posted
It was given in a link on the very first (and now buried and forgotten) page of AMR1's thread. Now copy and keep 'em on your own harddrive where you can reference them whenever needed.
And listen up, its NOT the so-called races of the world nor is it a table of nations. Its the Cattle of Ra eligible for Osirian Ressurection, i.e., people from the AE perspective living right next to them in the course of Sun Ra at sunrise, noon, and sunset. The Aegeans and other north Mediterraneans were left out. That's another reason why it's not an attempt at anthropology of the world but a sacred religious painting.
I prefer the word portal to gate but...you know. BOOK OF GATES 4:5 GATE OF TEKA HRA VIGNETTE 30 as in Valley of the Kings KV11 tomb of Rameses III 1. Condensations of KV8 & KV11 - repro Lepsius
2. Condensation of KV11 - after Lepsius
3. Rt, "Tjmhhw," "A3mw" - rearranged photo Hormung (Rt misidentified as a Nhhsw
4. Rt, "Tjmhhw," "A3mw" - photo Yurco (Rt misidentified as a Nhhsw
5. Rt Rmtw - photo 1994 Ampin
6. Rt - photo Dzikowski (misidentified as a Nhhsy
7. Rt & Nhhsy - photos Ampin 1994
8. Nhhsw - photo Ampin 1994
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Although Manu Ampim is wrong concerning Egyptian migration to other parts of Africa, he is correct when it comes to Egyptian culture itself and African features it contains.
The link above actually explains how the first black skinned man in the mural below is actually Egyptian and NOT 'Nubian' as many have claimed:
The actual hieroglyph in front of the man I believe reads ret na romé which "men of men" and is a prideful epithet the Egyptians used to describe themselves! (there are also many groups in Africa who describe themselves in the exact same terms)
For decades, Egyptologists were puzzeled at why a black man would be labeled as Egyptian. Some Egyptologists went so far as to say that it was a mistake made by the scribe!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[opening post timed out before I could finish editing it so editing job continues here]
BOOK OF GATES 4:5 GATE OF TEKA HRA VIGNETTE 30 as in Valley of the Kings KV11 tomb of Rameses III 1. Condensations of KV8 & KV11 - repro Lepsius 1859
2. Condensation of KV11 - after Lepsius 1913
3. "Tjmhhw," 'Rt' "A3mw" - rearranged photo Hornung 1990 (Rt misidentified as a Nhhsw
4. Rt, "Tjmhhw," "A3mw" - photo Yurco 1996 (Rt misidentified as a Nhhsw
5. Rt Rmtw - photo 1994 Ampin
6. Rt - photo Dzikowski (misidentified as a Nhhsy
7. Rt & Nhhsy - photos Ampin 1994
8. Nhhsw - photo Ampin 1994
Labeling of peoples follows that inscribed on the tomb wall. Misidentifications are by those credited for their photos.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I read the article by the professor about the misrepresentation of the depiction of the "Table of Nations" on Ramasees III: it is in truth the true depiction of the Egyptians themselves depicting themselves as Black-skinned people. I always wondered why these Eurocentrists never bothered to accurately portray this depiction ........... Shoot, I am surprised that they we EVER saw this picture...lol. I'm being sacastic, yet serious. It is funny how these people try to control the minds of people............Straight up, if it weren't for the UNESCO conference concerning Ancient Egypt in the 1970's, brainwashed persons like Amr would claim that the Ancient Egyptians were Caucasians! During that UNESCO conference, the Egyptologist who was the most adamant about claiming that the Ancient Egyptians were Caucasian was a modern Egyptian Egyptologist....... . What a surprise in what we are seeing with people like Amr...... . The point is that Diop and Obenga, the two TRUE African-minded Egyptologist present at the conference(there were a few Egyptian and Sudanese Egyptologist, but I guess they suffered from the lack of self-esteem that they may have really wanted to claim Egypt as Caucasian, or at least not Black). Diop and Obenga were so on point with their knowledge that there was a true imbalance within the discussions because the other Egyptologists did not take the time to prepare the painstaking preparation the way Diop and Obenga had(Diop was from Senegal, and Obenga was from Zaire). Hence, officially, because of that conference, where Obenga and Diop forced and pressed the issue, Egyptologists OFFICIALLY declared that Ancient Egyptians were not Caucasians! You can read about it in the (UNESCO)United Nations General History of Africa, either Vol. 1 or Vol. 2. It is funny that we had to fight for so OBVIOUS a truth.......what could be as assinine as believing the Ancient Eyptians to be Caucasians?
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Oh really? Have you heard of the Hamitic theory--extremely dark-skinned/black caucasians?! LOL
It was Eurocentrism's last trick. Now they try desperately to ignore the question of race when it comes to the Egyptians although there are some who try to argue a "mixed" or melting pot theory. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How convenient that trolls ignore this thread.
Come to think about it, when this was first posted it probably never tripped the trolls' race alert systems. (no obvious racial topic name / or implication in the topic name)
posted
I see the photos of the tomb and understand your point, but WHERE in those photos is the NAME of the people that we are calling, Rt, Nhsw or otherwise?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The names are written in the mdu ntr[hieroglyphs] underneath the figures in the Book of Gates.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
In the above photo of Valley of the Kings KV11 tomb of Rameses III (the controversial one), note the mdw ntjr between the leftmost figures are the alphabetic glyphs for * R (a mouth) and * T (a tow rope).
Between the two center figures is the triliteral stylized glyph for * RMT (man on one knee)
Between the two rightmost figures is the glyph determinitive for * humans/a people/etc.
Unseen but to the right of the righmost figure are three upright strokes signifying * many/plural/etc.
Putting them together gives us * rt RMT yw literally "man men" and best translated as "the best of humanity" but more commonly as "man of men" or "men of men."
In the below photo (same provenance) of Nhhsw we can only clearly see the first glyph of a bird representing the letter N of the word Nhhsw. Slightly legible are the * hh twisted cord glyph and * s a glyph that looks to us like a cane
Missing from the phots are the chick and three upright strokes for plurality.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I see the photos of the tomb and understand your point, but WHERE in those photos is the NAME of the people that we are calling, Rt, Nhsw or otherwise?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
why would Egyptians call themselves 'men of men'? Were they claiming to be superior to other men? and if so, isn't this some form of tribalism? Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Yes, the phrase 'Men of men' does indeed connote superiority which stems from Egyptian ethnocentrism. But all groups of people in the world are ethnocentric in one way or another, and it is very tiring to hear the term 'tribalism' applied to people groups of Africa!
The word 'tribalism' is in reference to tribal groups which are socio-political divisions of people governed by a chieftain and/or tribal elders. However, the vast majority of ethnic situations and conflicts in Africa have absolutely NOTHING to do with 'tribal' groups but involve actual ethnic groups-- entire peoples of a common genetic and/or cultural descent, or larger cultural groups-- 'Arabised' vs. non-Arabized etc. The term 'tribalism' is merely a hangover of racist European colonial terms. Ironically you never hear the word 'tribalism' used to describe ethnic conflicts in Asia in places like China or even in Europe itself in places like the Balkans, even though actual tribal groups still exist in those places even today!
Getting back to the phrase 'Men of men', yes it is indeed an ethnocentric term designating a superior people but non unique to the Egyptians or even other African people for that matter. Are you aware that the Dinka of southern Sudan also use the exact same phrase to describe themselves?!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herukhuti: why would Egyptians call themselves 'men of men'? Were they claiming to be superior to other men? and if so, isn't this some form of tribalism?
Many African have a similar ideology.
Even the notion of Bantu - is another way of saying people, people like us, real people, etc..
The Masai, for instance, have a saying that God created the Masai to tend over his cattle, and gave all the cattle in the world to the Masai.
It's clear from the Book of Gates the Km.t are saying they are the 'people of people' and that they are created by Heru [Horus son of Isis and Osirus].
The key point, [which apparently seldom ever gets thru] is:
THEY ALSO CONSIDER THE NEHESY THE children OF Heru.
Both the Aamu asiatics, and the Tamehu [libyans?] are called the children of Seth.
Thus there are two ethnic groups in this religous doctrine/folk ethnology: the blacks and the reds, and yes it refers to skin color, and yes it refers to ancestry and relatedness.
It's not biology, it's just a creation myth, but *it's what the Ancient Egyptians* actually thought.
This fact cannot be over emphasised.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The key point, [which apparently seldom ever gets thru] is:
THEY ALSO CONSIDER THE NEHESY THE children OF Heru.
Both the Aamu asiatics, and the Tamehu [libyans?] are called the children of Seth.
Thus there are two ethnic groups in this religous doctrine/folk ethnology: the blacks and the reds, and yes it refers to skin color, and yes it refers to ancestry and relatedness.
It's not biology, it's just a creation myth, but *it's what the Ancient Egyptians* actually thought.
This fact cannot be over emphasised.
^Yep, I completely forgot about that FACT of Egyptian religous belief. 'Nehesy', for those of you who don't know is the term Egyptians used for peoples to the south of them or what Westerners call 'Nubians'.
Egyptians and the various 'Nubians' are children of Heru (Horus) while Aamu and the 'white' Libyans are children of Set.
Yet I will disagree with Super and say that his little known fact almost NEVER gets mentioned in mainstream sources and is only acknowledged in the Book of Gates.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shoot Jehuti, I was gonna bring up the same thing about the Dinka. For sure, they certainly do refer to themselves as "men of men", or something like that. Also, Rasol, you are on point bruh! The Egyptians(people of Kemet) and Nubians and/or Kushites(people of Nehesy) were children of Heru............that is on point. Can you give us a direct source? Thanks. Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
So, the Ancient Egyptians generally thought *Africans/Blacks* to be superior (i.e children of Heru) and considered perhaps, Europeans and 'white-skinned' Asiatics as (at least spiritually) inferior (i.e. children of Seth).
Wow, correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I've gathered from this thread so far. The thing is I can really relate to that concept... also, could this be perhaps the original CAUSE to the global 'racism' we all have to (in some way or the other) endure? Has that Ancient Egyptian way of thinking unleashed a dastardly EFFECT?
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, a child of Set was NOT considered a sign of inferiority within Egypt. This only came about as a result of the Hyksos who ADOPTED Set as their own diety. Set worship is as old as Horus worship and in reality they are a duality on par with the concept of yin and yang. In other words, the power for good and evil in the universe being strong opposing forces that give rise to the ebb and flow of the universe (on a theological, ethical level). But originally Set was also a sign of Kingship as much as Horus was. Many of the "bad" aspects of Set worship trace back to historical events and theological changes within Kmt itself. To oversimplify this and make it a "racial" issue is absolute nonsense. The Egyptians looked down on ANYONE who was NON Egyptian as being inferior, black, white or in between.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually, a child of Set was NOT considered a sign of inferiority within Egypt. This only came about as a result of the Hyksos who ADOPTED Set as their own diety.
Yes this is correct. Set is originally as African a diety as Heru.
Also Europeans are not really involved in the book of gates. Just Africans Levantines and Libyans.
Europeans have no role at all *in any of this.*
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Now let me see, does this Egyptian have red hair?? If so, besides the oxidation process of mummies hair buried in the desert, could they have possibly worn red wigs or simply had red hair.
I thought that all the Egyptians cut their hair, but it appears that these Egyptians did not cut their hair, so it seems like it was natural or they possibly coloured it...
Need help on this...
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Yes most Egyptians wore wigs, even artifically colored ones that are red or blue.
Either the red hair is a wig or it is simply their own hair that was simply dyed. Many Egyptians especially if they had gray hair would dye stain it red with henna. There are many peoples today especially in the Horn who still practice this.
Also, other African groups like Nilo-Saharans would use ochre instead to dye their hair red.
Have you not seen the countless depictions of Nubians with 'red' hair??
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Israel: Shoot Jehuti, I was gonna bring up the same thing about the Dinka. For sure, they certainly do refer to themselves as "men of men", or something like that. Also, Rasol, you are on point bruh! The Egyptians(people of Kemet) and Nubians and/or Kushites(people of Nehesy) were children of Heru............that is on point. Can you give us a direct source? Thanks. Salaam
LOL Israel, the direct source was provided in the first few posts of this thread! This claim of Nile Valley folks being the children of Horus comes from a text called The Book of Gates.
quote:Originally posted by Herukhuti: this is interesting...
So, the Ancient Egyptians generally thought *Africans/Blacks* to be superior (i.e children of Heru) and considered perhaps, Europeans and 'white-skinned' Asiatics as (at least spiritually) inferior (i.e. children of Seth).
Wow, correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I've gathered from this thread so far. The thing is I can really relate to that concept... also, could this be perhaps the original CAUSE to the global 'racism' we all have to (in some way or the other) endure? Has that Ancient Egyptian way of thinking unleashed a dastardly EFFECT?
You are wrong on both counts. The Book of Gates in no way implies that the children of Set are spiritually inferior. However it does favor the children of Heru (Nile Valley folk) over the children of Set.
Also, ancient Egyptian ethnocentrism as absolutely NOTHING to do with modern/current global racism. That is mostly if not entirely due to Europeans!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
So then the word 'Set' or the english translation 'Sat' is the Egyptian deity, uncle of Heru/Horus brother of Isis & Osiris. To use the word Setan/Satan is referring directly to a people.
In a way doesn't it make the Set[an]'s inferior??
Those who follow the 'Sun/Son' of Osiris i.e. Ra; Heru/Horus would show a form superior???
I'm lost on this one or maybe I'm putting to much upon it.
Peace!~
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RU2religious: In a way doesn't it make the Set[an]'s inferior
Not from the perspective of people who worship Set, no.
Again as Doug pointed out - Set was originally a Km.t deity. Only in the new kingdom did he become associated with Aamu.
And, only after that is the oblique association between set and the Hebrew anti-deity, Satan.
As AlTakruri pointed out set is the original red devil, and the multi-faceted analogy between Set, Satan, and Deshr [red] and Deshrutu [red peoples], and finally between Aamu Asiatics and the worship of Set, stems from this.
But, it is distinct from the origins of Set.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Not from the perspective of people who worship Set, no.
Again as Doug pointed out - Set was originally a Km.t deity. Only in the new kingdom did he become associated with Aamu.
And, only after that is the oblique association between set and the Hebrew anti-deity, Satan.
As AlTakruri pointed out set is the original red devil, and the multi-faceted analogy between Set, Satan, and Deshr [red] and Deshrutu [red peoples], and finally between Aamu Asiatics and the worship of Set, stems from this.
But, it is distinct from the origins of Set.
It is also of note that in the original Hebrew scripture, Satan or the devil was not always evil but was once an angel or servant of the Lord. These early texts explain how he became jealous of mankind and thus brought about evil. I believe the original meaning of Satan was 'prosecutor' for he would prosecute mankind for their misgivings and is today known as the one who beguiles mankind into such acts.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A precision to some statements noted above regarding the Book of Gates.
Heru - unsure if this the Elder or Younger Heru
Red Community - they're under Sekhmet not Set
Europeans - totally absent from BG 4:5 vg30, the H3w Nbw were inelligible for Osirian Resurrection
Egyptian mythology/cosmology/spirituality is more than complex in comparison to the familiar mythos of the Greco-Romans and Nordics.
Thus the two Herus and possible interrelatedness of Set and Sekhmet bear looking into for further commentary and elucidation.
Northern Mediterraneans appear to be the only Euros known to the AEs. They weren't all necessarily what we call "white people." Depictions of Kftyw (Cretans) look very much like the Pwntyw (Punt) and the Hebrews even viewed the Plstyw ("Sea People" settled in "Palestine" to be related to the AE's. The Hebrew's Table of Nations -- Genesis chapter 10 -- says the Phillistines are sons of Misr (AE) who inhabited Kaphtor (Crete).
So let's speculate.
Who thinks Kftyw were elligible for Osirian Resurrection and why?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^very interesting. I'm really intrigued by these two deities heru & set. Some more info please... Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the original Hebrew there's no concept of any "devil" at all in the least.
HaSatan is an agent of HaShem (deity of the 4 letter name) serving as a prosecuting attorney.
The "devil" and the evil haSatan are Christian add ons to the original Hebrew theology just as the Greek Scriptures were tacked on to the purposely mistranslated Hebrew Scriptures when the Christians introduced their Holy Bible.
For the Hebrews there simply was no being/entity foolish enough to believe it could challenge the authority of HaShem the Author of all that we'd deem either "good" or "evil."
However, all the angels, not just haSatan alone, are jealous of humanity because per Hebrew belief humanity has the potential to surpass the angels and attain to deity by exercising "free will" (a quality angels don't have).
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Not from the perspective of people who worship Set, no.
Again as Doug pointed out - Set was originally a Km.t deity. Only in the new kingdom did he become associated with Aamu.
And, only after that is the oblique association between set and the Hebrew anti-deity, Satan.
As AlTakruri pointed out set is the original red devil, and the multi-faceted analogy between Set, Satan, and Deshr [red] and Deshrutu [red peoples], and finally between Aamu Asiatics and the worship of Set, stems from this.
But, it is distinct from the origins of Set.
It is also of note that in the original Hebrew scripture, Satan or the devil was not always evil but was once an angel or servant of the Lord. These early texts explain how he became jealous of mankind and thus brought about evil. I believe the original meaning of Satan was 'prosecutor' for he would prosecute mankind for their misgivings and is today known as the one who beguiles mankind into such acts.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Of course Takruri. Thanks for the further elaboration on that.
quote:Originally posted by Set: ^^very interesting. I'm really intrigued by these two deities heru & set. Some more info please...
In ancient Egyptian myth, Setu was the brother and rival of Ausar (Osiris). The tale may very well reflect the tensions between pastoralists and agriculturalists as Set and Ausar represented those two traditions respectively. To make a long story short, Set murdered his brother Ausar who was later resurrected (a trait marked by pratically all male agricultural deities). Ausar presided over the underworld but he left a son, Heru (Horus) in the world of the living by his wife Aset (Isis). Thus began the conflict between Heru and his uncle Setu. This conflict may also reflect rivalry between the cults of these two gods in Lower Egypt, although both cults originated from Upper Egypt.
In the end, Heru came out victorious and ended up becoming King of Egypt. From then on, the living king was represented by Heru and the dead king by Ausar.
Although, the above information should go herePosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Well in that case you should know that there were 2 gods called 'Heru'. There was a 'Heru the Elder' who was a creator god of Upper Egypt who was sometimes said to be the brother of Ausar and Setu, and there was a 'Heru the Younger' who was the son of Ausar and Aset.
The two are no doubt related in some way, and it should also be known that there were probably more 'Heru' gods as 'Heru' is used synonymously with falcon deities.
As for Set an Sekhmet, I don't see how they are directly related. Sekhmet is a lioness goddess while Set is a god represented by an unknown animal that is linked with the desert.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great thread makes alot of since i think it was Whatbox who asked why the egyptians called themselves Man of Men its actually like calling your self a Human like in arabic Anas but it is more closer to the Kushitic people of Southern Arabia and Ethiopia who called themselves Sabians or Seb men people of people humans i always knew the ancient egyptians considered themselves to be black and even from the painting i understood what they were trying to tell us that they were black and proud.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
HaSatan means "Accuser".............Takruri, good info. I would beg to differ, however. There are theologians who say that there was no "devil" or whatever, but I disagree cause in Jewish tradition, HaSatan was no friend of the Israelites for sure...............Once, a professor tried to tell me that there was no concept of "evil spirit" in the Hebrew scriptures, but if you study the text, of course there is! It is how you interpret the text. I am impressed, nonetheless, with your knowledge about HaSatan and Hashem........Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
Anything's possible I guess. (Although that is at the limits)
quote:Originally posted by Israeli American: HaSatan means "Accuser".............Takruri, good info. I would beg to differ, however. There are theologians who say that there was no "devil" or whatever, but I disagree cause in Jewish tradition, HaSatan was no friend of the Israelites for sure...[b]
well I've read that satan meant "enemy" "the adversary" and now "the accuser".
I just looked it up, I knew a much better source on "satan", but it went something like this:
The word for Satan in the Old Testament Hebrew was ha-satan which meant "The adversary." In the Old Testament, Andrew Collins tells us that [b]"this term is used exclusively to describe either the enemies of God or the enemies of the Israelite race in general. Never is the Devil referred to as the evil one. Not until the advent of the New Testament...does the term ha-satan take on the all important role. At this point, Satan becomes an angel fallen from grace and expelled from heaven" (1).
But, Satan was cast out into the earth (Revelation 12:9)
so, satan or hasatan or whatev was used in refference to Lucifer sometimes, so...
posted
I understand what your saying Takruri, but, for instance, the book of Job. It mentions that the sons of God(from "beni Elohim".....something like that....my Hebrew is rusty........I can look it up though and be very accurate, right now I working off the top of my head), and that Satan came also to present himself before God............
Now come on Takruri, it appears obvious that HaSatan(meaning "The Accuser, Adversary", etc.) is a PERSONALITY! Also, if you read further into the text, he doesn't appear to be a NICE or JUST personality. He destroyed the life of Job. Hence, from that text alone, we can see that this PERSONALITY is not the Jehovah(Yahweh.....whatever) Elohim. He is obviously something else. Mostly likely, he is a spirit being that works against human beings, would you agree? Also, who were the sons of Elohim????????????? They too are, most likely, spritual beings. Some say they are angels. Let the reader discern for him/herself!
Consequently, HaSatan is not just a word. It is very much a PERSONALITY! From my readings, the text does not say "A SATAN" came before God, etc. It says "Satan came before the Lord", etc. I believe that according to Hebrew rules, a noun by itself is definite. Hence, "Satan" is a definite noun, meaning a personality. Look at the title "HaSatan". Translated, it means "The Satan". The definite article signifies a NOUN. Hence, a personality. Hence, it is theologically coherent to say that HaSatan is a evil personality in God's universe.........
Other examples of Satan within the Biblical text(O.T.) includes Zecharai chapter 3. Also, I believe in II Samuel and/or I Chronicles, Satan tempted King David..................Read these THREE scriptures and then tell me you don't discern in the Old Testament an understanding concerning the PERSONALITY of HaSatan.
Nonetheless, alot of scholars have written in your favor Takruri. But just because they did doesn't mean that they are correct. Salaam
Posts: 826 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the Story of Job Shatan comes from roaming around Gods EArth and God tells him has he seen Job and that God was real pleased with Him but shatan says give me a few minutes with Job i will have him cursing your name but God tells Shatan go ahead test him but dont kill him. This is already wierd for me it seems as if Shatan is Gods Agent. Than Shatan goes on his destroying path and destroys Jobs life kills his children and his animals destroys his house. But JOb never stop praising God i hope Job gets his own palace in heaven for all that. Israel then if u say Shatan is a Personality without Flesh then u would need to explain alot about this character.
I had a thread about this before remember What box when i showed the similarities between Judasim Christianity and the Kemetic Mystery System Horus is Jesus the same person.
-------------------- Hikuptah Al-Masri Posts: 526 | From: Aswan Egypt | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
HaSatan isn't in any rebellion. He does precisely what he was made to do.
Don't confuse the later Christian theology with the original Hebrew theology. They are distinct modes of thought and worship.
Christianity borrowed heavily from the Judaean way of life going as far as to co-opt the Hebrew scriptures into their Holy Bible which Jews do not recognize as a valid presentation of the Hebrew.
The Hebrew's deity is the Author of both good and evil, each playing its role in the test of free will appointed to humanity.
PS - if we continue this, let the next reply be in a new thread with an appropriate identifying subject
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
........... Shoot, I am surprised that they we EVER saw this picture...lol. I'm being sacastic, yet serious. It is funny how these people try to control the minds of people............Straight up, if it weren't for the UNESCO conference concerning Ancient Egypt in the 1970's, brainwashed persons like Amr would claim that the Ancient Egyptians were Caucasians! During that UNESCO conference, the Egyptologist who was the most adamant about claiming that the Ancient Egyptians were Caucasian was a modern Egyptian Egyptologist....... 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic