6/21/2021 0:00:01
Why did the kings of ancient Misr bear more than one name?
If you try to read about the history of ancient Misr other than from Wikipedia or from any historical reference in books, and read about the history of the kings of ancient Misr whose names and histories were extracted by the West, you will find that the information that the West wrote for most of the kings had more than one name during their lives, Up to four or five names, with a phrase next to them such as: royal name, personal name, golden name, etc.
I wonder what is the reason? Or what is the realistic, logical idea that causes a person to have approximately five names in his life?
If we think about the logic of reality, a person can have several names. For example, if there is someone named (Mohamed Ahmed Al-Najjar), he can have next to his name the title (Doctor, President, or King) based on his profession, so we say, for example, (President Mohamed Ahmed), or we can He must bear his father’s name or his family’s surname, so we say, for example, (Ibn Ahmed) or (Ibn Al-Najjar).
There is a realistic logic.
Is this realistic, logical approach the same as the approach through which the West came to know the names of the kings of ancient Misr, or in other words, how did the West come to know these many names of the kings of ancient Misr?
The truth is that the western entrance is not our entrance, but rather another completely different entrance.
how ?
The real introduction to those many names that the West assigned to the kings of Misr is the Rosetta Stone, which the West discovered during the invasion and occupation of Misr, and through which the inscriptions of Misr were deciphered, because the Rosetta Stone contained three scripts, hieroglyphic, demotic, and Greek, and it speaks about the subject One in two languages, Egyptian and Greek, and the hieroglyphic text contained a circular frame repeated several times and contained one word. They said that the frame must contain the name of a king, and because the Greek text repeated the name of King Ptolemy several times, the name Ptolemy was matched. In Greek, with symbols inside the royal frame.
But the problem is that when I discovered a number of graves of ancient Egyptian kings, we found within the single tomb of the king a large number of circular frames, and because the frame must contain the name of a king, and because it is the tomb of one king, we found the frames do not contain the same word or written symbols. Similar, but different symbols. How is it possible that the circular frame in one tomb carries several names of one king? The tomb may contain the names of several kings, but the tomb contains the coffin of one king, and it is his personal tomb, so how can his tomb contain the names of several kings?
From this approach… came the idea that any ancient Egyptian king had several names and titles during his life.
According to this logic, any ancient Egyptian king had (a personal name, a royal name, a religious title, the golden name of Horus, etc.)
Before he became king, he had (a personal name), and after he became king, he had a different (royal name), and he began to have a religious name as the protector of religion, and he had (the name of Horus), because the Allah Horus was the protector of Misr, and so on.
This history that the West wrote for us about this situation that existed among the kings of Misr is completely similar to the history of the characters that have reached us in heritage books, and the closest identical example is the character of Saladin Al-Ayyubi.
Saladin is not his real name, but rather a title he took after he assumed power. His real name is Yusuf, then he took the name Saladin after he became ruler, then he bore the title of Al-Nasser.
Yusef
Salahaddin
Al-Nasser
And so are the kings of Misr. For example, one of the kings of Misr was named (Ra Masis), and before he became king, his name was (Min Bahti Ra).
From Bahti Ra
Ra is politicized
This similarity between the historical logic that the West wrote for the kings of ancient Misr and the historical logic of the ancient figures that reached us from heritage books makes us believe that there is a high probability that the mind that wrote that heritage history that reached us is the West that created for us the story of the names of the kings of Misr. .
But the question is: What if we discovered a circular frame in one of the tombs of the kings of Misr that contained a word, and we discovered the presence of a circular frame in another tomb that contained the same word? What is the historical logic that the West has written for us?
In this case… the West told us that it was one royal family with the same name, but the difference between them was in the order.
how ?
The West told us that there was a family of kings in Misr that ruled in one period and bore the same name, Ramesses and Thutmose.
There it is
Rameses I
Rameses II
Rameses III
Rameses X
And there too
Thutmose I
Thutmose II
Thutmose VI
And there
Amenhotep I
Amenhotep II
Amenhotep IV
This history that the West wrote for us about this situation that appeared in the names of the kings of Misr is completely similar to the history of the characters that reached us in history books, and the closest identical example is the French royal family, which bore the same name but was different in arrangement.
Louis VIII
Louis X
Louis XVI
This similarity between the historical logic written by the West, in this case, for the kings of ancient Misr, and the historical logic of the kings of France, makes us believe that there is a high probability that it is one mind from the history books.
——————
Now look at the image of the article, I have put two examples, A and B.
Now imagine yourself visiting Misr, and visiting the tomb of an Egyptian king.
1- I found in the cemetery written on its three walls those tires in column A.
According to Western logic, the king has two names, the name in green is the royal name (Ramesses), and the name in purple is the personal name (from Habeti Ra).
Now notice how the first frame is similar to the second frame with all the symbols of the word, but the difference is one symbol, and for this reason the West told us that the two words are pronounced with the same pronunciation (Ramesses), and the two symbols that differ in form are identical in pronunciation (s).
Therefore, the two frames are the same in pronunciation and there is no difference.
But the third frame is completely different from the first two frames. The resemblance is only in one symbol, which is the circle that resembles the sun and which represents (Ra).
Now notice how the reading of the frames differed. In the first two frames we saw the beginning of the noun bearing the phonetic value (Ra), but in the third frame we saw the end of the noun bearing the phonetic value (Ra).
This means that the first two frames were read from left to right
In the third frame, the reading was from right to left.
2- I found in the cemetery written on its three walls those tires in column B.
According to Western logic, the king has three names. The name in green is the royal name (Tutankhamun), another name in green but containing a syllable in red (Aten), which is (Tutankhaten), and the name in purple is the personal name (Neb). Hebru-Ra).
Now notice how the first frame is similar to the second frame with all the symbols of the word, but the difference is one symbol, and for this reason the West told us that the two words correspond to (Tutankhamun) and (Tutankhaten), and the two symbols, which are different in form, are not identical in pronunciation (T). , M )
Therefore, the two frames differ in pronunciation and there is a difference.
But the third frame is completely different from the first two frames. And he reads (Neb-Habru-Ra).
Now notice how the West’s reading differed, in the first cemetery and the second cemetery.
In the first two frames in the first cemetery… the reading was from left to right.
While the first two frames in the second cemetery……. the reading was from right to left.
also
In the first two frames in the first cemetery……. the reading was the same, although there was a difference in one symbol.
While the first two frames in the second cemetery……. the reading was different due to a difference in one symbol.
Now the logical questions:
If we assume that we believe in this historical logic that the West has placed in the names of the kings of Misr, we may be convinced if we were told that the first two frames in the second tomb read (Tutankhamun) with the same pronunciation (Rameses) as in the first tomb, even if one symbol differs. The symbol is It reads with the same pronunciation as in the case in the first tomb. So why did the king in tomb B bear two different king names and not one name as in tomb A?
There must be scientific, realistic and historical logic to explain the matter
This difference in the second cemetery is the real reason for which the West invented for us the story of the religion of Amun and the religion of Aten, and explained the reasons for reading the word differently.
The West told us that this king (Tutankhaten), when he ascended to power, succeeded his father Akhenaten, whose religion invented the worship of the disk of the sun (the Aten).
When (Tut) rose to power, the religion of Misr was the worship of (Aten), but after he found the priests revolting and there were problems due to the new religion that his father invented, he decided to return to the religion of (Amun), and after that he abandoned his first royal name and invented the name (Tutankh) for him. Amun).
So, the whole huge story that the West invented about Akhenaten, who invented his religion in Misr, which was the religion of worshiping the disk of the sun (Aten), and he united the gods into one Allah, so that any Egyptian would love this character and his religion and make him believe that those symbols read (Aten). In order to prevent people from reaching the correct reading of those words found in those graves. And get to know the truth about these graves.
————
Now… Notice how that corrupt logic that the West invented for the frames in those tombs was reflected in its translation of the writing of all of Misr.
Now look at the example in the middle of the picture
The first word begins with a picture of a child and two symbols… and reads… (MS)
The second word begins with a picture of a child and 3 symbols.. and reads.. (Ahmose)
Now notice how this symbol alone has two meanings or two names (son, servant), the word son (mes) and the word servant (Ahmose).
Just as the kings of Misr had two names, so the Egyptian writing symbols had two meanings and two pronunciations.
now
Notice the symbol in the first word in green. It is in the first frame in the first cemetery and is pronounced (s).
Notice the symbol in the second word, in nasfahi. It is present in the second frame in the first cemetery and is pronounced (s).
And notice… how the two words share one syllable (mes).
And notice… how the second word is pronounced (ahmos), but the cup symbol is pronounced (h), and the branch symbol is pronounced (e)… Where did the letter (m) come from?
A word consisting of two symbols, and a word consisting of three symbols. It is logical that the first word contains two consonant sounds (MS), while the second word contains three consonant sounds (MS H)?
Don’t you find that this situation with me is completely similar to the situation that exists with us in our reality and we are not paying attention?
this ?
In the Qur’an, there is a strange case found in one of the stories of the Qur’an related to the name of a prophet. You do not know why he has two names, and this messenger’s name is the Massih Issa.
The word (Issa)… contains two consonant sounds (I sea)
The word (Massih)… contains 3 consonant sounds (ms h)
The first word…contains two consonant sounds (M S)
The second word… contains 3 consonant sounds (m s h)
Rather, the story in the Qur’an clearly states that the Messenger is a word from Allah.
{When the angels said, O Maryam, Allah is giving you good news of a word from Him, whose name is the Massih, Issa son of Maryam, distinguished in this world and the hereafter and among those who are brought near.}
The question now…. What if we assume that you entered tomb B, in which there is the coffin of the youngest ancient Egyptian king who ruled Misr, and you found a fourth frame in the walls of the tomb, and inside the frame is written the first word, which is in green in our example, which contains the symbol for a child. Which is read according to Western translations (MS)?
{O People of the Book, do not go to extremes in your religion, and do not say about Allah anything but the truth. Indeed, the Massih, Issa, son of Maryam, is the Messenger of Allah, and His word which He delivered to Maryam, and a spirit from Him, so believe in Allah and His messengers, and do not say three things: “Desist is better for you.” Allah is but one Allah. Glory be to Him to have a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the heavens. on earth, and Allah is sufficient as a disposer of affairs.}
Finally……….don’t you find with me the situation that we found in our previous example about cemeteries, and the situation in the example of the symbol of the little child, somewhat similar to a speech found in the Qur’an:
{It is He who has revealed to you the Book; some verses of it are decisive, they are the mother of the Book, and others are ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts there is deviation, they follow what is ambiguous in it, seeking temptation and seeking its interpretation. And none knows its interpretation except Allah. And those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say, “We believe in it. It is all from our Allah.” And none remember except those of understanding.}