A LETTER IS FOUND ASCRIBED TO EGYPTOLOGIST OSING.

THIS
LETTER/EPISTLE IS
AN ATTEPT TO REFUTE HARUN YAHYA AND OTHER SUCH PEOPLE
WHO THINK THAT
HAMAN IS FOUND IN ANCIENT EGYPTOLOGICAL INSCRIPTIONS.
WE HAVE SOME COMMENT AND REMARKS ON THIS
LETTER/EPISTLE.
WE DO THINK THAT ONE SHOULD THINK AGAIN .
Page 1
2009 www.islaminstitut.de Page 1 Is the Quran scientifically and historically proven a
marvel?
or over thirty years! is the claim that the Qur"an te#t scientifically proven a $arvel is an
important $uslim
argument for the truth claims of Islam. %ith this assertion is advertised intensively for
Islam. In $uslim
pu&lications now at least 200 different supposedly scientifically verifia&le evidence the
miraculous nature
of the Qur"an listed. It has &een researched to the following' (he mention of a person
named )aman in the
story of $oses and Pharaoh in the Quran *+f. 2,.-. ,./,. 29./9. 00.20 1/-2 and the
alleged discovery of an ancient
3gyptian inscription with his4 nem name long &efore the advent of Islam &y many
$uslims as the most important
historical evidence for the truth of the 5oran and Islam considered.
OUR STAND POINTS ARE :-
1] IF SUCH A PERSON IS NOT FOUND BY THE SCIENCE OF
EGYPTOLOGY
IT DOES NOT MAKE A PROBLEM. QURANIC TRUTH CANNOT BE
DENIED IF EGYPTOLOGY
FAILETH TO VERIFY QUR'ANIC REPORT. IF BIOLOGY CANNOT
CONFIRM BIRTH OF
ADAM MAY PEACE OF GOD BE UPON HIM!! DOES IT MEAN
BOTH GENESIS AND QURAN
ARE FALSIFIED" SIMILARLY IF EGYPTOLOGY CANNOT PROVE
HA:MA:L IT MEANETH NOT THAT
HA:MA:N DID NOT E#ISTED IN THE TIME OF PHAROAH OF E#ODUS
$WHOSOEVER HE
MAY BE.
%] IS THEIR ANY HIEROGLOPHICAL EVIDENCE WHICH PROVETH
WITH HISTORICAL
CERTAINITY$ E#ODUS OR MOSE
DURING THE PERIOD OF ANY POSSIBLE CANDIDATE OF PHAROAH
OF E#ODUS."" IF THE ANSWER IS NOT IN AFFIRMATION THEN IT
IS INCORRECT TO
DENEY HA:MA:N &UST BECAUSE HIS E#ISTENCE IS NOT IN
HIEROGLOPHAL PICTURES OR O
OTHER SUCH ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCES .
'] IT MAY BE NOTED THAT TO ERASE THE MEMORIES LIKE
NOUNS$
PICTURES AND OTHER REMAINS WAS NA TYPE OF PUNISMENT
AND AN ASSULT TO
THE SPIRIT OF
A PERSON .SINCE TO LIVE AFTER DEATH$ IT WAS BELIEVED TO
SAVE SOME OF
THE MEMORIES. IT MIGHT BE THE CASE SOME SUCCEEDING
PHAROAH DESTROYED
ALL THE MEMORIES OF '' HA:MA:N'' FOR SOME OF HIS OWN
REASONS.
%e pu&lish to a press release with the most
important facts a&out this su&6ect with opinions three 3gyptologists as well as a letter
from Prof. 7r. 89rgen osing of
the ree :niversity ;erlin! who responds in detail to <uestions a&out this inscription.
=o evidence of divine revelation of the Qur"an in 3gyptian inscriptions Invalidated
wonder assertion of 3gyptologists >ienna!
1 =ovem&er 2009. Past 1? years! is an ancient 3gyptian doorpost in >ienna
5unsthistorisches $useum su&6ect of
a controversial religious4dogmatic de&ate. @ome $uslim apologists &elieve! a clear in
this post Proof of the divine
origin of their holy &ooA! the 5oran e#ist to have.
OUR STAND POINT IS SOME WHAT DIFFERENT. SUCH A
VERICATION FROM SCIENCE OF EGYPTOLOGY
MAY REGECT AN OB&ECTION. AL QURAN DOES NOT REQUIRE
EVEDENCES FROM EGYPTOLOGY.
DO GENISIS AND QURAN BOTH REQUIRE SUPPORT OF
BIOLOGY $WHICH SUPPORTETH
EVOLUTION"" BUT IF SOME ANTI EVOLUTION BIOLOGICAL
THEORIES ARE PROPOSED WE
WELCOME THEM. IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED THAT IF
HA:MA:N IS UNPROVED FROM
HIEROGLYPHICAL EVIDENCES ETC. IT DOETH NOT MEAN HA:M:AN
IS DISPROVED. HOW EVER
IF A NUMBER OF ANTI ISLAMIC OB&ECTION MAKERS ARE TRYING
TO EQUATE UNPROVE
AND DISPROVE A FALLACY!! SOME MUSLIMS MAY HAVE GONE
TO THIS E#TENT
IN A REACTION.
)ieroglyphics specialists have now e#amined the inscription on
the post. (he Besult is so&ering'
NOT SO SOBERING. AS WE SHALL SEE.
(he relic revealed no metaphysical truths. )aman 4 this mysterious name will &e 100
percent proof that the origin the 5oran is not a human. (he holy &ooA of Islam descri&es
the person &ehind the =ame
of )aman as a close confidant or advisor to the pharaoh at time of Prophet $oses.
ONE MUST DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CONFIRMATION AND
VERIFICATION. IT APPEARETH TO BE A CASE OF VARIFICATION
RAITHER THEN EQUATING THEM.
In addition! the 3gyptian ruler
)aman ordered it from a &urnt &ricAs (o &uild &uildings! pro6ecting up to Cod in heaven.
Ds the rench scientist 7r. $aurice ;ucaille in 1990 in his &ooA E$oses and the
Pharaoh' (he )e&rews in 3gypt
Eclaimed that he had the personE )aman Ein hieroglyphs can &acA up on a door post!
&roAe with $uslim apologists a
verita&le %onder enthusiasm for these names! which continues today.
NOT ALL MUSLIM APOLOGIST BUT SOME .
(he professional designation of Person from the inscription! Ehead of the <uarry
worAersE!
a perfect match to the description of the 5oran! so ;ucaille. In addition! from the
hieroglyphs could the close
relationship &etween Pharaoh and )aman are derived. ;ucaille concludes'
(he fact that such a person did4 mainly e#isted! in proof of the historically correct details
of the 5oran!
in contrast to the ;i&le.
E#ISTENCE OF HA:MA:N DOETH NOT CONTRADICTS BOOKS OF
TANACH/TANAKH $BOOKS
OF TANACH/ TANAKH ARE SCILENT
OVER THE E#ISTENCE OF HA:MA:N.
SINCE BOOKS
OF TANACH/TANAKH ARE SCILENT THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION
AS ACCORDING TO
SUB&ECT OF LOGIC.
In the following years! numerous $uslim preachers have ;ucailles analysis aufgegrif4
fen.
or e#ample! writes of the controversial (urAish writer )arun Fahya in his ;ooA E(he
Prophet $oses *as2E' E(he e#istence
of the name )aman in ancient 3gyptian @crolls reinforces the fact that the 5oran is the
infalli&le word of Cod.
YAHYA HARUN OR ANY ONE OF HIS SUPPORTERS IS REQUSTED
THAT MAY HE
HIMSELF RESPOND AS WELL.
(he Quran gives us here a wonderful way a piece of historical information! which one of
the at times Prophet $uhammad never would find! or can tap into. E
Page 2
2009 www.islaminstitut.de Page 2 ;ut it is o&vious that this is a divine miracle?
ONE MAY ASK HARUN YAH:YA FOR HIS COMMENTS ON OSIN'S
LATTER AS WELL.
(o answer this <uestion! have
now e#amined the inscription on the door 6am& e#perts. E3gyptian hieroglyphs consist of
consonant sounds.
(he vocaliGation is unclear! E e#plained the ;erlin 3gyptologist Professor 7r. 89rgen
osing. (hus could even
in theory the name E)amanE are not saved in this form! &ut at most a E)mnE. E;ut on the
post is not even the
nameH )mn! &ut H)mn4h isE so Ising.
BUT THIS PROVETH NOT THE IMPOSSIBILITY.MAY ONE ASK HOW
MANY EGYPTIAN
NOUNS ARE SAVED WITH E#ACT ANCIENT PRONOUNCIATION""
)ieroglyphics e#pert Professor 7r. 3rhart Craefe! director of the prestigious Institute for
3gyptology and +optic
@tudies at the %estfJlische %ilhelms4:niversitJt in $9nster e#plained &y >iew the
inscription'
E(he ending is undou&tedly an a&&reviation! it goes from a similar =ame out. E 7r.
5atharina ;auer from the we&
3gyptological Institute of the :niversity of KeipGig agrees' E(he complete name for the
sym&ol is
Hemen-hetep.
(his translates as! )emen is satisfied "or" gracious"! where )emen is an 3gyptian deity.
3gyptians often have their =ame composed so that it is a Cod is linAed with an attri&ute.
E;ut ;ridge &uilder goes even further' EIn closer inspection corresponds to the ")" of the
name )aman " from the 5oran! not the ")" in hieroglyphs. It"s a different sound. Kater!
these )4lute indeed merged in +optic! &ut the phonology is today largely Anown. E Ising!
the E=ominal formation of the 3gyptianE in his worA the difference &etween these Kute
has e#amined! e#plains' EDt the time! the door of the post is dated! was one such usion
is very rare. I am only one case from this period is Anown. E (he <uestion of whether the
6o& title Ehead of the <uarry worAersE a close relationship suggests to Pharaoh denies
&ridge &uilder. (he professional title EIt is indeed on the post! head of the stonemasons
of Dmun ". Pro&a&ly )emen4hetep was in a (emple &usy. rom his relationship to
Pharaoh can not &e inferred. ECraefe"s true ;ridge &uilders to' E(he rest of the te#t
consists of the usual dead wishes. It is found nothing special! which suggests a close
relationship to Pharaoh. E or the professional title of )aman added osing' EIt is dou&tful
that an 3gyptian Aing not a&out his! head of all worAs of the Aing "with the erection of
such a huge @hould have commissioned the &uilding! &ut a non4indicated for &ricA and
little <uali4 fied! head of the <uarry worAers and stonemasons". In addition! the Qur"an
e#pressly Kich of heated or &urnt &ricAs of the <uestion. 7ocuments for &uildings of &urnt
&ricA Dt this time! however! occupy only a very small proportion! in particular at
$onumental. E Prof. Craefe"s so&ering conclusion is' EIn all these o&6ections is an
e<uation with the Qur"anic )aman little more than noisy nonsense. E In the
5unsthistorisches $useum in >ienna was not Anown what significance the artifact in the
was last 1? years. $ichaela )uettner! curator of the 3gyptian and =ear 3astern
+ollection of the 5unsthistorisches $useum in >ienna! responds to the <uestion of
whether ;ucaille the doorposts ever close has &een a&le to investigate' E(o my
Anowledge were the two ragments of the doorpost in decades not pu&licly availa&le!
&ut were only in our depot. In our records! there is neither a correspondence with a $r.
;ucaille still a statement that he or another visitor this artifact in the period wanted to see
from 19L? to 199?. %e have in recent years a&out the unusual wondered international
interest in this doorpost! &ut the first re<uest came a&out until the year 200?. E
P()* '. BUT IT CANNOT DISPROVE THE
POSSIBILITY SEE BELOW
SOME WHERE. BUT MAY ONE ASK HOW THE
PRONOUNCIATION
HEMEN AND HETEB ARE SAVED$ AND IN WHAT
THEORY""
2009 www.islaminstitut.de Page / @ource' $useum of ine Drts with $>5 and M($!
>ienna. :sed &y permission.
IT IS A VERY INCORRECT ARGUMENT. AS WE HAVE STATED
EARLIER IN AN OTHER
ARTICLE!!
DR PROFESSOR &URGEN MAY BE AN E#PERT OR EVEN AN
AUTHORITY IN THE
SCIENCE OF EGYPTOLOGY BUT WHEN HE COMES OUT FROM THE
DOMAIN OF
EGYPTOLOGY
HE IS NEITHER SO AUTHORATIVE NOR SO E#PERT. NO ONE DOES
CLAIM THAT
THE E#ACT WORD IS FOUND IN QUR'A:N. AT BEST /AT MOST IT IS
AN ARABITI+ED
FORM OF AN EGYPTIAN NOUN WHAT SO EVER.
EVIDENCE FROM NEW TESTAMENT. THE PROPER NOUN YASHUA'
IS NOT FOUND IN NEW TESTAMENT
/COVANENT IN ORIGINAL GREEK BUT IESOUS. NTG HAS
GREEKITI+ED THE HEBRAIC NOUN
OF YASHUA'.
WHAT SO EVER BE THE EGYPTIAN/EGYPTIC NOUN OF A PERSON
IT CAN ALWAYS BE
'ARABITI+ED. IT MAY ALSO BE RECALLED THAT BOTH NOUNS
&AMES AND &ACOB ARE TO VARIENTS OF
A SINGLE HEBRAIC NOUN. DID ANY ONE OF THE ANCIENT
HEBREWS EVER THOUGHT
THAT THAT THERE NOUNS WOULD BECOME &AMES IN SOME
CASES AND &ACOB IN
OTHER CASES. NOT CONSONENTAL DEPHTHONG ''''&'''' IN
ENGLISH DOES NOT E#IST IN
HEBREW$ GREEK AND LATIN.
D divine miracle? (hese two fragments of a door 6am& in the >ienna 5unsthistorisches
$useum are many
$uslim apologists as proof of the scientific prova&le Dccuracy of their religion. 3#perts
disagree. Baoul
&asement 1 1 34mail address' raoul4AellerNwe&.de.
ONE SHOULD SEE THE ARGUMENTS OF THESE E#PERTS NOT
&UST A BLIND FAITH
IN THEIR DISAGGREMENT. A PROPER ANALYSIS OF THEIR
ATTEMTED ARGUMENT
IS THE DEMAND OF LOGIC $ SCIENCE OF LAW OF
ARGUMENTATION$ RATIONALITY
AND RESONABLITY. IS THAT NOT SO""""
Page 0
2009 www.islaminstitut.de Page 0 ;elow is a letter to the two fragments of Prof. 7r. 8.
osing *retired2 is
reproduced'
Prof. Dr. Jrgen osing (retired) Egyptology Free University of Berlin Berlin, August 200
7ear @irs!
the names on the two 3gyptian doorposts are clear enough to read. (hey appear specify
) mn4) as of %resGinsAi
and tendril at the end of the two columns of te#t. %hether for this name yet there is a
long form! in my opinion plays
in the comparison with the Qur"anic )aman a su&ordinate role. @tands on the door6am&
of the name ) mn4) 4 and
these sounds are considered. (his ) mn4) is formed from the names of Cod ) mn and
a non4secure certain ;aren
element with the two consonants )%! which in the =ew 5ingdom! in con6unction with the
sign of the papyrus as
a very fre<uent Egroup caseE for the consonants h is needed.
1!!ONE MAY ACCEPT THE STATEMENT THAT THIS NOUN IS H: MN
- H: . IT MAY BE TRUE THAT
THE LAST PART OF THE NOUN H: IS QUESTIONABLE BUT NOT
DENIABLE.
BUT IN ARABITI+ATION THE COMPOSITE EGYPTIAN NOUN IS
CONSIDERED AS A SINGLE NOUN
DISREGARD OF ITS COMPOSITE NATURE. IN THIS CASE THE
FINAL CONSONENT MAY BE DROPPED
. THIS IS NOT UNIQUE WITH ARABIC.
SEE THE LATANI+ES FORM OF IBN SINA AND IBNURRUSH/ IBN
ARRUSHD BOTH
COMPOSITE. SEE IT YOURSELF.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THE FINAL H: MAY BE DROPPED $SINCE IT WOULD HAVE BECOME
TOO UNARABIC$
AND A PROPER ARABITI+ATION REQUIRETH ITS DROPPING.
%!
If BanAe descri&es the name as ) mn4)! it is the ar&itrariness
Question marA to e#plain as it does! for e#ample! the we&site islamic4awareness.org
*8uly 20092'
EDs if @uggesting! ) "what not Dctually part of the nameE! and thus all eliminate. (he
interpretation of final h
is <uestiona&le! &ut not its e#istence as Part of the name! the then still the epithet
Ewith true voice! 6ustifiedE for the &lessed dead follows. +ompared with the name of Dra&
)aman two
discrepancies arise' In the Dra& side of the missing ) at the end of the name.
IT HATH BEEN STATED ABOVE THAT THE COMPOSITE NATURE OF
NOUN IS NEGLECTED
ITS THE POSSIBILITY CANNOT BE DENIED EVEN IF IT APPEARETH
TO BE IMPROBABLE.
THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST STRICT !! RULES FAR
ARBITI+ATION OF A NOUN.
IF SOME ONE CLAIMETH SO HE MUST STATE THESE RULES AND
LAWS RULES AND
LAWS OF ARBITI+ATION FROM AUTHENTIC AND THRUSTWORTHY
BOOKS.!! SO OF THE
FINAL H: IS DROPPED IN THE ARABIC FORM ,IT IS NOT
IMMPOSSIBLE.
1 (he <uality of the first h4Koud is different.
It is true that for the 3gyptian 2 4 In the neigh&orhood of m 4 a sound transition hO h
occasionally already
for the 19th421st 7ynasty has &een demonstrated. *@ee my Enominal form of the
3gyptianE! $ainG 19L- Pp. /-L f.2
+urrently! the new empire! however! on the door post is dated! were such mergers rarely
e#pressed.
$ir is 6ust one e#ample from the <uestion 5nown period of time. It is a secondary
articulation. I thinA it
is <uestiona&le! such a secondary articulation 6ust assign a source from which 7ivine
authority is assumed.
)owever! I thinA the variety of h4lute for su&ordinate! as a num&er of other evidence
against e<uating speaAs.
Dccording to the Qur"an )aman is asAed &y the Pharaoh to a high of &urnt &ricA (o &uild
&uildings. It is noteworthy
that an 3gyptian Aing is not a&out his Ehead have entrusted all the worA of the 5ing Ewith
the erection of such a
massive &uilding should! &ut a minor Ehead of the <uarry worAers or masons.E (he latter
usually had only local
significance and for a *pro&a&ly huge2 ;ricA no <ualifications.
NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM OF EGYPTOLOGY. WHAT DID
THE EGYPTIAN PHAROAH
DID IN THE PAST CANNOT BE KNOWN . IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT
IN HIS DESPIRATE ATTEMPT
HE MIGHT HAVE TALKED TO THE EGYPTOLOGICAL H:MN -H:.
BUT THERE IS NO RECORD OF EACH AND EVERY ACT OF THE
PHAROAH. WE NEED NOT TO DISCUSS
WHAT IS OUT OF THE DOMAIN OF EGYPTOLOGY AND
HIEROGLYPHICS AT PRESENT.
AS AN EGYPTOLOGIST OR A HIEROGLYPHCIST IS NOT AN
AUTHORITY OVER THE SUB&ECT
OF ARBATI+ATION HIS / HER VIEWS ARE NOT AUTHORATIVE. HOW
MAY AUTHENTIC
ARABIC WORKS HAS HE CITED ABOUT THE LAWS OF
ARABITI+ATION OF NON ARABIC
WORKS""
Page ?
2009 www.islaminstitut.de Page ? (o &urn ;auGiegeln should &e noted that in 3gypt
from Pharaonic times an
almost infinite num&er of &uildings! monumental and smaller! o&tained from air4dried
&ricAs is. In addition! taAe
the onset of the 19th dynasty at a site in the eastern =ile 7elta! in the late period then
increasing evidence of
&urned ;auGiegel only a vanishingly small tion part! especially in monumental &uildings
*see D8 @pencer! ;ricA
Drchitecture in Dncient 3gypt. %arminster 19L9! passim2.
For !inguisti" # $%nt to reiter%te t&%t t&e n%'e (%'%n
)ot& in Ar%)i" %s in (e)re$ is ety'ologi"%lly isol%ted %nd t&is %lso
in %ny ot&er *e'iti" l%ngu%ge $ould )e, %s t&ere is
no root $ord + &'n still is su"& % $ord for'%tion types &ere.
HERE RESPECTABLE OSING HAS SHIFTED THE DOMAIN FROM
EGYPTOLOGY TO
ARABITI+ATION. THIS NEEDETH A SPECIAL DISCUSSION. AS AN
E#PERT OF EGYPTOLOGIST
ALL HIS STATEMENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED WITH IN THE LIMITS
OF EGYPTOLOGY.
BUT AS AN ALLEGED E#PERT ON ARABIC LANGUAGE AND
LAWS OF ARBITI+ATION AND PERSIANI+ATION HIS WORDS ARE
NOT AUTHORATIVE.
SO THIS IS SUFFICIENT TO POINT OUT THAT THE LEARD OSING IS
E#ITING FROM HIS
SUB&ECT TO TWO OTHER SUB&ECTS I.E ARABITI+ATION AND
PERSIANI+ATION OF
NON ARABIC AND NON PERSIAN NOUNS THROUGH THE PORTAL
OF FALLACY.
Ds 3gyptian name was )aman at least very unusual
and hitherto completely unAnown.
OFCOURSE THIS IS CORRECT. SINCE HA:MA:N IS NOT AN
EGYPTIAN WORD $ AND
THE PERSON MUST NOT HAVE EVEN THOUGHT THAT HIS NAME
WOULD BE
ARABITI+ED AS
HA:MA:N.
CONSIDER THE E#AMPLE OF GREAT PROPHET MOSHE MAY
PEACE OF GOD BE
UPON HIM!!.
DID THE GREAT PROPHET MOSHE PEACE BE UPON HIM !!
EVER THOUGHT
THAT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE SHALL CHANGE HIS NOUN FROM
MOSHE TO MOSES.""
DID LORD YAHSUA' EVER THOUTH THAT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
WILL CHANGE HIS ORIGINAL
PROPER NOUN FROM YASHUA' TO &ESUS. WHERE Y SOUND OF
THE FIRST LETTER YOD
IS CHANGED TO CONSONENTAL DEPHTHONG ,,&,,$ THE UNVOICED
''SH'' SOUND IS CHANGED TO
VOICED ,,+,, SOUND. LORD YASHUA' MUST NOT HAVE EVER
THOUGHT '' THE WORD
&ESHUA SINCE THE ''&'' SOUND IS NOT PRESENT IN HEBREW$ AND
YOD IS NOT THIS
CONSONENTAL DEPHTHONG.
CAN WE SAY THE SAME WORDS TO GREAT GERMAN SCHOLAR
OSING THAT SIMILARTO
HIS OUN WORDS
-- AS HEBRAIC NOUN &ESUS$ IS NOT FOUND SINSE THE
CONSOENTAL DEPHTHONG
IS NOT FOUND IN HEBREW $ AND HEBRAIC HEBRAIC YOD IS NOT
''&''.
RESPECTABLE OSING MAY SEE THAT ARABITIS+ATION OF HIS
NOUN WOULD BE
&AR&IN 'USIN& OR USIN-&U & AS CONSONENTAL DEPHTHONG$ U
AS
AN ARABIC D:MMH!. PERHAPS THE FINAL & MAY ALSO BE
DELEATED. IT NOT IN PRESENT
ARABIC DIALECTS THEN ANCIENT ARABIC. MAY ONE SAY IN AN
APPRO#IMATELY SIMILAR STYLE
AS AN HEBRAIC NOUN OF A HERBREW THE NOUN '' &AMES'' IS
NOT ONLY UNUSUAL AND
STRANGE BUT IMPOSSIBLE..
(he name has another origin towards *eg Ild Persian )umayun Ethe CreatE!
see 5Phler4;aumgartner2. =ot only &ecause I was the Dra&ic )aman initially to the
Persian )aman erin4 nert! in the
&ooA of 3sther as Begent and @eal carrier of Qer#es and as an enemy of the 8ews is
mentioned and is said to have &een
found due to its intrigue to an inglorious end. (his =ame in the )e&rew te#t has e#actly
the same articulation on
how the Dra&ic form 4 at the >owels not less than the consonants *see 5Phler4
;aumgartner2. (he mention of such
a figure is limited to the scriptures of 8udaism *and +hristianity2 and Islam.
NOW OUR LEARNED EGYPTOLOGIST S TRYING TO BE AN E#PERT
UPON PERSIAN AND ARABIC
AND ABRITI+ATION OF PERSIAN WORDS. THIS DOES REQUIRE A
SEPERATE DISCUSSION BUT
MAY ONE ASK THAT '' IS AN EGYPTOLOGIST IS ALSO AN E#PERT
UPON PERSIAN$HEBREW$ ARAMAIC ANF ARABIC.
ONCE AGAIN WE CONCLUDE THAT PERSIANI+ATION AND
ARABITI+ATION OF NON PERSIAN
AND NON ARABIC NOUNS IS A VERY DIFFERENT SUB&ECT AND
REQUIRETH A SEPERATE
DISCUSSION. OUR BELOVED EGYPTIOLOGIST IS ONCE AGAIN IS
TRANSPORTING FROM
FROM THE SCIENCE OF EGYPTOLOGY TO THE SUB&ECTS OF
ARABITI+TION AND
PERSIANI+ATION OF NOUNS RESPECTIVELY.
SO IT IS SUFFICIENT TO POINT OUT THAT TRANSPORTING
HIMSELF SCILENTLY
FROM ONE SUB&ECT TO AN OTHER . THIS IS A FALLACT AND
SHIFT OF SUB&ECTS.
ANY HOW ONE MAY THANK OSING FOR NOT DISCUSSING THE
INDIAN KING
'' HUMAYUN'' SON OF KING BA:BAR THE FOUNDER OF MUGHAL
DYNASTY IN INDIAN SUB
-CONTINENT .
TO DISCUSS THE BOOK OF ESTHER OF BIBLE IS ONCE AGAIN TO
MI# EGYPTOLOGY
WITH BOOK OF ESTHER. THE LEARNED EGYPTOLOIST SHOULD
NOT HAVE DONE THAT.
DID HE FIND ESTHER IN THE PERIOD OF PHAROAHS OF 1.TH AND
1/TH DYNASTIES.
""""" AS THE ARGUMENT IS NOT EGYPTOLOGICAL A PROPER
DISCUSSION
ON THE TOPIC IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PRESENT
COMMENS AND REMARKS.
MAY ONE ASK OSING IS AN EGYPTOLOGIST AND HIEROGLYPHIST
OR AN E#PERT
ON PERSIANI+ATION AND AN E#PERT ON ARABITI+ATION AS
WELL""
(he e#tent of matching for the two persons named )aman sets m. 3. a conclusion as to
direct dependence close.
THIS ALLEGED CONCLUSION IS CONTROVERSAL. BUT WHAT THIS
CONCLUSION HAS TO DO WITH
THE PAROAHS OF 1.TH AND 1/ DYNASTIES AND THEIR
HISTORY."" ONCE AGAIN AN CLEAR NON EGYPTOLOGIC
ARGUMENT.
(he motif of a rising sAywards &uilding and hu&ris! here&y the Cod of the Israelites
counter! could &e modeled on the
(ower of ;a&el.
THIS IS A MISSIONARY ARGUMENT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH EGYPTOLOGY.
ONE AGAIN THE GREAT EGYPTOLOGIST IS DRITING FROM
EGYPTOLOGY TO POLEMICS.
IS THAT A RESEARCH"""" WHAT THE PHAROAHIC EGYPTOLOGY
HAS TO DO WITH
BABEL. SUCH A SHIFT IS &UST IRREFUTABLE PROOF THAT THE
EGYPTOLOGIST HAS
BECOME BABELIST/BABELOGIST$ AND A POLIMIST IN ADDITION .
In $esopotamia were such RiegelGiAAurat common. Dccording to Cenesis 11./! the
tower of ;a&el
was &roAen4 enes and &urnt &ricA &uilt. %ith &est regards 89rgen osing.
IT APPEARS THAT JURGEN OSING IS NOT SO EGYPTOLOGIC IN HIS RESPONCE.
ANY HOW ONE MUST THANK OSING FOR CHAIRING HIS COMPOUND VIEWS
A QUESTION TO THOSE WHO DENEY HAMAN:
IF THE SCIENCE OF EGYTOLOGY FAILETH TO PROVE HA:MA:N $ IT
ALSO FAILETH
TO PROVE THE MIGHTY PROPHET OF GOD MOSES MAY THE
PEACE OF GOD BE UPON HIM.
!!. CAN MOSES BE DENIED ONLY BECAUSE HIS E#ISTENCE IS
NOT FOUND
EGYPTOLOGICALLY IN THE PERIOD OF ANY ONE OF THE
PHAROAHS.
NOTE: WE UPGRADE OUR ARTICLES BUT DO NOT DELEAT OLD
ONES FOR REFERENCES.
HOW EVER ONLY
THE RECIENT ONES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS OUR VIEWS.