Egypt vs. Msrim

by vazir, Saturday, October 26, 2013, 21:03 (1392 days ago) @ vazir

Egypt vs. Msrim

As showed in my previous post How Septuagint highjacked the Geography of Egypt?, how the Septuagint priests, who translated the Aramaic text of the Old Testament to Greek, replaced the word Msrm, as it appears in the original text, with “Aegypto”, thus creating the illusion that the events surrounding the Israelites had taken place in the Nile country. As a result, the later generations of the world have fallen victims to this delusion, including the Muslims.

In the post about Misr of Yusuf (P), it is also showed that the term Misr, as it appears in the Qur’an, refers to a walled citadel having several gates, that stood on the trade route, somewhere in South Arabia, and that the Qur’anic term does not necessarily appear in the exact same context as it does in the Old Testament. This is because the Qur’an, as a radically Arabic document, is independent in its usage of terms from the previous scriptures. The time has come to conduct an in-depth analysis of the word Msrm, which is obviously a proper noun, to find out what the term actually referred to, before the Septuagint corruption.

Before we start, it is worth taking note again that the Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) itself cast serious doubts about the translation of the term Msrm into Egypt. Let us read the following two passages under the heading entitled “Arabia” in the CE:

THE NORTH-ARABIAN MUSRI AND THE OLD TESTAMENT MISRAIM:
The cuneiform inscriptions of Assyria have thrown considerable light on various geographical localities in North Arabia, having important bearing on the history of the ancient Hebrews and on the critical study of the Old Testament. The importance of these new facts and researches has of late assumed very bewildering proportions, the credit for which unmistakably belongs to Winckler, Hommel, and Cheyne. It is needless to say that however ingenious these hypotheses may appear to be they are not as yet entitled to be received without caution and hesitation. Were we to believe, in fact, the elaborate theories of these eminent scholars, a great part of the historical events of the Old Testament should be transferred from Egypt and Chanaan into Arabia; for, according to the latest speculations of these scholars, many of the passages in the Old Testament which, until recently, were supposed to refer to Egypt (in Hebrew Misraim) and to Ethiopia (in Hebrew, Kush) do not really apply to them but to two regions of similar names in North Arabia, called in the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions Musri or Musrim, and Chush, respectively.

According to this theory,
Agar, Sarai's handmaid (Gen., xvi, 1), was not Misrite or Egyptian, but Musrite, i.e. from Musri, in northern Arabia. Abraham (Gen., xii, 10) did not go down into Misraim, or Egypt, where he is said to have received from the Pharaoh a gift of menservants and handmaids, but into Misrim, or Musri, in northern Arabia. Joseph, when bought by the Ismaelites, or Madianites, i.e. Arabs, was not brought into Egypt (Misraim), but to Musri, or Misrim, in north Arabia, which was the home of the Madianites. In I Kings (A. V., I Sam.), xxx, 13, we should not read "I am a young man of Egypt [Misraim], slave of an Amalecite", but of Musri in north Arabia.

The insinuations made by the CE concerning the true meaning of the name Msrm as no more than an Arabian tribal identity cannot be ignored. The problem is their assumption that the land of the Midianites and of the Msrm (Misrim or Musrim, once the vowels are added), was in North Arabia. From a strictly geographical perspective, this assumption is false.

Whenever a forgery is perpetrated in the translation of a text, the culprits are bound to make a mistake somewhere that eventually gives away their crime. It appears that the Septuagint priests, who sought to replace every instance of the term Msrm with “Aegypto”, failed to pay attention to one incriminating passage in their translation that mentions Msrm in its true context, as no more than a clan. The passage is the following:

If the Clan of (Egypt) will not come up and enter in, they [shall have] no [rain;] they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles (Zecheriah 14:18).

Going back to the Aramaic text, we can clearly see the term Mishphaht Msrim, which any speaker of modern “Hebrew” will tell you means precisely: family (or clan) of Egypt. This is the meaning that all the orientalist translations of the Old Testament have confirmed. In the Squared Aramaic letters, the phrase is written as such: משפחת מצרים

The above passage from Zecheriah sounds the first warning buzzard on the Septuagint translation: has anyone ever heard of Egypt being described as a “clan”? The following is another passage from the OT, which shows just how problematic the Septuagint translation of the name Msrim is:

The princes of Zoan have become mad; The princes of Noph are deceived; They have deluded (Egypt), those who are the mainstay of its tribes (Isaiah 19:13)

The appearance of the names “Zoan” and “Noph” in the original Aramaic text of the above passage caused enormous problems for the orientalists, since they could not reconcile those names with the Egyptian landscape. As a result, they resorted to fraud and deception by rendering “Noph” as “Memphis”! This is why, in some English translations of the OT, you will see “Memphis” appear in the Book of Isaiah, while other translations remained faithful to the original text, by keeping the name as it is: Noph. (The name appears as " ףנ " , and is transliterated as “Nph”, or “Noph” - after the Masorites added vowels to the text starting from the 7th Century AD). Furthermore, we are faced with the puzzle of Egypt being described as consisting of tribes, in the above passage. Again, this defies our knowledge of Ancient Egypt as a powerful, unified kingdom, ruled by a centralized monarchy, and rivaling the might - if not the brutality - of the Assyrians and Babylonians. Egypt was not composed of tribes or clans, and neither was Mesopotamia, for that matter.

The only region in the ancient world that did not know any form of central authority during that era was Arabia. It was a land where fiercely independent clans lived under tribal customs, often warring with each other. (This was the state that the region was left in ever since the dissolution of Sulaymān’s kingdom). It was a lawless, rebellious region that had control of strategic trade routes, and its tribes were a thorn in the side of the Assyrians and the Egyptians.

Another problematic passage bearing mention of Noph as a location in Egypt is the following passage from the Book of Ezekiel:

Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause their images to cease out of Noph; and there shall be no more a prince of the land of (Egypt): and I will put a fear in the land of (Egypt) (Ezekiel 30:13)

The rendering of Noph as Memphis in some translations of the OT (see for example: Douay Rheims Bible, and the American Standard Version) is truly one of the most spectacular instances of forgery that the orientalist imagination could contrive. What these criminals failed to realize is that the context of Ezekiel warns of the destruction and devastation that the Assyrian King Nebuchednessar promised to inflict throughout ancient Israel. If Biblical Israel truly was in Palestine, as we have been led to believe, then why would the Assyrians issue a warning to Memphis, a city that lay south of the Nile Delta, and had no geographical connection to ancient Israel?

The truth is that Noph is not Memphis, and the Msrm of the OT is simply not Egypt.

Let us take into consideration the following facts concerning the so-called “Hebrew” language:

1- The ancient dialects of Yemen used the suffix im to denote the plural form. Hence, Msrim is the plural of Msr. (Examples include: Eloh – Elohim; Cherub – Cherubim; Katub – Katubim and Himyar – Himyarim).

2- The Arabic tongue, being the closest to the proto-tongue of the region, and hence the most complete and articulate dialect, has 28 letters in its alphabet; whereas the alphabet of Aramaic (an a‘jami dialect) contains only 22. This means there are 6 letters in the Arabic alphabet not found in Aramaic. One of these letters is the ḍ, (as in Ramaḍān). Consequently the so-called “Hebrew” dialect replaces the ḍ with ṣ (ṣād). The only thing distinguishing the two letters is the dot. (ص - ض).

Taking the above two points into account, and remembering the valid observation made by the Catholic Encyclopedia, which comes very close to the truth, we can at last solve this confusing puzzle. Here follows is the truth that has been hidden from us:

The word Msrim, which the Septuagint forgers rendered as “Egypt”, is actually the Aramaic spelling of the name of the Arabian tribe of Muḍar. The Arabic spelling of the word is “مضر ”.

Hence: Msrim = Muḍariyyeen (plural), while Msr denotes the land of Muḍar. There, dear reader is the source of their great delusion. That single dot separating the two names is the answer to this age-old dilemma. So who were these people?

The legendary Bani Muḍar needs no introduction. Seldom is a tribal name more resounding in the history of Arabia. Muḍar was a tribe that originated in Yemen, the ancestral and primitive home of all Arabs. They were, for many centuries, a sedentary people who had control of substantially large territories in the Tihāma region (the mountainous strip along the Red Sea Coast of Arabia). In fact, Muḍar were a prominent branch of Bani Kanānah. These people, at a certain point in their history, quarreled with the nomadic “Hebrews” (‘ibrān), who began infiltrating their lush mountain oasis. These were the very same people to whose territory Ibraheem (P) had migrated in that bygone age. The enmity that we - the generations of today - have been led to believe existed between ancient Egypt and the Israelites was in fact a Muḍari-Hebrew rivalry over fertile territories in the highlands of Yemen!

Now, at last, the rabbinical illusion falls apart like the beads of a thread. Now we can understand just who Ibraheem’s “maid”, Hāgar, was. Assuming this woman even existed, it seems that the Septuagint forgers (and the orientalists after them) turned a Muḍari concubine into an Egyptian servant girl! Consequently, the so-called “Pharoah of Egypt”, who pops up every now and then in the Old Testament, was none other than a villainous Muḍari tribal chief who had control of a walled citadel and caravan station somewhere along the trade routes of South Arabia.

Having finally cracked this puzzle, we can now return to the previously encountered passages of the OT that bear mention of “Egypt”, and render them as they were meant to be understood:

So they set him [Joseph] a place by himself, and them by themselves, and the Muḍaris who ate with him by themselves; because the Muḍaris could not eat food with the Hebrews, for that [is] an abomination to the Muḍaris (Genesis 43:32).

The Msrim (Bani Muḍar) could not stand to eat at the same table as the Hebrew nomads, hence they kept their distance from Yūsuf (P), who was, in the end, a Hebrew descendant.

And Abram heeded the voice of Sarai. Then Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hāgar her maid, the Muḍari, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan (Genesis 16: 2,3).

The above passage, regarding the identity of Sarah’s “maid” is self-explanatory.

And Abram went forward, going, and proceeding on to the south. And there came a famine in the country; and Abram went down into [the land of] Muḍar, to sojourn there: for the famine was very grievous in the land.…(Genesis 12: 6-10).

According to the geography deduced from the above text, the Bani Muḍar, during the age when the OT was recorded (most probably around 600 BC), still lived in the southern regions of Tihāma, placing them close to the coast of ‘Ādan, in Yemen (the very same “Aden” or “Eden” of the Bible).

If the Clan of Muḍar will not come up and enter in, they [shall have] no [rain;] they shall receive the plague with which the LORD strikes the nations who do not come up to keep the Feast of Tabernacles (Zecheriah 14:18).

Obviously, Zecheriah was talking about the clan of Muḍar, a rival of all Hebrews, including the Israelites. Egypt had nothing to do with the story whatsoever.

The princes of Zoan have become mad; The princes of Noph are deceived; They have deluded Muḍar, those who are the mainstay of its tribes (Isaiah 19:13).

Isaiah was talking about the madness and foolishness of the Muḍari tribal leaders, who were under the delusion that they could stand against the might of the Assyrian army. This is made very clear from the context of the book of Isaiah, which, from beginning to end, talks about nothing but the Assyrian storm that shook the very mountains of Arabia.

Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause their images to cease out of Noph; and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Muḍar: and I will put a fear in the land of Muḍar (Ezekiel 30:13).

A warning is issued to Noph - a location within the domain of Muḍar - that the Lord will strike fear into the heart of the idol-worshippers.

Here is what al-Hamadāni, writing in the 10th Century AD, says about Nūph in his Description of Arabia (page: 294)

و ينوف و القواعل: جبلان. يُقال عُقاب ينوف و عقاب ملاع، فيُضاف إلى ينوف و إلى ملاعها

It is worth noting that al-Hamadāni recorded this name as Yanūph. This is completely normal when we take into consideration that the Yemeni dialect often inserted the prefix y or ya in the beginning of proper nouns. Here are some examples: Tharb - Yathrb ( ثرب - يثرب ); Karb - Yakrb ( كرب - يكرب ); ‘arb - Ya‘rb ( عرب - يعرب ); ‘arm - Ya‘rm (عرم - يعرم ) ; Nūph - Yanūph ( نوف - ينوف ); Būs - Yabūs (بوس يبوس) .

Legendary Yemeni poet, Umru’ al-Qays, mentions the same Yanoph in a poem wherein he tells the story of how one of his camels was stolen by raiders:

كأن دثارا حَلَقَت بلبونهِ عُقابُ ينوف لا عقاب القواعل

When the Zionists failed miserably to find any trace of the name “Noph” in Egypt, they immediately jumped to the assumption that Isaiah and Ezekiel must have meant Memphis! This is but an example of the length that they were prepared to go to, to convince themselves - and indeed the whole world - of their delusions. Their ultimate purpose, of course, has always been to lay claim to all the lands from Iraq to Egypt, as ancient theaters of “Israelite holiness”, gradually paving the way for the annexation of all lands in the Levant. And while their plans are slowly coming to fruition, the Arabs have been asleep in their cave for 14 centuries, and are more concerned with whether or not water should reach their elbows when performing ablution.

As to the question of where exactly in the land of Muḍar did the Israelites reside, the following passage from the Book of Genesis provides us with the answer:

Thus Israel settled in the land of Muḍar (Msrim), in the land of Goshen. And they gained possessions in it, and were fruitful and multiplied greatly (Genesis 47:27).

The Biblical “Goshen” (more correctly rendered as “Joshen” in some translations, since the j and g sounds were interchangeable), which the criminal orientalists projected onto an area in the Eastern Nile Delta region, is none other than the legendary Josh of Arabian lore, whose name was sometimes rendered as Joshn, after adding the suffix known as al-nūn al-kalā’iyya. The name appears several times in the Old Testament, notably in the following passage, where it is mentioned alongside several other place names:

And in the hill-country, Shamir, and Jattir, and Socoh ... and Goshen (Joshen) ... Arab, and Dumah, and Eshan (Joshua 15: 48-52).

In Description of Arabia (pages 127,128), al-Hamadāni states the following:

ثم يتّصل بهذه السراة سراة عذر و هنوم و ظاهر بلد الجواشة من الفائش ... فبلد الشاكريين من أهل الدرب، و نوده فالحفر من
أعلى عصمان ... و بلد الجواشه ... و فيه أراب.

The number of “coincidences” in the above passage, that match the Biblical geography to the letter, is quite simply staggering. Al-Hamadāni is describing a countryside shared by the Shākiriyyeen (none other than he Biblical tribe of Issachar-Ishachar), as well as the Jawāshah (in relation to Josh), in a mountainous region comprising Hannūm (the Biblical Hinnom), Aṣmān (the Biblical Azemon), and Ārāb (the Biblical Arab). Is it by pure chance that the country of the Jawāshah tribe is near to Ārāb and Hannūm and not far from Mount Shamir, in both al-Hamadāni’s text and the Book of Joshua? Furthermore, what on Earth do these names have to do with the geography of Egypt?

It is worth noting that some Arab poets mentioned Joshen as Josh (Gosh), while others added the n at the end of the name, as was customary in the Yemeni dialects. For example, poet al-Ba’ayth sings of the place as Joshn (Joshen) as follows:

يُحاورنَ من جَوشن مفازةٍ و هنّ سوام في الأزمنّة كالأجلِ

On the other hand, poet al-Nābigha al-Dhubyāni mentions it as Josh:

سافَ الرفيدات من جوش و من حددٍ و ماشَ من رهط ربعيّ و حجّارِ

As for Mount Shamir, it is also mentioned by al-Hamadāni in DoA (page 147), as being one mountain peak among several, in the vicinity of the Biblical Sema (Shema), and within the territory of the Tribe of Simeon:

و جبال الأشعوب، الصّلو الجامع لهم بعد ذلك: سمع ... و شمير ... و دُباس و ضُرعه.

There is Goshen, within the territories of the Msrim (Bani Muḍar), spread before us in the ancient and forgotten Yemeni highlands.

Source: ARABIA: The Untold Story, Book 2: Road of the Patriarch, Pages 103-110
http://www.scribd.com/doc/132844965/ARABIA-The-Untold-Story-Book-2-Road-of-the-Patriarch


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

salaatforum.com | design and hosted by Beach Life Marketing Inc