(November 3, 2015 at 1:32 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Just clarify something, What is your exactly is your position on Abraham and Ur?

Myth. And not one of the good ones.

Evidence that the story of Babel is fiction can be realized due to the fact that we have made our way into space and to the moon.

(November 3, 2015 at 6:37 pm)Kitan Wrote: Evidence that the story of Babel is fiction can be realized due to the fact that we have made our way into space and to the moon.

Don't forget that Huggy thinks the tower to be an interdimensional device used by 600 years old people.

If that does make any sense to sane people.

Quote:Just clarify something, What is your exactly is your position on Abraham and Ur?

Ur was an actual large city in Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia which declined precipitously in the Middle Bronze Age and recovered, briefly, in the Iron Age...when the Chaldeans moved in.

Abraham is a fictional character.

(November 3, 2015 at 7:21 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Just clarify something, What is your exactly is your position on Abraham and Ur?

Ur was an actual large city in Early Bronze Age Mesopotamia which declined precipitously in the Middle Bronze Age and recovered, briefly, in the Iron Age...when the Chaldeans moved in.

Abraham is a fictional character.

But we have Abraham's dialogue and deeds!  He's as real as Tarzan!

Jesus is fictional, too.


Poor Huggy.  He comes here to get all his delusions shot down.


Ah...fuck him. Let's go for the kill.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/egypt.htm

Quote:The two primary books of the Old Testament – Genesis and Exodus – refer to 'Pharaoh' 155 times. Curiously, not once in either book is Pharaoh identified by name – and yet, in fact, the references are to many different pharaohs, across many centuries. The anomaly is all the more telling in that the holy books are not lacking in naming numerous sundry and incidental characters. For example, the grandmother, of the grandmother, of King Asa of Judah was Abishalom, should you be interested! (1 Kings 15.10). But this style of literature should be familiar to us all: "Once upon a time, in a land far away, was a bad king. And in the forest, David played ... "

It's called a Fairy Tale.

(November 3, 2015 at 7:47 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Jesus is fictional, too.


Poor Huggy.  He comes here to get all his delusions shot down.


Ah...fuck him. Let's go for the kill.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/egypt.htm

Quote:The two primary books of the Old Testament – Genesis and Exodus – refer to 'Pharaoh' 155 times. Curiously, not once in either book is Pharaoh identified by name – and yet, in fact, the references are to many different pharaohs, across many centuries. The anomaly is all the more telling in that the holy books are not lacking in naming numerous sundry and incidental characters. For example, the grandmother, of the grandmother, of King Asa of Judah was Abishalom, should you be interested! (1 Kings 15.10). But this style of literature should be familiar to us all: "Once upon a time, in a land far away, was a bad king. And in the forest, David played ... "

It's called a Fairy Tale.

Yes, because getting your information from a source with a clear agenda always works out well....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh

Quote:The earliest instance where pr-aa is used specifically to address the ruler is in a letter to Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), who reigned circa 1353–1336 BC, which is addressed to 'Pharaoh, all life, prosperity, and health!.[6] During the eighteenth dynasty (16th to 14th centuries BC) the title pharaoh was employed as a reverential designation of the ruler. About the late twenty-first dynasty (10th century BC), however, instead of being used alone as before,it began to be added to the other titles before the ruler's name, and from the twenty-fifth dynasty (eighth to seventh centuries BC) it was, at least in ordinary usage, the only epithet prefixed to the royal appellative.[7]

From the nineteenth dynasty onward pr-ꜥꜣ on its own was used as regularly as hm.f, 'Majesty'. The term, therefore, evolved from a word specifically referring to a building to a respectful designation for the ruler, particularly by the twenty-second dynasty and twenty-third dynasty.[citation needed]

For instance, the first dated appearance of the title pharaoh being attached to a ruler's name occurs in Year 17 of Siamun on a fragment from the Karnak Priestly Annals. Here, an induction of an individual to the Amun priesthood is dated specifically to the reign of Pharaoh Siamun.[8] This new practice was continued under his successor Psusennes II and the twenty-second dynasty kings. For instance, the Large Dakhla stela is specifically dated to Year 5 of king 'Pharaoh Shoshenk, beloved of Amun' whom all Egyptologists concur was Shoshenq I--the founder of the Twenty-second dynasty--including Alan Gardiner in his original 1933 publication of this stela.[9] Shoshenq I was the second successor of Siamun. Meanwhile, the old custom of referring to the sovereign simply as pr-aa continued in traditional Egyptian narratives.

Let's see, you conclude Jesus is fictional because the Bible never used Pharaohs name, except that's how it was done traditionally....

Stellar research there bud!


Btw thought you were supposed to be an "expert" in Egyptology

(November 4, 2015 at 2:05 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(November 3, 2015 at 7:47 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Jesus is fictional, too.


Poor Huggy.  He comes here to get all his delusions shot down.


Ah...fuck him. Let's go for the kill.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/egypt.htm

Yes, because getting your information from a source with a clear agenda always works out well....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh

Quote:The earliest instance where pr-aa is used specifically to address the ruler is in a letter to Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), who reigned circa 1353–1336 BC, which is addressed to 'Pharaoh, all life, prosperity, and health!.[6] During the eighteenth dynasty (16th to 14th centuries BC) the title pharaoh was employed as a reverential designation of the ruler. About the late twenty-first dynasty (10th century BC), however, instead of being used alone as before,it began to be added to the other titles before the ruler's name, and from the twenty-fifth dynasty (eighth to seventh centuries BC) it was, at least in ordinary usage, the only epithet prefixed to the royal appellative.[7]

From the nineteenth dynasty onward pr-ꜥꜣ on its own was used as regularly as hm.f, 'Majesty'. The term, therefore, evolved from a word specifically referring to a building to a respectful designation for the ruler, particularly by the twenty-second dynasty and twenty-third dynasty.[citation needed]

For instance, the first dated appearance of the title pharaoh being attached to a ruler's name occurs in Year 17 of Siamun on a fragment from the Karnak Priestly Annals. Here, an induction of an individual to the Amun priesthood is dated specifically to the reign of Pharaoh Siamun.[8] This new practice was continued under his successor Psusennes II and the twenty-second dynasty kings. For instance, the Large Dakhla stela is specifically dated to Year 5 of king 'Pharaoh Shoshenk, beloved of Amun' whom all Egyptologists concur was Shoshenq I--the founder of the Twenty-second dynasty--including Alan Gardiner in his original 1933 publication of this stela.[9] Shoshenq I was the second successor of Siamun. Meanwhile, the old custom of referring to the sovereign simply as pr-aa continued in traditional Egyptian narratives.

Let's see, you conclude Jesus is fictional because the Bible never used Pharaohs name, except that's how it was done traditionally....

Stellar research there bud!


Btw thought you were supposed to be an "expert" in Egyptology  

Historically speaking the Egyptians never knew of any israelites and there for their was never any jewish slaves in egypt. 
Also if there was slaves they would at least knew the name of their captor seriously.  So no the jews were never slaves period. 
So yeah that is the first jewish lie in  the OT.

Seriously Huggy wikipedia use a .edu if you want to be taken seriously but here http://www.ancient.eu/pharaoh/

Quote:Yes, because getting your information from a source with a clear agenda always works out well....

Obviously the irony of you trotting out your fucking bible is lost on you.  Really, Hugster.  Time to grow up.  You speak like a five year old!

(November 4, 2015 at 3:14 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Yes, because getting your information from a source with a clear agenda always works out well....

Obviously the irony of you trotting out your fucking bible is lost on you.  Really, Hugster.  Time to grow up.  You speak like a five year old!

Min 5 year old's these day's don't  even believe in the bible to be true at least they know what is and what isn't real.