|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
reletomp
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 962
Location: usa
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:44 am Post subject: the word Samaritan in Quran is error?? |
 |
|
The place-name Samaria is attested in archaeological studies to the area of Samaria in 1700 BC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (900 years before the story of Omri king of Israel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
It is well known that place names are older than people-names of the same, for example Moscow river name is older than moscovites (moscow people).
ie People are usually named on place names.
For example a Bostonian is a person from Boston!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Samaritan in time of Moses with the knowledge that Samaria place-name existed in 17th century B.C. 900 years before King Omri bought a land from Dhemer to build city named Samaria ( mentioned in Kings which is attested by Bibile textologists to be a Forgery and addition to the Bible by non-prophets Ezra and Nehmia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
a man named Samaritan at time of Moses means a Man from Samaria ( an area known to the ancients 17th century B.C to be a hotbed of sorcerers and witchcraft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
The Samaritan of Moses was either a non Israelite who converted to their religion and followed them in the exodus, or an Israelite who spent time in Samaria and became known to the jews as the Samaritan.
There is no mention in the Quran that theSamaritan of Moses was a member of SamaritanS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There was always people named Samaritans named on the place name Samaria found in archaeological studies to the name of the same area in 1700 BC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
please respond if you can!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cassandra
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 4495
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: Re: the word Samaritan in Quran is error?? |
|
|
| reletomp wrote: |
The place-name Samaria is attested in archaeological studies to the area of Samaria in 1700 BC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (900 years before the story of Omri king of Israel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
It is well known that place names are older than people-names of the same, for example Moscow river name is older than moscovites (moscow people).
ie People are usually named on place names.
For example a Bostonian is a person from Boston!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Samaritan in time of Moses with the knowledge that Samaria place-name existed in 17th century B.C. 900 years before King Omri bought a land from Dhemer to build city named Samaria ( mentioned in Kings which is attested by Bibile textologists to be a Forgery and addition to the Bible by non-prophets Ezra and Nehmia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
a man named Samaritan at time of Moses means a Man from Samaria ( an area known to the ancients 17th century B.C to be a hotbed of sorcerers and witchcraft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
The Samaritan of Moses was either a non Israelite who converted to their religion and followed them in the exodus, or an Israelite who spent time in Samaria and became known to the jews as the Samaritan.
There is no mention in the Quran that theSamaritan of Moses was a member of SamaritanS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There was always people named Samaritans named on the place name Samaria found in archaeological studies to the name of the same area in 1700 BC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
please respond if you can!!!! |
Let's see the evidence that Samaria existed in 1700BC.
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reletomp
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 962
Location: usa
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
The archaeological evidence is not with me now but I will get it from the internet by tomorrow!
but in the bible itself in Kings 13:32 a prophet says in the time of Jerobom before the time of Omri who built Samaria(city), the propher says: the cities of samaria, hence Samaria was existance before Omri!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the Tel-Amarna Tablets of 14th century: the correspondance between king Akhnaton and his vassals in Canaan ( palestine) SMR (SUMUR) is mentioned many times.
In semitic languages no phonetic letters exist so SUMUR is actually written as SMR just like it is written in bible SMRM (M is extension in Hebrew)
so SMR in Akhnaton time (600 years before Omri king of Israel who built Samaria) is non other than Samara!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So we have so far the bible itself mentions Samara before it was built by Omri and the Tel Amarna letters of King Akhnaton also mentions Samara 700 years before Omri.
Adding to that the Kings section in the bible is written by no prophet so it is not really a bible or a word of God but a lie ( these books were added by Ezra and his accomplise Nehmia) Ezra confess he is not a prophet, yet the rabbies who autorize the Masoretic bible ( Ezra bible) make Ezra better than many of the prophets????????????????????????
The name Samara was found in other than the tel Amarna tablets (few hundred years before tel Amarna ) possibly the area was named Samaria 2 thousand years before Moses and 2500 years before hec Omri ( you can easily add another thousand year if you want) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cassandra
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 4495
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reletomp
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 962
Location: usa
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Like I said you can not tel (SMR) if it is pronounced SUMUR or Smyra or Samura etc. You don't have a clue nor any body in the world wide have a clue if SMR in Bible and SMR in Akhnaton tablets are not the same place name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the Smra phoenician city you are talking about does not exist it is hypothised that there might be another city SMR by archaelogists ( so they don't contradict the bible and loose their jobs at the U). Howevere there is no other city other than a ONE city.
Ramesses II also says of SMR of Rameses ( a city where he has a resort for himself) it could not be the supposed Phoenician SMR??? because simply it is too far for Ramsese II to be able to control phoenicia at that time especially he was about to be defeated by the Hittites in Kadesh (emessa city Homs city in Syria , the hypothised city of phoenician SMR is even north of Kadesh city ( definitely not in his hand)!!, especially that the Hittietes destroyed all ports on the eatern mediterranean coast as far as Philistia!
SMR of Ramesses II (1250 BC) is the same SMR of Akhnaton (1450 BC) is the same SMR attested in 1700 BC, it is the same area of Samaria of King Omri and it is the same place where the Samaritan who led the Israelites astray by making the Golden Calf!!
Also remember that the kingdom of Israel was cursed by God for worshipping the Calf image ( what a coincidence ) the Samaritan were long been known to make calf images since before Moses time!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fire-snake
Joined: 25 Jun 2007
Posts: 2184
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tom.. you are using exclamation mark too many.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reletomp
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 962
Location: usa
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Archaeologist are unable to bring proof that Tel Kazel is SMR mentioned in Tel Amarna or in Ramesses II.
Like I said it is a creation by the archaeologists to keep funding coming from the banks for their research.
Your statement is that Smyra is not related whatso ever is a big and strange claim not supported by any evidence whats o ever.
You bring me evidence that SMR of Akhnaton is not SMR of Samaria area north of Judea. You can not.
Hence since there is a place called SMR in Akhnaton time ( under his control inside Canaan) then this is it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cassandra
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 4495
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| reletomp wrote: |
Like I said you can not tel (SMR) if it is pronounced SUMUR or Smyra or Samura etc. You don't have a clue nor any body in the world wide have a clue if SMR in Bible and SMR in Akhnaton tablets are not the same place name!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the Smra phoenician city you are talking about does not exist it is hypothised that there might be another city SMR by archaelogists ( so they don't contradict the bible and loose their jobs at the U). Howevere there is no other city other than a ONE city.
Ramesses II also says of SMR of Rameses ( a city where he has a resort for himself) it could not be the supposed Phoenician SMR??? because simply it is too far for Ramsese II to be able to control phoenicia at that time especially he was about to be defeated by the Hittites in Kadesh (emessa city Homs city in Syria , the hypothised city of phoenician SMR is even north of Kadesh city ( definitely not in his hand)!!, especially that the Hittietes destroyed all ports on the eatern mediterranean coast as far as Philistia!
SMR of Ramesses II (1250 BC) is the same SMR of Akhnaton (1450 BC) is the same SMR attested in 1700 BC, it is the same area of Samaria of King Omri and it is the same place where the Samaritan who led the Israelites astray by making the Golden Calf!!
Also remember that the kingdom of Israel was cursed by God for worshipping the Calf image ( what a coincidence ) the Samaritan were long been known to make calf images since before Moses time!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
The Sumur of the Egyptians (i.e. Tuthmosis, Akhenaton and Ramesis) was the Sumur of the Phoenicians because the Egyptians conquered Phoenicia.
The Phoenician Sumur then became an Egyptian city. They are one and the same.
Only one man, Velikovsky, a total nutcase, believes Sumur was Samaria - and he had no evidence for this. All he made was a conjecture. This man Velikovsky was no archaeology or scientist - he was a crackpot.
Ramesis fought at Kadesh. Doesn't mean he didn't control that part of Syria. The Hittites came down from the north to conquer his Syrian province. You are erroneously thinking that Kadesh was the northernmost part of Rameses's empire. It was not. It was just the place in Amurru (i.e. the province that contained Sumur) that he fought the Hittites.
Don't you get it? Both Sumur and Kadesh were in the province of Amurru - which fell to the Hittites. Before the Hittites came, the province of Amurru, including Kadesh and Sumur, belonged to the Egyptians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cassandra
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 4495
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| reletomp wrote: |
Archaeologist are unable to bring proof that Tel Kazel is SMR mentioned in Tel Amarna or in Ramesses II.
Like I said it is a creation by the archaeologists to keep funding coming from the banks for their research.
Your statement is that Smyra is not related whatso ever is a big and strange claim not supported by any evidence whats o ever.
You bring me evidence that SMR of Akhnaton is not SMR of Samaria area north of Judea. You can not.
Hence since there is a place called SMR in Akhnaton time ( under his control inside Canaan) then this is it |
LOL. All Velikovsky did was to make a conjecture that SMR in the Amarna letters must be Sumur and hence Samaria. He had zero evidence to support Sumur = Samaria.
| Quote: |
At the Tell Kazel excavations, archaeologists are uncovering ancient tools and temples while putting together the pieces of the area’s historical and anthropological puzzle. Together they have confirmed that Tell Kazel is the site of the ancient city of Sumur—the capital of the Kingdom of Amuru. Tell Kazel, which is about 10 km north of the Lebanese border, is the location of an ancient kingdom that was ruled by the Amorite Dynasty (Bronze Age-Iron Age, fourteenth-twelfth centuries BC), which had close ties with the two largest powers of the period, the Egyptians and the Hittites. The excavation is led by AUB Museum Director Leila Badre and a team of two dozen archaeologists from AUB and abroad.
Tell Kazel is located in the Homs Gap, which once offered the only passage to traders from the sea seeking to get to the Syrian hinterland. It also overlooks the then-navigable Al-Abrash River. Given its propitious location, it should come as no surprise that many peoples have left their traces in Tell Kazel. The imported items found at the site testify to the inhabitants’ extensive connections to the outside world.
“The reason we chose this site for excavation was to locate the city of Sumur and fill in the historical/archaeological gap between the late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age at around 1200 BC,” explains Badre. Indeed, the AUB-led excavation team found the remains of three Bronze and Iron Age temples consecutively built over each other, dating back to the eras of the Sea Peoples, the Phoenicians, and the Greeks, respectively.
In addition to temple offerings, braseros (incense burners) have also been found at the site. The largest brasero was an exceptional size, measuring about 120 centimeters in height! “This is the tallest ever-known brasero,” says Badre. A number of other items, including plates, juglets, figurines, and luxury items, such as faience and necklaces were also discovered. Badre says that the first temple was very well preserved and produced the greatest number of archaeological finds.
The other major discovery was a residential area that revealed the signs of thoughtful urban planning, with orthogonal streets made of layers of ash and pebbles to drain the water vertically, thus sparing planners from installing horizontal drainage canals. “One building had something absolutely special and not found anywhere else in the Levant region,” notes Badre. “Its floors were paved with sea shells and the walls were encrusted in shells.”
All of these discoveries at Tell Kazel are important, she says: “We were able to trace the transition from the Bronze to the Iron Age. There has never been a discovery like this one on the Syrian-Lebanese coast.” The Tartous Museum, in the city’s former cathedral, is now home to an up-to-date display of the archaeological treasures that the AUB team has assembled. |
http://wwwlb.aub.edu.lb/~webmgate/spring2006/article6.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reletomp
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 962
Location: usa
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
there is a ruins of a phoenician city in Tel Kazel but it is not simyra, No evidence it is Smyra.
Again the Amurrites were in Palestine Canaan not in Phoenicia and they were not on the sea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Amurru is Amorrites, and SMR capital of Amuru is true that is Samaria north of Judea was the capital of Amorite kingdom in canaan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cassandra
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 4495
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| reletomp wrote: |
there is a ruins of a phoenician city in Tel Kazel but it is not simyra, No evidence it is Smyra.
Again the Amurrites were in Palestine Canaan not in Phoenicia and they were not on the sea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Amurru is Amorrites, and SMR capital of Amuru is true that is Samaria north of Judea was the capital of Amorite kingdom in canaan. |
The link I gave above says they have evidence Tel Kazel is Sumur. All you have is conjecture.
The land of Amurru had different capitals depending on the period. Mari, Hazor, Dumasqa and Sumur have been capitals of Amurru. There is not much doubt nowadays that Sumur is Tel Kazel. It's been excavated since 1985 by archaeologists from the American University of Beirut and the Royal Museum of History and Art (Belgium). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reletomp
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 962
Location: usa
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
what proof do they have that the city in tel kazel is sumur?
did they see a sign says welcome to sumur?
and what suddenly made the ammorites who lived in Canaan the lowlands around the dead sea become much to the north and sea and high mountains of Lebanon!
in the bible it says that omri built samaria city for the first time in his time.
this is not true since the excavations in samaria ruins revealed that the early pots are dated to 1000 bc 2 hundred years before omri!
Of course no body dares to say that the Masoretic bible is a bluff or they will loose their funding or jobs in academia!
It is in the bible itself but in Kings itself that a prophet 100 years before Omri talks about the cities of Samaria!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
how do you explain that????????????????
There is no expalanation other than the bible is messed upi with while the Quran is not, and the Quran reveals the alterations made on the original bible, and the story of the Samaritan at time of Moses is en tandem with archaeological evidence while the Masoretic bible is not , so the Masoretic bible should be cleansed from the additions of the rabbies!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rabbies like Ezra and Nehmia ( liars) not prophets imposters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cassandra
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 4495
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| reletomp wrote: |
what proof do they have that the city in tel kazel is sumur?
did they see a sign says welcome to sumur?
and what suddenly made the ammorites who lived in Canaan the lowlands around the dead sea become much to the north and sea and high mountains of Lebanon!
in the bible it says that omri built samaria city for the first time in his time.
this is not true since the excavations in samaria ruins revealed that the early pots are dated to 1000 bc 2 hundred years before omri!
Of course no body dares to say that the Masoretic bible is a bluff or they will loose their funding or jobs in academia!
It is in the bible itself but in Kings itself that a prophet 100 years before Omri talks about the cities of Samaria!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
how do you explain that????????????????
There is no expalanation other than the bible is messed upi with while the Quran is not, and the Quran reveals the alterations made on the original bible, and the story of the Samaritan at time of Moses is en tandem with archaeological evidence while the Masoretic bible is not , so the Masoretic bible should be cleansed from the additions of the rabbies!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rabbies like Ezra and Nehmia ( liars) not prophets imposters. |
What proof do you or Velikovsky have that Sumur was Samaria? None.
All old cities were built on older ones. So it is not surprising that Samaria lay on the foundation of earlier settlements. But to claim that these pottery is evidence that Samaria was older than Omri is ridiculous. Those older settlements were NOT called Samaria until Omri bought the hill from Samra.
I'd like to see evidence of these pre-Omrite pots.
Secondly, the context of the Amarna letters make it clear that Sumur must have been the Phoenician port of Simira.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=9wfO73QN6VcC&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=sumur+amarna+letters+context&source=web&ots=wWp4awQrUS&sig=2-0P0VgAoKdAQuXpGrO8M6Wj3Dk&hl=en |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reletomp
Joined: 05 Mar 2008
Posts: 962
Location: usa
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the ramesses ii chronicles report that ramesses had a resort palace in smr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Samaria indeed is a resort area, and there is a reserved national park in Israel in that area!!!!!!!!!
what kind a resort palace for ramesses in your Simyra?
on the sea? no sight seeing, near the hittites?
come on?
this is absurd.
Akhnaton could not had Simyra near Syrian Tartous in his hand either!
andf the correspondence with Akhnaton clearly mentions place names near Samaria ( of Omri) not very far to the north in Phoenicia heartland.
Phoenicia was never in the hands of egyptians, and the egyptian kings always sent missionaries to phoenician to BUY special wood from them!?
the last time phoenicia was in the hand of egyptians was 2500 BC a thousand years before Akhnaton!
it is impossible to figure out the pronunciation of a semitic word unless it was reported by other nations who used phoenetic letters ( like greeks etc).
so SMR in Akhnaton chronicles and SMR in Ramesses chronicles and SMR in Bible are one place (Samaria near Nablus city in the west bank) end of the story.
Samaria was known to be a hotbed for sorcery since ancient times ( well before the Israelites). In the bIble itself Samaria is mentioned before building samaria city by Omri.
If Samaria existed 100 before Omri built a new city called Samaria, then that is enough to confirm that Samaria existed before the Israelites ( How long the same area was named Samaria was known as Samaria we don't know) but most likely for thousands of years!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cassandra
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 4495
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| reletomp wrote: |
the ramesses ii chronicles report that ramesses had a resort palace in smr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Samaria indeed is a resort area, and there is a reserved national park in Israel in that area!!!!!!!!!
what kind a resort palace for ramesses in your Simyra?
on the sea? no sight seeing, near the hittites?
come on?
this is absurd. |
There is no evidence Rameses ever went to Sumur. You are making unsubstantiated claims.
The "Rameses II Chronicles"?
| reletomp wrote: |
Akhnaton could not had Simyra near Syrian Tartous in his hand either!
andf the correspondence with Akhnaton clearly mentions place names near Samaria ( of Omri) not very far to the north in Phoenicia heartland.
Phoenicia was never in the hands of egyptians, and the egyptian kings always sent missionaries to phoenician to BUY special wood from them!?
the last time phoenicia was in the hand of egyptians was 2500 BC a thousand years before Akhnaton! |
Don't be ridiculous.
| Quote: |
| The riches of the Phoenicians led Egypt to conquer their cities by 1500 BCE |
http://www.alshindagah.com/marapr2006/empire.html
In ~1350BC Akhenaton summoned Aziru, son of the Amurru chief to Egypt where he stayed for a year. Amurru (i.e. the Phoenician province) defected to the Hittites when Aziru returned from Egypt.
Before that Amurru was a vassal state of Egypt.
| reletomp wrote: |
it is impossible to figure out the pronunciation of a semitic word unless it was reported by other nations who used phoenetic letters ( like greeks etc).
so SMR in Akhnaton chronicles and SMR in Ramesses chronicles and SMR in Bible are one place (Samaria near Nablus city in the west bank) end of the story.
Samaria was known to be a hotbed for sorcery since ancient times ( well before the Israelites). In the bIble itself Samaria is mentioned before building samaria city by Omri. |
You presume the SMR in the Amarna letters was semitic - and hence Isrealite.
| reletomp wrote: |
| If Samaria existed 100 before Omri built a new city called Samaria, then that is enough to confirm that Samaria existed before the Israelites ( How long the same area was named Samaria was known as Samaria we don't know) but most likely for thousands of years!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
No. The land belonged to the Menasseh tribe - those pottery were probably the discards of the Menasseh nomads.
You assumed that just because there were pottery that there was a permanent city there. You have no evidence that there was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
