'13-11-02, 22:42 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Oldskeptic wrote: Similar in style and using some of the same images. Page 87 should be of some interest. http://books.google.com/books?id=Cf8Ye9 ... ti&f=false Thanks for the reference! It will take me a few days to study it, and to consider the implications. This plays directly into the point that I have been "trying" to make all along, that there is a logical progression of ideas in Egypt, from the myriad gods, to the fusion of Amun and Re, and finally, to the creator-god Aten. There is no such progression from the Canaanite gods leading to Yahweh. There is simply a variety of names (e.g., Elohim), and then they're saying, "Yep — that's all the same god." So the Egyptian heritage is much richer. And in the conception of Yahweh as the creator, they're going with Akhenaten's version, not Amenhotep III's. Anyway, you have yet to show an example of non-Amarna poetry where more than 14 out of any given 16 verses match, so the challenge is still open. "Similar in style and using some of the same images" doesn't compete with 14/16.
'13-11-03, 16:24 Oldskeptic	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Oldskeptic wrote: Similar in style and using some of the same images. Page 87 should be of some interest. http://books.google.com/books?id=Cf8Ye9 ... ti&f=false Thanks for the reference! It will take me a few days to study it, and to consider the implications. This plays directly into the point that I have been "trying" to make all along, that there is a logical progression of ideas in Egypt, from the myriad gods, to the fusion of Amun and Re, and finally, to the creator-god Aten. I don't think that anyone has questioned this progression, but I fail to see how that has been your point all along. There is no such progression from the Canaanite gods leading to Yahweh. Yes there is. There is simply a variety of names (e.g., Elohim), and then they're saying, "Yep — that's all the same god." That's not how it happened and you know it. So the Egyptian heritage is much richer. That's a matter of opinion. And in the conception of Yahweh as the creator, they're going with Akhenaten's version, not Amenhotep III's. As if there were only two choices. Anyway, you have yet to show an example of non-Amarna poetry where more than 14 out of any given 16 verses match, so the challenge is still open. "Similar in style and using some of the same images" doesn't compete with 14/16. Your 14 out of 16 is completely subjective. You see what you want to see. You think that the sun god bringing day and night by his coming and going is the same as Yahweh causing the sun to rise and set. You thing that every lion is the same as young lions roaring, and stinging serpents are the same as all beasts. You think that men getting up to worship the sun god is the same as men getting up to go to work. You think birds in marshes are the same as birds birds making nests, that sheep are the same as wild goats, and that prancing is the same as having refuge. You think that fish leaping in a river are the same as whales playing in the ocean. See what I mean? You think that a Nile in the sky is the same as Yahweh's chambers.
'13-11-03, 18:19 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Oldskeptic wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: This plays directly into the point that I have been "trying" to make all along, that there is a logical progression of ideas in Egypt, from the myriad gods, to the fusion of Amun and Re, and finally, to the creator-god Aten. I don't think that anyone has questioned this progression, but I fail to see how that has been your point all along. I first mentioned the progression in post #3. Oldskeptic wrote: Your 14 out of 16 is completely subjective. You see what you want to see. You think that the sun god bringing day and night by his coming and going is the same as Yahweh causing the sun to rise and set. [...] See what I mean? Of course I see the differences. But to invalidate my point, you'd have to show 14 out of 16 consecutive verses with the same degree of similarity from one or more non-Amarna sources. If you could find as many similarities in Amenhotep III's poetry, that would weaken my point. (OK, Akhenaten wasn't the inspiration for Psalm 104 — it was actually his dad. Ouch.) You'd greatly weaken my position if you could find poetry from outside of the 18th Dynasty that matched up on as many points. And of course, to totally destroy my position on the Egyptian heritage, you'd have to show as many consecutive similarities with a sample of non-Egyptian poetry. Since you're so convinced that Psalm 104 is just generic theist-babble, why don't you just go ahead and show me how generic it actually is, and win the argument once and for all? In other words, do you see similarities between the story of Moses being placed in a basket and floated down the Nile, and the story of Sargon the Great? (I do.) Do you see differences? (I do.) Do you consider the earlier story of Sargon to be the inspiration for the story of Moses? Or do the differences prove that it was just generic theist-babble? (I consider Sargon's story to be the original, and Moses' story to be the copy, but you'll have to weigh in for yourself.)
'13-11-03, 18:43 laklak	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus I always wondered how the fuck they managed to wander about a relatively small desert for 40 years. Mrs. Moses: Oi vey, Mr. I Don't Need A Map! We've been wandering now for 27 years, would you just stop and ask directions? Moses: Shut it, woman, I know where I'm going. Third star to the left, straight on till sunrise... Mrs. Moses: Meshugenah, that's you. Some Prince of Egypt you turned out to be. Mother told me but did I listen? I could have married that nice Egyptian boy, he's probably an accountant now, but no, here I am, wandering around the desert, looking for the Promised Land and dodging scorpions.
'13-11-03, 21:46 Oldskeptic	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Oldskeptic wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: This plays directly into the point that I have been "trying" to make all along, that there is a logical progression of ideas in Egypt, from the myriad gods, to the fusion of Amun and Re, and finally, to the creator-god Aten. I don't think that anyone has questioned this progression, but I fail to see how that has been your point all along. I first mentioned the progression in post #3. Oldskeptic wrote: Your 14 out of 16 is completely subjective. You see what you want to see. You think that the sun god bringing day and night by his coming and going is the same as Yahweh causing the sun to rise and set. [...] See what I mean? Of course I see the differences. But to invalidate my point, you'd have to show 14 out of 16 consecutive verses with the same degree of similarity from one or more non-Amarna sources. As I have shown your degree of similarity is suspect. If you could find as many similarities in Amenhotep III's poetry, that would weaken my point. Your point is already about as weak as it can get. (OK, Akhenaten wasn't the inspiration for Psalm 104 — it was actually his dad. Ouch.) So you begin to move the goal posts? You'd greatly weaken my position if you could find poetry from outside of the 18th Dynasty that matched up on as many points. And of course, to totally destroy my position on the Egyptian heritage, you'd have to show as many consecutive similarities with a sample of non-Egyptian poetry. Since you're so convinced that Psalm 104 is just generic theist-babble, why don't you just go ahead and show me how generic it actually is, and win the argument once and for all? I don't have to match you point for point, that is a rule you have set. What I have done is show that your similarity points are spurious and up to your own interpretation. In other words, do you see similarities between the story of Moses being placed in a basket and floated down the Nile, and the story of Sargon the Great? (I do.) Do you see differences? (I do.) Do you consider the earlier story of Sargon to be the inspiration for the story of Moses? Or do the differences prove that it was just generic theist-babble? (I consider Sargon's story to be the original, and Moses' story to be the copy, but you'll have to weigh in for yourself.) The link between Moses and Sargon is something entirely different. Are you going for the Gish gallop now?
'13-11-04, 00:09 james1v	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Oldskeptic wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: Agrippina wrote: Can you entertain the idea that the Exodus was just a figment of someone's over-active imagination. Or are you convinced, despite the complete absence of evidence, that there is some truth in it. Can you explain to me why Hebrew settlements in Canaan in the 1200s BCE and onward are easily identified by the absence of pig bones in their trash heaps? Yeah I can, first of all there weren't any Hebrew settlements in Canaan before the 1200s. Secondly they didn't raise pigs. That doesn't make much sense, if you think about it. It wasn't because they were so overwhelmingly wealthy that it was easy to be picky about what they ate. Actually in an arid environment herders would find it more expensive to raise pigs than goats or sheep, or even cattle. And there isn't any religious significance to it either. The religious significance comes from entrenching eating habits with custom. Studies have shown that people simply won't eat and or are disgusted by foods that they are not fed in early development. This avoidance and or disgust can be reinforced when an enemy or people hated regularly eat the "disgusting" food. The avoidance can become a sort of cultural patriotism, which is easy to turn into a religious taboo. In other words, Jews don't spare pigs because they think they're holy, the way Hindus spare cows. Rather, the Jews just think that pork is unhealthy. Why is that? Jews thought that pork was unhealthy because their god supposedly said it was unclean. But the question why would their god do that? Because they couldn't figure out how to eat pork safely? I don't think so, many other cultures had and have figured out how to cure and prepare pork safely. It is entirely possible and I and Steven Pinker think probable that the some of the foods proscribed by their god is because they didn't eat them and people they didn't like did. Borrowing from Steven Pinker: Food taboos also provide something like a cultural corral that keeps people especially younger people from straying. Why the restrictions on shellfish and camels? They are no more dangerous than goat, lamb, or chicken. Could it be that rival Bedouins ate camels and the rival Sea People ate shellfish? It sounds more logical to me than a health code. I remember when the French government refused to join in the war against Iraq that many government cafeterias and other patriot food establishments refused to serve French Toast (Never mind that only in the US is it called French Toast). What would have happened if the US had gone to war with France? All things French would have become culturally taboo for no other reason than that they were associated with the enemy. It's possible that the enduring Jewish deference for pork has to do with something that happened in Egypt toward the end of the 1300s BCE, namely, an outbreak of bubonic plague, for which there is archaeological evidence at Amarna, and which germinates wherever pigs and ducks are kept together, which is a practice that began in Akhenaten's time. If a plague preferentially attacked people who kept pigs in Egypt, and if some of the people left, partly to maintain their Atenist beliefs, but also to get away from the bubonic plague, and if these people developed extremely strict rules for the careful preparation of meat, which preclude anything that comes from a pig, the whole thing is cause and effect. Otherwise, none of it makes sense. That's a lot of "ifs" for a sensible conclusion. As I have written above there are other ways to make sense of the Jewish taboo against pork, and your hypothesis does not explain shellfish or camels. Where does this information come from that bubonic plague "germinates" where ducks and pigs are kept together? I'd like a citation. Also an explanation of why Egyptians kept on eating pork if it was so obvious that pigs were associated with the plague. Along those lines, it's interesting to note that during the Black Death in Europe (1348-1350 AD), Jewish customs concerning cleanliness and healthy eating afforded them some protection against the plague. This might be coincidence, but then again, it might be cause and effect, if such customs date back to a time when bubonic plague was going around. Otherwise they don't make sense. Well lets never mind that Jewish households were generally cleaner than the rest of the population and that they lived in isolated communities. Let's just say that it was that they didn't eat pork that they suffered less from the plague and be done with it, and also never mind that neither did many of the general populace. In fact the general populace didn't eat much meat at all because it was too expensive. If pigs where considered by "god" to be unclean, how come they are around today? I blame Noah.
'13-11-05, 02:17 Oldskeptic	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus I'm wondering, Charles what you think of these ideas? That Zeus was a king in Moses' time. That Tubal of ancient Spain may have built Stonehenge. That Chinese writing was derived from that of Moses. That Hindu reincarnation concepts came from Egypt. That Noah was the same person as the ancient Greek Aeneas.
'13-11-05, 11:10 Scot Dutchy	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus A old Dutch saying which is very true: "A farmer does not eat what the farmer does not know".
'13-11-05, 15:48 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Oldskeptic wrote: Since you're so convinced that Psalm 104 is just generic theist-babble, why don't you just go ahead and show me how generic it actually is, and win the argument once and for all? I don't have to match you point for point, that is a rule you have set. What I have done is show that your similarity points are spurious and up to your own interpretation. If we were comparing the architectural styles of two different buildings, and if on 14 out of 16 identifiable features, I called your attention to similarities, and asserted that the second architect came from the same school as the first, you could say that the "similarities" are entirely in my own mind. I could also say that your failure to see the supposed similarities is just as subjective, and I'd be just as correct as you, because at that point, it's just your word against mine. The only way to approach an objective analysis would be to look at more than just two buildings, and to get a sense for how similar things actually have to be in order to consider them "similar". Comparative analysis is a big part of archeology. This isn't bad logic, and no, it isn't "my" rule. If I assert a similarity, you can fail to see it, but that's just your opinion. If you can produce an example of something just as similar from a different source, you can disprove my point. Oldskeptic wrote: The link between Moses and Sargon is something entirely different. Are you going for the Gish gallop now? I was simply citing another example of "similar" stories, hoping to introduce more objectivity into this comparative literature discussion. Oldskeptic wrote: I'm wondering, Charles what you think of these ideas? That Zeus was a king in Moses' time. That Tubal of ancient Spain may have built Stonehenge. That Chinese writing was derived from that of Moses. That Hindu reincarnation concepts came from Egypt. That Noah was the same person as the ancient Greek Aeneas. Have you been reading God Kings and Early Ethics by Tertius Chandler? He agreed with all of those statements. But in all of his conjecture, the only points I ever found convincing were the Egyptian-Hebrew parallels. There are many more than I have presented here, because nobody here would have found material from an out-of-print book, that they don't have, to be convincing. But if you've got a copy of Tertius' book, we could discuss some of the other topics (such as the "similarity" between Akhenaten's and Moses' arks).
'13-11-05, 19:03 Scot Dutchy	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Well Charlie boy. Are the architects of the pyramids of Egypt and Central America from the same school? You have stepped pyramids in both places. Very similar. Work it out cause and effect and also a bit of spying.
'13-11-05, 19:52 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Scot Dutchy wrote: Are the architects of the pyramids of Egypt and Central America from the same school? I think that all of the pyramid builders independently arrived at the same conclusion. Everybody in the ancient world who built something that fell down figured out that you can only go so high with vertical masonry walls without them being vulnerable to earthquakes. So they went with wide bases that couldn't fall down. And they all went with square bases, because those are the easiest to lay out. Now, if they all had some sort of inscription on them, with 14 out of 16 verses in common, I'd feel differently. But the appearance of a simple geometric shape in different places doesn't prove a correlation.
'13-11-05, 20:52 Oldskeptic	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Oldskeptic wrote: Since you're so convinced that Psalm 104 is just generic theist-babble, why don't you just go ahead and show me how generic it actually is, and win the argument once and for all? I don't have to match you point for point, that is a rule you have set. What I have done is show that your similarity points are spurious and up to your own interpretation. If we were comparing the architectural styles of two different buildings, and if on 14 out of 16 identifiable features, I called your attention to similarities, and asserted that the second architect came from the same school as the first, you could say that the "similarities" are entirely in my own mind. And I would say that the similarities where in your mind if you compared statues of prancing sheep to wild goats, murals of leaping fish in a river to whales playing in the ocean, serpents to all the beasts of the forest, birds in marshes to birds building nests, people praying to the risen sun to people working, young lions roaring to lions of every age. A visual of these these things that you think are so similar might help you in seeing that they are not. I think that the archaeologist that used these kinds of comparisons would be laughed at. I could also say that your failure to see the supposed similarities is just as subjective, and I'd be just as correct as you, because at that point, it's just your word against mine. It's not my word against yours, it is my opinion against your opinion. My opinion is based on examining what you have presented, and as evidence I find it lacking. I don't find your evidence convincing, and I have explained why. It is not me against you in some sort of grudge match where I am going to take the contrary position no matter what. Show me some evidence that holds up under examination and I will support your proposal. Until then I will remain highly skeptical. The only way to approach an objective analysis would be to look at more than just two buildings, and to get a sense for how similar things actually have to be in order to consider them "similar". This makes no sense. Comparative analysis is a big part of archeology. This isn't bad logic, and no, it isn't "my" rule. If I assert a similarity, you can fail to see it, but that's just your opinion. Just my opinion? I don't fail to see your similarities, as if it's a deficiency. Many of them are not there at all. And the big picture is that Psalm 104 is a prayer to a creator god, one that created and moves the sun. Akenaten's prayer is to the sun itself who is the creator of everything else. Two different types of gods. If you can produce an example of something just as similar from a different source, you can disprove my point. I've already done much to call your point into question. It is not as solid as you portray it to be. Oldskeptic wrote: The link between Moses and Sargon is something entirely different. Are you going for the Gish gallop now? I was simply citing another example of "similar" stories, hoping to introduce more objectivity into this comparative literature discussion. They are similar because each mentions a baby in a reed basket in a river. Things that are the same things. Birds in marshes are not the same as birds building nests. Serpents are not the same as all the creatures of the forest. Young lions roaring are not the same as every lion. Fish jumping in a river are not the same as whales playing in the ocean. Sheep prancing are not the same as goats seeking refuge in the rocky hills. People worshiping the rising sun are not the same as people getting up to go to work. Take away these things and what you have are generic claims of what gods do and are capable of doing. Oldskeptic wrote: I'm wondering, Charles what you think of these ideas? That Zeus was a king in Moses' time. That Tubal of ancient Spain may have built Stonehenge. That Chinese writing was derived from that of Moses. That Hindu reincarnation concepts came from Egypt. That Noah was the same person as the ancient Greek Aeneas. Have you been reading God Kings and Early Ethics by Tertius Chandler? He agreed with all of those statements. But in all of his conjecture, the only points I ever found convincing were the Egyptian-Hebrew parallels. There are many more than I have presented here, because nobody here would have found material from an out-of-print book, that they don't have, to be convincing. But if you've got a copy of Tertius' book, we could discuss some of the other topics (such as the "similarity" between Akhenaten's and Moses' arks). If you have more parallels then by all means bring them forward. Let's look at them, and see if any stand up under scrutiny. No I don't have a copy of your uncle's book I was only able to find bits and pieces through google, and wondered how much of your uncle's beliefs you accepted. If there are similarities between the ark/boat that held Akenaten's deity and the ark/box of the covenant as described in the Old Testament then let's examine them. I hope you have more than that in translations they are given the same name. edited to fix quotes
'13-11-05, 23:21 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Oldskeptic wrote: If there are similarities between the ark/boat that held Akenaten's deity and the ark/box of the covenant as described in the Old Testament then let's examine them. I hope you have more than that in translations they are given the same name. Here ya go... Arks.jpg (67.37 KiB) Viewed 69 times The Jewish Ark is from the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, which of course is a drawing from the description in Exodus. Akhenaten's Ark is L'Hote's drawing (Lettres d'Egypte, page 11), which I can't seem to find online, so this is scanned from Tertius' book. Yes, there are differences. Mainly, the Jewish Ark omits the depiction of the Sun, but this isn't a surprise, since Akhenaten in his later days downplayed the iconography in Atenism, hence a later version of the same faith wouldn't have this. That leaves us with a box adorned by two cherubim.
'13-11-06, 08:45 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Oldskeptic wrote: If there are similarities between the ark/boat that held Akenaten's deity and the ark/box of the covenant as described in the Old Testament then let's examine them. I hope you have more than that in translations they are given the same name. Here ya go... Arks.jpg The Jewish Ark is from the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, which of course is a drawing from the description in Exodus. Akhenaten's Ark is L'Hote's drawing (Lettres d'Egypte, page 11), which I can't seem to find online, so this is scanned from Tertius' book. Yes, there are differences. Mainly, the Jewish Ark omits the depiction of the Sun, but this isn't a surprise, since Akhenaten in his later days downplayed the iconography in Atenism, hence a later version of the same faith wouldn't have this. That leaves us with a box adorned by two cherubim. Except that they aren't cherubim and you haven't actually provided the text that describes the ark of the covenant.
'13-11-06, 09:24 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Thomas Eshuis wrote: Except that they aren't cherubim and you haven't actually provided the text that describes the ark of the covenant. My bad. Here ya go... Exodus 25 wrote: 10 "Have them make an ark of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. 11 Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. 12 Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. 13 Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. 14 Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it. 15 The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. 16 Then put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law, which I will give you. 17 "Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. 21 Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law that I will give you. 22 There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the covenant law, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites.
'13-11-06, 10:08 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: Except that they aren't cherubim and you haven't actually provided the text that describes the ark of the covenant. My bad. Here ya go... Exodus 25 wrote: 10 "Have them make an ark of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. 11 Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. 12 Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. 13 Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. 14 Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the ark to carry it. 15 The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed. 16 Then put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law, which I will give you. 17 "Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. 18 And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. 19 Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. 20 The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. 21 Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the tablets of the covenant law that I will give you. 22 There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the covenant law, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites. Still doesn't change the Egyptian one doesn't have cherubs.
'13-11-06, 10:38 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Indeed.
'13-11-06, 13:25 Agrippina	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus The description from the Bible is just a description from the Bible. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the thing ever existed. It's a fable.
'13-11-06, 13:25 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Thomas Eshuis wrote: Still doesn't change the Egyptian one doesn't have cherubs. Neither does the Jewish one for that matter, at least if "cherub" means a human-headed winged bull (popular among Babylonians), or a human-headed winged lion (popular with the Phoenicians), or an eagle-headed winged lion (popular among the Hittites). So Jewish scholars fucked up when then decided to render the cherubim as angels (i.e., humans with wings)? Maybe it wasn't the Jewish scholars who fucked up. I'll leave it up to them to be the most reliable interpreters of their own faith, and if they say that in Judaism, "cherub" means "winged humans", like the ones on Akhenaten's Ark, and definitely not like the Babylonian, Phoenician, or Hittite forms, I'll take their word for it. Interestingly, the depiction chosen by the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia most closely resembles the way they're depicted in Tutankhamun's tomb (see http://www.thelivingmoon.com/42stargate ... kgodlg.jpg), which of course was not known until modern times. It should also be noted that the Jews, then and now, firmly refute an Egyptian heritage. They acknowledge that the Hebrews interacted many times with the Egyptians, but do not acknowledge that any of their culture is rooted in Egyptian customs. So when Jews depict the only relic in their faith in a way that is recognizably Egyptian, though there was no way of knowing it until modern times, I consider that to be telling. If this was a court case, such parallels would be considered the exchange of privileged information, which suffices as proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a connection.
'13-11-06, 13:34 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Agrippina wrote: The description from the Bible is just a description from the Bible. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the thing ever existed. It's a fable. And they just happened to invent a fable that later scholars just happened to interpret as being recognizably Egyptian? Like I said, the Jews make a deliberate effort to disassociate themselves from the Egyptians. I think that if they had known that they were drawing an Ark that looked a lot like something that would later be found inside Tutankhamun's tomb, they would have changed it.