I think the sea peoples make sense as Greeks (perhaps as often stated also Anatolians, Sardinians etc). It's the same era when upstart/new-coming Greek tribes (Dorians etc) expel or subdue the Myceneans, some of which, being maritime, should have moved towards piracy and perhaps migrated eastwards. Names seem to connect well and until then the Myceneans had contacts with, or dominance over, coastal regions all around Greece. Then some settle in southern coastal Canaan as the Peleset/Philistines, giving the name Palestine. But haven't looked deeply, not behind the mainstream.
Just though of the Peleset as the Pelasgians, pre-Greek population of Greece and surroundings, who also survived in isolated regions until much later.
Some more material, that could fit with the next post:
On German vs Khazar Ashkenazi hypothesis: Sarmatians (which could as well be Scythians, for sure related) were settled by the Romans as border troops (even as far as Britain). The German front was one of the most active, I guess some Sarmatians were settled there too. Maybe both hypothesis hold some truth, if the "greater Scythian culture" is a common link? Then again, there's the mass Judean exodus during the Roman-Jewish wars.
There's also the mess of migrations and tribal federations including the Scythian cultures, Celts, Thraco-Getae, Germanics etc during late Roman, early 'Byzantine' times. Central-Eastern Europe was a major melting pot even earlier and later on.
Even the Parni tribe - founders of the Parthian Empire - and their Arsacid Royal house (also established in several other states) are Scythian-related. I've wondered if this guy has some connection to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostol_Arsache
I remember reading on Colchis (next door to several Scythian tribes) being an Egyptian Colony.
Those Wiki links look interesting, I'll check them out.
Your idea about the Sea Peoples settling in "southern coastal Canaan as the Peleset/Philistines, giving the name Palestine," has a lot of validity.
With the Scythian tribes, there were so many connections German vs Khazar Ashkenazi are certainly related. There are studies on the Genetics of the Rhine Landers that show them to be a bit distinct from the Ashkenazi, with Ashkenazi coming mostly from Anatolia or Turkic origin, but with so much admixing going on, it's very difficult to trace back. Then to try to determine "culture" is even more difficult because that is not found in the genetics.
The mass Judean exodus during the Roman-Jewish wars:
I think Tereza has figured this one out, especially in regards to the Zealot revolt against the Roman Empire, most of the original Judeans were not expelled. I think that the original Judeans mostly stayed, there may have been some expulsions of the Zealots themselves. I'll have a closer look at what she says about that, she makes a lot of sense out of it.
I think Tereza might be on point. Hellenized Judeans must have stayed, as pro-Roman by then they would be pretty safe, I guess to be further/mostly assimilated into the Greco-Roman and eventually Christian populace. Then the Zealots and collaborators killed or expelled or enslaved/force relocated.
The Romans did mass enslavements/relocations at times, even not counting religious persecution. Most of the Epirot population was enslaved and moved to Italy after the 3rd Macedonian War. Later, Armenians were force resettled in Thrace in large numbers. Those on top of my head, I'm sure there's plenty more.
Then there's the various military settlers all over the place. Judeans already lived in Ptolemic Egypt and Seleucid Asia mostly as mercenary settlers. Some of their descendants were among the anti-Roman Zealot rebels, especially during the crazy Kitos War. Later they end up 'everywhere', but sure many of them must be through converts and intermarriage, else they'd still look more middle eastern even in Europe, the US etc.
Why do you consider the 'Babylonian Exile' BS? I'm under the impression there must be some truth to it, perhaps a portion of the Judean population was force relocated. Then to be used by the Persians to semi-assimilate Judea in a show of 'liberalism', and some find the first traces of Jewish monotheism at this point, as Zoroastrian/bureaucratic 'influence'.
I think whatever applied to the Zealots was likely unique because they were so rebellious to the Romans. Zealots may have been hunted down and expelled or killed. You are right, the Hellenized Judeans would be collaborators to the Empire, therefore safe.
Quote: "Historians agree that several deportations took place (each the result of uprisings in Palestine), that not all Jews were forced to leave their homeland, that returning Jews left Babylonia at various times, and that some Jews chose to remain in Babylonia—thus constituting the first of numerous Jewish communities living permanently in the Diaspora." -- The whole idea of Diaspora is unlikely, the term "Jews" would be an indicator of how fabricated the account may be, the term Jew didn't exist until the 1800's. Jewish culture has been invented over and over again, there is no unbroken line that traces back to ancient Judeans, they all got mixed.
First problem I have with the Babylonian Exile, is one based on logic; if you are going to take control of land, why would you get rid of the labor force to work it? Also, if some had to leave it could not have been all of them, just the ones who would be able to either write or tell stories about what happened.
"According to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, there are edicts from three successive Persian rulers—Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes—giving the Babylonian Ezraites the right to rule and build the temple from the royal treasury. These are all fake by common agreement among historians. Moreover, the claims could never have been written during the time they would be known as fake. Therefore, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were written after the end of Persian rule in the Hellenist period of Alexander the Great circa 333 BCE.
And they are pure fantasy from the concept that these are returning Judeans whose ancestors had been exiled to Babylon, where they prospered and thrived. Why would Babylonian rulers have welcomed 50,000 elite Judeans, with their servants and singers, who had just lost the war against them? They defeat them and then invite the most powerful among them into Babylon so they could become more wealthy at the expense of Babylonians? Nonsense.
The Ezraites who came from Babylon after it was conquered by Persia had never originated in Judea. My guess is that they were Babylonians who became traitors and spies for Persia during the war. Afterwards, fearful for their lives, they fled Babylon when the people realized they'd been betrayed—much like in Germany after WWI when the Balfour Declaration came to light."
Now, I have not studied the material that Tereza has studied, since I am not connected to the Abrahamic Triangle of Insanity, I am now trying to catch up in a manner of speaking. I think what she says makes logical sense.
Agreed, and the Zealots must also have been most of the 'Christians thrown to the lions'. The timeframe (mostly?) overlaps, the messianic theme too. Early Christians must have been the Flavian imperial cultists, even if not, what empire would hunt pacifists while militant Zealots abound?
Sure 'Jew' is a later term, and abused as much as 'Semite', but I can't see this as a clear clue against the theory that some Judeans were relocated to Babylon. Breaking rebellious factions or preferring labor elsewhere (say Mesopotamia, being more fertile) could be a reason. Or, even more likely, some nobles were taken as hostages as per common ancient practice. Perhaps along with other war prisoners. Later the Persians used some of their descendants to establish a friendly organized puppet state in by then backwater Judea. As per usual 'enlightened diaspora' (cultural half-convert) practice, still seen today.
I remember historians, including in a Cambridge classical era encyclopedia I read last year, considering those Persian actions real. Then again, those books detailed as they were, had a lot of easily traceable propaganda and I haven't looked at this in more depth yet.
"Fun Fact": I was playing 'Imperator Rome' a few years ago, a very detailed and semi-well researched 'grand strategy game'. Start date 304 BC, with 'Jewish' population everywhere... Athens, Rome, Sparta, random Aegean islands. Often sizable too. No other migrant population got such detailed (or over the top) treatment, even where obviously more applicable.
Gordian Knot is the understatement of the day. I read it twice and still could not figure it out.
As difficult as Tereza's Master Baiters post.
What did attract my attention though was that the Scythian kingdom originated in the Caucus region and expanded around the Black Sea, mostly north and for some time in Anatolia(Asia Minor) south of the Black Sea. This posed some questions in my mind:
1. It seems to overlap with Khazaria, are the Scythians connected with Khazaria?
3. Wikipedia does not show any expansion into the Levant (Mesopotamia) is this correct?
"" Shortly after Madyes's assassination, some time between 623 and 616 BC, the Scythians took advantage of the power vacuum created by the crumbling of the power of their former Assyrian allies and overran the Levant.[18][133]
This Scythian raid into the Levant reached as far south as Palestine, and was foretold by the Judahite prophets Jeremiah and Zephaniah as a pending "disaster from the north," which they believed would result in the destruction of Jerusalem,[109] but Jeremiah was discredited and in consequence temporarily stopped prophetising and lost favour with the Judahite king Josiah when the Scythian raid did not affect Jerusalem and or Judah.[109][134]
The Scythian expedition instead reached up to the borders of Egypt, where their advance was stopped by the marshes of the Nile Delta,[18][133] after which the pharaoh Psamtik I met them and convinced them to turn back by offering them gifts.[52][135]
The Scythians retreated by passing through the Philistine city of Ascalon largely without any incident, although some stragglers looted the temple of ʿAštart in the city,[136] which was considered to be the most ancient of all temples to that goddess, as a result of which the perpetrators of this sacrilege and their descendants were allegedly cursed by ʿAštart with a “female disease,” due to which they became a class of transvestite diviners called the Anarya (meaning “unmanly” in Scythian[18]).[52] ""
** On your first point, yes there are connections to the Khazarians that I plan on covering with more focus; these are the Scythians of the Steppe; "proper Scythians."
** On your second point about Wiki; it does show the info on the expansion, but as I have been able to tell, Wiki obfuscates and tries to not be direct about certain things, like the last query you have about modern day Bethlehem.
** First, Bethlehem did not exist until it was created by Constantious 2, when he created a torture and death camp for exterminating all pagan Greeks. Scythopolis is quite definitely Bethlehem; or Beit She'an, which the Scythians occupied, from about 631 BC. Scythians had cleared out long before that place became a death camp. So, Scythians are off the hook in a sense.
*** The name Bethlehem, Etymology: The current name for Bethlehem in local languages is Bayt Laḥm /Bēt laḥm/ in Arabic (Arabic: بيت لحم), literally meaning "house of meat." What is a 'house of meat' other than a slaughterhouse? Or a Death Camp?
In this post, I was trying to see if there may have been a "Cultural" passage between Cult of Seth (declining around 1000BC) where the Scythians "may have" picked up on this cult and learned some of their later known traits of severe blood sacrifice. They may have, yet they obviously were not involved in the 'house of meat'.
** The Khazarians were from a different Scythian tribe north of the Black Sea Area, they may have been trading with some of the remaining Habiru descendants, who by then may have kept a version of the Cult of Seth or Cult of Yahweh. In a lot of accounts these Habiru are misidentified as "Jews" the name Jew did not exist until around the 1800's.
** Caucus region is where Gog and Magog originate; yes it is, this is in my current conception a form of leadership. I follows the old Scythian kingship structure. Gog is governing in front; Magog is ruling from behind. Later with the Heraldry of the Double Headed Phoenix, the Dragon Court and Order of the Garter, these same organizational structures would continue into modern times as the "Public / Private" relationship and how the actual Corporate Legal Veil functions. There's so much, I have tried to connect and illustrate.
Unfortunately, there were so many different tribes and kingdoms overrunning each other for so long it's very difficult to make sense of the micro connections.
It's almost like there needs to be another book written to collate all this information in a way that makes sense.
What an epic post, Nef! I wanted to read this when I could really focus and read it slowly. Congratulations on the podcast and upping the ante on the technology ;-) That will also help me in the pronunciation of words like 'Set.' And I appreciate the references to my work. It will be useful to have this to quote and link. There's so much that I learned from reading this.
As Tirion says, we're all just trying to figure this out. So I'll throw some thoughts out here that may or may not be right. No attachment to them:
* My gut feeling is that Ba'al was nothing like Set but was projected backwards onto a peaceful agricultural deity. The representations we have of Ba'al worship come from the Bible, where Ba'al is the enemy of Yahweh/ Seth. I don't trust that.
* I'm still figuring out if Amurru existed as a city or if it was more of a territory that Abdi-Ashirta was taking over, city by city. Even within the Amarna Letters it seems contradictory evidence is presented for each.
* The Wiki on Hyksos said that it was a contraction of Heka Khasut, rather than the people and the rulers. Not sure if that's accurate.
* "In the time of Rim-Sin I (1822 BCE to 1763 BCE), the Sumerians knew a group of Aramaean nomads living in southern Mesopotamia as SA. GAZ" It's so interesting that the sagazu that became the Habiru were Arameaen. That goes back to Laban the Arameaen whose fault it was that the Habiru went to Egypt. I wonder if they were evicted because of a failed coup by a younger son of the ruler. So they took their tricks of the coup trade to Egypt.
* I'm not certain if the Hyksos / Heka Khasut and the Habiru were the same people. It seems like the Hyksos were the first to infiltrate and become the foreign rulers over Egypt, maybe the ruling elite if the whole group became the 240,000 people evicted from Avaris. I do take your point that the rulers and people are not the same. It seems like this was before the era of Abdi-Ashirta, who only organized the Hapiru and may not have been one of them. The Habiru seemed only to be in the vassal states of Egypt, not Egypt itself. Did the evicted Hyksos become Habiru? Did the 19th c Habiru/ sagasu from Aram become the Hyksos?
* The rabbi who commented on one of my episodes said that the root of Cain and Canaan were not the same in Hebrew, they only looked the same in English. So that dashed my theory. But I've realized since they were opposite peoples. The Canaanites are the settled people the Habiru are trying to make into slaves in their mythology. Cain is the first version of Set--he kills his brother and is evicted from Eden, his lineage and Seth's are the same, and he's protected from anyone harming him by edict, just like the Kha-sut. I think his name is related perhaps to the Kennites or Tubal-Cain who were metal workers, aka goldsmiths and coiners of the realm.
* Finally, I've been thinking about animals. I'm guessing that, from time immemorial, families had a cow, the community had a bull or two, but male heifers were killed young because they're more trouble than it's worth to raise for meat. So Ba'al represented as a cow would be domesticated. So would pigs, that would be kept in a yard and fed scraps. What needs plenty of pasture are sheep. And if you're a farming community, a herd of sheep could wipe out your fields of grain or planted crops in no time. So sheep are a weapon of infiltration and aggression. I wonder if the shepherd's crook came into use as a sign of royalty with the Hyksos, and if that's why Genesis says that Egyptians fear shepherds.
Thank you again, Nef, for such a thorough article. Much more here than I've commented on!
Thank you so much for being an inspiration to me for doing this work, Tereza. I really does mean a lot. I know that you know that.
You are hitting the nail on the head with each of your points and questions here.
First point you made of Baal vs Seth, I began seeing that as I was finishing this up, because the usurpers who took Baal from Laban, recasted Baal as something in the negative, whereas it was never in the negative to the indigenous people who venerated Baal. It's an excellent point. That's what happens when there's a story inversion.
Second, yes it quite possible for Amurru to be just a territory; if the majority of people in a given territory live and move about, it doesn't need to be a town. You and I don't have any access to archaeologic evidence ourselves to pinpoint with certainty, but it is quite possible for it to be grazing grounds for sheep.
Third, Wiki on "Hyksos" ---- I think Wiki has some problems, Hyksos is a term the Greeks used for the Heka Khasut, I don't have the raw original stuff to judge it but it makes sense linguistically. I am now taking Wiki with a grain of salt and a grain of sugar ;-)
4th point, "It's so interesting that the sagazu that became the Habiru were Arameaen. That goes back to Laban the Arameaen whose fault it was that the Habiru went to Egypt." -- Yes it was becoming more apparent that they have some ties to Armeanian because of the way the language of Hebrew became reserved ever more to the ruling class of those people, Aramaic became commoner language. A form of hierarchical progression.
5th point, Hyksos / Heka Khasut and the Habiru were the same people, I think the name the Egyptians would have used would be the most accurate, the Greeks coined the term Hyksos, but I'll admit, it comes from Wiki, I sure wish I could find that elsewhere now. Habiru could have been a mix of different people just like the migrants we see today in the US. Their Struggle would have been their common culture; their Desperation was their only soup.
6th point, "The rabbi who commented on one of my episodes said that the root of Cain and Canaan were not the same in Hebrew, they only looked the same in English." Is he using the "Current" language misidentified as "Hebrew?" The language everyone thinks is Hebrew is actually Yiddish, it may have some Hebrew in it though. You are right about the distinction of Cain vs the Canaanites; this is where I really need you to help keep things straight, Ha ha!
And I have not even studied the Kennites or Tubal-Cain who were metal workers, goldsmiths and coiners of the realm. I need to catch up.
7th point is an interesting one and indicates the royalty symbol of the crook as coming from the Hyksos. There is a bit more history to the crook from further back:
"Andjety (Anezti, Anedjti) simply means “he who is of Andjet” – the place of the djed (Busiris in the ninth nome of Lower Egypt). It is thought that he was a historical ruler of the ancient Egyptian city of Djedu (Busiris) who became the god of domestic and farm animals, and probably introduced the use of the shepherds crook as an emblem of kingship (an interesting precursor to the Christian notion; “the lord is my shepherd”)." [----- Notice the similarity of "Busiris" to Osiris.]
The remains of Andjetyi had physical remnants of a crook that was originally worn on the head along with a headdress of feathers by the king. This was a pre-dynastic, Madi King and predates the Hykosos by over 1,200 years.
We are never going to know everything, but it sure is quite interesting to explore all this material together. It's this kind of cross referencing and comparison that helps make it become more clear. At some point it would be great to write a book that incorporates all this learning we have done so that others may learn if they want to.
It's really great I was able to get a copy of the Armarna Letters, I'll be cross referencing the study material with them.
I'll probably try doing more podcast type and may even try to do videos; I was hoping we could talk about the techniques involved? You are an Ace at it but you have been doing it for awhile, lots of practice.
I hope you and your daughters had a most wonderful birthday celebration, you said something about a tarot reader corner, that must have been fun. ;-)
Thanks so much, Nef. On the second point about Amurru, I didn't quite mean it was a grazing area. In Abdi-Ashirta's first letter to Amenhotep, he says that he is the obedient and loyal guardian of Amurru. Then in the third letter, he complains that he could have stayed comfy at home instead of going to defend Sumer and what does he get in thanks? People telling Amenhotep that he took it over and drove out the 'mayor' as the ruler was called.
The introduction says that one of the chief conflicts is the 'creation' of Amurru, which didn't exist before as a kingdom. So I think Abdi-Ashirta was first ingratiating himself with the Egyptian king as legitimate intermediary and then taking over cities as his own. I don't know that the Habiru were primarily those who rebelled against Egyptian rule. Under Egypt, these city-states seemed to have a fair amount of autonomy. The habiru were more the enemies of the cities than of Egypt, who didn't have the military to force them into slavery. It took a monetary system to do that.
I see your point that the shepherd's crook predates the Hyka Khasut.
This was my Pleasant Hill daughter's birthday. One of my SD daughters came up, so I got to see her too, along with many of my 'bonus' daughters.
It's almost like the Egyptian Neshua was unwilling to be concerned.
I see the point on Amurru, do you think Abdi-Ashirta was trying to become the tax collector for the Neshua? As a guardian of Amarru, he would have tax collecting territory. Just a thought.
You said: "Abdi-Ashirta was first ingratiating himself with the Egyptian king as legitimate intermediary and then taking over cities as his own." His ingratiation would be followed by infiltration; if he was collecting the Grain Tax, he would have dibs and share those with the Habiru locals to incentivize enforcement, might be a type of self feeding maintaining administrative system. Abdi-Ashirta was who rebelled against Egyptian rule in secret so he could take whatever he wanted, in a form of "Legalized Banditry." I know I could still have that wrong though, those who collected tributes got a portion of the spoils.
There's too little to go on. I haven't read all the letters to or about his son, so there may be more clues there. The most obvious on taxation is the Biblical story of Joseph, because he brags about it. Perhaps the Heka Khasut are the Habiru/ Hebrews in Egypt. The stories are all out of order and repeat the same themes again and again. Always the younger son usurping the throne.
I'm going to really start digging into the Armana Letters.
If they are totally out of order, that would make it difficult to get insight.
A repeat of themes looks to be a pattern in the Admonition of Ipuwer as well. There are many entries that are similar.
It would be interesting to see what Rhonda has to say about this. I know the puzzle is not etymology, but the way she thinks, seems to reveal things. ;-)
they pose as jews but are really not. they worship neither seth nor baal but a giant owl (moloch) instead. they rule the entire world, but i just figured out it has nothing to do with judiasm. they have also no written accounts about their believes, morals, history or religion. it is still conveived mouth-to-mouth. it has nothing to do with kabbalah (as that was written in the 1200s by a muslim in spain. ref: "vårt arabiska arv", ingmar kalrsson), the emerald tablets (written in a mix of phoenician and egyptian tongue) nor the torah. but theyve managed to trick everyone, since 1000 AD.
"Elohim (plural in form but understood in the singular), meaning “God""
it doesnt mean that at all. elohim is a form of supernatural beings, annunaki, space travelers.
in 400 AD, wulfia changed all instances of YHWH in the bible into "guth", meaning a "a person of noble descent with good reputation". and everyone seemingly copied that version. it was eventually changed to "goth", then "god" (in the 1800s they removed the letter eth, ð, and replaced all usages of it with "th"). its synonym is "freyja", what if everyone said freyja instead of god nowadays, how different would the world be? source: wiktionary / bitchute.
Old English had some of those letters like " ð " -- there were quite a few similarities to Norse in Old English.
In an Etymological sense; what you say here is quite interesting: " YHWH in the bible into "guth", meaning a "a person of noble descent with good reputation". and everyone seemingly copied that version. it was eventually changed to "goth", then "god".
YHWH is meant to connect to Yahweh is that right? And I am of the opinion that the Cult of Yahweh was a reinvention of the Cult of Seth. So, in my mind, this also makes a connection of those to Yes'us' (Jesus) at least in a linguistic sense.
jesus real name was yeshua ben josef from nazareth. on bitchute, one guy said that the bible was really written by a dragon called psaul, and it is all made up. he never detailed it further though. i also thought YHWH was a different pronounciation of YeHsWaH, but i was disproven later.
YHWH was a desert demon in northern africa. they worshipped and bloodsacrified to him so they wouldnt get wars, famines, and droughts.
some are of the opinion that "everything comes from hinduism / india". they did have a more advanced written language early on (5000 years ago), and they mix together religion, mathematics, science, mysticism all in one. every god there also had both a good and a bad side. this dualistic thinking (where only one way of thinking is right) in the modern world is toxic.
something that points more to it is the rhesus monkey gene. youre either rh+ or rh- in blood groups. and in india, they have have temples with only monkeys in them. so it seems we all come from there. maybe the first animal we domesticated is neither sheep nor dogs, but monkeys? we used them both for heat, food during scarcities, as pets, and what is more controversial - for sex. i heard it has started happening again in china and india, theyre adopting organgutanges to do their bidding.
everyone was monotheistic before. you prayed to a local god. in greece, for example, it was homeros who united the greeks and created their pantheon. it is said he only walked south and was blind, too. ref eyvind johnson. why they went monotheistic again seems odd though.
old english is similar to norse yes, as the norse invaded the coasts of the british isles (viking means exactly that, "vik-ing", vik means coastal area in swedish still), and the entire world. it is said they even arrived in the americas (then called turtle island) before columbus. i listened to a long lecture about it, basically implying that danish and english fishermen, when they meet at sea, can understand eachother, even to this day.
ancient latin / greek also looks just like the rune language.
Interesting concept. There may be connections and interconnections everywhere. I'm sure that the Shemite, Adbi-Ashirta and his son Aziru may have preached "some type" of philosophy; though the evidence is if they had picked it up from elsewhere they would have modified it for their own use. Much like it seems the Cult of Seth was definitely altered to serve the interests of the Habiru rulers and chieftains.
Vedic people began colonizing Tigris-Euphrates as the Saraswati dried up due to tectonic actions and land sunk along the shore of the Sub-Continent. The admixture of populations in antiquity had to happen from populations on the move. For instance north of Iran in now desert areas there were urban centers. I would be unsurprised if Scythians were survivors of those urbanizations. Huxley called India the Mother of Nations. David Frawley of the Yoga Journal; team has a book on Vedic Civilization stressing deep antiquity in India. In Search of the Cradle of Civilization: New Light on Ancient India. Arguing that India, not Sumer, was the cradle of civilization, looks at India's ancient history by examining the symbols and myths contained in the Rig-Veda and exploring the mathematical and astronomical data contained in the Vedic hymns. And Graham Hancock published his book on underwater archeology called Underworld with inundation maps showing land lost to the sea.
There seems to be some evidence that India was indeed a primary start to civilization. The Harapan civilization had a written language based on hieroglyphics or pictograms. There's a whole city in about 300 feet of water, off the coast of Cambay. Side scan sonar shows it is quite large, mostly buried in silt, since it is located at the outlet of the Sarasvati River and some other tributaries.
The movement of people throughout time is a very complex thing to track, especially the further back you look.
My post here was to explore of the evidence of culture admixing and exchange, to see if there could be some connections that are verifiable. Scythian and Habiru are clearly not likely to be related, yet they both are wanderers. I almost want to say that Scythians are just about off the hook, they appear to have been gone by the time of the House of Meat; Beit She'an or Bethlehem. There's so much more to write about on it, I may do a more focused post. ;-)
Well yes we have scraps and we sew our hypothetical garments of thought from them. Herodotus was called the father of lies. Some years out is the truth skeptical age of Null. Pyrrhonism has made with usura a blank tradition screen we moderns project upon with facts and good theories.
Thanks for providing sound file with you reading for us this long interestimg essay..
It takes an effort to write as research witch you humbly mention..
Recording an mp3 of it is creme de la creme and worth noting..
As it helped me to paralell task working here on the farm many an interesting angles can be commented on.. Later tonight Swedish time I will have a go on a few comments like:
(Fast and dirty syllabe-script hints relativ "sound bites")
Ha be ru*
Ha≈"Have"
be="be/beingness/trait-of-actions-"
ru≈secrets/"wisdom"/inward-sight-or-search"
I gather it could be "those havibg/keeping to secrets/secret+deveptive-in-trade(" wisdom"/malice)
*(from a Norse historic syllable-glyph trail analysis:)
I really love Etymologies and how they can expose word roots and those meanings seem to stay nicely hidden in near plain sight. I did place the Etymological breakdowns for those terms from the Armarna Letters. With "Habiru" meaning essentially -- Wanderer -- Road Bandit -- Bow Men -- Immigrant ; etc... Let's just say "Hebrews" were not well liked for certain reasons.
The mp3 voice over is the first I've ever tried. I"m glad you liked and appreciated it.
Yes!! I watch that and was going to feature it on this post. But decided to feature it on the next Scythian post. It will be on the Scythians of the Steppe and Ukraine area. I used to think the Scythians were somehow tied to the Ashkenazi through the Khazarians; now I think that may not necessarily be the case, there may be just one tribe of Scythians that gave rise to them.
Definitely liked the YouTube video, and I'm going to use it next ;-)
Nefahotep, FWIW, Luke Harding identifies Abram as the Sumerian Dumuzid The Shepherd and his wife, Princess Sarah, as Inanna. From my notes: "As we have already seen, Abraham was a “tent dweller,” and so was his wife, Sarah. As you may recall, I propose that they are also Dumuzid The Shepherd and Inanna, Goddess of Heaven. Remember the image of her standing with her foot on a leashed lion cub, symbolic of the sun before it was let off the leash, which in turn is symbolic of the lion of Judah. Inanna being Sarah provides the link to the lion of Judah coming into this family."
Interesting interpretations of the Biblical Names. When it comes to symbolism, there are many things that people will see. I am probably more qualified to try to interpret names from my Hindu background than the Bible.
My thinking of the Shemitic names of Noah and his sons is like a form of map of a Patriarchical Proto Political Hierarachy, involving masters and servants; which goes approximately like this: Shem ---> eventually gets to Abraham who is really Abdi-Ashirta then from his line ---> you get David ---> supposed to become king of the first Israel? The Davic Line also gives rise to others like the Tribe of Dan.
Oh, nothing to be sorry about. Aren't we all trying to make sense of the same rather huge elephant in a very dark room?! What you say about an hierarchical map makes sense to me. It used to be quite usual for pre-Anglo-Saxon Britons to be referred to as "Japhetic," descendants of his eldest son, Gomer, as in R W Morgan's 1848 "History of Britain," giving them their place on the map and in the hierarchy:
Great post with much to further look into:)
I think the sea peoples make sense as Greeks (perhaps as often stated also Anatolians, Sardinians etc). It's the same era when upstart/new-coming Greek tribes (Dorians etc) expel or subdue the Myceneans, some of which, being maritime, should have moved towards piracy and perhaps migrated eastwards. Names seem to connect well and until then the Myceneans had contacts with, or dominance over, coastal regions all around Greece. Then some settle in southern coastal Canaan as the Peleset/Philistines, giving the name Palestine. But haven't looked deeply, not behind the mainstream.
Just though of the Peleset as the Pelasgians, pre-Greek population of Greece and surroundings, who also survived in isolated regions until much later.
Some more material, that could fit with the next post:
Random discovery of yesterday: This guy's bro has a rather unique name for his time and place! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacharsis
On German vs Khazar Ashkenazi hypothesis: Sarmatians (which could as well be Scythians, for sure related) were settled by the Romans as border troops (even as far as Britain). The German front was one of the most active, I guess some Sarmatians were settled there too. Maybe both hypothesis hold some truth, if the "greater Scythian culture" is a common link? Then again, there's the mass Judean exodus during the Roman-Jewish wars.
There's also the mess of migrations and tribal federations including the Scythian cultures, Celts, Thraco-Getae, Germanics etc during late Roman, early 'Byzantine' times. Central-Eastern Europe was a major melting pot even earlier and later on.
Even the Parni tribe - founders of the Parthian Empire - and their Arsacid Royal house (also established in several other states) are Scythian-related. I've wondered if this guy has some connection to them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostol_Arsache
I remember reading on Colchis (next door to several Scythian tribes) being an Egyptian Colony.
Those Wiki links look interesting, I'll check them out.
Your idea about the Sea Peoples settling in "southern coastal Canaan as the Peleset/Philistines, giving the name Palestine," has a lot of validity.
With the Scythian tribes, there were so many connections German vs Khazar Ashkenazi are certainly related. There are studies on the Genetics of the Rhine Landers that show them to be a bit distinct from the Ashkenazi, with Ashkenazi coming mostly from Anatolia or Turkic origin, but with so much admixing going on, it's very difficult to trace back. Then to try to determine "culture" is even more difficult because that is not found in the genetics.
The mass Judean exodus during the Roman-Jewish wars:
I think Tereza has figured this one out, especially in regards to the Zealot revolt against the Roman Empire, most of the original Judeans were not expelled. I think that the original Judeans mostly stayed, there may have been some expulsions of the Zealots themselves. I'll have a closer look at what she says about that, she makes a lot of sense out of it.
I think Tereza might be on point. Hellenized Judeans must have stayed, as pro-Roman by then they would be pretty safe, I guess to be further/mostly assimilated into the Greco-Roman and eventually Christian populace. Then the Zealots and collaborators killed or expelled or enslaved/force relocated.
The Romans did mass enslavements/relocations at times, even not counting religious persecution. Most of the Epirot population was enslaved and moved to Italy after the 3rd Macedonian War. Later, Armenians were force resettled in Thrace in large numbers. Those on top of my head, I'm sure there's plenty more.
Then there's the various military settlers all over the place. Judeans already lived in Ptolemic Egypt and Seleucid Asia mostly as mercenary settlers. Some of their descendants were among the anti-Roman Zealot rebels, especially during the crazy Kitos War. Later they end up 'everywhere', but sure many of them must be through converts and intermarriage, else they'd still look more middle eastern even in Europe, the US etc.
Why do you consider the 'Babylonian Exile' BS? I'm under the impression there must be some truth to it, perhaps a portion of the Judean population was force relocated. Then to be used by the Persians to semi-assimilate Judea in a show of 'liberalism', and some find the first traces of Jewish monotheism at this point, as Zoroastrian/bureaucratic 'influence'.
I think whatever applied to the Zealots was likely unique because they were so rebellious to the Romans. Zealots may have been hunted down and expelled or killed. You are right, the Hellenized Judeans would be collaborators to the Empire, therefore safe.
Description of the Babylonian Exile from Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/event/Babylonian-Captivity
Quote: "Historians agree that several deportations took place (each the result of uprisings in Palestine), that not all Jews were forced to leave their homeland, that returning Jews left Babylonia at various times, and that some Jews chose to remain in Babylonia—thus constituting the first of numerous Jewish communities living permanently in the Diaspora." -- The whole idea of Diaspora is unlikely, the term "Jews" would be an indicator of how fabricated the account may be, the term Jew didn't exist until the 1800's. Jewish culture has been invented over and over again, there is no unbroken line that traces back to ancient Judeans, they all got mixed.
First problem I have with the Babylonian Exile, is one based on logic; if you are going to take control of land, why would you get rid of the labor force to work it? Also, if some had to leave it could not have been all of them, just the ones who would be able to either write or tell stories about what happened.
Second issue is cited by Tereza: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/from-yahweh-to-zion She says:
"According to the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, there are edicts from three successive Persian rulers—Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes—giving the Babylonian Ezraites the right to rule and build the temple from the royal treasury. These are all fake by common agreement among historians. Moreover, the claims could never have been written during the time they would be known as fake. Therefore, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were written after the end of Persian rule in the Hellenist period of Alexander the Great circa 333 BCE.
And they are pure fantasy from the concept that these are returning Judeans whose ancestors had been exiled to Babylon, where they prospered and thrived. Why would Babylonian rulers have welcomed 50,000 elite Judeans, with their servants and singers, who had just lost the war against them? They defeat them and then invite the most powerful among them into Babylon so they could become more wealthy at the expense of Babylonians? Nonsense.
The Ezraites who came from Babylon after it was conquered by Persia had never originated in Judea. My guess is that they were Babylonians who became traitors and spies for Persia during the war. Afterwards, fearful for their lives, they fled Babylon when the people realized they'd been betrayed—much like in Germany after WWI when the Balfour Declaration came to light."
Now, I have not studied the material that Tereza has studied, since I am not connected to the Abrahamic Triangle of Insanity, I am now trying to catch up in a manner of speaking. I think what she says makes logical sense.
Agreed, and the Zealots must also have been most of the 'Christians thrown to the lions'. The timeframe (mostly?) overlaps, the messianic theme too. Early Christians must have been the Flavian imperial cultists, even if not, what empire would hunt pacifists while militant Zealots abound?
Sure 'Jew' is a later term, and abused as much as 'Semite', but I can't see this as a clear clue against the theory that some Judeans were relocated to Babylon. Breaking rebellious factions or preferring labor elsewhere (say Mesopotamia, being more fertile) could be a reason. Or, even more likely, some nobles were taken as hostages as per common ancient practice. Perhaps along with other war prisoners. Later the Persians used some of their descendants to establish a friendly organized puppet state in by then backwater Judea. As per usual 'enlightened diaspora' (cultural half-convert) practice, still seen today.
I remember historians, including in a Cambridge classical era encyclopedia I read last year, considering those Persian actions real. Then again, those books detailed as they were, had a lot of easily traceable propaganda and I haven't looked at this in more depth yet.
"Fun Fact": I was playing 'Imperator Rome' a few years ago, a very detailed and semi-well researched 'grand strategy game'. Start date 304 BC, with 'Jewish' population everywhere... Athens, Rome, Sparta, random Aegean islands. Often sizable too. No other migrant population got such detailed (or over the top) treatment, even where obviously more applicable.
Thank you for an eye opening challenging post
Gordian Knot is the understatement of the day. I read it twice and still could not figure it out.
As difficult as Tereza's Master Baiters post.
What did attract my attention though was that the Scythian kingdom originated in the Caucus region and expanded around the Black Sea, mostly north and for some time in Anatolia(Asia Minor) south of the Black Sea. This posed some questions in my mind:
1. It seems to overlap with Khazaria, are the Scythians connected with Khazaria?
3. Wikipedia does not show any expansion into the Levant (Mesopotamia) is this correct?
2. This Caucus region is where Gog and Magog originate before spreading all over the world. (Sheikh Imran Hosein https://www.youtube.com/@SheikhImranHosein and https://imranhosein.org/o/
It was not clear to me whether modern day Bethlehem is Scythopolis?
Thank you for responding to my post, Fadi. -- I also left you a comment in your post the other day ;-)
Here's a quote from the Wiki on the Scythians reaching Egypt:
'Raid till Egypt' this is from the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythians#Presence_in_West_Asia this link is found approximately half way down as; 'stay in Western Asia'
"" Shortly after Madyes's assassination, some time between 623 and 616 BC, the Scythians took advantage of the power vacuum created by the crumbling of the power of their former Assyrian allies and overran the Levant.[18][133]
This Scythian raid into the Levant reached as far south as Palestine, and was foretold by the Judahite prophets Jeremiah and Zephaniah as a pending "disaster from the north," which they believed would result in the destruction of Jerusalem,[109] but Jeremiah was discredited and in consequence temporarily stopped prophetising and lost favour with the Judahite king Josiah when the Scythian raid did not affect Jerusalem and or Judah.[109][134]
The Scythian expedition instead reached up to the borders of Egypt, where their advance was stopped by the marshes of the Nile Delta,[18][133] after which the pharaoh Psamtik I met them and convinced them to turn back by offering them gifts.[52][135]
The Scythians retreated by passing through the Philistine city of Ascalon largely without any incident, although some stragglers looted the temple of ʿAštart in the city,[136] which was considered to be the most ancient of all temples to that goddess, as a result of which the perpetrators of this sacrilege and their descendants were allegedly cursed by ʿAštart with a “female disease,” due to which they became a class of transvestite diviners called the Anarya (meaning “unmanly” in Scythian[18]).[52] ""
Also there are connections to the Thracians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thracians
** On your first point, yes there are connections to the Khazarians that I plan on covering with more focus; these are the Scythians of the Steppe; "proper Scythians."
** On your second point about Wiki; it does show the info on the expansion, but as I have been able to tell, Wiki obfuscates and tries to not be direct about certain things, like the last query you have about modern day Bethlehem.
** First, Bethlehem did not exist until it was created by Constantious 2, when he created a torture and death camp for exterminating all pagan Greeks. Scythopolis is quite definitely Bethlehem; or Beit She'an, which the Scythians occupied, from about 631 BC. Scythians had cleared out long before that place became a death camp. So, Scythians are off the hook in a sense.
*** The name Bethlehem, Etymology: The current name for Bethlehem in local languages is Bayt Laḥm /Bēt laḥm/ in Arabic (Arabic: بيت لحم), literally meaning "house of meat." What is a 'house of meat' other than a slaughterhouse? Or a Death Camp?
In this post, I was trying to see if there may have been a "Cultural" passage between Cult of Seth (declining around 1000BC) where the Scythians "may have" picked up on this cult and learned some of their later known traits of severe blood sacrifice. They may have, yet they obviously were not involved in the 'house of meat'.
** The Khazarians were from a different Scythian tribe north of the Black Sea Area, they may have been trading with some of the remaining Habiru descendants, who by then may have kept a version of the Cult of Seth or Cult of Yahweh. In a lot of accounts these Habiru are misidentified as "Jews" the name Jew did not exist until around the 1800's.
** Caucus region is where Gog and Magog originate; yes it is, this is in my current conception a form of leadership. I follows the old Scythian kingship structure. Gog is governing in front; Magog is ruling from behind. Later with the Heraldry of the Double Headed Phoenix, the Dragon Court and Order of the Garter, these same organizational structures would continue into modern times as the "Public / Private" relationship and how the actual Corporate Legal Veil functions. There's so much, I have tried to connect and illustrate.
Unfortunately, there were so many different tribes and kingdoms overrunning each other for so long it's very difficult to make sense of the micro connections.
It's almost like there needs to be another book written to collate all this information in a way that makes sense.
----- Nef
What an epic post, Nef! I wanted to read this when I could really focus and read it slowly. Congratulations on the podcast and upping the ante on the technology ;-) That will also help me in the pronunciation of words like 'Set.' And I appreciate the references to my work. It will be useful to have this to quote and link. There's so much that I learned from reading this.
As Tirion says, we're all just trying to figure this out. So I'll throw some thoughts out here that may or may not be right. No attachment to them:
* My gut feeling is that Ba'al was nothing like Set but was projected backwards onto a peaceful agricultural deity. The representations we have of Ba'al worship come from the Bible, where Ba'al is the enemy of Yahweh/ Seth. I don't trust that.
* I'm still figuring out if Amurru existed as a city or if it was more of a territory that Abdi-Ashirta was taking over, city by city. Even within the Amarna Letters it seems contradictory evidence is presented for each.
* The Wiki on Hyksos said that it was a contraction of Heka Khasut, rather than the people and the rulers. Not sure if that's accurate.
* "In the time of Rim-Sin I (1822 BCE to 1763 BCE), the Sumerians knew a group of Aramaean nomads living in southern Mesopotamia as SA. GAZ" It's so interesting that the sagazu that became the Habiru were Arameaen. That goes back to Laban the Arameaen whose fault it was that the Habiru went to Egypt. I wonder if they were evicted because of a failed coup by a younger son of the ruler. So they took their tricks of the coup trade to Egypt.
* I'm not certain if the Hyksos / Heka Khasut and the Habiru were the same people. It seems like the Hyksos were the first to infiltrate and become the foreign rulers over Egypt, maybe the ruling elite if the whole group became the 240,000 people evicted from Avaris. I do take your point that the rulers and people are not the same. It seems like this was before the era of Abdi-Ashirta, who only organized the Hapiru and may not have been one of them. The Habiru seemed only to be in the vassal states of Egypt, not Egypt itself. Did the evicted Hyksos become Habiru? Did the 19th c Habiru/ sagasu from Aram become the Hyksos?
* The rabbi who commented on one of my episodes said that the root of Cain and Canaan were not the same in Hebrew, they only looked the same in English. So that dashed my theory. But I've realized since they were opposite peoples. The Canaanites are the settled people the Habiru are trying to make into slaves in their mythology. Cain is the first version of Set--he kills his brother and is evicted from Eden, his lineage and Seth's are the same, and he's protected from anyone harming him by edict, just like the Kha-sut. I think his name is related perhaps to the Kennites or Tubal-Cain who were metal workers, aka goldsmiths and coiners of the realm.
* Finally, I've been thinking about animals. I'm guessing that, from time immemorial, families had a cow, the community had a bull or two, but male heifers were killed young because they're more trouble than it's worth to raise for meat. So Ba'al represented as a cow would be domesticated. So would pigs, that would be kept in a yard and fed scraps. What needs plenty of pasture are sheep. And if you're a farming community, a herd of sheep could wipe out your fields of grain or planted crops in no time. So sheep are a weapon of infiltration and aggression. I wonder if the shepherd's crook came into use as a sign of royalty with the Hyksos, and if that's why Genesis says that Egyptians fear shepherds.
Thank you again, Nef, for such a thorough article. Much more here than I've commented on!
Thank you so much for being an inspiration to me for doing this work, Tereza. I really does mean a lot. I know that you know that.
You are hitting the nail on the head with each of your points and questions here.
First point you made of Baal vs Seth, I began seeing that as I was finishing this up, because the usurpers who took Baal from Laban, recasted Baal as something in the negative, whereas it was never in the negative to the indigenous people who venerated Baal. It's an excellent point. That's what happens when there's a story inversion.
Second, yes it quite possible for Amurru to be just a territory; if the majority of people in a given territory live and move about, it doesn't need to be a town. You and I don't have any access to archaeologic evidence ourselves to pinpoint with certainty, but it is quite possible for it to be grazing grounds for sheep.
Third, Wiki on "Hyksos" ---- I think Wiki has some problems, Hyksos is a term the Greeks used for the Heka Khasut, I don't have the raw original stuff to judge it but it makes sense linguistically. I am now taking Wiki with a grain of salt and a grain of sugar ;-)
4th point, "It's so interesting that the sagazu that became the Habiru were Arameaen. That goes back to Laban the Arameaen whose fault it was that the Habiru went to Egypt." -- Yes it was becoming more apparent that they have some ties to Armeanian because of the way the language of Hebrew became reserved ever more to the ruling class of those people, Aramaic became commoner language. A form of hierarchical progression.
5th point, Hyksos / Heka Khasut and the Habiru were the same people, I think the name the Egyptians would have used would be the most accurate, the Greeks coined the term Hyksos, but I'll admit, it comes from Wiki, I sure wish I could find that elsewhere now. Habiru could have been a mix of different people just like the migrants we see today in the US. Their Struggle would have been their common culture; their Desperation was their only soup.
6th point, "The rabbi who commented on one of my episodes said that the root of Cain and Canaan were not the same in Hebrew, they only looked the same in English." Is he using the "Current" language misidentified as "Hebrew?" The language everyone thinks is Hebrew is actually Yiddish, it may have some Hebrew in it though. You are right about the distinction of Cain vs the Canaanites; this is where I really need you to help keep things straight, Ha ha!
And I have not even studied the Kennites or Tubal-Cain who were metal workers, goldsmiths and coiners of the realm. I need to catch up.
7th point is an interesting one and indicates the royalty symbol of the crook as coming from the Hyksos. There is a bit more history to the crook from further back:
About Seth and Osiris:
Excerpt from Ancient Egypt Online: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/andjety/
"Andjety (Anezti, Anedjti) simply means “he who is of Andjet” – the place of the djed (Busiris in the ninth nome of Lower Egypt). It is thought that he was a historical ruler of the ancient Egyptian city of Djedu (Busiris) who became the god of domestic and farm animals, and probably introduced the use of the shepherds crook as an emblem of kingship (an interesting precursor to the Christian notion; “the lord is my shepherd”)." [----- Notice the similarity of "Busiris" to Osiris.]
The remains of Andjetyi had physical remnants of a crook that was originally worn on the head along with a headdress of feathers by the king. This was a pre-dynastic, Madi King and predates the Hykosos by over 1,200 years.
We are never going to know everything, but it sure is quite interesting to explore all this material together. It's this kind of cross referencing and comparison that helps make it become more clear. At some point it would be great to write a book that incorporates all this learning we have done so that others may learn if they want to.
It's really great I was able to get a copy of the Armarna Letters, I'll be cross referencing the study material with them.
I'll probably try doing more podcast type and may even try to do videos; I was hoping we could talk about the techniques involved? You are an Ace at it but you have been doing it for awhile, lots of practice.
I hope you and your daughters had a most wonderful birthday celebration, you said something about a tarot reader corner, that must have been fun. ;-)
Did you come to San Diego for the birthday?
Thanks so much, Nef. On the second point about Amurru, I didn't quite mean it was a grazing area. In Abdi-Ashirta's first letter to Amenhotep, he says that he is the obedient and loyal guardian of Amurru. Then in the third letter, he complains that he could have stayed comfy at home instead of going to defend Sumer and what does he get in thanks? People telling Amenhotep that he took it over and drove out the 'mayor' as the ruler was called.
The introduction says that one of the chief conflicts is the 'creation' of Amurru, which didn't exist before as a kingdom. So I think Abdi-Ashirta was first ingratiating himself with the Egyptian king as legitimate intermediary and then taking over cities as his own. I don't know that the Habiru were primarily those who rebelled against Egyptian rule. Under Egypt, these city-states seemed to have a fair amount of autonomy. The habiru were more the enemies of the cities than of Egypt, who didn't have the military to force them into slavery. It took a monetary system to do that.
I see your point that the shepherd's crook predates the Hyka Khasut.
This was my Pleasant Hill daughter's birthday. One of my SD daughters came up, so I got to see her too, along with many of my 'bonus' daughters.
It's almost like the Egyptian Neshua was unwilling to be concerned.
I see the point on Amurru, do you think Abdi-Ashirta was trying to become the tax collector for the Neshua? As a guardian of Amarru, he would have tax collecting territory. Just a thought.
You said: "Abdi-Ashirta was first ingratiating himself with the Egyptian king as legitimate intermediary and then taking over cities as his own." His ingratiation would be followed by infiltration; if he was collecting the Grain Tax, he would have dibs and share those with the Habiru locals to incentivize enforcement, might be a type of self feeding maintaining administrative system. Abdi-Ashirta was who rebelled against Egyptian rule in secret so he could take whatever he wanted, in a form of "Legalized Banditry." I know I could still have that wrong though, those who collected tributes got a portion of the spoils.
There's too little to go on. I haven't read all the letters to or about his son, so there may be more clues there. The most obvious on taxation is the Biblical story of Joseph, because he brags about it. Perhaps the Heka Khasut are the Habiru/ Hebrews in Egypt. The stories are all out of order and repeat the same themes again and again. Always the younger son usurping the throne.
I'm going to really start digging into the Armana Letters.
If they are totally out of order, that would make it difficult to get insight.
A repeat of themes looks to be a pattern in the Admonition of Ipuwer as well. There are many entries that are similar.
It would be interesting to see what Rhonda has to say about this. I know the puzzle is not etymology, but the way she thinks, seems to reveal things. ;-)
could you do research on khazaria (modern day ukraine)? i have written plenty about the khazarians at https://svenskadikter.com/It and theres also several interesting documentaries on https://www.bitchute.com/search/?query=evil%20khazarian%20mafia&kind=video&sort=new
they pose as jews but are really not. they worship neither seth nor baal but a giant owl (moloch) instead. they rule the entire world, but i just figured out it has nothing to do with judiasm. they have also no written accounts about their believes, morals, history or religion. it is still conveived mouth-to-mouth. it has nothing to do with kabbalah (as that was written in the 1200s by a muslim in spain. ref: "vårt arabiska arv", ingmar kalrsson), the emerald tablets (written in a mix of phoenician and egyptian tongue) nor the torah. but theyve managed to trick everyone, since 1000 AD.
"Elohim (plural in form but understood in the singular), meaning “God""
it doesnt mean that at all. elohim is a form of supernatural beings, annunaki, space travelers.
in 400 AD, wulfia changed all instances of YHWH in the bible into "guth", meaning a "a person of noble descent with good reputation". and everyone seemingly copied that version. it was eventually changed to "goth", then "god" (in the 1800s they removed the letter eth, ð, and replaced all usages of it with "th"). its synonym is "freyja", what if everyone said freyja instead of god nowadays, how different would the world be? source: wiktionary / bitchute.
Old English had some of those letters like " ð " -- there were quite a few similarities to Norse in Old English.
In an Etymological sense; what you say here is quite interesting: " YHWH in the bible into "guth", meaning a "a person of noble descent with good reputation". and everyone seemingly copied that version. it was eventually changed to "goth", then "god".
YHWH is meant to connect to Yahweh is that right? And I am of the opinion that the Cult of Yahweh was a reinvention of the Cult of Seth. So, in my mind, this also makes a connection of those to Yes'us' (Jesus) at least in a linguistic sense.
jesus real name was yeshua ben josef from nazareth. on bitchute, one guy said that the bible was really written by a dragon called psaul, and it is all made up. he never detailed it further though. i also thought YHWH was a different pronounciation of YeHsWaH, but i was disproven later.
YHWH was a desert demon in northern africa. they worshipped and bloodsacrified to him so they wouldnt get wars, famines, and droughts.
some are of the opinion that "everything comes from hinduism / india". they did have a more advanced written language early on (5000 years ago), and they mix together religion, mathematics, science, mysticism all in one. every god there also had both a good and a bad side. this dualistic thinking (where only one way of thinking is right) in the modern world is toxic.
something that points more to it is the rhesus monkey gene. youre either rh+ or rh- in blood groups. and in india, they have have temples with only monkeys in them. so it seems we all come from there. maybe the first animal we domesticated is neither sheep nor dogs, but monkeys? we used them both for heat, food during scarcities, as pets, and what is more controversial - for sex. i heard it has started happening again in china and india, theyre adopting organgutanges to do their bidding.
everyone was monotheistic before. you prayed to a local god. in greece, for example, it was homeros who united the greeks and created their pantheon. it is said he only walked south and was blind, too. ref eyvind johnson. why they went monotheistic again seems odd though.
old english is similar to norse yes, as the norse invaded the coasts of the british isles (viking means exactly that, "vik-ing", vik means coastal area in swedish still), and the entire world. it is said they even arrived in the americas (then called turtle island) before columbus. i listened to a long lecture about it, basically implying that danish and english fishermen, when they meet at sea, can understand eachother, even to this day.
ancient latin / greek also looks just like the rune language.
She asks: “As father of the Hebrews / Hapiru, is Abdi-Ashirta the Biblical Abram? Does his son Aziru become Isaac?” I would answer yes to both questions. https://jasontheargonaut.medium.com/the-vedic-origins-of-judaism-95972b85ef5e
Interesting concept. There may be connections and interconnections everywhere. I'm sure that the Shemite, Adbi-Ashirta and his son Aziru may have preached "some type" of philosophy; though the evidence is if they had picked it up from elsewhere they would have modified it for their own use. Much like it seems the Cult of Seth was definitely altered to serve the interests of the Habiru rulers and chieftains.
Vedic people began colonizing Tigris-Euphrates as the Saraswati dried up due to tectonic actions and land sunk along the shore of the Sub-Continent. The admixture of populations in antiquity had to happen from populations on the move. For instance north of Iran in now desert areas there were urban centers. I would be unsurprised if Scythians were survivors of those urbanizations. Huxley called India the Mother of Nations. David Frawley of the Yoga Journal; team has a book on Vedic Civilization stressing deep antiquity in India. In Search of the Cradle of Civilization: New Light on Ancient India. Arguing that India, not Sumer, was the cradle of civilization, looks at India's ancient history by examining the symbols and myths contained in the Rig-Veda and exploring the mathematical and astronomical data contained in the Vedic hymns. And Graham Hancock published his book on underwater archeology called Underworld with inundation maps showing land lost to the sea.
There seems to be some evidence that India was indeed a primary start to civilization. The Harapan civilization had a written language based on hieroglyphics or pictograms. There's a whole city in about 300 feet of water, off the coast of Cambay. Side scan sonar shows it is quite large, mostly buried in silt, since it is located at the outlet of the Sarasvati River and some other tributaries.
The movement of people throughout time is a very complex thing to track, especially the further back you look.
My post here was to explore of the evidence of culture admixing and exchange, to see if there could be some connections that are verifiable. Scythian and Habiru are clearly not likely to be related, yet they both are wanderers. I almost want to say that Scythians are just about off the hook, they appear to have been gone by the time of the House of Meat; Beit She'an or Bethlehem. There's so much more to write about on it, I may do a more focused post. ;-)
Well yes we have scraps and we sew our hypothetical garments of thought from them. Herodotus was called the father of lies. Some years out is the truth skeptical age of Null. Pyrrhonism has made with usura a blank tradition screen we moderns project upon with facts and good theories.
Thanks for providing sound file with you reading for us this long interestimg essay..
It takes an effort to write as research witch you humbly mention..
Recording an mp3 of it is creme de la creme and worth noting..
As it helped me to paralell task working here on the farm many an interesting angles can be commented on.. Later tonight Swedish time I will have a go on a few comments like:
(Fast and dirty syllabe-script hints relativ "sound bites")
Ha be ru*
Ha≈"Have"
be="be/beingness/trait-of-actions-"
ru≈secrets/"wisdom"/inward-sight-or-search"
I gather it could be "those havibg/keeping to secrets/secret+deveptive-in-trade(" wisdom"/malice)
*(from a Norse historic syllable-glyph trail analysis:)
Oh, now that is quite interesting.
Ha be ru*
Ha≈"Have" ---- be="be/beingness/trait-of-actions-" ----- ru≈secrets/"wisdom"/inward-sight-or-search"
I really love Etymologies and how they can expose word roots and those meanings seem to stay nicely hidden in near plain sight. I did place the Etymological breakdowns for those terms from the Armarna Letters. With "Habiru" meaning essentially -- Wanderer -- Road Bandit -- Bow Men -- Immigrant ; etc... Let's just say "Hebrews" were not well liked for certain reasons.
The mp3 voice over is the first I've ever tried. I"m glad you liked and appreciated it.
From listening to you reading a made our Norse tongue slant to hear your i witch is somewhat close sounding as a pronounced e i
Swedish..
So..
Be or bi will be of similar logic traiös quite possi ly explained by;
"B" the "e"
compared to
"B" the "i" will share commons and share similars..
"e".=of etheric "thinking" realm/space..
"i" direction/flow inward...
Now Habiru in my way of breaking down it will differ in an interesting way:
Ha=have
bi=dual/two
ru=secrets/"wisdom"..
It would render it more akin to "(they the ones whom) have double secrecy"..
"Tricksters or decievers" as trade..
English pronounciation of the bee insects is spelled thus in Swedis =bi but sounds 95 % the same as English pronounciation..
Very interesting..
I loved this whole Subverted History series by Asha Logos. You might enjoy this re Scythians.
https://youtu.be/_1OVwuCdkK4?si=-Q2y2vPunjRoTggJ
Yes!! I watch that and was going to feature it on this post. But decided to feature it on the next Scythian post. It will be on the Scythians of the Steppe and Ukraine area. I used to think the Scythians were somehow tied to the Ashkenazi through the Khazarians; now I think that may not necessarily be the case, there may be just one tribe of Scythians that gave rise to them.
Definitely liked the YouTube video, and I'm going to use it next ;-)
Nefahotep, FWIW, Luke Harding identifies Abram as the Sumerian Dumuzid The Shepherd and his wife, Princess Sarah, as Inanna. From my notes: "As we have already seen, Abraham was a “tent dweller,” and so was his wife, Sarah. As you may recall, I propose that they are also Dumuzid The Shepherd and Inanna, Goddess of Heaven. Remember the image of her standing with her foot on a leashed lion cub, symbolic of the sun before it was let off the leash, which in turn is symbolic of the lion of Judah. Inanna being Sarah provides the link to the lion of Judah coming into this family."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPcyJzHs5Ek
Interesting interpretations of the Biblical Names. When it comes to symbolism, there are many things that people will see. I am probably more qualified to try to interpret names from my Hindu background than the Bible.
My thinking of the Shemitic names of Noah and his sons is like a form of map of a Patriarchical Proto Political Hierarachy, involving masters and servants; which goes approximately like this: Shem ---> eventually gets to Abraham who is really Abdi-Ashirta then from his line ---> you get David ---> supposed to become king of the first Israel? The Davic Line also gives rise to others like the Tribe of Dan.
Ham = Hammurabi / Cain = Canaanites.
Sorry, that's what I think I know so far.
https://jasontheargonaut.medium.com/the-vedic-origins-of-judaism-95972b85ef5e
Oh, nothing to be sorry about. Aren't we all trying to make sense of the same rather huge elephant in a very dark room?! What you say about an hierarchical map makes sense to me. It used to be quite usual for pre-Anglo-Saxon Britons to be referred to as "Japhetic," descendants of his eldest son, Gomer, as in R W Morgan's 1848 "History of Britain," giving them their place on the map and in the hierarchy:
https://www.thenationalcv.org.uk/More%2016%20History%20of%20Britain%20%20by%20R%20W%20MORGAN%20(1848)%20(2).pdf