Just 9/11? How often have you seen a person of claimed Muslim background participating online in any discussion of conspiracy or historic revisionism?
I have seen but a few from Turkey and Albania. As a whole, a drop in the sea compared to the billion of them. I don't know if Islam is to blame, but critical thinking is not too popular with them.
You certainly wouldn't need to pay or threaten there.
But if you already stick to the story, then Pharaoh's clear instruction to kill their sons would be hard to implement.
No idea where this comes from, please bring reference to suppression of such information.
So they allegedly go out of their way to not be linked to Iraquis but are fine with Turks?
No, not the Turks, the Syrians. And only because they have no choice - modern Syria is the original home of the Amorites as well as Abraham's fathers people. The Turks have only been in Turkey for about 1000 years or so - no way they were related to the people of the Bible. Turks are not native to Turkey.
The desire not to be linked to Iraq is more from the standpoint of the source for the Biblical texts being the Sumerians and Akkadians, and not the fact that the Iraq people might be related to them - obviously they are since they were taken captive back to Bagdad during two or more periods of history.
During my time on here the only people who reveal their belief /faith system are those who then proceed to defend it.
As to the op claim of a carved stone containing physical evidence of the name Moses being carved upon it then yes objectively if the stone exists and can be viewed it itself is real.
The op claim refers to a book for academics that isnt named.
I went to the UCLA site using the search phrase "tablet P499732"
as per the op instruction and the site found
nothing.
A search on startpage using ther same phrase produced this result.
Evidence that Moses was a real person. – PaleoAliens.Com
A search on gibiru using the same phrase produced the same result.
The suggestion to use the search string "mu.ses" produces
nothing.
UCLA people made a video which shows these tablets.
So the tablets exist. No way to date them obviously.
Also the claim of the op article rests solely on the translation by Jim. Other translators do
exist but as ever they want money.
As I read on in the op/paleoaliens article I found that the search "mu.ses" is not the phrase to use, "mu szesz" is. But the UCLA site search refuses to load.
Edit to add.
I put the search phrase "mu szesz" into start page and the first result was this.
Search results
I then used that sites search to find multiple examples of cuneiform tablets contains the mu szesz example.
Search results
Here is the link to the actual page for the tablet on the UCLA site:
Search results
Perhaps your putting the word Tablet in front confused their search engine.
It's not a stone carving but a clay tablet.
You can easily date it by the form of the symbols and the text itself - and UCLA has no problem doing that. Just as you could date an Old English text as being from the Middle Ages and not modern, since most people can not read Old English today and understand it.
And when you provided the second search results above, you apparently found the word mu szesz, which is their way of writing the accented words mu.ses, since their font doesn't allow them to print diacritical markings they express it with an sz for the accented s. The Univ of Penn doesn't have that problem, and they show it as MU.SES.
Did you also note that it is dated by them at
Period: Ur III (ca. 2100-2000 BC)? Which
is the biblical timeline for Moses?
The UCLA are helpful by putting the tablets online, but a quick search of the top schools for
linguistic archaeology and especially in the study of Sumerian will give you the Univ. of Penn
as being the acknowledged top school, the Univ of Chicago and Oxford close behind, and
UCLA later down the lists.
Most of the top Sumerian translators are affiliated with the Univ. of Penn.
I did not study there, but I use their dictionaries quite often.
Users of the various sites will find these problems:
UCLA cannot figure out how to print the characters with accents. Why? No idea.
Oxford insists on using "e" rather than "i" for the pronounced vowels in many signs. That's just their opinion. Their percentage of mis-translations is much higher than other universities, and that's just my opinion but it's based on experience over the past 15 years.
Oxford will only publish the tablets that fit in their narrow window of interests. They won't even attempt the others. Why? No idea. Probably the same reason why their libraries don't have many books on Anglo-Saxon history or publications. Politics.
UCLA has their own idea of a dictionary - you can compare their signs list and see that it is about one fifth as expanded as the Univ. of Penn. They simply are not the leaders in that area, but they are nice enough to put the tablet images up.
The Univ. of Penn has very close ties to religious folks and will not publish anything about
Abraham or Moses, etc. because they apparently fear the association of them with the Bible, and that people might put two and two together and discover that many of the stories from the Old Testament are rewritten or other retellings of stories that had circulated through many of the civilizations in the Middle East and were not exclusive to the Hebrews or their ancestors.
The Univ. of Chicago insists on calling the Babylonian texts "Assyrian" even though that connection was disproved a hundred years ago. Again, just their custom, not fact.
No the claim by me is easily verified. Go here:
ePSD
Look up the defintion for Mu and then the definition for šeš, which is the proper way to
write szesz as the UCLA does. The menu at the left has columns. The most helpful
is the one with a T at the top or the S. It takes some time to fool with their site - I didn't
write the program they use so I can not complain.
Nothing depends on me, everything is verifiable - and no, it is not easily verifiable, and
why is that? Good question. When have scholars not made it difficult for average citizens
to verify their work? I try not to but I have to work within their web pages.
No, nobody else has published this other that myself, here and on my site. Why?
See the above. Religious affiliations, prejudice, desire to hide history, or if you wish
the "Stolen History" that this site is named after. I'm just trying to help bring some
of this out into the light.
Thank you very much for fact-checking some of my work. I really appreciate your efforts. Please
let me know if you have some other questions or doubts - that's how science works - one
puts it out and the others try to affirm or dispute it.
Another good question might be - why am I the only one showing this to you? I have the training but I am not employed by, funded by, or give two shits about, any school, religious group or government goons, that's probably the number one reason.
