Road of the Patriarch
-
@ Pazuzu
You mentioned that archeologists were dumfounded at finding no wells or water sources in Beersheba Palestine. Can you please provide link to the article that says this becasue this is plainly wrong in my view there are plenty of wells and their is underground water available.
Secondly If your going to use the lack of archeology findings in the Levant to substantiate your Yemen hypothesis, why not use archeology to substantiate it !!. Now based on your same reasoning to debunk the status qou it seems rather contradictory when you don't have a shred of archeological evidence to back it up.
below is an excerp I found for Beersheba in Palestine.
Archeological finds indicate that the site was inhabited from the Chalcolithic period, around 4000 BCE, through to the sixteenth century CE. This was probably due to the abundance of underground water, as evidenced by the numerous wells in the area. The settlement itself dates from the early Israelite period, around the tenth century BCE.
-
The case for Cannan
Pazuzu mentioned that there is not a trace outside the Torah for a people called the Cannanites. I thought I would correct this mistake for other readers
Mesopotamian references
Certain scholars of the Eblaite material (dated 2350 BC) from the archive of Tell Mardikh see the oldest reference to Canaanites in the ethnic name ga-na-na which provides a third millennium reference to the name Canaan.
Canaan is mentioned in a document from the 18th century BC found in the ruins of Mari, a former Sumerian outpost in Syria, located along the Middle Euphrates. Apparently Canaan at this time existed as a distinct political entity (probably a loose confederation of city-states). A letter from this time complains about certain "thieves and Canaanites (i.e. Kinahhu)" causing trouble in the town of Rahisum.
Tablets found in the Mesopotamian city of Nuzi use the term Kinahnu ("Canaan" as a synonym for red or purple dye, laboriously produced by the Kassites from murex shells as early as 1600 BC and on the Mediterranean coast by the Phoenicians from a byproduct of glassmaking. Purple cloth became a renowned Canaanite export commodity which is mentioned in Exodus. The dyes may have been named after their place of origin. The name 'Phoenicia' is connected with the Greek word for "purple", apparently referring to the same product, but it is difficult to state with certainty whether the Greek word came from the name, or vice versa. The purple cloth of Tyre in Phoenicia was well known far and wide and was associated by the Romans with nobility and royalty.
Anne Killebrew has shown that cities such as Jerusalem were large and important walled settlements in the Middle Bronze IIB and Iron Age IIC periods (ca. 1800?1550 and 720?586 BCE), but that during the intervening Late Bronze (LB) and Iron Age I and IIA/B Ages sites like Jerusalem were small and relatively insignificant and unfortified towns.
References to Canaanites are also found throughout the Amarna letters of Pharaoh Akenaton circa 1350 BC, and a reference to the "land of Canaan" is found on the statue of Idrimi of Alalakh in modern Syria. After a popular uprising against his rule, Idrimi was forced into exile with his mother's relatives to seek refuge in "the land of Canaan", where he prepared for an eventual attack to recover his city. Texts from Ugarit also refer to an individual Canaanite (*kn'ny), suggesting that the people of Ugarit, contrary to much modern opinion, considered themselves to be non-Canaanite.
Archaeological excavations of a number of sites, later identified as Canaanite, show that prosperity of the region reached its apogee during this Middle Bronze Age period, under leadership of the city of Hazor, at least nominally tributary to Egypt for much of the period. In the north, the cities of Yamkhad and Qatna were hegemons of important confederacies, and it would appear that Biblical Hazor was the chief city of another important coalition in the south. In the early Late Bronze Age, Canaanite confederacies were centered on Megiddo and Kadesh, before again being brought into the Egyptian Empire."
If the Bani Kinanah were famous for building red domes, how does this relate to the Cannanites who were famous for making reddish purple garments ???... Ones seems to be a building and the other is something you wear ?
-
Pazuzu mentioned that there is not a trace outside the Torah for a people called the Cannanites. I thought I would correct this mistake for other readers
It seems you didn't properly read what I wrote on the previous page. Let me quote for you, word for word, what I said
Quote from Pazuzu
These scholars (Dawwod and Abou Assaf) are actually onto something. But there is one small issue which I feel must be clarified Dawood calims that besides the Torah, there is not a single historic document in the Levant that mentions ?Canaanites?. The fact is, there are some documents, but NOT originally from the Levant region. Some very old Mesopotamian inscriptions (from as early as 1800 BC) mention a people by the name ?Kinanhu? (this is EXACTLY how it is pronounced according to the vocal glossary of the Babylonian cuneiform), who were causing trouble by infiltrating into the regions of the Levant (they were described as bandits and thieves). Also, the name appears as ?ki-na-ah-na? in the Amarna tablets (14th Century B.C), which were written in Acadian cuneiform
So, as the other readers can see, you are wrong.
Furthermore, the name which appears on the Amarna and Mesopotamian tablets is "KI-NA-NHU" and "KI-NA-AH-NA". Nowhere is the word "Canaan" mentioned. The name "Cannan" is a corruption of the real name. You need to get it out of your system completely. Futhermore, the KINANAH are a people who did not originate in the Levant. They came from somewhere else. And when they started migrating to the Levant, in substantial numbers (no earlier than the 8th Century B.C), they were simply ONE, from among many peoples, who made this migration. Also, Mesopotamian and Amarna tablets do not mention "Palestine" at all. Not once does the word "Palestine" appear anywhere.
You mentioned that archeologists were dumfounded at finding no wells or water sources in Beersheba Palestine. Can you please provide link to the article that says this becasue this is plainly wrong in my view there are plenty of wells and their is underground water available.
Absolutely. Try these for now
http//www.essaymart.com/essay/45a8018d2ad5f.html
http//www.bibleorigins.net/abrahamphilistines.htmlFurthermore, I will quote archeologyst Israel Finkelstein, whom they label "the Doctor of Disbelief", when he talks about "Anachronisms". Listen to what he said
Anachronisms are out of place words or phrases. For example, a story from the 18th century AD would not talk about computers, atomic power, or airplanes because they were not invented yet.
In Genesis there is the repeated use of camels. Camels were not widely used until around 1000 BC. In the Joseph story there is a camel caravan carrying "gum, balm, and myrrh" which best fits the Arabian trade of the 8-7th centuries BC. Assyrian texts describe the use of camels in caravans in the 7th century. There is a large increase of camel bones in the archaeological record at this same time.
Was Egypt or Palestine ever known for producing gum, balm and myrrh? Or was it Arabia?
Concerning the well they found in Beersheba (Palestine). I don't know where you get your sources from, but when you read those links I gave you (and I will post more later on), you will see that the well did not reach any underground source, and the digging was abandoned at 130 feet. (40 meters). More importantly there is not a chance in Hell that Abraham dug it, because the tools they used belonged to the IRON AGE, This is another anachronism. Could a goat herder from 1800 B.C dig a well that is 40 meters deep? Furthermore, they found ONE well in Beersheba, in the middle of a courtyard. They did not find WELLS. The other WELLS you speak of were clustered in an area 30-40 kilometers from Beersheba. Just thought I'd point that out. There is ZERO proof that Abraham (P) dug that well.
You can follow Zionist conjectures and sources all you want. But I have already made up my mind as to who the Bani Israel were, and WHERE their original homeland was.
Concerning the lack of archeological evidence in Arabia, this is because the SAUDIS will not let anyone near the sites. But common knowledge says that the sites DO exist. And the 200+ names of locations and places in south west Arabia, matching to the letter, names of tribes and places mentioned in the OT cannot be coincidence in my book.
Bani Kinanah were a legendary Arabian mega-tribe. Their name is mentioned, to the letter, in Mesopotmian and Egyptian tablets. Ki-Na-Nah.
The name "Canaan" never existed.
Peace...
P.S I recommend you stop using Wikipedia.com as a source of "knowledge".
-
Concerning the well they found in Beersheba (Palestine). I don't know where you get your sources from, but when you read those links I gave you (and I will post more later on), you will see that the well did not reach any underground source, and the digging was abandoned at 130 feet. (40 meters). More importantly there is not a chance in Hell that Abraham dug it, because the tools they used belonged to the IRON AGE, This is another anachronism. Could a goat herder from 1800 B.C dig a well that is 40 meters deep? Furthermore, they found ONE well in Beersheba, in the middle of a courtyard. They did not find WELLS. The other WELLS you speak of were clustered in an area 30-40 kilometers from Beersheba. Just thought I'd point that out. There is ZERO proof that Abraham (P) dug that well.
Pazuzu
Peace to you
It appears you are playing with presentism rather than historisism here. Your links clearly qoutes that there have been settlements as far back as the 34th to 32nd B.C, and thats what archeology has found thus far !!. This evidence in your link clearly shows a sustained settlement over an extremely long period including a fortress, dwellings right down to the Roman era.
Now since your link shows obvious habitation dating back 5000 odd years do you really think that there was no water there at some stage throughout this time?. It would have been a fortress housing soldiers or civilians ???. In places like this, if there is no water there is no human habitation...it's as simple as that !!
At least you are now saying that that there is a well there which is not evident in your post. But now your saying it's dry (which by the way is rather normal for ancient wells as water tables rise and sink) maybe it was put there for appearances reasons only ?? but not likely.
You can follow Zionist conjectures and sources all you want. But I have already made up my mind as to who the Bani Israel were, and WHERE their original homeland was.
Again you are playing with presentism. Zionism is a recent phenomenon, not an ancient one (I hope this isn't to much of a surprise to you). Your entitled to speak your mind on who you think Bani Israel are or were, but saying that, I am entitled to have an opinion as well which is to say that your evidence is poor and utterly unsubstantiated in every aspect. As I said in my earlier posts, you use archeology to try and debunk history, but use the excuse that the Saudi's don't want to dig up the Asir region to prove your point...can you see how hypocritical this is ??.
As for your mentor (Mr Salibi) here's a few gems
Salibi admits that place names are repeated several times in Arabia (There are 5 Hebrons in this area.)
Salibi admits that there was actually a LATER Jewish population in this exact area (who probably being nostalgic named these places after their homeland, after all there are 5 Hebrons).
Then what about the Moabites and the Noabite stone found exactly where it should be ???. Salibi has an answer dor this as well. He says you see, the stone used to live down in Arabia as well, but they were defeated badly by the Israelites so they moved to Palestine and planted the stone there detailing the whole sorry affair.And not to mention Salibi's counterparts who were so embarrased about his "hypothetical" thesis of his !!!.
P.S I recommend you stop using Wikipedia.com as a source of "knowledge".
I recommend you stop using material that is 110% unsubstantiated in every aspect which is based on what if's. At least Wiki shows evidence where one can expand further.
Peace to you brother Pazuzu.
-
It appears you are playing with presentism rather than historisism here. Your links clearly qoutes that there have been settlements as far back as the 34th to 32nd B.C, and thats what archeology has found thus far !!.
So what? Yes, there were people living there as early as 4000 B.C.
But were these people Jews? Was Abraham among them? Furthermore, WHERE DID THEY COME FROM ORIGINALLY? That's the question we are trying to answer. And the well they found in Beersheba was dug in the Iron Age. So it has nothing to do with Abraham.
Again you are playing with presentism. Zionism is a recent phenomenon, not an ancient one
Yes I know that. But it's the Zionists who have been claiming that ancient Israel was in Palestine. And it wasn't until the 1970's when archeology started proving them wrong.
I am entitled to have an opinion as well which is to say that your evidence is poor and utterly unsubstantiated in every aspect.
You are free to say what you want. But I can say also that the "Israel in Palestine" claim has not been substantiated either.
So I propose you wait until I finish my threads, then, gather all the evidences for both theories, and let the readers decide for themselves which one is more convincing.
As for your mentor (Mr Salibi) here's a few gems
Salibi admits that place names are repeated several times in Arabia (There are 5 Hebrons in this area.)
Salibi admits that there was actually a LATER Jewish population in this exact area (who probably being nostalgic named these places after their homeland, after all there are 5 Hebrons).Salibi is not my mentor, nor is he the only source for my threads. Furthermore, I do not agree 100% with him, because although he did find many names of locations in Asir matching names in the OT, he also used some rather outrageous twisting of words (switching the order of letters around) to make some other names fit. He arrived at a conclusion similar to Bernard Leeman's, that the kingdom of David and Solomon extended from Asir and up to the borders of northern Hijaz.
For your information I do not agree with his theory. All the evidence points to YEMEN as the location of Solomon's kingdom, which shared borders with Sheba and Hadramawt. So the proper location is further south than Salibi claims. (This is validated by the Quranic verses, which clearly show that the two domains of Solomon and Sheba were right next to each other).
The Hebron that you mention was rendered as "Kharban" by Salibi. When he found several towns by that name, he claimed that "Kharban" = "Hebron". But there was in fact a location called "Hebron" (spelled exactly as it is, without playing on phonetics), that Salibi was not aware of. And I will show you where it was as the list of "coincidences" becomes longer and longer.
Anyway, I am in no position to judge Salibi. The man passed away recently, and he is with Allah now. But we have to give him credit as a pioneer in the search for the truth. To me, I consider the "Sundial of Ahaz" experiment (which was NOT done by Salibi) to be the most damning scientific proof which completely destroys the Zionist argument as to the location of ancient Israel.
Salibi admits that there was actually a LATER Jewish population in this exact area
Yes. And Abraham was not Jewish. Judaism has nothing to do with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor the 12 Clans whatsoever. Judaism was invented somewhere around 600 BC, by the Israelite clergy, shortly after the Israelites were released from Babylon.
As for the presence of Jews in Palestine, it can be traced back to no earlier than 400 B.C. It wasn't until then that Jerusalem began to have any semblance of a "city". And it was the migrating tribes from south-west Arabia who eventually named it so (in the Psalms, it is referred to as the "Daughter of Jerusalem" ), in remembrance of the orginal "Ur-Salem" in Yemen.
And Abraham was never in Palestine.
Then what about the Moabites and the Noabite stone found exactly where it should be . Salibi has an answer dor this as well. He says you see, the stone used to live down in Arabia as well, but they were defeated badly by the Israelites so they moved to Palestine and planted the stone there detailing the whole sorry affair.
They didn't move the stone anywhere. They wrote it there from the start. But that does not mean the stone recorded events that took place in the Levant.
There is a famous stone in the temple of Karnak in Egypt which describes the excursion of an ancient Egyptian king deep into Arabia, and his conquering of the trade routes there. The stone lists the names of geographical locations (in ancient Hieroglyphs) matching exactly their counterparts in Yemen. Does that mean the events recorded on the Karnak stone took place in Egypt?
Just because they found the Moabite stone detaling a victory/defeat of a certain people; does that automatically mean that the events took place where the stone was?
Peace...
-
Coincidence # 3 Mudhar
In the thread entitled ?Who was the Pharoah of Moses?, I showed you how the Septuagint priests, who ?translated? the Aramaic text of the Old Testament to Greek replaced the word ?Msrim?, which appears in the original text, with ?Aegypto?, thus creating the illusion that the events surrounding the Israelites had taken place in the Nile country. And the later generations of the world have all fallen victims to this delusion, including the Muslims, who happen to think that the word ?Msr? is the Semitic name for Egypt, when every evidence suggests that the Arabic name for that land is ?Qobt? or ?Qibt? (derived from Koptos, a name mentioned in the Isis legend dating as far back as 5000 BC), while the Egyptians themselves called their land "Keme - Kheme - Kemet".
We also showed that the term ?msr? appears in the Quran as the common name for a central town, or trade station (destination), more precisely a walled citadel with several gates that stood on the trade route, somewhere in the Asir region of Arabia.
In the thread entitled ?Hebrew, the Children of Israel and the Semitic Migrations? we indicated how the Septuagint forgers failed to notice one instance in the Torah which mentions Egypt in its true context, as a family or clan (Clan of Egypt). This appears in (Zechariah 141
Also, if you remember, I provided you with a link to a Christian website which verified this conclusion That Msrim is NOT Egypt. In case you missed it, here is excerpt which interests us from the passage
THE NORTH-ARABIAN MUSRI AND THE OLD TESTAMENT MISRAIM.?The cuneiform inscriptions of Assyria have thrown considerable light on various geographical localities in North Arabia, having important bearing on the history of the ancient Hebrews and on the critical study of the Old Testament. The importance of these new facts and researches has of late assumed very bewildering proportions, the credit for which unmistakably belongs to Winckler, Hommel, and Cheyne. It is needless to say that however ingenious these hypotheses may appear to be they are not as yet entitled to be received without caution and hesitation. Were we to believe, in fact, the elaborate theories of these eminent scholars, a great part of the historical events of the Old Testament should be transferred from Egypt and Chanaan into Arabia; for, according to the latest speculations of these scholars, many of the passages in the Old Testament which, until recently, were supposed to refer to Egypt (in Hebrew Misraim) and to Ethiopia (in Hebrew, Kush) do not really apply to them but to two regions of similar names in North Arabia, called in the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions Musri or Musrim, and Chush, respectively. They hold that partly by means of editorial manipulation and partly by reason of corruption in the text, and in consequence of the faded memory of long-forgotten events and countries, these two archaic North-Arabian geographical names became transformed into names of similar sound, but better known, belonging to a different geographical area, namely, the Egyptian Misraim and the African Chush, or Ethiopia.
According to this theory, Agar, Sarai's handmaid (Gen., xvi, 1), was not Misrite or Egyptian, but Musrite, i.e. from Musri, in northern Arabia. Abraham (Gen., xii, 10) did not go down into Misraim, or Egypt, where he is said to have received from the Pharaoh a gift of menservants and handmaids, but into Misrim, or Musri, in northern Arabia. Joseph, when bought by the Ismaelites, or Madianites, i.e. Arabs, was not brought into Egypt (Misraim), but to Musri, or Misrim, in north Arabia, which was the home of the Madianites. In I Kings (A. V., I Sam.), xxx, 13, we should not read "I am a young man of Egypt , slave of an Amalecite", but of Musri in north Arabia.
Source http//oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Arabia
And now finally, we come to it at last Who were the ?Msrim?, and what relation did they have to the life and times of Abraham?
We have already established the following facts
1- The so-called ?Hebrew? tongue uses the suffix ?im? to denote the plural form. Hence, ?Msrim? is the plural of ?Msr?.
2- The Arabic tongue (the proto-Semitic tongue) has 28 letters in its alphabet; whereas the Aramaic alphabet (which is in fact the same as the Hebrew alphabet) contains only 22. This means there 6 letters found in Arabic which are NOT found in Aramaic/Hebrew. One of these letters is the heavy ?d? sound (as in the word ?ramadan?), which is spelled . This is why the Quran describes these other Semitic dialects as being ?a3jami? (meaning ineloquent, imperfect, lacking, unable to properly convey). As a result, the ?Hebrew? dialect replaces the letter (heavy ?d? sound), with the letter (the heavy ?s? sound). The only thing distinguishing those two letters is the dot.
3- Just as I showed you how the Ke-na-nah mentioned in the Mesopotamian scriptures where in fact the Arab tribe of Kinanah, so it must be that the ?Msrim? are also an Arabic tribe, located further north (geographically) with respect to Kinanah.
Taking into account what we mentioned in points 1 and 2, and taking into account also what the very accurate observation made in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which comes very close to the truth when it points out that the word is pronounced ?Musri?, not ?Misri?, we can at last solve this confusing puzzle.
Here follows is the truth that has been hidden from us
The word ?Msrim?, which the Septuagint forgers replaced with ?Egypt?, is actually the Aramaic spelling of the name of the Arabian tribe of ?Mudhar?. The Arabic spelling of the word is ??.
Hence Msrim = Mudhariyyin (in the plural) while Msr (unaccentuated / vowel-less singular) = Mudhar.
There, brothers and sisters is the source of this illusion. That single dot, separating from is the answer to this age-old dilemma.
So who were these poeple?
The legendary Bani Mudhar need no introduction. In the entire history of Arabia, there is no legacy more prominent than the bitter rivalry between the Adnanis of Central and North Arabia vs. the Qahtanis of South Arabia (Yemen). And the mega-tribe of Mudhar was none other than one of the two main branches of Adnan (the other being the Tribe of Rabi'ya).
Since many of you people tend to rely on Wikipedia so much, you can look it up there
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudhar
(There are plenty of other sources, but most are in Arabic, which the majority of FM members can?t read).
Due to the shortcomings of the Aramaic / Hebrew dialects, the letter ?dh? (ض is always replaced with the heavy ?sad? (ص. We will encounter this PHENOMENON many times later on. The modern ?Hebrew?, also incapable of pronouncing the this letter, rendered it as ?z? or ?tz??hence ?Mtzrim?.
The territory of Mudhar extended from the Asir region (bordering Kinanah) all the way north to the Hijaz, and all along the coastal areas. The map below gives a geographic approximation as to their location
http//i1203.photobucket.com/albums/bb386/Gorefiendel/Saudi.jpg
Red circle Domain of Kinanah (the so-called "Canaanites"
Blue circle Domain of Mudhar (the "Msr" of the Old Testament).
Green circle The contested region of Asir, with areas common to both tribes.So now at last we understand just who Hagar was. Assuming this woman even existed, it seems that the Torah turned a Mudhary (Musri) princess into an Egyptian servant girl! And you wonder why the hatred toward Egypt? This confusion must be cleared once and for all. The land of ?Mudhar? (Msr - as it is denoted in Hebrew) was falsely translated as ?Egypt? by the Septuagints, somewhere around 300 BC.
The struggle between Bani Israel on one side and Mudhar and Kinanah on the other, and their hatred of each other does have a historical basis, because the Israelites, whose ancestor Abraham the Hebrew ( meaning ?he who crossed over? - 3abar) were not originally from their lands. Also, it was these Msrim (the Mudharis) who persecuted Moses. And the so-called ?Pharoah(s) of Egypt?, who pops up every now and then in the Old Testament, was none other than the "Far3oun of Bani Mudhar", a villainous tribal chief who had control of a walled citadel and caravan station somewhere along the trade routes of Asir. I will show you later how the Bani Mudhar, despite their ancient and deep-rooted hatred for the Hebrew tribes, actually allied themselves with them at one point, in order to face a common enemy - the Babylonians (rather than to suffer the destruction of their domain at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar?s brutal army).
There are other passages in the Old Testament which expose the Septuagint forgery, and we will eventually look into the details of these, when I show you, later on, where the Assyrian and Babylonian campaigns really took place, and which land was actually their target. But for now, take a look at the following passage from the Book of Isaiah (as it appears in the modern translations of the OT)
The princes of Zoan have become mad; The princes of Noph are deceived; They have also deluded Egypt, those who are the mainstay of its tribes (Isaiah 1913)
The above passage is speaking of the madness and deception of the tribal leaders of two regions or towns which no human being on the face of this planet has been able to locate any trace of in the Nile Valley Zoan and Noph. It says that the leaders of these two communities - who were the cornerstone of the land of ?Egypt? - deceived all the ?Tribes of Egypt? ????
Has anyone ever heard of Egypt being composed of tribes? Has anyone ever heard of a place called Zoan and Noph in Egypt? Ancient Egypt was a powerful, unified kingdom ruled by a centralized monarchy, and which rivaled the might (if not the brutality) of the Assyrians and Babylonians. It was not composed of tribes or clans. Neither was Mesopotamia.
The only spot in the ancient world which did not know any form of central authority during that era was Arabia. It was a land composed of large clans, brought together under tribal customs, often feuding and warring against each other. (This was the state that the region was left in ever since the dissolution of Solomon's united kingdom). It was a lawless, rebellious region that had control of strategic trade routes, and its tribes where a thorn in the side of the Assyrians and the Egyptians.
The truth is that Isaiah was not talking about Egypt. It was the criminal Septuagints who replaced the term ?Msrim? with ?Aegypto?, thus deluding the entire world for many generations to come.
Isaiah was talking about the tribe of Mudhar, the mother of all clans in the region of Northern Asir and Hijaz, and the tribal leaders of two areas which al-Hamadani mentioned very clearly in his book ?Description of Arabia? Su3un and Yanof (Yanoph) .
Isaiah was talking about the madness and foolishness of the Mudhari tribal leaders of Asir and Hijaz, who were under the delusion that they could stand against the might of the Babylonian army. This is made very clear by the context of the book of Isaiah, which, from beginning to end talks about nothing but the Babylonian storm which shook the mountains of Arabia
Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts "O My people, who dwell in Zion, do not be afraid of the Assyrian. He shall strike you with a rod and lift up his staff against you, in the manner of Egypt (Isaiah 1024)
It seems, that the modern so-called ?Hebrew? also has trouble pronouncing the heavy ?s? (?sad?) sound (ص so it renders it as ?z? or ?tz?. Thus, ?Msrim? became ?Mtzrim?, while mount Sayyoun (ن, which 9 out of every 10 Yemenis today will tell you is not far from the capital city of Sana?a, became ?Zion?. (This is the same mountain that the Arab poet, Al-A3sha of Hamadan, mentioned in his poetic warning to the Christian Grand Cardinal of Najran, and from whose slopes the mad Yemeni Jewish Himyarite king Zhu-Nawwas descended upon the city of Najran some 50 years before the advent of Muhamad, where he burned the Nestorian Christians in the Trench). Also, Su3un became Zoan, while Yanof (or Yanoph) became Noph. This is because the prefix ?ya? is sometimes added to the proper names of ancient tribes or locations in Arabia. Here are a few examples of this phenomenon
Tharb - Yathrb -
Karb - Yakrb -
3arb - Ya3rb -
3arm - Ya3rm -
Noph - Yanoph -
Naboo3 - Yanboo3 -
Boos - Yaboos (the Jebusites of the Torah) -In fact, Jeremiah also mentions Noph, in the context of a warning that it would be laid to waste, and its inhabitants taken captives by Nebuchadnezzar. Again, we see the word ?Egypt? appearing in the modern translations of the text - a relic of the ancient Septuagint forgery.
O you daughter dwelling in Egypt, Prepare yourself to go into captivity! For Noph shall be waste and desolate, without inhabitant (Jeremiah 4619)
What does Egypt have to do with Noph??? Is there any trace of a city called ?Noph? in Egypt? Some mad orientalists, in their obsession with Egypt, rendered ?Noph? as ?Memphis?, an ancient city just south of the Nile Delta!! This can be seen in the commentaries they wrote about the OT. When they failed miserably to find any trace of Noph in the Nile Country, they claimed ?Oh, Jeremiah and Isaiah must have meant Memphis!?
Now, assuming that the Mesopotamian campaigns were against Palestine (where the forgers of history claim ancient Israel was located), why would Jeremiah and Isaiah send warnings to the city of Memphis in Egypt? What did Memphis have to do with the Babylonian march on Palestine?
The fact is that the description of the Babylonian campaign in the Old Testament mentions gepgraphical features (MOUNTAINS) and names of over 100 tribes of which no trace has ever been found in Palestine.
On the other hand, the rendering of ?Noph? as ?Memphis? is truly one of the most spectacular products of the diseased Orientalist imagination, whose sole purpose is to lay claim on all the land from Iraq to Egypt, as ancient theaters of ?Israelite? holiness, gradually paving the way for the Zionists to annex all Arab lands in the Levant.
And while their plans are slowly coming to fruition, the Arabs have been asleep in their cave for 14 centuries, and are more concerned with wether or not the water should reach their elbows when performing ablution.
Here is what al-Hamadani says about Yanoph - Noph (DoA, page 294)
... (...)
He is mentioning the highlands of Najd, a vast plateau at the foot of the Surat mountains, which begins where the city of Najran lies, and extends northwards, comprising many regions, including the highlands of Yanoph - Noph, which lay within the domain of Bani Mudhar.
And you can dismiss all this as coincidence as well.
Here is our final rendering of those passages from the Old Testament
The princes of Zoan (Su3un) have become mad; The princes of Noph (Yanoph) are deceived; They have also deluded Mudhar those who are the mainstay of its tribes (Isaiah 1913)
Therefore thus says the Lord GOD of hosts "O My people, who dwell in Zion (Sayoun) do not be afraid of the Assyrian. He shall strike you with a rod and lift up his staff against you, in the manner of Mudhar (Isaiah 1024)
O you daughter dwelling in the land of Mudhar! Prepare yourself to go into captivity! For Noph (Yanoph) shall be waste and desolate, without inhabitant (Jeremiah 4619)
This is further proof that the events of the Old Testament have nothing to do with Egypt nor Palestine whatsoever.
Finally, a note to brother/sister Zenith Kamal Salibi did not reach this same conclusion concerning ?Msr?. Salibi claimed that the ?Msrim? mentioned in the Aramaic Bible was none other than the town of Al-Misrama which still exists today in the region of Asir in Saudi Arabia. So as you can see, what we are proposing here is radically different from Salibi?s view.
To Be Continued...
-
Thak you Pazuzu! bravo bravo bravo
-
I do not know how it works out for people of Arabia, of how much of their own history and culture is familiar to them in the same way that people in the west are more or less knowledgeable with "Sacred History" as given in the Bible.
For someone who became a muslim or who read the Qur'an with interest, or noticing things, even without being conscious of it and not being rought up as a muslim of whatever denomination, there is something weird in the whole affair. There is a mixture of things that as presented in translations or foot notes or interpretations sound pretty familiar from the bible, and then there other pieces which are seemingly "out of place" the mentions of the people of the Elephant, Aad, thamud, Ismael as keeping with his father Ibrahim more in touch than would be warranted according to the bible... as if on the one hand there was some floklore and on the other the Qur'an rested wholy on the Bible in order to acquire legitimacy or sound s on "prophetical" basis.
There is also the strange thing about Solomon and the Queen of Sheba and one wonders how is it that in the bible and in the biblical understanding of the Qur'an, they get together but there is no mention of anything in between the Kingdon of Solomon in Palestine nd the Kingdom of Saby at the other end. ?The magical powers of Solomon or his trmendous non magical knowledge? I have always had trouble taking that for a fact.
But if we understand that every single prophet or history mentioned or narrated in the Qur'an comes from the tradition and common knowledge of the people amongst which preached the Prophet Muhammad, then everything falls into place, and one is no more troubled by the question of why would the Prophet be made to refer constinuously to outside traditions, history and knowledge to preach to his own people, and later on to other peoples who had nothing to do with the biblical narrations.
Without the need to undertake a thorough scrutiny of everything posted here by Pazuzu, no, I have no trouble at all assumming that the whole of the narrations in the Qur'an refer to events in the near physical, cultural and traditional environment of the Prophet Muhammad.
On the other hand the material and logical proofs of the bible are far for impressive and I do not see in them anything that should push the balance in their favour as against those presented by Pazuzu.
As far as I am concerned, biblical narrations as history are buried, not that I ever made much of them, anyway.
Also I have always had a strange feeling reading the hisories of the Qur'an purportedly happenning in Egypt, like that of Yusuf and Musa. I have always found something unsettling in them and the thing is that even now I do not know how to explain or diagnose it exactly that feeling, which is the sensation that there is something amiss.
Salaam
-
Dear huruf
But if we understand that every single prophet or history mentioned or narrated in the Qur'an comes from the tradition and common knowledge of the people amongst which preached the Prophet Muhammad, then everything falls into place, and one is no more troubled by the question of why would the Prophet be made to refer constinuously to outside traditions, history and knowledge to preach to his own people, and later on to other peoples who had nothing to do with the biblical narrations.
This is what I have been trying to prove all along. The Quran is basically recounting to us the CORRECT and uncorrupted version of the story of the nations and peoples who came before Muhamad, including the Bani Israel. This is why Allah tells us
{This Qur'an tells to the Children of Israel most of that which they are in dispute over}...
The Quran tells us the correct story of Bani Israel and their messengers. It tells the correct story of the Patriarch Abraham and the correct story of the creation (Genesis). It also clears the name of the past messengers from teh slander and falsehoods that were attributed to them at the hands of some of the Jewish Clergy.
For instance, since the topic here is Abraham's journey, let me give you a sample of their hands wrote about him
And it came to pass, when he was close to entering Egypt, that he said to Sarai his wife, "Indeed I know that you a woman of beautiful countenance. 12 "Therefore it will happen, when the Egyptians see you, that they will say, 'This his wife'; and they will kill me, but they will let you live. 13 "Please say you my sister, that it may be well with me for your sake, and that I may live because of you." 14 So it was, when Abram came into Egypt, that the Egyptians saw the woman, that she very beautiful. 15 The princes of Pharaoh also saw her and commended her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken to Pharaoh's house. 16 He treated Abram well for her sake. He had sheep, oxen, male donkeys, male and female servants, female donkeys, and camels. 17 But the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram's wife. 18 And Pharaoh called Abram and said, "What this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she your wife? 19 "Why did you say, 'She my sister'? I might have taken her as my wife. Now therefore, here is your wife; take and go your way." 20 So Pharaoh commanded men concerning him; and they sent him away, with his wife and all that he had (Genesis 12 11 - 20).
Not only do they insist that he went to Egypt, but they made Abraham (P) into a cuckold who claimed that his wife was really his sister, so that the Tyrant of a land he sought sanctuary in would spare his life, take his "sister", and repay him with a royal dowry! Is this something that the Patriarch would do? Or is it something that could be attributed to a weak and cowardly man?
These are the same people who wrote the following about Allah's messengers
-
Noah got himself drunk senseless and while he slept, his private parts were exposed to his sons. One of those sons was unfortunate enough to cover his father's dignity, only to incur Noah's wrath and damnation when the latter woke up.
-
Lot was made drunk by his own daughters, who then proceeded to perpetrate incest with him.
-
David slept with 99 women, among them the wife of the commander of his Royal Guard.
-
Maryam, daughter of Amran, danced like a drunken maiden when Pharoah and his chariots were drowned. Later, she became jealous of Mose's prophecy, and so God became mad at her and struck her blind. The Quran recounts these lies they made up about her
{And for their rejection and their saying about Maryam a great falsehood}...
I believe that the original text of what they call "the Torah" was, at some point, an accurate record detailing the comings and goings and trials of the tribe of Bani Israel in south west Arabia. But somewhere along the line, this record became contaminated by the hands of corruption and deceit. And if you look into it, you will come to the conclusion that it is always the CLERGY who commit these forgeries. The corruption began during or shortly after the Babylonian exile (the Israleite clergy wanted to get revenge on the whole region - a kind of payback for what happened to them - so they started inventing stories about a "promised land", and giving themselves a "title deed" of ownership over it). Then came the catastrophic Septuagint translation which expanded this "promised land" even further, and invented stories about the Israelite messengers that were slanderous and untrue. Then came the Masoritic articulation of the Torah's text, and the addition of dialectic marks to "animate" its originally silent and vowel-less letters. And there also, were perpetrated some very serious mistakes, whether intentionally or not.
By the time Muhamad was sent to deliver Allah's final message to mankind, the Bani Israel had, in their hands, corrupted versions of their original scriptures. So although the Quran was the final scripture (the Last Testament, so to speak), it contained the original and pristine version of those accounts, as they were before the clergy corrupted them.
Although it's true that the Quran does not mention many geographical details, but concentrates more on the morale of the story, it does not shy away from mentioning the proper names of some places, notably Yathrib - Bakka - Iram (or Aram) of the Pillars - Badr. Furthermore, as you have pointed out, these stories would not make any sense if they spoke of places completely detached from Muhamad and his people, or of cultures alien to them. This is why I have always doubted that the events of the Old Testament had anything to do with Palestine and Egypt.
Finally, Orientalist translations of the Old Testament into the modern languages of the world (including Arabic) have brought to us a competely imaginary theater for the events of the Old Testament, by projecting the geography and history of the Messengers of Allah from their original theaters in Arabia, onto the Levant. And this is why the modern (neo-scholars) and archeologists have dismissed the OT accounts as no more then fantasies, when they failed to unearth any convincing and physical proofs of those stories in the Levant.
Let me ask you something Why would the Old Testament mention Aden and Hadharamaveth as being children of Noah, if the Great Flood took place in Iraq? Everyone knows that Aden and Hadharamaveth (Hadaramaut) are cities in YEMEN!.
Why would the Old Testament mention the Amalekites and the Zamzumim? Do you know who these people where?
This is actually the subject of the next "coincidence". But it wouldn't hurt to introduce them now.
The Amalekites where a Mudhari clan, who resided in the Faran mountains of teh Hijaz, not far from the current location of Mecca. Their name in Arabic is pronounced al- Amaleeq (3amaleeq), spelled . The term "Zamzumim" (plural of Zamzum) is a derogatory nickname given to another Mudhari clan (which I will tell you about later), who WORSHIPPED WATER SPRINGS.Does the name Zamzum sound familiar to you? It is mentioned TO THE LETTER in the Old Testament!!!
Now tell me What the HELL does this name have to do with Palestine?
I am 1000% convinced that the history of Arabia has been hidden and shrouded ON PURPOSE, by some evil, scheming will. If you read the history of all the ancient empires, from the Mesopotamia, to Persia, to Greece, even up to the Mongol Empire, and look up the maps which show from where to where those empires extended, you will see that Arabia was never included in any of them!! Try it now. Go and look at the Map of Alexander's Empire, for example. You will see it strecthed from Macedonia (his birthplace) all the way to the borders of India in the east. Arabia was never a part of it. Look up the Mongol Empire, the largest empire the world has ever known (from China to central Europe). Arabia was never a part of it. The Arabian pennisula is always shown as a shadowy area on those maps. This proves what I have been saying that - with the exception of the very brief period of David and Solomon's kingdom - Arabia has never known a centralized state or power. It was not until the Bani Saud (rulers of Saudi Arabia) came along, that a centralized state - in the true sense of the word - was formed there.
Here, I will quote Caetani and Winkler
"Until we can dig for history in Arabia, as we have dug in Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia, the early centuries of Arabia will remain obscure, and the searchers in the field will have to pick their way warily among the debris of half-erected and half-demolished hypotheses which the historians, with the scanty equipment of fact that they now possess, can neither complete nor raze to the ground".
Peace...
-
-
Yes, that is what it feels like with the bible, like hadith. The probolem with both is that the sublime us bundled up together with the most revolting stuff and put a single name on it. It is a stab on the back on the sublime and a licence to kill for the revolting. But in spite of that, it is carried on and on without ever bothering to split one thing from the other. Although in the case of hadith that is not exactly true, because there have been classifications and gradations and all that, but in spite of it, people or "Anonymous" continue the onslaught of hadith outside all criticism and as if it was what it is not and outside human judgement.
I am surprised that peole here who discard hadith wholly and regardless of the fact that some of them are indeed sublime, when it comes to the bible they lower the guard as if the bible could not bite and scepticism was unwarranted.
From God, undoubtedly, of what I know, only the Qur'an. The rest in quarantine, if it is congruent with the Qur'an and sound judgement, fine, if not, leave for folklore, passtime or wahtever.
On material specific roof of every single statement, I guess that archeology in Arabia should come with many findings. Unless the imerial hords have already ravaged it while us people were looking the other way, which is always.
Salaam
Salaam
-
Salaam Pazuz
Thank you again for your lastest informative posts; not that I much enjoy reading biblical conjectures, but I understand you need to mention them to refute the lies established by bible.
Now you have quoted Ibrahim's biblical narrative (also one of the hediths), which alleges that he introduced his wife as his sister; this is like those early immigrants to UK, who brought their sisters into UK as their wives, and vice versaI am surprised that peole here who discard hadith wholly and regardless of the fact that some of them are indeed sublime, when it comes to the bible they lower the guard as if the bible could not bite and scepticism was unwarranted.
SalaamSalaam
I see many on this forum trying to be prophets in their own right, as they interpret the Qur'an to fit their own understanding. They have their own theories on Ramadan and Hajj, but when it comes to the prophet they do not want to hear anything, even if it has no adverse effect on their private understanding of the Qur'an; for them prophet should be -X
Jazzakhallahu khair to all in pursuit of the truth. group -
-
Coincidence # 4 The Amalekites
And Moses said to Joshua, "Choose us some men and go out, fight with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the rod of God in my hand. (Exodus 179)
And he gathered an army and attacked the Amalekites, and delivered Israel from the hands of those who plundered them. (1 Samuel 144
"Because you did not obey the voice of the LORD nor execute His fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore the LORD has done this thing to you this day. (1 Samuel 281
"Thus says the LORD of hosts 'I will punish Amalek what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. 3 'Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " (1 Samuel 15 2,3).
The above verses mention the ?Amalek?, along with their donkeys and camels, as targets of genocide which God commanded the "Hebrew" to perpetrate. And here, again, the proponents of the Israel in the Levant (Palestine) theory will find themselves faced with the following question Has there ever been a trace of the Amalek (Amalekites) in Palestine?
Who were these people?
Here follows are a few passages (mentioned with the source), which very clearly trace these tribes to Arabia
?Who were the Amalekites? The only thing Bible scholars agree on is that they were originally an Arabian tribe. I've seen maps that show where the twelve tribes of Israel settled, in the period between 1400 and 1000 B.C., and the word "Amalekites" is written across the nearest part of the Sinai peninsula, right below the land that went to the tribe of Simeon. Before that time, however, they came from somewhere to the east, most likely from the part of Arabia around Mecca?.
Source http//xenohistorian.faithweb.com/holybook/articles/amalek.html
Here we have Western sources admitting that these tribes originated from somewhere in the central part of the Arabian peninsula, where the city of Mecca was later established.
Take a look at the following source
?The early history of Mecca is shrouded in obscurity, although Mohammedan writers have preserved an abundance of legendary lore according to which the city dates back to Abraham who is said to have there worshipped the true God. It is also stated that after the death of Abraham, the inhabitants of Mecca, owing to the evil influence of the heathen Amalekites, fell into idolatry and paganism, and the Kaaba itself became surrounded with their idols. Hundreds of these idols were destroyed by Mohammed on his entrance into the city at the head of a Moslem army in the eighth year of the Hejira, or A.D. 629. During the century before Mohammed, we find the tribe of Quraish in undisputed possession of the city and the acknowledged guardians of the Kaaba. The leading events in Mecca at that period, such as the Abyssinian expedition against Yemen and the utter defeat of Arabia's army at the hand of the Meccans, have been already discussed in the article CHRISTIANITY IN ARABIA?.
Source http//www.newadvent.org/cathen/10099a.htm
The above passage mixes truth with lies and comes up with a very confusing account. The so-called Muhamedan writers were indeed deluded when they associated Abraham with Mecca. There is absolutely ZERO proof that the city called Mecca today even existed during the time of Abraham. Also, there is ZERO evidence that the Christian king Abraha marched against Mecca. (On the contrary, there is every evidence that he conquered Yemen, in retaliation to the massacres perpetrated by the Hymyarite Jews against the Nestorian Christians of Najran. The Abraha inscription clearly mentions the names of Yemeni tribes). On the other hand, the presence of the Amalekites in central Arabia is in fact true, and has been attested to by ancient Arab geographers as well as classical Arabic poetry. Again we see the term ?Amelekites? clearly associated with central Arabia, as the evident land from which they originated. The presence of this clan around the so-called ?Sinai? peninsula or Arabia Petraeus (meaning "Rocky Arabia", further to the north (around the cities of Taima?a and Tabuk) is testament of the true direction of the ancient Semitic migrations.
Here is another source
Amalekites
?Some interpret Gen. 147 (which refers to the "land of the Amalekites", to mean that the Amalekites existed as early as the time of Abraham, in the region that would later become the Roman province of Arabia Petraea (http//www.dalton.org/groups/Rome/RMap.html). This view corroborates Nachmanides' claim of an origin for the Amalekites earlier than Esau's grandson. However the passage in question does not require this interpretation as it may be referring to the region by a name from a later era. However, the Arab historian Masudi, citing traditional Arab history relates that the Amalekites did indeed exist at this early period having originated in the region of Mecca before the time of Abraham?
Source http//www.wordiq.com/definition/AmalekitesThe truth is that it was not only Al-Mas3udi who mentioned this clan, but also Yaqoot al-Hamwi and the famous Ibn Khaldoun, both attested that the Amalekites were an ancient Arabian clan belonging to the mega-tribe of Mudhar, whose domain was the Red Sea mountainous coastal area stretching from central Asir, all the way to the Hijaz in the North. The location of the current city of Mecca was part of their territory.
Here is what al-Hamadani - the religiously neutral geographer, astronomer and historian from Yemen - says about them, in his book "Description of Arabia"
. - - .
He is describing the fertile, volcanic mountain slopes of the Hijaz area (including the area around Mecca) as ?the Mountains of Faran, son of 3amleeq?.
In Arabic, their plural name is rendered as ?al-3amaleeq?, and spelled .
The many battles fought between the 3amaleeq and Bani Israel (who originated from south Arabia) were nothing but a natural extension of the legendary rivalry between the northern Arabs of Mudhar and their southern Qahtany neighbours (among them Bani Kinanah).
What is even more interesting, is what Yaqoot al-Hamwi (famous Arab geographer) wrote in his book ?Mu3jam al Buldan? (the Dictionary of Countries), concerning the identity of Far3oun (the tyrant who persecuted Moses)
" ".
Here is an explanation of what Al-Hamwi is saying The Far3oun was an Arab man of the clan of 3amaleeq. He was a short, squat, bearded man who lived 500 years (???) and his name was "AlWaleed bin Mis3ab". Some people falsely claimed that he was Egyptian.
Now, despite the general accuracy of Al-Hamwi, and the fact that many of the locations he mentioned were shown to be exactly where he placed them, on various maps of later eras, we cannot take his words concerning the identity of Far3oun as 100% truth (Even though the name ?Al-Waleed bin Mis3ab? is the exact same name which appears in several other ancient Arabic writings concerning the identity of Far3oun. Among those sources are Al-Tabari and al-Jawhari, both of whom attest that Far3oun was an Arab man).
Furthermore, Far3oun did not live for 500 years, nor was he Egyptian. It seems that al-Hamwi was simply reporting all the myths and falsehoods that were attributed to that tyrant, which had gradually seeped into the Arabian memory and contaminated it. And the fact he says ?Some people falsely claimed that he was Egyptian? is an attestation of the ancient Septuagint forgery, which replaced the word ?Msrim? (meaning Mudhar) with Egypt. Hence, Far3oun was a Mudhari man, of the clan of 3amaleeq (Amalekites), one of Israel?s bitter enemies in the distant past. And the ancient, dusty memory of Arabia, glimpses of which can still be seen buried under generations of garbage and Jewish lies, did in fact record that the events surrounding Bani Israel took place in Arabia, near the trade routes.
Here is another proof of the confusion and the geographical chaos caused by the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament
Then David said to him, "To whom do you and where you from?" And he said, "I a young man from Egypt, servant of an Amalekite; and my master left me behind, because three days ago I fell sick. (1 Samuel 3013)
How can a man from Egypt be a servant of an Amalekite in central Arabia?
Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt (Deuteronomy 257)
How can the Amalekites (the "3amaleeq" of ARABIA) ambush the Israelites as they were coming out of Egypt?
Here is the correct rendering of those passages
"I a young man from Mudhar (Msrim), servant of an Amalekite??
?Remember what Amalek (3amaleeq) did to you as you were coming out of the land of Mudhar (Msrim)?.
Next up, we look at the ?Zamzumim? mentioned in the Old Testament.
To Be Continued....
-
Salam bro pazuzu,
does the word
3mlaqwhich in common arabic means powerful/strong/huge/amazing comes as a reference to the strength of the Amalekites (3malikes) in their powerful days?...
a bit like the reference to "strong as a Turkman" in the days of the Ottoman empire?
-
-Salam Bro theNabster
Refer to Quran 522
522 They said "O Moses, in it are a mighty people, and we will not enter it until they leave from it. So when they leave from it, then we will enter."
The world " jabar" means 3mlaq
powerful, tremendous,huge, giant, colossal, superhuman, strongman, titan
Sakhr dictionary
http//qamoos.sakhr.com/SearchResults.aspx
Salam bro pazuzu,
does the word
3mlaqwhich in common arabic means powerful/strong/huge/amazing comes as a reference to the strength of the Amalekites (3malikes) in their powerful days?...
a bit like the reference to "strong as a Turkman" in the days of the Ottoman empire?
-
Peace Bro abuamrrami,
So this confirms that the word 3mlaq entered the Arabic language as a synonym for Jabar...
and since Allah can inspire people, he inspired that the word be used (in future Arabic) to (Allah knows) remind who were the people in the town the Israelites refused to enter in and fight because they were renowned for their strength...
Al 3maliqs would have been the inhabitants of the town the ayah 522 refer to...
-
Not to fly to off topic, but I appreciate Pazuzus work and he has contributed a lot to dispel the false historical myths. I have seen in his previous threads people bashing his attempts like any sunni or shia would. but the truth is thr Quran is not a book of nations, but of guidance, and mentions names and geography. So any preconceived notions of whereabouts these stories took place can fall under scrutiny and serious critical analysis. Everyone seems to be trying to prove that the names of these things are just bastardizations. Many Muslims claim in the case of Nuah pbuh that the gods of Noahs people are bastardiations of other languages and not their real names. I beg to differ. Allah tells us the Quran is in a pure arabic tongue and cannot be forged. To my amazement I came across this ayat
Surah Noah verse 23
- "And they have said (to each other), 'Abandon not your gods Abandon neither Wadd nor Suwa', neither Yaguth nor Ya'uq, nor Nasr
I thought let me check the names of these pagan deities of Noahs people and see what I cant find. I am unsure if brother pazuzu has ever come accross this but its one piece of a larger puzzle that only confirms his analysis.
"Wadd was a moon god worshipped in the Minaean kingdom (located in and around modern-day Yemen) of Southern Arabia from the fifth to first centuries BCE. His name meant Love and/or Friendship, and his sacred animal was the snake. "
(http//www.bythegods.net/post/556227042)
Yaguth
yaguth was a idol who was an object of contention among the tribes of Yemen and the name abd yaguth occurs in various parts of arabia, even in the tribe of Taghilib on the north eastern frontier, "had the shape of a lion"
Ya'uq and Suwa pagan deities of Yemen, inscriptions are still bound in temples and amulets in and around this region. Ya'uq was represented by a horse and Suwa was considered to be of antidilluvian times.
why do all these Gods of Noahs people occur in Yemen?
http//www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/The-Pagan-Arab-pantheon-2.aspx
Yes Wadd( not a bastardized word ), was the name of a pagan deity during the Minaen kingdom in and around modern day ----->Yemen<------- Not Iraq....
Keep up the work brother Pazuzu. SALAM!