Road of the Patriarch

[Zenith]

@ Pazuzu

You mentioned that archeologists were dumfounded at finding no wells or water sources in Beersheba Palestine. Can you please provide link to the article that says this becasue this is plainly wrong in my view there are plenty of wells and their is underground water available.

Secondly: If your going to use the lack of archeology findings in the Levant to substantiate your Yemen hypothesis, why not use archeology to substantiate it !!. Now based on your same reasoning to debunk the status qou it seems rather contradictory when you don't have a shred of archeological evidence to back it up.

below is an excerp I found for Beersheba in Palestine.

Archeological finds indicate that the site was inhabited from the Chalcolithic period, around 4000 BCE, through to the sixteenth century CE. This was probably due to the abundance of underground water, as evidenced by the numerous wells in the area. The settlement itself dates from the early Israelite period, around the tenth century BCE.

[Zenith]

The case for Cannan

Pazuzu mentioned that there is not a trace outside the Torah for a people called the Cannanites. I thought I would correct this mistake for other readers

Mesopotamian references

Certain scholars of the Eblaite material (dated 2350 BC) from the archive of Tell Mardikh see the oldest reference to Canaanites in the ethnic name ga-na-na which provides a third millennium reference to the name Canaan.[11]

Canaan is mentioned in a document from the 18th century BC found in the ruins of Mari, a former Sumerian outpost in Syria, located along the Middle Euphrates. Apparently Canaan at this time existed as a distinct political entity (probably a loose confederation of city-states). A letter from this time complains about certain "thieves and Canaanites (i.e. Kinahhu)" causing trouble in the town of Rahisum.[3]

Tablets found in the Mesopotamian city of Nuzi use the term Kinahnu ("Canaan") as a synonym for red or purple dye, laboriously produced by the Kassites from murex shells as early as 1600 BC and on the Mediterranean coast by the Phoenicians from a byproduct of glassmaking. Purple cloth became a renowned Canaanite export commodity which is mentioned in Exodus. The dyes may have been named after their place of origin. The name 'Phoenicia' is connected with the Greek word for "purple", apparently referring to the same product, but it is difficult to state with certainty whether the Greek word came from the name, or vice versa. The purple cloth of Tyre in Phoenicia was well known far and wide and was associated by the Romans with nobility and royalty.

Anne Killebrew has shown that cities such as Jerusalem were large and important walled settlements in the Middle Bronze IIB and Iron Age IIC periods (ca. 1800?1550 and 720?586 BCE), but that during the intervening Late Bronze (LB) and Iron Age I and IIA/B Ages sites like Jerusalem were small and relatively insignificant and unfortified towns.[12]

References to Canaanites are also found throughout the Amarna letters of Pharaoh Akenaton circa 1350 BC, and a reference to the "land of Canaan" is found on the statue of Idrimi of Alalakh in modern Syria. After a popular uprising against his rule, Idrimi was forced into exile with his mother's relatives to seek refuge in "the land of Canaan", where he prepared for an eventual attack to recover his city. Texts from Ugarit also refer to an individual Canaanite (*kn'ny), suggesting that the people of Ugarit, contrary to much modern opinion, considered themselves to be non-Canaanite.[13]

Archaeological excavations of a number of sites, later identified as Canaanite, show that prosperity of the region reached its apogee during this Middle Bronze Age period, under leadership of the city of Hazor, at least nominally tributary to Egypt for much of the period. In the north, the cities of Yamkhad and Qatna were hegemons of important confederacies, and it would appear that Biblical Hazor was the chief city of another important coalition in the south. In the early Late Bronze Age, Canaanite confederacies were centered on Megiddo and Kadesh, before again being brought into the Egyptian Empire."

If the Bani Kinanah were famous for building red domes, how does this relate to the Cannanites who were famous for making reddish purple garments ... Ones seems to be a building and the other is something you wear ?

[Pazuzu]

Pazuzu mentioned that there is not a trace outside the Torah for a people called the Cannanites. I thought I would correct this mistake for other readers

It seems you didn't properly read what I wrote on the previous page. Let me quote for you, word for word, what I said:

Quote from Pazuzu

These scholars (Dawwod and Abou Assaf) are actually onto something. But there is one small issue which I feel must be clarified: Dawood calims  that besides the Torah, there is not a single historic document in the Levant  that mentions ?Canaanites?. The fact is, there are some documents, but NOT originally  from the Levant region. Some very old Mesopotamian inscriptions (from as early as 1800 BC) mention a people by the name ?Kinanhu? (this is EXACTLY how it is pronounced according to the vocal glossary of the Babylonian cuneiform), who were causing trouble by infiltrating into the regions of the Levant (they were described as bandits and thieves). Also, the name appears as ?ki-na-ah-na?  in the Amarna tablets (14th Century B.C), which were written in Acadian cuneiform

So, as the other readers can see, you are wrong.

Furthermore, the name which appears on the Amarna and Mesopotamian tablets is "KI-NA-NHU"    and   "KI-NA-AH-NA".  Nowhere is the word "Canaan" mentioned. The name "Cannan" is a corruption of the  real name. You need to get it out of your system completely.  Futhermore, the KINANAH are a people who did not originate in the Levant. They came from somewhere else. And when they started migrating to the Levant, in substantial numbers (no earlier than the 8th Century B.C), they were simply ONE,  from among  many peoples, who made this migration.  Also,  Mesopotamian and Amarna tablets do not mention "Palestine" at all.  Not once does the word "Palestine" appear anywhere. 

You mentioned that archeologists were dumfounded at finding no wells or water sources in Beersheba Palestine. Can you please provide link to the article that says this becasue this is plainly wrong in my view there are plenty of wells and their is underground water available.

Absolutely. Try these for now:

http://www.essaymart.com/essay/45a8018d2ad5f.html
http://www.bibleorigins.net/abrahamphilistines.html

Furthermore, I will quote archeologyst Israel Finkelstein, whom they label "the Doctor of Disbelief", when he talks about "Anachronisms". Listen to what he said:

Anachronisms are out of place words or phrases. For example, a story from the 18th century AD would not talk about computers, atomic power, or airplanes because they were not invented yet.

In Genesis there is the repeated use of camels. Camels were not widely used until around 1000 BC. In the Joseph story there is a camel caravan carrying "gum, balm, and myrrh" which best fits the Arabian trade of the 8-7th centuries BC. Assyrian texts describe the use of camels in caravans in the 7th century. There is a large increase of camel bones in the archaeological record at this same time.

Was Egypt or Palestine ever known for  producing gum, balm and myrrh? Or was it Arabia? 

Concerning the well they found in Beersheba (Palestine). I don't know where you get your sources from, but when you read those links I gave you (and I will post more later on), you will see that the well did not reach any underground source, and the digging was abandoned at 130 feet. (40 meters). More importantly there is not a chance in Hell that Abraham dug it, because the tools they used belonged to the IRON AGE,  This is another anachronism. Could a goat herder from 1800 B.C dig a well that is 40 meters deep? Furthermore, they found ONE well in Beersheba, in the middle of a courtyard. They did not find WELLS. The other WELLS you speak of were clustered in an area 30-40  kilometers from Beersheba.  Just thought I'd point that out. There is ZERO proof that Abraham (P) dug that well.

You can follow Zionist conjectures and sources all you want. But I have already made up my mind as to who the Bani Israel were, and WHERE their original homeland was.

Concerning the lack of archeological evidence in Arabia, this is because the SAUDIS will not let anyone near the sites. But common knowledge says that the sites DO exist.  And the 200+ names of locations and places in south west Arabia, matching to the letter, names of tribes and places mentioned in the OT cannot be coincidence in my book.

Bani Kinanah were a legendary Arabian mega-tribe. Their name is mentioned, to the letter, in Mesopotmian and Egyptian tablets. Ki-Na-Nah.

The name "Canaan" never existed.

Peace...

P.S: I recommend you stop using Wikipedia.com as a source of "knowledge".

[kamking]

Dear Pazuzu,



keep it up . Thank you

[Zenith]

 

Concerning the well they found in Beersheba (Palestine). I don't know where you get your sources from, but when you read those links I gave you (and I will post more later on), you will see that the well did not reach any underground source, and the digging was abandoned at 130 feet. (40 meters). More importantly there is not a chance in Hell that Abraham dug it, because the tools they used belonged to the IRON AGE,  This is another anachronism. Could a goat herder from 1800 B.C dig a well that is 40 meters deep? Furthermore, they found ONE well in Beersheba, in the middle of a courtyard. They did not find WELLS. The other WELLS you speak of were clustered in an area 30-40  kilometers from Beersheba.  Just thought I'd point that out. There is ZERO proof that Abraham (P) dug that well.

Pazuzu

Peace to you

It appears you are playing with presentism rather than historisism here. Your links clearly qoutes that there have been settlements as far back as the 34th to 32nd B.C, and thats what archeology has found thus far !!. This evidence in your link clearly shows a sustained settlement over an extremely long period including a fortress, dwellings right down to the Roman era.

Now since your link shows obvious habitation dating back 5000 odd years do you really think that there was no water there at some stage throughout this time?. It would have been a fortress housing soldiers or civilians . In places like this, if there is no water there is no human habitation...it's as simple as that !!

At least you are now saying that that there is a well there which is not evident in your post. But now your saying it's dry (which by the way is rather normal for ancient wells as water tables rise and sink) maybe it was put there for appearances reasons only ?? but not likely.

You can follow Zionist conjectures and sources all you want. But I have already made up my mind as to who the Bani Israel were, and WHERE their original homeland was.

Again you are playing with presentism. Zionism is a recent phenomenon, not an ancient one (I hope this isn't to much of a surprise to you). Your entitled to speak your mind on who you think Bani Israel are or were, but saying that, I am entitled to have an opinion as well which is to say that your evidence is poor and utterly unsubstantiated in every aspect. As I said in my earlier posts, you use archeology to try and debunk history, but use the excuse that the Saudi's don't want to dig up the Asir region to prove your point...can you see how hypocritical this is ??.

As for your mentor (Mr Salibi) here's a few gems:

Salibi admits that place names are repeated several times in Arabia (There are 5 Hebrons in this area.)
Salibi admits that there was actually a LATER Jewish population in this exact area (who probably being nostalgic named these places after their homeland, after all there are 5 Hebrons).
Then what about the Moabites and the Noabite stone found exactly where it should be . Salibi has an answer dor this as well. He says you see, the stone used to live down in Arabia as well, but they were defeated badly by the Israelites so they moved to Palestine and planted the stone there detailing the whole sorry affair.

And not to mention Salibi's counterparts who were so embarrased about his "hypothetical" thesis of his !!!.

P.S: I recommend you stop using Wikipedia.com as a source of "knowledge".

I recommend you stop using material that is 110% unsubstantiated in every aspect which is based on what if's. At least Wiki shows evidence where one can expand further.

Peace to you brother Pazuzu.

[Pazuzu]

It appears you are playing with presentism rather than historisism here. Your links clearly qoutes that there have been settlements as far back as the 34th to 32nd B.C, and thats what archeology has found thus far !!.

So what? Yes, there were people living there as early as 4000 B.C.

But were these people Jews? Was Abraham among them?  Furthermore, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM ORIGINALLY? That's the question we are trying to answer. And the well they found in Beersheba was dug in the Iron Age. So it has nothing to do with Abraham.

Again you are playing with presentism. Zionism is a recent phenomenon, not an ancient one

Yes I know that. But it's the Zionists who have been claiming that ancient Israel was in Palestine. And it wasn't until the 1970's when archeology started proving them wrong.

I am entitled to have an opinion as well which is to say that your evidence is poor and utterly unsubstantiated in every aspect.

You are free to say what you want. But I can say also that the "Israel in Palestine" claim has not been substantiated either.

So I propose you wait until I finish my threads, then, gather all the evidences for both theories, and let the readers decide for themselves which one is more convincing.

As for your mentor (Mr Salibi) here's a few gems:
Salibi admits that place names are repeated several times in Arabia (There are 5 Hebrons in this area.)
Salibi admits that there was actually a LATER Jewish population in this exact area (who probably being nostalgic named these places after their homeland, after all there are 5 Hebrons).

Salibi is not my mentor, nor is he the only source for my threads.  Furthermore, I do not agree 100% with him, because although he did find many names of locations in Asir matching names in the OT, he also used some rather outrageous twisting of words (switching the order of letters around) to make some other names fit. He arrived at a conclusion similar to Bernard Leeman's, that the kingdom of David and Solomon extended from Asir and up to the borders of northern Hijaz.

For your information I do not agree with his theory. All the evidence points to YEMEN as the location of Solomon's kingdom, which shared borders with Sheba and Hadramawt. So the proper location is further south than Salibi claims. (This is validated by the Quranic verses, which clearly show that the two domains of Solomon and Sheba were right next to each other).

The Hebron that you mention was rendered as "Kharban" by Salibi. When he found several towns by that name, he claimed that "Kharban" = "Hebron".  But there was in fact a location called "Hebron" (spelled exactly as it is, without playing on phonetics), that Salibi was not aware of. And I will show you where it was as the list of "coincidences" becomes longer and longer.

Anyway, I am in no position to judge Salibi. The man passed away recently, and he is with Allah now.  But we have to give him credit as a pioneer in the search for the truth.  To me, I consider the "Sundial of Ahaz" experiment (which was NOT done by Salibi)  to be the most damning scientific proof which completely destroys the Zionist argument as to the location of ancient Israel.

Salibi admits that there was actually a LATER Jewish population in this exact area

Yes. And Abraham was not Jewish. Judaism has nothing to do with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor the 12 Clans whatsoever. Judaism was invented somewhere around 600 BC, by the Israelite clergy, shortly after the Israelites were released from Babylon.

As for the presence of Jews in Palestine, it can be traced back to no earlier than 400 B.C. It wasn't until then that Jerusalem began to have any semblance of a "city". And it was the migrating tribes from south-west Arabia who eventually named it so (in the Psalms, it is referred to as the "Daughter of Jerusalem" ), in remembrance of the orginal "Ur-Salem" in Yemen.

And Abraham was never in Palestine.

Then what about the Moabites and the Noabite stone found exactly where it should be . Salibi has an answer dor this as well. He says you see, the stone used to live down in Arabia as well, but they were defeated badly by the Israelites so they moved to Palestine and planted the stone there detailing the whole sorry affair.

They didn't move the stone anywhere. They wrote it there from the start. But that does not mean the stone recorded events that took place in the Levant. 

There is a famous stone in the temple of Karnak in Egypt which describes the excursion of an ancient Egyptian king deep into Arabia, and his conquering of the trade routes there. The stone lists the names of geographical locations (in ancient Hieroglyphs) matching exactly their counterparts in Yemen. Does that mean the events recorded on the Karnak stone took place in Egypt?

Just because they found the Moabite stone detaling a victory/defeat of a certain people; does that automatically mean that the events took place where the stone was?

______

Peace...

[Pazuzu]

Coincidence # 3:  Mudhar

In the thread entitled ?Who was the Pharoah of Moses?, I showed you how the Septuagint priests, who ?translated? the Aramaic text of the Old Testament to Greek replaced the word ?Msrim?, which appears in the original text, with ?Aegypto?, thus creating the illusion that the events surrounding the Israelites had taken place in the Nile country. And the later generations of the world have all fallen victims to this delusion, including the Muslims, who happen to think that the word ?Msr? is the Semitic name for Egypt, when every evidence suggests that the Arabic name for that land is ?Qobt? or ?Qibt? (derived from Koptos, a name mentioned in the Isis legend dating as far back as 5000 BC), while the Egyptians themselves called their land "Keme - Kheme - Kemet".

We also showed that the term ?msr? مصر   appears in the Quran as the common name for a central town, or trade station (destination), more precisely a walled citadel with several gates that stood on the trade route, somewhere in the Asir region of Arabia.

In the thread entitled ?Hebrew, the Children of Israel and the Semitic Migrations? we indicated how the Septuagint forgers failed to notice one instance in the Torah which mentions Egypt in its true context, as a family or clan (Clan of Egypt). This appears in (Zechariah 14:18)

Also, if you remember, I provided you with a link to a Christian website which verified this conclusion: That Msrim is NOT Egypt. In case you missed it, here is excerpt which interests us from the passage:

THE NORTH-ARABIAN MUSRI AND THE OLD TESTAMENT MISRAIM.?The cuneiform inscriptions of Assyria have thrown considerable light on various geographical localities in North Arabia, having important bearing on the history of the ancient Hebrews and on the critical study of the Old Testament. The importance of these new facts and researches has of late assumed very bewildering proportions, the credit for which unmistakably belongs to Winckler, Hommel, and Cheyne. It is needless to say that however ingenious these hypotheses may appear to be they are not as yet entitled to be received without caution and hesitation. Were we to believe, in fact, the elaborate theories of these eminent scholars, a great part of the historical events of the Old Testament should be transferred from Egypt and Chanaan into Arabia; for, according to the latest speculations of these scholars, many of the passages in the Old Testament which, until recently, were supposed to refer to Egypt (in Hebrew Misraim) and to Ethiopia (in Hebrew, Kush) do not really apply to them but to two regions of similar names in North Arabia, called in the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions Musri or Musrim, and Chush, respectively. They hold that partly by means of editorial manipulation and partly by reason of corruption in the text, and in consequence of the faded memory of long-forgotten events and countries, these two archaic North-Arabian geographical names became transformed into names of similar sound, but better known, belonging to a different geographical area, namely, the Egyptian Misraim and the African Chush, or Ethiopia.

According to this theory, Agar, Sarai's handmaid (Gen., xvi, 1), was not Misrite or Egyptian, but Musrite, i.e. from Musri, in northern Arabia. Abraham (Gen., xii, 10) did not go down into Misraim, or Egypt, where he is said to have received from the Pharaoh a gift of menservants and handmaids, but into Misrim, or Musri, in northern Arabia. Joseph, when bought by the Ismaelites, or Madianites, i.e. Arabs, was not brought into Egypt (Misraim), but to Musri, or Misrim, in north Arabia, which was the home of the Madianites. In I Kings (A. V., I Sam.), xxx, 13, we should not read "I am a young man of Egypt [Misraim], slave of an Amalecite", but of Musri in north Arabia.

Source: http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Arabia

And now finally, we come to it at last: Who were the ?Msrim?, and what relation did they have to the life and times of Abraham?

We have already established the following facts:

1- The so-called ?Hebrew? tongue uses the suffix ?im? to denote the plural form. Hence, ?Msrim? is the plural of ?Msr?.

2- The Arabic tongue (the proto-Semitic tongue) has 28 letters in its alphabet; whereas the Aramaic alphabet (which is in fact the same as the Hebrew alphabet) contains only 22. This means there 6 letters found in Arabic which are NOT found in Aramaic/Hebrew. One of these letters is the heavy ?d? sound (as in the word ?ramadan?), which is spelled  ض.  This is why the Quran describes these other Semitic dialects as being ?a3jami? (meaning: ineloquent, imperfect, lacking, unable to properly convey). As a result, the ?Hebrew? dialect replaces the letter  ض  (heavy ?d? sound), with the letter  ص (the heavy ?s? sound). The only thing distinguishing those two letters is the dot.

3- Just as I showed you how the Ke-na-nah mentioned in the Mesopotamian scriptures where in fact the Arab tribe of Kinanah, so it must be that the ?Msrim? are also an Arabic tribe, located further north (geographically) with respect to Kinanah.

Taking into account what we mentioned in points 1 and 2, and taking into account also what the very accurate observation made in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which comes very close to the truth when it points out that the word is pronounced ?Musri?, not ?Misri?, we can at last solve this confusing puzzle.

Here follows is the truth that has been hidden from us:

The word ?Msrim?, which the Septuagint forgers replaced with ?Egypt?, is actually the Aramaic spelling of the name of the Arabian tribe of ?Mudhar?. The Arabic spelling of the word is ?مضر?.

Hence:  Msrim = Mudhariyyin  (in the plural) while Msr (unaccentuated / vowel-less singular) = Mudhar.   

There, brothers and sisters is the source of this illusion. That single dot, separating مصر from مضر is the answer to this age-old dilemma.

So who were these poeple?

The legendary Bani Mudhar need no introduction. In the entire history of Arabia, there is no legacy more prominent than the bitter rivalry between the Adnanis of Central and North Arabia vs. the Qahtanis of South Arabia (Yemen). And the mega-tribe of Mudhar was none other than one of the two main branches of Adnan (the other being the Tribe of Rabi'ya).

Since many of you people tend to rely on Wikipedia so much, you can look it up there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudhar

(There are plenty of other sources, but most are in Arabic, which the majority of FM members can?t read).

Due to the shortcomings of the Aramaic / Hebrew dialects, the letter ?dh? (ض) is always replaced with the heavy ?sad? (ص). We will encounter this PHENOMENON many times later on. The modern ?Hebrew?, also incapable of pronouncing the this letter, rendered it as ?z? or ?tz??hence ?Mtzrim?.

The territory of Mudhar extended from the Asir region (bordering Kinanah) all the way north to the Hijaz, and all along the coastal areas. The map below gives a geographic approximation as to their location:

Red circle: Domain of Kinanah (the so-called "Canaanites")
Blue circle: Domain of Mudhar (the "Msr" of the Old Testament).
Green circle: The contested region of Asir, with areas common to both tribes.


So now at last we understand just who Hagar was. Assuming this woman even existed, it seems that the Torah turned a Mudhary (Musri) princess into an Egyptian servant girl!  And you wonder why the hatred toward Egypt?  This confusion must be cleared once and for all.  The land of ?Mudhar? (Msr - as it is denoted in Hebrew) was falsely translated as ?Egypt? by the Septuagints, somewhere around 300 BC.

The struggle between Bani Israel on one side and Mudhar and Kinanah on the other, and their hatred of each other does have a historical basis, because the Israelites, whose ancestor Abraham the Hebrew ( meaning ?he who crossed over? - 3abar) were not originally from their lands. Also, it was these Msrim (the Mudharis) who persecuted Moses. And the so-called ?Pharoah(s) of Egypt?, who pops up every now and then in the Old Testament, was none other than the "Far3oun of Bani Mudhar", a villainous tribal chief who had control of a walled citadel and caravan station somewhere along the trade routes of Asir. I will show you later how the Bani Mudhar, despite their ancient and deep-rooted hatred for the Hebrew tribes, actually allied themselves with them at one point, in order to face a common enemy - the Babylonians (rather than to suffer the destruction of their domain at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar?s brutal army).

There are other passages in the Old Testament which expose the Septuagint forgery, and we will eventually look into the details of these, when I show you, later on, where the Assyrian and Babylonian campaigns really took place, and which land was actually their target. But for now, take a look at the following passage from the Book of Isaiah (as it appears in the modern translations of the OT):

The princes of Zoan have become mad; The princes of Noph are deceived; They have also deluded Egypt, those who are the mainstay of its tribes (Isaiah 19:13)

The above passage is speaking of the madness and deception of the tribal leaders of two regions or towns which no human being on the face of this planet has been able to locate any trace of in the Nile Valley: Zoan and Noph. It says that the leaders of these two communities - who were the cornerstone of the land of ?Egypt? - deceived all the ?Tribes of Egypt? ?

Has anyone ever heard of Egypt being composed of tribes? Has anyone ever heard of a place called Zoan and Noph in Egypt?   Ancient Egypt was a powerful, unified kingdom ruled by a centralized monarchy, and which rivaled the might (if not the brutality) of the Assyrians and Babylonians. It was not composed of tribes or clans. Neither was Mesopotamia.

The only spot in the ancient world which did not know any form of central authority during that era was Arabia. It was a land composed of large clans, brought together under tribal customs, often feuding and warring against each other. (This was the state that the region was left in ever since the dissolution of Solomon's united kingdom). It was a lawless, rebellious region that had control of strategic trade routes, and its tribes where a thorn in the side of the Assyrians and the Egyptians.

The truth is that Isaiah was not talking about Egypt. It was the criminal Septuagints who replaced the term ?Msrim? with ?Aegypto?, thus deluding the entire world for many generations to come.

Isaiah was talking about the tribe of Mudhar, the mother of all clans in the region of Northern Asir and Hijaz, and the tribal leaders of  two areas which al-Hamadani mentioned very clearly in his book ?Description of Arabia?:  Su3un  صعن  and Yanof (Yanoph) ينوف.   

Isaiah was talking about the madness and foolishness of the Mudhari tribal leaders of Asir and Hijaz, who were under the delusion that they could stand against the might of the Babylonian army. This is made very clear by the context of the book of Isaiah, which, from beginning to end talks about nothing but the Babylonian storm which shook the mountains of Arabia:

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts: "O My people, who dwell in Zion, do not be afraid of the Assyrian. He shall strike you with a rod and lift up his staff against you, in the manner of Egypt (Isaiah 10:24)

It seems, that the modern so-called  ?Hebrew? also has trouble pronouncing the heavy ?s? (?sad?) sound (ص) so it renders it as ?z? or ?tz?. Thus, ?Msrim? became ?Mtzrim?, while mount Sayyoun (صيون), which 9 out of every 10 Yemenis today will tell you is not far from the capital city of Sana?a, became ?Zion?. (This is the same mountain that the Arab poet, Al-A3sha of Hamadan, mentioned in his poetic warning to the Christian Grand Cardinal of Najran, and from whose slopes the mad Yemeni Jewish Himyarite king Zhu-Nawwas descended upon the city of Najran some 50 years before the advent of Muhamad, where he burned the Nestorian Christians  in the Trench).  Also, Su3un  صعن  became Zoan, while  Yanof (or Yanoph) ينوف   became Noph. This is because the prefix ?ya? is sometimes added to the proper names of ancient tribes or locations in Arabia. Here are a few examples of this phenomenon:

Tharb - Yathrb    ثرب - يثرب
Karb - Yakrb   كرب - يكرب
3arb - Ya3rb  عرب - يعرب
3arm - Ya3rm عرم - يعرم
Noph - Yanoph   نوف - ينوف
Naboo3 - Yanboo3    نبوع - ينبوع
Boos - Yaboos (the Jebusites of the Torah)     بوس - يبوس


In fact, Jeremiah also mentions Noph, in the context of a warning that it would be laid to waste, and its inhabitants taken captives by Nebuchadnezzar. Again, we see the word ?Egypt? appearing in the modern translations of the text - a relic of the ancient Septuagint forgery.

O you daughter dwelling in Egypt, Prepare yourself to go into captivity! For Noph shall be waste and desolate, without inhabitant (Jeremiah 46:19)

What does Egypt have to do with Noph???  Is there any trace of a city called ?Noph? in Egypt? Some mad orientalists, in their obsession with Egypt, rendered ?Noph? as ?Memphis?, an ancient city just south  of the Nile Delta!!  This can be seen in the commentaries they wrote about the OT. When they failed miserably to find any trace of Noph in the Nile Country, they claimed: ?Oh, Jeremiah and Isaiah must have meant Memphis!?

Now, assuming that the Mesopotamian campaigns were against Palestine (where the forgers of history claim ancient Israel was located), why would Jeremiah and Isaiah send warnings to the city of Memphis in Egypt?  What did Memphis have to do with the Babylonian march on Palestine?

The fact is that the description of the Babylonian campaign in the Old Testament mentions gepgraphical features (MOUNTAINS) and names of over 100 tribes of which no trace has ever been found in Palestine.

On the other hand, the rendering of ?Noph? as ?Memphis? is truly one of the most spectacular products of the diseased Orientalist imagination, whose sole purpose is to lay claim on all the land from Iraq to Egypt, as ancient theaters of ?Israelite? holiness, gradually paving the way for the Zionists to annex all Arab lands in the Levant.

And while their plans are slowly coming to fruition, the Arabs have been asleep in their cave for 14 centuries, and are more concerned with wether or not the water should reach their elbows when performing ablution.

Here is what al-Hamadani says about Yanoph - Noph (DoA, page: 294)

ناحية البحرين و اليمامة إلى نجد: دفار أسفل نجران...و ينوف و القواعل جبلان (...)

He is mentioning the highlands of Najd, a vast plateau at the foot of the Surat mountains, which begins where the city of Najran lies, and extends northwards, comprising many regions, including the highlands of Yanoph - Noph,  which lay within the domain of Bani Mudhar.

And you can dismiss all this as coincidence as well.

Here is our final rendering of those passages from the Old Testament:

The princes of Zoan (Su3un) have become mad; The princes of Noph (Yanoph) are deceived; They have also deluded Mudhar those who are the mainstay of its tribes (Isaiah 19:13)

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts: "O My people, who dwell in Zion (Sayoun) do not be afraid of the Assyrian. He shall strike you with a rod and lift up his staff against you, in the manner of Mudhar (Isaiah 10:24)

O you daughter dwelling in the land of Mudhar! Prepare yourself to go into captivity! For Noph (Yanoph) shall be waste and desolate, without inhabitant (Jeremiah 46:19)

This is further proof that the events of the Old Testament have nothing to do with Egypt nor Palestine whatsoever.
________

Finally, a note to brother/sister Zenith: Kamal Salibi did not reach this same conclusion concerning ?Msr?.  Salibi claimed that the ?Msrim? mentioned in the Aramaic Bible was none other than the town of Al-Misrama which still exists today in the region of Asir in Saudi Arabia. So as you can see, what we are proposing here is radically different from Salibi?s view.

______________

To Be Continued...

[kamking]

Dear Pazuzu  , usual excellence !

[GODsubmitter]

Thak you Pazuzu! 

[huruf]

I do not know how it works out for people of Arabia, of how much of their own history and culture is familiar to them in the same way that people in the west are more or less knowledgeable with "Sacred History" as given in the Bible.

For someone who became a muslim or who read the Qur'an with interest, or noticing things, even without being conscious of it and not being rought up as a muslim of whatever denomination, there is something weird in the whole affair. There is a mixture of things that as presented in translations or foot notes or interpretations sound pretty familiar from the bible, and then there other pieces which are seemingly "out of place": the mentions of the people of the Elephant, Aad, thamud, Ismael as  keeping with his father Ibrahim more in touch than would be warranted according to the bible... as if on the one hand there was some floklore and on the other the Qur'an rested wholy on the Bible in order to acquire legitimacy or sound s on "prophetical" basis.

There is also the strange thing about Solomon and the Queen of Sheba and one wonders how is it that in the bible and in the biblical understanding of the Qur'an, they get together but there is no mention of anything in between the Kingdon of Solomon in Palestine nd the Kingdom of Saby at the other end. ?The magical powers of Solomon or his trmendous non magical knowledge? I have always had trouble taking that for a fact.

But if we understand that every single prophet or history mentioned or narrated in the Qur'an comes from the tradition and common knowledge of the people amongst which preached the Prophet Muhammad, then everything falls into place, and one is no more troubled by the question of why would the Prophet be made to refer constinuously to outside traditions, history and knowledge to preach to his own people, and later on to other peoples who had nothing to do with the biblical narrations.

Without the need to undertake a thorough scrutiny of everything posted here by Pazuzu, no, I have no trouble at all assumming that the whole of the narrations in the Qur'an refer to events in the near physical, cultural and traditional environment of the Prophet Muhammad.

On the other hand the material and logical proofs of the bible are far for impressive and I do not see in them anything that should push the balance in their favour as against those presented by Pazuzu.

As far as I am concerned, biblical narrations as history are buried, not that I ever made much of them, anyway.

Also I have always had a strange feeling reading the hisories of the Qur'an purportedly happenning in Egypt, like that of Yusuf and Musa. I have always found something unsettling in them and the thing is that even now I do not know how to explain or diagnose it exactly that feeling, which is the sensation that there is something amiss.

Salaam