A creationist on another forum I hang around posted this:

The population of the world, based upon the Berlin census reports of 1922, was found to be 1,804,187,000. The human race must double itself 30.75 times to make this number. This result may be approximately ascertained by the following computations:

At the beginning of the first period of doubling there would just be two human beings; the second, 4; the third, 8; the fourth, 16; the tenth, 1024; the twentieth 1,048,576, the thirtieth, 1,073,741,824; and the thirty-first, 2,147,483,648. In other words, if we raise two to the thirtieth power, we have 1,073,741,824; or to the thirty-first power, 2,147,483,648 Therefore, it is evident even to the school boy, that, to have the present population of the globe, the net population must be doubled more than thirty times and less than thirty-one times. By logarithms, we find it to be 30.75 times. After all allowances are made for natural deaths, wars, catastrophes, and losses of all kinds, if the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times, we would have the present population of the globe.

Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population. This is a reasonable average length of time.

Moreover, it is singularly confirmed by the number of Jews, or descendants of Jacob. According to Hales, 3850 years have passed since the marriage of Jacob. By the same method of calculation as above, the Jews, who, according to the Jewish yearbook for 1922, number 15,393,815, must have doubled their numbers 23.8758 times, or once every 161.251 years. The whole human race, therefore, on an average has doubled its numbers every 168.3 years; and the Jews, every 161.251 years. What a marvelous agreement! We would not expect the figure to be exactly the same nor be greatly surprised if one period were twice the other. But their correspondence singularly corroborates the age of the human race and of the Jewish people, as gleaned from the word of God by the most proficient chronologists. If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, the period of doubling would be 65,040 years, or 402 times that of the Jews, which, of course, is unthinkable.

While the period of doubling may vary slightly in different ages, yet there are few things so stable and certain as general average, where large numbers and many years are considered, as in the present case. No life insurance company, acting on general average statistics, ever failed on that account. The Jews and the whole human race have lived together the same thirty-eight centuries with very little intermarriage, and are affected by similar advantages and disadvantages, making the comparison remarkably fair.

Also, the 25,000,000 descendants of Abraham must have doubled their numbers every 162.275 years, during the 3,988 years since the birth of his son Ishmael. These periods of doubling which tally so closely, 168.3 years for the whole race, 161.251 for the Jews, and 162.275 years for the descendants of Abraham, cannot be a mere coincidence, but are a demonstration against the great age of man required by evolution, and in favor of the 5,177 years since Noah. None of the other various chronologies would make any material difference in these calculations. The correspondence of these figures, 168.3, 161.251 and 162.275 is so remarkable that it must bring the conviction to every serious student that the flood destroyed mankind and Noah became the head of the race.

Now the evolutionists claim that the human race is 2,000,000 years old. There is no good reason for believing that, during all these years the developing dominant species would not increase as rapidly as the Jews, or the human race in historic times, especially since the restraints of civilization and marriage did not exist. But let us generously suppose that these remote ancestors, beginning with one pair, doubled their numbers in 1612.51 years one-tenth as rapidly as the Jews, or 1240 times in 2,000,000 years. If we raise 2 to the 1240th power, the result is 18,932,139,737,991 with 360 figures following. The population of the world, therefore, would have been 18,932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion, decillion. decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or 18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion.

Or, let us suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a single pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by any evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that the population doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase, a most generous estimate. The present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 for every man, woman and child! In these calculations, we have made greater allowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask without blushing. And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that the ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population had increased at the Jewish rate for 10,000 years, it would be more than two billion times as great as it is. No guess that ever was made, or ever can be made, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand as the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a new guess. Q. E. D.

All these computations have been made upon the supposition that the human race sprang from one pair. If from many in the distant past, as the evolutionists assert, these bewildering figures must be enormously increased.

Yet we are gravely told that evolution is "science". It is the wildest guess ever made to support an impossible theory.

That their guesses can not possibly be correct, is proven also by approaching the subject from another angle. If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, and must double its numbers 30.75 times to make the present population, it is plain that each period for doubling would be 65,040 years, since 2,000,000 divided by 30.75 is equals 65,040. At that rate, there would be fewer than four Jews! If we suppose the race to have sprung from one pair 100,000 years ago, it would take 3252 years to double the population. At this rate, there would be five Jews!

Do we need any other demonstration that the evolution of man is an absurdity and an impossibility? If the evolutionists endeavor to show that man may have descended from the brute, the population of the world conclusively shows that MAN CERTAINLY DID NOT DESCEND FROM THE BRUTE. If they ever succeed in showing that all Species of animals may have been derived from one primordial germ, it is impossible that man so came. He was created as the Bible declares, by the Almighty Power of God.

The testimony of all the experts in the famous Scopes trial in Tennessee (who escaped cross-examination) was to the effect that evolution was in harmony with some facts and therefore possibly true. The above mathematical calculations prove that the evolution of man was certainly not true. They fail to make their case even if we grant their claims. These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man. It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5177 years ago, rather than in the days of Adam 7333 years ago, according to Hale's chronology. If the race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16,384 perished by the Flood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe. This most merciful providence of God started the race anew with a righteous head.

Now, if there had been no flood to destroy the human race, then the descendants of Adam, in the 7333 years would have been 16,384 times the 1,804,187,000, or 29,559,799,808,000; or computed at the Jewish rate of net increase for 7333 years since Adam, the population would have been still greater, or 35,184,372,088,832. These calculations are imperfect accord with the Scripture story of the special creation of man, and the destruction of the race by a flood. Had it not been for the flood, the earth could not have sustained the descendants of Adam. Is not this a demonstration, decisive and final?

What do you make of it?

NB. This is now a view I share, I am just asking for your opinion on it.

A creationist on another forum I hang around posted this:

What do you make of it?

NB. This is now a view I share, I am just asking for your opinion on it.

I actually made a similar, but much more simplistic calculation, like this once. I only wanted to see if the flood story was plausible and it did actually show similar results for me. It looked plausible, at least, based on my population data.

Can anyone else confirm these calculations? Have there ever been any scientific studies done on this? Or was my brain or calculator malfunctioning?

Thanks!

The first flaw:

"and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife."

They didn't number two. Not only was there Noah and his wife but also their sons and their sons wives. Clearly his maths would have worked out differently if he had have included these people - and I suspect that's the very reason he didn't. Other than Adam and Eve, there has never been a biblical time when there were just two people.

I'll get to the maths tomorrow.

the population of the world conclusively shows that MAN CERTAINLY DID NOT DESCEND FROM THE BRUTE.

Even if the figures stood up under scrutiny it wouldn't show any such thing.

He was created as the Bible declares, by the Almighty Power of God.


Even if the figures stood up under scrutiny it wouldn't show any such thing. We are still left with the possibility that the existence of the universe and all life in it was farted into existence by an omnipotent marshmallow chewing orang utan.

The proposed rates of doubling in the article are far too large. For most of human history, the average human life span has been about 30 years - it still is in some places. Disease, death in childbirth, infant mortality and so on meant that the doubling rate has actually been quite slow.

Probably, somebody else will provide numerical estimates.

Summary: you cannot deduce the age of man by knowing the doubling rate and population then working backwards.

Some kind of doubling time it not realistic. Yes, for bacteria in a jar when there is plenty of room and nutrients but not for anything more complicated.

Just think about it: variables in environmental conditions, availability of natural resources, diseases/plagues - all of these will destroy any nice straight line you are expecting to see on a log graph because they change over time.

Another thing: the article assumes the doubling rate has been constant over the last 5000 years. It hasn't.

I want to see his full equation. Did he use 'b' or 'B' to stand for the Bubonic Plague? And how did he factor in the huge decline in infant deaths? And did God create AIDS just to balance an unsettled equation? Like Einstein's cosmological constant?

I call bullshit on the entire quoted piece. Rubbish, all. And the only reason that you can pull this off is because you can pick any number between 12 and 40 for a generation (the age span in which women can conceive). Which number did he use, and why? The age of reproduction controls the length of time required for a doubling. Because of this, you could make the Bible correct for a very broad range.

Proof of the Bible's validity would have been much easier if God had included some higher mathematics, or even some correct cosmology.

With allowances for shorter generations back then, and for the eight on Noah's Ark from whom we came, the numbers are still way out of the ballpark for the Darwinian chronology.

And the incentive to have many children was very great back then, obviously.

IceAge, perhaps you think it is possible to predict the size of a population? You can't - there are too many variable factors.

The incentive to have more children might seem sensible from a 'do it for the species' point of view, but certainly not from the point of view that 'evolutionists' (or should I say scientists) hold, as childbirth is a very dangerous event and furthermore it is sometimes best to invest more effort into a few children than spread what little resources you have over a large family. I could really go on and on about contrived great flood theory is, but what would convince you most are the works of a man called Richard Dawkins. He is widely feared by Christians and for good reason too!

Richard Dawkins is a piece of cake.

Regarding the ancients' desire to have many children, as was the consensus in the ancient world, the Bible states it this way, "it is good to have many arrows in your quiver."

Little resources, c' mon, the whole big vacant world was theirs to be had, and don't forget, early on, 'til about 1500 B.C., the deserts of today's world were well watered pastures and lakes, like in Iraq and Egypt.

The Bible can state whatever it likes - it doesn't mean it's correct. The more arrows you make in a given time will naturally reduce the quality. In fact, I can't believe you quoted the Bible to me on this matter - the Bible has no idea how many children are appropriate for maximum survival because that figure will change. I would interpret that quote as "it is, of course, good to have many children - you just need to know how many you can handle before you start to harm the previous ones e.g. by dying or having too little food".

Although I do not know the exact facts behind what actual conditions existed at 1500 B.C, I would never expect humanity to have an effortless spree of growth. There will always be saturation of a particular resource.

"Saturation," with a few million people and continents of lush pastures and forests? You've got to be kidding!

You might not be aware of it, but 10 years ago there was a mass hamster war. It was long and bloody and violent and ended up with the death of all but 2 hamsters.. a boy and a girl named Valerie and Roger. Now they were quite lucky - hamsters have an average of 10 offspring 3 times a year. That means that in just one year these two hamsters would have 30 children. In two years you'd have a total of 900 hamsters. By the end of year three you'd have a total global population of 27000 hamsters. Come year four there'd be 810,000 of the little buggers running rampant.

Basically by the end of the tenth year, (which hamster historians claim is today), you have a total global population of 196830000000000 hamsters.

And that's in just ten years! (Some idiot claims hamsters have been around for ages)

This leads us to some conclusive undeniable facts:

1) Given the current estimated global population of hamsters it is safe to say that the entire hamster species hasn't existed for more than 3 years.

2) We should all be training in the art of hamster slaughter before this planet is crammed to the ceiling with hamsters.

3) The hamster species never evolved from anything but was instead created by an omnipotent furry hamster god.

That was just brilliant Snake, now back to humans.

Wars, famines, earth quakes, epidemics - you should ask how humanity survived extinction.

That was just brilliant Snake, now back to humans.

It was a pertinent analogy to point out the idiocy of the guys mathematics - unless you're going to claim that there are 196830000000000 hamsters from a decades work on the basis that hamsters have 30 kids per year, (and I was working on the lower end of the scale).

I have used the same system that this guy has, even adding that the end result clearly concludes that there is a sky fairy in control when if you were going give 3 seconds honesty you'd realise the whole thing is bollocks.

Just run the numbers, fits right in the timeline, too bad for your team.

Many seemingly-plausible scenarios fit the timeline. If you want to twist some facts and ignore others, it's easy enough to do. That doesn't in any way make it right.

Failing to acknowledge obvious flaws in your argument is intellectually dishonest, IceAgeCivilizations. Of course, that's par for the course with fundamentalists.

"Twist some facts," huh?

His references to the Jews are wrong.

90 percent are not Hebraic. 90 percent are Turkic Khazars who converted in the 800's.

Moreover, there has never been 25 million Jews on this planet. The Holocaust killed off 6 million and there is now 15 million.

Many Jews dispersed throughout the Middle East from 1000 B.C. up to the time of Christ.

PJ: His references to the Jews are wrong.

90 percent are not Hebraic. 90 percent are Turkic Khazars who converted in the 800's.

Moreover, there has never been 25 million Jews on this planet. The Holocaust killed off 6 million and there is now 15 million.

*************
M*W: I was going to respond to IAC's erroneous statistics about the Jews, but instead, I thought I'd run this comment by you. In 1000 BCE, there were no Jews to speak of, only Egyptian Abiru who later became the Hebrews. As I recall from my studies, the patriarch David lived circa 1000 BCE. He was considered to be an Egyptian prince at that time (did he not?), and he was one of the Egyptial forefathers of the Hebrews. Everything the OT states about Abraham, Moses and David, alludes to them being Egyptian and not Hebrew.

Care to discuss, PJ?

Ah yes, ol' King David, the Egyptian, yeee heeeee!

PJ: His references to the Jews are wrong.

90 percent are not Hebraic. 90 percent are Turkic Khazars who converted in the 800's.

Moreover, there has never been 25 million Jews on this planet. The Holocaust killed off 6 million and there is now 15 million.

*************
M*W: I was going to respond to IAC's erroneous statistics about the Jews, but instead, I thought I'd run this comment by you. In 1000 BCE, there were no Jews to speak of, only Egyptian Abiru who later became the Hebrews. As I recall from my studies, the patriarch David lived circa 1000 BCE. He was considered to be an Egyptian prince at that time (did he not?), and he was one of the Egyptial forefathers of the Hebrews. Everything the OT states about Abraham, Moses and David, alludes to them being Egyptian and not Hebrew.

Care to discuss, PJ?

We are pretty sure Moses was an Egyptian noble, that made a couple of throws at the crown, got his butt kicked, and as per the conditions of his surrender, was given safe passage to the border. Exodus is off a couple of hundred years.

You guys are hilarious.

You guys are hilarious.

Historicity

Main article: the Exodus

The time-span in this book, from the death of Joseph to the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness, covers about one hundred and forty-five years, on the supposition that one computes the four hundred and thirty years (12:40) from the time of the promises made to Abraham (Gal. 3:17).

There have been several attempts to fix the date of the events in the book to a precise point on the Gregorian Calendar. These attempts generally rest on three considerations

* Who the unnamed pharaoh was
* The dates for non-biblical accounts of large numbers of semitic people leaving Egypt
* The date that archaeology implies Jericho was destroyed

Generally, fixing the identification of the Pharaoh is considered the key, and two dynasties are usually suggested:

* Ramses II or Merneptah of the 19th Dynasty, around 1290 BCE, favoured by the large majority of both religious and secular scholars, although this contradicts several key aspects of the biblical account, and neglects several recent archaeological discoveries in Tel el-Dab'a and Jericho. See Ramesses II#Pharaoh of Exodus.3F.
* Thutmose III or Amenhotep II of the 18th Dynasty, around 1444 BCE, favoured by a large minority of mostly religious scholars, since it precedes the destruction of Jericho, although some doubt surrounds the archaeological evidence supporting the Exodus and Canaanite conquest dating. However it should be noted that Egypt still dominated the Canaan at that period in history [1], making such a date less plausible. The carbon-dating tests at Jericho are also disputed in age.
* Akhenaton of the 18th Dynasty, around 1340 BC. The link to Akhenaton is that, like Moses, this pharaoh was struggling to convert the people to monotheism. The brother of Akhenaton was named Tuth-Moses, and while it is often assumed that this Tuth-Moses died young Professor Cyril Aldred shows that he was the commander of the king's chariot forces. [1] The Jewish historian Josephus Flavius similarly records that Moses was an Egyptian prince and army commander (Antiquities 2:232, 2:241). [2]
* Many others have been suggested, such as Dudimose, the Hyksos expulsion, and others. See Dudimose and The Exodus Decoded.


and you might want to read up a bit more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

So the Jews don't "really" know their own history.

So the Jews don't "really" know their own history.

*************
M*W: Yeah, that's the ticket.

Just run the numbers, fits right in the timeline, too bad for your team.

Just run the numbers, fits right in the timeline.. Time to start killing hamsters.

Medicine Woman:

M*W: I was going to respond to IAC's erroneous statistics about the Jews, but instead, I thought I'd run this comment by you. In 1000 BCE, there were no Jews to speak of, only Egyptian Abiru who later became the Hebrews. As I recall from my studies, the patriarch David lived circa 1000 BCE. He was considered to be an Egyptian prince at that time (did he not?), and he was one of the Egyptial forefathers of the Hebrews. Everything the OT states about Abraham, Moses and David, alludes to them being Egyptian and not Hebrew.

I do not recall king David ever being counted as an Egyptian prince. Do your ecall where you read this and what that was based on?

Also, I am looking over some info on king David, and nothing says anything about him being an Egyptian prince.

I think you mean Moses? Moses was raised as an Egyptian prince, yes.

And what about Abraham makes you think he is thought of as Egyptian? They place him in Ur, a Mesopatamian capital, not Egypt at his birth and early life.

Interesting, Strabo counts the Jews as descendent from Egyptians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Moses_in_Strabo

Right beneath the above is also an interesting story by Tacitus.

Of course, none of these writers were even remotely near the history of Moses' time, as suggested by scholars of the Bible. So naturally, it is probably very ad hoc.

I think you mean Moses? Moses was raised as an Egyptian prince, yes.

And what about Abraham makes you think he is thought of as Egyptian? They place him in Ur, a Mesopatamian capital, not Egypt at his birth and early life.



Moses was more than just an Egyptian raised prince, he WAS an EGYPTIAN prince! Anything more to the story is a nice fairy tale. He tried to cause shite and revolt, and eventually was given safe passage to the Egyptian border into exhile... well after that... the story might become more biblically accurate.

I have both the works of Tacticus and Josepheus (though I only have the Jewish Wars by him)

King Tut was a Jew, most people don't know this.

And most people don't know that Sesostris I was also a Jew.

This just shows me that religion has arrived at the 2 x 2 stages of mathematics while the scientific world is at calculating space travel.

The basic assumption is incorrect, it assumes a consistent doubling of the population...and the immortality of the predecessor. Indeed if one multiplies by 2 by 2, 30 times, you get approx 1.7B. However this is a linear extrapolation and assumes the existence of the first 2. (Obviously a linear extrapolation cannot be correct due to mortality, mortality rates, wars, disease, infertility, natural disasters etc).

I imagine of course he got this by literally typing the number 2 on a calculator and pressing *2 thirty times. If one assumes mortality, the population must be such that as the predecessors die - variable D, the population P is increased such that the total new population P' becomes

P' = 2P + 2D. (to double the previous population, and to replace the dead ones AND double them, to maintain the 2*2 progression)

How does one time one's ovulation period to coincide with this? :)

Moreover, this does not hold true when you pass 1992. He states that approximately 164 years has to pass for the human race to double. It is now 2007 (15 years later) and the human population has arrived near 7B. A whopping triple it's 1992 total. Some jumped-up theist in 1992 realised a convenient calculation at an opportune time and felt a surge of self satisfaction...that's all this amounts to.

However, you plug in someting like his numbers for 20,000 years, what do you get?

IceAgeCivilizations:

What proof do you have for Tut's Judaism?

IceAgeCivilizations:

What proof do you have for Tut's Judaism?

Dang, I read that, was going to respond to that, then got distracted. Tut was a Jew, omg. I hereby promise today never to become Christian ever! As I do not want to turn out like IceAgeCivilizations. I promise to dedicate my life as much as possible to truth, and away from the deceptions Christianity offers.

Wow. What an oversimplified view of the human population.

Also, the claim that this math proves we didn't "descend from the brute" doesn't follow. But what else could one expect?

It's sad that he devoted so much brain power and energy into this, and so poorly. I'm sure glad that I don't waste my life away on such make-believe.

However, you plug in someting like his numbers for 20,000 years, what do you get?

Who cares? His "numbers" are two twos. Complete childish math for a highly complex extrapolation.

Wiz, Ath, you are such drama queens.

Also, Buddha was actually a Jew.

Wiz, Ath, you are such drama queens.

Also, Buddha was actually a Jew.

Thank you for showing me what not to be.

Don't forget, King Hiram was actually a Jew.

IceAgeCivilizations:

What proof do you have of Tut and Buddha's Judaism?

Because Buddha was an Aryan Kshyatriya prince. And last I checked, Indo-Europeans are not Jews.

Kinda silly isn't it? But maybe not, some here say that King David was an Egyptian, so there appears to be much history to be readdressed, I'm just joining the party!

[QUOTE=IAC: Ah yes, ol' King David, the Egyptian, yeee heeeee![/QUOTE]

*************
M*W: You know you're really showing your pathetic ignorance. Why don't you do some reading, so you could keep up with the research of biblical scholars and archeologists?

Kinda silly isn't it? But maybe not, some here say that King David was an Egyptian, so there appears to be much history to be readdressed, I'm just joining the party!

No, you are being childish and making unsupported assumptions to try murk the water up. I suppose that is to be expected. You are seriously not interested in finding the truth, are you?

So the Jews don't "really" know their own history

Funnily enough, no. You'd be hard pressed to find a jew that even knows the majority of their months are named after Sumerian gods.

Hey Med Woman, let's see your "evidence" that King David was an Egyptian.

And Snak, the Sumerian Global Deluge lasted only 14 days, does this seem more plausible than the 1 year described in the Bible?

And Snak, the Sumerian Global Deluge lasted only 14 days, does this seem more plausible than the 1 year described in the Bible?

While it has nothing whatsoever to do with my last post I shall answer the question:

1) There is no evidence to support claim that a global flood has ever happened - be it 14 days, 1 year or 32 seconds.

2) Yes it would seem more plausible - once you take all the details into account. The bible claims there were 2 of each animal and 7 of each 'clean' (kosher) animal. This would leave you with such a high number that any sane person already knows the story is fictional. Add to that the fact that you can't just lump animals next to each other, (you can't put a tiger next to a rabbit for example), but would require cages or something to keep the animals divided. Add to that the sheer amount of food/clean water that you would need. Add to that the daily amount of poo you would have to clean up. Add to that the different environmental conditions you would have to meet, (a penguin/polar bear needs ice/a koala bear needs eucalyptus etc), and you'd be hard pushed to find any sane human that would even give it 0 seconds serious consideration.

However, not that anyone would take it seriously, but if it had have happened 14 days survival would be a lot more plausible than an entire year.

3) The Sumerian flood epic predates the biblical one by over 1,500 years. In saying this the Sumerian account would instantly have more credibility than any version written later as they would have been closer in time to the events before too much Chinese whispers had taken hold. So yes, for the second time.

Prince_James;1276863]Medicine Woman:

I do not recall king David ever being counted as an Egyptian prince. Do your ecall where you read this and what that was based on?

Also, I am looking over some info on king David, and nothing says anything about him being an Egyptian prince.

*************
M*W: Thanks for your comments. I shall try to answer them one-by-one. My first reference is: Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion, by Ahmed Osman, 1998. Osman goes on to say in Chapter 2 (The House of David):

"The task of identifying the historical David is complicated from the outset by the fact that the Old Testament provides us with two contrasting Davidic characters who cannot have been the same person. One is a warrior king who lived c. 1500 BC: the second is a tribal chief generally agreed by biblical scholars to have lived from 1000 to 960 BC, ruled over the traditional Promised Land--from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south of the Israel-Judean upland--and spent most of his life in conflict with the Philistines, the "Peoples of the Sea," who had invaded the coastal area of Canaan in the middle of the twelfth century BC and were trying to expand their territory."

"Scholars have largely chosen, despite the lack of any genealogical link between him and the start of the Christian era, to identify this tribal chief as King David, who is presented to us in a number of guises--shepard; rival to Saul and later Ishbosheth, one of Saul's surviving sons, for the Israelite lead epic duel; and a coward who fled from the wrath of ohis son, Absalom. However, he is also said to have been a warrior king who established an empire that stretched from the Nile to the Euphrates. The Book of II Samuel tells us: "David smote also Hadadezer . . . as he went to recover his border at the river Euphrates . . . And David gat him a name [erected a stele] when he returned from smiting of the Syrians in the valley of salt . . . " (8:3 and 8:13)."

"However, amalgamating the stories of two Davids--one a warrior king who lived in the fifteenth century BC, the other a tribal chief who lived five centuries later--should be seen as another facet of the attempt by Old Testament editors (Jewish scribes living in Babylon between the sixth and third centuries BC) to conceal the fact that Tuthmosis III, not Abraham, was the father of Isaac, and therefore also the founding father of the 12 tribes of Israel. The first part of the Pharaoh's name, "Tuth" (or Thoth), becomes "DWD" in Hebrew, the word used for "David" in the Bible."

"The story of the epic duel between David and Goliath, inserted to enhance tribal David's repputation as a "man of war," is an adaptation of a much admired Egyptian literary work, The Autobiography of Sinube, describing events that tookplace 1,000 years earlier, and it iwould certainly have been familiar to the Israelites from the earlier period of their Sojourn, the four generations they spent in Egypt during the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC."

"By the time Tuthmosis III (David) became sole ruler of Egypt in his Year 22 after the death of Hatshepsut, four decades had passed without a major Egyptian military campaign in western Asia."

The question I present here: Was Tuthmosis III (David) the father (or grandfather) of Tuthmosis IV (Moses)?

I think you mean Moses? Moses was raised as an Egyptian prince, yes.

And what about Abraham makes you think he is thought of as Egyptian? They place him in Ur, a Mesopatamian capital, not Egypt at his birth and early life.

*************
M*W: I'll attempt to answer your question, but my comments may not be in the order you presented your questions. Taken from the above reference, Chapter 4 (A Coat of Many Colors), Osman states of "Sarah's family":

"When Isaac, the son of her (Sarah's) bigamous marriage to Tuthmosis III (David), grew to manhood he is said (Genesis 2.5) to have taken a wife, Rebekah. Like Sarah before her, Rebekah is described as infertile, but this may be simply an extravagant scriptural way of saying that, at a time when early marriage was the norm, a girl had been taken as a bride long before she reached childbearing age."

"Solomon cannot have succeeded his father David in the tenth century BC because David (Tuthmosis III), as we have seen, lived five centuries earlier and was, in fact, not his father but his great-grandfather; in the Old Testament one often comes across accounts where the oral memory of ancient events is retold in a fictionalized form with different characters and a different time-scale. I believe the David (Tuthmosis III)-Bathsheba-Uriah story found in the Book of II Samuel should be seen as another version of David (Tuthmosis III)-Sarah-Abraham story, related in the earlier Book of Genesis, in which--to refresh memories in the matter--the king married Sarah and, on discovering that Sarah was Abraham's wife, sent the couple back to Canaan where the pregnant Sarah gave birth to Isaac, the king's (pharaoh's) son."

"The statement that Solomon commanded avast army and was overlord of a huge empire that underwent decline during his reigh finds no historical support in the tenth century BC, by which time the empire founded 500 years earlier by Tuthmosis III, the great-grandfather of Amenhotep III, had ceased to exist. The description of Solomon as the husband of Pharaoh's daughter also cannot be true. He would have had to be a member of the royal house of Egypt rather than King of Israel before he was able to marry an Egyptian princess."

And finally, David's association with Egypt, Osman writes in Chapter 7 (The Wisdom of Solomon):

"The apparent contradiction is resolved, however, once identification of the historical David (Tuthmosis III) and Solomon (Amenhotep III) makes it clear that the sophisticated administration
described in the Old Testament is the administration established by these two monarchs in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC to deal with the day-to-day task of ruling Egypt and its empire."

Interesting, Strabo counts the Jews as descendent from Egyptians:

Right beneath the above is also an interesting story by Tacitus.

Of course, none of these writers were even remotely near the history of Moses' time, as suggested by scholars of the Bible. So naturally, it is probably very ad hoc.

*************
M*W: My point in connecting Abraham, David, Solomon and Moses, to Egypt is that they were all forefathers of Moses, the Egyptian, which makes sense to me that Moses' forefathers would have alsl been Egyptian.

There are other references compatible with the works of Ahmed Osman. I just had this book handy at the moment.

Your comments are welcomed for discussion.

So Snake goes with a Global Deluge a whole 14 days long!!!

Duh, uh, Med Woman, Moses lived circa 1500 B.C., David at 1000 B.C.

At least you trust the Bible as a historical source, unfortunately though, you can't read it for comprehension, keep trying though.

So Snake goes with a Global Deluge a whole 14 days long!!!

Are you being childish because you're young or you think being childish is funny?

It is very funny that you think that 14 days for a Global Deluge makes more sense than 1 year for its duration.

It is very funny that you think that 14 days for a Global Deluge makes more sense than 1 year for its duration.

Fair enough, tell me how a 1 year global flood would make more sense, (given what I have listed above).

It's obvious.

It's obvious.

Are you a member of Landover Baptist

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

? :D

I left them awhile back, they got off message, wouldn't you say?

IAC;1277143]Duh, uh, Med Woman, Moses lived circa 1500 B.C., David at 1000 B.C.

*************
M*W: Why do you keep showing your vast stupidity? There were several "Moses/Mosis'" who lived through several Egyptian Royal Dynasties. The Moses you refer to was of the Eighteenth Dynasty c. 1350 BC. If you could read, which you can't, you would have read:

"...the second is a tribal chief (David) generally agreed by biblical scholars to have lived from 1000 to 960 BC, ruled over the traditional Promised Land...".

At least you trust the Bible as a historical source, unfortunately though, you can't read it for comprehension, keep trying though.

*************
M*W: No, I do not trust the bible as an historical source. That is why I read an abundance of extra-biblical research by credible biblical scholars and archeologists. You are the one who is a failure in reading comprehension. Shall we take a poll?

Med Woman, you believe that King David existed, from where did you get that idea?

First you say the Bible is all lies, then you say King David existed, what are you, schizo?

In a previous post, you mention only one Moses, now there are several, so, Einstein, what's up with that?

It's obvious.

Kindly explain it..

As an interesting sidenote I'd like to point out a statement by George Smith;

"The Biblical account is the version of an inland people, the name of the ark in Genesis means a chest or box, and not a ship; there is no notice of the sea, or of launching, no pilots are spoken of, no navigation is mentioned. The [Chaldean] inscription on the other hand belongs to a maritime people, the ark is called a ship, the ship is launched into the sea, trial is made of it, and it is given in charge of a pilot" [1873]

The first thing to do, (which you seemingly refuse), is to look at time of writing. The global deluge story that is written earlier must be more accurate by having been written by people closer to the events. A story then taken by other cultures, (inland ones), thousands of years later would suffer from all kinds of ammendments/additions and results of chinese whispers. That is the way the world works, I'm sure you're aware of that.

The length of time that the flood persisted doesn't really come into it. While I will happily take it into account you unfortunately didn't answer, (why am I not surprised)? Please take the time to answer.

Med Woman, you believe that King David existed, from where did you get that idea?

First you say the Bible is all lies, then you say King David existed, what are you, schizo?

In a previous post, you mention only one Moses, now there are several, so, Einstein, what's up with that?

*************
M*W: I mentioned only one Mosis, because of the timeframe that one Mosis was to have existed. If you would do some reading into the Egyptian Royal Dynasties, you would find that there were several pharaohs named Mosis. Make a note of this for future reference:

THE EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY

Ahmosis 1575 BC-1550 BC
Amenhotep I 1550 BC-1528 BC
Tuthmosis I 1528 BC-1510 BC
Tuthmosis II 1510 BC-1490 BC
Hatshepsut+ 1490 BC-1468 BC
Tuthmosis+ III 1490 BC-1436 BC
Amenhotep II 1436 BC-1413 BC
Tuthmosis IV 1413 BC-1405 BC
Amenhotep III 1405 BC-1367 BC
Amenhotep IV* 1367 BC-1350 BC
Semenkhkare** 1350 BC-1347 BC
Tutankhamun*** 1347 BC-1339 BC
Aye 1339 BC-1335 BC
Horemheb 1335 BC-1308 BC

+Co-regency
*Amenhotep IV=Akhenaten/Moses
**Semenkhkare=Aaron
***Tutankhamun=Moses' son

So Snake, you do admit there was a Global Deluge, now you're starting to get it.

Why would a navigator be needed when the Earth was covered with water, duh?

Since when were the Chaldeans considered great navigators?

The ancestors (Arphaxad, Haran, Terah) of the Jews were Chaldeans, these Chaldeans had a much more detailed account, with the Deluge taking a year, now if you want to believe the version were the Global Deluge was over in two weeks, then you go boy.

I'll ask it again, from where did you get the information which caused you to believe that King David existed?

Why won't you answer this, hmmmmm?

Hey Med Woman, how did you know which "Mosis" was the right one, based upon what information?

What value does the bible give for pi?
Three.
What was that?
Three.
You mean a whole number? You mean in his infinite wisdom, gawd couldn't concieve of an irrational number?

So Snake, you do admit there was a Global Deluge, now you're starting to get it.

No. Kindly start paying attention.

Let it also be said that this is not about "admitting". When it comes to facts neither of us were there and so the only way we can establish whether there is anything worth "admitting" to it would be based upon the evidence. There currently is none of any actual worth to suggest that there was ever a global flood. There are stories, and stories of those stories - but these cannot be considered as worthwhile evidence of a global flood for many reasons.

Why would a navigator be needed when the Earth was covered with water, duh?


Since when were the Chaldeans considered great navigators?

I see you like to ask questions. I generally like, or at least have the decency to answer them. You on the other hand still fail to answer the one I have posed to you. Explain to me how a flood that lasts a year is more plausible than one that lasts for 14 days and then I shall answer all your questions.

I understand it is quite common for religious people to take-take-take while they give nothing, but I haven't even asked you anything challenging. There are two possible conclusions to why you will not take the 1 or 2 minutes to answer me:

1) You can't, in which case you might as well just say "I can't answer"

2) You feel as if giving an answer is somehow going to cause you harm.

Which is it?

The ancestors (Arphaxad, Haran, Terah) of the Jews were Chaldeans, these Chaldeans had a much more detailed account, with the Deluge taking a year

If this is the case I refer back to my earlier point:

"The first thing to do, (which you seemingly refuse), is to look at time of writing. The global deluge story that is written earlier must be more accurate by having been written by people closer to the events. A story then taken by other cultures, (inland ones), thousands of years later would suffer from all kinds of ammendments/additions and results of chinese whispers. That is the way the world works, I'm sure you're aware of that."

You are now arguing against yourself. If the ancestors of the jews wrote about a global flood that lasted a year then it has to be considered as more plausible on the basis that it was written closer to the events.

now if you want to believe the version were the Global Deluge was over in two weeks, then you go boy.

Lets kindly not drag this discussion into the playground. Immaturity is not needed, wanted or expected. Now, when you're quite done with these antics perhaps you could get round to explaining to me how a global flood that lasts a year is more plausible than a global flood that lasts for 14 days.

Thanks.

Why would a navigator be needed for Earth covering Global Flood, the one describe in the Hebrew and the Sumerian account?

Since both clearly describe a Global Flood, to imagine such to have happened all within 14 days is plainly absurd, if you can't see that, then I can't help you.

The accounts in the Hebrew version are eye-witness accounts, passed down through the generations:

Genesis means generation (origin), the Hebrew word is toledot.

Therefore, "these are the generations of......" in Genesis means "these are the origins of ........, the ancestors who the writer knew, before the inscriptions on the clay tablets (as the Hebrew word for to write is to cut in) were made by the tablets owners, Noah, Shem, etc, 13 times this format is used in Genesis.

And Moses corrected some of the place names on the tablets to reflect the names of those places at the time of Moses.

Clearly I should adopt your tactic and just avoid answering. Perhaps tell you that if you can't figure it out I can't help you. Do you think a discussion is going to get very far if I do exactly what you do? The answer is a resounding no and yet you continue to refuse to answer anything, you continue with pointless idiocy while avoiding anything that might put you in a position you can't later back out of. I consider it extremely weak and dishonest.

To answer your question - it's not about need, it's about what a sea faring community would do.

[quote]Since both clearly describe a Global Flood, to imagine such to have happened all within 14 days is plainly absurd, if you can't see that, then I can't help you.


WHY?

Btw, you can help me, it would take 30 seconds to explain why. Is it perhaps that such an expanse of water cannot evaporate in 14 days? Explain it to me.. I'm not going to bite you.

I do ask however that you cease from wasting my time. Stop being rude and answer the question. I was under the impression that christians were polite and helpful. You are changing my opinion with your behaviour.

The accounts in the Hebrew version are eye-witness accounts, passed down through the generations

"Eye witness accounts"

"passed down through generations".

The second statement shows that they are not eye witness accounts. They might have been once, but by being "passed down through generations" they will suffer from chinese whispers, ammendments and additions by those that are not eye witnesses. These eye witnesses that you refer to of course would be those that wrote about the event closer to that event - I.E the Sumerians/Babylonians/Chaldeans.

Genesis means generation (origin), the Hebrew word is toledot.

Interesting but irrelevant.

the ancestors who the writer knew, before the inscriptions on the clay tablets

It's a simple impossibility. The 'tablets' predate the biblical text by over 1,500 years. In saying, the writer couldn't have possibly known them. You are being dishonest.

Now, answer the question or stop posting.

Pangea breaking apart to the present positions of the continents, steam venting in magma through the midoceanic rift zones for most of the Deluge water, the sedimentary (deposited in water) layers which compose the almost all of the sedimentary geologic column on the continents, all reasons to rightly opine that 1 year for that makes far more sense than 14 days.

A cuneiform tablet from each of those patriarchs, the tablets were passed down through the generations to Moses.

Toledot is integral to the above, obviously.

The old city names were on the cuneiform tablets which Moses received, get a grip.

Now make a logical objection or stop posting.

Pangea breaking apart to the present positions of the continents, steam venting in magma through the midoceanic rift zones for most of the Deluge water, the sedimentary (deposited in water) layers which compose the almost all of the sedimentary geologic column on the continents, all reasons to rightly opine that 1 year for that makes far more sense than 14 days.

Finally. Did that hurt? Did it do you any harm whatsoever to write that? Did I ask for too much? Was it worth going three or four posts avoiding an answer that was that simple? (You don't need to answer these).

Here is the inherent flaw in what you've said:

All of a sudden you try and involve science. Why have you not done that before? If you were going to bring science into the equation we wouldn't have got past the first page of the bible let alone to the global flood saga.

As we're talking science now though:

There is no evidence to suggest a global flood ever happened. That's all there is to it IAC. If we're going to talk science do it properly. Don't start on water evaporation etc until you understand the amount of water fall needed to cover the earth to such depth in the first place - and how that water fall would have annihilated anyone on a bloody boat to begin with.

You work this entire story on the basis of magic, of spells and gods, of a click of the fingers - and yet when called upon it you have the audacity to try and rely on science? Do me a lemon, you're taking the absolute piss.

How comes a sky fairy can click his fingers and start a global flood, a boat can carry millions of animals without hassle and yet for some reason science dictates that a globe full of water cannot evaporate etc in 14 days and so that all of a sudden puts end to any 14 day claim? I've never been forced to smell such bullshit in all my days.

Tell me now IAC so we can get this clear... Would you like to engage in this discussion from a scientific standpoint or a mystical one? Science or god.. take your pick.

You know as well as I do that you can't say "science" because you wouldn't get past the first sentence. Now I know why you didn't answer, (I knew already). The minute you tried to bring science into the game the minute you knew you'd have a major problem.

Now, from a non-science perspective.. which is the only way we would have anything to discuss in the first place... What exactly makes a 1 year flood more viable than a 14 day flood? (No, you cannot use science as an answer).

A cuneiform tablet from each of those patriarchs, the tablets were passed down through the generations to Moses.


So where are those tablets now? Are you pulling them from out of your head or are there actual tablets, (other than Sumerian/Chaldean ones), that support your claim? Oh please, a minute ago you seemed to be into science, into factual data.. now you have nothing more than personal belief. It's sickening.

The old city names were on the cuneiform tablets which Moses received, get a grip.

I would like to "get a grip" on those tablets. Where are they exactly?

Now make a logical objection or stop posting.

Now you're being plain silly. £10 says my entire post goes ignored.

Who said anything about evaporation?

Sedimentary means in water, sedimentary rock layers covering the continents, that's not all river deltas.

Reread the post about the most of the water during the Deluge.

About 30,000 animals, two of each syngameon.

It is foolish to say that the Global Deluge is more likely to have been only 14 days rather than 1 year, quite obviously.

The Jewish words which I described suggest that the eye-witness account were recorded on clay tablets, but why don't you tell me why what I described doesn't point to this, can you, I doubt it.

Who said anything about evaporation?


You clearly missed the point. You are trying to use science in a mystical story. If we were to do the same for the whole story, (as explained), there would be nothing to talk about. There is no evidence to suggest a global floor ever happened. That's the end of it.

About 30,000 animals, two of each syngameon.


There are over 10,000 species of birds alone.. * that by 2 and you've got 20,000 animals without blinking. There are 900,000 known species of insect.. * that by two and you've got 1.8 million.

A 14 day flood would mean that these insects are still alive and able to repopulate the species. If it lasted for a year so many of these insects would now be extinct.

I don't know how you came up with 30,000, but it's wrong.

It is foolish to say that the Global Deluge is more likely to have been only 14 days rather than 1 year, quite obviously

You still haven't told me why. You made an attempt that didn't pan out. Try again.

The Jewish words which I described suggest that the eye-witness account were recorded on clay tablets

I see, so there are no actual tablet records, (other than Sumerian/Chaldean)? How can you say that the tablets they refer to are not the Sumerian/Chaldean tablets or that these tablets even existed in the first place? Let me guess.. you're taking the word of an unknown author because he says so?

"The bible says it's true so it must be true". It's idiotic.

What a bitter guy, just relax.

What a bitter guy, just relax.

I'm very relaxed, even more so now I see you cannot give an answer or a rebuttal.

While you wont verbally say it, we both know the outcome..

1) You now know there are no tablets supporting your claim other than Sumerian/Chaldean ones that support a different story.

2) You realise that you cannot use science to try and support a science-less, evidence-less claim

3) Your claim of 30,000 animals is wrong

4) Nothing you have said is supportable.

While you will never openly acknowledge this, I know it is working on the inside. That little voice you're trying to suppress. It's telling you everything and eventually it will be heard. I am even more relaxed with that knowledge. Your entire "bitter guy.." statement does little more than inflate my ego a little bit. It's so easy to see when someone is beat.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Aha..

Yee hee.

That's the spirit.. nothing like a brave face.

Anyway, to save irritating everyone..

Was there anything in numbers 1 to 4 that you disagreed with?

What are they?

Problems with reading? They're like 5 posts up.

Drivel.

Medicine Woman:

"The task of identifying the historical David is complicated from the outset by the fact that the Old Testament provides us with two contrasting Davidic characters who cannot have been the same person. One is a warrior king who lived c. 1500 BC: the second is a tribal chief generally agreed by biblical scholars to have lived from 1000 to 960 BC, ruled over the traditional Promised Land--from Dan in the north to Beersheba in the south of the Israel-Judean upland--and spent most of his life in conflict with the Philistines, the "Peoples of the Sea," who had invaded the coastal area of Canaan in the middle of the twelfth century BC and were trying to expand their territory."

I thought the Sea Peoples were unindentified?

The first part of the Pharaoh's name, "Tuth" (or Thoth), becomes "DWD" in Hebrew, the word used for "David" in the Bible."

Wow.

"The story of the epic duel between David and Goliath, inserted to enhance tribal David's repputation as a "man of war," is an adaptation of a much admired Egyptian literary work, The Autobiography of Sinube, describing events that tookplace 1,000 years earlier, and it iwould certainly have been familiar to the Israelites from the earlier period of their Sojourn, the four generations they spent in Egypt during the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC."

Also wow! But I cannot find a single bit of information about Sinube. Is Sinube known as another name?

Very intriguing on the Solomonic issues. However, it still doesn't address why Abraham is held to be in Ur. Moreover, the connection with Ur seems more reasonable, considering the Mesopatamian nature of the Jewish God and much of the Bible, which takes its cues significantly from Sumerian mythology and deities.

M*W: My point in connecting Abraham, David, Solomon and Moses, to Egypt is that they were all forefathers of Moses, the Egyptian, which makes sense to me that Moses' forefathers would have alsl been Egyptian.

Well, it certainly is much food for thought. Specifically the discrepancy the author points out in the nature of David as a tribal warlord and a warrior-prince.

Drivel.

But they are. It's an undeniable fact. Go and look...

"David and Solomon were ancestors of Moses," Med Woman, what have you been reading?!!!!!

Prince_James;1277611]Medicine Woman:

I thought the Sea Peoples were unindentified?

*************
M*W: I'm not an expert on the "Sea Peoples," but I'll keep an eye out for more information on them.

Also wow! But I cannot find a single bit of information about Sinube. Is Sinube known as another name?

*************
M*W: Come to think of it, this is the first time I have seen the name Sinube. Ahmed Osman states in Christiainity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion, Chapter 2 (The House of David): "The story of the epic duel between David and Goliath, inserted to enhance tribal David's reputation as a "man of war," is an adaptation of a much admired Egyptian literary work, The Autobiography of Sinube, describing eents that took place 1,000 years earlier, and it would certainly have been familiar to the Israelites from the earlier period of their Sojourn, the four generations they spent in Egypt during the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BC."

"Sinuhe was a courtier in the service of Nefru, daughter of Amenemhat I, the founder of the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty in the twentieth century BC. The form in which his autobiography was cast--the story of his sudden flight from Egypt, his wanderings, his battle with "a mighty Canaanite man" l ike Goliath and his eventual return to be buried in the land of his birth--makes it clear that it was inscribed originally in his actual tomb. Many copies of the story, which is recognized as being based on fact (see below), were found subsequently, dating from the twentieth century BC. (when the events actually occurred) until as late as the Twenty-First Dynasty in the eleventh century BC. It was a popular tale in ancient Egypt, taught as a literary example to students, and there can be no doubt that all educated persons in Egypt, no matter what their ethnic background, would have been familiar with its contents."

"In Jesus in the House of the Pharaohs, I have given a summary of the evidence indicating that this is the correct conclusion that The Autobiography of Sinuhe survived in the memories of the Israelites when Moses led their Exodus to the Promised Land in the fourteenth century BC to escape from the harsh oppression of their Egyptian masters. (The Exodus has subsequently been disproven by biblical archeologists). Later, in the sixth century BC, the Hebrew scribes, writing the Book of Samuel during the Israelite 70-year-exile in Babylonia-- which had invaded Judaea and destroyed the Jerusalem Temple--and anxious to enhance the image of the tribal David in order to make it possible for readers to accept that it was he who established the great empire stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, included Sinuhe's encounter with a "mighty Canaanite man."

Very intriguing on the Solomonic issues. However, it still doesn't address why Abraham is held to be in Ur. Moreover, the connection with Ur seems more reasonable, considering the Mesopatamian nature of the Jewish God and much of the Bible, which takes its cues significantly from Sumerian mythology and deities.

*************
M*W: I just read something today regarding Abraham and his Sojourn in Ur. I'll have to address that at another time. It's late.

Well, it certainly is much food for thought. Specifically the discrepancy the author points out in the nature of David as a tribal warlord and a warrior-prince.

*************
M*W: The earlier versions of these bible stories can be confusing at best. Now the stories of Sinuhe implies that the David and Goliath story might have been plagarized from Sinuhe's autobiography. Or it could imply that David was also called Sinuhe! It's all very intriguiging, and it's hard to keep up with all the characters!

Med Woman's a real expert on this stuff, she says David and Solomon predated Moses, she really knows her stuff.

Medicine Woman:

M*W: I'm not an expert on the "Sea Peoples," but I'll keep an eye out for more information on them.

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

Apparently it is largely held that the Philistines were likely descendents of the sea peoples.

In regards to Sinuhe (as opposed to be) it seems possible that your reference is right regarding David being taken from it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinuhe

A full version?

http://www.uwm.edu/Course/egypt/274RH/Texts/Story%20of%20Sinuhe.htm

http://www.soltec.net/~jcolburn/ane/Sinuhe0.pdf

M*W: The earlier versions of these bible stories can be confusing at best. Now the stories of Sinuhe implies that the David and Goliath story might have been plagarized from Sinuhe's autobiography. Or it could imply that David was also called Sinuhe! It's all very intriguiging, and it's hard to keep up with all the characters!

Exceedingly!

Med Woman's a real expert on this stuff, she says David and Solomon predated Moses, she really knows her stuff.

*************
M*W: There was more than one Mosis/Moses. I gave you the list of the Eighteenth Dynasty yesterday. You only know about one Moses, so that's who you keep talking about. There were many. Do some reading.

*************
M*W: There was more than one Mosis/Moses. I gave you the list of the Eighteenth Dynasty yesterday. You only know about one Moses, so that's who you keep talking about. There were many. Do some reading.

Wow, interesting posts there. So, in a nutshell who is the real moses? Is King Tut his son?

Wow, interesting posts there. So, in a nutshell who is the real moses? Is King Tut his son?

*************
M*W: Technically, they were all probably real. The one most familiar is of course the Moses who was really Akhenaten. He also went by several other names (as did many people of their day). Moses was his pharaonic name. Mosis/Moses had been a dynastic name handed down to sons and grandsons. The Moses of the bible is the one who allegedly led the Exodus. However, many biblical scholars and archeologists have not found any evidence for the Exodus, so it ends up being just another bible story. From an astro-theological standpoint, the Exodus was nothing more than the movement of the constellations (or the Earth, as it were). If you go back and look at the list of the Eighteenth Dynasty I wrote for IAC, you'll see all the Mosis' that existed.

Back to Moses' given name at birth, it was Aminadab. He was later called Moses due to the fact that his story has him being taken out of the river as a baby. That's what Moses means -- taken from water.

According to Ahmed Osman in Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus, he proposes that Tut was the son of Moses of the Exodus.

Small world, isn't it?

Back to Moses' given name at birth, it was Aminadab. He was later called Moses due to the fact that his story has him being taken out of the river as a baby. That's what Moses means -- taken from water.


"She cast me into the river, which rose not (over) me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water lifted me out as he dipped his e[w]er. Akki the drawer of water, [took me] as his son (and) reared me."

Legend of Sargon..

"She could not hide him any longer, so she took for him a wicker basket and smeared it with clay and pitch, she placed the child into it and placed it among the reeds at the bank of the river." Then Pharaoh's daughter saw the basket among the reeds. Later on the Bible says (Exodus 2:10), the boy grew up and she brought him to the daughter of Pharaoh and he was a son to her. She called his name Moses, as she said, " For I drew him from the water."

Exodus

"She cast me into the river, which rose not (over) me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water lifted me out as he dipped his e[w]er. Akki the drawer of water, [took me] as his son (and) reared me."

Legend of Sargon..

"She could not hide him any longer, so she took for him a wicker basket and smeared it with clay and pitch, she placed the child into it and placed it among the reeds at the bank of the river." Then Pharaoh's daughter saw the basket among the reeds. Later on the Bible says (Exodus 2:10), the boy grew up and she brought him to the daughter of Pharaoh and he was a son to her. She called his name Moses, as she said, " For I drew him from the water."

Exodus

*************
M*W: I remember this same discussion between us a few years ago. Interesting that just about all the bible stories were taken from older works (original) works. Just like the bible says, "there is nothing new under the sun!"

Medicine Woman:

In regards to Sinuhe (as opposed to be) it seems possible that your reference is right regarding David being taken from it.

*************
M*W: I was looking through some references, and I found this little blurb about Sinuhe, taken from Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus, by Ahmed Osman:

"The Autobiography of Sinuhi, a court official who fled from Egypt to Palestine during the last days of Amenemhat I, the first king of the Twelfth Dynasty (1970 BC), mentions his passing the border fortress, which at that time bore the name 'Ways of Horus'."

So, Sinuhe may have been another name for David, but he also sounds like he could represent Moses of the Exodus theory. If that's the case, David was Moses' ancestor. Like SnakeLord mentioned the story of Sargon is pretty darn close to the story of Moses in the bulrushes.

AGain: I must say this is all very interesting. The incredible interweaving of tales is most fascinating.