New Fun is posting on densities and I answered more there. What makes most sense is that this is Yet Another aeon list that is no different from either Valentinus or the Zohar doing the same. They're useful to a point but make no falsifiable predictions about the world. What kind of nonfalsifiability is there in a statement "the sixth density is unity"? Well, of course it is, because you defined it to be so and as soon as you stop it isn't.
My link is written to allow falsifiability because the interaction of 10D folded models has been mathematically modeled for a long time and predictions and tests can be made. But if Moses de Leon says "Crown (keter) is the one on top, unless it isn't", what kind of talk is that? Does that make sense to you?
Voted you up, then looked at the context and am Mrex-bumping you up with a comment.
wouldn't you question if perhaps Pam Bondi is the puppet on the end of the strings held by an evil entity?
I do question it. Yet, legally she is responsible and accepts that responsibility. If she chose that responsibility as the lesser of two evils, she is responsible for not seeking the good. Evidence for the puppetry is worth considering on all sides.
My extended theory is that the Trump administration is not 100% unfriendly to the former or latter cabal, with a combination of proper and misplaced mercy. The current steps often play into the hands of the latter cabal and require us to be more diligent than we were in exposing the former. They will be recognized by greater pattern matching, for which we now have much greater capacity as sovereign individuals. A quibble about 2 names out of 305 will be too small a pattern to be important.
I started warning people about House's work about 20 years ago; I just named him earlier today (click my name). Here I added that his father got rich off Civil War profiteering with Jewish bank assistance so he was well placed, and continued to be so into the 32nd-degree administration. Certainly the cabals in all ages contribute patterns to be matched. But most of the pattern matching we do here is epicentral rather than central.
At any rate, (1) Christians serve Jesus, (2) within that Americans serve the Constitution that names him Lord of the year 1787, (3) within that Bondi is "bond" of/by the EFTA and interprets it administratively. No cabal, spirit, exousia, or confederacy can gainsay that because it is authorized straight from Jesus. It can only be twisted or driven off course. For instance, objective data might falsifiably show that Bondi cheated in her interpretations and spin-doctored the results. But evidence indicates this administration put many man-years of labor into preventing that from happening, i.e., the list is objectively defensible. If one is going to pin more Epstein linkage on Olmert or anyone beyond what the files show, it'll need to be frog research rather than admin evidence.
Add: Let's consider the current status as it informs us of the latter cabal. The former cabal invested trillions in control and has had billions in losses since. The amount of effort required to unmask it led a powerful state actor (presumably the US military) to determine that its best path was to allow a selected leader to be exiled for 4 years for the plan to succeed. If we were to question that datum, the alternate idea would be that the actor and the cabal cowrote a narrative where it only looks like progress on unmasking is happening but the actor eventually releases 3 million pages of evidence and yet nothing earth-shaking is really in the works. In that complicity narrative, the arrests and executions would be perfunctory and minimal and would merely be bit-part sacrifices where the cabal allows its own to be eaten while it carries on business as usual. In the actual war narrative, the difference would be that the arrests and executions clearly demonstrate the end of a cabal and not a transference, that the behaviors such as trafficking are markedly abandoned, that American individual dedication to justice contributes to a continuing state of self-maintenance against the risks of abandonment of potential victims by the community via its overcompensating oscillation toward individualism.
That would give us a test rubric for what actually happens and how much it favors either of two poles of a scenario. More important, it informs our role as sovereigns in contributing to the prevention of satanic abuse in the future in local and global settings. Between America's actions as government and its actions as sovereigns, we must be Jesus's hands and feet to the abused. When he returns he will show which of us have been his adopted body in the absence of his natural body. So part of "occupying until he comes" involves testing admin pronouncements with some capacity for criticism; but defeating the cabal complex for all time requires committing to pursue truth at all costs, and an imbalanced focus on one or two details, especially those already naturally imbalanced by prior trends, is much less helpful than direct propagation of testable truths via facts and logic.
Obviously Bondi interprets the law administratively.
I have no problem with all kinds of world leaders being linked, Norway already arrested their leader. I have no problem exposing all degrees. Feel free to focus on Olmert et al. with public revelations. But a list has to have a cutoff or else a million occurrences of "Donald" will be held probative. Evidence that Bondi's list is imbalanced is easy to come by, as is evidence that it's balanced, I'm surprised nobody's published such an analysis yet.
Good questions. Let me first separate one question out: Feel free to pick on individual Jews and Jewish organizations, because that is one purpose for this forum, picking on anyone who conspires evilly regardless of race. It's very easy for an objective person to do this without being collectivist or judging the innocent (e.g. the children of a race) along with the guilty. For that reason, people who don't are easily identified as nonobjective.
Again, my take on where to trust history comes from the fact that I made an irrevocable commitment to Jesus, even knowing that he's identified as Jewish. Only he can revoke it. What he says about the Hebrew Scripture is my rule. But I've never needed to fear truth because the truth has always backed up his claims. So I'm happy to look into details and I'm motivated to consider any evidence that I could be wrong, because I am committed to all truth. If Jesus should fail me, that might conceivably be him revoking my commitment, via demonstration of his impotence; but he has always revealed himself as potentate.
Yes, population demographics are a much more important field than realized. A quick unchecked quote comes up: "The total population, they say, was of old about 7 million and the number has remained no less down to our day" (Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library 1.31.8). Modern estimates are a bit lower. Recall that the "Israelite" exodus officially included a mixed multitude of non-Jews along with descendants of Israel. Though the nomadic-community influx of Jacob's family could have been almost 10,000, to get to 2 million would have required conversion as well as birth. Though many were Egyptians, this group were required to consent to Moses's laws and to be circumcised, and the entire polity were counted as "Israel" regardless of heritage, because all were naturalized equally; and the desert wandering cemented this identification and rooted out rebellions. So this number is not immodest.
Since Ramses does have archeological evidence of sudden abandonment by Semite dwellers, this implies that there was a massive population hit via the Hyksos expulsion, even on Manetho's numbers. On the above I'd be comfortable with 30%, while 60% would not be impossible, and 15% could be defended by conservatives. If you read Ahmose's boasting about how he arrived at a devastated region and took over, unifying the people, it's no surprise. Look, Scored itself has had attrition of 95% in some regions and 60% in others, and is still going strong; people do it. Did you know 8% of the population of Nicaragua, which might be 30% of the men of fighting age, entered America this past decade? That's a pretty statistically significant exodus too. I don't think that comparing the largest estimate of Israel's population and the smallest estimate of Egypt's population and claiming contradiction would be sustained, because it admittedly uses two different counting methods. Apples to apples there is no problem.
you expect there's going some kinds of remains like pottery or weaponry or you know, stuff
There's nothing regarding Exodus
What is the difference between exodus and expulsion then?
The inception of Judaism and the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Joseph and Moses happened in Arabia and Yemen.
I said I'd look into that. There's another source I'd heard recently on similar claims that I want to consult. But, takeaway, most of these sources admit Abraham and Moses were real (just misplaced), which contradicts your initial claim. So pick which one you want to defend.
a Bible (Septaguint) cunningly tampered with
This lacks evidence. We have the original and translated text. There is no alternate manuscript tradition by which tampering with thousands of words would have been a sustainable theory. When you look at admitted document tampering by the Inquisition, by contrast, all kinds of evidence shows what happened and what was original.
you go on and keep believing them
I worship exactly one Jew. When he happens to agree with other Jews, that means those other Jews aren't lying on that point.
Dr. Ashraf Ezzat ... indeed may be proud of Egypt, that doesn't mean he would make things up.
Medical doctor Ezzat isn't lying, but he is being dramatic. He's saying Egypt has no "pharaoh" when he knows very well and admits that Egypt had a "pr-aa" since the 20th century BC. That's a semantic quibble to increase hits and purchases. On the argument that Egypt has no Israelites, I'll look into it, and yet his sources claim the Israelites back to Abraham's family were indeed still very real, which means the Bible isn't lying even if we interpret its geography wrong. Similarly, Breasted's math is likely based on the same atheist althist invented in the 19th century as if closeted Babylonians came up with the name "Mose", one of the most common Egyptian names but only of a millennium prior. (Let me repeat that list for my own records: Ahmose, Amenmose, Dedumose, Kamose, Ptahmose, Ramose, Thutmose. Several repeated often, and maybe more names exist. But none after about 1000 BC.)
So the sources aren't proving what you infer they're proving. If there were a real challenge to a Christian worldview it would be worth considering (which is why I'm taking the Asir hypothesis with more time), but these are not significant and have been ably dealt with by the existing historian community.
Random encouragement meta.
It is so much better to see new faces chiming in, to see almost all posts and comments be on point and inspiring in their idiom.
It is so much better not to see 10 pages of insults covering 24 hours, so much that you have to guess how many downvotes to give and where to apply them to not trigger the algorithm. I will repeat that the #1 beneficiary of this platform feature IMHO was u/DresdenFirebomber, #2 u/JosephGoebbel5, though one might suspect they should be reversed.
It is an incredible tell that both those names have found their way to the Wild-West c/rdrama, which had an ignominious founding and fall that need not be renarrated. Why would both arrive at the same abandoned exile location unless they are paid to troll each other?
Despite one or two kinks in negotiating mod team policy versus community interpretation, we have a great mod team and primary representative now, and the forum is flourishing so well that I can't keep up, in a good way instead of a bad way as before.
The ordinary flak you are getting (and I and others) is normal for a community that can hardly agree on anything because it is founded on respectful distrust. The best means of resolution of that tension is to press on doing what is right and to continue learning, as getting sidetracked by flak is its purpose and is wholly unnecessary. Quick trials, public executions.
It is so much better that things that u/NeoOne would have asked for are now happening and the revitalization I and others asked for is underway. He may not recognize it but that's his loss and fomo.
There are other improvements I've already forgotten.
Now, let's all keep building it to continue to be so much better.
Nine days' wonder.
It appears that a few stay fallen forever just so they can remain as museum artifacts, one for each failed idea, to remind us of what will never happen again. Just as Rush Limbaugh said of liberals.
On the side with a taco cat. At the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
Yes, 100%. Then FDR sent his staff to House's retirement house to get more advice on finishing the job. LN-UN was the phased approach, leading one to wonder what the next phase is.
I don't understand. Barak (2nd column of OP) and Netanyahu are among the 305 names. Why should the omission of Olmert be an issue?
It is clear that these names were selected by self-defined criteria in accord with the text of the EFTA, which allows a number of dodges and omissions while remaining legally compliant. For instance, the list is ambiguous about whether George H. W. Bush is intended to be included or not, because it only refers to both "George W. Bush" and "George Bush Jr."; this is a prima facie fault. Also a couple names are misspelled and a couple are alphabetized arbitrarily, which is also a prima facie fault. These indicate that the list is not defined by number of appearances but by secret, unpublished scoring methods that can be considered compliant with the law. Presumably by these criteria Olmert, and many others of many nations, didn't rise to the sufficient level of making the "official" list.
Is there statistical or situational evidence that omissions of names of one nation or category (other than US) are imbalanced with respect to their appearance in the files? It should be a simple matter for noticers to compare occurrences of unique names versus their inclusion or exclusion in the 305 names, which means your proposition is easily testable for truth or falsity. But is anyone doing this?
(Continuing:)
The chronicle of events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave results or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula.
Of course not, it was 1539. Right when Apepi's dynasty collapsed.
Dr. Kamal Salibi has discovered more than one hundred place names in Arabia and North Yemen that amazingly matched the ones mentioned in the Torah, Ezzat writes.
I'll follow up, thanks. Copyright 1985, 1987 PDF edition. TOC looks better than Ezzat's. But most lists of 100 etymology "matches" I review are 90% false and 10% useless.
Prof. Breasted writes the Egyptians possessed a standard of morals far superior to that of the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) over a thousand years before the Decalogue was written.
Not really. There are similarities that both Egypt and Israel took from Hammurabi; but the best expression of Egyptian standards resembling the decalogue occurs in a Book of the Dead of Hatshepsut ca. 1475 BC, after the decalogue is given in 1539 BC. The actual spell 125 is not very decaloguy either. If he fast-forwards the decalogue 1100 years, well then sure, but conservatives don't.
The wisdom of Amenemope, preserved in an Egyptian papyrus in the British Museum, was translated into Hebrew in ancient times and, circulating in Palestine, was the source for a whole section of the OT Book of Proverbs.
Haven't heard. But since Paul quotes Epimenides and Aratus, sometimes with attribution, what would be wrong if it were true that Solomon quoted Amenemope without attribution? However, the argument that Amenemope is older is based on one "unquestionable" dating to the 21st dynasty conducted by Jaroslav Cerny, so I'm not going to make a ruling based on a single source, given that others place it much later. However, I do like prima facie the theory that Prov. 22:17 "yom af-atah" ("[this] day, even to thee") might be a corruption of "[Amen-]Em-Opet"*, so that might influence me to favor Egyptian priority. And what of it? 22:17 admits they are "words of the wise" and not necessarily Solomon's, just like 24:23, 30:1, 31:1. Plus, even if one is copying the other, in either direction the copyist is clearly reorganizing and modifying the material to his own purposes, so it's original wisdom in both passages. I'll keep that question open too, as it might be a good Bible study later.
I'm a Jesus guy. Jesus is King of the Jews but he never lied. If he says the Hebrew Scriptures cannot be broken and not even a serif will disappear from them, I believe it, not only because he's always proven himself, but because the Scriptures have passed every test I or anyone has ever thrown at them. I sought out the worst tests and regularly found they were just sour grapes created by people who don't care. I compared them to objections to the Talmud and Quran, and found that there were sour-grapes motives there too, and lack of seeking original culture or comparative religion. But I came to find out that the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures have passed every test of historical authenticity, predictive verification, and moral purity, and the Talmud and Quran, while beautiful and uplifting, don't pass every test. So Jesus is vindicated for me every day I test him. This means I am free to consider the most outrageous blasphemies against him because he's defeated every one of them I've ever considered and because if even one of them stuck I'd need to change my views to acknowledge the full truth. I pursue truth wherever it leads, and, if Jesus were wrong when he said Moses was a great lawgiver and that he himself called Moses down from heaven to talk to him in AD 32, when he said that Abraham was feasting in glory and was still alive to God, I'd accept the truth about it. But funny thing, he always looks and speaks better than every whiner who complains that Jesus didn't know what he was talking about. It's only because of Jesus that I know that all mere men are liars, and he's the only source I have for finding the real truth. I have nothing to fear from learning more. It's only salesmen who talk big and deliver little who have things to fear from the truth.
I like new sources. Dr. Ashraf Ezzat, "Author and Filmmaker", gravatar.com/ashraf53, ashraf62.wordpress.com, imdb.com/name/nm5967076, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, location "Land of Osiris": he has quite the intense stare. His links look 100% self-promoted, but that's no disqualifier. He writes:
Nothing in the ‘milieu of that story’ indicates that it happened in Egypt, except maybe the mistaken association between ‘Pharaoh’ and ‘King’ of Egypt, a false correlation that needs to be untangled and cleared out in the collective subconscious. Likewise, nothing in ancient Egyptian records or its oral tradition say or even allude to the fact that this tale of Moses happened in Egypt.
I was on the hop about the two meanings of Pharaoh, but otherwise I listed plenty counterexamples. Let's read further.
Pharaoh was never a title for Egypt’s king.
Seems contradicted from Thutmose III on, with the backdating or retconning to earlier kings. (Very interesting: "rabbi" has the same feature, it was not applied to many contemporaries until it entered vogue around 100 AD; so Jesus may have been the first person called "rabbi" (great one) in his lifetime, even though the Talmud retcons many leaders as "rabbis" before him.) If he gets too dogmatic it'll be so revisionist as to defeat his purpose.
Mainstream Egyptologists just went along with the Biblical narrative and absentmindedly designated Egypt’s Kings as Pharaohs.
Dismissive scapegoating. The Middle Kingdom blessing "May Pharaoh live, prosper, and be in health" repeated over the centuries, even if formally applied to a building, sounds just as anthropomorphic as anything in Genesis, and begins usage about the same time, the 20th century BC. Plus, the Bible correctly reflects that "Pharaoh" was not used with a name at this time, but later used with names like Hophra or Neco, precisely the shift seen in Egyptian sources, of the same dates. So I think the Egyptologists are following the Egyptian sources. So far I'm getting a bad vibe this is just althist without any meat, but let's stay open-minded ....
If we examined the Hebrew text the Bible (currently in our hands) used as a reference we will strangely not find Egypt mentioned in it as the site/land of the Exodus story.
Another incredibly sweeping claim that needs no debunking because it would be outrageous if taken literally ....
The third century BC ... is when Egypt was first hijacked and forcibly placed in the Hebrew Bible as the theater of the Israelite landmark stories.
So the LXX. But does he have an MT or Hebrew text that says differently? Because if not, the LXX is correct.
No one can revisit Egypt that too many times and never refers to one of its ancient icons; the Pyramids.
Purely rhetorical flourish to the argument from silence. Waiting patiently ....
All of their stories are devoid of any trace of Egyptian influence.
Waiting ....
Slavery was not a common practice in ancient Egypt in the first place. Unlike the pervasive culture of slavery in the Israelite stories, ancient Egypt never had a public market for trading slaves.
His evidence for "pervasive" is Joseph and Moses. Now, the KJV doesn't use the word "slave" here, which is pretty loaded with the changes in its meaning in 19th-century English, but speaks of "servant" (ebed), pretty broad. The same word is used of the court butler (the security chief), a high-standing official; it has no attribute of degradation (unlike the word paired with some of the service, "affliction"). Then it is used for all the Egyptians, the people as belonging to the court, the king. We might argue that King James was wrong and self-advancing to spin-doctor the Ten Commandments by making it "house of bondage" not "house of service", but that is not the fault of Hebrew. The fact that Potiphar was a servant who had his own servant, and the fact that the Israelites were servants just like the Egyptians were servants, don't speak of a pervasive atmosphere of even 200 years of continuous slavery (the actual affliction was only a brief time). Christians are wrong and self-advancing to get the slavery emphasis wrong, but for several reasons we are far removed from that cultural understanding so it's an understandable mistake.
Checking WP's extensive article, I find "the Berlin papyri show that by the time of the Second Intermediate Period, a slave could be owned by both an elite individual (like the king) and a community." Sounds like the Bible, and sounds very unlike Ezzat. Maybe he's fudging since slaves were generally not sold but arrived as prisoners of war or debtors or new births to a prior generation of servants. Yup, there it is, "Slave dealing in Ancient Egypt was done through private dealers and not through a public market." But also, "Many more slaves were also acquired via the Mediterranean slave market, where Egypt was the main purchaser of international slaves." So he's batting zero so far.
Everything about ancient Egyptian culture; its art, architecture, monuments, people, theology, mythology, and the pantheon of gods is uniquely strong and influential even to this very day. After such a long sojourn in the land of the Nile Valley, one would have expected to find some trace of Egyptian cultural influence in the Israelite history and narrative, but that was hardly the case.
Another argument from silence. Being nomadic foreigners, the Semites (Habiru) were notorious for not picking up culture from their surroundings. For art, they kept their own Semitic "TEY ware", which is easily distinguished from Egyptian pottery. Nomads didn't have architecture or monuments; "Hyksos" means "Shepherd", and Egypt despised that idea. Joseph married an Egyptian, and a mixed multitude of Egyptians accompanied Moses, but they were required to abandon their religion to remain in the community, and this was enforced stringently as common for desert life. Theology, mythology, and pantheon was, well, strong but so variable that many contrary things could be considered Egyptian religion; but the Exodus indicates that all traditional gods (Nile, frogs, oxen, the sun, the firstborn, etc.) were being demonstrably defeated by the one Semitic storm god, named Yahweh in the text (as he is named earlier in the Book of the Dead, I noted). So you didn't last long if you continued Egyptian religion, there was a communal push to reject all that, which overcame contrary views. Could we say a little bit of Egyptology still slipped in? Moses learned from Egyptian courts, and in that sense many laws do reflect Egyptian practice; e.g. in Egypt a slave could be given freedom for a justifiable grievance, as Moses agrees. But the whole point is that the Hyksos maintained separate cultural identity within Egypt (Yakbim never even used a cartouche), so the argument from silence is again unpersuasive.
Themes from Sumerian and Babylonian mythology like that of the flood, Adam and Eve, and the tree of knowledge can be traced in the Hebrew book.
Um, yeah, Abraham was from the Sumer area, so this is natural. Why would they add Egyptian creation legend when they had a perfectly good Hebrew one already?
And no, the argument that claims the Israelites refrained from being affected by pagan beliefs and culture can’t be considered valid, for all sorts of Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian (pagan) cultural influences are jammed into their Torah.
That might be a testable hypothesis, but offhand I don't think Egyptian influence is zero and other influences "jammed". The idea that the Torah is influenced by culture that came after its closing date of 1499 has never borne itself out, though there have been imaginative attempts.
The not-so-infrequent comparison between King Akhenaten’s monotheism and that of the Israelites is also invalid
His reasons are again very ephemeral. Actually, Akhenaten was influenced by the Hyksos monotheism (which Hatshepsut went on record for abominating) and so I would hold contrarily that he had the derivative monotheism. If Aten is the universal god, he is one with Yahweh who is depicted as the universal god, and neither can be advantaged against the other.
And that's it! He goes right to the sales pitch. No honest exploration, just US dollars. Wow. There is a Kindle preview, which gives locations out of 509 as follows:
1 Cover 9 Title 32 Dedication 50 Bio 65 What Really Happened 86 Copyright 105 TOC 153 Intro 173 Ex. 11:1 198 Village of Mizraim 222 Arabian tribe 242 Faraon vs. Pr-aa 278 No Pharaoh (again) 260 Egyptology false 283 How could Egypt hit wrath? 300 Maat 311 Good/right, idolatry/tyranny 330 Seeming paradox 347 Egypt would've converted 364 1400-1200 382 Not New Kingdom, not Ramses II 401 Not Merneptah, not Thutmose III 421 Not Israelite pyramids 442 LXX; Egypt not Misr 471 I heard Maat 492 Pyramids damn sure included whenever Egypt visited
260: "Almost all of the academic work of Eyptologists carried out over the last two centuries or so, is simply based on a false premise."
Nope, Preston, I don't see myself buying it. I'll give you some leeway and concessions where I might agree, which I'll mention in the next paragraph. But what I see first is someone proud of Egypt and eager to excise a negative view of one Pharaoh from being overlaid on a giant history. Instead of facing facts he simply denies the whole deal. Now, at least he doesn't deny that Thutmose and all successive rulers were indeed Pr-aa, but he denies that "Pharaoh" is an appropriate parallel term and argues that it means an obscure Arabic ruler. So, out of respect for his being Egyptian, I'll be happy to call Apophis (Apepi) the "Pr-aa", i.e. the court, rather than the "Pharaoh", in this context (though I'll use the usual term in other contexts). But he's not going to carry the argument if his primary proof is a few Arabic-Hebrew convergences (which is natural, both being Semitic) that you have to pay for. Etymology is my strong suit and I can spot a phony equivalence quickly, if I do say so myself.
But what's happening is that he tries to prove too much. Let's agree that the legend of the LXX is wrong and self-advancing for giving far too much credit to the miraculous and undercuts the likely actual process by which the text originated. Let's agree that Josephus was wrong and self-advancing to say the Israelites built the pyramids. Let's agree that Jewish Hollywood is wrong and self-advancing to say the same in Gods and Kings. Let's agree that "Judeo-Christians" were wrong and self-advancing to seize upon Ramses II and Merneptah because they saw the name Ramses in the Bible and thought it must've happened close to Ramses the Great, when that is not stated nor required. Let's agree that Judeo-Christians beating up on Pharaoh Apepi are wrong and self-advancing because ignoring their own equally heinous sins of rebellion. See, that's a few concessions, and around here we say we're also "noticing" a "pattern". And guess what: all of those concessions don't excuse an Egyptian from being wrong and self-advancing in the other direction.
To find the truth we'll need more than one contrarian who disagrees with everyone and can't spell "Karnak" in his preview text. I will be happy to file that there exists an alternate theory where Misraim and Faraon and a couple other words have linkages to Yemen. But if he's not willing to let this theory flow freely, it suggests it's not worth paying for and he's not interested in truth spreading. Searches indicate that the core points of his theory are not public but are all paywalled. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, and he's not giving that; he appears just to be an Egypt apologist who wants you to know that Egypt is a great and misunderstood empire.
But the fact is that Egypt did have two intermediate periods of weakness and bare continuity. It did degrade and renew and then fall tragically with Cleopatra. It did have hundreds of kings of varying competencies, and Apepi was not necessarily worse than the rest, but (the text shows) he was made a didactic example of. During his reign, the Thera volcano exploded (exactly 1540, dated by Hugh Schofield, and I say on 8 Sep due to the Rhind Papyrus). This was regionally catastrophic and left radioactive dust throughout the Mediterranean, still useful for layer-dating because it's so unique. (You can go to Avaris today and find the exact same dust that Moses cast into the air to cause plagues twice, it's that distinctive.) All ten plagues can be naturalistic upheavals responsive to this historic eruption. So both the hardness and historically attested downfall of Apepi and the explosion of Thera were contemporary, and they are karmically connected as well. And that is no curse on the other hundreds of kings of Egypt, it's just another didactic event, and that's what the Bible makes it. For Ezzat to ignore the many fluctuations in Egypt's fortunes is to reject a whole jar of ointment just to remove one perceived irritation in it.
Let's see how many characters I have left.
Why do you keep referring to OT
Because it has historical value for my references, validated by other sources.
I just proved that to you it's a fraud
You proposed an alternate hypothesis without data. That's where I file it for now.
the terrain, which in the OT more resembles hilly Arabia
No hills mentioned in Egypt. Deut. 11:10-11 contrasts hills of Israel with garden-like land of Egypt. What are you thinking of?
droughts, which Egypt never had
No drought mentioned in Egypt. But: Following the very short reign of Nehesy, most scholars – including Manfred Bietak and Kim Ryholt – agree that the Delta region was struck by a prolonged famine and perhaps a plague lasting until the end of the 14th Dynasty. Oh look, same dynasty as Joseph's famine internally dated 1756-1749.
camel caravan carrying "gum, balm and myrrh", which were products of Arabian trade, not Egypt's
Gen. 37:25: "Ishmeelites". "To carry it down to Egypt". Duh.
pharaoh, which no Egyptian document ever uses
The earliest confirmed instance where pr ꜥꜣ is used specifically to address the ruler is in a letter to the eighteenth dynasty king, Akhenaten (reigned c. 1353–1336 BCE), that is addressed to "Great House, L, W, H, the Lord". If you mean Egyptians didn't speak Hebrew, well, duh.
The Jewish people were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BC.
Solomon's son was attacked in this city by Shoshenq I, 925 BC, exactly when the Bible says under the Hebrew name Shishak.
There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 2200s BCE.
Of course not, it was 1499-1492. Right when Canaanite culture collapsed.
Respected. I only see the one meta from Neo1 and the one from NeoOne. Also, I should note publicly, since you approved the one from Neo1 as an exception to meta and then you banned him for rule 3 later, I'm presuming my interpretation is correct that up to 7 subsequent comments were also violative of rule 1 and/or rule 3.
I always tell mods, including myself, beware of reacting disciplinarily when part of the user's objection is about you rather than about something else. Reasons for discipline must be straightforward and transparent and separable from what the user says about the mod personally. Verbum sat.
Okay, start at the beginning with me, you can post in c/Christianity or anywhere. No rules against meta there.
It's because Scored has an oft-stated default policy that newcomers shouldn't have to face "politics" but should be allowed to opt in rather than to get it by default. Therefore app users are not served forums flagged as political. On Conspiracies we do have lots of political content, so I proposed that by flagging those NSFW they would achieve the admin objective, where they would not be served to newcomers (but all nonpolitical content would be, which it isn't currently); and only those few lurkers who don't have NSFW content turned on would miss it. Though the term "not safe for work" doesn't apply, I said we could interpret it as "not safe for world", i.e. not for broad distribution.
I don't think AMA content is political. Some covid content is political, much isn't. But if we make it a mod discretion issue rather than a forumwide ban, we'd get the original goal of having more exposure for apolitical Conspiracies content.
I'd love to hear your thoughts at the covid roundtable.
Several people created vote threads just as you describe, the most conclusive one was 4-1-1 in favor of some unspecified mod team, with silent lurkers outnumbering those totals a lot. Anyone is free to start a new vote anytime, I'm mystified why they don't.
Don't forget pepper, which I link with demonic activity in the Pacific. Opium is big but people don't forget that one. I wonder why I have Saigon cinnamon on my shelf when we don't like Vietnam communism.
I'm sad that you continue thinking I took sides. In many disputes I disciplined both sides, or neither side. It was rare that I ruled that one side was all at fault if it wasn't an obvious thoughtless trolling attempt.
When I tell two sides separately what they each did wrong, each side will remember more what I said about them than anything said to the other person. So it's natural for people to feel justice is unequal because it's much easier to remember injustice committed against oneself than against anyone else. I attempted to answer that by being open to all appeals (and still do). Whenever you charged favoritism, I addressed any specific case you called out.
Your choice right now is that you can continue to treat me as a person who has erred in the past, so much so that it's fitting for you to keep bringing it up (as if some resolution is needed); or, you can work through the issue of what is needed so that relationship is restored and one never need talk negatively about another's past again. If you want me to do something, I always say, let me know specifically.
I upvote lots of people, and OP when he's saying something useful buried in the slop. I only gave him one upvote on this page.
You say Solomon and Moses is fake?
Year ban is not permaban. I'm sure that a user like u/NeoOne could fit into this community without making it all about meta material. Also, his post is still live so there was no loss of material and I don't know what could be intended by merging it.
u/Foletadoo, Neo1 (a separate account that has asked me not to ping it) first raised the question of restarting roundtables by a mod, which led to about 10 days of discussing 6 names as potential mods, after which admin told u/Thisisnotanexit that she could become mod in time, which happened after another 2 months of community vetting of that idea. Since nobody demonstrated a strong consensus result in favor of any outcome, admin stepping in could be considered a coup, but if the community could demonstrate some consensus result I'm sure admin would accept that.
Neo1 got the year ban for rule 3, which was about unnecessary meta posts (now called subversion), and it appears his several attacks were also rule 1 violations. I don't know why he hasn't contributed to the several new roundtable threads that he wanted restored.
Right now the status is that the whole forum is political by default. IIRC, this would be a good time to ask u/Thisisnotanexit if she would like to remove the Politics flag from the description and then to mark politics posts as NSFW, if the community agrees. This would give more app visibility but might lead to some misunderstanding, and would require her to set the meaning of what is political (much discussion of cabal can be charged as "political" rapidly).
I honestly think free thinking and open mind are pretty clear; it merely means not judging others negatively for their opinions, and therefore treating people respectfully even when you disagree.
I wouldn't take the phrase "your issues" as an important indicator, it appears only an attempt to ask you for specifics just as you like to ask others for specifics. I understand if that phrase has been misused in your past experience. I haven't stepped into that convo because you two seem to be negotiating well. She is open to questions and has a greater burden of transparency now, and so you can ask her anything in place; you can ask me anywhere also, whether here or c/CommunitiesConflict or c/ReputationCampaign or c/Meta (where others would chime in too).
Since you have not asked me not to reply to you, unlike some other accounts, I can explain now that it's actually more lenient to give a year ban than a permaban, which is standard practice on some other fora here.
I am very interested in hearing about objections to moderation that do depend on content rather than objective rule violations. The account you're referring to as to 1-year ban violated rule 3 with an unnecessary (trolling) meta post and, I add, rule 1 with at least 7 attack comments. This is consistent with other recent bans, and better than the permabans given to those known to constantly press community-reject points (to forum-slide).
If you wish to contribute conspiracies and not subversive meta posts yourself, I think you'll find the community welcoming of your content.
I told you twice, your timing was irreparably false. It was more likely Marina Abramovic. Do I need to link it for folks?
Haven't seen, please elaborate.
Always have been.
Can be done legally, but people must responsibly research how. I answer questions on this.