A LETTER IS FOUND ASCRIBED TO EGYPTOLOGIST OSING.

THIS
LETTER/EPISTLE IS
AN ATTEPT TO REFUTE HARUN YAHYA AND OTHER SUCH PEOPLE
WHO THINK THAT
HAMAN IS FOUND IN ANCIENT EGYPTOLOGICAL INSCRIPTIONS.
WE HAVE SOME COMMENT AND REMARKS ON THIS
LETTER/EPISTLE.
WE DO THINK THAT ONE SHOULD THINK AGAIN .
Page 1
2009 www.samnsttut.de Page 1 Is the Ouran scentcay and
hstorcay proven a marve?
For over thrty years, s the cam that the Our'an text scentcay proven a
Marve s an mportant Musm
argument for the truth cams of Isam. Wth ths asserton s advertsed
ntensvey for Isam. In Musm
pubcatons now at east 200 dherent supposedy scentcay verabe
evdence the mracuous nature
of the Our'an sted. It has been researched to the foowng: The menton of a
person named Haman n the
story of Moses and Pharaoh n the Ouran (Cf. 28.6; 8.38; 29.39; 40.24 +36)
and the aeged dscovery of an ancent
Egyptan nscrpton wth hs- nem name ong before the advent of Isam by
many Musms as the most mportant
hstorca evdence for the truth of the Koran and Isam consdered.
OUR STAND POINTS ARE :-
1] IF SUCH A PERSON IS NOT FOUND BY THE SCIENCE OF
EGYPTOLOGY
IT DOES NOT MAKE A PROBLEM. QURANIC TRUTH CANNOT BE
DENIED IF EGYPTOLOGY
FAILETH TO VERIFY QUR'ANIC REPORT. IF BIOLOGY CANNOT
CONFIRM BIRTH OF
ADAM MAY PEACE OF GOD BE UPON HIM!! DOES IT MEAN
BOTH GENESIS AND QURAN
ARE FALSIFIED" SIMILARLY IF EGYPTOLOGY CANNOT PROVE
HA:MA:L IT MEANETH NOT THAT
HA:MA:N DID NOT E#ISTED IN THE TIME OF PHAROAH OF E#ODUS
$WHOSOEVER HE
MAY BE.
%] IS THEIR ANY HIEROGLOPHICAL EVIDENCE WHICH PROVETH
WITH HISTORICAL
CERTAINITY$ E#ODUS OR MOSE
DURING THE PERIOD OF ANY POSSIBLE CANDIDATE OF PHAROAH
OF E#ODUS."" IF THE ANSWER IS NOT IN AFFIRMATION THEN IT
IS INCORRECT TO
DENEY HA:MA:N &UST BECAUSE HIS E#ISTENCE IS NOT IN
HIEROGLOPHAL PICTURES OR O
OTHER SUCH ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCES .
'] IT MAY BE NOTED THAT TO ERASE THE MEMORIES LIKE
NOUNS$
PICTURES AND OTHER REMAINS WAS NA TYPE OF PUNISMENT
AND AN ASSULT TO
THE SPIRIT OF
A PERSON .SINCE TO LIVE AFTER DEATH$ IT WAS BELIEVED TO
SAVE SOME OF
THE MEMORIES. IT MIGHT BE THE CASE SOME SUCCEEDING
PHAROAH DESTROYED
ALL THE MEMORIES OF '' HA:MA:N'' FOR SOME OF HIS OWN
REASONS.
We pubsh to a press reease wth the most
mportant facts about ths sub|ect wth opnons three Egyptoogsts as we as
a etter from Prof. Dr. |rgen osng of
the Free Unversty Bern, who responds n deta to questons about ths
nscrpton.
No evdence of dvne reveaton of the Our'an n Egyptan nscrptons
Invadated wonder asserton of Egyptoogsts Venna,
1 November 2009. Past 15 years, s an ancent Egyptan doorpost n Venna
Kunsthstorsches Museum sub|ect of
a controversa regous-dogmatc debate. Some Musm apoogsts beeve, a
cear n ths post Proof of the dvne
orgn of ther hoy book, the Koran exst to have.
OUR STAND POINT IS SOME WHAT DIFFERENT. SUCH A
VERICATION FROM SCIENCE OF EGYPTOLOGY
MAY REGECT AN OB&ECTION. AL QURAN DOES NOT REQUIRE
EVEDENCES FROM EGYPTOLOGY.
DO GENISIS AND QURAN BOTH REQUIRE SUPPORT OF
BIOLOGY $WHICH SUPPORTETH
EVOLUTION"" BUT IF SOME ANTI EVOLUTION BIOLOGICAL
THEORIES ARE PROPOSED WE
WELCOME THEM. IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED THAT IF
HA:MA:N IS UNPROVED FROM
HIEROGLYPHICAL EVIDENCES ETC. IT DOETH NOT MEAN HA:M:AN
IS DISPROVED. HOW EVER
IF A NUMBER OF ANTI ISLAMIC OB&ECTION MAKERS ARE TRYING
TO EQUATE UNPROVE
AND DISPROVE A FALLACY!! SOME MUSLIMS MAY HAVE GONE
TO THIS E#TENT
IN A REACTION.
Herogyphcs specasts have now examned the nscrpton on
the post. The Resut s soberng:
NOT SO SOBERING. AS WE SHALL SEE.
The rec reveaed no metaphysca truths. Haman - ths mysterous name w
be 100
percent proof that the orgn the Koran s not a human. The hoy book of
Isam descrbes the person behnd the Name
of Haman as a cose condant or advsor to the pharaoh at tme of Prophet
Moses.
ONE MUST DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CONFIRMATION AND
VERIFICATION. IT APPEARETH TO BE A CASE OF VARIFICATION
RAITHER THEN EQUATING THEM.
In addton, the Egyptan ruer
Haman ordered t from a burnt brcks To bud budngs, pro|ectng up to God
n heaven.
As the French scentst Dr. Maurce Bucae n 1994 n hs book "Moses and
the Pharaoh: The Hebrews n Egypt
"camed that he had the person" Haman "n herogyphs can back up on a
door post, broke wth Musm apoogsts a
vertabe Wonder enthusasm for these names, whch contnues today.
NOT ALL MUSLIM APOLOGIST BUT SOME .
The professona desgnaton of Person from the nscrpton, "head of the
quarry workers",
a perfect match to the descrpton of the Koran, so Bucae. In addton, from
the herogyphs coud the cose
reatonshp between Pharaoh and Haman are derved. Bucae concudes:
The fact that such a person dd- many exsted, n proof of the hstorcay
correct detas of the Koran,
n contrast to the Bbe.
E#ISTENCE OF HA:MA:N DOETH NOT CONTRADICTS BOOKS OF
TANACH/TANAKH ARE
SCILENT
OVER THE E#ISTENCE OF HA:MA:N
SINCE BOOKS
OF TANACH/TANAKH ARE SCILENT THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION
AS ACCORDING TO
SUB&ECT OF LOGIC.
In the foowng years, numerous Musm preachers have Bucaes anayss
aufgegrf- fen.
For exampe, wrtes of the controversa Turksh wrter Harun Yahya n hs
Book "The Prophet Moses (as)": "The exstence
of the name Haman n ancent Egyptan Scros renforces the fact that the
Koran s the nfabe word of God.
YAHYA HARUN OR ANY ONE OF HIS SUPPORTERS IS REQUSTED
THAT MAY HE
HIMSELF RESPOND AS WELL.
The Ouran gves us here a wonderfu way a pece of hstorca nformaton,
whch one of the at tmes Prophet Muhammad never woud nd, or can tap
nto. "
Page 2
2009 www.samnsttut.de Page 2 But t s obvous that ths s a dvne
mrace?
ONE MAY ASK HARUN YAH:YA FOR HIS COMMENTS ON OSIN'S
LATTER AS WELL.
To answer ths queston, have
now examned the nscrpton on the door |amb experts. "Egyptan
herogyphs consst of consonant sounds.
The vocazaton s uncear, " expaned the Bern Egyptoogst Professor Dr.
|rgen osng. Thus coud even
n theory the name "Haman" are not saved n ths form, but at most a "Hmn".
"But on the post s not even the
name` Hmn, but `Hmn-h s" so Osng.
BUT THIS PROVETH NOT THE IMPOSSIBILITY.
Herogyphcs expert Professor Dr. Erhart Graefe, drector of the prestgous
Insttute for Egyptoogy and Coptc
Studes at the Westfsche Whems-Unverstt n Mnster expaned by
Vew the nscrpton:
"The endng s undoubtedy an abbrevaton, t goes from a smar Name out.
" Dr. Katharna Bauer from the web
Egyptoogca Insttute of the Unversty of Lepzg agrees: "The compete
name for the symbo s
Hemen-hetep.
Ths transates as, Hemen s satsed 'or' gracous', where Hemen s an
Egyptan dety. Egyptans often have ther Name composed so that t s a God
s nked wth an attrbute. "But Brdge buder goes even further: "On coser
nspecton corresponds to the 'H' of the name Haman ' from the Koran, not
the 'H' n herogyphs. It's a dherent sound. Later, these H-ute ndeed
merged n Coptc, but the phonoogy s today argey known. " Osng, the
"Nomna formaton of the Egyptan" n hs work the dherence between these
Lute has examned, expans: "At the tme, the door of the post s dated, was
one such Fuson s very rare. I am ony one case from ths perod s known. "
The queston of whether the |ob tte "head of the quarry workers" a cose
reatonshp suggests to Pharaoh denes brdge buder. The professona tte
"It s ndeed on the post, head of the stonemasons of Amun '. Probaby
Hemen-hetep was n a Tempe busy. From hs reatonshp to Pharaoh can not
be nferred. "Graefe's true Brdge buders to: "The rest of the text conssts of
the usua dead wshes. It s found nothng speca, whch suggests a cose
reatonshp to Pharaoh. " For the professona tte of Haman added osng: "It
s doubtfu that an Egyptan kng not about hs, head of a works of the kng
'wth the erecton of such a huge Shoud have commssoned the budng, but
a non-ndcated for brck and tte qua- ed, head of the quarry workers and
stonemasons'. In addton, the Our'an expressy Lch of heated or burnt brcks
of the queston. Documents for budngs of burnt brck At ths tme, however,
occupy ony a very sma proporton, n partcuar at Monumenta. " Prof.
Graefe's soberng concuson s: "In a these ob|ectons s an equaton wth
the Our'anc Haman tte more than nosy nonsense. " In the
Kunsthstorsches Museum n Venna was not known what sgncance the
artfact n the was ast 15 years. Mchaea Huettner, curator of the Egyptan
and Near Eastern Coecton of the Kunsthstorsches Museum n Venna,
responds to the queston of whether Bucae the doorposts ever cose has
been abe to nvestgate: "To my knowedge were the two Fragments of the
doorpost n decades not pubcy avaabe, but were ony n our depot. In our
records, there s nether a correspondence wth a Mr. Bucae st a statement
that he or another vstor ths artfact n the perod wanted to see from 1975
to 1995. We have n recent years about the unusua wondered nternatona
nterest n ths doorpost, but the rst request came about unt the year 2005.
"
P()* '. BUT IT CANNOT DISPROVE THE
POSSIBILITY SEE BELOW
SOME WHERE.
2009 www.samnsttut.de Page 3 Source: Museum of Fne Arts wth MVK
and TM, Venna. Used by permsson.
IT IS A VERY INCORRECT ARGUMENT. AS WE HAVE STATED
EARLIER IN AN OTHER
ARTICLE!!
DR PROFESSOR &URGEN MAY BE AN E#PERT OR EVEN AN
AUTHORITY IN THE
SCIENCE OF EGYPTOLOGY BUT WHEN HE COMES OUT FROM THE
DOMAIN OF
EGYPTOLOGY
HE IS NEITHER SO AUTHORATIVE NOR SO E#PERT. NO ONE DOES
CLAIM THAT
THE E#ACT WORD IS FOUND IN QUR'A:N. AT BEST /AT MOST IT IS
AN ARABITI+ED
FORM OF AN EGYPTIAN NOUN WHAT SO EVER.
EVIDENCE FROM NEW TESTAMENT. THE PROPER NOUN YASHUA'
IS NOT FOUND IN NEW TESTAMENT
/COVANENT IN ORIGINAL GREEK BUT IESOUS. NTG HAS
GREEKITI+ED THE HEBRAIC NOUN
OF YASHUA'.
WHAT SO EVER BE THE EGYPTIAN/EGYPTIC NOUN OF A PERSON
IT CAN ALWAYS BE
'ARABITI+ED. IT MAY ALSO BE RECALLED THAT BOTH NOUNS
&AMES AND &ACOB ARE TO VARIENTS OF
A SINGLE HEBRAIC NOUN. DID ANY ONE OF THE ANCIENT
HEBREWS EVER THOUGHT
THAT THAT THERE NOUNS WOULD BECOME &AMES IN SOME
CASES AND &ACOB IN
OTHER CASES. NOT CONSONENTAL DEPHTHONG ''''&'''' IN
ENGLISH DOES NOT E#IST IN
HEBREW$ GREEK AND LATIN.
A dvne mrace? These two fragments of a door |amb n the Venna
Kunsthstorsches Museum are many
Musm apoogsts as proof of the scentc provabe Accuracy of ther regon.
Experts dsagree. Raou
basement 1 1 E-ma address: raou-keer@web.de.
ONE SHOULD SEE THE ARGUMENTS OF THESE E#PERTS NOT
&UST A BLIND FAITH
IN THEIR DISAGGREMENT. A PROPER ANALYSIS OF THEIR
ATTEMTED ARGUMENT
IS THE DEMAND OF LOGIC $ SCIENCE OF LAW OF
ARGUMENTATION$ RATIONALITY
AND RESONABLITY. IS THAT NOT SO""""
Page 4
2009 www.samnsttut.de Page 4 Beow s a etter to the two fragments of
Prof. Dr. |. osng (retred) s
reproduced:
Prof. Dr. |rgen osng (retred) Egyptoogy Free Unversty of Bern Bern,
August 2009
Dear Srs,
the names on the two Egyptan doorposts are cear enough to read. They
appear specfy H mn-H as of Wresznsk
and tendr at the end of the two coumns of text. Whether for ths name yet
there s a ong form, n my opnon pays
n the comparson wth the Our'anc Haman a subordnate roe. Stands on the
door|amb of the name H mn-H - and
these sounds are consdered. Ths H mn-H s formed from the names of God H
mn and a non-secure certan Baren
eement wth the two consonants HW, whch n the New Kngdom, n
con|uncton wth the sgn of the papyrus as
a very frequent "group case" for the consonants h s needed.
1!!ONE MAY ACCEPT THE STATEMENT THAT THIS NOUN IS H: MN
- H: . IT MAY BE TRUE THAT
THE LAST PART OF THE NOUN H: IS QUESTIONABLE BUT NOT
DENIABLE.
BUT IN ARABITI+ATION THE COMPOSITE EGYPTIAN NOUN IS
CONSIDERED AS A SINGLE NOUN
DISREGARD OF ITS COMPOSITE NATURE. IN THIS CASE THE
FINAL CONSONENT MAY BE DROPPED
. THIS IS NOT UNIQUE WITH ARABIC.
SEE THE LATANI+ES FORM OF IBN SINA AND IBNURRUSH/ IBN
ARRUSHD BOTH
COMPOSITE. SEE IT YOURSELF.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE FINAL H: MAY BE DROPPED $SINCE IT WOULD HAVE BECOME
TOO UNARABIC$
AND A PROPER ARABITI+ATION REQUIRETH ITS DROPPING.
%!
If Ranke descrbes the name as H mn-H, t s the arbtrarness
Oueston mark to expan as t does, for exampe, the webste samc-
awareness.org (|uy 2009):
"As f Suggestng, H 'what not Actuay part of the name", and thus a
emnate. The nterpretaton of na h
s questonabe, but not ts exstence as Part of the name, the then st the
epthet
"wth true voce, |usted" for the bessed dead foows. Compared wth the
name of Arab Haman two
dscrepances arse: On the Arab sde of the mssng H at the end of the
name.
IT HATH BEEN STATED ABOVE THAT THE COMPOSITE NATURE OF
NOUN IS NEGLECTED
ITS THE POSSIBILITY CANNOT BE DENIED EVEN IF IT APPEARETH
TO BE IMPROBABLE.
THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST STRICT !! RULES FAR
ARBITI+ATION OF A NOUN.
IF SOME ONE CLAIMETH SO HE MUST STATE THESE RULES AND
LAWS RULES AND
LAWS OF ARBITI+ATION FROM AUTHENTIC AND THRUSTWORTHY
BOOKS.!! SO OF THE
FINAL H: IS DROPPED IN THE ARABIC FORM ,IT IS NOT
IMMPOSSIBLE.
1 The quaty of the rst h-Loud s dherent.
It s true that for the Egyptan 2 - In the neghborhood of m - a sound
transton h> h occasonay aready
for the 19th-21st Dynasty has been demonstrated. (See my "nomna form of
the Egyptan", Manz 1976 Pp. 367 f.)
Currenty, the new empre, however, on the door post s dated, were such
mergers rarey expressed.
Mr s |ust one exampe from the queston Known perod of tme. It s a
secondary artcuaton. I thnk t
s questonabe, such a secondary artcuaton |ust assgn a source from
whch Dvne authorty s assumed.
However, I thnk the varety of h-ute for subordnate, as a number of other
evdence aganst equatng speaks.
Accordng to the Our'an Haman s asked by the Pharaoh to a hgh of burnt
brck To bud budngs. It s noteworthy
that an Egyptan kng s not about hs "head have entrusted a the work of
the Kng "wth the erecton of such a
massve budng shoud, but a mnor "head of the quarry workers or masons."
The atter usuay had ony oca
sgncance and for a (probaby huge) Brck no quacatons.
NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM OF EGYPTOLOGY. WHAT DID
THE EGYPTIAN PHAROAH
DID IN THE PAST CANNOT BE KNOWN . IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT
IN HIS DESPIRATE ATTEMPT
HE MIGHT HAVE TALKED TO THE EGYPTOLOGICAL H:MN -H:.
BUT THERE IS NO RECORD OF EACH AND EVERY ACT OF THE
PHAROAH. WE NEED NOT TO DISCUSS
WHAT IS OUT OF THE DOMAIN OF EGYPTOLOGY AND
HIEROGLYPHICS AT PRESENT.
Page 5
2009 www.samnsttut.de Page 5 To burn Bauzegen shoud be noted that
n Egypt from Pharaonc tmes an
amost nnte number of budngs, monumenta and smaer, obtaned from
ar-dred brcks s. In addton, take
the onset of the 19th dynasty at a ste n the eastern Ne Deta, n the ate
perod then ncreasng evdence of
burned Bauzege ony a vanshngy sma ton part, especay n
monumenta budngs (see A| Spencer, Brck
Archtecture n Ancent Egypt. Warmnster 1979, passm).
For Lngustc I want to reterate that the name Haman
both n Arabc as n Hebrew s etymoogcay soated and ths aso
n any other Semtc anguage woud be, as there s
no root word * hmn st s such a word formaton types here.
HERE RESPECTABLE OSING HAS SHIFTED THE DOMAIN FROM
EGYPTOLOGY TO
ARABITI+ATION. THIS NEEDETH A SPECIAL DISCUSSION. AS AN
E#PERT OF EGYPTOLOGIST
ALL HIS STATEMENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED WITH IN THE LIMITS
OF EGYPTOLOGY.
BUT AS AN ALLEGED E#PERT ON ARABIC LANGUAGE AND
LAWS OF ARBITI+ATION AND PERSIANI+ATION HIS WORDS ARE
NOT AUTHORATIVE.
SO THIS IS SUFFICIENT TO POINT OUT THAT THE LEARD OSING IS
E#ITING FROM HIS
SUB&ECT TO TWO OTHER SUB&ECTS I.E ARABITI+ATION AND
PERSIANI+ATION OF
NON ARABIC AND NON PERSIAN NOUNS THROUGH THE PORTAL
OF FALLACY.
As Egyptan name was Haman at east very unusua
and htherto competey unknown.
OFCOURSE THIS IS CORRECT. SINCE HA:MA:N IS NOT AN
EGYPTIAN WORD $ AND
THE PERSON MUST NOT HAVE EVEN THOUGHT THAT HIS NAME
WOULD BE
ARABITI+ED AS
HA:MA:N.
CONSIDER THE E#AMPLE OF GREAT PROPHET MOSHE MAY
PEACE OF GOD BE
UPON HIM!!.
DID THE GREAT PROPHET MOSHE PEACE BE UPON HIM !!
EVER THOUGHT
THAT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE SHALL CHANGE HIS NOUN FROM
MOSHE TO MOSES.""
DID LORD YAHSUA' EVER THOUTH THAT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
WILL CHANGE HIS ORIGINAL
PROPER NOUN FROM YASHUA' TO &ESUS. WHERE Y SOUND OF
THE FIRST LETTER YOD
IS CHANGED TO CONSONENTAL DEPHTHONG ,,&,,$ THE UNVOICED
''SH'' SOUND IS CHANGED TO
VOICED ,,+,, SOUND. LORD YASHUA' MUST NOT HAVE EVER
THOUGHT '' THE WORD
&ESHUA SINCE THE ''&'' SOUND IS NOT PRESENT IN HEBREW$ AND
YOD IS NOT THIS
CONSONENTAL DEPHTHONG.
CAN WE SAY THE SAME WORDS TO GREAT GERMAN SCHOLAR
OSING THAT SIMILARTO
HIS OUN WORDS
-- AS HEBRAIC NOUN &ESUS$ IS NOT FOUND SINSE THE
CONSOENTAL DEPHTHONG
IS NOT FOUND IN HEBREW $ AND HEBRAIC HEBRAIC YOD IS NOT
''&''.
RESPECTABLE OSING MAY SEE THAT ARABITIS+ATION OF HIS
NOUN WOULD BE
&AR&IN 'USIN& OR USIN-&U & AS CONSONENTAL DEPHTHONG$ U
AS
AN ARABIC D:MMH!. PERHAPS THE FINAL & MAY ALSO BE
DELEATED. IT NOT IN PRESENT
ARABIC DIALECTS THEN ANCIENT ARABIC.
The name has another orgn towards (eg Od Persan Humayun "the Great",
see Kher-Baumgartner). Not ony because I was the Arabc Haman ntay
to the Persan Haman ern- nert, n the
book of Esther as Regent and Sea carrer of Xerxes and as an enemy of the
|ews s mentoned and s sad to have been
found due to ts ntrgue to an ngorous end. Ths Name n the Hebrew text
has exacty the same artcuaton on
how the Arabc form - at the Vowes not ess than the consonants (see Kher-
Baumgartner). The menton of such
a gure s mted to the scrptures of |udasm (and Chrstanty) and Isam.
NOW OUR LEARNED EGYPTOLOGIST S TRYING TO BE AN E#PERT
UPON PERSIAN AND ARABIC
AND ABRITI+ATION OF PERSIAN WORDS. THIS DOES REQUIRE A
SEPERATE DISCUSSION BUT
MAY ONE ASK THAT '' IS AN EGYPTOLOGIST IS ALSO AN E#PERT
UPON PERSIAN$HEBREW$ ARAMAIC ANF ARABIC.
ONCE AGAIN WE CONCLUDE THAT PERSIANI+ATION AND
ARABITI+ATION OF NON PERSIAN
AND NON ARABIC NOUNS IS A VERY DIFFERENT SUB&ECT AND
REQUIRETH A SEPERATE
DISCUSSION. OUR BELOVED EGYPTIOLOGIST IS ONCE AGAIN IS
TRANSPORTING FROM
FROM THE SCIENCE OF EGYPTOLOGY TO THE SUB&ECTS OF
ARABITI+TION AND
PERSIANI+ATION OF NOUNS RESPECTIVELY.
SO IT IS SUFFICIENT TO POINT OUT THAT TRANSPORTING
HIMSELF SCILENTLY
FROM ONE SUB&ECT TO AN OTHER . THIS IS A FALLACT AND
SHIFT OF SUB&ECTS.
ANY HOW ONE MAY THANK OSING FOR NOT DISCUSSING THE
INDIAN KING
'' HUMAYUN'' SON OF KING BA:BAR THE FOUNDER OF MUGHAL
DYNASTY IN INDIAN SUB
-CONTINENT .
TO DISCUSS THE BOOK OF ESTHER OF BIBLE IS ONCE AGAIN TO
MI# EGYPTOLOGY
WITH BOOK OF ESTHER. THE LEARNED EGYPTOLOIST SHOULD
NOT HAVE DONE THAT.
DID HE FIND ESTHER IN THE PERIOD OF PHAROAHS OF 1.TH AND
1/TH DYNASTIES.
""""" AS THE ARGUMENT IS NOT EGYPTOLOGICAL A PROPER
DISCUSSION
ON THE TOPIC IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PRESENT
COMMENS AND REMARKS.
The extent of matchng for the two persons named Haman sets m. E. a
concuson as to drect dependence cose.
THIS ALLEGED CONCLUSION IS CONTROVERSAL. BUT WHAT THIS
CONCLUSION HAS TO DO WITH
THE PAROAHS OF 1.TH AND 1/ DYNASTIES AND THEIR
HISTORY."" ONCE AGAIN AN CLEAR NON EGYPTOLOGIC
ARGUMENT.
The motf of a rsng skywards budng and hubrs, hereby the God of the
Israetes counter, coud be modeed on the
Tower of Babe.
THIS IS A MISSIONARY ARGUMENT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH EGYPTOLOGY.
ONE AGAIN THE GREAT EGYPTOLOGIST IS DRITING FROM
EGYPTOLOGY TO POLEMICS.
IS THAT A RESEARCH"""" WHAT THE PHAROAHIC EGYPTOLOGY
HAS TO DO WITH
BABEL. SUCH A SHIFT IS &UST IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT THE
EGYPTOLOGIST HAS
BECOME BABELIST/BABELOGIST$ AND A POLIMIST IN ADDITION .
In Mesopotama were such Zegezkkurat common. Accordng to Geness
11.3, the tower of Babe
was broken- enes and burnt brck but. Wth best regards |rgen osng.
IT APPEARS THAT JURGEN OSING IS NOT SO EGYPTOLOGIC IN HIS RESPONCE.
ANY HOW ONE MUST THANK OSING FOR CHAIRING HIS COMPOUND VIEWS
A QUESTION TO THOSE WHO DENEY HAMAN:
IF THE SCIENCE OF EGYTOLOGY FAILETH TO PROVE HA:MA:N $ IT
ALSO FAILETH
TO PROVE THE MIGHTY PROPHET OF GOD MOSES MAY THE
PEACE OF GOD BE UPON HIM.
!!. CAN MOSES BE DENIED ONLY BECAUSE HIS E#ISTENCE IS
NOT FOUND
EGYPTOLOGICALLY IN THE PERIOD OF ANY ONE OF THE
PHAROAHS.
NOTE: WE UPGRADE OUR ARTICLES BUT DO NOT DELEAT OLD
ONES FOR REFERENCES.
HOW EVER ONLY
THE RECIENT ONES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS OUR VIEWS.