Jospeh son of Jacob (Israel) and Imhotep

There has been a debate going on for a while now and since the 1950's has been gaining momentum in identifying just who exactly, Joseph was identified as in ancient Egypt. Velikovsky had alot to say on accurately identifying who Joseph was identified as in the Ancient Egyptian civilzation.

This link i will post has some surprising similarities between Joseph the son of Jacob and the egyptian vizier Imhoptep. There are so many similarities that they cannot all just be random coincidence. There are 16 out of 17 known similarities between the 2 men and thats alot of coincidences between 2 peoples.

Imhotep is Joseph son of Jacob

You decide.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
There has been a debate going on for a while now and since the 1950's has been gaining momentum in identifying just who exactly, Joseph was identified as in ancient Egypt. Velikovsky had alot to say on accurately identifying who Joseph was identified as in the Ancient Egyptian civilzation.

This link i will post has some surprising similarities between Joseph the son of Jacob and the egyptian vizier Imhoptep. There are so many similarities that they cannot all just be random coincidence. There are 16 out of 17 known similarities between the 2 men and thats alot of coincidences between 2 peoples.

Imhoptep is Joseph son of Jacob

You decide.

I have decided, and the decision is this...I am leaning toward that myself. I think also that the Bible does not name the pharaoh, we can only guess. We don't have the Bible in the original language of the Egyptians, it was translated into Hebrew for Hebrew speakers, so it could very well be that his name was changed into Imhotep.

We know that pharaoh changed his name to Zaphnath-Paaneah, which is the Hebrew rendering of

Targum Onkelos gives the meaning of the name as "the man to whom mysteries are revealed"; pseudo-Jonathan, "one who reveals mysteries"; Josephus ("Ant." ii. 6, § 1), "a finder of mysteries." The Authorised Version has in the margin: "Which in the Coptic signifies, 'A revealer of secrets,' or 'The man to whom secrets are revealed.'" There is, however, no known Egyptian etymology by which these guesses can be supported. Jerome claims that his suggestion, "savior of the world," rests on the Egyptian. This interpretation is also accepted by Jablonski. Modern Egyptologists have tried a great many etymologies for the element "Zaphnath," but have mostly agreed that "paaneah" contains the Egyptian "p-ônḫ," meaning "the life"

Imhotep (sometimes spelled Immutef, Im-hotep, or Ii-em-Hotep; called Imuthes (Ιμυθες) by the Greeks), fl. 27th century BC (circa 2650-2600 BC) (Egyptian ii-m-ḥtp *jā-im-ḥatāp meaning "the one who comes in peace, is with peace") was an Egyptian polymath,

His wife was Asenath, and they lived in On, which is known to the Jews as Goshen, and that is exactly where the Hebrews lived in Egypt. There are too many coincidences.

This is fantastic, one of the most interesting things I've seen on ATS. But then again, I'm a huge fan of "old testament" research.

Thanks for posting!

reply to post by WarminIndy


Well according to archeaologist Simcha Jacobovici, he believes that Thut-Mosis may have been Moses himself and Moses is believed to have been the direct decendant of Joseph. The pharoah of that time period as according to hebrew scholar and archeaologist Simcha, he says that the pharoah during the exodus is Ah-Mose or Ahk-Mosis which in egyptian means "brother of Moses".

Here's a 2 hour video giving some of his details, including the stele in the basement of the cairo museum which proves the exodus and plagues happened that egyptologist Zahi Hawas has allowed limited access to. Hawas denies the hebrew were ever enslaved despite hieroglpyhs that say they were and shows people in chains being held by egyptian overseers.

The Exodus Decoded

Originally posted by Schkeptick
This is fantastic, one of the most interesting things I've seen on ATS. But then again, I'm a huge fan of "old testament" research.

Thanks for posting!

Youre welcome. I've been studying the Romans for a long time but have switched to the hebrew and biblical archeaology for obvious reasons. Certain people deny the historical value of the bible when biblical archeaology has found quite a bit of evidence that people cast off because it was found by using the bible as a kind of road map or sign post if you will.

I think it's rather ironic that archeaologists can use ancient chinese manuscripts to find sites and discoveries in China or Roman texts to find sites in the ancient Roman Empire and the public world accepts this and says nothing but when you throw the bible into the mix and archeaologists use it to search for evidence it automatically gets discarded or flushed down the toilet by the majority of the scientifically "enlightened" world. Yeah, there something about that...it's called bias and by and large certain people of the world do not want the bible being proven to be true because it would mean that perhaps the hebrew people were telling the truth after all and that the jews arent the liars the world portrays them to be. Either way, it's a shame when people automatically jump the gun and condemn a particular field of research because it has religious implications that may cause those people to take another look at themselves.

This would tie up with the theory proposed by David Hudson (of ormes/ormus/diatomic gold powder fame) that the Egyptian old kingdom ended with the exodus of the Jews. If Isaack lived round 2600 bc, the stay in Egypt was 400 years gets us to around 2200, which was round the end of the old kingdom. This was also the end of some of the higher technologies in Egypt. Not sure where I read a nice consider version, there is a very long version here:

www.asc-alchemy.com...

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by Schkeptick
This is fantastic, one of the most interesting things I've seen on ATS. But then again, I'm a huge fan of "old testament" research.

Thanks for posting!

Youre welcome. I've been studying the Romans for a long time but have switched to the hebrew and biblical archeaology for obvious reasons. Certain people deny the historical value of the bible when biblical archeaology has found quite a bit of evidence that people cast off because it was found by using the bible as a kind of road map or sign post if you will.

I think it's rather ironic that archeaologists can use ancient chinese manuscripts to find sites and discoveries in China or Roman texts to find sites in the ancient Roman Empire and the public world accepts this and says nothing but when you throw the bible into the mix and archeaologists use it to search for evidence it automatically gets discarded or flushed down the toilet by the majority of the scientifically "enlightened" world. Yeah, there something about that...it's called bias and by and large certain people of the world do not want the bible being proven to be true because it would mean that perhaps the hebrew people were telling the truth after all and that the jews arent the liars the world portrays them to be. Either way, it's a shame when people automatically jump the gun and condemn a particular field of research because it has religious implications that may cause those people to take another look at themselves.

edit on 4-1-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

Very nice of you to say this.

Would you then also consider regarding other books and their archeological and/or historical value with the same token?

For example, christians laughed for centuries about the Qur'an and the story of Haman, because as they pointed out: Muhammad when copying the Bible "mixed it all up", because he mentioned a certain guy called "Haman", who the Qur'an says was some kind of architect of the Pharaoh.

They laughed and laughed, and ridiculed us, because according to the Bible, Haman was never anywhere near Pharao, he was not only thousands of miles away from egypt but also a 1000 YEARS away.

Until the 19th century when the hieroglyphs were decoded and - LO AND BEHOLD - it says there that the Pharao indeed had a chief quarryworker by the name of Haman!

This Knowledge was LOST for thousands of years, no one could read the hieroglyphs - yet it was revealed in the Qur'an, and we were ridiculed for 1400 years because of it - until, ONCE MORE, science proved the Qur'an right.


So, I call unto you then to also not be biased.



And, regarding your theory: I think it is possible Joseph was indeed Imhotep.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Well according to archeaologist Simcha Jacobovici, he believes that Thut-Mosis may have been Moses himself and Moses is believed to have been the direct decendant of Joseph. The pharoah of that time period as according to hebrew scholar and archeaologist Simcha, he says that the pharoah during the exodus is Ah-Mose or Ahk-Mosis which in egyptian means "brother of Moses".

Here's a 2 hour video giving some of his details, including the stele in the basement of the cairo museum which proves the exodus and plagues happened that egyptologist Zahi Hawas has allowed limited access to. Hawas denies the hebrew were ever enslaved despite hieroglpyhs that say they were and shows people in chains being held by egyptian overseers.

The Exodus Decoded

edit on 4-1-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)

I love, love, love (can't say how much I love) Simchi. He is one of the best out there.

A funny story I have here about watching his show with someone who is a Christian, but not the same denomination as me. As we were watching the Exodus and Passover special by Simchi, the person said "well, that can't be true, he is not using the King James Bible", I was stunned and replied that Simchi is Jewish and does not use the King James.

I have always used the King James because I understand it, but that is just me. I also understand Shakespeare. I know the Wycliffe Bible has the same exact meaning, but it came earlier, almost 300 years. The KJV was put into the common language of the English at the time so all people in England could read it for themselves instead of only the priests reading it to them. In that view, King James believed in social reform.

There is a misconception that King James wrote it himself, but King James was not versant in Hebrew, and he merely authorized for it to be done, the men who did translate it were professors and scholars from the universities, these were not by any means people who had to guess what they were doing. They knew Hebrew and Greek. They had 13 rules to follow in order to make sure the translations were correct.
Rules For Translating the King James Bible

They had to cross reference with each other in order for there to be as few mistakes as possible. When people say there are inconsistencies, what they are saying is that they are using modern English words and meanings today without considering what it really meant back then.

reply to post by sHuRuLuNi


I never said the quran didn't have any historical truth in it.

reply to post by WarminIndy


I think Simcha is a messianic jew, he's always trying to prove Jesus existed and is the Messiah when everyone else won't even entertain the idea outside christianity.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

I never said the quran didn't have any historical truth in it.

Mohammed may have said a lot of things about what he believed about the Jews and Christians from an historical view, but neglected to mention the historical facts about his own religion. He focused on the history of the world as he heard it, but does not seem to present all the religions that the Bible mentions. That is not saying those writers of the Bible were involved in those religions, but that they give credence to the fact that nations and leaders did exist.

Even the history of the Arabians can be found in the Bible. There is history in the Quran, that goes without saying, but we can also see the history of the times from a lot of sources then.

This is the reference...

In the Qur'an, Haman (Arabic: : هامان‎, pronounced: hāmān) was the vizier of Pharaoh at the time of Moses. Haman's name appears six times throughout the whole Qur'an[1], four times with Pharaoh and twice by himself[2]. According to the Qur'an, both Pharaoh and Haman had armies responsible for killing the sons of the Israelites. God sent Moses to invite Pharaoh and Haman to monotheism, and to seek protection of the Israelites Haman and Pharaoh were tormenting. Referring to Moses as a sorcerer and a liar, Pharaoh and Haman rejected Moses' call to worship the true God and refused to set the children of Israel free. Like Pharaoh, Haman eventually drowned[3] in the Red Sea.

Does the Quran actually mention the name of the Pharaoh? You would think it would if it mentions Haman. The Bible does mention it, and because the Quran does not mention it, just indicates to me that Mohammed himself was repeating stories he heard.

I think Joseph was Imhotep, but he was not the ancestor of Moses. Moses was of the tribe of Levi, while Joseph gave rise to the half-tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

Have you ever wondered why Joseph was so well received at court? The Egyptians were never too keen on anyone not of their country, so why did Joseph fit in so well? If we look into the very early history of Egypt, we see that it was inhabited by Hamites. Some time later, people from Mesopotamia came around the Arabian peninsula in ships, dragged them up a wadi thru the eastern desert (it would have been wetter then, and wadis would have been real streams), reached the Nile, and conquered the whole country with a new, innovative weapon, the pear-shaped mace. This was WAY back, before swords. David Rohl put all this together, the ship petroglyphs in the wadi, the maces, the early dynastic architecture of Egypt, which looked very Mesopotamian, etc. I'm just hitting the high points. In the end, Egypt became a two-tiered nation, Hamitic people as a working class, and a Shemitic ruling class, the Shemsu-Hor. As Joseph was from the same ethnic derivation, and remember that Abraham was born in Ur of the Chaldees, he may well have been viewed as "one of us."

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
I think Joseph was Imhotep, but he was not the ancestor of Moses. Moses was of the tribe of Levi, while Joseph gave rise to the half-tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

Have you ever wondered why Joseph was so well received at court? The Egyptians were never too keen on anyone not of their country, so why did Joseph fit in so well? If we look into the very early history of Egypt, we see that it was inhabited by Hamites. Some time later, people from Mesopotamia came around the Arabian peninsula in ships, dragged them up a wadi thru the eastern desert (it would have been wetter then, and wadis would have been real streams), reached the Nile, and conquered the whole country with a new, innovative weapon, the pear-shaped mace. This was WAY back, before swords. David Rohl put all this together, the ship petroglyphs in the wadi, the maces, the early dynastic architecture of Egypt, which looked very Mesopotamian, etc. I'm just hitting the high points. In the end, Egypt became a two-tiered nation, Hamitic people as a working class, and a Shemitic ruling class, the Shemsu-Hor. As Joseph was from the same ethnic derivation, and remember that Abraham was born in Ur of the Chaldees, he may well have been viewed as "one of us."

I am currently looking into a theory that Ishmael became a pharaoh or one of his sons did and that was the one who knew Joseph. There are interesting things in the exchanges of that pharaoh and Joseph, pharaoh asks Joseph how his father is doing and when Jacob died, pharaoh tells Joseph to go bury his father according to the oath that Joseph made. Jacob was embalmed according to the Egyptian custom by the priests that were under Joseph.

The Bible says that Ishmael became a mighty archer, and that his mother gave to him a wife from Egypt. Later we see the pharaoh giving a wife to Joseph. If Ishmael became a pharaoh, then he was Joseph's great-uncle.

We also know that Egypt was ruled by the Hyksos pharaohs, and those were pharaohs not of Egyptian descent, but Canaanite invaders.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by sHuRuLuNi

 

I never said the quran didn't have any historical truth in it.

Mohammed may have said a lot of things about what he believed about the Jews and Christians from an historical view, but neglected to mention the historical facts about his own religion. He focused on the history of the world as he heard it, but does not seem to present all the religions that the Bible mentions. That is not saying those writers of the Bible were involved in those religions, but that they give credence to the fact that nations and leaders did exist.

Even the history of the Arabians can be found in the Bible. There is history in the Quran, that goes without saying, but we can also see the history of the times from a lot of sources then.

This is the reference...

In the Qur'an, Haman (Arabic: : هامان‎, pronounced: hāmān) was the vizier of Pharaoh at the time of Moses. Haman's name appears six times throughout the whole Qur'an[1], four times with Pharaoh and twice by himself[2]. According to the Qur'an, both Pharaoh and Haman had armies responsible for killing the sons of the Israelites. God sent Moses to invite Pharaoh and Haman to monotheism, and to seek protection of the Israelites Haman and Pharaoh were tormenting. Referring to Moses as a sorcerer and a liar, Pharaoh and Haman rejected Moses' call to worship the true God and refused to set the children of Israel free. Like Pharaoh, Haman eventually drowned[3] in the Red Sea.

Does the Quran actually mention the name of the Pharaoh? You would think it would if it mentions Haman. The Bible does mention it, and because the Quran does not mention it, just indicates to me that Mohammed himself was repeating stories he heard.

What gives credence to this is that these historical accounts were already circulating by the surviving jews and christians before Islam ever came to be. Even the account of Abraham being commanded by Yah to sacrifice Isaac went unchallenged for 2700 years until Muhammad hit the scene and swapped Isaac's name for Ishamael.

Since the dead sea scrolls were found both the christian version if the bible and the jewish version are almost perfect matches except for where some words in the christian texts had been mispelled and the dead sea scrolls proved that the bible hadn't been corrupted like many people claim.

Originally posted by asciikewl
This would tie up with the theory proposed by David Hudson (of ormes/ormus/diatomic gold powder fame) that the Egyptian old kingdom ended with the exodus of the Jews. If Isaack lived round 2600 bc, the stay in Egypt was 400 years gets us to around 2200, which was round the end of the old kingdom. This was also the end of some of the higher technologies in Egypt. Not sure where I read a nice consider version, there is a very long version here:

www.asc-alchemy.com...

It is possible. The point i stress in this thead is that the similarities between imohtep and joseph are too many to be called coincidence. I think historically it would make sense if after the hebrew left that the egyptian old kingdom might have fell if they relied heavily on slave labor. It's the same thing that happened to the South after the civil war, when the slaves were freed the economy collapsed because the southern economy was centered around slavery as a primary source of manpower so as we can see, history does repeat itself in cycles. In this case the South mirrored the Egyptian old kingdom, when the slaves left the economy collapsed and this may even further prove the credence of the hebrews being enslaved by the egyptians.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by asciikewl
This would tie up with the theory proposed by David Hudson (of ormes/ormus/diatomic gold powder fame) that the Egyptian old kingdom ended with the exodus of the Jews. If Isaack lived round 2600 bc, the stay in Egypt was 400 years gets us to around 2200, which was round the end of the old kingdom. This was also the end of some of the higher technologies in Egypt. Not sure where I read a nice consider version, there is a very long version here:

www.asc-alchemy.com...

It is possible. The point i stress in this thead is that the similarities between imohtep and joseph are too many to be called coincidence. I think historically it would make sense if after the hebrew left that the egyptian old kingdom might have fell if they relied heavily on slave labor. It's the same thing that happened to the South after the civil war, when the slaves were freed the economy collapsed because the southern economy was centered around slavery as a primary source of manpower so as we can see, history does repeat itself in cycles. In this case the South mirrored the Egyptian old kingdom, when the slaves left the economy collapsed and this may even further prove the credence of the hebrews being enslaved by the egyptians.

There was a marriage custom among the Egyptians that are found within Judaism..

The Egyptian khatbeh..

Marriages either had a full written contract or none at all. The contract consisted of details involving dowry, property, children, etc. They were so detailed that they often eliminated the need for a will. Even though these contracts strongly favored the wives, they could be canceled at any time as long as the other party consented. A man looking to get married would employ a "khatbeh", i.e. a betrother or match maker who would make all the arrangements for him. The khatbeh would negotiate dowry payments as well. AT the end of all the festivities, when the couple is finally alone, the groom would then lift the bride's veil to see her face for the first time.

And this is the Jewish Kettubah

The rabbis in ancient times insisted on the marriage couple entering into the ketubah as a protection for the wife. It acted as a replacement of the biblical mohar[1][2][3][4][5] - the price paid by the groom to the bride, or her parents, for the marriage (i.e., the bride price). The ketubah became a mechanism whereby the amount due to the wife (the bride-price) came to be paid in the event of the cessation of marriage, either by the death of the husband or divorce. It may be noted that the biblical mohar created a major social problem: many young prospective husbands could not raise the mohar at the time when they would normally be expected to marry. So, to enable these young men to marry, the rabbis, in effect, delayed the time that the amount would be payable, when they would be more likely to have the sum. The mechanism adopted was to provide for the mohar to be a part of the ketubah. It may also be noted that both the mohar and the ketubah amounts served the same purpose: the protection for the wife should her support (either by death or divorce) cease. The only difference between the two systems was the timing of the payment. A modern secular equivalent would be the entitlement to maintenance in the event of divorce. Another function performed by the ketubah amount was to provide a disincentive for the husband contemplating divorcing his wife: he would need to have the amount to be able to pay to the wife.

Two words that are very similar and have the same intent and purpose. This makes me think the God of the Jews, and subsequently the Christians, did not in any way place women in an inferior position. The concept of women as inferior is actually a Greek understanding, so therefore, when people accuse God of this, they are really looking at the Greek influence and not the Jewish influence.

That misconception has led to much disagreement, and the biggest argument I hear from those who do not believe the Bible is that very subject, not understanding that the Greeks were responsible for it all along, and those same people then decide to follow after Greek pantheonism, without regarding those Greeks who did this, are now the ones those people follow.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Even the account of Abraham being commanded by Yah to sacrifice Isaac went unchallenged for 2700 years until Muhammad hit the scene and swapped Isaac's name for Ishamael.

Actually, he did not.

This is why I told you in other posts, you should not just talk about it, when you refuse to read the book. Nowhere in the Qur'an is the name of the son to be sacrificed mentioned.

It is rather the fact that in the Bible is says that Abraham was to sacrifice "his son, his ONLY son" that gives credence to the Ishmael theory. Because, Ishmael was the firstborn, thus the words "his only son" can only apply to him.

The Qur'an mentions the story, but in the qur'an it is rather the story itself that is accented - which son it was is rather unimportant - we should not concentrate on that, but on the act itself.


Regarding Joseph, I will shortly, inshallah, post some more material here (just came from work, have to eat first

There is in the Qur'an a whole chapter called "Joseph". It is chapter 12.

What one can notice from the chapter, and what archeology once more has confirmed, is that the Ruler of Egypt, contrary to the stories of Moses (and contrary to the Bible), for example, is not called a "Pharao" but a "King".

Only now, the archeology and history have attested this, because only the rulers starting from a certain dynasty were called pharaohs, while before that, the title "pharao" did not exist.

12:21

And the one from Egypt who bought him said to his wife, "Make his residence comfortable. Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a son." And thus, We established Joseph in the land that We might teach him the interpretation of events. And Allah is predominant over His affair, but most of the people do not know.
12:22

And when Joseph reached maturity, We gave him judgment and knowledge. And thus We reward the doers of good.
12:23

And she, in whose house he was, sought to seduce him. She closed the doors and said, "Come, you." He said, "[I seek] the refuge of Allah . Indeed, he is my master, who has made good my residence. Indeed, wrongdoers will not succeed."
12:24

And she certainly determined [to seduce] him, and he would have inclined to her had he not seen the proof of his Lord. And thus [it was] that We should avert from him evil and immorality. Indeed, he was of Our chosen servants.
12:25

And they both raced to the door, and she tore his shirt from the back, and they found her husband at the door. She said, "What is the recompense of one who intended evil for your wife but that he be imprisoned or a painful punishment?"
12:26

[Joseph] said, "It was she who sought to seduce me." And a witness from her family testified. "If his shirt is torn from the front, then she has told the truth, and he is of the liars.
12:27

But if his shirt is torn from the back, then she has lied, and he is of the truthful."
12:28

So when her husband saw his shirt torn from the back, he said, "Indeed, it is of the women's plan. Indeed, your plan is great.
12:29

Joseph, ignore this. And, [my wife], ask forgiveness for your sin. Indeed, you were of the sinful."
12:30

And women in the city said, "The wife of al-'Azeez is seeking to seduce her slave boy; he has impassioned her with love. Indeed, we see her [to be] in clear error."


...

And the king said, "Bring him to me." But when the messenger came to him, [Joseph] said, "Return to your master and ask him what is the case of the women who cut their hands. Indeed, my Lord is Knowing of their plan."
12:51

Said [the king to the women], "What was your condition when you sought to seduce Joseph?" They said, "Perfect is Allah ! We know about him no evil." The wife of al-'Azeez said, "Now the truth has become evident. It was I who sought to seduce him, and indeed, he is of the truthful.
12:52

That is so al-'Azeez will know that I did not betray him in [his] absence and that Allah does not guide the plan of betrayers.
12:53

And I do not acquit myself. Indeed, the soul is a persistent enjoiner of evil, except those upon which my Lord has mercy. Indeed, my Lord is Forgiving and Merciful."
12:54

And the king said, "Bring him to me; I will appoint him exclusively for myself." And when he spoke to him, he said, "Indeed, you are today established [in position] and trusted."
12:55

[Joseph] said, "Appoint me over the storehouses of the land. Indeed, I will be a knowing guardian."
12:56

And thus We established Joseph in the land to settle therein wherever he willed. We touch with Our mercy whom We will, and We do not allow to be lost the reward of those who do good.
12:57

And the reward of the Hereafter is better for those who believed and were fearing Allah .
12:58

reply to post by WarminIndy

Two words that are very similar and have the same intent and purpose. This makes me think the God of the Jews, and subsequently the Christians, did not in any way place women in an inferior position. The concept of women as inferior is actually a Greek understanding, so therefore, when people accuse God of this, they are really looking at the Greek influence and not the Jewish influence.

You are right, and this also lends credence to 2 corinthians of someone injecting their opinions into scripture in regards to the women not being allowed to spread the word or preach.

You can look all the way back to Genesis and God favored Eve over Adam because she had been fooled by Lucifer into eating from the forbidden tree of Knowledge whereas Adam knew exactly what he was eating and did it anyway. Notice God blessed her by the seed of the Savior coming from woman (Mary) and the Holy Spirit as opposed being fathered by a man.

Genesis 3:14-15

So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life.15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

Pay particular attention to the wording God used. He didn't say man's offspring he said woman's. Yes i know this dips into seed doctrine, but i am showing you that while God did curse the woman for her desire to be for her husband (desire to have children?) he was not leaving Eve out in the cold and notice how Adam named her Eve before leaving Eden which means "spring of life" in hebrew as a type of prophecy in itself of he Messiah to come.

But clearly the Hebrew took at least 1 surviving custom from egypt, because youre right the 2 marriage contracts are perfect mirror matches between the egyptian and hebrew custom.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Hm, well according to Simcha he says the hyksos were actually the hebrew tribes, you'd have to watch the exodus decoded to get his entire point of view.

Don't forget that Ishamael's mother Ha'agar was an egyptian herself, probably obtained when Abraham went into egypt and decieved the pharoah into bedding Sarah which caused YHWH to rain down curses and plagues on him for bedding a married woman in which he then paid Abraham to take his woman and go away. Abraham purposely introduced Sarah as his sister but i think he did it on purpose knowing what would happen because this was after he pledged to serve YHWH. When i read that part of genesis about the things Abraham had done i got the feeling he was a conman because he did alot of things i find questionable. He didn't just trick 1 king he tricked 2, Pharoah and "Babalak" (Abimalech)who Abraham then built a well for in Be'ersheba as a covenant of peace.