual, you are making this all up as you go along, because you don't want to find any equivalence between Egypt (Amarna) and the Israelites.

Conversely, Manetho says the people evacuated Amarna, and were resettled in Avaris for a number of years, before another pharaoh pushed them out of Avaris.


Nine down, McClellan.









(01-01-2014 08:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  Yeah, the Amarna period ended after they both died. That's why it ended: the king, who promoted the changes, died.

No, the Amarna era ended when Akhenaton and Kiyah were evicted from Amarna to to Avaris, as Manetho clearly states.


Ten down, McClellan. Not doing too well, are we?




(01-01-2014 08:13 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 10:05 AM)ralphellis Wrote:  h. Which is why the Nazarene (of Jesus) venerated the 'Primaeval Adam' as a 'hermaphrodite'.

Pure and utter nonsense. Nowhere is this suggested.



The Nazarene were said to venerate a hemaphrodite:
Quote:
These (Naasseni or Nazarene) magnify ... a man and a son of man. And this man is a hermaphrodite, and is called among them Adam ... (he) has been emasculated, that is, he has passed over from the earthly parts of the nether world to the everlasting substance above, where, he says, there is neither female or male, but a new creature, a new man, which is hermaphrodite. (Hippolytus)


And Jesus was clearly called a Nazarene - which is why he had long hair. (And Queen Helene was a Nazarene too.)
It was because he was a Nazarene that Jesus asked the disciples to become eunuchs:
Quote:
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Math 19:12

Eleven down, McClellan. I think you hit the jackpot there…. ;-)




You really need to read up a little more on the Amarna era, Manetho, and the Tanakh. You might lean something. But then, as a devout Mormon, you probably don't want any of these ancient biblical texts analyzed or criticized, do you? As you said once before - its all true. And that was after analyzing and criticizing ancient text after ancient text, and yet when it came to the gospels suddenly it was all true.

Sad but true.


Ralph
Find all posts by this user
01-01-2014, 03:51 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Err, where did you get that from?
A mythology is defined as 'a collection of myths'. And the plural is mythologies.

This is one definition, but that usage refers abstractly to a corpus in circulation within a given culture. Thus, to say "many mythologies may well be based upon historical facts that were now taboo," is to comment about a culture's entire mythical corpus, which is never so monolithic as to be based on a discrete number of "historical facts" that have grown "taboo."

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  And this is from one of your American dictionaries, so there is no excuse for you not knowing this !!!!

I suggest you don't worry about what I know and start focusing more on making sure you actually know what you're claiming to know.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Well actually, it must be taboo, otherwise you would not be trying to make fun of it.

A ludicrous false analogy. I'm making fun of the factoids you keep making up and trying to pass off as legitimate, not the Arthur tradition.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  The original names for the six branches of the Nile are the: Pelusiac, Saitic, Mendesian, Sebennytic, Rosetta and Canopic But by the New Kingdom era, there were only four main branches, and these are the four branches of the Genesis story.

Completely and totally false. Pliny claimed it had seven main distributaries in antiquity, and not only are there dozens of smaller distributaries, but not a single one in any way, shape, or form resembles the descriptions from Genesis. The only similarity would be the number, and even there you have to reject the facts and just assert falsehoods just to make the numbers match. I hope you see how completely and totally useless such an argument is.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Actually, they are quite similar.

Uh, no, they're not, and you cannot even begin to show otherwise (as is abundantly clear by your refusal to do so here).

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  But you don't want them to be similar, McClellan, do you - because this was never mentioned in the Book of Mormon, was it? Anything to bolster the faith, eh?

Absolutely don't care about bolstering any faith at all. As I've pointed out directly to you numerous times, only to have you ignore me and continue to assert just the opposite, my scholarship flatly undermines any Judeo-Christian faiths far, far more than it ever supports them.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Some of the many similarities are in a following post.

Like, they both have the word "God," and they both refer to creation?

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Actually, if you bothered to compare these languages,

Ralph, you and I both know that you know absolutely jack about these languages. Don't pretend otherwise. You also know that I have years of formal training in these languages. Don't try to go down this road.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  instead of regurgitating stale old academic material, you will find that Aramaic is a daughter language of Egyptian.

Absolutely and totally false.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Try reading: Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, by James Hoch
And Wallis Budge found another 250 Egyptian words in Coptic and Hebrew.

Borrowings (which commonly happen when two different languages are in sustained and close contact) do not indicate anything other than borrowings, Ralph. The English word "tortilla" is a borrowing from Spanish, but English is not a "daughter language" of Spanish. The Hebrew word אוניברסיטת is a borrowing from the English, but Modern Hebrew is not a "daughter language" of English. If you bothered to learn anything at all about languages, you would know this already. And for the love of all that is decent and good in this universe, please don't waste everyone's time trying to talk down to me about ancient languages. You know very well, Ralph, that the things you claim to be able to show are scorching by so far over your head you cannot even see the contrails. You're not a linguist. Don't pretend to be one.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  But even this dry old text tries by Hoch to convince us that these are Hebrew loan words in Egyptian. Err, no. The Israelites lived in Egypt for 400 years, according to Josephus,

Who was just trying to come up with a nice round number that fit his assumptions about the symmetry of historical chronology. There is no evidence whatsoever that Hebrew was used in Egypt on anything approaching a widespread level, and certainly not that it was taking place prior to around the time of the Sea Peoples. The use of the Northwest Semitic script does not indicate the presence of Hebrew, Ralph.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  do you not think they might have spoken the same language after all that time? (Or adopted and assimilated so many words they became almost the same?) Most of what I speak is either French, Latin or Dutch - but I call my language English all the same.

Same goes for Hebrew, after 400 years in Egypt. In which case, these are actually Egyptian loan words in Hebrew.

Five down, McClellan. Not doing too well, are we?

No, you're not doing too well at all. You're making am monstrous mockery of my profession and of your own education.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Nothing? You mean nothing, as in:

Both inventing monotheism.

No, neither invented monotheism, and I wager you don't even have a good idea of what monotheism is, much less what Akhenaten or Genesis 1 promote.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Both inventing an essentially invisible, non-anthropomorphic god.

Genesis nowhere promotes a non-anthropomorphic and invisible god.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Both being iconoclasts who destroyed the statues of old the gods.

Neither were iconoclasts. Akhenaten destroyed statues dedicated to individuals he didn't want honored, just like numerous pharaohs before him, and numerous pharaohs after. Akhenaten was demonstrably not iconoclastic. Nor does Genesis promote anything remotely approximating iconoclasm.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Both having a god called Adon.

As I have pointed out, this is a complete and utter falsehood, and you will never be able to counter that with anything other than "Nu-uh!" Go ahead. Try to prove me wrong with something that's not a naked assertion.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Both having temples facing the dawn Sun.

As did temples across the ancient Near East, Asia, and the Americas. The rising sun had a way of leaving an impression on worshippers the world over, Ralph. It's not unique to Akhenaten and Genesis.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Both having curly side-locks of hair.
Both wearing earrings.
Both being circumcised.
Both indulging in incest.

More meaningless vagaries and falsehoods that have absolutely nothing to do with Genesis 1–2.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  And according to Manetho, via Josephus.

So we know it's true, right? Tell me, what is your position on Gmirkin's treatment of Manetho and Josephus? I ask this knowing you have no idea what he had to say. The rhetorical point is to highlight huge and gaping holes in your research and show that what you think you know about these topics is less than what most scholars out there have forgotten about them. But go ahead and good Gmirkin and come back with a flippant and fallacious dismissal.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Which is, of course, complete bulldust. The term Adown (Nwda) is used for God on at least a dozen occasions, as it is here in Jos 3:11, where the Ark is called the Ark of the Covenant of Adon. You should try reading the Tanakh in the Hebrew.

You caught me working from memory. You're correct that adon is occasionally used in reference to God in the singular, but this doesn't at all corroborate the entirely asinine notion that it has anything at all to do with the Egyptian Aten, which is completely unrelated. Also, you'll remember that I've forgotten more about Hebrew than you'll ever know. I even invited you to show me that you had the most rudimentary understanding of the Hebrew language, and you shied away like a scared little squirrel. Don't pretend you know Hebrew, Ralph. No one here or anywhere else believes it.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  And this has nothing to do with climate. Do you think the modern wife of the Egyptian president (if they had one) would be shown naked like this? No.

The Egyptian president also wears suits and ties, Ralph. That comparison is ludicrous. Nudity was not taboo back then, and it proves absolutely nothing.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  And this was revolutionary even for the New Kingdom era, which is why it was remarked upon in the Book of Genesis.

And where is that, exactly?

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  And the long faces and wide hips were displayed because that is how the gods were supposed to look like.

Funny that it's also how your average humans were displayed. Ralph, you're just making crap up again. Scholarship isn't a game of just making up explanations and then asserting they're true.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  All the Amarna princes and princesses were cone-heads, just like the cone-heads of Central America - because the gods were cone-heads.

Holy crap. You cannot possible be serious. You're going to appeal to that garbage? You really haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Why do you think the Central Americans were doing the same as the Egyptians, eh? Because they just fancied it?

You really have never read anything at all about parallelomania or the psychology of religion, have you? Nothing from Eliade or Jung? Artificial cranial deformation has taken place in numerous cultures, ancient and modern, around the world. They're not genetically connected. You have to actually research, Ralph, not just make stuff up.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  So which is Egyptian, and which is Central American? Please do tell.

The one on the left is Egyptian and the skull on the right is an artificially deformed skull that could be from numerous places, including modern day Vanuatu.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Show me any evidence for the death of Akhenaton or Kiyah at Amarna.

A body found in tomb K55 in the Valley of the Kings was genetically tested in 2010 and shown both to be the father of Tutankhamun and the son of Amenhotep III. It's also been dated to the time of the traditional time of Akhenaten's death, in the 17th year of his reign. Also, an inscription discovered 13 months ago puts Akhenaten in Amarna overseeing building projects right before his death.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  You cannot do it, can you. So why say this, as if it is a fact. As usual, you are making this all up as you go along, because you don't want to find any equivalence between Egypt (Amarna) and the Israelites.

No, I would be tickled pink to find such connections, I just rely on evidence and facts rather than my imagination.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Conversely, Manetho says the people evacuated Amarna, and were resettled in Avaris for a number of years, before another pharaoh pushed them out of Avaris.

And Manetho was writing a thousand years after the fact and didn't really have the most stringent historical methodologies guiding him. That you will take any ancient author at their word if, and only if, it supports your assumptions is quite telling.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  No, the Amarna era ended when Akhenaton and Kiyah were evicted from Amarna to to Avaris, as Manetho clearly states.

Maybe you need to learn what critical thinking and historiography are.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  The Nazarene were said to venerate a hemaphrodite:
Quote:
These (Naasseni or Nazarene) magnify ... a man and a son of man. And this man is a hermaphrodite, and is called among them Adam ... (he) has been emasculated, that is, he has passed over from the earthly parts of the nether world to the everlasting substance above, where, he says, there is neither female or male, but a new creature, a new man, which is hermaphrodite. (Hippolytus)

Hippolytus is describing a Gnostic sect, not first century followers of Jesus.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  And Jesus was clearly called a Nazarene - which is why he had long hair. (And Queen Helene was a Nazarene too.)

And you're, again, just connecting similar-looking words based on nothing but your overactive imagination and naivety.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  It was because he was a Nazarene that Jesus asked the disciples to become eunuchs:
Quote:
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Math 19:12

That's rhetoric, Ralph. C'mon, this is fundie Christian-level scholarship you're doing.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  You really need to read up a little more on the Amarna era, Manetho, and the Tanakh.

I promise you I've read more than you ever will, and I actually have the ability to understand it.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  You might lean something. But then, as a devout Mormon, you probably don't want any of these ancient biblical texts analyzed or criticized, do you?

Actually I criticize them heavily, as I've pointed out to you numerous times. As is the case with unthinking and ignorant dogmatism, you're just ignoring the facts and reasserting your assumptions because that way things make sense to you.

(01-01-2014 02:20 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  As you said once before - its all true. And that was after analyzing and criticizing ancient text after ancient text, and yet when it came to the gospels suddenly it was all true.

Sad but true.

Ralph, this is one of the most stunningly ignorant and pathetic attempts I've ever seen to try to conjure up evidence out of nothing for an egomaniacally idiotic constellation of claims that have no basis in reality. You've managed to provide no evidence for anything substantial and have provided nothing but naked assertions that you can never even begin to try to substantiate.

It makes me depressed to think that there may be people out there naive enough to be fooled into thinking you actually know anything at all about the ancient world and about scholarship. It perverts and twists everything that is good about my profession, and that makes me sad.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: