Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Does the Name ‘Senenmut’ Reflect the Hebrew 'Solomon'? Part Two: Egyptian and Nahuatl





Damien F. Mackey




This short Part Two is not primarily about Senenmut.

It is really about the close similarity between ancient Egyptian and Nahuatl.  

Nahuatl appears to add the letter “l” which is uncommon in Egyptian, as noted in Part One in relation to the Egyptian, “Senenmut”, representing Hebrew “Shelomith” (or Solomon).


“One very obvious characteristic of the nahuatl language is the extensive use of the letter "l" in most of the words, either as ending to the words or juxtaposed to consonants and vowels within the words. One of the very apparent characteristics of the ancient Egyptian language is the almost total absence of the use of the letter "l" within most of its word-concepts. The letter "l" appears as an ending of words only a handful of times in E.A. Wallis Budge's work, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary. It would appear that this very dissimilar characteristic between these two languages would discourage anyone from considering a comparative analysis of possible linguistic correspondence between these two very apparently distinct idioms”.


Thus writes Charles William Johnson, in his fascinating article:


Linguistic Correspondence:
Nahuatl and Ancient Egyptian



According to Johnson:


In our more detailed analyses of the possible correspondence among words of the ancient Egyptian language and nahuatland maya, we have seen that some word-concepts are almost exactly the same in phonetic values. Furthermore, the maya glyphs and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs share extremely common designs in similar/same word-concepts.

Today, the idea of linguistic correspondence among the Indo-European languages is a widespread fact. From the still unknown Indo-European mother language it is thought came Sanskrit (and the contemporary languages of Pakistan and India); Persian; and Greek, Latin (and many contemporary European languages). The correspondence of similar/same words among the Latin languages is quite visible, with Spanish words, for example, resembling those of French, Italian and Portuguese. English resembles the Teutonic ones, such as, German, Dutch and the Scandinavian languages.

On the other hand, no apparent linguistic correspondence has been observed between ancient Egyptian and languages such as nahuatl or maya, at least to any significant scholarly degree. In the aforementioned essay, we have examined numerous correspondences between word-concepts (and some glyphs) between the ancient Egyptian language and the maya system. The word for day name in maya is ahau, which means place or time in ancient Egyptian. Hom is ballcourt in maya; hem means little ball in ancient Egyptian. Ik means air in maya ; to suspend in the air is ikh in ancient Egyptian. Nichim signifies flower in maya; nehem means bud, flower in ancient Egyptian. And so on, for hundreds of word-concepts that we have examined in the comparison of these two languages.

When similar kinds of linguistic correspondences were perceived by William Jones, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, between Sanskrit and other languages, such examples were sufficient to convince scholars that all of those languages probably came from a mother tongue, the Indo-European language. Today, when linguistic correspondence is observed between the ancient Mesoamerican languages and ancient Egyptian, scholars are unwilling or hesitant to accept the idea that the same laws of linguistics may apply. The reason for this is quite simple: there is no historical basis for considering the possibility that the peoples of these different languages had any physical contact among themselves. Physical contact among the peoples who descended from the Indo-European family is established by historical data. There is no obvious historical data to think that the peoples of ancient Mesoamerica and the peoples of ancient Egypt ever met or came into physical contact with one another.

Nevertheless, historical data aside for the moment, let us examine some of the obvious examples of linguistic correspondence between nahuatl and the ancient Egyptian language.

One very obvious characteristic of the nahuatl language is the extensive use of the letter "l" in most of the words, either as ending to the words or juxtaposed to consonants and vowels within the words. One of the very apparent characteristics of the ancient Egyptian language is the almost total absence of the use of the letter "l" within most of its word-concepts. The letter "l" appears as an ending of words only a handful of times in E.A. Wallis Budge's work, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary. It would appear that this very dissimilar characteristic between these two languages would discourage anyone from considering a comparative analysis of possible linguistic correspondence between these two very apparently distinct idioms.

However, as we eliminate the letter "l" from the nahuatl words, the remaining phonemes (listed in brackets) resemble the phonemes and morphemes of ancient Egyptian in many cases. Let us offer only a few of such examples to consider a possible linguistic correspondence between these two fascinating systems of human speech.


ACAL [aca-]
boat (page 139b from Budge's work cited above)
reed (139b)
reed (8a)
a well
AMELLI [ame-i]
place with water in them, wells (121b)
CALLI [ca-i]
house (783a)
COATL [coat-]
snake (30b)


Linguistic correspondence between nahuatl and ancient Egyptian appears to represent a smoking gun; that is, a trace of evidence that these two peoples did enjoy some kind of contact between themselves ages ago. The fact that we have no real evidence of said contact, or that we have been unable to find any such evidence, should not serve as the basis for denying the possibility of that contact. To attribute all of these similarities in sound, symbol and meaning to mere happenstance seems to be a very unscientific way of resolving an annoying issue. To admit the possibility of physical contact between these cultures has implications for our own interpretation of history and the aspect of technological development of our societies. Such fears are unfounded, given the already obvious fact that our technical know-how could probably not reproduce and build something as majestic as the Great Pyramid.

[End of quote]


It is probably as a result of the evolutionary view of things - according to which human beings sprang up from lower animal forms, all in their various places - that anthropologists and historians are unable to make the obvious connections between cultures of similar types, that shared language characteristics, pyramid building technology, and hieroglyphics, to name just a few common features.


The wise King Solomon’s (Senenmut’s?) view of human origins was quite different from this, and far more enlightened, I believe:



“For God created man to be immortal,

and made him to be an image

of his own eternity.”


Wisdom of Solomon 2:23

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Trigger-Happy Revision of Biblico-History?

Image result for yosemite sam

An Introduction to Chronological Revisionism

Following up on the link I posted yesterday, I thought it might be a good idea to introduce folks to the entire concept of chronological revisionism, why it matters, and what it means for the Bible. Most of us assume that we know precisely when historical events occurred in ancient history- after all, encyclopedias and textbooks list, year by year, the reigns of various kings and the dates of various battles. In reality, however, the situation is far murkier than this. In fact, the entire edifice of ancient chronology is built upon the reconstructed chronology of Egyptian civilization. All other civilizations are “keyed” into Egyptian history. I won’t go into the exact problems with Egyptian chronology at this moment, but mainstream Egyptologists have referred to it as “rags and tatters.” It maintains weight by force of simple consensus.
More importantly, though, what relevance does this have to the Bible? Well, in the conventional chronology, there is little more than circumstantial evidence for the exodus. James Hoffmeier and Kenneth Kitchen have argued for an exodus during the reign of Rameses II (13th century according to mainstream chronology). There are enormous problems with this identification. For example, it contradicts the biblical figure of 480 years between the exodus and the building of the Temple. Furthermore, we have Rameses’ mummy- he clearly didn’t pursue Israel into the Red Sea. Most importantly, however, we have these words from Pharaoh’s counselors:
(Exodus 10:7) Then Pharaoh’s servants said to him, “How long shall this man be a snare to us? Let the men go, that they may serve the Lord their God. Do you not yet understand that Egypt is ruined?”
The exodus and the plagues of Egypt were not minor events in the ancient world. If they occurred, they brought about the ruin of Egypt, probably for an extensive period of time.
The backbone of any revisionist chronology must be the destruction of Egypt.
The basic outline of Egyptian history by mainstream historians is as follows:
1. Old Kingdom.
2. First Dark Age
3. Middle Kingdom
4. Second Dark Age
5. New Kingdom
6. Sack of Thebes

As you can see, there are two dark ages here. Revisionists such as Donovan Courville have argued that the Old and Middle Kingdoms actually ran parallel to each other, and that the two dark ages ought to be identified. That’s neither here nor there at this point (though it will be). We only have to ask whether one of these ages corresponds with the events surrounding the exodus. And it does.
When Israel comes out of Egypt, in Exodus 17, they discover and fight a group of Semites called Amalekites- but why are the Amalekites there? In the second dark age of Egyptian history, a group of Semites called Hyksos invaded and quickly conquered Egypt, ruling brutally for several centuries until finally being expelled by Ahmose I (thus inaugurating the New Kingdom). Their brutality was legendary. Furthermore, Manetho, an Egyptian historian, records that in the reign of one of the last Middle Kingdom Pharaohs, Dudimose, Egypt was “smote by God” (he says that he forgot the reason) thus allowing the Hyksos to conquer Egypt without a fight.
That sounds like the exodus.
There’s more. The Ipuwer Papyrus has long been noted for its parallels to the Book of Exodus- but the connection has been dismissed, because the chronology doesn’t line up. On a revised chronology, however, it fits together. The Ipuwer Papyrus declares that “the river is blood” that “the children of the neck are slain” that “gold and lapis lazuli have been strung on female slaves” that “darkness is everywhere” and that the Hyksos from the east have invaded and conquered.
That sounds like the exodus.
And that is the pillar of chronological revisionism. Once the exodus is plugged in at this point, one can plug in the conquest forty years later. And what does one see at the end of the Early Bronze Age and the beginning of the Middle Bronze (a new chronology archaeological date for the exodus)? Well:
1. You have a very short layer of nomadic settlements in the Sinai wilderness.
2. You have five conquered cities in the region of Midian, apparently corresponding to what occurred in Numbers 31.
3. In the land of Canaan, the walls of Jericho have fallen outwards, and the city has been totally burned and left unsettled- except one small portion of the wall, as Rahab lived in the wall.
4. A dramatic, higher culture, very quickly conquers and replaces an older culture. This is the case in cities all over Canaan.
The relation of the Hyksos to the Amalekites provides another insight into biblical history. Why was it that Saul had to fight the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15, centuries after the exodus? Revisionists have argued that this is because the Hyksos had just been expelled from Egypt. Hard revisionists like Courville put the expulsion in the life of Saul, while softer revisionists like Rohl date it a century or so earlier. The situation is thus: the Amalekites have been expelled from Egypt by Pharaoh Ahmose, and King Saul is sent to destroy them before they reenter Egypt. Elsewhere in Samuel, David encounters an Amalekite with an Egyptian slave.
This also explains why Egypt and Amalek reappear on the scene at the exact same time in biblical history, which otherwise appears a very curious coincidence. Egypt virtually never appeared throughout the period of the judges, because they were still ruined and ruled by a barbaric people. But within a few decades, Amalek is kicked out and Egypt revives, so that Pharaoh gives his daughter to Solomon.
Speaking of Solomon, taking Courville’s relative dates for Egypt and Israel, this explains why so many people have thought that Israelite proverbs borrowed from Egypt. Actually, when you fix up the chronology, the 18th dynasty (which displays enormous similarity to biblical material) was influenced by Solomon. Allusions to Solomonic proverbs are on the walls. David’s Psalms appear to influence some of their own poems. Love poems such as the Song of Solomon become popular.
There’s so much more I could say, but I want to give some pointers on where to go if you want to search this out further:
The difference between soft and hard revsionism lies in whether one is committed to the biblical chronology and the biblical history, or the biblical history alone. If the latter, one is not constrained by the biblical date for the Flood (2274 BC) which requires Egypt to have lasted about 1800 years rather than the mainstream 3000.
Soft Revisionists
Pharaohs and Kings by David Rohl. This is a brilliant and terrifically written book. I disagree with his analysis of the el-Amarna letters and his synchronisms with the period of Saul, but stand totally behind his archaeological analysis of Solomon’s time and his work on the exodus and conquest.
[AMAIC comment: See our alternative reconstructions at site below of King Solomon's time]
Centuries of Darkness by Peter James. This doesn’t look at ancient chronology from a biblical perspective, but points out the problems in the conventional chronology with respect to other civilizations. In order to key in ancient history to Egypt’s history, scholars have actually inserted a dark age of about 300 years all across the ancient world (except Egypt). The problem is that the culture before the dark age is identical to the culture afterwards- which makes no sense is this period of time existed.
Redating the Exodus and Conquest by John Bimson.
Hard Revisionists
The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Vols I and II by Donovan Courville. Courville was a pioneer. An Adventist scholar who saw that the chronology of the ancient world must be wrong if the Bible is true, he was one of the first to foray into this territory. He was mocked when he wrote the book, but now scholars such as James and Rohl are picking up on this (without giving him credit).
That page contains a huge volume of articles by Damien Mackey, a scholar who did a PhD dissertation on a new chronology of ancient Israel. Unfortunately, his work was rejected (by one out of three of his examiners) for a PhD and he received a Masters. Much of Mackey’s work is terrific. However, he is very trigger-happy with parallelomania, and has a bizarre tendency to identify biblical kings as Pharaohs of Egypt, which I don’t think works in the least. Read carefully and critically, but read.
[End of post]
AMAIC would agree with most of the above.
It is a pretty good overview.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

Why Thutmose III can be ‘King Shishak of Egypt’

 Damien F. Mackey
Egyptologists believe that pharaoh Thutmose III had,
in his ‘First Campaign’ against the ‘king of Kadesh’, in the C15th BC,
assaulted the strong fort of Megiddo in northern Israel.
Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, however, in his Ages in Chaos
(I), whilst accepting that Megiddo was the pharaoh’s target here, had lowered
these dates by 500 years, to the C10th BC.
For Velikovsky, Egypt’s foe was king Rehoboam, and
Kadesh, the “Holy”, was Jerusalem.
And Thutmose III was the biblical “Shishak king of Egypt” (I Kings 14:25).
My own view is that Megiddo could not have been the
location arrived at by the Egyptians – though I would accept Velikovsky’s
dating of Thutmose III.
So, what is the preferential geography for this ‘First Campaign’?
And was “Kadesh” indeed Jerusalem? Or was it some other location?
To read complete article, go to:

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

"Now when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon" (I Kings 10:1).


  • Description. "Now when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon" (I Kings 10:1).
    This famous Queen of the Old Testament is also spoken of by Jesus Christ himself (Luke 11:29-32).

    Following Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky, in Ages in Chaos I (though with significant modifications), we identify the biblical 'Queen of the South' with Queen Hatshepsut of Egypt's 18th dynasty.

    {This site has now overflowed into: http://queensouthhatshesput.wordpress.com/}

    Wednesday, December 19, 2012

    Was Hatshepsut (Sheba) A Pharaoh When She Visited King Solomon’s Jerusalem?


    Damien F. Mackey

    So proposes Adam Stuart, who has written:
    I wrote earlier that it seems very improbable that Hatshepsut would have visited Solomon at any time before she became king, unless it were to visit her sister Neferbity/Nefrubity if that sister were the daughter of pharaoh who was married to Solomon (royalty sometimes visit each other, but do the chronological details of Neferbity’s life allow for this?). But if this were the case, then I would think that the Bible would have mentioned the relationship between the Queen of Sheba and pharaoh’s daughter, which it does not. It says that the Queen of Sheba came to prove Solomon with hard questions. It does not say that the Queen of Sheba came to visit pharaoh’s daughter, Solomon’s Egyptian wife.

    * * *
    Disregarding how the biblical scribes might have referred to the phenomenon of a female king – {both “king” (melech) and “pharaoh” (pharoh) being used in the Bible for Egyptian monarchs} - I intend to argue here that the Old and New Testaments call Solomon’s guest “queen” simply because that is what she was at the time of her visit to Jerusalem. Needless to say, there is a big difference between a Queen and a Pharaoh.

    So I would date her visit earlier than Stuart does, and place it – as according to Hyam Maccoby (SIS Review IV:4, 'The Queen of Sheba and the Song of Songs') and Dr. Ed Metzler (Conflict of Laws in the Israelite Dynasty of Egypt, http://moziani.tripod.com/dynasty/ammm_2_1.htm - in the context of a marriage. Hence the phenomenal gifts (dowry), as opposed to the mean presents of the Punt expedition.

    What the queen had seen in Jerusalem had truly stunned her: the glory of king Solomon and his palace; the Temple and its liturgies; and the magnificent fleet. She wanted the same for her own land of Egypt, after she had returned. Ed Metzler (his is a must read article) takes this verb as implying a divorce.
    Metzler, n. 52:

    "On their divorce cf. Ed Metzler, Discovering Mosaistics (N. 1) pp. 175 and 182–3. The word “divorce” (Latin divortium) derives from divertere “to turn away”, and thus the story about the Queen of Sheba ends by saying that “she turned”, and went away to her own land (1. Kings 10, 13 and 2. Chronicles 9, 12). The insertion of the two preceding verses (as e. g. Genesis 38 in the story of Joseph) indicates that a period of time, maybe 10 years, elapsed".

    All purely political, of course

    Meanwhile she had had a child with Solomon, little Neferure, so beloved of Solomon (as Senenmut). But, though she was Solomon’s favourite wife, she had not provided him with the requisite male heir. That was achieved by Rehoboam’s mother, an Ammonite named Naamah.

    Velikovskian Metzler has marvellously reconstructed the 18th dynasty in its relation to Israel. King David, he tells, was the biblical “pharaoh” who sacked Gezer, Thutmose I (this accords with Bimson’s stratigraphy, too). David was not yet king of Israel. Saul was. Saul married Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz (I Samuel 14:50), that is, Ahhotep daughter of Ahmose according to Metzler. Saul was pharaoh Amenhotep I, un-related to Thutmose I (except by marriage), with whom he may have shared a brief co-regency.

    Thus, whilst Velikovsky had rightly discerned that Israel’s monarchy had arisen contemporaneously with the 18th dynasty, Metzler took it all that important step further. Israel’s monarchy was the early 18th Dynasty.

    The Thutmosids were therefore Davidides:
    Thutmose I was David.
    Hatshepsut was the daughter of Thutmose I (he crowned her Maat-ka-re in a three phase ceremony that followed the very pattern of Solomon’s coronation by David. See my “Solomon and Sheba” (in C and CR 1997:1, pp. 4-15).
    Thutmose II was Solomon (= Senenmut), husband of Hatshepsut.
    Thutmose III was Solomon’s son by a concubine.

    Hatshepsut famously shared the bed of Thutmose I, II and III (perhaps)

    - with Thutmose I (as the virginal beauty, Abishag);
    - with Thutmose II (as Queen Sheba):
    - with Thutmose III perhaps (as Hatshepsut II, mother of Amenhotep II).

    For when she returned from Jerusalem, she may have married Thutmose III.
    Was it then that she became pharaoh?

    As US theologian Dr. Scott Hahn has written, the Davidide dynasty was meant by Yahweh to become ‘a Torah to the nations’ (A Father who keep his promises). And I have shown at some length in my “Solomon and Sheba” article that Davidic and Solomonic wisdom (even love poetry) poured into Egypt at the time of Hatshepsut. Did not Hatshepsut even speak of Karnak in Davidic terms and sought to make it just as Jerusalem was? (Not sure of the Yahwistic theology in all of this).

    The Punt expedition, which Hatshepsut did not accompany as has been well noted, was for the purpose of acquiring rare incense plants for her (Solomonic) temple at Deir el-Bahri. The campaign was led by Nehesi, who I think may have been Thutmose III himself – who was also the architect Djehuti (= Thutmose) for her temple. Thutmose III is conventionally placed right in the background on these occasions. But he may well have actually been right at the forefront.
    Did he have some Nubian blood in his veins?

    I think that the tri-partite empire at this time saw Solomon in Syro-Palestine; Hatshepsut in Egypt; and Thutmose III in Nubia. All kings!

    But Hatshepsut and Thutmose III had previously lived in Israel (she in Shunem).

    The virginal Abishag I have argued was the virginal Tamar (Maat [ka] ra), Absalom’s sister, raped by Amnon while she was still in the care of the aged King David. See: http://hatshepsut-amaic.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/rape-of-tamar-further-perspectives-on.html
    Absalom, brother of Solomon – and early obelisk builder – was probably Senimen, the brother of Senenmut (see: http://amaickingdavid.blog.com/2011/10/03/70/)

    After the rape episode, Tamar became for a time a virtual prisoner in Absalom’s charge This is the whole tension of the Song of Solomon, with the frustrated young Solomon (no doubt espoused to her, hence the Gezer dowry episode), trying to peep in at her – she being so roughly treated by her contemptuous brothers - when once the young pair had played in a paradise-like Israel.

    Later, after the demise of Absalom, Solomon and Abishag (can this strange name be harmonised with Hatshepsut?) would marry, as the Song progresses to a wedding.

    To have Abishag was apparently to have the kingdom. Thus I Kings 2:
    (13) Now Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. And she said, “Do you come peacefully?” And he said, “Peacefully.”

    (14) Then he said, “I have something to say to you.” And she said, “Speak.”

    (15) So he said, “You know that the kingdom was mine and that all Israel expected me to be king; however, the kingdom has turned about and become my brother's, for it was his from the Lord.

    (16) “Now I am making one request of you; do not refuse me. And she said to him, “Speak.”

    (17) Then he said, “Please speak to Solomon the king, for he will not refuse you, that he may give me Abishag the Shunammite as a wife.”

    (18) Bathsheba said, “Very well; I will speak to the king for you.”

    (19) So Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king arose to meet her, bowed before her, and sat on his throne; then he had a throne set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right,

    (20) Then she said, “I am making one small request of you; do not refuse me.” And the king said to her, “Ask, my mother, for I will not refuse you,”

    (21) So she said, “Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as a wife.”

    (22) King Solomon answered and said to his mother, “And why are you asking Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? Ask for him also the kingdom-for he is my older brother-even for him, for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah!”

    (23) Then King Solomon swore by the Lord, saying, “May God do so to me and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life.

    (24) “Now therefore, as the Lord lives, who has established me and set me on the throne of David my father and who has made me a house as He promised, surely Adonijah shall be put to death today.”

    (25) So King Solomon sent Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he fell upon him so that he died.

    The girl seems to have had precedence over even Solomon himself. Does not Senenmut (Solomon) tell us: "I was in this land [Egypt] under her command since the occurrence of the death of her predecessor..." http://www.specialtyinterests.net/alternate.html

    A Note on the Name, ‘Shishak”
    One probably does not need to exhaust Thutmose III’s titulary seeking for the name “Shishak” as revisionists have done so diligently. It was probably the name by which he was known in Jerusalem. For there was also a Shisha in King Solomon’s court: 1 Kings 4:3: “Elihoreph and Ahiah, the sons of Shisha, scribes …”.

    Christmas 2012.