Holy Moses!

http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

Previous blog in the series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

Next blog in this series:
http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/Charles-...

Index of blogs in the series:
http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....

This blog is an excerpt from "A Twisted History: Genesis and the Cosmos" - http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00W0NR3CI

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Johannes Angelos's picture
Member since:
24 April 2009
Last activity:
15 weeks 6 days

"Even later still, Hammurabi (Egyptian Auibre Hor) played the role of Marduk in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom"

I am getting the impression here that you are making parallels between Hammurabi and Awt-ib-ra (this is the transliterated name of "Awibre Hor" in the Turin Royal Canon), who reigned a maximum of two years, possibly only a few months. Hammurabi did not play any role in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom as he was pretty busy fighting with his neighbours.

Marduk as a sun god? Amar-utu (as his name is correctly spelled in Sumerian, "the calf of sun god Utu") never was directly a solar deity although his "father" was. Marduk was a sky god. He did though rise to the top of the Babylonian pantheon, and yes, he was the patron deity of the city of Babylon, but this was after 1500 BCE. The Babylonian sun god was Shamash (essentially Utu in new clothes), and to lesser degree, Ninurta and Nergal alongside other local lesser solar deities. There were two centres of Shamash worship: Sippar and Larsa.

It is interesting to note that Hammurabi attributed to Shamash the inspiration that led him to gather the existing laws and legal procedures as a code.

If this is creation, I feel misplaced.

Charles Pope's picture
Member since:
23 October 2009
Last activity:
4 hours 25 min

"Enuma Elish 1:101-2, 157 and 11:128-29 apply solar qualities to Marduk, although storm language is more characteristic."

https://books.google.com/books?id=1yM3Au...

Marduk is depicted as riding on a winged (solar?) disk. However, we shouldn't get too hung up with solar iconography as most members of the ancient pantheon assumed at least some solar aspect, particularly in Egypt. It is also difficult to associate Marduk with members of the pantheons of non-Babylonian cultures, because Marduk was essentially a defunct god. Marduk as a planet (not a sun) had been "sacrificed" as part of our solar system's formation process! The titles given to him in the Enuma Elish are entirely honorary. His association with the sun disk seems to relate to Marduk's violent conversion from one twin sun [the Red Dwarf/Esau] to the other [the Main Sequence Jacob-Shamash].

As far as Hammurabi in Egypt, yes, the conventional view is that he would not have had any activity there. However, that is completely mistaken. All of the princes of the royal family had both Egyptian and Mesopotamian names and roles. This is the esoteric understanding of ancient history. The royal family transcended such geographical/political boundaries. They ruled the entire Middle/Near East under regional epithets. Hammurabi was exiled (in emulation of the planetary god Marduk and the later god-king Re) from Egypt. Babylon in effect became his "city of refuge" for much of his kingly career. Akhenaten similarly built Amarna as his city of refuge and was known in Mesopotamia as Nebuchadnezzar (the first king by this name not the more famous second).

"It was once considered possible that an ephemeral 13th Dynasty pharaoh named Au-ibre Hor actually belonged to the late 12th Dynasty. The rationale for this was that Au-ibre Hor had been buried within the pyramid complex of the 12th Dynasty pharaoh Amenemhet III at Dahshur. In addition to the coffin and mummy of Au-ibre Hor, his tomb also contained a funerary chest inscribed with the praenomen of Amenemhet III, Nymaatre. According to the Turin king-list, Auibre ruled for only a matter of months. However, there is a variant of Au-ibre in the Egyptian 13th Dynasty, that being Wah-ibre, who was considered to rule for over 11 years. If these two pharaohs were actually one and the same, then Wah-ibre/Au-ibre Hor would have been appointed as co-regent very early in the reign of Senusret II.

"Auibre Hor is best known for another item found in his tomb. This is a full-scale "ka-statue" of the naked Auibre Hor in a striding pose. Nudity in burial statues may have symbolized rebirth along with the removal of guilt for the sins of one's lifetime. The media of carved wood accentuates the natural state of the pharaoh. Antenna-like arms of the ka symbol protruding from his head, and the spooky inlaid eyes of the statue lend an alien quality to the departed Auibre."

http://www.domainofman.com/book/chap-7.html

"The exile of Auibre [Patriarch Eber, "cross-over"] served to insulate him from further conflict in this highly volatile period. He was not hindered in his pursuit of knowledge or in rebuilding both the temple and ziggurat of [Marduk-]Re. Meanwhile, his many "brothers" competed with each other to retain possession of other important Mesopotamian sites. Rather than weakened by constant warfare, the strength of Hammurabi grew through his neutrality and the cultivating of good relations with all factions."

http://www.domainofman.com/book/chap-8.html

Johannes Angelos's picture
Member since:
24 April 2009
Last activity:
15 weeks 6 days

Without getting too hung up on solar qualities, I would like to point out that, yes, Amar-UTU, is called “my son, the sun” in Enuma Elish 1:101-2, however line 157 is about Tablet of Destinies. 11:128-129 do not exist. There is no such thing as Tablet 11 in Enuma Elish. If it refers to Tablet 2 (or II), there is nothing about Amar-UTU’s solar qualities. Where would I find a (text or) relief with Amar-UTU riding with the sun/winged disk? I find plenty of those about Assur (or Ashur).

I do have to respectfully disagree on the theory that Hammurabi and Awt-Ib-ra being the same person, or even being related. There is no evidence to support that claim. I find no mention *anywhere* of Hammurabi being exiled. Hammurabi, as the Amorite king, managed to expand the Babylonian territory from Mari to Lagash and Eridu during his reign. His son Samsu-iluna more or less lost all the territory his father conquered. Babylonia at that time was not all of Mesopotamia or “Aram Naharaim” (which is actually not all of Mesopotamia, only a portion of it).

wAH-ib-ra-ibiaw and Awt-ib-ra being the same pharaoh? I don’t see the connection. The names are not “variants”, although there is a superficial phonetic likeness in the anglicised names. Awt-ib-ra is literally the “happiness” (Awt-ib) of Ra, whereas wAh-ib-ra can be translated as “constant heart of Ra”, which is the throne name, follow by his birth dame Ibiaw.

You make a claim that Neferhotep I (a non-royal townsman with military background) was Sin-Muballit, the father of Hammurabi and king of Babylon (the city state, not the empire, which came much later into existence). Neferhotep I did have two daughters and one son. The problem here is that Neferhotep I is a 13th dynasty king and you are placing Awt-ib-ra to the 12th dynasty around the time of Senusret II, the fourth king of 12th dynasty. According to your chronology Hammurabi lived before his father.

Menwadjre Sihathor, the brother and co-regent of Neferhotep I whom, for a reason I cannot understand, you claim is Zimri-Lim, the King of Mari, which Hammurabi conquered during Zimri-Lim’s reign. You are also confusing the two Haankhefs: the father of Neferhotep I, Sobekhotep IV and Menwadjre Sihathor, and the prince Haankhef, the son of Neferhotep I, who never ruled anything. Haankhef the elder was not of royal blood, and technically, neither were his sons, or grandson.

In the ragged 13th Dynasty we have 60 Pharaohs out of which 51 are named. During roughly a 150 year period there is almost constant shift in power and a lot of kings whom were not “royal” in the traditional sense. How does that correlate with “one royal family ruling the entire Middle/Near East”?

The 12th dynasty, on the other hand, is the most stable period of New Kingdom and it is one of the best documented. 12th dynasty had only 8 rulers including one female one. A clear chronology can be established because of the wealth of information regarding that period.

Basically what you are implying here is that the Turin Royal Canon, and essentially every document dating back to the 12th and 13th Dynasty, and all of the Mesopotamian literature and king lists from the Sumerian times to roughly 1500 BCE are essentially bullshit.

If this is creation, I feel misplaced.

Charles Pope's picture
Member since:
23 October 2009
Last activity:
4 hours 25 min

The king-lists are not BS, only the chronology that has been built up from those king-lists. Manetho told us that there were kings ruling at the same time, i.e., the king-lists exhibit a considerable degree of parallelism. Unfortunately, he left it up to us to figure out which kings are parallel with others! The 12th Dynasty list is the main line of kings of the Middle Kingdom. The so-called 13th Dynasty list is more of a catch-all of minor kings/princes that were contemporary with the 12th Dynasty. In other words, what we call the 13th Dynasty was not an independent dynasty. Here's a chart that hopefully helps:

http://www.domainofman.com/book/pdf/char...

As far as Hammurabi and the other ancient kings that played Moses, I'll create another blog to clarify that further. This new study is providing so much insight that it really deserves revisiting the entire typecasting. The study has shown us the original physical basis for the ancient pantheon. The confusion arises from the emulation of that pattern by real-life kings and their courts.

Johannes Angelos's picture
Member since:
24 April 2009
Last activity:
15 weeks 6 days

Those of you who are not intimately familiar with Manetho, he was an Egyptian historian and priest who lived in the 3rd century BC. His work, “Aegyptiaca” survived through the work of other writers and their work i.e. “Against Apion” by Josephus.

Each King had five different names, the Horus name; the Two Ladies name: the Gold Horus name; the throne name and personal name given at birth. Some pharaohs had multiple examples within these names. This is what has caused confusion especially in the 13th dynasty and any given succession there from the 15th king onwards is guess at best. Almost the entire 13th dynasty period has been described as chaotic and disorderly. But there is no question about the first Kings. I tend to go with the Ryholt chronology and here’s why:

David Down has suggested a revised chronology (which I do not support or endorse), but even there the 12th and 13th are in direct succession. Why? Because, and this is with great probability, the first kings of 13th were the direct descendants of Amenemhat IV. Your list places them ca. 180 years before their father. If we go by Mehibtawy Sekhemkare Amenemhat Sonbef, the second king of 13th dynasty, we are still off by 150 years. Awt-ib-ra which is the third on your list was either the fourteenth or fifteenth ruler of 13th dynasty. What happens to the 12 other kings? You also place the twenty-third king of the said dynasty, Sehetepkare Intef, before Amenemhat IV.

Does not compute. You cannot simply write them off being “minor kings/princes”, although most of them did not rule for a very long time.

By the way, in your list, where is Sobekneferu? Manetho mentiones her as Scemiophris, and her reign is one of the key turning points when it comes to dynasties overlapping. She is also important being the first queen ever in (written) Egyptian history.

Moreover, the first name on your 13th dynasty list is “Wegaf”, meaning Khutawyre Wegaf. In older studies that might be the case. You might also be familiar that in 2013 the tomb of Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep, also known as Sobekhotep I was discovered in Abydos, and the contents of the tomb make a strong case that Sobekhotep I was the founder of the 13th dynasty and Khutawyre Wegaf should be the 20th king. It is true that in Turin King List Khutawyre Wegaf is the first king of the 13th dynasty. This probably due to the fact that writers of the list confused Khutawyre with Khutawy.

It has even been suggested by Ryholt that the 14th dynasty emerged during the last years of 12th dynasty under Sobekneferu’s rule after Amenemhet IV, not before. In my view, you are mostly right about 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th dynasties, but I cannot agree with the 12th and 13th overlapping the way you propose.

If this is creation, I feel misplaced.

Charles Pope's picture
Member since:
23 October 2009
Last activity:
4 hours 25 min

(By the way, thanks for the discourse on the color blue. Really enjoyed that!)

There is some guess work with mapping the individual 13th Dynasty names to parallel 12th Dynasty reigns, but we simply have to make tentative assignments. One of the little clues is the presence of Ay in the 13th Dynasty list. The more famous pharaoh Ay/Aye (It-netjer) ruled just after the disastrous tenure of Akhenaten, which culminated in an obligatory Exodus. We should therefore suspect that this was a deliberate 18th Dynasty repetition of the 12th Dynasty precedent. In other words, Ay of the 13th Dynasty probably ruled just after the catastrophic event at the end of the 12th Dynasty, and may even represent the restored rule of the Noah figure of that earlier time. It-netjer, the epithet of 18th Dynasty Aye, is fairly unique and makes a subtle allusion to other known Noah figures, namely Ny-netjer (Old Kingdom) and Ny-maatre (Middle Kingdom).

I don't want to claim that this type of sleuthing is foolproof, but it is what we need to do. The pharaohs knew their own history and formed artistic and linguistic connections to their esteemed predecessors. (Thutmose III was certainly conscious of being the Senusret III of his own dynasty. Amenhotep III knew he was the "second coming" of Amenemhet III. Waenre (Akhenaten) was tagged with the role of Waibre (Hammurabi) whether he liked it or not! Their culture was precedent based, and obsessively so. They were compelled to remain true to divine patterns, at least as close as humanly possible. This was a form of magic for them and an essential rationalization for their continued dominance over the world.

The 12th Dynasty feeds directly into the Hyksos Period. There is no room to put the sketchy 13th Dynasty between them as an independent/serial dynasty, and no longer any reason to. We have a Biblical "king-list" for this period that gives us a very good indication of the direct succession of Great Kings that occurred between the Middle and New Kingdoms. There are some chronological gaps in the Genesis narrative, but this isn't one of them!

http://www.domainofman.com/book/pdf/char...
http://www.domainofman.com/book/pdf/char...

The Exodus at the end of the 12th Dynasty was followed immediately by the "Hyksos occupation." The Biblical character of Joshua is certainly based on the early Hyksos king Salitis, who we must also deduce was the immediate (and "youthful") successor of Hammurabi, who was himself the Moses-figure associated with the flood (of Biblical proportions) that ended the 12th Dynasty. Other than primordial planets and god-kings/queens, it is the 12th/13th Dynasty actors that inspired the Biblical Exodus story the most. Environmental conditions of that time provided the perfect backdrop for reliving the Creation Epic. The cultural memory that is the Bible preserved the event. It's an example of how archaeology sometimes fails us.

The prevalence of 13th Dynasty king (and queen) names containing the name Sobek is a testament to the excess of Nile flood waters that built up DURING the 12th Dynasty. The floods did not abate but actually increased to the point of forced abandonment of the country, not only by the people but by the rulers themselves, who were motivated to move the primary royal court to Mesopotamia and the East. This is what in turn led to the impression of foreign rule until the founding of the New Kingdom. The ruling family hadn't actually changed, only the center of the larger Empire. The royal family remained the same. That is the esoteric aspect behind the "scarlet thread" of Messianic Kingship.

I do address Queen/Pharaoh Sobeknefru in my research (as shown on the above chart and related on-line book narratives). The Exodus typecasting demanded that a prominent queen play a central part in the drama. This queen assumed the role of Tiamat. (Note that Tia/Tiye and Maat-kare were common queenly names/epithets.)

Sobeknefru was not the first or last Egyptian queen to participate in an Exodus reproduction. There was Nitocris at the end of the Old Kingdom, and Queen Tiye at the end of the 18th Dynasty. There were a number of very dominant queens that presided over the crisis that led to the founding of the Old Kingdom as well. One is even featured on the Narmer Palette. The goddess Hathor played the Tiamat role in the Egyptian Exodus Myth - the same one in which Re plays Marduk (proto-Moses).

Hatshepsut assumed the role of Exodus Queen in the early New Kingdom, and writes that sand covered the tracks of the departing (Hyksos/Asiatic) personae non-gratae. However, the royal family later rejected her claim. One of her immediate predecessors, such as Ahmose-Nefertari is a better candidate for the queen that choreographed the Exodus of the Hyksos.

These stock roles are what allow us to track the family history through the various dynasties and derive an actual chronology (rather than accept the ridiculously bloated timeline espoused by Academia).

Charles Pope's picture
Member since:
23 October 2009
Last activity:
4 hours 25 min

Ancient chronology is important for two main reasons. First of all, we need to get ancient history synched back up with what is now known about Catastrophism.

Secondly, if we don't have the chronology right, then we don't know how the various dynasties overlapped and this in turn reduces our understanding of the true dynamics of history, as well as our ability to associate archaeology with the cultural memory of the Bible (and other ancient texts).

The Amarna Period represented the ignominious downfall of a great dynasty. It was framed as a repetition of the "Epic Fail" of the Middle Kingdom (perhaps Egypt's greatest dynasty), as well as the demise of the Old Kingdom. The end of the New Kingdom was associated with crushing drought, which most closely reflected conditions at the end of the Old Kingdom. The Middle Kingdom was associated with too much water, which similarly disrupted harvests and led to famine and disease. Although environmental factors were central in each of these scenarios, there was also a deliberate human element. The royal family knew how to end a dynasty and begin a new one. There was a "protocol."

The length of the 2nd Intermediate Period (between Middle and New Kingdoms) was much shorter than currently held. Likewise, the 1st Intermediate Period (between Old and Middle Kingdoms) was also much shorter. There was apparently a protocol for the length of an intermediate period in Egypt, as well, and this official length was around 70 years (Jeremiah 46:9), that's all! The royal family simply would not neglect an important region such as the Nile for longer than that.

http://www.domainofman.com/cgi-bin/bbs62...

The so-called invasion of the Hyksos must have followed very quickly on the heels of the Middle Kingdom "Great Flood." There was even a precedent (and therefore a protocol) for this. After the catastrophic event that preceded the Old Kingdom, we have the invasion of Narmer, who went around killing off most of those who had managed to survive the natural disaster! WTF!!

The below link is a nice summation of Manetho's comments on the Middle Kingdom to Hyksos transition. (There is also good discussion of this in David Rohl's "Pharaohs and Kings")

http://www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk/hyks...

The name given by Manetho for the pharaoh of the Exodus and/or Hyksos invasion is Tutimaos. In the Amarna Period remix, it is King Tut that rules during the Exodus of Akhenaten. The reign of Tut is ended nine years later by a staged Aramaean/Syrian (neo-Hyksos) invasion (orchestrated by Aye and Horemheb).

Archaeology has linked the Hyksos king Khayan with Kanefererre Sobekhotep IV.

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

An earlier king Sobekhotep had the prenomen Khaankhre (Kha-ankh-re), which makes for an even closer transliteration into Khayan. Another 13th Dynasty pharaoh is Neb-nuni, which appears related to the Hyksos name Pach-nan and the Biblical Nun/Non father of Joshua. We can't build an entire theory on these types of linguistic associations, but we can be completely certain that Amarna Period royals were using that earlier royal history as a model.

King Tut was being groomed as a neo-Tutimaos/neo-Salitis, but this role playing (along with just about everything else associated with the Amarna Period) was a complete debacle! Nevertheless, tradition still had to be fulfilled. Aye even took the young Tut under his wing in obvious emulation of the earlier Ay and Dudimose/Salitis!

http://www.domainofman.com/book/chap-27....
http://www.domainofman.com/book/chap-29....
http://www.domainofman.com/book/chap-30....

There is also a strong indication that Amarna period royals were patterning themselves after 6th Dynasty predecessors, which is only to be expected.

http://www.domainofman.com/cgi-bin/bbs62...
http://www.domainofman.com/cgi-bin/bbs62...

This type of scholarship requires actual thinking, as opposed to the rote regurgitation of "facts," which characterizes the modern historical approach. It also requires challenging the antiquated chronology of the ancient world. Academia should be encouraging alternative chronologies rather than persecuting all attempts.

Here's an example of one I did that removes the lengthy Intermediate Periods and shows well-reasoned overlaps between major dynasties:

http://www.domainofman.com/book/pdf/char...

Red Pill of the New Millennium: It is possible to establish an even more extreme chronology than this. In fact, it can be shown that all of pharaonic history occurred AFTER the last major Earth cataclysm of circa 1159 BC:

http://www.domainofman.com/cgi-bin/bbs62...
http://www.domainofman.com/cgi-bin/bbs62...
http://www.domainofman.com/boards/index....
http://www.domainofman.com/cgi-bin/bbs62...
http://www.domainofman.com/cgi-bin/bbs62...

Charles Pope's picture
Member since:
23 October 2009
Last activity:
4 hours 25 min

There is very little discussion on the web about the year 1159 BC, and despite the fact that it has been established scientifically as one of the worst climate disasters ever. There were two decades (or more?) of no appreciable tree growth::

"In many ways, an even more interesting catastrophe was that of 1159 BC. ... Sections of three bog oaks reveal the 1159 lacuna. Ring patterns from three sites, Gortgole, Toome and Tullyroan, show the catastrophic reduction in ring widths in the 1150s and 1140s." -Michael Baille

http://www.archaeology.co.uk/articles/fe...

"Of the 1159 event however, no conclusive evidence of either cause or effect has been presented. We know that from 1159 BC to 1140 BC, severe climate change occurred in Ireland. Speculation as to causes range from the eruption of the Icelandic volcano Hekla 3, to a close cometary pass, both of which could have caused a dust veil adversely affecting the weather.

"The tree rings show severe climate change took place in 1159 BC [in Ireland], whilst the hydrological records demonstrate catastrophic flooding took place at around the same time."

http://www.academia.edu/4555852/Climate_...

Renowned Egyptologist Eric Cline published a new book last year (2014) as part of the "Turning Points in Ancient History" series. It's title was "1177 BC: The Year Civilization Collapsed." However, there is no mention of the 1159 BC event at all in the book! The closest he comes (p 147) is the mention of sediment cores that have been taken from the bottom of the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea that show extreme climate disruption in the 12th Century BC. (This is the same technique that was used to prove the end of Mayan culture was brought on by a prolonged climate event.)

Archaeologists and historians are really at a loss to integrate the cataclysm of 1159 BC with the existing chronology of the ancient world. The 12th Century BC is considered a time of upheaval, but nothing on the scale that would have been caused by comet strikes and concomitant volcanic eruptions, torrential rains and even tsunamis, followed by a twenty year (or longer) "mini-Ice Age." This was not a downturn brought on by cyclical climate change (leading to the so-called "End of the Bronze Age"). This was a "Great Flood" and "End of the World" scenario. However, it doesn't fit with the Academic model of the ancient world and is therefore totally ignored.

There is a chronological framework that can accommodate such a disaster at such a late date. However, Academia refuses to even entertain the notion of chronology revision, and this is why they cannot be considered true scientists! They are posers and must be exposed as such by "Marduks" like me.

Related Links:

http://www.domainofman.com/cgi-bin/bbs62...
http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword27k...
http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read...

https://books.google.com/books?id=DHWQ8F...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hekla_3_eru...

Charles Pope's picture
Member since:
23 October 2009
Last activity:
4 hours 25 min

I looked back over David Rohl's book, Pharaohs & Kings (Chapters 12 & 13). Rohl cites the extra-biblical reference (in Eusebius) of ancient historian Artapanes that Moses was associated with the reign of a pharaoh named Khenephres/Khaneferre (Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV of the 13th Dynasty).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/7...
(Scroll down to the section titled "Moses and The Israelites")

The massive flooding at the end of the Egyptian 12th Dynasty is an obvious setting for the Biblical Flood story. There was nothing like it in all of Pharaonic history! Therefore, this is yet another significant indication that the 13th Dynasty king-list overlapped that of the 12th Dynasty.

https://books.google.com/books?id=AWSGAg...
(Nile, Flood History from the Encylopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt)

Although the 12th/13th Dynasty Exodus was an exemplary Exodus, the Biblical Flood story is still a composite of multiple Flood/Exodus events in Pharaonic times. These were considered repetitions of even earlier floods, particularly the one at the end of the last Ice Age. The earthly Flood/Exodus scenario was in turn a repetition of the primordial cosmic event that was believed to have resulted in the formation of our solar system.