Note: the following post is in response to Message 501 of Part 1 of this topic
PaulK,
quote:
I note that despite the fact that I have already pointed out that the "molecular frequency generator" does not work (and your source cannot even sell the name of the "inventor" correctly - it's "Hieronymous")you still post this pseudo-scientific nonsense justification.
Perhaps you would like to explain how it still works if the electronic components are replaced by a drawing of the circuit diagram.
Quote exactly where you pointed that the molecular frequency generator does not work? It was the best on in the world back in those days. The man who invented it was renowned, and was even interviewed on CNN. Even the government used it! And what pseudo-scientific nonsense? You act as if someone attacks, there is no way for the defender to defend themselves. Mary Nell has specifically showed the false claims against this machine to be null and void, yet you seem to not acknowledge a defendants right. Your attitude goes contrary to court rules.
This does not even entail the facts that NUMEROUS radar scanners have been employed on the site, ALL outputting the desired results!
quote:
1) Thanks for proving to Hydarnes that you are the one who relies on uncertainty - it is rather amusing to see you appeal to it when you are trying to present evidence FOR your case. However the page you referenced denies your claim that the identification of Amenhotep II is certain (none of the alternate schemes retains that identification and one denies that we have a mummy for Amenhotep II). Your claim that Amenhotep II's mummy is identified with 100% certainty is contradicted by the very article you cited.
Let me reiterate what I originally meant. As for stating there is 100% certainty in the identifications of Amenhotep I and II , I shall recant. My fingers were obviously typing faster than my brain. What I should have said is that of all the mummies of the 18th dynasty, the mummies of Amenhotep I, Amenhotep II, and Tutankhamun are probably the only ones who are the individuals with whom they are connected. Amenhotep I, Amenhotep II, and Thutankhuman were the ONLY mummies that were found in their proper sarcophagi, and were the least tampered withmeaning that they favor more legitimacy over the rest of the mummies. Based on this likelihood, our hypothesis would play right in harmony with this situation. But our hypothesis is not based alone on the mummies or the number of reigning years. It also rests upon other playing factors of which I shall discuss later regarding evidence excavated in Caanan. So stay tuned.
quote:
2) The possible co-regency of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis II is less of a problem for the conventional view which has Tuthmosis II as Pharoah - and not as a co-regent himself. Even if you are right you are not addressing this issue.
Of course they would both not be co-regents together if Thutmosis II was king of Egypt. But that’s not our hypothesis. We feel that the true Thutmosis II was Moses, as indicated by the relationships between Thutmosis II and Hatshepsut as illustrated with Horus, the falcon bird always beside them in descriptions. On top of this, according to Egyptologists, there is evidence that Senmut and Hatshepsut were lovers. We feel that Senmut assumed his new title Thutmosis II and that he was not a feeble person as Egyptologists indicate, since there is a vast amount of confusion as to the identification of his mummy. He only reigned 8/9 years, and then suddenly disappeared (left for Midian). We feel this could be an explanation. But once again, this is all immaterial to disqualifying the Exodus event.
quote:
4) By your comments it appears that you concede that there is no evidence for Wyatt's hypothesis here.
It depends on how either one of us interpret the word evidence. I feel a sufficient amount of evidence supports the fact that there is no real evidence when it comes to resolving the confusion that exists in the 18th dynasty and before. Since there are so many different ways you can make things fit, and since we believe in the authenticity of the sacred scriptures, we feel no less privileged to try and figure out how Egyptian history might fit into these events.
quote:
5) You have to stop assuming Wyatt's views. Under the conventional view Amenhotep II would have been born and raised during Hatshepsut's regency and could easily have picked up his father's bitterness. Or even resented the situation himself. Hatshpesut took over as regent and then proclaimed herself Pharoah even while Tuthmosis III was offically Pharoah - sounds like an usurpation to me.
Perhaps, perhaps not. The only real reason why scholars believe that Hatshepsut was a Pharaoh was based on the inscription king Hatshepsut Xnem Amen/MaatKaRe. They claim that that this is Hatshepsut with further additions to her name. Hatshepsut Xnem Amen means Hatshepsut united with Amen. Amen is the principle god during the 18th dynasty and another name for the sun god (Ra). The name means that the king with this name is the product of Hatshepsut in union with the god Amen, or the offspring of the union between Hatshepsut and the god Amen. We feel that according to this hypothesis, this king, or rather heir to the throne, was Moses with Hatshepsut as his co-ruler. So when someone is appointed heir to the throne, then inscriptions refer to this person as king. Moses would have been very closely connected to Hatshepsut since she was his only link to the to royal family. In order to justify his accession to this elevated position it was important to observe protocol at every step so that Moses would be accepted into the existing system. This had to be done in such way because, Hatshepsut, was the daughter of the Pharaoh of whom had no sons! Remember, a woman COULD NOT embody the gods but could be the wife of a Pharaoh, and if there were no heir, could carry out the functions until an heir had reached a mature age.
quote:
6) If you had done your research you would have seen that one of the sets of dates given by the page you cite for Tuthmosis IV is 1419-1386 (attributed to Wente and van Siclen III) This is about 35 years and the figure used by the source I discovered. Even if you are right there is another problem you have to deal with, that I have raised in another post. The length of reign of successive Pharoahs is not independent - the longer the Pharoah reigns the more likely his successor wil have a shorter reign. This appears to account for the pattern you describe better than Wyatt's hypothesis
But of course, if a Pharaoh reigned a long time, and if it is true he had a co-regent as Thutmosis under him, and as long as he lives as long as the Pharaoh does, the co-ruling Thutmosis would have had recorded a long reign as co-regent. So this too has to be played into the scenario. There are a lot of twists and turns involved here. Scholars traditionally have Amenhotep III reigning from the 1390s to 1350s. That would throw Amenhotep III way out of the time the 1446BC Exodus was supposed to have occurred. However, if you crunch in the Pharaoh’s at least in some form, and not having all the Thutmosis’ and Amenhotep’s be different people, it brings Amenhotep III down to the Exodus period. In an upcoming post, I will provide you data as to why I believe Amenhotep III had to have been in the 1400rds, around the Exodus period, and NOT the 1300rds. Based on this evidence, it forces us to have to crunch the Pharaoh’s together and not consider the Thutmosis’ as separate Pharaohs in the sequential line of succession. This is based on the fact the majority of sources seem to agree that Amenhotep I had to have started is reign approx. 1518 BC. Stay tuned.
quote:
7) I know what you said. Don't insult my intelligence by trying to pretend otherwise.
"Various scenarios all over sources seem to question the successions between the Thutmosis and Amenhoteps, as indicated quite elaborately by Edward F. Wente, Professor, The Oriental Institute, of which presents various schemes of the 18th dynasty successions based on the enormous amount of confusion and contention that persists in identifying the mummies"
You clearly claim that the article questions the order of succession on the basis of identification of the mummies. That is false.
The article states
"From textual sources we know that the second half of the Eighteenth Dynasty line ran from father to son as follows: Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III, Akhenaten. However, a comparison of the craniofacial morphologies of the mummies that have been attributed to these kings would suggest a sequence more like Thutmose III, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep II, Amenhotep III. Obviously something is wrong here, and a possible solution lies in questioning the veracity of the dockets of some of these mummies."
And the article goes on to do just that - it does not reject the order of succession between these Pharoahs at all. The schemes simply reidentify the mummies - they are NOT "schemes of succession" as you said.
But this is not the section I was referring to. I was referring to this:
The mummy that caused me the most consternation is that considered to be Amenhotep II's. Jim's conclusion was that his craniofacial morphology does not suit his being the son of Thutmose III and father of Thutmose IV, both of which Amenhotep II should be on the basis of textual evidence. Jim and I had long debates over this mummy whose identification as Amenhotep II had always seemed fairly certain; because although it had been rewrapped and placed in a replacement cartonnage coffin, this coffin was found lying within the original quartzite sarcophagus of Amenhotep II in his own tomb in the Valley of the Kings, and the restorers had inscribed Amenhotep II's prenomen on the mummy's shroud according to Loret's report of his discovery of the tomb of Amenhotep II.
The craniofacial morphology of the mummy labeled Amenhotep III also made it difficult to place in the position he should occupy as son of Thutmose IV. Of the mummies in the collection only the one supposed to be Amenhotep II is a suitable candidate to have been the father of the Amenhotep III mummy. Over the years Jim became increasingly intrigued by the Amenhotep III mummy, because it is one of the most severely battered of the royal mummies, having suffered postmortem injuries of a very violent nature, more than what tomb-robbers generally inflicted upon the mummies in search of precious items. Since the publication of the x-ray atlas further study of this mummy has been undertaken by Jim and Dr. Fawzia Hussein, Director of the Anthropological Laboratory of the National Research Center, Cairo; and it has been ascertained that the skull is two standard deviations too large for his body, and its craniofacial characteristics are consonant with sculptured portraits of Akhenaten.
Obviously
if Thutmosis III was the same person as Amenhotep II, then of course the craniofacial morphology of Amenhotep II would not suit him being the son of Thutmosis III, now would it? Added to that, the craniofacial morphology does not suit Amenhotep II to be the father of Thutmosis IV, which falls right into our hypothesis, seeing that we have inscriptions that hint he was not a heir to the throne, and did not obtain it in the traditional way. Apparently, if Thutmosis IV was the natural heir to the throne, the story of his dream next to the Sphinx would not have needed to be told. It could be that Amenhotep II was childless. And finally, it is interesting to note that only the mummy of Amenhotep II seems to be the suitable candidate to be the father of Amenhotep III--adding in some
bittersweet to our hypothesis, seeing that if Amenhotep III’s body had been recovered on the seashore (all battered up, JUST like Amenhotep III’s mummy is), this would make perfect sense. But if his mummy drowned and was not recovered, one can only assume this match to be chance (and then this leads one to question how much and why they seem to match). So as you can see, based on the mummies, we feel we have good reason believe our hypothesis to be a prospect in accordance with the Exodus account. This goes in accordance with a great deal of other playing factors in this scenario, such as Egypt’s declining empire exactly right after the reign of Amenhotep III, and calculations revolving the dating of the Exodus.
quote:
8) and 9) Senmuts titles are given on the statues - including those that identify him as tutor to the Pharoah's daughter. And statues identified as Senmut that do not feature Nefure look much like the adult figure in the statues you refer to - unlike the statues of Hatshepsut.
The statues in question are depicted on the follwoing pages:
http://www.maat-ka-ra.de/...h/personen/senenmut/sen_karr.htm
Which also discusses the titles.
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/portraiture/18d.htm
Which also shows two statues of Hatshepsut - which are clearly of a woman - unlike the Senmut statues
And another statue of Senmut without Nefure is here
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
Given this evidence I do not see how Mollers identification can stand. We have an adult who looks like the Senmut of the other statues - and who by his titles must be an adult when the statues were carved.
That the child is dressed as the heir is interesting but far from conclusive - especially as Senmut is clearly not identified as royal while Hatshepsut claimed that she herself was made heir by he father, Thutmosis I. It would not be surprising if she made a similar claim on behalf of her daughter.
In link #1, I do not read anywhere that it is conclusive that the statue without Nefure is Senmut. However, it is difficult to make heads or tales out of it since there are so many different statues, and different versions of Senmut’s end.
In link #2, I have to be honest, but it still flashes through my brain how when I would see the statue of Hatshepsut, she always seemed somewhat manly in form. The breasts are barely distinguished, and do not differ much in the Senmut statues. Then we have the factor that both are wearing male headdresses. The statue of Senmut (of which I think is Nefure) seems to be somewhat less distinguished (but in small margin), which could easily be explained seeing that as the female grew older, she became more distinguished in bodily form as a woman.
In link #3, I believe that statue is probably the statue of Senmut (however the inscription of Senmut has been erased, so this cannot be proven with 100% certainty). The headdress is very similar on the adult holding the child in the adult/child statue. But can we know for certain that this is indicative for the statues being the same person? No.
I do realize that there is plenty of evidence supporting the fact that Nefure was the daughter of Hatshepsut. However, it was not uncommon for mothers to name their daughters after themselves. So we may never know if the Nefure being referred to later during Hatshepsut was the same Nefure. If Hatshepsut named her daughter after herself (Nefureher name before she attained the co-regency position), that could indeed change a lot of things.
quote:
10) If you won't provide the evidence to support your assertions then your assertions are empty. I m certainly not demanding scans - indeed since all your scans seem to be from Moller's book I suggest that you don't bother. I don't consider Moller a reliable source - and see my comments on the next point for one reason why.
Your problem is, your question assumes there is evidence for the traditional chronologywhen that in itself is a hypothesis. The mummy confusion has driven many madresulting in a very pliable history of Egypt. And not all my scans are from Moller’s book. Most of them have been, but I look at Moller’s book as a compilation of sources. A total of 71 References from acclaimed Universities around the globe warrants a serious examination of these finds. You may never know, we may have more like Moller (perhaps with even higher credentials) join us in the not to distant future. If you go to Wyatt’s Newsletters, you will also notice the numerous sources they provide at the ends of their articles.
quote:
11) How has the child been identified as a daughter ? By the text ! You do know that there is a considerable amount of text in that mural.
The following sites discuss the mural:
http://members.tripod.com/~ib205/hatshepsut_temple.html
"Before he leaves, Amun-Re reveals his true nature to Ahmose and then that she will give birth to a daughter who will live to rule Egypt"
So just because she has a daughter means she does not have a son? Remember, she would not have given birth to Moses. She adopted him. If you look at it from this context, it can make a great deal of sense. The inscriptions of a baby boy would make a great deal of sense if she had both a daughter and a adopted son. As if mothers don’t end up having more children!
quote:
被老师抱到没人的地方怎么办,巨爆乳寡妇中文无码,绿巨人麻豆草莓丝瓜秋葵18禁,免费能直接看黄的网站
Amun states
"The time has come for me to father a great king, who shall govern over Egypt, Syria, Nubia and Punt, so that all lands may be united under her rule. Worthy must the maiden be of her great dominions, for she shall rule the whole world."
"Amun-Ra tells Ahmose that she is to bear a daughter, who will be a great king of Egypt and she is to be name Khnemet-Amun Hatshepsut"
This inscription is speaking of the birth of Hatshepsut. It would not be surprising for this inscription to exist in the Deir-el-Bahari, seeing that this is where Hatshepsut grew up. But is this text
specifically referring to the painting of the boy child growing up? Is there proof that the inscription is a description of that particular painting? It would seem hardly impossible seeing that we have paintings in other sections in the Deir-el-Bahari of Hatshepsut holding a
boy child in her arms.
quote:
And a number of sites confirm that it is Hatshepsut's birth that is depicted.
Egypt: Deir el-Bahri, Valley of the Kings, Luxor, A Feature Tour Egypt Story
"...on the north side of this portico are depicted the birth scenes showing Hatshepsut’s divine conception as daughter of Amun himself."
What sort of jelly beans is this? What they say and what may be are two different things. This is a complete assertion with no real backing. There is no confirmation here about anything. It has already been established that many traditional Egyptologists claim the one who made the inscription was confused. We disagree. We believe there is some meaning behind what we see. If this had been an error, it seems that this surely would have been pointed out by those inhabiting the Deir-el-Bahari at the time. It just doesn’t seem right that it would have gone that long without someone pointing it out and not changing it.
quote:
http://www.egyptsites.co.uk/...es/hatshepsut/hatshepsut.html
"In the northern portico we see scenes of the queen establishing her right to rule by illustrating her divine birth. The reliefs are shallow and not well-preserved, but show the divine union of Hatshepsut's mother Ahmose with Amun"
Once again, the only error that exists could well be the identification of this painting as an error.
quote:
Please support your claim that women changed their names in a way that could permit the mothers of Thutmosis I and Amenhotep I to be the same woman.
And please support your claim that they did not. It has been known throughout Egyptian history that individuals had multiple names associated with themselves throughout their lives. There is vast confusion when we solely rely on namesforcing us to integrate dates to see whether it all makes sense or not. Egyptian history is messed up big-time in many respects, there is no sin with inferring different ideas concerning the dynastiesand how it could tie in with the Exodus.
quote:
And you mistake the reason for lookiing at the claimed rewrite of Egyptian history. Nobody has made the claim that it destroys the Exodus. It does call into qustion the dating of the (alleged) chariot wheels. But then nobody here has claimed that proving those were nothing to do with the Exodus would be a disproof of the Exodus itself either.
I’m glad to see you acknowledge that. You at first gave me the impression that it did destroy the Exodus. It’s comforting to know that you really do not think that. There are most likely several variations of the 18th dynasty that we are not aware ofbut out of all this, there are two ideas of which I hold to firmly:
1. That the Exodus took place in the 18th dynasty
2. That Amenhotep III was the Pharaoh of the Exodus
These ideas are not based solely on Moller’s books. There are other factors that bring both of these points into highlight from several sources. This I will deal with at a later date.
quote:
There is a very good reaon for looking at the rwrite of Egyptian history proposed by Wyatt. Unlike the archaeological claims we CAN make checks against independent sources. This is a test of the credibility of Wyatt and Moller - and they fail. And if they cannot be trusted on claims we can check then surely they cannot be trusted on claims we cannot.
They would have failed only if they had claimed this rewrite as fact. But they do not. This is only a hypothesis, that to me, makes a great deal of sense based on the above data I provided, as well as upcoming data.
quote:
But that is your "compelling evidence" - claims made by Wyatt and Moller which cannot be checked - and I have seen enough questions about those and I have not seen enough supporting evidence to find it compelling at all.
Since when was the term compelling evidence utilized in regard to this hypothesis? As far as I am aware, this term has not been expressed once when solely referring to the proposed chronology of the 18th dynasty.
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-09-2004 05:56 PM
This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 08-09-2004 05:57 PM
~Lysimachus
™ Version 4.2
