Here is an added Image. Click attachments, click add file, select the image on your computer, locate the cursor on your post, click place inlineTrying to add a few images won't work.Maybe its me but will keep trying.
nick c wrote: ↑Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:27 pm Hi Yogi,Here is an added Image. Click attachments, click add file, select the image on your computer, locate the cursor on your post, click place inlineTrying to add a few images won't work.Maybe its me but will keep trying.
Note there are size limitations as to what images can be posted. You might have to go to a photo program like Paint to reduce the size for posting.
Capture.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Capture.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
The research concluded that a bolide exploded in the air, above the north end of the Dead Sea. The shock wave in the air would have created a wave in the Dead Sea that would have crashed ashore, flooding the farms with salt water. Indirect evidence of this would be that the land became barren and wasn't cultivated until much later, due to the fact that salt is toxic to wheat & barley. They didn't mention any other kind of evidence, such as sedimentation, or if that would have been expected.
I agree that there were bigger floods earlier. But I'm thinking that Noah witnessed the one in 1740 bce, which destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Then, when that event was recorded, they incorporated the existing deluge lore.
I haven't studied this, but that's certainly a compelling point.Lloyd wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 5:07 pmWhat persuaded me that there was a global flood was noticing that sedimentary rock strata are largely composed of either sandstone, mudstone, or limestone, usually many feet or meters thick and that it's absurd to think that only sand eroded by rainfall and deposited for thousands or millions of years over large areas, often continent-wide, and then only mud for another period of many millennia and then only lime and so on.
Would the Younger Dryas Impact have been too far back to be a candidate for the precipitating event?
Proto-Sinaitic, upon which Paleo-Hebrew was based, was already in existence long before Moses arrived, dating back to ~1800 bce or so. But Moses might have had a hand in promoting it to the official script in his camp. When Akhenaten outlawed iconography, it became awkward to use hieroglyphics, since so many of the glyphs were pictographs of pagan gods. The easiest way to keep writing, without offending the Aten, would have been just to write in shorthand -- instead of drawing the full glyph, to just use a few of the more salient strokes. This shorthand script had already been developed, and was already in use in the Sinai, just for the convenience of it. But with the arrival of Moses, there was a more powerful reason, and it would seem logical that the Jews would record their history & beliefs in that shorthand script, not in hieroglyphics.
At last!!! Can I have your baby?
This hypothesis is falsified by the absence of proto-Hebrew 'shorthand' in any form in any of the extant texts from Thebes or Akhetaten (Amarna) during Akhenaten's reign, be it in the tombs of the Pharaoh, Queen Tiy, Queen Nefertiti, or Vizier Ay (all use full hieroglyphs), nor the 382 letters of the Amarna corpus (all use Akkadian cuneiform). There is no physical evidence, and the quantity of textual evidence in Akhenaten's reign is impressive, of a Sinaitic or Hebrew shorthand script in use during Akhenaten's reign. This claim seems quite wrong.CharlesChandler wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 6:19 pmWhen Akhenaten outlawed iconography, it became awkward to use hieroglyphics, since so many of the glyphs were pictographs of pagan gods. The easiest way to keep writing, without offending the Aten, would have been just to write in shorthand -- instead of drawing the full glyph, to just use a few of the more salient strokes. This shorthand script had already been developed, and was already in use in the Sinai, just for the convenience of it. But with the arrival of Moses, there was a more powerful reason, and it would seem logical that the Jews would record their history & beliefs in that shorthand script, not in hieroglyphics
You're right -- Proto-Sinaitic was not adopted by Akhenaten. But I think that it was adopted by Moses to record the history & beliefs of the movement that he started, and that this is why he is credited with having "invented" the alphabet. BTW, it's possible that there was already a script in use, that was a shorthand for hieroglyphics, but it might have been Moses who canonized it into an abcdery, with a fixed number of characters, to be memorized in a specific order. This is the difference between a script and an alphabet -- a script is a collection of characters used to represent things (such as sounds), while an alphabet is an ordered sequence of characters.JP Michael wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 11:29 amThis hypothesis is falsified by the absence of proto-Hebrew 'shorthand' in any form in any of the extant texts from Thebes or Akhetaten (Amarna) during Akhenaten's reign, be it in the tombs of the Pharaoh, Queen Tiy, Queen Nefertiti, or Vizier Ay (all use full hieroglyphs), nor the 382 letters of the Amarna corpus (all use Akkadian cuneiform). There is no physical evidence, and the quantity of textual evidence in Akhenaten's reign is impressive, of a Sinaitic or Hebrew shorthand script in use during Akhenaten's reign. This claim seems quite wrong.CharlesChandler wrote: ↑Sat Jan 11, 2020 6:19 pmWhen Akhenaten outlawed iconography, it became awkward to use hieroglyphics, since so many of the glyphs were pictographs of pagan gods. The easiest way to keep writing, without offending the Aten, would have been just to write in shorthand -- instead of drawing the full glyph, to just use a few of the more salient strokes. This shorthand script had already been developed, and was already in use in the Sinai, just for the convenience of it. But with the arrival of Moses, there was a more powerful reason, and it would seem logical that the Jews would record their history & beliefs in that shorthand script, not in hieroglyphics
I agree with your assessment that the "astronomical fix" cited by Rohl isn't conclusive. The clay tablet mentioning the eclipse doesn't date the destruction of the building it was in. Also, did it describe a total eclipse, and was it total precisely at sunset? If so, the astronomical fix is conclusive, but if it was just any old eclipse, sometime around sunset, there are many more dates to examine.
So now you're forced to flatly contradict yourself? You said, and I quote,CharlesChandler wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:16 pmYou're right -- Proto-Sinaitic was not adopted by Akhenaten.
In other words you're suggesting that when Akhenaten 'outlawed iconography', all the royal scribes and craftsmen ignored the Pharaonic edict and continued to use iconography in the hieroglyphs written in the tombs they carved out for the Pharaoh, his wives, children, high officials and on all the religious/funerary implements used therein? Moreover you freely seem to acknowledge that there is 0 evidence in Akhenaten's reign that any 'proto-Sinaitic' shorthand script was even in use, in spite clearly implying that there must have been? Can you explain this contradiction please?Charles Chandler wrote:When Akhenaten outlawed iconography, it became awkward to use hieroglyphics, since so many of the glyphs were pictographs of pagan gods. The easiest way to keep writing, without offending the Aten, would have been just to write in shorthand...
Yet in all my reading of the origin and promulgation of the proto-Sinaitic scripts, not once have I read a single mention of Moses 'originating' the alphabet except as a resounding criticism of hyperactive scholarship of yesteryears. I have read of the humble origins amidst supposedly illiterate Canaanite turquoise miners [1], I have read scholarly origins of proto-Sinaitic amongst the Egyptian turquoise mine owners [2], and I have read the contra-consensus view that Egyptian hieroglyphs are derived from Hebrew and not the other way around [3]. Of the myriad PhD theses and in-depth analyses, the only mentions of Moses I have encountered have been debunking the wild and excessively speculative theories of Herbert Grimme (1923; 1929; 1937) [4]. So whilst I agree that there was definitely a proto-Hebrew script in use, reputable scholarship is adamant that that script was already alphabetised (although the number of characters was not fixed at that time, between 22-29 letters were used in various localities). Moses did not have to 'canonise' anything; the alphabetic script was already enjoying use 300-500 years before Charles' dating of Moses, even assuming standard Egyptian chronology (which I have already stated I reject). Again, Charles' attempt to reconstruct the history of writing is found to be based on ad-hoc storytelling without citations or actual evidence from the period in question.Charles Chandler wrote:But I think that it was adopted by Moses to record the history & beliefs of the movement that he started, and that this is why he is credited with having "invented" the alphabet.
There's a big difference between suggesting what may have happened versus what did happen.For Charles' claim to have any validity, he needs to demonstrate that hieroglyphs of the Amarna period actually exhibit 'shorthand variants' when compared with earlier or later periods, a very simple comparative task for a competent Egyptologist. I welcome his presentation of that specific evidence.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
