Egypt is the origin of Christianity, Judaism & Islam

[The Telcontarion]

YOUR 'FACTS' ARE COMPLETELY FULL OF BUNK

Was this neccesary, To explain your point of view?!! What of your hogwash comment.

That is rude in my book.

[Elfhelm]

Yeah, this thread is gonna get locked, I can just hear those keys jingling.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Actually Telcontarion, as I have studied Egyptology, the first thing I did was read the site. It was a waste of my time, which explains the first comment I made on this thread. But (and I'm sorry, but this is not a personal attack, but an observation) your willful ignorance, and the outrageous and incorrect postulations on that site needed to be addressed. I'm sorry that you can't handle my blunt manner of debate. ::shrug:: As far as your 'typo' goes, fine, but in any case, neither one of those historical figures (either Nefertari or Nefertiti) went by "Maryam", so my point still stands as made in my second post on this thread. Furthermore, "Maryam"/Mary is likely sourced from the Aramaic-root which means "bitter" - completely opposite to the meanings of Ramesses (R-ms-sw - he who is born of Re/Re bore him), Nefertari, and Nefertiti (both names derived from things of beauty). AND BOTH EGYPTIAN NAMES not 'made up' names like you attempted to argue. I think you're just being pissy because I've clearly proven you wrong. ::shrug::

Further to the timeline, how is that point not relevant? You postulate that Moses and Ramesses II are the same person, yet there is a vista of historical and archaeological evidence that places them in two different eras. Moses likely existed concurrently with the Second Intermediate Period (the Hyksos 'invasion' which lasted until Dynasty 17 of the Middle Kingdom), and Ramesses II didn't come along until Dynasty 19. I would think that that is a very valid point to make in this 'debate', and I use that loosely, because I've yet to see you make a single valid point in this thread.

If you can't back up your arguments, and continue to dance around the issue, then as far as I am concerned, all you ARE doing is trolling. Now why don't you simply stick to debating, post up some actual arguments instead of dancing around, and we'll actually get somewhere?

Now, can you please explain how the removing the vowels from fictional characters such as Elendil makes it somehow implied that Tolkien was drawing from Egyptian sources when he created Elendil's name for instance?

(and thanks Elfhelm - it's dirty work, but someone's gotta do it.)

When did I say that it was irrelevant, you need to read my reply again or is this just more selective memory.

You speak as as if this is fact, egyptilogy is highly specaulative; admittedly so by the egyptologists themselves.

So this is the preblem, we have been having. Your constantly dismissing the info and attacking me instead of saying;

Well I don't believe that because from my experience such and such...why do you say that, why do you agree.

That's why the audio is attached, because I was the caller from brooklyn NY that day and those where my points; the reason I believe or was convinced. I would have told you that and would have moved on from there awhile back. And get your reactions to the audio and then move on from there instead we waste time talking about nefertiti and the like.

[The Telcontarion]

You said she said yadayadayda.....

Whatever...I posted my replies and you guys seem to think people can't read. It is there for everyone to read.

Now lets debate with out the name calling. You can talk about timelines if you want, but start out by saying, I am a total loon and that "my" info is bunkers then, this is not going to last long.

Now here is Alsadawi's Point of view, the key to it is that he believes to understand an ancient culture you most understand it's spoken language. In this he had a great advantage, he was a native born egyptian:

*the truth is settled

*

Foreword

I have to express my deep gratitude and appreciation to all great and highly respected Egyptologists and Egyptian Hieroglyphic linguists who spent immense sincere efforts trying to decipher the most arduous and complex written language in history of mankind. A script that was born at immemorial bygone eras then continued for long thousands of years and discontinued for more than 17 centuries since year 390AD. I have also to admit that without their honest and dedicated work my theory would have not been setup or born. I believe that those great savants are real dedicated Egypt lovers. If there is any scientific critique, review or correction to work of those great savants, anywhere in this document, then that does not mean at all any intention to degrade, disrespect those great folk or to mislay or omit their important and essential historical works. It is quite normal that there should be some mistakes at the beginning then sciences develop and enhance with elapse of time. Certainly Young, Champollion and many others made great efforts to decipher Hieroglyphs. In my opinion, their Great break-through historical discovery is that they told us that those Egyptian Hieroglyphs are components of well-integrated language. Since that time Great Egyptologists tried to build up strong bases for this extremely compound language.

On the other hand, if some modern Egyptologists or Linguists insist to deny or ignore the new proved discoveries and correct modifications regarding the Ancient Egyptian Language and their consequences and cling to the older fundamental mistakes then they will surely lose their merit and* professional respect within most of scientific and popular media. Consequently, they will extremely harm the great accomplishments of the early generation of great Egyptologists.

*

Acknowledgment

*

I wish also to express my deep gratitude and appreciation to many of my well respected friends and great savants, who supported my striving efforts to realize this book and make it available to peoples all over the world, not only for this time, but may be, for times to come. Of that eminent crew I have the honor to mention:

Christine Van-Heertum, Ritva Kurittu, Hosneya Farid, Amani Amin, Magda Shebaita, Andrew Bayuk, Avry Wilson, Jack Dean, Joseph Davidovits, Peter Vanderzwet, Done Barone, Bill Meek, Nicholas Armstrong, Chris Sangwin, Joel Laird, Terance Pete, Adam Zayed, Ahmad Al-Garallah, Ahmad El-Barbari, Hassan M. Hassan, Ibrahim Guda And likewise many other friends, Egypt lovers and Egyptians.

*

Preface

When I first published my book "Introduction to New and True Hieroglyphs" in year 1999, I wrote in its preface that I expect a colliding reaction from Egyptian peoples. However, I haven't imagined that such response would be so dense and immense. For more than 1700 years, Egyptians have been taught that their Grand Ancient Egyptian Forefathers were tyrants, oppressors, infidels, pagans and polytheists. Now my book comes to say:

[ No ] .. to all these unjust accusations

*

When I started my renewed research work about true Egyptian Hieroglyphs in 1992, it was a pure scientific drilling in linguistic data. I have never expected to end in jostling with religious creeds. However, I was overtaken that 90% of AE writings are related to ancient religious creeds, which, to my great surprise, relate to nearly all current heavenly doctrines. Therefore, I decided to continue my work taking into consideration that I should treat these texts, apart from the religions, as a substance of historical document that should be investigated from lingual and historical points of view.*

When I mastered reading Hieroglyphs truly, to a reasonable extent, I realized that Christianity was not born in year 1 AD as we have learned. In fact it was reborn at that date, and it was really born thousands of years BC, as I have read in AE scripts, which you will read in this book.

The same holds good for Islam. Islam was only reborn in year 571 AD. It was really born thousands of years before The Christ. Once more, the same holds good for the Hebrew religion. David was again reborn round year 1000 BC. David, Jesus and Mohamad, all of them, were reported, quite clearly, in Ancient Egyptian mural and papyrus documents. This you, dear reader, will be able to read in this book. AE religion contained all these beliefs. It happened that each group of peoples adopted what they believed that it is right. The problem is that each tribe wants all other tribes to believe as they do, even if by force!! This is extremely illogic. Neither all peoples like to eat apples, nor do others like to eat oranges! Why doesn't man believe what he likes to believe without interference from others? I think that this is a real problem of mankind.

The real start of my research work was in year 1966. I was a cadet in the Military Technical College, MTC, of Cairo when I visited my father in Aswan who was Vice Minister of Egyptian Education Authority for South Egypt. In front of one mural text, a friendly American tourist kindly asked me: could you read this Hieroglyphic text? I said, No! He said again, what a pity, your ancestor forefather is leaving a message to you on this wall, which is surely very important, and you are not able to read it!

In fact, this was a strong motive for me to start reading Egyptian Hieroglyphs. I attended some local classes in Cairo that teach Hieroglyphs at that time, together with my extensive self-study. After few years, I tried again to read some Hieroglyphic texts, but I perfectly failed! I said to myself, surely there is something wrong. After sometime, I noticed that there is no L letter in Old Kingdom, either in names of dynastic Kings or in normal transliterated Egyptian Hieroglyphic words. Not one word! I thought this is illogic! I asked some of my archeological friends, where is L letter in OK. They answered insistently; there was no L sound* in Ok. Only it appeared in NK, given by sign:

*

*The recumbent lion [E23]

I realized afterwards that this is also a big mistake. The true phonetic value of the recumbent lion is (rb), not L. It is a bilateral phone but not 'phoneme'. It is also classified by professional Egyptologists and linguists under [r] section! This means, simply, that apparently* there was no L sound* in all Ancient Egyptian epochs, which is again illogic, because the Ancient Egyptian L phoneme was clearly transferred to Hebrew, Greek, Coptic, Arabic and even English languages by the very same sound and grapheme!

At once, I started searching for this lost L symbol. In year 1992 I discovered it. It is the AE rope Hieroglyphic symbol:

*[V13] = L

Hereford, I discovered that at least 7 Hieroglyphic signs have a sound root of L! This was a real foundation on which my whole theory of true Hieroglyphs was built. By more study, I discovered more 5 fundamental mistakes made by Champollion. When I rectified it, the real picture started to appear gradually. With passing of time, elements of my theory were born.

In this book, I'm trying to explain elements of my new theory of true Hieroglyphs in brief. I know that it will be so hard to conceive it at first sight, but I'm sure that it will be recognized step by step.

This book should be as four times in volume as it is here, but for some reasons I decided to part it into successive volumes. Therefore, I hope that I'll be able to continue with coming volumes in near future, or as we say, insha2allah!

Finally, I apologize for any inconvenience if there is any.

*

Ossama Alsaadawi - Alexandria - Egypt

May 9th, 2000AD

*

Introduction

*

Fundamental Elements of Alsaadawi's Theory on True Hieroglyphs

In brief: this theory is composed of 14 main elements, headlines of which are:

I - Phonetic correction of wrongly deciphered basic Egyptian Hieroglyphs. *

II. Classifying mono-phone Egyptian Hieroglyphs into one Phoneme Table.

III. Classifying all other Egyptian Hieroglyphic graphemes that have 'bilateral' phonetic values into one basic, or multiple Bilateral Tables.

IV. Introducing concept of motorizing letters, to the first time in History, discovered by Ossama Alsaadawi. *

V. Detection of real "general conceptions", and meanings of different Hieroglyphs.

VI. Using basic Hieroglyphs as integrated whole words.

VII. Using Hieroglyphs as phonetic values in composing different Egyptian words and expressions, in independence to their general conceptions or meanings!

VIII. Negation and forbidding signs, and calling signs in AE language.

IX. Creating a dictionary and vocabulary of radical AE short-handed Hieroglyphic expressions with its real meanings.

X. Proving the firm stability of Oral Egyptian language along whole wide Egyptian history, starting from pre-dynastic times and up to now.

XI. Explaining the True Ancient Egyptian Grammar of Hieroglyphs.

XII. Detection of the real names of the Ancient Egyptian divine characters know wrongly as the Egyptian gods and goddesses!

XIII. Deciphering the real names of Ancient Egyptian Kings by correct deciphering of all Egyptian Cartouches.

XIV. Deciphering mural and papyrus pictures, which compose an essential integrated complement to Hieroglyphic texts.


One Example in brief:

*X:* Egyptian language has not changed, phonetically and orally, since far pre-dynastic times and up to now

Studying current slang Egyptian language may help much in better understanding of Hieroglyphs. Nearly, all AE expressions and names are still alive in Egypt.

Egyptian language is a unique international language. In fact, it is the mother source of many other languages. Arabic is one of them. This uniqueness of the Ancient Egyptian language came from the fact that it is based mainly on bilateral phonetic values, which is the natural and instinctive utterance of words spoken by mankind!

*

Stable Hieroglyphs:

Now let us read the following quote in page 33 of the well known book of "Nicolas Grimal",

"A History of Ancient Egypt":

"Egyptian Hieroglyphs were generally reserved for inscriptions carved on slabs of stone or, more frequently,

*incised and painted on walls. The basic forms did not change at all from the earliest inscriptions

to those in temples of the Roman period"

1. If we examine carefully Hieroglyphs used in composing names of pre dynastic Kings and Kings of 1st dynasty, given in Budge Dictionary Vol. II page 917, and Hieroglyphs written in Narmer Palettes, then follow them along the long path of AE dynastic periods, one can easily deduce that these Hieroglyphs have not changed, a bit, either phonetically or by meaning, along a time period of more than 3000 years. For example:

[G5], the falcon, was not changed.
[Y5], "men" sign, was not changed.
[S33], the sandal, was not changed.
[S1], the white crown, was not changed.
[S3], the red crown, was not changed.
[F31], "ms" sign, was not changed.
[U6], the hoe, was not changed.
[N5], "Ra" sign, was not changed.
[O40] , the stairway, was not changed.
[N35], water ripple, was not changed.
[D43], arm holding flagellum, was not changed.

Likewise, I can count hundreds of such Hieroglyphs that were not changed, a bit!


2. Some words taken from Egyptian Hieroglyphic dictionaries prove definitely that the Egyptian spoken language has not changed:

[The Telcontarion]

Since you keep harping on it as if it is the bible, here is something you did not mention beardypants and eflhelm.

You should be familiar with the roseta stone. It is what modern egyptologists have based the dicyphering of the glyphs on. However, the major problem with that is, the stone is a grave stone. Imagine decyphering english from grave stones, with the irregular used words and grammar so as to sound high and regal in the discriptions of the dead; it could not, be done.

Below is further evidence from an actual egyptologists:

The following is an abstract from a lengthy message posted by Avry Wilson on Guardian BB:

By Avry on Monday, December 20, 1999 - 11:26 pm:

Hi all,

> Champollion did not discover the cartouche/name relationship. It was hypothesized by A.Kister in the 16th century, and Champollion drew on this source.

The method employed by him was furtherance of what Young first implemented. The method is extremely flawed. There are many examples to prove this, but I'll begin with just a few:

First of all, let's assume that the cartouche idiom is correct. By finding corresponding cartouches in the upper portion and equating them through approximate position within the texts to the lower Greek "Ptolemy" and "Cleopatra", he cross-referenced the phonetic sound of the Greek into each individual glyph within the cartouches. But what he found was that the cartouche for "Ptolemy" had more glyphs than the letters/phones in the Greek name. This leaves "blank" phones in the hieroglyphs. The same with "Cleopatra". But instead of assuming that the hieroglyphs would have separate phones of their own (meaning the Egyptian phones do not match the Greek), he immediately proposed that what was written in the cartouche for "Ptolemy" was the Greek pronunciation-> "Ptolemais".

He was comparing a Greek name to a Greek name, not allowing the hieroglyphs to assume a phone indigenous to Egyptian. Furthermore, he was "making" it fit, instead of letting play out it's own.

Right off the bat he should have noted that the phone per glyph transition did not align, and should have tried a different approach. HE DID NOT. He continued with the same premise, using "Cleopatra" as a follow up. (He did not get "Cleopatra" from the RS, he got it from the Banke(sp?) Obelisk. Even there, the cartouche does not match the Greek through the individual number of components. There were "left-over's", and instead of thinking the transition was wrong, he equated them as being some sort of determinative; therefore the creation of the component). This compounds the error right from the beginning. As this continues, it gets worse and worse, because of the literary foundation. This is why even today the work is confusing and unable to decipher unknown glyphs, and why known glyphs continue to be interpreted differently.

His singular "letter to letter" cross-referencing must assume a continuation. In other words, if you begin that way, you have to continue the same way. You follow the code. If it doesn't work, you need to try a different code. He didn't <


"kgbltco7595079675&^RFIU&R&%&*)%^(O^ (L".
"Hello. The sky blue termite foot splash".

This is not a joke. It's exactly what he does

Avry

Hello!!!!

[The Telcontarion]

As to your comments about this guy being a crack pot, well here is his bio:

Egypt has always been the land of everlasting ancient mysterious tales, adventures and revelations. Here is a story of one wonderful, amazing and exciting unique Egyptian discovery. Many great men from all-over the world departed, along extended centuries, to land of Egypt and made great archaeological findings that enlightened and guided the peoples of our earthy globe to a glorious ancient civilization called the Ancient Egyptian Civilization. However, with all those immense findings no one could uncover the real readings and translations of the vast and extensive Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic texts like those of the Pyramid Texts, Palermo Stone, Rosetta Stone, Papyrus Texts, Mural texts, Shrine Texts, Coffin Texts, Obelisk Texts, etc. There were many faithful trials and dedicated efforts to read and translate the Egyptian hieroglyphs but, unfortunately, most of them went astray and led the peoples to extremely false stories about the Ancient Egyptian Civilization and Ancient Egyptian History!

Our man was born in the Alexandria town of Egypt. Being attentive since he was a child in the kindergarten he raised up quickly through higher levels of education. At the preparatory school he was fond of writing names of his friends in Egyptian hieroglyphs in light of traditional theory of Champollion. He continued to learn hieroglyphs as a hobby since then, but only with simple short signs.

In year 1966, when he was a junior cadet in the Military Technical College MTC of Cairo he visited his father in Aswan who was Vice Minister of Egyptian Education Authority for South Egypt. Then while roving through the Egyptian monuments and in front of one mural hieroglyphic text, he tried hard to read it and know what it really tells, but he absolutely failed!

Since that time, Ossama Alsaadawi gained a strong motive and persisting urge to start reading Egyptian Hieroglyphs. He attended some official and popular local classes in Cairo that teach Hieroglyphs at that time, together with his extensive self-study. After few years, he tried once more to read some Hieroglyphic texts, but he perfectly failed again! He said to himself, surely there is something wrong, * I'm not so obtuse *.

From his freehand written personal notes that lie in more than 40 big notebooks each of 150 papers we extracted the tale of this discovery. In year 1991 he decided to restart a new fresh research work based on real scientific principles. He collected a lot of Hieroglyphic cartouches and started reading them in light of traditional theory of Champollion and trying to vocalize utterances of their names then writing down the corresponding hieroglyphs in some comparison tables together with the phoneme's table. After sometime he noticed that those names do not include any of two very important Egyptian phonemes which are, (L) and (Z) phonations. When he returned back to table Champollion he never found them! It was a real finding by which he was very amazed and impressed. At once he started searching for them. It was relatively easy for him to find the lost (L) grapheme because it looks like the letter (L) in some modern language lines like English, Hebrew and Arabic languages. All of them include the letter (L) depicted nearly the same way as the Egyptian (L) 'rope' grapheme [V13] . In year 1992 he declared this important finding on one local TV show, but it was not enough to make him read hieroglyphic texts correctly, meanwhile the people were not attentive to what he was saying!

Continuing with his sustained and persisting research work he soon uncovered the second lost (Z) phoneme, and found that it is the zigzag 'lizard' grapheme [I9], known in traditional Egyptology as the 'horned viper' under 'reptiles' group, and which was wrongly deciphered to phoneme (f). Replacing the correct (L) and (Z) phonemes in some Egyptian hieroglyphic words and performing dense lingual comparisons he discovered the third fundamental mistake. He correctly re-deciphered the square 'orfice' grapheme [Q3] to read truly as (F) phoneme, while Champollion wrongly deciphered it to (p)! Wonderfully, there is NO sound (p) in all kinds of local Egyptian dialects and speeches!

Starting from year 1994, Ossama Alsaadawi began to read 'correctly' some simple Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic words, but he was strongly astounded when he realized that those words vocalize exactly like some modern spoken Egyptian words. He whispered to himself: 'who on planet Earth will believe me if I told them'?!

But he continued. In short while, he deciphered correctly two more basic phonemes, which are the (y) and the (th) phonemes depicted by the hieroglyphic signs [N23] and [Z2A]. Then he read more Egyptian words correctly. Then in year 1995 he went outside the limited phoneme group to the wide complex phonetic group of hieroglyphs which is composed of nearly 1000 basic hieroglyphic graphemes. The new correctly deciphered phonemes enabled Ossama Alsaadawi to correctly deciphering great number of vague and mysterious Egyptian Hieroglyphs that were wrongly read in traditional Egyptology. In 1996 he succeeded to decipher correctly many hieroglyphs of the complex group .

In 1997 the Ancient Egyptian Language opened widely its doors to Ossama Alsaadawi

In 1998 he started building the concrete bases of his historical lingual theory , and on April first of 1999 he declared his theory worldwide and started dense online lingual discussions with savants from allover the world. He posted hundreds of messages on the web and performed hundreds of debates. He designed and published three websites on the Net and published locally many books and notes about the Ancient Egyptian Language and introduced tens of lectures allover Egypt.

Ossama Alsaadawi says that he should express his deep respect, gratitude and appreciation to all great and highly respected Egyptologists and Egyptian Hieroglyphic linguists who spent immense sincere efforts trying to decipher the most arduous and complex written language in history of mankind. A script that was born at immemorial bygone eras then continued for long thousands of years and discontinued for more than 17 centuries since year 390AD. He bravely admitted that without the dedicated works of those honest scientists his theory would have not been setup or born. He also believes that those great savants are real loyal Egypt lovers.

[Elfhelm]

Here is a de-bunking from four years ago by J. D de Greef

All,
I have long hesitated before posting this, since I don’t want to be involved in yet another fight, writing this was a lot of work (4 hours !) and I’m sure at the end of the day I’ll look like the bad guy again. But I have to react to what has been posted here. This is supposed to be a Bulletin Board about Egyptology, not a place for a type of fundamentalist propaganda by someone who is shocked in his beliefs by what the classical and well established translation of Ancient Egyptian (AE) texts reveals about his ancestors. I don’ believe creationist nonsense would be welcome on a scientific discussion board about genetics and Evolution, nor postings by the Flat Earth Society on an astronomical BB (except on April 1st).
How were hieroglyphs deciphered ?
-the impetus was given by the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, with an easily readable text in Greek, and two unreadable texts, one in hieroglyphs, the other in what we now know to be Demotic. Even before CHAMPOLLION’s time, researchers such as AKERBLAD and YOUNG had found groups of signs in the two Egyptian texts, located in the same relative positions as personal names (Ptolemy, Berenice…) in the Greek text. This meant that the three texts said the same thing, that the Greek text was a translation of the Egyptian versions.
-CHAMPOLLION was finally able to decipher hieroglyphs, and thanks to his knowledge of Coptic, he quickly produced a grammar and vocabulary.
-from this moment on, scholars proceeded defining increasing numbers of Egyptian words, using the following techniques :
*defining the root of words, thanks to the fact that Egyptian texts often add “phonetic complements”, signs expressing simple sounds and used to make the reading of a more complex sign easier. Happily for us, during the Greek and Roman periods the phonetic complements were used to write foreign names (Ptolemy, Cleopatra, Caesar..), so that it was easy to find out their phonetic value (p-t-w-l-m-s-k-r…). Thus an isolated nefer-sign is useless, but when you find an example accompanied by n + f + r (known from the above), you can then define the root : nfr. Since no vowels are written, you don’t know how nfr was actually pronounced, but this doesn’t prevent you from translating texts where it occurs nfr=f ra, “His beauty (is) Re”… You carefully write your reference down.
*looking for hieroglyphs labelling an object : you find a goose in an offering list, accompanied by a group of signs, then you see the same goose in a country scene, etc., labelled with the same signs, so you have the name of that particular kind of goose. You carefully write your references down.
*for some words defined and recorded this way, you find parallels in Coptic, more rarely in Hebrew, Arabic, some African languages... These help you confirm the meanings assigned to the words, and actually give you the pronunciation of the word in a certain place (there are several Coptic dialects) and at a certain period (Coptic reflects a pronunciation from 200 AD and later). You carefully write your reference down.
-at the end of the day (or of a century of work) you end up with a huge file cabinet, filled with Egyptian words and the references where they have been found occurring. You then make an outline of your work, and this is called the Wörterbuch der Ägyptischen Sprache, produced by the great scholars Adolf ERMAN & Hermann GRAPOW. If you use the data there :
*on the original text of the Rosetta Stone, you confirm that the Egyptian texts say the same thing as the Greek version, as was already expected before the signs were deciphered
*on a list of items written on a limestone shard, you see that the translation corresponds with what you expected : an accountancy list ; on a text from a temple wall, you see that it’s a hymn or a label of the ritual scene shown, etc. etc. etc. I.e., the hieroglyphic texts as you translate them are related with the scenes they accompany.
*religious data from the deciphered texts parallel what the Greco-Roman authors told us about Egypt. For example, Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride is very precious to anyone trying to understand the cryptic and isolated allusions to the Osiris myth in the Pyramid Texts.
If you look at the thousands of texts translated over the years, you also notice that the language and grammar change with time : the Pyramid Texts differ from the classical Middle Egyptian texts, and the Neo-Egyptian texts are again different. I suppose Demotic is again different, and when the Demotic way of writing Ancient Egyptian yields to Coptic, between 200-500 AD, the language is again different (I hope Louise will be able to confirm this, as my specialty is more the Archaic Period). Three different signs used in older writings to note what we transcribe as dj (D), d and t tend to be pronounced “t” in Coptic. If these three signs D, d and t had been the same sound, one probably wouldn’t have needed three different phonetic complements to express them ! Or a word swr, “to drink” in Middle Egyptian, becomes swj in Neo-Egyptian. One also notices that in the Pyramid Texts, the folded cloth and the door lock (which we read as s and z) are not interchangeable : zmA, “to unite” is written with the door lock, smA, “sacrificial bull” is written with an s. But even here, a confusion between the two becomes apparent in very few words (the hill of zHzH, variant : the hill of sHsH). This shows that the two signs were close, as are s and z. In Middle Egyptian, the signs can interchange, for example both –s and –z can be used for the feminine pronoun 3d person singular.
From the above, it becomes apparent that the actual pronunciation of AE words only played a comparatively small role in the decipherment of hieroglyphs. From a mention in an Egyptian text and the case of Coptic with its several dialects, pronunciation varied with one’s location and period. This is also obvious when one looks at other languages in the world : local variations are extant even at this period of mass communication. And no language stays the same forever. Pronunciation changes, roots are more stable, and their stability helped the decipherment of hieroglyphic texts spanning a range of 3600 years. Whether ptH was pronounced Ptah or Phtah isn’t really important, as long as we can identify the god’s name. Ptah and Phtah are also within the range of local dialect variation, as shown by the words ps and fs “to cook”.
Now here comes Ossama ALSAADAWI, who is shocked by the fact that, once translated, hieroglyphic texts show his ancestors to have been infidels and polytheists. As one already knew from the classical Greco-Roman authors BTW. He neglects this, as he neglects the easily readable Coptic texts, to state that AE language was the same as that presently spoken in Egypt : read a Coptic text to modern Egyptians, and they won’t understand it –unless they have specifically learned it, of course-. Ossama also neglects the fact that hieroglyphs omit the vowels, that what is written jmn could be pronounced (j)Amon or Amun (the j is a weak consonant, easily dropped), as shown by the Greek version Ammon, or Amen- in preserved names, or the Kushite Amana, etc. If we step back a bit, then we see (variants of) a language spoken from Morocco to Iraq and the Arabian peninsula : Arabic ; and a recently extinct language, Coptic, only attested in Egypt, from about 200 AD. We also know from historical sources that Muslim Arabs invaded the whole Near East and North Africa, Spain etc. Logically, then, they spread Arabic, which in Egypt is seen quickly replacing Coptic. Coptic survived as a liturgic language until fairly recently. But, from the above, Coptic clearly derives from Ancient Egyptian, of which it represents the late forms. That some Coptic words have remained in the Arabic now spoken in Egypt is something which I didn’t know before reading Ossama’s postings a few years ago, and I find this very moving, that somehow AE culture hasn’t completely died out. For this I’m grateful, but I find it sad that, because of religious preconceptions, Ossama has completely distorted the theoretical base of what could have been a great scholarly work : to show the ancient words imbedded in Egyptian Arabic, and to try and trace their origins and possible shifts in meaning etc. For example, if Hanna really derives from the Coptic, what was the corresponding AE word ? If there’s no known word with the meaning of the modern “Hanna”, why is this ? (For example, isn’t Hanna the Hebrew Hannah, introduced in Coptic religion through the Bible ?). All this wouldn’t be a mean task, as we don’t have the pronunciation of most AE words. But what Ossama does is : he takes an AE word, for example Hnn ; among the attested meanings, he doesn’t find one corresponding with the modern Hanna, which he absolutely wants to find in AE. So he calls the Wörterbuch translations wrong, and henceforth translates Hnn with the meaning of the name Hanna. Oriented choice after oriented choice, a new vocabulary is established. And what happens the very rare times when we are actually shown a translated text ? Everything sounds like Biblical and Coranic quotes, whatever the context of the inscription, whether it accompanies a scene of tilling the fields or is found in an accountancy document. And, of course, an inscription such as the Rosetta Stone now has three inscriptions stating different things, not three versions of the same text. And the link between the classical authors and AE religion is lost, etc.
I’m not saying that there’s nothing more to discover on AE language, that everything that has been published is right, but the thousands of referenced, “proven” meanings of words produced by almost 200 years of lexicological research are there and must be taken into account. Hundreds, maybe thousands of people in the world read AE texts, the text are coherent, they correspond with the context and with what people who have known the Egyptians when they were still writing in their language reported about them. Ossama may find some followers among people who his work comforts in their anachronistic religious beliefs or in their nationalism, or among “naïve” people who haven’t done the effort to learn hieroglyphs and who are unable to judge. But I honestly can’t see anybody with a basic knowledge of the subject agreeing with these naïve theories.
In short :
-the traditional reading and translation of hieroglyphs is the result of careful lexicological work, each entry being proven by quotations.
-the texts as we know them from these translations are in agreement with what external sources told us about Egypt during Antiquity, or with bilingual texts (Rosetta and Philae decrees ; Egypto-Hittite treaty…). Ossama’s translations aren’t.
-the texts are coherent with the contexts where they are found. Ossama’s translations aren’t.
-the Arabic spoken in modern Egypt is not the same as the language revealed by the 2-16th century AD Coptic texts. Translating AE as if it were the Arabic now spoken in Egypt is nonsense. Demonstrating the presence of surviving Coptic (and thus AE) words in modern Egyptian Arabic on the other hand is an interesting field of work, and such a work would be applauded by everybody.

JD

[Elfhelm]

Which supports what I said yesterday.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Look, this guy wants to make it seem like Islam existed before Judaism. Isn't that obvious? The truth is that Islam owes a debt to Judaism. But they hate Israel so much that they want to rewrite history so that it all came from Egypt. And you're buying it.

Well, whatever. There's no arguing with faith-based "truth".

And that's it. I hope this helps supports your case, BoP.

[The Telcontarion]

Which supports what I said yesterday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfhelm
Look, this guy wants to make it seem like Islam existed before Judaism. Isn't that obvious? The truth is that Islam owes a debt to Judaism. But they hate Israel so much that they want to rewrite history so that it all came from Egypt. And you're buying it.

Well, whatever. There's no arguing with faith-based "truth".


And that's it. I hope this helps supports your case, BoP.

It supports what you said yesterday, why because you say so. Above you can see what he said about the competing religions clearly.

What I posted about the rosetta stone refutes that, vigorously. Infact you are very clever because this same thing is a part of the forums on alsadawis site. In that debate the overwhelming contention was that he was right, so what you are doing here is simply taking things out of context.

[The Telcontarion]

This is supposed to be a Bulletin Board about Egyptology, not a place for a type of fundamentalist propaganda by someone who is shocked in his beliefs by what the classical and well established translation of Ancient Egyptian (AE) texts reveals about his ancestors.

he is talking about alsadawi, why even post my own references. If you knew anything you wouldn't need to do this, you really think I would not notice this.


lol

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

http://www.filelodge.com/files/hdd7/...iInterview.mp3

Listen to this audio link above before you reply!!!

Or check out his website at:

http://www.ossama-alsaadawi.com/_private/Opinions.htm

(edited to replace with link from below)

As you see in topic, I firmly believe Egypt is the origin of christianity and the kings of egypt are the famous names from the bible eg. Aaron, moses, Noah and Abraham was the founding king of egypt; the were not pagans at all, the were the first Monotheist. Jesus was Osiris!!!

Ossama Alsaadawi is the person you quoted in the first post on this thread. Now you deny it? Good grief. What are you playing at?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Ossama Alsaadawi is the person you quoted in the first post on this thread. Now you deny it? Good grief. What are you playing at?

You know full well what I mean. I mentioned before that there are forums on his site where he debates other egyptologists; what you posted is excerpt of it, taken out of context.

Where is your independent information of this issue besides what I have posted. Did, or did you not get this from the forum I am talking about or do I have to post the link here!!!!! What, your trying to be clever, play word games with a writer is a dangerous profession my friend, as you should well know by now.(please try not to insult my intelligence further)

[The Telcontarion]

You still have not responded to my PM!!

[Elfhelm]

This time I will bold some things, because I know you didn't read it because you replied too fast.

Now here comes Ossama ALSAADAWI, who is shocked by the fact that, once translated, hieroglyphic texts show his ancestors to have been infidels and polytheists. As one already knew from the classical Greco-Roman authors BTW. He neglects this, as he neglects the easily readable Coptic texts, to state that AE language was the same as that presently spoken in Egypt : read a Coptic text to modern Egyptians, and they won’t understand it –unless they have specifically learned it, of course-. Ossama also neglects the fact that hieroglyphs omit the vowels, that what is written jmn could be pronounced (j)Amon or Amun (the j is a weak consonant, easily dropped), as shown by the Greek version Ammon, or Amen- in preserved names, or the Kushite Amana, etc. If we step back a bit, then we see (variants of) a language spoken from Morocco to Iraq and the Arabian peninsula : Arabic ; and a recently extinct language, Coptic, only attested in Egypt, from about 200 AD. We also know from historical sources that Muslim Arabs invaded the whole Near East and North Africa, Spain etc. Logically, then, they spread Arabic, which in Egypt is seen quickly replacing Coptic. Coptic survived as a liturgic language until fairly recently. But, from the above, Coptic clearly derives from Ancient Egyptian, of which it represents the late forms. That some Coptic words have remained in the Arabic now spoken in Egypt is something which I didn’t know before reading Ossama’s postings a few years ago, and I find this very moving, that somehow AE culture hasn’t completely died out. For this I’m grateful, but I find it sad that, because of religious preconceptions, Ossama has completely distorted the theoretical base of what could have been a great scholarly work : to show the ancient words imbedded in Egyptian Arabic, and to try and trace their origins and possible shifts in meaning etc. For example, if Hanna really derives from the Coptic, what was the corresponding AE word ? If there’s no known word with the meaning of the modern “Hanna”, why is this ? (For example, isn’t Hanna the Hebrew Hannah, introduced in Coptic religion through the Bible ?). All this wouldn’t be a mean task, as we don’t have the pronunciation of most AE words. But what Ossama does is : he takes an AE word, for example Hnn ; among the attested meanings, he doesn’t find one corresponding with the modern Hanna, which he absolutely wants to find in AE. So he calls the Wörterbuch translations wrong, and henceforth translates Hnn with the meaning of the name Hanna. Oriented choice after oriented choice, a new vocabulary is established. And what happens the very rare times when we are actually shown a translated text ? Everything sounds like Biblical and Coranic quotes, whatever the context of the inscription, whether it accompanies a scene of tilling the fields or is found in an accountancy document. And, of course, an inscription such as the Rosetta Stone now has three inscriptions stating different things, not three versions of the same text. And the link between the classical authors and AE religion is lost, etc.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

...play word games with a writer is a dangerous profession my friend...

I didn't play any word games. Where were you published?

[Elfhelm]

Here is a link to some of de Greef's own work. This is what I call scholarly.
http://www.catchpenny.org/thoth/3arch.htm

[Earniel]

Firstly, while I have an interest in ancient history I'm pretty much an amateur and truth be told much of this linguistic talk is over my head, so I'm going about it nice and simple.

So Telcontarion, if I read that article right, between the many exclamation marks, this Alsaadawi fellow, a self-taught hieroglyph-reader, couldn't read hieroglyphs the traditional way and ergo decided the traditional way was wrong. Not only was it wrong, but he himself also has found the 'true' way of reading hieroglyphs. The question that I find myself asking then is: what have egyptologists have been reading all those years, ever since Champollion? This better not be another conspiracy.

Elfhelm, thanks for digging up that article by de Greef, it's always interesting to hear from the opposite party. I didn't get everything but what I did get was interesting. Maybe I should show this to my bigsis who's in the field and probably can explain to me, using small words.

And lastly, a friendly word from your moderator: We all like debate but there be rules to follow and they'll be enforced. Attack arguments, not people. That goes for everyone.

[The Telcontarion]

because I know you didn't read it because you replied too fast.

Funny I said the same thing when you replied with your post.

So, let me get this straight. You had no original information on the subject yet you have been refuiting me, all this time.

Saying how ridiculous my claims (as if they where) where, yet you had no refernce at all for all that you were saying?

You had to go to the forums I indicated to get something, what would you have done to back up your claims if I had not mentioned the forum.

Poor poor you.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Firstly, while I have an interest in ancient history I'm pretty much an amateur and truth be told much of this linguistic talk is over my head, so I'm going about it nice and simple.

So Telcontarion, if I read that article right, between the many exclamation marks, this Alsaadawi fellow, a self-taught hieroglyph-reader, couldn't read hieroglyphs the traditional way and ergo decided the traditional way was wrong. Not only was it wrong, but he himself also has found the 'true' way of reading hieroglyphs. The question that I find myself asking then is: what have egyptologists have been reading all those years, ever since Champollion? This better not be another conspiracy.

Elfhelm, thanks for digging up that article by de Greef, it's always interesting to hear from the opposite party. I didn't get everything but what I did get was interesting. Maybe I should show this to my bigsis who's in the field and probably can explain to me, using small words.

And lastly, a friendly word from your moderator: We all like debate but there be rules to follow and they'll be enforced. Attack arguments, not people. That goes for everyone.

I posted the issue about the roestta stone, which you apparently did not read, you should. because if you did you would have learned that there has always been problems reading the glyphs using the established academic method by champollion.

What you said sounded like a play on words again, or you miss read so I will clearify. He did not make up anything. When you say he said he "couldn't read hieroglyphs the traditional way" he was recounting how he discovered the problem that all egyptologists have, when deciphereing the glyphs using said technique. It wasn't just him. I thought honestly that this was clear, especially with all the other things I have posted.

It was his quest to find out a more sure and definate way of translation that lead him to his discoveries. Quite simple.

I appreciate the comments and guidance from the moderators very, very much as well. Well appreciated and thank you.

[The Telcontarion]

At last real debate!!!!