'13-11-06, 13:37 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: 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. Thank you for demonstrating that you're allowing your personal and subjective cultural background colour your interpetation of ancient sources to fit your pet theory. I was talking about the Egyptian example, not the Jewish arc btw.
'13-11-06, 14:20 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Thomas Eshuis wrote: Thank you for demonstrating that you're allowing your personal and subjective cultural background colour your interpetation of ancient sources to fit your pet theory. I'm getting tired of trying to figure out what my critics here are actually talking about when they issue accusations. So what interpretation of mine are you saying is colored? I'm not going to guess at it.
'13-11-06, 15:42 Thomas Eshuis	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: Thomas Eshuis wrote: Thank you for demonstrating that you're allowing your personal and subjective cultural background colour your interpetation of ancient sources to fit your pet theory. I'm getting tired of trying to figure out what my critics here are actually talking about when they issue accusations. So what interpretation of mine are you saying is colored? I'm not going to guess at it. That you're subjectively seeing similarities and based on those subjective similarities are drawing objective conclusions.
'13-11-06, 15:50 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus The Biblical cherubs are somewhat more interesting than "humans with wings" Ezekiel 10, NIV wrote: 14Each of the cherubim had four faces: One face was that of a cherub, the second the face of a human being, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle. Moreover, I can't find any information anywhere about "Akhenaten's Ark". What is it? Where is it kept? Is there a paper with a proper description? Also, I can't find any information on that "depiction Tutankhamun's tomb" that you linked to. Do you have anything else than a link to an image on www.thelivingmoon.com. Do you have any other sources than a site on "The Living Moon: Lunar Bases and Mines, And Cities Explored, Alternate Theories on Atmosphere and Gravity"?
'13-11-06, 16:46 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus I wonder if, perchance, "Akhenaten's Ark" is actually his sarcophagus, which looks kinda sorta different: Or maybe it's also one of King Tut's shrines, though it seems those are quite more likely to depicts the goddesses Isis, Nephthys, Selkis and Neith.
'13-11-06, 16:52 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Thomas Eshuis wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: I'm getting tired of trying to figure out what my critics here are actually talking about when they issue accusations. So what interpretation of mine are you saying is colored? I'm not going to guess at it. That you're subjectively seeing similarities and based on those subjective similarities are drawing objective conclusions. Right. Would you mind telling me which similarities I'm seeing that you consider to be subjective? stijndeloose wrote: The Biblical cherubs are somewhat more interesting than "humans with wings" Right. So all of the Jewish scholars fucked up when they decided that all of the authorized depictions of the Ark show angels instead of cherubs? Are Jewish scholars familiar with the Old Testament? Why did they unwittingly go with Amarna-style cherubs, instead of the "correct" forms? Do you have any idea of how scholarly Jewish scholars actually are? I don't challenge Jewish scholars when the topic is Jewish literature. And I should like to point out that there is a lot more to Jewish literature than just the Old Testament. As a matter of fact, that's the small part. So I consider it telling when the consensus is that the "cherubs" on the Ark should actually be angels. There are a number of other aspects of the OT that I consider to be camouflage, where the Hebrews were concealing their faith. For example, they suffixed every prayer with "Amen", which some believe to be their pretending that they had been praying to Amun to appease their Egyptian governors. So the OT describes pagan cherubs, but Jewish scholars insist that the Ark depict angels. This makes sense to me. stijndeloose wrote: Moreover, I can't find any information anywhere about "Akhenaten's Ark". What is it? Where is it kept? Is there a paper with a proper description? Akhenaten's Ark is from Nestor L'Hote's drawing (Lettres d'Egypte, page 11).
'13-11-06, 17:03 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: stijndeloose wrote: Moreover, I can't find any information anywhere about "Akhenaten's Ark". What is it? Where is it kept? Is there a paper with a proper description? Akhenaten's Ark is from Nestor L'Hote's drawing (Lettres d'Egypte, page 11). Yes, I read that, thank you. I can read just fine. That doesn't tell me anything. You don't even have access to the original yourself. Can you even be sure that it's a drawing of what you say it is? Are you even sure there was such a thing as "Akhenaten's Ark"?
'13-11-06, 17:06 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus stijndeloose wrote: Also, I can't find any information on that "depiction Tutankhamun's tomb" that you linked to. I'm still looking for more info on that image, but there's a similar one on this more reputable site: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tutshrines.htm
'13-11-06, 17:16 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: stijndeloose wrote: The Biblical cherubs are somewhat more interesting than "humans with wings" Right. So all of the Jewish scholars fucked up when they decided that all of the authorized depictions of the Ark show angels instead of cherubs? Are Jewish scholars familiar with the Old Testament? Why did they unwittingly go with Amarna-style cherubs, instead of the "correct" forms? Do you have any idea of how scholarly Jewish scholars actually are? I don't challenge Jewish scholars when the topic is Jewish literature. That sounds suspicious like an argument from authority. Now if you could tell me why they show angels rather than cherubs as described by Ezekiel, or if you could detail why they disagree with Ezekiel's description, that'd be more interesting. And I should like to point out that there is a lot more to Jewish literature than just the Old Testament. As a matter of fact, that's the small part. If this post-dates the OT and Akhenaten, then I'm not sure it's particularly relevant. There are a number of other aspects of the OT that I consider to be camouflage, where the Hebrews were concealing their faith. For example, they suffixed every prayer with "Amen", which some believe to be their pretending that they had been praying to Amun to appease their Egyptian governors. So the OT describes pagan cherubs, but Jewish scholars insist that the Ark depict angels. This makes sense to me. I don't know Hebrew, so I have no idea if there is a connection between the word "Amen" and Amun. If you want to claim that there is, it'll be up to you to provide evidence. If your source is the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, then the "faces" of the cherubs aren't particularly visible.
'13-11-06, 17:22 Shrunk	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. Ornamented rectangular boxes. Obviously, no one could think that up by himself.
'13-11-06, 17:24 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus stijndeloose wrote: CharlesChandler wrote: Akhenaten's Ark is from Nestor L'Hote's drawing (Lettres d'Egypte, page 11). Yes, I read that, thank you. I can read just fine. That doesn't tell me anything. You don't even have access to the original yourself. Can you even be sure that it's a drawing of what you say it is? Are you even sure there was such a thing as "Akhenaten's Ark"? I'm confident that the page that I scanned from Tertius Chandler's Godly Kings and Early Ethics was a faithful reproduction of Nestor L'Hote's drawing, and that L'Hote's drawing was a faithful representation of whatever he was looking at. I don't know that there was ever a physical Ark — my guess is that L'Hote copied an inscription on a wall somewhere. Whatever it was, it was in the Amarna style (i.e., lacking pagan cherubs, and a depiction of the Sun figures significantly in it). Tertius called it Akhenaten's Ark. That's all I know. (BTW, this is why I didn't want to start quoting from out-of-print sources, but OldSkeptic asked, and I answered. )
'13-11-06, 17:34 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: I'm confident that the page that I scanned from Tertius Chandler's Godly Kings and Early Ethics was a faithful reproduction of Nestor L'Hote's drawing, and that L'Hote's drawing was a faithful representation of whatever he was looking at. Which doesn't tell you anything if you don't know what he was looking at. CharlesChandler wrote: I don't know that there was ever a physical Ark — my guess is that L'Hote copied an inscription on a wall somewhere. Whatever it was, it was in the Amarna style (i.e., lacking pagan cherubs, and a depiction of the Sun figures significantly in it). Tertius called it Akhenaten's Ark. That's all I know. (BTW, this is why I didn't want to start quoting from out-of-print sources, but OldSkeptic asked, and I answered. ) Lacking cherubs full stop would sound more likely. What do you mean by "out-of-print" sources? Tertius' book? Not sure it's out of print. Or L'Hote's drawing? You can't call that your source, 'cause it isn't. Iow, you have no idea what it is, where it came from, or what it represents, you have no original source, you don't have anything except for a drawing of something. And THAT you use as evidence?
'13-11-06, 17:40 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus stijndeloose wrote: That sounds suspicious like an argument from authority. Ummm, I "think" that people ARE the authorities on what THEY believe, don't you? That isn't argumentum ad verecundiam. stijndeloose wrote: And I should like to point out that there is a lot more to Jewish literature than just the Old Testament. As a matter of fact, that's the small part. If this post-dates the OT and Akhenaten, then I'm not sure it's particularly relevant. All Jewish literature post-dates Akhenaten, including the OT. But that's actually the point. Tutankhamun's tomb, and everything at Amarna, were not known until modern times. So how could Jewish scholars, writing in the 7th Century BCE or later, have known details only known to pharaohs and high priests during the Amarna period?
'13-11-06, 17:43 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: stijndeloose wrote: That sounds suspicious like an argument from authority. Ummm, I "think" that people ARE the authorities on what THEY believe, don't you? That isn't argumentum ad verecundiam. The "people" you refer to aren't the same as the "they" in your sentence. Contemporary jews don't necessarily believe what ancient jews believed. Moreover, you have claimed a consensus, but haven't demonstrated one. stijndeloose wrote: And I should like to point out that there is a lot more to Jewish literature than just the Old Testament. As a matter of fact, that's the small part. If this post-dates the OT and Akhenaten, then I'm not sure it's particularly relevant. All Jewish literature post-dates Akhenaten, including the OT. But that's actually the point. Tutankhamun's tomb, and everything at Amarna, were not known until modern times. So how could Jewish scholars, writing in the 7th Century BCE or later, have known details only known to pharaohs and high priests during the Amarna period? Well, you still haven't demonstrated that they did. So?
'13-11-06, 17:45 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: I don't know that there was ever a physical Ark — my guess is that L'Hote copied an inscription on a wall somewhere. Whatever it was, it was in the Amarna style (i.e., lacking pagan cherubs, and a depiction of the Sun figures significantly in it). Tertius called it Akhenaten's Ark. That's all I know. (BTW, this is why I didn't want to start quoting from out-of-print sources, but OldSkeptic asked, and I answered. ) This is quite disingenuous, actually. You brought up alleged similarities between "Akhenaten's Ark" and the Ark of the Convenant, Oldskeptic asked to bring up your evidence, and now you're blaming him???
'13-11-06, 18:42 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus stijndeloose wrote: The "people" you refer to aren't the same as the "they" in your sentence. Contemporary jews don't necessarily believe what ancient jews believed. Moreover, you have claimed a consensus, but haven't demonstrated one. You're so caught up in argumentativeness that you're not inspecting your own arguments. The depiction of the Jewish Ark was from the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, and you're saying that I haven't demonstrated that it represented the consensus of Jewish scholars. Oooooo-kay. And if contemporary Jews do not believe what the ancient Hebrews believed, then how did they independently and unilaterally decide to go with an Amarna motif, in modern imagery but which pre-dates the discovery of Amarna? Remember here that for the Jews, the Ark is not "a" relic — it's "the" relic. This isn't something that somebody pulled out of his ass. All of the experts would have been consulted. And they decided to go against the OT, and to depict the cherubim as angels, like the Amarna imagery that was later discovered. To maintain that position, you have to say that Jewish scholars either don't know, or don't care, about the OT, and that by sheer coincidence, they picked an Egyptian design, when Jews adamantly insist that their culture is their own, and not just a spin-off from ancient Egypt. That's ridiculous.
'13-11-06, 18:46 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus stijndeloose wrote: This is quite disingenuous, actually. You brought up alleged similarities between "Akhenaten's Ark" and the Ark of the Convenant, Oldskeptic asked to bring up your evidence, and now you're blaming him??? You're not familiar with the relevant Americana here, so please allow me to explain. The expression is self-deprecating — it is blaming oneself, not someone else.
'13-11-06, 19:06 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus CharlesChandler wrote: You're so caught up in argumentativeness that you're not inspecting your own arguments. The depiction of the Jewish Ark was from the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, and you're saying that I haven't demonstrated that it represented the consensus of Jewish scholars. Oooooo-kay. Errr, no. That's not the problem with that image. The image doesn't show the cherub's faces. And it's only an image; you didn't provide any context. CharlesChandler wrote: And if contemporary Jews do not believe what the ancient Hebrews believed, then how did they independently and unilaterally decide to go with an Amarna motif, in modern imagery but which pre-dates the discovery of Amarna? 1) You didn't demonstrate that they did "independently and unilaterally decide to go with an Amarna motif" and 2) modern Hebrews have access to Amarna imagery CharlesChandler wrote: Remember here that for the Jews, the Ark is not "a" relic — it's "the" relic. This isn't something that somebody pulled out of his ass. All of the experts would have been consulted. And they decided to go against the OT, and to depict the cherubim as angels, like the Amarna imagery that was later discovered. This is all irrelevant since a) you still haven't demonstrated a Jewish consensus on what cherubs looked like, and, if there is, then what it is, and b) you still haven't demonstrated that there were cherubs in Armana mythology. To maintain that position, you have to say that Jewish scholars either don't know, or don't care, about the OT, and that by sheer coincidence, they picked an Egyptian design, when Jews adamantly insist that their culture is their own, and not just a spin-off from ancient Egypt. That's ridiculous. There's a certain type of dichotomy in there. It's called "false".
'13-11-06, 20:30 CharlesChandler	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus stijndeloose wrote: I don't know Hebrew, so I have no idea if there is a connection between the word "Amen" and Amun. If you want to claim that there is, it'll be up to you to provide evidence. Tutankhamun is also spelled Tutankhamen, and we know that in both cases, the name refers to Amun, so the spellings are interchangeable. "Amen" doesn't mean anything in Hebrew, which invites the speculation, though there is nothing in Hebrew literature saying that they were suffixing every prayer with the name of the dominant Egyptian god to escape persecution. That would defeat the purpose. stijndeloose wrote: The image doesn't show the cherub's faces. The artists didn't want to openly contradict the OT. But they're clearly not animal heads, nor animal bodies, which means that they're not cherubs in the strict sense, despite the clear reference to cherubs in the OT. stijndeloose wrote: And it's only an image; you didn't provide any context. But the imagery is the whole point. I'm saying that Jewish scholars instructed the artists to draw the cherubs as angels instead of as traditional cherubs. For "context", do you need the written instructions given to the artists? Or would the end result suffice? stijndeloose wrote: 1) You didn't demonstrate that they did "independently and unilaterally decide to go with an Amarna motif" and 2) modern Hebrews have access to Amarna imagery Well, they certainly didn't get it from the OT, and you'll see the same thing in paintings that pre-date the digs at Amarna. stijndeloose wrote: you still haven't demonstrated that there were cherubs in Armana mythology. Akhenaten forbade idolatry, and humanized the artwork as much as possible. So what would have been a bull with wings in a previous reign becomes a person with wings. So I would be wrong if I tried to demonstrate cherubs in Amarna mythology. stijndeloose wrote: To maintain that position, you have to say that Jewish scholars either don't know, or don't care, about the OT, and that by sheer coincidence, they picked an Egyptian design, when Jews adamantly insist that their culture is their own, and not just a spin-off from ancient Egypt. That's ridiculous. There's a certain type of dichotomy in there. It's called "false". That isn't a false dichotomy. The scholars clearly deviated from the OT (e.g., in not showing cherubs with four faces), which is unusual considering the extremely strict nature of Jewish scholarship. I'm saying that there had to be a reason, not just a little too much creativity in how "the" Jewish relic is represented in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia. So what was that reason? I'm saying that there is more to Hebrew heritage than just the OT, and that the angels are closer to the faith than pagan cherubs. Are there any other possibilities? As concerns the paintings the pre-date the digs at Amarna, it could have only been by chance. If you want to make the charge of false dichotomy stick, you have to provide a third option. Otherwise it's just another drive-bye.
'13-11-06, 20:55 stijndeloose	Re: The Pharaoh of the Exodus Oh, I don't know. For all I know the image in the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia could say "19th-century Christian depiction of that sect's vision of the Arc of the Covenant". Of course the bloody context is important. Re your claims re "Amen": citation required. Oh, and you still haven't demonstrated any Jewish consensus on cherubs.