Monday, August 31, 2009

HYK-Coat-of-many-colors

Hyk-Coat-of-many-colors

 

Can "aAmw" be the same as "Hyksos"? In the tomb inscription of the nomarch, Khnumhotep, there are the foreign people are styled "aAmw" and are shown wearing their "coats of many colors". Their leader is called "Abisha", a Semitic name.

///

#1 Is the hieroglyph in the upper left of this image, the word you call "aAmw"?

#2 I was told the word meant foreign rulers. When I asked how they could all be rulers, this particular person changed their translation to foreign ruler and it being a reference to one particular person in the image.

#3 Show which hieroglyph is translated to Abisha?

#4 The party doing the writing were Egyptians (not any outsiders).

NO one has a clue of the multitude of names Egyptians had.

Using the definition of the word Semite to mean one who spoke one of the middle east languages, it would not identify any population but it would be a set that would include All who spoke a middle east language.

There is no such thing as a Semitic name, unless such names are recorded in other lands and are a match.

It was not any foreigners depicted in the image who gave their name.

Any name given was given by Egyptians and what Egyptians decided to call them.

Names given were words that usually had some kind of given meaning.

#5 These were Egyptian (not Semitic) names.

As for the coats of many colors, there are more myths connected to this image.

Myth = information spread with no evidence to verify it. It is the stuff much of Egyptology is made of.

One such story is the image with the different color coats did not exist at the beginning of the 1900s. "The striped clothing" was added after 1900"

The only way to verify such a myth would be to find a photograph of the image before 1900 or have scientist examine the paint.

The point here is not, if the image has been altered or not, but it is the question, are people willing to accept myths only when it fits their agenda?

===========================================

 
What is the reason to point out "the coats of many colors"?

Genesis 37:3  Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colors.

The reason to inject the information about the many color coats is an attempt to tie these people in with the Israelites in a bible account. These embellishers leave out the part that not all had such coats, but this was exclusive to one specific person, and in fact when his brothers saw Joseph's exclusive coat ... Genesis 37:4  And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.

#6 If this hieroglyph means foreign ruler, note they were called foreign rulers when they were only 'immigrants'

#7  This translation is supposed to mean foreign ruler? If this image is supposed to be that of the Israelites migrating to Egypt, they were a family of less than 80 people in the land of the Canaanites... less than 20 male adults who ruled the Canaanites?

#8  We are also told this is an image of the Israelites immigrating from Canaan. The theme of the surrounding images are that of herders/farmers. What part of the hieroglyph states these people were migrating from Canaan?

It appears that some 'researchers' neglect to look at all the images around this one particular segment. No stripped coats, but all dealing with animals/livestock... and for some reason the translations of the surrounding hieroglyphs are ignored ?

If the images do not appear here you might need to go to the album http://picasaweb.google.com/arabisraelites/HYKSOSTRANSCRIPT

 

~

zendz