Re: 212 LexiLine Newsletter 2003 Flinders Petrie and Chronology
- Joan wrote,
> In a more personal way of explanation, my name is Joan Elizabeth,which
> means "beloved gift of God",Well, we are not on common ground.
Joan as many similar names of that form also masculine John, Jon
etc. seems to be a variant of the Indo-European terms for "young",
e.g. Latvian JAUN- meaning "young, new" and hence applied to
the "new born". That is why 50 percent of names in Nordic areas are
often simply John, viz. e.g. Latvian Janis (Greek Yannis, German
Johannes) meaning as in Latvian "jauns, jaunais", the new born.
That the newborn is a beloved gift of God is without question, but I
hardly think that was the original lexical meaning of the word. This
kind of "flowering overexaggeration" is exactly what happens with
names such as Israel.
> You are absolutely wrong if you are saying Judah is Egypt!!I have explained where Judah was at
I write there that
SHIHOR or SCHIHOR in Joshua 13,3 defines a water
"flowing before Egypt"
Isaiah 23,3 mentions Shihor in connection with the Nile.
I Chronicles 13,5 states:
the Kingdom of David (!)
extended from the Shihor of Egypt
to the road to Hamat (the land of the Hittites).
In Egyptian sources
Shihor was the waters of the Nile Delta
together with Lake Fajum (Fayyum)
INTO WHICH the ancient channel of the Nile flowed
(today this is the canal Bahr Yusuf = Biblical Beersheba,
i.e. Bahr yu-SUF, since Sivan says the yu is added)
and Hellenistic sources say it WAS an arm of the Nile.
I know of no mainstream scientist who can dispute the above
So, what is your probative evidence that Judah is where the
mainstream says it was?
I see many indications the mainstreamers are wrong.
Do you not find it rather remarkable that Solomon's main seaport
Eziongeber (Asiongaber) at the Gulf of Aqaba is far outside the
borders of Israel or Judah as drawn by mainstream scholars.
This is like saying the main seaport of the USA is Cancun.
Of course, to get around this not too small a problem in identifying
Judah and Israel, the mainstream answers by saying that Solomon's
Israel was "much bigger" than later Israel and extended to
Eziongeber and that Judah only later became the southern part,
divided at Gezer - but not even nearly extending to Ezion-geber.
Are all archaeologists involved in this discipline mad?
And what is more, there is great doubt that the Gulf of Aqaba is
intended, for the "red sea" - just as the Red Sea in Exodus -
probably refers to a "sea of reeds" on the Nile Delta. See
It is written there:
"One recent Bible Atlas has correctly observed, "In modern times the
Hebrew term has often been thought to mean `the sea of reeds' and a
location for it has consequently been sought in a fresh-water lake
in north-eastern Egypt."
The ridiculousness of the identification of the modern Ezion-
geber/Elath as Solomon's harbor is noted at http://home-
where it is written:
"Ezion-geber, Solomon's harbour on the Red Sea
Another problem is the location of Ezion-geber, the harbour of
Solomon on the Red Sea. According to 1 Kings 9:26 it was near Eloth
in the land of Edom. In Deuteronomy 2:8 'the way of the plain from
Elath, and from Ezion-geber' is mentioned. The harbour is thought to
be near Elat on the Gulf of Aqaba, but nothing was found there. A
little island in the vicinity would be a better place for a harbour,
but nothing was found there either."
So, no ships, no harbor, no lumber for building trees, nothing.
Ezion-geber at this location on the Gulf of Aqaba as a harbor of
Solomon is a figment of the imagination of modern archaeology and
theology. I laugh out loud. The only thing that has been found near
there are ancient copper smelting facilities - goods for the ships,
but no ship-building.
But you know what amazes me. This does not seem to bother the
archaeologists, theologians and all the other misled scholars
writing mainstream history of this region at all.
The FACTS do not seem to interest them.
They are all a bit like the lady who writes Harry Potter fairly
tales - it is all just a bunch of nice fiction.
- AndisThank you for your well informed reply. I am expanding my understanding of how the Hebrew interacted with ancient Egypt and you have been a great help.In formulating my theories I have used Ochams Razor a lot. Though your work is new to me, much of the little I have seen so far withstands the test of Ochams Razor.I agree with you that the academic community is incapable of many things.Pont and Temple Grove complete with a 45 foot long stone snake was found by 20 years of research and by interpreting the Argonautica using Stoahist theory. The ancient Greeks clearly state that Temple Grove is on Pont. The ancient Egyptians state that the Steps of Myrrh are on Punt and the length of the snake Mahan in Punt is 30 cubits. Not unlike the Rosetta stone, Temple Grove and the Steps of Myrrh being the same offer a vast new knowledge base. Part of the larger water body that touched this temple (It is accepted in the normal academic community that by 1700 BC isostatic rebound closed the outlet called "Vase" at the foot of the temple.) was still called Puants and Puan on maps from between 1656 AD and 1751 AD. A people on Punt - Pont - Puan - Puants were still called "Puant" people on a map from 1890. (I have copies of these maps available in a local Library) The God of copper for the Puant people in 1700 AD, and long before, has been securely recorded as "Mishepeshu:" I do not need to tell you who that refers to in ancient Egypt that brought back copper from Punt. This is less than .05 % of the supporting evidences and solid proofs offered by Stoahist Theory.The same way Copernicus and Galileo proved their theories to no avail in their life time the location of Punt has been more securely and more thoroughly proven. References for all Stoahist material are available and to be found within the normally accepted academic community.Andis I feel for you and your words. Unfortunately most scholars are excellent at learning and regurgitating information but after a certain young age they, in general become the sheep you refer to. Should you choose to do a internet search under my name or Stoahist Theory and go to the maps of Punt, I will find out if you are also of them. I hope not. I have been here a hundred times and there is most likely no way that you can reject me and my work that I have not already experienced. While we still talk and are in this short space share a commonality in our love for history and the obvious, may I wish you well in your future works.Michael Busch