(December 28, 2013 at 5:53 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Confirmation bias.
In the instance you cited, "pharaoh" is a (much) later translation. The Egyptians have left written records. Pr-aa morphed into "pharaoh" as a result of much later writers who spoke different languages.
Try to remember that there is not a shred of evidence that there ever were any masses of hebrew "slaves" in Egypt. Zero. Nada. Zilch. "Moses," "The Conquest," "The Ark of the Covenant," "The Exodus," etc., is all fiction.
It's a story made up much later. See Israel Finkestein "The Bible Unearthed" and Donald Redford "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times" for more details. The crib notes version I could give you here will not do you much good.
I agree, it is indeed most likely all pure fiction. There is even a verse in the quran in which the Pharaoh threatens people with the crucifixion, although crucifixion was invented 1000 years later. So this would be a clear historical error there.
But i still cannot see how your objection refutes the Claim. It does not really matter if the original word was "Per aa". The fact is, that this word was originally used to address, as you said, the kings Palace and only later the king directly "Thutmosis III", oficially with Siamun. I agree that the egyptions did not call their ruler "pharaoh" but something like per aa, but still, pharaoh or firawn is the right Translation of that word. Therefore it is somehow for some very weird reason used in the absolut correct way in the quran.
