Saturday, May 6, 2017

Orion, Osiris, Nimrod, Set, Sothis

Amongst the misinformation floating around about Nimrod out there, are claims he can be identified with both Orion and Osiris.  Osiris is linked to Orion, but I think that is about the the extent of the reason Nimrod is linked to Osiris.

In my main The Bible never says Nimrod was evil post I talked a bit about this.  How The Bible also calls Esau a Hunter, and so the name Seir being linked to Osiris (I have not been able to independently verify it being linked to Orion) makes an Esau connection more likely then Nimrod.  Then I did my post on Osiris and Seir.

I've done some more research on this since however. 

Sah is the name the Egyptians gave Orion, and he was frequently identified with Osiris.

BTW, one of the reasons I've become so skeptical of my old belief in Gospel in the Stars/Mazzroth theories is because the claim that what the Constellations are is universal is actually quite wrong.  Not only are the totally different as far away from Greece as China and Japan and even India.  But even the other Mediterranean cultures were not as consistent with the Constellation we're used to (which were the Greek's view of them) as people like to claim.

In this case. I've seen it pointed out that Orion was the only Constellation that the Egyptians had in common with the Greeks.  But even then Sah is never defined as a Hunter, neither is Osiris.  The Mesopotamians didn't call Oion a Hunter either, they called him "The Heavenly Shepherd" or "True Shepherd of Anu".  It seems to be Canis Major they viewed as a Hunter (Ninurta) firing an arrow (Sirius) at Orion, so Orion was the hunted.

It is worth noting though the etymology of the name Sirius may come form Seir.   From Wikipedia.
The most commonly used proper name of this star comes from the Latin Sīrius, from the Ancient Greek Σείριος (Seirios, "glowing" or "scorcher"),[112] although the Greek word itself may have been imported from elsewhere before the Archaic period,[113]
Another claim about the Egyptian view of the stars you see a lot is that Sothis (the Egyptian name for Sirius) was Set/Seth.  Actually Sothis being a Greek Corruption of the name Sopdet, was their name for Sirius but it was viewed as feminine and identified with Isis.  The child of Sah and Spodet was Sopdu, who was identified with Horus and according to some hard to verify sourced the planet Venus.

So be aware that there is a lot of misinformation out there when studying these topics.

Another astronomical mystery is what Star was refereed to as Nibiru, also spelled Neberu or Nebiru.  The whole Planet X mythology is easily debunk able nonsense.  But the name does come from Babylonian texts.  Some think it refereed to Jupiter, other have speculated various stars in Constellations.  Certain references to it seem an awful lot like Polaris to me.

Interestingly the Mesopotamian city commonly called Nippur was in Sumerian called Nibru and in Akkadian Nibbur.

The Septuagint renders Nimrod as Nebrod.  Why the M would become a B I can't figure out.  In our Greek texts of Josephus a similar thing happens, it becomes Nabrodes in Antiquities Chapter 2 Section 2.  And Nabrodou in Section 3.  So perhaps there is a relationship there.

Our main references to Nibiru associate it with Marduk/Merodach.  But Marduk actually develops late in the history of Babylonian religion, or at least doesn't become a lead god till late, being largely popularized by the first Nebuchadezzar, conventionally dated to 1125-1104 BC, but some revised Chronologists have moved him later.  In this later development he takes over many of the traits and functions the originally belonged to Enlil, but Marduk is a son of Enki's rival and brother Enlil.  Nippur was the chief center of the worship of Enlil.  So I think Marduk usurped Nibiru from Enlil.  Perhaps symbolic of Satan's desire to claim Nimrod served him rather then Yahuah.

Sunday, April 2, 2017

Jerusalem and Zion, Which is The City of David

An argument can be made that the account of how Jerusalem came under David's control (2 Samuel 5:6-9 and 1 Chronicles 11:4-8) makes more sense if Jebus and "Zion which is the City of David" are separate cities.  He had to take one first to conquer the other. And this fits later references to the two locations in the time of Solomon also.  The Ark was brought out of the City of David to The Temple, and likewise the Daughter of Pharaoh was brought out of the City of David to Solomon's house.  It looks like after the Jebusites chose to resist, David simply chose the fortress of Zion to be the base of his campaign against Jebus.

It might be that Jerusalem is sometimes used broadly of an entire district, but when used specifically of a single City it's just Jebus.  Some references to Jerusalem and Zion in the same verse often taken to verify their being synonymous, can also work as listing separate cities side by side.  Like Isaiah 64:10 which says cities, plural, then lists Jerusalem and Zion.  But since Zion also arguably has both a poetic broader application and a more specific one, perhaps it fits when paired with Jerusalem, two names that refer to different specific cities but basically the same area when applied broadly.  Psalm 76:2 also makes sense as referring to Salem and Zion as separate cities.

It's possible sometimes Jerusalem and Zion are paired together to represent the two tribes of the Southern Kingdom, Benjamin and Judah, Psalm 78:68 says Zion is a mount of Judah.  And perhaps this area was similar in intent to the original plan for Washington DC, taking parts of both Maryland and Virginia to create a capital District.  Isaiah 24:23 refers to Yahuah ruling in Zion and in Jerusalem, as if they are separate.

One question that might pop into your mind from the idea of separating Jerusalem from the City of David is, which city then is Ariel in Isaiah 29?  "Where David dwelt" could apply to both but arguably fits the City of David better.  And Zion is mentioned explicitly.  Also Ariel means "Lion of God", that fits it being a Judean rather then Benjamite city, as Judah is the Lion in Genesis 49.  Other tribes (Gad and Dan) are associated with Lions elsewhere (Deuteronomy 33), but not Benjamin.

I think the house David built with materials provided by Hiram of Tyre was in Jebus/Jerusalem, where he lived and had children with his wives from Jerusalem, and that could be the same archeological site it's usually associated with.   But the Fort of Zion was in the City of David, that fort already existed.

Ophel is a place-name linked to the Gihon once.  It's a Hebrew word for Tent sometimes used of the The Tabernacle, and in the KJV is translated " tabernacle", so it may not always refer to the same place. Maybe the Ophel in the City of David could have been where David's Tabernacle was?

Only 2 Chronicles 1:4 says David pitched a Tent for the Ark in Jerusalem rather then Zion or the CIty of David.  First off the books of Chronicles probably entered their final form later, so a broader definition of what qualifies as Jerusalem may make more sense there.  But also this reference comes after David had purchased Moriah, so maybe the Ark did some moving around during this period.

I think Jerusalem is the City called the Daughter of Zion or Daughter of Sion. But "daughter of ____" can sometimes refer to a separate City that is related in some way.  Like Tyre being the Daughter of Sidon/Zidon in Isaiah 23:12.  And the Daughter of Babylon I think is likely Hammurabi/Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, the daughter of the original Babel which was Eridu.

The City we usually call Jerusalem I feel is obviously the Jerusalem of the The Gospels & Acts and thus the Jebus of the Hebrew Bible.  Where Solomon and Zerubabel/Herod's Temples were built.  So where then is the City of David and Mount Zion?

Luke Chapter 2 in verses 4 and 11 calls Bethlehem the City of David, and endless Christian commentaries try to explain why this doesn't contradict the Hebrew Bible's City of David being Jerusalem by saying both could be described that way.  Yet we're supposed to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, and Luke said "The" not "a".  And Christians view the New Testament as revealing and clarifying the "Old Testament".  This argument would not convince Jews or other non Christians of course, so fortunately I have some directly from the Hebrew Scriptures.

1 Samuel 20:6 when speaking of David refers to Bethlehem as "his city", that predates the exact phrase "City of David' ever occurring.  When you think about it this should always have been obvious, the hometown of David is the City of David.  To go back to a previous point, Bethlehem was in Judah.

If you object, "David had to capture his own home town?" remember what I said above, in my theory Zion didn't need to be captured, it was the base of operations for capturing Jebus.  Bethlehem is also in a mountainous region, in fact it's elevated higher then Jerusalem.  Perhaps the Gihon was the spring now known as the Spring of Etam, or Atan?

It's interesting to note that the Crusaders also captured Bethlehem first, Godfrey sent Tancred to take it, then they used it as a base in their siege of Jerusalem. Lots of people overlook this detail of the Crusades, but once you're aware of how Bethlehem is elevated higher then Jerusalem, you realize it is ideal to secure that area first if you want to siege Jerusalem.

Micah 5:2 is the key Prophecy that The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.  But remember the Chapter divisions were not in the original text, and Micah 5 does sound like it's starting in the middle of something.  Micah mentions Zion constantly, particularly in chapter 4.

The first time Bethlehem is mentioned it is home to the Tower of Edar in Genesis 35:20-21.  Micah 4:8 refers to the Tower of Edar (Tower of The Flock in the KJV) as the Stronghold of Zion.  Then later refers to Jerusalem arguably as a separate city.  Some traditions say it was from the Migdol Eder that the Angel announced the Birth of Jesus to the Shepherds.

Psalm 132 mentions Ephratah in a context that seems to place the Tabernacle (Ophel) and The Ark there.  And it is a Davidic Psalm.  The City of David housed the Tabernacle of David and The Ark during most of David's reign.  And that Psalm also uses the name Zion.

2 Samuel 2:32 says David's nephew Asahel was buried in Bethlehem in the sepulcher of his father.  Kings of the House of David are repeatedly refereed to as being buried in the City of David, and resting with their fathers.  Starting with David himself in 1 Kings 2:10 being buried with his father in the City of David (Acts 13:36 also says David was buried with his fathers).  And it turns out Bethlehem does have a site with a tradition of being where David was buried.  Or the Kings might have been among those buried in the Bronze Age caves built where modern Efrat is.'s_Tomb " In the 4th century CE, he and his father Jesse were believed to be buried in Bethlehem. The idea he was entombed on what was later called Mt Zion dates to the 9th century CE." Rabbi Dr. Ari Zivotofsky, 'Where is King David Really Buried?,' The Jewish Press, May 15th 2014.  "By the mid-fourth century, the tombs of King David and his father, Jesse, are described as being in Beit Lechem.[See Limor, “King David’s Tomb.”] The first mention of Mount Zion as King David’s final resting place was in the ninth century".  Back to Wikipedia  "4th century Pilgrim of Bordeaux reports that he discovered David to be buried in Bethlehem, in a vault that also contained the tombs of Ezekiel, Jesse, Solomon, Job, and Asaph, with those names carved into the tomb walls."...[Ora Limor, "The Origins of a Tradition: King David's Tomb on Mount Zion," Traditio 44 (1988): 459.] "Having initially revered David's tomb in Bethlehem, Muslims began to venerate it on Mount Zion instead but no earlier than the 10th century following the Christian (and possibly Jewish) lead. In the twelfth century, Jewish pilgrim Benjamin of Tudela recounted a somewhat fanciful tale of workmen accidentally discovering the tomb of David on Mount Zion."
Asahel was a maternal Nephew which makes the above argument not quite a slam dunk exactly.  But his father is never identified.  And all three of Zeruiah's children are called sons of Zeruiah rather then by their father.  That makes it possible they may have been born out of wedlock and so mostly treated as part of Jesse's family.  Either way being buried in Bethlehem means, if it was his direct father he was buried with, he was one from the same city and so probably at least the same Tribe.  That David's nephews were so important to him means he may have insisted they be buried as part of the royal family.

Some kings are assumed to not be buried with the others in the City of David however.  Manasseh and Amon were buried in the Garden of Uzza or Uzzah, in 2 Kings 21. Manasseh is still said to have "slept with his fathers", however that terminology is arguably more vague being sometimes just used of death in general.  But, Uzzah was also the name of the person who died from touching the Ark as it was transported to the City of David, and David named a location after this Uzzah, Perezuzzah.  And another Uzza is listed in 1 Chronicles 6:29 as a Levite who was appointed a Musician in the Tabernacle of David.  So the name of Uzza can be linked to the City of David.

Jehoram was buried in the City of David but not with the other kings because of the condition he died in according to 2 Chronicles 21:20.  2 Chronicles 24:25 has a similar situation with Joash.  Jehoiada, a priest who married Jehosheba, a daughter of Jehoram, is refereed to as being buried among the Kings in the City of David in 2 Chronicles 24:16.  So that adds more context to the Asahel situation.

Another King explicitly said not to be Buried with the others was Ahaz in 2 Chronicles 28:27, and this time it doesn't mention the City of David but says he was buried in Jerusalem.  Maybe where he was buried could be a clue to Manesseh and Amon's Garden of Uzza.

The name of Uzza/Uzzah here could be a variation of Uzziah, another name of King Azariah.  This king was originally buried "in the field of the burial which belonged to the kings" (2 Kings 15:7; 2 Chr. 26:23), but... that leads us to the Uzziah Tablet.
In 1931 an archeological find, now known as the Uzziah Tablet, was discovered by Professor E.L. Sukenik of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He came across the artifact in a Russian convent collection from the Mount of Olives. The origin of the tablet previous to this remains unknown and was not documented by the convent. The inscription on the tablet is written in an Aramaic dialect very similar to Biblical Aramaic. According to its script, it is dated to around AD 30-70, around 700 years after the supposed death of Uzziah of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles. Nevertheless, the inscription is translated, "Hither were brought the bones of Uzziah, king of Judah. Not to be opened." It is open to debate whether this tablet really was part of the tomb of King Uzziah or simply a later creation. It may be that there was a later reburial of Uzziah here during the Second Temple Period.
Being buried on the Mount of Olives, is pretty interesting.

It may also be interesting to note that a Bethlehem site is believed to be where Herod was buried, the Herodion.  And Herod's Official Biographer claimed him to be of Davidic ancestry.  I also wonder if Herod built his Herodium fortress over the older fort David had used that I'd mentioned earlier, possibly eliminating all evidence of the older fort.  Some aspects of Josephus description seem consistent with the idea of an older fortification existing there, it was the site of a battle before Herod built anything.

Bethlehem is never mentioned (by that name at least) in the books of Kings and only once in 2 Chronicles during the reign of Rehoboam.  As if during the Kingdom period calling it by that name was phased out in favor of the City of David.  Of course between Solomon and Hezekiah the only references to the City of David are as where the Kings were buried.

If you still think The Man-Child of Revelation 12 is Jesus.  It is Zion far more often then Jerusalem refereed to as travailing in Childbirth. With my view of The Man-Child as The Church at The Rapture, maybe Bethlehem will play a role in that?  After all a Mount Sion is important to Revelation 14.

Yahuah-Shammah is nine times the size of modern Jerusalem, according to the most common estimate of it's size, it could be larger.  Bethlehem is about five miles south of Jerusalem.  Yahuah-Shammah could be large enough to encompass both Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

But remember not all references to Bethlehem are to the one in Ephratah of Judah, there is another lesser known one in the North.  Sometimes people will try to argue that is where Jesus was born, but Micah, Matthew and Luke all make qualifiers ruling out the Northern One.  And the reference in John 7 would make no sense in that context if they meant a city in Galilee.

So I have run into a major problem with my Bethlehem theory.  Nehemiah 3:15-16 and 12:37 refer to the City of David as seemingly pretty clearly within the Jerusalem he rebuilt, and refers to the burial site of the Kings being there.  But I shall look more into that as there could be an explanation.

The potential answer to that issue is that Nehemiah's wall was larger then we usually think it was, that it encompassed Jerusalem and Bethlehem.  Maybe the wall we usually identify it with isn't it at all, or maybe it is but was only part of it.  And that most of what Nehemiah build we won't find the remains of due to the conquests of Israel by Antiochus Epiphanes and Rome.

Given my speculation that the Construction projects of Suleiman The Magnificent could be a second fulfillment of the Daniel 9 Prophecy fulfilled by Nehemiah.  It's interesting to note that he also built fortifications in Bethlehem, like The Castle of The Pools.

[Update: a Post in which I consider there may have been two Arks, possibly filling some gaps in this study.]

Wednesday, March 1, 2017

Are Jews Edomites?

That's another claim you commonly see among Anti-Semites who want to argue modern Jewish communities (chiefly the Ashkenazim) are not legit descendants of the Ancient Israelites.

I find it interesting actually how White Supremisicts and Afro-Centrists believe basically the same thing about Ashkenazim Jews.  The KKK and Neo-Nazis hate Blacks but don't give them enough credit to view them as the Evil Masterminds of their Conspiracy Theories, so to them the Ashkenazim Jews are the puppet masters.  While Black Power groups view the Ahskenazim Jews as the Whitest of all White People.  So both see them as the ultimate villains.  And both when presenting their views in a Biblical Context, will often argue some sort of Jews aren't real Israelites theory.

The common Kazzar myth will be made an aspect of that.  That myth is easy to debunk, one of my favorite videos on the subject is Chris White's.
What's added to this here is claiming the Khazzars were Edomites.  Many Medieval texts seem to identify the Khazzars as being one of the tribes to come from Togarmah son of Gomer son of Japheth, like other tribes of that region. Some like Britam and Veilikovsky (in Beyond the Mountains of Darkness) have sought to claim Lost Tribes descent for the Khazars.  I last month on another blog discussed reasons to think they may have partially descended from Benjamin's son Rosh.

But another factor brought in to allow a far more ancient Edomite infiltration of Judaism, is to talk about how the Hasmoneans forcibly converted the Idumeans.  First of all I have cited Bill Cooper's After The Flood Appendix 1 to support my view that the Idumeans came from Ishmael's sons Dumah not Edom.  Second, who was of Idumean ancestry was always well known, and it seems like after 70 AD many Idumeans reverted back to being gentiles and are in fact now a significant portion of the ancestry of the modern Palestinians.

But also, since NT era Idumea is essentially the land allotted to Simeon originally.  And Simeonites latter migrated to and conquered the Mt Seir region in the time of Hezekiah.  Maybe the Idumeans had some Simeonite stock intermingled into them?

But I also want to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with being descended from Esau.  The Torah allows Gentile converts to be incorporated into Israel.  And in the new Testament all who are Believers in Jesus are spiritually Abraham's Seed.

The last thing I want to talk about is the Red Hair issue.

Because of how Esau is described, especially at his birth (Genesis 25:25), he is assumed to have had Red Hair.  And today Red Hair can be a bit more common then usual trait among Ashkenazim Jews.

Some question if Esau was a Red Head, and argue that this is a reference to how sometimes Babies skin color looks reddish at birth (people saying Blacks are the true Israelites will say this particularly happens with Black babies sometimes).  Esau's hair is definitely talked about however, he was a Hairy individual, but there is room to debate if it was ever the Hair being described as Red.

BTW, that's where the name Edom comes from, a variation on the Hebrew word for Red.  But some dispute that it always or even at all means Red but rather that it can also mean Brown.  But I think it probably means Red.  A form of the word is used to describe Ruby/Sardius gems.

Regardless, if Esau did have Red Hair, Jacob was Esau's twin brother, so it shouldn't be surprising if their descendants carry some common genetic traits.  And Red Hair has a particular tendency to be a recessive gene.  So Jacob could easily have still carried the Red Hair gene Esau inherited even if he didn't have Red Hair himself.

The same word used to describe Esau as Red is also used of David interestingly, in 1 Samuel 16:12 and 17:42.  The same above disputes arguably apply.  Plus how it's used with David makes it seem less likely to be a reference to specifically Hair rather then something else.  Regardless people have used those verses to say David was a Red Head.  Which if true would verify that the Red Hair gene existed among descendants of Jacob.

There are some studying the DNA of Jewish families that claim Pater-lineal descent from David to see if they can kind a Y Chromosome Genetic marker similar to the Kohen Y Chromosome that's been found.
Davidic Dynasty DNA Research.
If they succeed, it would be interesting to then do a study to see if Genetically verified descendants of David are statistically more likely then other Jews to have Red Hair.

But Red Hair unlike the Y Chromosome or (most of the time) family names, can be passed on though the mother.  In fact you're more likely to actually have Red Hair if both parents carry the Gene.   Yet Tribal identity in Ancient Israel was usually determined by the Father's Tribe.  So let's look at how many confirmed times a daughter of the House of David could have passed David's DNA into another Clan.

David had at least one Daughter, Tamar.  And unfortunately it can be considered unlikely she ever married after what happened to her.  But not impossible.  I also feel like it's implied David had other Daughters, but we can't be certain.

Absalom we are told had children including at least one daughter.

Solomon had two daughters we know of.  Both were married to governors of Northern Kingdom locations.  So it's possible via them a Hypothetical Davidic Red Hair gene could have wound up among the Northern Kingdom's population, which can be interesting to note for Lost Tribes theories.

Rehoboam had 18 Wives and 60 Concubines who bore him 28 sons and 60 daughters.  His successor Abijah married 14 wives and had 22 sons and 16 daughters.  If most of those daughters were married into important families throughout the Kingdom, it's hypothetically possible that by the end of the Kingdom Period everyone in the Southern Kingdom could have been a descendant of Rehoboam.

Jehosbeba was a daughter of Jehoram of Judah, for various reasons I think probably not by Athaliah.  She was married to Jehoiada, a Priest and thus a descendant of Aaron.  We know Jehoiada had at least one son, but no direct confirmation he was borne by Jehosheba.  Still, we have here a chance for a possible Davidic Red Hair gene to wind up in the Kohen gene pool.

Zedekiah we are told had daughters in The Book of Jeremiah.  British Israelism claims Irish and later Scottish and via the Stuarts British Royalty descends from one of those daughters.  If you believe that theory it's interesting to note that Red Hair is most common among the Irish.

Hillel The Elder who was a Benjamite by his father, claimed descent from David's son Shaphatiah by Avital via his mother.  Hillel's family were leaders of the Sanhedrin till it was disbanded.  Rashi was a descendant of Hillel and thus many modern Jewish families can claim descent from Hillel.

I believe Mary the mother of Jesus was a descendant of Nathan via Luke's Genealogy.  We are told she had a Sister, and I think her sister was the mother of Zebedee's children, James and John.  I also believe she had at least two Daughters.  And I even have a theory one of them could be ancestral to the Bagartid Dynasty.  And if my theory that Joseph of Arimathea was Joses the Brother of Jesus is true, that could add a twist to theories about Arthurian Legend and Grail Romance, but that is for another time on another Blog.

So maybe it's possible to develop a theory that every Red Head is descended from either Esau or David?

Some people have suggested the 19th Dynasty could have been of Hyksos stock because of their interest in Set who become unpopular after the Hyksos period.  Since Ramses II is proven to have had Red hair, that can be interesting in light of viewing the Hyksos as the Edomite Amalekites.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Sinai in Yemen

It seems most websites talking about the idea that Sinai was in Yemen aren't giving a specific Mountain.  Just referring to Teman of Habakkuk 3:3 paralleling Deuteronomy 33 with Teman in place of Sinai.  And how Teman was a Jewish name for Yemen.  And mentioning the Kadesh-Barnea as Mecca theory and how that involves identifying the first Meribah, Exodus 17, with Ma'rib in Yemen.

Teman is also often translated South and Jesus called the Queen of Sheba the Queen of The South.  And that Kingdom we know was in Yemen.

First I want to mention how all the Tribes of Arabia were wandering nomads, so it doesn't surprise me that many place names may repeat in both Northern Arabia/Jordan and Southern Arabia/Yemen.  Like with Teman or Midian/Medan, or Seir, or Paran.  And there is no doubt there was more then one Kadesh and Meirbah in the Wandering account.

Jebel El-Lawz supporters like to emphasize how Josephus called Sinai the tallest Mountain in the area.  And I agree that it is in Arabia.  Well it seems to me unclear whether he meant just where ever he meant by Midian, or all of Arabia.  So I've decided maybe we should start our search by looking for the tallest mountain in Arabia.

Well the tallest Mountain on the Arabian Peninsula happens to be in Yemen.  And the second tallest is very near by it.  It's name is Jabal an Nabi Shu'ayb, the second tallest is Jabal Tiya.  Both are located on opposite sides of the city of Sana'a.  And a district in Sana'a is called Madina.  They are part of or near a mountain range called Jabal Haraz.  And another linked location is Tihamah.  And there is also near to Yemen's north the Asir region

Some of those names sound awfully familiar don't they?  Yet they don't seem to come from local traditions claiming any such Biblical connection.  Since the Israelites were traveling towards the Primised lands when they went from Sinai to Kadesh-Barnea.  If Barnea is Mecca and Sinai in Yemen, hen the Asir Mountains would be the Mountains of Seir between Sinai and Kadesh.  Doesn't mean the traditional location of Seir isn't the place in mind in other references to Seir.  There is actually no doubt that The Bible refers to more then one Seir since there is also a Seir near Hebron in Joshua 15.

BTW, the only two mountains in the entire middle east that are taller don't come close to even fitting the loosest definition of Arabia, one's in Lebanon and the other in Iran.

The tallest mountain in Arabia is named after Shu'ayb.   A Midnianite Prophet mentioned in the Quran, who is linked to Mt Sinai and often either identified with Jethro or viewed as a predecessor of Jethro's priesthood.  Yet this mountain which bears his name isn't where current Islamic traditions say he lived, no the Northern Arabia/Jordan assumption is the basis for the official site of his tomb.

I then Google searched and found at least one person had came to this conclusion before I did.

Sana'a is the Capital of modern Yemen, while we're used to thinking of Sinai as being away from civilization.  But Sana'a wasn't always the capital, and the city, even the old city, is barely older then Islam, first popping up around 530 AD.  The very tall Mountain was always there, but the City was not.

I also want to talk a little more about the name of Sheba.

I obviously disagree with the premise of The Bible Came from Arabia.  I think Jerusalem was always what we today call Jerusalem, and Beth-El to the north of it.  Likewise with Hebron and Galilee ect.

But I do think in some senses what God promised to Abraham did extent further south.  Especially since the sons of Keturah were totally South of what God gave Abraham according to most traditional maps of the Abrahamic covenant.

Beersheba is often given as a southern border of Israel.  But it's not a boundary marker included in Ezekiel 40-47.  It is usually contrasted with Dan, and since I think what it meant by Dan can extend pretty far North of the proper tribal allotments (Dan's proper allotment wasn't in the North at all), perhaps Beersheba as a southern border includes in a sense the sons of Keturah.  And thus lands that David ruled as Tributaries rather then directly.

Linked to Beersheba is a place called Shebah (Genesis 26:33) and Sheba (Joshua 19:2).  They're in land allotted to the Simeonites, but remember from Genesis 49 the Simeonites ultimately lost their own land to be absorbed into the other tribes.

Now the Strongs lists those references to Sheba as totally separate words from the Genesis 10 Shebas and the Queen of Sheba.  But the variation is really rather small, involving a letter that sometimes gets used as a vowel.  And interestingly for the Queen, only Genesis 26 uses the name in a Feminine form.

Perhaps Beersheba is the border between Peleg and Joktan?  And king Abimelech of Genesis 20 and 21 was a Joktanite King?  And the Philistines of Genesis 26 had not yet fully migrated to the Gaza Strip from Caphtor?  2 Chronicles 14 refers to Cushites in Gerar, which is interesting given my Cushites in Arabia observations.  Abimelech was probably a title not a personal name.

The Yam Suf clearly refers to the Red Sea, as that is where Solomon had his port.  But perhaps the Red Sea crossing was at Bab-el-Mandeb?  It is called that because in some traditions early migrations to Africa from Babel crossed there.  So it would make sense to lead the Israelites there, going the opposite direction.

Velikovsky argued that Kadesh-Barnea was Mecca.

As I've come to agree with Velikovsky less then I used to on some matters.  But this is an example of one of his lesser known ideas that I've come to find compelling.

The "Great and Terrible Wilderness".

Some corresponding identities I'm not sold on, like Medina with the Midian of Jetho, I think that Midian was probably the usual Midian, but shouldn't his theory be looking for it in Yemen?  And while I've contemplated the idea of Sinai in Yemen, I'm annoyed by the logic that goes into trying to make it a Volcano.  And I've already talked about where I agree and disagree concerning the Amalekites.

I have already explained on this blog why I believe Sinai was in Arabia, even if I'm not so solid on Jebel El Lawz anymore.  And on the Ishmael tag of my Prophecy Blog, I discus further reasons I see some truth in the Islamic claims about Ishmael, even though I would never endorse Islamic Theology, Christolgoy or Soterology.  Including possibly agreeing that Baca of the Psalm 84:6 refers to the Bakkah of Mecca.

Others taking aspects of Velikovsky's argument have tied it into other totally off base theories, like all of Israel was in Arabia, or that the Mizraim of the Hebrew Bible was just an Arab tribe.

One thing that I'm not sure Velikovsky knew, was there where probably two places called Kadesh visited during the wandering.  The place where Miriam died was not Barnea.  I do think Barnea is meant by some unqualified references to Kadesh, and this theory requires all three Kadesh of Genesis to be Barnea.  But the Kadesh that marks a Southern/Eastern boundary of Israel in Ezekiel 47 and 48 I do not think was Barnea but was somewhere near Aqaba or Petra, where Miriam died, and a location near Patra is traditionally where Aaron was buried.  There were likewise two places called Meribah.

Lots of people I know disagree about there being two places called Kadesh in the wandering.   But reading of the narrative that assume them to be the same have Israel in the same place for like 38 years.  Deuteronomy 2:14 defines this 38 years as hey time they were traveling from Kadesh-Barnea to the Brook of Zered.  So they were at Barnea only at the start of that time-frame.  And in this case the sources Veiikvosky is drawing on say Mozaikiya and his tribe stayed in Mecca only a few years then traveled North.  BTW, the "Mountain of Moses" in the Masudi quote Velikovsky talked about could be Nebo where Moses was buried and died, rather then Sinai.

The Kadesh of Numbers 13, which is Barnea, is in the Wilderness of Paran.  In Numbers 20 they arrive at a Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin, no references to Paran apply to the Kadesh where Miriam died.  In Numbers 13:21 Zin is referenced not as being where that Kadesh is located, but as a southern border of the Promised Land that the 12 spies surveyed.

What interests me in particular is how this is one of the places where The Tabernacle had been erected, and some Arab historians do say a Tent existed where the Kaaba is first.  I have become intrigued by the argument that the Tabernacle was actually Dome shaped.  And there is a Dome shaped structure near the Kaaba.  I don't think any building there now goes back to the time of Moses, but it's interesting.

Every time it's called Barnea it's called that in retrospect.  It's just called Kadesh when Israel is there in the present in Numbers 13.  It's in references back to those events in Numbers 32 and 33, and in Deuteronomy and Joshua that it's called Kadesh-Barnea.   That makes me wonder what Barnea means?

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Sixth Dynasty Exodus models tend to be inspired by the so called Jasher

The Book of Jasher I have dedicated a post to discrediting on another blog.

When you see people arguing for a Sixth Dynasty Exodus, they inevitably cite Jasher.

Jasher Chapter 77, says that Melol, the father of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and thus Pharaoh under whom Moses birth and exile would have happened, reigned 94 years.  Only one Pharaoh comes even close to matching this reign and that was Pepi II.  Generally the third to last of the 6th Dynasty.

That this Pharaoh had this reign length was not some fact lost to History until modern Egyptology however.  The transcribers of Manetho (though Josephus didn't discus this part of it) refer to Pepi II and give him 94 years.  (Many modern Egyptologists give Pepi a couple years less then that.)  So this information would have been available to the Medieval Jews who wrote the Book of Jasher.

From identifying Melol with Pepi II, comes identifying Adikam with Merenre Namtyemsaf II.  There the reign lengths don't quite match anymore, leaving room to doubt that Jasher just copied Manetho.

Because our transcribers of Manetho have a female as the last ruler of the 6th Dynasty, Nictrotis.  These theories go and identify her with Gedudah of Jasher 76:55.  But nothing in Jasher implies Gedudah was ever queen.  Of course most modern Egyptologists do not anymore think the last Pharaoh of the 6th Dynasty was a female.  But since we don't have that Pharaoh's Mummy I feel we can't be certain of their gender.

In-spite of my distaste for Jasher, I have recently developed my own reasons for considering a Sixth Dynasty Exodus.  The impact of the events related to the Exodus probably make it the end of a Kingdom.  And I think Solomon was contemporary with Tuthmosis III at the latest.  Yet I'm growing more and more skeptical of the usual arguments for a longer Hyksos period.

Especially given the potential very late date for the 18th Dynasty I've considered.  And my reasons to want to see Esau as contemporary with Pre-Dynastic Egypt.  The Exodus ending the Old Kingdom seems increasingly attractive.  Esau was born in 2237 BC by my current main model, 49 years before Ussher's date for the founding of Egypt.

However for now this is just a thought I'm throwing out there.  I'm going to need to investigate more.  And the Chronology of Ken Johnson in Early Post Flood History is totally nonsensical.

Saturday, January 7, 2017

The Sea Peoples and Lost Tribes speculation

I already did one post on The Tribe of Dan and the Sea Peoples.  This shall retread some of that while also being a follow up.  I've also already noted that my mind has changed on what I said about Ethiopia there in my post on Cush and Africa.

Of the nine peoples mentioned in Egyptian texts who we today grouped together as Sea Peoples, only five were called that by the Egyptians.  The Denyen were instead the people of the Isles or Islands.  The Lukka appear to be Lydia (Biblical Lud) in modern Turkey.  The Prrst are popularly identified as the Philistines but we know they were the Persians.  And the Tjekker are the most enigmatic.  None of those four were called Sea Peoples.

The Ekwesh and Weshesh are never both mentioned at the same time.  The Ekwesh are mentioned only by Merneptah.  And the Weshesh by 20th Dynasty and later texts.  With the common Wesh element in their names, I feel it's safe to make a "Clark Kent is never around when Superman shows up" observation.  So we thus can narrow the Sea Peoples down to four people groups.

The Weshesh being identified with Asher is well known, as are theories connecting the Shekelesh to either Isshachar or Shechem.  I've mentioned before my theory for connecting the Sherden to the Sardite clan descended from Sered of the Tribe of Zebulun mentioned in Numbers 26:26.  And I also think the Teresh could come from Tirzah, a city of Western Manesseh.  As a final minor note the Tjeker are linked in one text to Dor, a coastal city of Manesseh, but also near both Asher and Zebulun, and who's Governor under Solomon was married to a Daughter of Solomon.

On my other blog I did a Lost Tribes follow up post where I showed it was only the Trans-Jordan Tribes, Naphtali, and part of Ephraim (mainly Samaria) who were deported by Assyria.  And I believe they were taken East of the Euphrates and so can't be linked to Europe.  And I made a point of how Western Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun & Isshachar, and some of Ephraim still existed in their allotments at the time of Hezekiah's Passover.

Of those, Western Manasseh, Asher, Zebulun & Issachar I feel can also be labeled the North Western Coastal Tribes, who between Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 seem to have a bit of a Sea Faring destiny foretold for them. So identifying the Sea Peoples with these tribes I feel does not conflict with with Velikovsky's Ionian identifications for them, as I believe they would have traveled by sea to that region, and perhaps both founded colonies there and intermingled with the descendants of Javan and Lud who dwelt there.  Also Joel 3 described Israelites being sold in Slavery to Greeks.  One of the most important Ionian cities was Miletus.

I agree with Bill Cooper who in After The Flood argued that people from Miletus migrated to Ireland as the Milesians about 510 BC.  But I also feel other migrations of Galiac peoples to Ireland from Ionia happened around 300 and 100 BC since I also see some truth to O'Rahilly's Model.

So I think the Irish and possibly other peoples of the British Isles, and maybe Gauls of France also, partly descend from the North Western Coastal Tribes.  While the Scandanavians and Gemranic peoples (including Angl-Saxons and maybe Franks) partly come from Dan.  Thus meaning there is some truth in the Britam Model (I also agree with Britam on Edom being Rome, and Moab & Amon being Spain & Portugal, but not so much identifying Edom with Germany or Japan).

I have also looked into the claims of those who believe many "Negroes" are the "True Israelites".  Like a Video on YouTube called Hidden History of Blacks in The Bible.  This video supports garbage like the Kazzar myth, and just generally agrees with the "Race" concept rather then rejecting it as I do.  And supports Legalism which I don't like, and a very Ethnocentric view of The Gospel.

On it's claims about History though.  First I should note while it throws around the phrase "Lost Tribes" a few times, it does not claim Negros descend from the Assyrian Captivity or even Babylonian, but rather the Roman Captivity.  And it doesn't claim all Black Africans are Israelites, but mainly those specific tribes targeted by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, of which the Igbo are the most notorious.  I find that argument quite compelling, we know via the Prophetess Anna mentioned in Luke that some of these same Tribes I was just discussing had a remnant still in Israel during the Time of Christ.  Plus what happened to the remaining Ephraimites I haven't explained yet.

However the specific Tribal Identity theory this video promoted makes African Americans Judah, while I now think the Judahites in Africa would be Aksum Ethiopia (not to be confused with Biblical Ethiopia).  The main reason the Ethiopian Beta Israel claims aren't considered as Genetically verified as other Jewish groups is because they don't seem genetically distinct from the Gentiles of Ethiopia.  Two of the three major Haplogroups associated with Jews are present in that part of Africa.  The one missing is the one I think mostly to have entered Jewry via European Jews intermingling with Europeans.

Well I think the Gentiles of Ethiopia are of Judean ancestry as well.  The Christians are probably descended from Jews who converted to Christianity, and while I don't think the Menelik Dynasty descends from Solomon and Sheba. I do think they might descend from King Jehoahaz who was last seen being taken to Egypt by Necho, and/or from the Daughters of Zedekiah who came to Egypt later mentioned in Jeremiah.  Then later maybe some Judeans who came to Africa after the Roman conquest joined them.

The Pagans of Ethiopia are according to the oral traditions of one of them descended from Canaanite tribes.  Yet I have made an important point out of how there is no Biblical Basis for connecting Canaan to Africa.  However Ezekiel 16 talks about Jews who worship the Canaanite gods, or in their fashion, as being spiritually children of Canaanites.  So I think these Pagan Pseudo-Canaanites of Ethiopia are really Jews who fell into Idolatry.  Interestingly these tribes do seem to practice a Monotheistic form of Paganism.

But going back to the Enslaved Western Africans being Israelites.  The video I mentioned uses the Bondage of Egypt, and Joel 3's reference to Israelites being sold into Slavery, and the various Captivities, and Books of Maccabees alluding to Jews being Enslaved by Antiochus Epiphanes, all as Prophetic evidence that being Enslaved is itself evidence of Israelite heritage.

Well Africans weren't the only people enslaved by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.  Many Native Americans were as well.  But also going back to what I argued above, so were many of the Irish.  Also both Ashkenazim Jews and Japanese people were Enslaved in Concentration Camps during WWII.