Posted on 10/03/2009 8:26:10 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
Well said.
Well, Fred Nerks posted a link to the online version of Ages In Chaos which I haven’t read yet, so I’ll get on that one as time permits. Thanks for the insights.
:o])
If you liked Ages in Chaos, you’ll love Emmet Sweeney’s books. You can get a flavor for it easily enough doing google searches on ‘joseph’ and ‘imhotep’. For that matter, ‘Joseph’ is clearly not any sort of a normal Israelite name and after the Joseph described in Genesis, there is no mention of anybody being given that name again until the time of King David. “Joseph” and “Hotep” are almost the same word; the one might in fact be the root form of the other.
Also in the file is the info that Sweeney is/was a 9/11 Truther.Hatshepsut, The Queen Of Sheba And VelikovskyLet's look first of all at the term Queen of the South. In his article, Lorton asks the question: "Why would [the Gospel writers] ... have said 'queen of the South' when they might so easily have said 'queen of Egypt'?" In the same vein, Bimson comments on what he describes as "the total lack of reference to Egypt in connection with the Queen of Sheba." "If the visiting queen was Hatshepsut," he says, "she should be described as the Queen of Egypt by the Old Testament writers." If Lorton and Bimson had done their research more carefully they would have found that the name "ruler of the South" was a recognised biblical term for the Egyptian monarch. Thus for example in the Book of Daniel the Ptolemaic pharaoh is repeatedly called the "King of the South". It is true that this was not the most common biblical designation for the Egyptian ruler, but its occurrence in Daniel, without any explanatory comments, proves beyond question that it was a well-recognised form.
by Emmet Sweeney
Here's two of Velikovsky's Theses, which were published in 1945:Ramessides, Medes and PersiansHeinsohn's work on Mesopotamia made him realise that a contraction of ancient timescales much more dramatic than anything even Velikovsky had envisaged was called for. Above all, by 1987 he became convinced that the Mitanni, an Indo-European-speaking people who controlled most of Mesopotamia during the time of the 18th Dynasty, had to be one and the same as the Medes, the great conquerors of the Assyrian Empire, who, according to the classical authors, had ruled much of the Near East during the 7th and early 6th centuries BC. If the Mitanni were not the Medes, then no trace of this great people and kingdom could be found anywhere in the region.
by Emmet Sweeney
from "Ages in Alignment:
Velikovsky's Chronology of the Ancient World Defended"
| 189. | The treaties of Subliliumas with Azaru of Damascus, with a patricide prince of Mitanni, and with the widow of Tirhaka, make plausible his identity with Shamash Shum Ukin. This would signify also that Nabopolassar was a son of Shamash Shum Ukin. |
| 190. | The people and the kingdom of Mitanni did not "disappear" in the thirteenth century. Mitanni is another name for Medes; the northwest part of Medes retained this name as Matiane (Herodotus). |
My pleasure.
The remaining titles of the AiC series can be found on the V site:
Dark Age of Greece:
http://www.varchive.org/dag/index.htm
The Assyrian Conquest:
http://www.varchive.org/tac/index.htm
EGAD!!! I’ll never finish!
The two books I’d recommend for starters would be ‘Pyramid age’ and ‘Genesis of Israel and Egypt’. I’m not sure how much if any of Heinsohn’s works have been xlated into English at this point.
This is the other branch of the neocat family which is primarily interested in antediluvian reconstructions.
Thanks wendy.
Just one page at a time, you’ll make it. ;’)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.