Talk:Hashem El Tarif

message: * - The Bedouins left their "marks" in the desert too. It just does not make it the real Mt. Sinai. 
* - Many mountains have some sign of life being there, but what proof is it that is was the Israelites and not the bedouins? 
* - Is the site of Hashem el-Tarif really ancient? Has a professional dating research been done there? or wait a minute. That's right, please don't forget the words: "Permission for archeological excavation must be granted by the Egyptian government, which closely guards and often denies access to any locations which may be related to Biblical history". Interesting there they said "may" but everywhere else it was said it was the correct site, interesting!
--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''The Stones Organized at Hashem-El-Tarif'''

message: . . . This is important it is "vital" to his theory, if wrong on this, it changes locations of the assumed sites. . .  
* - Quoting insight on the scriptures:
"Modern historians rely principally on certain documents in the form of Egyptian king lists or annals. Among these are: the fragmentary Palermo Stone, presenting what are considered to be the first five “dynasties” of Egyptian history; the Turin Papyrus, very fragmentary and giving a list of kings and their reigns from the “Old Kingdom” into the “New Kingdom”; and additional inscriptions in stone, likewise fragmentary. These separate lists and other independent inscriptions have been coordinated in chronological order by means of the writings of Manetho, an Egyptian priest of the third century B.C.E. His works, dealing with Egyptian history and religion, arrange the reigns of the Egyptian monarchs into 30 dynasties, an arrangement still used by modern Egyptologists. These sources, together with astronomical calculations, based on Egyptian texts dealing with lunar phases and the rising of the Dog Star (Sothis), have been used to produce a chronological table.
Problems of Egyptian chronology. Uncertainties are multiple. The works of Manetho, used to give order to the fragmentary lists and other inscriptions, are preserved only in the writings of later historians, such as Josephus (first century C.E.), Sextus Julius Africanus (third century C.E., hence over 500 years from Manetho’s time), Eusebius (fourth century C.E.), and Syncellus (late eighth or early ninth century C.E.). As stated by W. G. Waddell, their quotations of Manetho’s writings are fragmentary and often distorted and hence “it is extremely difficult to reach certainty in regard to what is authentic Manetho and what is spurious or corrupt.” After showing that Manetho’s source material included some unhistorical traditions and legends that “introduced kings as their heroes, without regard to chronological order,” he says: “There were many errors in Manetho’s work from the very beginning: all are not due to the perversions of scribes and revisers. Many of the lengths of reigns have been found impossible: in some cases the names and the sequence of kings as given by Manetho have proved untenable in the light of monumental evidence.”—Manetho, introduction, pp. vii, xvii, xx, xxi, xxv.
The probability that concurrent reigns rather than successive reigns are responsible for many of Manetho’s excessively long periods is shown in the book Studies in Egyptian Chronology, by T. Nicklin (Blackburn, Eng., 1928, p. 39): “The Manethonian Dynasties . . . are not lists of rulers over all Egypt, but lists partly of more or less independent princes, partly . . . of princely lines from which later sprang rulers over all Egypt.” Professor Waddell (pp. 1-9) observes that “perhaps several Egyptian kings ruled at one and the same time; . . . thus it was not a succession of kings occupying the throne one after the other, but several kings reigning at the same time in different regions. Hence arose the great total number of years.”
Since the Bible points to the year 2370 B.C.E. as the date of the global Flood, Egyptian history must have begun after that date. The problems in Egyptian chronology shown above are doubtless responsible for the figures advanced by modern historians who would run Egyptian history all the way back to the year 3000 B.C.E.
Greater confidence is placed by Egyptologists in the ancient inscriptions themselves. Yet, the carefulness, truthfulness, and moral integrity of the Egyptian scribes are by no means above suspicion. As Professor J. A. Wilson states: “A warning should be issued about the precise historical value of Egyptian inscriptions. That was a world of . . . divine myths and miracles.” Then after suggesting that the scribes were not above juggling the chronology of events to add praise to the particular monarch in power, he says: “The historian will accept his data at face value, unless there is a clear reason for distrust; but he must be ready to modify his acceptance as soon as new materials put the previous interpretation in a new light.”—The World History of the Jewish People, 1964, Vol. 1, pp. 280, 281.
Absence of information concerning Israel. This is not surprising, since the Egyptians not only refused to record matters uncomplimentary to themselves but also were not above effacing records of a previous monarch if the information in such records proved distasteful to the then reigning pharaoh. Thus, after the death of Queen Hatshepsut, Thutmose III had her name and representations chiseled out of the monumental reliefs. This practice doubtless explains why there is no known Egyptian record of the 215 years of Israelite residence in Egypt or of their Exodus.
The pharaoh ruling at the time of the Exodus is not named in the Bible; hence, efforts to identify him are based on conjecture. This partly explains why modern historians’ calculations of the date of the Exodus vary from 1441 to 1225 B.C.E., a difference of over 200 years."--72.38.211.144 (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Egyptian Dates & History:''' 

message: * - I can't prove the acclaimed bush at the monastary is the same as the exact same burning bush that Moses saw, I can't used this evidence to argue Hashem-el-Tarif for not having a traditional burning bush site. 
* - Jebel has a traditional bush a Blackberry bush (rubus santus) in the monastary. It is a thorn bush in union with the Torah, (Exodus 3:2-5; Deuteronomy 33:16) (Hebrew: seneh′), & in the works of Flavius Jospehus Jewish Antiques book 2 chapter, 12, 1 (-266). Quoting a good reference book: "In referring to this event, the Christian writers of the Greek Scriptures employed the Greek word ba′tos, which means a bramble or any thorny bush. (Mr 12:26; Lu 20:37; Ac 7:30, 35) In Greek the blackberry is called ba′ton (derived from ba′tos) and hence some lexicographers connect the thorny bush (seneh′) with the blackberry bush (Rubus sanctus)."
* The traditional tree which just happens to a Rubus sanctus. So it would not be so much of an argument but as a reference to Jebel Musa.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.211.144 (talk) 04:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''The thoughts on the burning bush''' 

message: * - The list of scholars who signed the open letter's criticism included:
* - Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 
* - Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University 
* - Choon-Leon Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary 
* - F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary 
* - Lee McDonald, Princeton Theological Seminary, visiting 
* - Rachel Hachlili, Haifa University 
* - Motti Aviam, University of Rochester 
* - Amos Kloner, Bar Ilan University 
* - Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion 
* - Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte 
* - Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem 
* - Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University 
* - C.D. Elledge, Gutavus Adolphus College--Standforder (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Quote from the wiki article on him'''