|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2016 9:21 am
According to Director General of Luxor's Antiquities, Mustafa Waziri, king Pharaoh belonged to the foreign Hyksos dynasty that invaded Egypt in the 15th century BCE and ruled northern Egypt. In an unprecedented declaration that challenges the story told in the Passover Haggadah, a senior Egyptian archaeologist said that ancient king Pharaoh was not Egyptian, as claimed in the ancient Jewish text. In an interview with the Egyptian daily newspaper al-Youm al-Sabih, the director-general of Luxor's Antiquities, Mustafa Waziri, surprisingly argued that king Pharaoh belonged to the foreign Hyksos dynasty that invaded Egypt in the 15th century BCE and ruled northern Egypt. "King Pharaoh who ruled Egypt during the epoch of our prophet Moses was not one of the kings who reigned in ancient Egypt as we tend to believe. He belonged to the Beduin Jabarin dynasty, which is called Hyksos," Waziri said. "This foreign dynasty ruled only in a part of Egypt. One of its last kings was a dictator named Pharaoh, to whom Moses was sent by Allah to demand that he allow the sons of Israel to leave Egypt," Waziri explained. Read more; Senior Egyptian archaeologist: Israeli claim that Pharaoh was Egyptian is a lie
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:55 am
*sigh* Some people will do whatever it takes to dismiss the Bible, won't they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 5:36 am
D-BoyTheFighter *sigh* Some people will do whatever it takes to dismiss the Bible, won't they? Not only that but also use their positions of authority to make other people doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 8:06 am
D-BoyTheFighter *sigh* Some people will do whatever it takes to dismiss the Bible, won't they? Why do you assume he's only saying this to dismiss the Bible? There were a number of former dynasties in Egypt after all. Not to mention, this wouldn't invalidate the Biblical story; it simply means the pharaoh at the time was not a native Egyptian, that's all the archaeologist is saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 9:01 am
Garland-Green In an unprecedented declaration that challenges the story told in the Passover Haggadah, a senior Egyptian archaeologist said that ancient king Pharaoh was not Egyptian, as claimed in the ancient Jewish text.
Exodus 1:8-10 (NIV)
8 Then a new king, to whom Joseph meant nothing, came to power in Egypt. 9 “Look,” he said to his people, “the Israelites have become far too numerous for us. 10 Come, we must deal shrewdly with them or they will become even more numerous and, if war breaks out, will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country.”
His claim is clearly a false allegation. The bible doesn't say the ruler was Egyptian.
Either this man was told misinformation, doesn't fact check and thus doesn't know any better OR he is deliberately trying to make the Quran sound more valid than the Bible by using erroneous claims against the Bible. And not just against the Bible, but the very Quran he's trying to defend. A simple word search in the Quran contradicts his claim that the word "pharaoh" doesn't appear in there; it does, in several surahs: *]http://quran.com/search?q=pharaoh* (clarified below; the argument is that it's a personal name, not a title, in the Quran, but this is still faulty to claim)
So, this man is either crazy...? or something was lost in translation?
Or this is some prank / experiment to prove how "Berean" individuals will choose to be or how gullible and lazy people will choose to be? Who says such a thing when both claims can be so easily exposed for the false claims that they are? both claims! Erroneous allegation against Scripture ("the Bible claims that Pharaoh was Egyptian!") no, it doesn't; and erroneous "fact" about the Quran ("the word Pharaoh does not appear there!")*, yes it does.
Whether this is a result of laziness to fact check or deliberately planned malice, I wouldn't put it past a corrupt individual to influence a certain story being published just to get us riled up and hating on each other for no reason. We have legitimate reasons to disagree on. This is not one of them.
*edit: oh he meant it doesn't apppear in the Quran to refer to Egyptians in general. Well, two things: neither does the Bible use it as a general reference to Egyptians. He's still off. Secondly, nothing about having "O" before a name or title suggests it is a personal name. It does appear before titles too in the Quran. That is weak evidence.
Exhibit A:
Surah 12:43
MUHSIN KHAN
And the king (of Egypt) said: "Verily, I saw (in a dream) seven fat cows, whom seven lean ones were devouring - and of seven green ears of corn, and (seven) others dry. O notables! Explain to me my dream, if it be that you can interpret dreams."
PICKTHALL
And the king said: Lo! I saw in a dream seven fat kine which seven lean were eating, and seven green ears of corn and other (seven) dry. O notables! Expound for me my vision, if ye can interpret dreams.
YUSUF ALI
The king (of Egypt) said: "I do see (in a vision) seven fat kine, whom seven lean ones devour, and seven green ears of corn, and seven (others) withered. O ye chiefs! Expound to me my vision if it be that ye can interpret visions."
SAHIH INTERNATIONAL
And [subsequently] the king said, "Indeed, I have seen [in a dream] seven fat cows being eaten by seven [that were] lean, and seven green spikes [of grain] and others [that were] dry. O eminent ones, explain to me my vision, if you should interpret visions."
Exhibit B (O sister): http://quran.com/19/28
Exhibit C (O man): http://quran.com/84/6
Maybe, like I did with the article, he read over something too quickly and assumed something was being said that actually wasn't being said. idea But he's doing it against the Bible and the Quran, equally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:12 pm
Young King under Heaven D-BoyTheFighter *sigh* Some people will do whatever it takes to dismiss the Bible, won't they? Why do you assume he's only saying this to dismiss the Bible? There were a number of former dynasties in Egypt after all. Not to mention, this wouldn't invalidate the Biblical story; it simply means the pharaoh at the time was not a native Egyptian, that's all the archaeologist is saying. He is saying that Pharaoh is a name and not a title, and that the Jews have managed to turn this mans name into a title that is connected with Egyptians. The Egyptian archaeologist added: "the prevailing thesis according to which the kings of ancient Egypt were named Pharaohs is a false thesis promoted by the Jews to stick false accusations on ancient Egyptians." Sounds to me like he is saying there's a Jewish conspiracy to make Egyptians look bad and not just him saying that pharaoh was not a native Egyptian. "Due to his oppressive rule, the Jews have succeeded in transforming his name to a formal title of all Egyptians kings, which enables them to damage us by saying that we have raped women and slaughtered children. However, the Pharaoh title was never used to describe Egyptians, but was always attached to boorish people," Waziri said. Simply stating that it was a name and not showing that it was a name of the person who was named pharaoh, makes it nothing but a hypotheses and connecting the name to some Jewish conspiracy without actually having evidence of this is something a senior Egyptian archaeologist (Director General of Luxor's Antiquities) should know better than to do. Titles can sometimes convince people just as well as if not more than any factual evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2016 4:21 pm
Garland-Green Young King under Heaven D-BoyTheFighter *sigh* Some people will do whatever it takes to dismiss the Bible, won't they? Why do you assume he's only saying this to dismiss the Bible? There were a number of former dynasties in Egypt after all. Not to mention, this wouldn't invalidate the Biblical story; it simply means the pharaoh at the time was not a native Egyptian, that's all the archaeologist is saying. He is saying that Pharaoh is a name and not a title, and that the Jews have managed to turn this mans name into a title that is connected with Egyptians. The Egyptian archaeologist added: "the prevailing thesis according to which the kings of ancient Egypt were named Pharaohs is a false thesis promoted by the Jews to stick false accusations on ancient Egyptians." Sounds to me like he is saying there's a Jewish conspiracy to make Egyptians look bad and not just him saying that pharaoh was not a native Egyptian. "Due to his oppressive rule, the Jews have succeeded in transforming his name to a formal title of all Egyptians kings, which enables them to damage us by saying that we have raped women and slaughtered children. However, the Pharaoh title was never used to describe Egyptians, but was always attached to boorish people," Waziri said. Simply stating that it was a name and not showing that it was a name of the person who was named pharaoh, makes it nothing but a hypotheses and connecting the name to some Jewish conspiracy without actually having evidence of this is something a senior Egyptian archaeologist (Director General of Luxor's Antiquities) should know better than to do. Titles can sometimes convince people just as well as if not more than any factual evidence. Oh, okay, I didn't catch that; so he thinks the title of pharaoh was just the name of one king? Well, we know that isn't true. It sounds to me like he's letting his nationalism override his historical knowledge. The only truth to his statement is that pharaoh became the common title after the Hyskos came through
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:43 pm
Young King under Heaven Garland-Green Young King under Heaven D-BoyTheFighter *sigh* Some people will do whatever it takes to dismiss the Bible, won't they? Why do you assume he's only saying this to dismiss the Bible? There were a number of former dynasties in Egypt after all. Not to mention, this wouldn't invalidate the Biblical story; it simply means the pharaoh at the time was not a native Egyptian, that's all the archaeologist is saying. He is saying that Pharaoh is a name and not a title, and that the Jews have managed to turn this mans name into a title that is connected with Egyptians. The Egyptian archaeologist added: "the prevailing thesis according to which the kings of ancient Egypt were named Pharaohs is a false thesis promoted by the Jews to stick false accusations on ancient Egyptians." Sounds to me like he is saying there's a Jewish conspiracy to make Egyptians look bad and not just him saying that pharaoh was not a native Egyptian. "Due to his oppressive rule, the Jews have succeeded in transforming his name to a formal title of all Egyptians kings, which enables them to damage us by saying that we have raped women and slaughtered children. However, the Pharaoh title was never used to describe Egyptians, but was always attached to boorish people," Waziri said. Simply stating that it was a name and not showing that it was a name of the person who was named pharaoh, makes it nothing but a hypotheses and connecting the name to some Jewish conspiracy without actually having evidence of this is something a senior Egyptian archaeologist (Director General of Luxor's Antiquities) should know better than to do. Titles can sometimes convince people just as well as if not more than any factual evidence. Oh, okay, I didn't catch that; so he thinks the title of pharaoh was just the name of one king? Well, we know that isn't true. It sounds to me like he's letting his nationalism override his historical knowledge. The only truth to his statement is that pharaoh became the common title after the Hyskos came through I agree. As far as we know it became a common title after the Hyskos. It should be pointed out thought that is is an argument from silence and that as such evidence could emerge that prove otherwise. I think his statements concerning Jews are symptomatic. Claims of a Zionist/Jewish conspiracy against the muslim world is sadly not something you rarely hear coming from people from muslim nations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
