Saturday, August 1, 2009



After a person offering text from ancient Egypt in their assertion that the Hyksos ruled Egypt, I looked at the text and displayed by their own text, the Egyptians wrote that their Egyptian King ruled lower and upper Egypt.


Ahmose son of Ebana, - autobiography

Ahmose "I grew up in the town of Nekheb, my father being a soldier of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt...


* There may have been --> Foreign rulers who raided northern Egypt. They may have been rulers where they came from, but they were NEVER identified as Egyptian rulers.

* There IS text that the Egyptians were in great conflicts and some of their enemy are identified.

* NEVER IN ANY HIEROGLYPHIC CONTEXT, is any information about any cities that the Hyksos ruled.. BUT

* There is actual hieroglyphic information that specifically states there was an Egyptian king ruling over southern and northern Egypt (upper/lower)


So after I show them by the very text they presented, it that text reveals an Egyptian was ruler of ALL Egypt, here is their tactic:


Response: "Could the claim that an 'Egyptian' ruled northern Egypt (I assume you mean the father of ahmose) not simply be a political ploy? - like the king of England declaring himself king of Ireland or Scotland in an attempt to take control, or take back control (depending upon viewpoint) of a territory?


These people pride themselves on being scholars, Egyptologist duh, let me see how this works:

They use the text OF the Egyptians as evidence that the Hyksos ruled (when there is no specific text of that statement)


When the Egyptian text specifically does prove that an Egyptian king ruled the north and the south.. all of Egypt...


It is the musical truth where Egyptians are giving actual facts... when it serves their purpose and when the words of the Egyptians expose their myth, it was because the Egyptians were lying !!!


Scholars/Egyptologist use the text all the time to make their case or they use it when it fits their purpose and call it a lie when that text proves them wrong?

* If you will take text in which there is no way to ever cross examine the writers.

* If you are going to present that text as truth, then all of it is truth.

* If you see the reports of any one about an event that took place 100 years before they were born, it can be nothing but hearsay.

* If any one repeats hearsay and the original text had never been seen by any living man, that hearsay is nothing other than a myth.. (like Robin Hood or Sir Lancelot, any myth could be true, but it could just as easy be a concoction)

* Scientist, Archeologist to not present figments of their imagination/myth as some thing that actually happened.

* ONLY witnesses that were present IN THE TIME events were taking place, recorded those events and those original text exist, it is only those writers that could possibly have the story straight.

"Scholars, archeologist, Egyptologist.. " any one who blabs these titles and plays musical truth, do earn a Dr degree.. Drs of BS.


Ahmose "I grew up in the town of Nekheb, my father being a soldier of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt... So if Amose was lying about an Egyptian king ruling all of Egypt, flush ALL of the words of Ahmose and don't use it to pretend to have some ancient truths.

The King in the context is of course an Egyptian king, who ruled all of Egypt by the words of Ahmose.