No eyewitnesses and the writers using those events doesn’t mean they are literally true.
I accept these as real events because there were eye witnesses. BTW, I believe the site for Sodom Gomorrah has been found.
Says you. What I accept is based on my interpretation just as yours is based on your interpretation. And never the twain shall meet.
Using the story of Noah and Lot doesn’t make them, or require them to be, true historical events.
Actually if you want to go by what Jesus said you only have to believe on Him. And while He did mention Noah by name I have always found it curious that He never mentioned Adam by name. Surely if creation is as important as you make it out to be Jesus would have mentioned it.
The New Kingdom consisted of dynasty 17 - 20. Of those the 18th dynasty had four kings called Thutmose. Hence 18th dynasty Egypt is called “Thutmosid Egypt”.
From the video you shared on the website, I learned the farmers had to pay taxes to the pharaoh, and also the farmers had to give crops to the pharaoh as a form of tax.
From another video I learned about a Shaduf
For example, ancient Egyptian farmers utilized the shaduf, a hand-operated, to pump water from the Nile River and irrigate their field. It is often made up of a long, tapered, nearly horizontal pole positioned on a seesaw.
From elsewhere, I heard some people think only of shepherds and no farming; however, look at all the farming that has happened. So could also shepherds and farmers? How come some people think no farming and only shepherds?
The Battle of Pelusium in may of 525 BCE. It’s the Cambyses who uses cats.
The Battle of Pelusium took place in 525 BCE between the Persian king Cambyses II (525-522 BCE) and the Egyptian pharaoh Psamtik III (526-525 BCE), marking the first Persian conquest of Egypt and the start of the Achaemenid Twenty-seventh Dynasty.
What really?
It is said that Cambyses II, after the battle, hurled cats into the faces of the defeated Egyptians in scorn that they would surrender their country and their freedom fearing for the safety of common animals.
How were the cats trained to fight? Cats fighting the Egyptians?
Bastet was extremely popular throughout Egypt with both men and women from the 2nd Dynasty (c. 2890 - c. 2670 BCE) Bastet is an ancient Egyptian goddess who was depicted as a lioness, cat, or cat-headed woman. Yet it’s cats who fought the Egyptians?
So even though the cats fought the Egyptians then the Egyptians loved cats?
How did they love cats after the cats fought them? Did they then learn later how to use cats so cats will protect the Egyptians? Because the Egyptians learns from the Cambyses and so then fell in love with Cats, because now the Egyptians can use cats to fight for them too?
Cats fights Egyptians
Then Egyptians loves cats
How did it go from Cats fights Egyptians to Egyptians loves Cats?
Cats were so highly regarded in ancient Egypt that the punishment for killing one was death,
yet earlier the cats fought the Egyptians, as it was the Cambyses who uses cats to fight the Egyptians.
I still have more reading to do because I don’t understand if cats fights Egyptians then how then did Egyptians’ loves cats? Because the Egyptians lost to Cambyses due to cats
What is this?
What is the Persian name of Cambyses?
Cambyses II - Wikipedia
The origins of the name of “Cambyses” (Old Persian: 𐎣𐎲𐎢𐎪𐎡𐎹, romanized: Kaᵐbūjiya) is disputed in scholarship; according to some scholars, the name is of Elamite origin, whilst others associate it with Kambojas, an Iranian people who inhabited northwestern India.
The Egyptians along the Nile were farmers, but they also had lifestock.
if you [Joseph] know of any among them [the Israelite shepherds] with special ability, put them in charge of my [pharaoh] own livestock. (Gen 47:6, NIV)
But it seems they did not consider shepherding very honourable:
When Pharaoh calls you in and asks, ‘What is your occupation?’ you should answer, ‘Your servants have tended livestock from our boyhood on, just as our fathers did.’ Then you will be allowed to settle in the region of Goshen, for all shepherds are detestable to the Egyptians.” (Gen 46:33-34, NIV)
The Egyptians let the nomadic shepherds live in the area of Wadi Tumilat (Goshen), where their flocks could graze.
But apparently the Israelites also farmed, or at least they had some basic knowledge about what the Egyptians did:
The land you are entering to take over is not like the land of Egypt, from which you have come, where you planted your seed and irrigated it by foot as in a vegetable garden. But the land you are crossing the Jordan to take possession of is a land of mountains and valleys that drinks rain from heaven. (Deut 11:10-11, NIV)
Cats domesticated themselves, or one could say that cats domesticated humans. As civilizations started storing grains they created the perfect breeding ground for mice and other rodents. Cats wandered onto these farms and started eating the rodents. After a while, a symbiotic relationship developed between cats and humans. However, cats remained more on the “wild” side than dogs, probably due to much more common controlled breeding in dog breeds. If you have grains in storage, cats are a wonderful thing to have.
Translation: “Fusty musty dusty. Silly Billy. Fussy Gussy. Pop goes the weasel. Open your books at page six. God save the King. Poor old Kiki, what a pity, what a pity. Put the kettle on.”
How many times do I have to tell you that repeating a bad argument over and over again doesn’t make it a good argument, Adam? It just makes you sound like a parrot.
The idea that the population growth in the hills was people fleeing the cities for a more egalitarian life has been advocated, but it sounds more Marxist than realistic. People chased down escaped slaves over longer distances. It was a rather large number of people with notable cultural differences. While not free of idols, the new population seemed to have a lot less of them than typical for the region. The frequency of idolatry was rather up and down in Israel’s history.
“You know about the 40 year Piltdown man” hoax that secularists fell for"
This involves two fundamental errors besides what has already been discussed:
“Secularists” perpetuates the lie that young-earth or anti-evolution is THE religious position and anyone accepting evolution is “secular.” de Chardin is an obvious counterexample as someone who was clearly non-secular and who was influenced by Piltdown in his ideas about human evolution.
Second, it is a double standard. It faults scientists for being fooled by an elaborate hoax, which they rejected as soon as the evidence became available, while ignoring the fact that young-earth advocates are still repeating false claims that have been repeatedly debunked for far more than 40 years. Repeatedly bringing up Piltdown in such a context by the professional young-earthers is a dishonest ploy aimed at creating mistrust of legitimate science rather than an honest example of fallibility. Carl Baugh is still promoting fake footprints and dinosaur footprints as human. The moon dust lie hasn’t disappeared. Most young-earth arguments are worse than believing that Piltdown Man was real because the evidence was clearly against the young-earth claim from the beginning.
Of course, many bad claims against the reliability of the Bible have equally long histories of being known to be incorrect.
The other problem is of course that Piltdown Man was only one data point out of millions. It’s one thing to show that a single data point was fraudulent. But claiming that millions of other data points must also be fraudulent is a leap of logic that is simply not justified in any way, shape or form. It is blowing the extent and significance of the one single data point completely out of proportion, which is basically a form of lying.
Which is why I liken those claims to the ramblings of a parrot.
Wow, did that take me down some rabbit trails! After the economy video I watched three others about ancient economies.
They didn’t have to fight, they just had to be there where the Egyptians would work harder at not harming the cats than at fighting the Persians.
Egyptians didn’t so much love cats as regard them as divine beings, representatives of a goddess. And they didn’t fight Egyptians, they just ran around the battlefield. The Egyptians didn’t want the cats harmed so they surrendered.
That’s a concept that doesn’t sit well with people raised in a Western materialistic society.
And that’s the same word as used for a man having sex with another man, which indicates that “detestable” (or “abomination”) doesn’t mean “morally objectionable”.
What’s interesting is that there is evidence that Goshen was regarded as not really a part of Egypt; people living there sometimes got listed as foreigners just like those in Libya or Canaan.
It was typical to have garden plots by homes in such situations, the same as was the case in Israel in David’s time.
I recall from a course on the Pentateuch that this was once considered propaganda by many scholars since so much of Israel is obviously desert. Many of those scholars also were certain that Solomon never ruled anything more than a small patch around Jerusalem. Seeing the change in scholarship is always interesting given how many things people were certain of eighty years ago, or fifty years ago, or even thirty years ago, that have been totally overturned.
If you have any kind of storage cats are wonderful to have!
When I was in Colorado I had cat who was a superb mouser. When family I knew was taking off for a three-day weekend they asked to borrow him: they locked him in their garden shed, and when they returned they found him with a heap of dead mice and rats stacked against the door – kinda freaky opening the door and having a pile of rodent corpses spill out! Once the shed was cleared they dug around and found the entry holes and patched them, then dug a trench around the bottom and put 1.5" rock mixed with broken glass into the trench to discourage any that hadn’t been caught that tried to come back.
On the town’s main street there was a long building fronting one entire block that had five businesses in it. When an auto parts store moved into one of the units they were shocked to find that the entire place had been putting up with rodents for years, trying traps and poison with little luck. The auto parts store owner had a big Russian Blue “tuxedo” cat who he installed in his own cat “palace” in the store, and within three days his rodent problem was ended. The other business owners got together and proposed putting cat doors between all the businesses so that cat could track rodents to his heart’s content. When I and my cat met that one, he weighed almost twenty pounds and had free reign not just of those five businesses but several more on the block, having become the bane of rodents that tried to move in.
trivia: that’s when I learned that some rats will eat automotive grease! and one business owner learned to keep his supply of leather gloves in a metal locker.
About 20-30,000; they used a somewhat different style of pottery before their neighbors adopted it (a few generations before it spread west), they had far fewer pigs around, and all I know for decrease in number of idols is “enough for archeologists to notice”.
"Deuteronomy 25:16 announces that using deceptive weights in an economic transaction is to‘ebah. As Michael Grisanti summarizes the meaning of the word, to‘ebah “denotes the persons, things or practices that offend one’s ritual or moral order.” "
Tremper Longman III, Confronting Old Testament Controversies: Pressing Questions about Evolution, Sexuality, History, and Violence (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2019), 234.
Deuteronomy 25:16 is about moral order. It seems that in Genesis and Exodus something is going on that has to do with Egyptian ritual order:
They served him by himself, the brothers by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because Egyptians could not eat with Hebrews, for that is detestable to Egyptians. (Gen 43:32, NIV)
When Pharaoh calls you in and asks, ‘What is your occupation?’ you should answer, ‘Your servants have tended livestock from our boyhood on, just as our fathers did.’ Then you will be allowed to settle in the region of Goshen, for all shepherds are detestable to the Egyptians.” (Gen 46:33-34)
Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Go, sacrifice to your God here in the land.” But Moses said, “That would not be right. The sacrifices we offer the Lord our God would be detestable to the Egyptians. And if we offer sacrifices that are detestable in their eyes, will they not stone us? (Exo 8:25-26)
“The clean males then of the ox kind, both full-grown animals and calves, are sacrificed by all the Egyptians; the females however they may not sacrifice, but these are sacred to Isis; for the figure of Isis is in the form of a woman with cow’s horns, just as the Hellenes present Io in pictures, and all the Egyptians without distinction reverence cows far more than any other kind of cattle; for which reason neither man nor woman of Egyptian race would kiss a man who is a Helleneon the mouth,nor will they use a knife or roasting-spits or a caldron belonging to a Hellene, nor taste of the flesh even of a clean animal if it has been cut with the knife of a Hellene.”
@St.Roymond wrote:
Egyptians didn’t so much love cats as regard them as divine beings, representatives of a goddess. And they didn’t fight Egyptians, they just ran around the battlefield. The Egyptians didn’t want the cats harmed so they surrendered.
My respond:
I realized this later as I misread the article. I also learn this is called an exploit. Because using cats means Egyptians couldn’t fight. Have you ever been exploited that you couldn’t fight?
If so, what all did you go through? What advice do you have for these Egyptians within this situation?
@ivar wrote:
Egyptians could not eat with Hebrews, for that is detestable to Egyptians. (Gen 43:32, NIV)
My respond:
So Egyptians could not eat with Hebrews, for that is detestable to Egyptians? How do you feel about this that the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews?
Now to my—where I am wondering off somewhat—due to I went to the 12 Dynasty in Egypt, due to seeing auto-misspelling. And later I saw Fars. However, I think this will still contribute to this discussion of Exodus. We will see? Also, there’s some repeats.
Summary of my post
Yes I see lots of farming as I read the website you shared.
Ask @ivar a question about what occupations would Egyptians would consider honorable from the nomadic - after learning being a shepherd wasn’t honorable
Found correct in video from auto-miss spelling Sonu Assaret III? Correction to Senusret III: Yes, I looked up Sonu Assaret and couldn’t find information, so I looked up the 12th dynasty and discovered Senusret III.
Saw this on the website you shared, and I browse further into Fars.
Recall and reference more about Thutmose III’s two wars. 1) lost against Persians; 2) won against Middigo.
@ivar you wrote:
But it seems they did not consider shepherding very honourable:
I ask, “How come the Pharaoh and Egyptians disliked those who were shepherds? Would it be more due to being nomadic than being shepherds, or what occupations would nomadic need to claim to be honorable? What about people who made clothes from the sheep’s wool? Were they considered honorable?”
I created a game to figure out who Sonu Assaret III is.
Who is Sonu Assaret III? I’m going to pick Senusret III because during the 12th Dynasty and closest sounding to Sonu Assaret III within the [III ending] to choose from.
The 12th Dynasty of Egypt, also known as the Middle Kingdom, lasted from 1991–1783 BC and had many pharaohs, including:
Amenemhat I
Amenemhat III Senusret III
Sobekneferu
From video
A Gateway into the Desert: History, Exploration, and Cyclical Rediscovery of Wadi Tumilat
Time Stamp
3:24
on the canal ancient authors and historians such as Aristotle suggested that perhaps its construction was
3:31
started as early as during the 12th Dynasty under the reign of Sonu assaret III who began but did not finish the [Correction is Senusret III.]
3:38
project Aristotle’s theory was supported by strabo and Pliny the Elder however most
Now seeing fars from website, however it fails when clicking on Achaemenids. Question: How come there are no Pharaohs in Fars and only Pharaohs in Egypt? Pharaohs are kings?
During some important Iranian dynasties including the Achaemenids
When clicking on Achaemenids at the website, it shows. Error 404
If I recall. Thutmose III won a war and lost a war.
Thutmose III lost to Persians Because couldn’t fight cats, so lost due to being exploited by Persians.
However I also learned that Egyptians won a war from the Megiddo and this was during Thutmose III.
This website won’t show Megiddo because this website area is of persian empire.
I’m not sure if it shows Megiddo - no it won’t because this shows persian empire.
I have a long ways to go in this website you shared.
Another place shows: Megiddo was captured by the Egyptian king Thutmose III about 1468.
Egyptian Warfare and the Largest Chariot Battle in History
The battle of Megiddo was the first reliably recorded battle, and not long after the battle of Kadesh would claim the title of the largest chariot battle ever, despite chariot warfare persisting for nearly 1,000 more years. To understand the battle of Kadesh it is important to know how the Egyptian army and their chariots operated.
The New Kingdom of Egypt was a military power built on the success of the chariot. The chariot features in ancient warfare as an elite warrior transport, a mobile firing platform, a heavy charging vehicle, and a fast moving platform to cut down loose or fleeing troops. Based on the designs of the Egyptian chariots, that show light and unfortified platforms, they seem to be primarily used as firing platforms.
Chariots were pulled by two horses and usually carried a driver and one or maybe two soldiers. One or two composite bows would be fed by around 100 arrows. Charioteers would also have spears and/or javelins as well as a shield and ax or sword if melee was required. Helmets and other armor were still scarce at this point so the curved sword was a common weapon for riding down the enemy.
It would be unwise to assume that charioteers locked themselves into a single role in a battle, it is more likely that due to their quick response ability, the chariots could switch from firing arrows to throwing javelins as they closed with the enemy and utilizing melee weapons if their chariot failed or if their horse or driver perished. Battle is hardly clean cut and organized enough for archery chariots to remain simply archers through every battle.
The battle of Kadesh is one of the earliest recorded battles in which we have some record from both sides, though the records for both sides claim they won the battle. The Egyptians under Rameses and the Hittites under king Muwatalli held powerful empires that bordered in the Levant near the city of Kadesh (Qadesh). Around 1274 BCE the two brought their royal armies to fight and may well have agreed upon a battle at the plains near Kadesh as such practices were not uncommon.
Rameses had a large army of around 20,000 including 2,000 chariots (the number of chariots for either side has been heavily debated). Marching in a long line of four distinct divisions to the northwestern plains of Kadesh Rameses received word that Muwatalli’s army was still far away and so Rameses allowed his force to leisurely march forward as the vanguard Amun division set up camp.
Despite learning that the enemy was near, Rameses did not know precisely where and before he could get his marching column into the camp they were attacked by a large chariot force that had crossed the Orontes River and surprised the division. The sights and sounds of the charging chariots quickly scattered the Egyptians and with the remaining marching division still scattered a way to the south the victorious Hittite chariots began raiding the camp established by the Amun division. Though the camp was full of the fresh troops of the Amun division, they had trouble resisting the Hittite troops, suggesting that this force actually represented a significant force of Muwatalli’s chariots.
As portions of the camp fell, Pharaoh Rameses found himself “alone” likely with his core of personal guard. Rameses and his guard led several charges on the Hittites raiding the camp and rallied the routed Ra division and organized the Amun division to launch coordinated assaults and drove the Hittites back south-east towards their original river crossing.
In this position the slightly lighter Egyptian chariots seemed to have an advantage as they were able to outmaneuver the heavier Hittite chariots and cause many casualties. King Muwatalli realized the trouble his chariots were in and sent his remaining chariots across the northern ford in order to again flank a pursing column of Egyptians. This second assault met with tremendous success and threatened to push the Egyptians back to their camp once again while allowing the defeated Hittite chariots to cross the river and regroup.
Rameses’ army was saved by the arrival of an allied contingent of Ne’arin. While the origin of these troops is hazy, their name implies that they were the young elite warriors. They seem to have been a garrison force or an allied army from the north that was ordered to meet Rameses at Kadesh for the battle. Upon their arrival they moved southeast around the camp to attack the Hittite’s second assault force. Seeing this, Rameses again rallied his men and attacked northward, flanking and confining the Hittites.
Being almost surrounded, the Hittites were forced to abandon their chariots to swim across the river to safety. With a brutal battle just fought, Rameses did not have the resources to maintain a siege of Kadesh and Muwatalli, himself weakened by a great loss of his chariot core, could do little more than hold up inside the city walls.
The battle has been described as an Egyptian victory, a draw, and even as a Hittite victory. What Rameses was able to do was recover from a disastrous position to save his army. Furthermore, despite sections of his army being routed twice and his camp ransacked, Rameses and his army ultimately held the field of battle after all was said and done. To emphasize that this should be considered a slight Egyptian victory is the amount of booty gained in the capture of the Hittite chariots. Ancient battles heavily focused on the amount of plunder the individual and the state could gain. Chariots were status symbols at the time and therefore many of them were ornately decorated and even plated in precious metals. Capturing as many as 1,000 chariots would have been quite the joyous occasion for the Egyptians regardless of whether or not they took Kadesh.
The Egyptians certainly proclaimed the battle as a great victory and Rameses himself would constantly refer back to it as one of his greatest achievements despite orchestrating several other successful campaigns. The attention Rameses gives to this battle above others may suggest that the stories of his personal charges into the fray to rally the troops were more truth than propaganda. The battle surely would have been quite an event to be involved in and it set the stage for the much-storied reign of Rameses the Great.
HOLOCENE LAKE SEDIMENTS AS A SOURCE OF BUILDING
MATERIAL IN ANCIENT EGYPT; ARCHEOMETRIC EVIDENCE
FROM WADI TUMILAT (NILE DELTA)
Małgorzata Zaremba
1*
, Jerzy Trzciński
2
, Fabian Welc
1
1
Institute of Archaeology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University, Warsaw, Poland, e-mail: m.zaremba@student.uksw.edu.pl;
f.welc@uksw.edu.pl
2
Wrocław Research Centre EIT+, Wrocław, Poland, e-mail: jerzy.trzcinski59@gmail.com
corresponding author
Abstract
The Tell el-Retaba archaeological site is located in the middle part of Wadi Tumilat, which extends along the north-east-
ern margin of the Nile Delta. It contains fragments of fortified and domestic objects of the ancient fortress and other con-
structions built of mud bricks. The establishment and functioning of the fortress is dated at the times of the reign of two
great pharaohs, Ramesses II and Ramesses III (13
th
and 12
th
centuries BC). The grain size composition of the sediments
used for mud brick production had significant influence on their physical and mechanical properties, which was used
by the ancient Egyptians for the improvement of bricks. The finest fractions, clay and silt, which generally comprise
clay minerals and organic matter played a significant role. These components significantly influenced the mud brick
properties and resulted in a structural cohesion of the material. The second important component of mud bricks were
coarse fractions – sand and gravel. The source of material used for brick production were the natural sediments located
in the vicinity of the fortress, i.e. the Holocene lake clay and the Pleistocene gravel and sand of the gezira formation,
deposited by a braided river. Clay sediments have a variable lithology as can be deduced from grain size composition
of mud bricks and their properties. This variability was caused by a variable regime of the Nile, which supplied material
to the lake basin. Geological studies were used to recognize ancient environment and morphology of the area, and to
find clay, sand and gravel open-pits that existed in the area. The fortress site was selected optimally in relation to the
landscape morphology and close vicinity of the source of basic material and water used for mud brick production. The
area around the fortress was substantially transformed by humans due to settlement.
Key words: clay-silt-sand-gravel, mud bricks, fortress walls, open-pit mine, climate changes
