Who Was the Pharoah of Moses
-
Salam,
Actually that's not such a bad idea )
Salaan Layth,
Good luck it will be good script for generations like those kids who believe in Santa for all those year and even if grow out of this contrivance they continue telling the fairy tale to their own kids.
That is good to know, but one must always apply all the sences as if the foundation is wrong, the entire structure falters. Pilgrimage has been called to by Abraham and the prophets after him for 5,000 years. To argue it is Jerusalem or Mecca as both places have become associated with Pilgrimage is one of elimination and logic - but, to jump off the cliff and say that it is in Yemen or Africa or anyother place where no support is found from the Scriptures or archeology is what I mean by "rebellion".This is most appropriate in a place where all prophets came to same place and everyone knew about Hajj and month of Ramdan(not winter Ramadan )
For example, this whole thread was begun on the false foundation that "Misr" is not the name of "egypt" and the drift to Yemen and other places began. However, a little logic and pateince would have made obvious the fact that "Misr" was the name used for the Egyptian empire during the times of Joseph and Moses (as the Quran calls it) - and that this empire (and thus its name) would not nessesarily remain in existence at the time of Mohammed nearly 2,000 years later just like the name "Yathrib" is no longer in use in our day and age and has been changed to "Medina". Thus, Quranic names must be viewed in relation to their respective timelines and not other timelines just like the title for Egypt is "King" at the time of Jospeh and "Pharaoh" at the time of Moses.
The whole thead started out being about the search for Mohamad has ended. It started with Yemen but as the question of Msr is important Pazuzu dealt with it in another thread and Msr is not Egypt nope
I hope that this post makes clear what I am trying to get across about the process of logical research...
For that instead of critisising Pazuzu help him and assit him to do this reasearch with a mind free of old tales.
Salaam -
Peace,
http//www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/200603/the.last.nile.flood.htm
Hopefully Samia won't mind. The inscription and phrase (non-literal) proves that in Egypt which depends on the annual flooding of the Nile to keep irrigation going which is common knowledge has periods of non-flooding. Therefore, no annual flood and the people don't press, simple as that...
http//emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Ancient%20Israel/Grape%20Harvesting%20Egypt.jpg
1247 said you will plant seven snyn years as usual so what you harvest so leave it in its ears only/except little from what you eat
1248 furthermore comes from after that seven severe eat/consume what you advanced for them only/except little from what you stored
1249 furthermore comes from after that Aam (season) in it will be given succor/relief the mankind and in it they will press
Salaam
Again you are posting about Egypt and trying to say its about Msr well the people don't press when ever crops fail this is nothing new and as illustrated this happened in Egypt often but in case of Msr it was one such occassion about which Yousuff dreamed and prepared in advance. And if Msr was same as the Egypt than surely they would have put even bigger illustration how Joseph(p) dealt with famine and saved Egypt from starvation.
peace -
Salam Pazuzu,
I thank you for your summary and will comment to some of your points...
1- The title of "Pharoa" is completely alien to the culture of ancient Egypt. Any reasonable and objective archeologist or Egyptologist knows this very well. There is no mention of this title anywhere in the hieroglyphs of Egypt. The rulers of ancient Egypt were Kings and Queens, NOT "Pharoas".
This is a baseless statement you have made.
Pharaoh, meaning "Great House", originally referred to the king's palace, but by the reign of Thutmose III (ca. 1479-1425 BC) in the New Kingdom, had become a form of address for the person of the king
Archeology confirms what the Quran has taught us, that the rulers of Egypt we called "King" (as was during Joseph) but that it later changed to "Phraraoh" (as was during Moses).
2- There was only ONE person whom the Quran described as "Pahroah" (Far3oun). And this title was exclusively for the tyrant who persecuted Moses and his people. There was no "Pharoah" before him, and none came after him. And this tyrant was boasting that he had ownership of a "misr" with many rivers flowing near it.
The events of Moses took place during the reign of the same ruler - hence he tells Moses "did we not raise you amongst us when you were young?". As I have pointed out to you above, this title "Pharaoh" became common in the New Kingdom (18th Dynasty).
Besides, using your logic that people not mentioned in the Quran do not exist, I can claim that "no ruler ruled Egypt between Joseph and Moses since they have not been mentioned in the Quran!"
3- The story of Joseph tells us that his brothers tossed him in a well along a caravan route. He was then picked up by a group of merchants who sold him in the nearest trade station along that route. This descrption does not fit with Egypt, in which trade took place by boats carrying goods along the Nile River, in both directions, from the Delta area, all the way to Nubia (present day Sudan).
Again, a baseless statement. Land routes into Egypt were the main source of trade with Mesopotamia and other lands in the East. And, as you can see in the map below, the trade routes pass by the lands of Palestine and Nabatea which is where Jacob would have been residing.
http//www.bible-history.com/maps/maps/mesopotamia_trade.jpg
4- The land in which Joseph lived depended on rain for its agriculture. This does not fit with the geography nor the climate of the Nile Valley, a land that sees very little rain and relies on the Nile itself (irrigation canals). In fact, heavy rains often caused flooding of the river, which proved catastrophic for their crops.
I have no idea where you got this from. The 7 year drought of Egypt which was inscribed mentions the Nile running low, which meant that the lands could not produce crop as they depended on the flooding of the Nile as the main source of soil replenishment and washing out the salts - without the flooding, the lands can only produce a fraction of what they are able (you should read about this feature of the Nile which the Egyptians used to celebrate its flooding in the summer as the rebirth of the land - you can also read on the "Great Dam" project which was built in the 1960's and markedly affected the quality of the produce as it held back the regenerating soil that used to replenish the land).
5- The rivers in Joseph's land dried up after several years drought, because they were not the type of rivers that were permanent. The Nile of Egypt has never dried up.
Again this is baseless speculation. Iraq recently had a major failure in crops although it has 2 rivers running through. The problem was that turkey was holding back much of the water making the drawing of the water difficult, also, the errosion of the soil due to chemicles and pesticides was problematic for the soil to regenerate - crops need soil + water + weather.
5- When Jacob told his children to enter "misr", he advised them to enter through diferrent doors/gates, so as not to attract attention to themselves. This proves that the word "misr" refers to a walled trade town (a citadel), having several gates. Egypt did not have any "wall" around it, nor did it have "gates". And assuming it did, the wall would have to be similar to the Great Wall of China, and the geographical expanse would be so huge, that Jacob's advice would have been completely pointless.
Baseless statement. Jacob's children were going to see Jospeh (not Egypt) to plead and get back their brother. The "gates" are exactly that and the idea of Jospeh was to protect them from the evil scheming of people who would see them as many - which God tells us would not have made a difference - and that it was something within Jacob that he wanted to carry out.
6 - Moses was sent to the very same people to whose ancestors Joseph was sent. This means that the Israelites were still in the same citadel, by the time "Pharoah" entered the scene. So the events most probably happened in the same place (see 4038-44). The Quran also tells us that a believer from among Pharoa's people warned them of the consequences of rejecting Moses' message, and told them to consider the examples of the people of Noah, A'd, and Thamud, nations that were destroyed for rejecting their messengers. These past nations were not in Egypt. They were in teh same geographical region (south west Arabia).
You have made "Egypt" into a "Citidal" and thus are now having to create events to fit this bizzare premise! As for the Egyptian reminding his people of the other generations - you need to read the Quran more as all warners remind their people with what happened to the previous generations - it does not mean they have to be living in their vacinity!
7- The Quran tells us that "Far3oun" and his men drowned in the yamm, which is a stream of abundant , flowing water. He did not drown in a "sea" of any kind. The event took place inland.
You have recreated the meaning of a known word and are then making baseless conclusions.
a) Yaam and Bahr are used interchagably as Pharaoh drowned in the "bahr/sea" (250, 7138, 2663) as well as the "yaam/sea".
b) the size of this body of water was large enough that "two giant mountains of water were formed", which eventually fell on Phraoah and his army (2663).8- The drowning of Pharoah removed a serious obstacle preventing the evolution of Bani Israel. Eventually, the stage was set for them to inherit the land. They were at first split into several clans, each owning a strip of land. Eventually, around 300 years later, they were united in one kingdom under David, and later Solomon. And this kingdom was not in Palestine.
The Children of Israel inherited parts of Egypt, which the Quran tells us they went back to after crossing the sea. However, in refusing to enter the Holy Land with Moses and Aaron, they are cast into all the lands to be seperated - one such group, led by Saul, later forms a Kingdom in yemen as the evidence suggests.
9- The number of Israelites who escaped with Moses could not have been 600,000, as the Torah claims. At any rate, there is not a single mention, in the entire archeological corpus unearthed from Egypt, of any group called "Bani Israel", or any person by the name of "Moses" or "Joseph".
The Quran mentions them - so they are real. As for the number, the evidence suggest 900 years between Jospeh and Moses - so, if we have 12 brothers and their wives + 900 years, can we get 600,000? Probably.
10 - There is ZERO mention of "pyramids" in the Old Testament.
What on Earth has the Children of Israel have to do with the pyramids! the Children of Israel lived in Egypt under a special status which made them wealthy and hated by later Egyptians - hence the persicution that came centuries later. They were never slaves or labororars - but merchants with enough by just one of them that a strong man could not carry the keys of his treasures!
11- The delusional connection between the stories of Joesph and Moses and the Nile Valley came as the result of the Septuagint forgery, which replaced the word "Msrm" in the original Aramaic text with the word "Aigypto" in the Greek Torah. This was done for purely political reasons, and served a dual purpose
I have no idea what you are saying here nor who this "Sptuagint" character is. "Misr" is the ancient name of Egypt before the fall of the dynasty (Mizriam in Hebrew). "Aigypto" is the later name taken by the greeks who invaded the land who later became the "Copts".
-
Salam Imho,
Salaan Layth,
Good luck it will be good script for generations like those kids who believe in Santa for all those year and even if grow out of this contrivance they continue telling the fairy tale to their own kids.Sad to know that is how you feel about the Quranic sequence of events and evidence '(
-
Precisaely, that is what Pazuzu meant that it never dried up not that there was never any famine, and with a good reason, because what he claims, and he is right is that in many countries rivers do dry up, not the Nile, but rivers dry up, and when they dry up it is because there is a draght for lack of rain there. Tehrefore, yes, you misunderstood completely what he said, but since he has been already pronnounced guilty, never mind.
I do not know what you mean by "pronounced guilty", by whom and of what.
We are not in a war. It is a discussion so please do not turn it into victorious and defeated.Concerning the UNRWA, in fact I did not refer to the word you put to mean what you say it means, because I went directly to the name of the UNRWA such as it is and not such as you quoted it. And the name of the UNRWA as it is, is this
the word that means socour or relief in its name is not ghawth, it is ighatha, and it is root gh-w-th
And anybody can verify that going to the UNRWA website.
As to the rest concerning these two roots and the different words in Qur'an, I think interested readers (if there is any left by now) have at this time all the elements required to judge by themselves. They are free to consult whatever material they wish or have at hand and see by themselves.
It really doesn't matter whether it is "ighatha" or "ghawth" since neither of them mean rain or to rain and they both share the same root gh-w-th , not gh-y-th. The old title was just just as the acronym says, without inserting the word "Palestinians" because it was redundant since it was established just for them, or even "work" because it's presumed in the meaning of "relief". It still uses the old name sometimes http//lib9.wordpress.com/%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%88%D9%82-%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A4%D8%B3%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%AA/%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B8%D9%85%D8%A9-%D8%BA%D9%88%D8%AB-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%A6%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%86%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7/
Why do you think that there are no more interested people? Are you trying to downsize one of the main arguments set by Bro Pazuzu because you do not want to accept it is wrong?
Yes I see the difference you pretend that there is no mention of rain in Egypt and we say the same, since there is no Egypt in the mix.
You sound quite bitter by making my counter argument "pretense", and do not want to own to your error in presuming that "agatha" means "showered rain on them".
Salaam.....and I mean it.
-
Salam Mazhar,
7136
Is there any difference between 'bahar' and 'yam'? Why Allah uses two different words to describe the same thing?It is easy if you think fair enough. If you put an invisible barrier on a river=yamm (flooding water), it will became a lake=bahr (stable water). That is what happened during exodus actually. Moses and his people crossed between two invisible barriers which seemed like two big lakes. The event became inland without any doubt, otherwise yamm and bahr shouldn't mentioned together in same event.
-
Salam all,
in the part of the world I was born in, (Sahara), the sahraouis, like Reguibats, and Tajakants Arabs, speak Hassanya arabic which is one of the closest to Quranic Arabic... and the word ghayth for them is synonym for Rain... (I am a Reguibat descendant from Idriss II if you must know)...
that being said, even if it is not meant to be rain in that particular ayat of dispute... irrigation does not have to rely on flooding of a river, so long as there is water, you can build an irrigation system that pulls up the water and directs it towards areas you want...
also, if an ominous event like the drying of the Nile occurred, it will be documented... As the waters of the Nile come from glaciers deep in Africa, which keep on pumping water into it, I do not believe this has occurred in the past while these high mountains existed... and they are very ancient, talk about 100,000 years+ ...
It is unlikely Joseph was ever in Egypt...
-
Salaam Samia,
Perhaps you can explain why classification using separate roots; is this an error by Lane's et al?
When reading Qur'an in context and cross reference most the translators got these verses wrong...
?root ghayn y th
?root ghayn ww th ? why different root?
Gh-Ya-Thal = watered (with rain), rained upon, rain; search, seek; became fat
ghatha vb. (1)
impf. pass. 1249, 1829 (what?s this doing here if it?s a different root and rain doesn't fit in these verses?)1249 furthermore comes from after like that Aam (season) in it y-gh--th will be given relief
1829 and if yastaghth they call for relief y-gh--th-w-a they will be given relief
ghayth n.m. 3134, 4228, 5720
3134 and sent down the relief
4228 and He The One Who sent down the relief from after what they despaired
istaghatha vb. (10) 1829?
Lane?s Lexicon, Volume 6, pages 98
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000098.pdfGod watered the country, or countries with rain?
And He (God) sent down rain upon us?
The people were rained upon; rain fell upon the people or upon their land
We were rained upon as much as we desired?
...and the phrase properly signifies a rain that give aid, or succour.-- root ghayn ww th
Gh-Waw-Thal = cry for aid, succor, desiring aid; implore for assistance, traveling provision; food to give aid; waters; to assist/help/relieve/rescue.
yaghuth n. 7123
istaghatha vb. (10)
perf. act. 2815
impf. act. 89, 1829, 46172815 fa-is'taghthahu so called him for help
89 when tastaghthna you were seeking help your Lord
1829 and if yastaghth they call for relief y-gh--th-w-a they will be given relief
4617 and they both seek help The God
Lane?s Lexicon, Volume 6, pages 89, 90
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000089.pdf
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000090.pdfSalaam Ndp
There is no error in Lane's nor in the translations.
The verb you put as does not exist. It should be when in the present tense . It differs from the second verb which is of form IV with the past tense . It is only conjugated to the singular as subject, where the subject is rain or God as in \ \ \ . It is of form I and root gh - y th.
The second verb which is the one used in the chapter of Yousuf and whose past tense is means to deliver from difficulty, and it appears in Lane under "" at the bottom left of this page
http//www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume6/00000090.pdf -
... and the word ghayth for them is synonym for Rain... (I am a Reguibat descendant from Idriss II if you must know)...
No one is disputing "rain" being the meaning of "ghayth". The only problem is that this word is not mentioned anywhere in the story of Yousuf.
-
Salam waRahma mina Khaliqa Alkaoun, Allah subhanahu wata'alla...
Thank you Sis Samia...I think the problem with all lexicons including Lane's is that it is very hard for them to include all possible contexts for the meaning of words...
and the context of a sentence can change the meaning of the words included in it... there is not always a one to one correspondence, and that is valid in all languages (I did a module of linguistics / phonetics a long time ago when at Uni...)
The context of the story of Yosef (P) in Misr needs to be factored in to remove disambiguation of rain as opposed to flooding of a river... but common sense tells me rain is a very good candidate both in Yemen and Misr (as rivers flood due to precipitation or rain mainly), so even then this is not enough to use it as an argument that Misr is not Egypt...
Layth and pazuzu (through scholars who dispute Egypt as being a candidate) are still back to back on this...
However, corresponding names in the Bible, the Quran and Yemen, i find most troubling and validating to pazuzu's (+ advocating scholars) hypothesis...
No one is disputing "rain" being the meaning of "ghayth". The only problem is that this word is not mentioned anywhere in the story of Yousuf.
-
Thank you Sis Samia...
I think the problem with all lexicons including Lane's is that it is very hard for them to include all possible contexts for the meaning of words...
You are welcome.
But the lexicons agree with you that ghayth means rain. So we do not have a problem here, nor do the lexicons.
The problem is that the verse in dispute does not have the word "ghaith" in it.
It is deliberately inserted in the discussion to distort the meaning.of the verse.
I do not care where the Pharaoh lived, but the truth has to be told. There is no honesty in changing a verb of a specific root into a noun of a different root. This is how the qur'aan got corrupted.
If you want to blame it on lexicons, this is up to you. As far as I am concerned, lexicons have nothing to do with this word exchange. -
Salamun alaikum sis Samia,
To cut to the chase, the thing that interests me is where all the Prophets resided, I am OK if we do not know...
what I find ludicrous is if we defend a place which shows no evidence that they were there ever...
and it seems the land most Rabbis, Priests, Imams and Zionists call Judaea/Palestine is not where the Prophets mentioned in the Quran resided or even were transient in...
no archeological proof has been found... everything else is conjecture, hadith and talmud...
so I do not mind if other hypotheses are put on the table and thoroughly investigated...
but who will volunteer to do archeological research now in Yemen or any other part of the mid-east all of which are slowly turning into an inferno as we argue? ...
-
Peace all -
There is something very intriguing about the Ayat 2127 - and Layth's The Kingdom of Israel - Beginning to Prophesized End - reminded me of it...
2127
2127 And as Abraham raised from the Sanctuary its foundations, along with Ishmael "Our Lord accept this from us, You are the Hearer, the Knowledgeable."
I think this could give us a clue where Ibrahim was...
raising a Sanctuary from its foundations...
may mean that there was already a Sanctuary, maybe destroyed in pieces, and Abraham took those pieces and rebuilt it using the old fragments, stones, bricks of the already existing Sanctuary, and rebuilding it setting up foundations from that remaining structure...
he did not build a new sanctuary, but set up to rebuild it and raise it from the remaining structure spares of the previous construct...
another option as in the arabic Beit is translated sanctuary, that in fact the translation is wrong, and beit is actually a place, a geographical place, and Ibrahim built the sanctuary from the material he found and used in that place (to set up the foundations of the structure)...
Beit - Ahl al Beit?
and Allah knows best...
-
You are welcome.
But the lexicons agree with you that ghayth means rain. So we do not have a problem here, nor do the lexicons.
The problem is that the verse in dispute does not have the word "ghaith" in it.
It is deliberately inserted in the discussion to distort the meaning.of the verse.
I do not care where the Pharaoh lived, but the truth has to be told. There is no honesty in changing a verb of a specific root into a noun of a different root. This is how the qur'aan got corrupted.
If you want to blame it on lexicons, this is up to you. As far as I am concerned, lexicons have nothing to do with this word exchange.As far as I was concerned, the aya in question was 42.28 and it definitely has ghayth in it.
Salaam
-
Peace all -
There is something very intriguing about the Ayat 2127 - and Layth's The Kingdom of Israel - Beginning to Prophesized End - reminded me of it...
2127
2127 And as Abraham raised from the Sanctuary its foundations, along with Ishmael "Our Lord accept this from us, You are the Hearer, the Knowledgeable."
Salaam Nabil
Translating "al Beit" into "Sanctuary" is deciding, without proof, that "beit" means Sanctuary.
The sentence itself does not allow this meaning.How can one raise the foundation from a building?The building will surely collapse.
I do not think "al- beit" is a building.beit literally means "home". If we do cross reference in the qur'aan we will notice that, when referred to as a "house", it is an inhabited house, not just the walls.
Or, it's a grouping of people who do not live in the same place at the same time, as in Ahl al beit in verse 1173.
All the other occurances refer to Beit allah.So we have two choices either this "beit" is inhabited (by whom?!) or it falls within the meaning of verse 1173.
Arabs understood this meaning and used it for the treasury (beit ul mal). It covers all property that belongs to the state , and not necessarily a specific, unique building where it is collected.We are told where this "beit" is, in verse 2226
And this "beit" is "haram" 52, 97; or "muhar-ram" 1437.
Can you solve the riddle?
-
As far as I was concerned, the aya in question was 42.28 and it definitely has ghayth in it.
Salaam
Yes it does contain the word "ghaith". But how is this verse related to the subject of Yousuf? My post to Nabil was about the story of Yousuf and Misr.
I mean, what context brought this verse in this thread? -
Sis Samia, salam wa rahma,
what I favour is that whatever beit is in the ayat 2127, it was already a Sanctuary, or already housed a Sanctuary, which fell into disuse, or was destroyed, or became derelict...
what the ayat is saying is use the place (beit) of that Sanctuary and from it raise the Sanctuary again.... so its foundations are raised from it as it existed already...
-
Yes it does contain the word "ghaith". But how is this verse related to the subject of Yousuf? My post to Nabil was about the story of Yousuf and Misr.
I mean, what context brought this verse in this thread?I may have known when it started. Right now, I thank God that I still know my name. It could be worse.
Salaam
