Latest News

The board of local property group, Letlole la Rona, has suspended its ...
PRESS STATEMENT: International Socialists Botswana stand in solidarity...
Press Release: The Department of Meteorological Services wishes to inf...
The situation under which informal traders at Gaborone Bus Rank find t...

To whom does Israel really belong? Part 3

In this third instalment of my miniseries, we continue to see the important role Egypt played in lives of the Biblical Patriarchs from Abraham to the time of David.

We produced compelling evidence (mainly the uncanny similarity in names and sequence with the Egyptian Kings List) that confirmed that they were actually well-known pharaohs of Egypt, which is why archaeologists were unable to find any trace of them in present-day Israel. For those who are unaware, the situation got so bad that historians were (and perhaps still are) on the verge of expunging this entire history from formal history. They need not, as we have seen.

The whole exercise of collating the names of Hebrew Patriarchs with those of Egyptian pharaohs is a whole lot simpler when a Setswana perspective is applied. How can this be? Those who follow this column will know that I have provided overwhelming evidence that it is because the Sotho-Tswana group can be shown to have been forcibly ejected from Egypt as many African legends confirm – even the now-ill-understood phrase go lelela khama le Mogogoro (literally: to cry over Khmer and Mu-Roggo, which names we conclusively related to Egypt). Let us now duly apply Botswana’s powerful lingua franca.

In Hebrew syntax, the noun-indicator mo (singular) or ma (plural) comes after, rather than before, the noun. As such, Ma-Illoi, or Baloi (‘Shining Ones’: mo-illu is ‘fire’ in proto-Setswana – which, per my own Protolanguage Dictionary, relates to ‘illuminator’ in English) thus becomes Eloi-ma (Elohim) in Hebrew, and Mo-ata (‘Procreating One’) become Ata-mo (Adam). Thus, the Patriarch Mo-Hibiru (Pharaoh ‘Meyebre’ as currently transliterated in Egyptian hieroglyphics, ‘the Red One’) becomes Ibiru-mo (Abraham).

Other collations we identified were ‘Sheshi’ (a play-name for ‘Shishaq’ (Shetshego, in proto-Tswana, meaning ‘laughter’, otherwise known as Itsaq (Isaac) in Hebrew (Itshege in Setswana: “laugh at yourself”) and he was Abraham’s son and heir, as well as ‘Yakuber’, who we can easily relate to Jacob, Isaac’s son. All these names appear in the Wikipedia’s Egyptian Pharaohs List with no attempt by historians to link them. You might want to ask yourself why.

As if that was not enough, in the first part of this series we also linked the sons of Judah (who was one of the twelve sons of Jacob), with Egyptian pharaohs: ‘Perez’ (see Ruth 4:18-22) with Per (Great) Rameses IX; ‘Hezron’ (esses-Ra-On) with Rameses X; ‘Ram’ with Rameses XI; ‘Amin-adab’ with Amen-Nesban-ebjed,  ‘Nashon’ with Amen-em-nishu, ‘Salmon’ with  Siamun, ‘Boaz’ with Bas-Osorkon , ‘Obed’ with Amen-em-opet. In biblical chronology, this leaves us with just Jesse and David, and in secular history it leaves us with just Pasebakhaenuit (Psusennes) I and Psusennes II. Here, I side with Biblical chronology rather than with Egyptologists. Psusennes I must be ‘Jesse’ and Psusennes II must be David. The throne-name ‘Pasebakhaenuit’, transliterated to Setswana, most likely went: Pa! Sebaha-ka-Ene-o-e-teng (‘Shine! Jewel (or Star) through He-Who-Lives’), hence the famous ‘star of David’.

Having dealt with matters of chronology, let us now place ‘Egypt’ and ‘Israel’ in proper context. As

I have clarified before, Egypt (M’Siri in African lore: meaning ‘Shield/Protector’) and I-Sira-El (literally: Protector of El) both referred to Egypt. What was being protected? Last week we saw a relatively detailed explanation that it was the shems (sha’m: me-sha (‘fiery ones’ when rendered in Setswana syntax, as explained above). We explained how they were essential to the ‘Shining Ones’, the Elohim, in two vital ways: as escape vessels in the event of a planetary cataclysm, and also as a means of attaining the famed ‘immortality of the gods’. We duly explained the irrefutable scientific basis – even fossilised evidence – of this seemingly anachronistic technology. That done, we can now move on.

The primary reason for Abraham to occupy Egypt was so that the land acts as a shield or buffer zone to keep Africans away from the shems. They too wanted to taste the ‘elixir of immortality’, but the ‘gods’ were having none of that. Details of how Abraham fought off the Canaanite kings spurred on by Nabu, the son of Marduk-Baal – a rival section of the Elohim as they wrestled for power – and was congratulated by Melchizedek, Priest-King of Jerusalem, is recorded in brief in Genesis 14, but in far more detail – using extant Mesopotamian texts – in Zecharia Sitchin’s The Wars of Gods and Men (Harper). Abraham returned to Egypt only to find that his wife Sehera-tawy Intef (Sarah, as I alone have exposed) was toppled by Mentuhotep II. Abraham fought back but only regained Lower Egypt (the north). From that time on, it became the biblical ‘Israel’ while the south (Upper Egypt) became ‘Egypt’.

When we keep our eyes on this ball, we will understand why Abraham’s descendants were actually Egyptian pharaohs. How did the Israelites (the Descendants of Jacob, who later changed his name to ‘Israel’) come to lay claim to the Promised Land? As is self-explanatory, the land had long been promised to their ancestor Abraham and his descendants by Sarah in return for their defensive duties in Egypt. However, in Jacob’s time, an ill-understood event took place that changed the entire course of history.

Jacob did not just want to be a ‘Protector of El’ for nothing; when in Canaan he saw the awesome sight of a shem – complete with the ladder used by Elohim astronauts to board it. Being an extremely stubborn and resourceful person, he ‘wrestled’ (argued) all night with the ‘Angels’ to be allowed to board it. They eventually gave in, and an enigmatic period I call ‘Jacob’s Ladder’ began. In the final two instalments of this miniseries (slightly extended, I decided, for the sake of clarity because even topmost scholars don’t fully understand parts of it), I will reconcile it for you – even expose who Joseph and Moses really were.

Comments to

Opinion & Analysis



The Parliamentary DIS

Latest Frontpages

Todays Paper Todays Paper Todays Paper Todays Paper Todays Paper Todays Paper