Egypt Knew No Pharaoh Nor Moses? New Challenge to Ashraf Ezzat



…by Jonas E. Alexis


The last thing a serious person wants to do when investigating historical or scientific descriptions is to reject or embrace an alternative view without careful thought and much evidence. Hence, investigating historical descriptions dictates that sober thought and sane reflection should be some of our tools, and those tools can only used properly through serious education.    

In education, if there are two or three alternatives regarding an important issue, the educator must expose his students to all three and examine the evidence for them, including the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative. If the educator says, “Alternative number one is just nonsense” without saying why it is nonsense, then there are a number of possible assumptions that could be drawn about the educator.

First, he is incompetent or too lazy to examine alternative views; second, he does not know what the other alternative is actually saying; or third, he must be following an ideology which does not allow him to look at other alternatives in a serious manner.

To be honest, this has been some of my conclusions after reading some of the key points that Ashraf Ezzat continues to posit. First of all, I really appreciate him taking the time and energy to respond to my review of his kindle book. At the same time, I am completely shocked that a person who purports to write a historical book would continue to perpetuate one irresponsible statement after another.

It must be said in passing that both Ezzat and I live in the same real world, and if we are going to discuss this issue carefully, then both of us have to abide by reason, logical consistency, historical inquiry and, above all, a love for the truth.  I am begging him to stay on that path, for this will allow both of us to make progress in our discussion.

For the record, I also am reluctant to say that I was not born yesterday. I have been studying most of these issues for more than fifteen years and I pretty much know the scholarly material and what the issues are. For example, I have been interested in the issue of slavery since 2000. I was then a junior in college.[1]

So, I take these issues very seriously. I have also exhaustively spent countless hours reading the work of people who have different positions or opinions. In fact, for the past two years alone, I have done my best to read at least 10 articles virtually every single day.[2]

So, when Ezzat begins his article by saying that “Alexis claimed to have read my book,” leaving readers with the impression that I probably did not read it, I could not help but laugh a bit. How long does it really take to read a book that is less than 110 pages?

Furthermore, why did I quote the book extensively throughout my “awfully long” article if I just “claimed to have read”it? Last March, I received a message from Ezzat promoting the book and saying, “I hope this will evoke some brainstorming, and hopefully reassessment of ancient beliefs/dogma.” I responded by saying that I was reading the book with great interest and was planning to respond at the end of April or the beginning of May. So, for Ezzat to mislead readers by saying that “Alexis claimed to have read” the book is simply bogus.

In his new article, Ezzat accuses me of the following: “Mr. Alexis has set off his by claiming (actually misleading many readers) I had no shred of evidence nor had I incorporated (in the book) any scholarly work/investigation to corroborate my thesis/claim.” Any scholarly work/investigation? Why doesn’t he quote me contextually before making this irresponsible accusation? It is very disappointing when Ezzat starts making claims like this in a response that purports to be logical.

I never said that Ezzat does not incorporate “any scholarly work” in his book. Here is what I wrote in plain English:

“Anything that seems to support Ezzat’s thesis will be brought to the fore, though some of those things are without serious analysis…What is quite obvious throughout the book is that scholars who do not support Ezzat’s thesis will be dismissed or ignored without sober thought. But scholars who support his enterprise will be mentioned over and over.”

Does that support Ezzat’s statement above? And how did he skip that paragraph and move on to postulate an absurd assertion?

I also said clearly that I was very disappointed with the way that Ezzat uses his sources and gave one example after another. As a corollary, I made the point that Ezzat picks and chooses what he wants readers to know. For example, I said:

“Ezzat quotes Egyptologist Donald B. Redford approvingly throughout his book, but he could never tell his readers that Redford also believes that ancient Egypt had slaves, a point which Ezzat denies.”

Even in his new article, he summons Redford to support his thesis but he does not even mention that Redford would take issues with him.

Furthermore, I gave numerous other examples where Ezzat dismisses the work of others without a shred of evidence and sometimes with just a few sentences and with no logical or historical coherence. Now he moves on to say in an incredibly angry tone that:

“But I don’t get paid (by Biblically intoxicated institutions) nor abide by Zionist paradigms in my work, like most Egyptologists, so why the hell should I join the whispering chickens’ club.”

If that is how scholarly discussion is supposed to happen, then perhaps I was wrong again to read the book. I mentioned numerous scholarly sources and ancient documents which make Ezzat’s major enterprise irresponsible, and none of that got a fair hearing. Instead, Ezzat accused me of being “trapped inside the Jewish/Zionist (Both similar in that regard) phony definition of Mizraim which would once again drag you to Egypt (fraudulently peddled by the Jews as their place of bondage).”

People like me, he continues to say, should “enlighten” themselves “with the research carried out by a serious community of scholars (mostly Arabic) and independent researchers including myself that will help you expose a two-thousand-year deception.”

So, Ezzat, as I am beginning to learn, writes a book about slavery and about Egypt, but when one challenges that premise, the response is that we all should “enlighten” ourselves “with research carried out by serious community of scholars and independent researchers including myself…”

In other words, listen to Ezzat and his community of research. No further research is necessary. If you disagree with Ezzat and provide the sources and the actual documentation which show that his research is misleading and impressively incoherent, then you are “trapped in the Jewish/Zionist” matrix. Or, as he would further put it, you are one of those “millions of uneducated people” who need to be “enlightened.”

So, scholars like James K. Hoffmeir who spent decades studying this issue and came to opposite conclusions are just again “uneducated” and probably “insane.” Perhaps institutions like Oxford, Johns Hopkins, Louisiana State University, that end up publishing books by those scholars are diploma mills.

Ezzat says that I have never touched on his “classical repertoire of ancient Arabian oral history and folktales.” Why should I touch on “oral history and folktales” here? How do I verify them? I specifically touched on things that could be historically be verified, not on things that are somewhat irrelevant to the major thesis of Ezzat’s book.

And if we are to move the discussion to the realm of “oral history and folktales,” what about other oral history and folktales that prove otherwise? Is Ezzat going to seriously discuss them as well? Is he implicitly saying that those “oral history and folktales” should be viewed as real history? If so, then he is making my job way too easy because I can summon numerous “oral history and folktales” that will completely destroy his project.

Then here comes his unscholarly ranting:

“But I got news for Mr. Alexis et al., if you keep viewing things only through your western prism (a regrettable thing for an Afro-American), you definitely won’t be able to find the truth regarding the origin of the Judeo-Christian faith and literature (dogma). By the way, African mythology and theology [3] harbored much more elevated spiritual beliefs than the tribal and violent cult of the Israelites gallantly defended by Mr. Alexis.”

“Viewing things only through…western prism”? Isn’t he implicitly committing the genetic fallacy here? Should we now view things only through the “Ezzat prism”? And what in the world does he mean by “western prism”? Does he really want us to judge him by this pseudo-intellectual drivel?

If an idea is true, then it is true. If an idea is wrong or false, then it is wrong or false. “Western prism” or “Eastern prism” for that matter is a really bad argument. For example, the word algebra was derived from Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi’s magnum opus Al-jabr wa-al-Muqabilah, a work that was translated into Latin and was widely known all the way to the sixteenth century as a rigorous mathematical work in major European universities.

It was al-Khwarizmi who to a large extent separated algebra and geometry as two distinct but compatible fields of mathematics. It was because of al-Khwarizmi’s Al-jabr wa-al-Muqabilah that Europe was able to develop a field of algebraic mathematics which still carries his name.[4]

The simple fact is that al-Kwharismi was from Persia, now known as Iran. Yet the Western world did not view his magnum opus through the “western prism” but through the depth of truth and rigor. Finally, if the “western prism” argument is really valid, why do we use Arabic numerals today instead of Roman numerals? We know that Arabic numerals, which are really Indian numerals, have conquered the world because they are much more efficient. To move the argument further, let us say that

“Paper, printing, and books are today essjamesential aspects of Western civilization, but all three came out of China– and they have displaced parchment, scrolls, and other forms of preserving writings all around the world.”

Once again, this “western prism” argument is just plain bogus and Ezzat shouldn’t insult even children with that kind of stuff.  I am also appalled that people who should know better have never pointed this out to him.

Even Philo-Semitic historians and Zionist writers such as Niall Ferguson would not take this “western prism” stuff. Ferguson himself credits the Muslim world for producing the first experimental scientist, Abu ‘Ali al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham, who lived around 965 till 1039.[5] Mathematician and historian E. T. Bell writes,

“While Europe slept and all but forgot Greek mathematics, the Moslem scholars were industriously translating all they could recover of the works of the classic Greek mathematicians. Several of these translations became the first sources from which Christian Europe revived the mathematics it had all but let die. For this timely service to civilization, the Moslems no doubt deserve all the gratitude they have received.”[6]

Yale historian Paul Kennedy acknowledged,

“For centuries before 1500 the world of Islam had been culturally and technologically ahead of Europe. Its cities were large, well-lit, and drained, and some of them possessed universities and libraries and stunningly beautiful mosques. In mathematics, cartography, medicine, and many other aspects of science and industry—in mills, gun casting, lighthouses, and horse breeding—the Muslims had enjoyed a lead.”[7]

It is also true that much of the Muslim world contributed to the early scientific development.[8]

Put simply, no serious historian or scholar would put his credibility on the line by taking the view that historical pursuit should be viewed through a “western prism.” Historical pursuit should be viewed for what it is: scholarly inquiry, historical depth, intellectual rigor, and ultimately the search for the truth.

Ezzat continues to confirm that there is something deeper than scholarly pursuit here. Listen to this:

“My dear Mr. Alexis et al. all your ideas and beliefs about the Israelite stories and dogma are simply based on a clever act of forgery and deception. The real Israelites didn’t sound or taste or even smell like anything you have been told (indoctrinated) since your early infancy till this very moment.”

Yeah. That is how scholarly pursuits are conducted these days. I guess I have to give up and surrender to this new scholarship. I, Jonas E. Alexis, have been indoctrinated since early infancy till this very moment. Ezzat definitely knows my upbringing and has evidence to back it up. Once again, how does he want us to take him seriously while making ridiculous claims like that?

I, like many other people, did not become a Christian until later in life. Embracing Christianity for me was largely intellectual and had virtually little to do with emotion or feeling or indoctrination. If Ezzat wants to make a serious point, he needs to stay away from those elementary errors. 

In my critique, I wrote that Ezzat provided no serious interaction with William Albright’s scholarly enterprise and has deliberately dismissed his work with no sober thought. Instead of dealing with Albright’s massive scholarly enterprise,[9] Ezzat provided one source: Wikipedia. What am I supposed to do when someone does something like that? Take Wikipedia seriously and then Ezzat and then disregard the person who wrote numerous studies on the topics that Ezzat is complaining about?

Ezzat keeps asking this and that, but he doesn’t seem to know that much of his complaints have been thoroughly discussed and answered by numerous scholars. He wants to discuss the Septuagint, but what is really the use if he is not willing to discuss the scholarly literature on this? Will it really help when he starts dismissing scholars with no serious examination? For example, if you read James K. Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt,[10] you will quickly realize that Ezzat is not postulating something new at all.  His theory has been around for decades and scholars have dealt with them.

For a while, I thought that Ezzat wanted to humor his readers by summoning Wikipedia (at least those who do not have the time to check his sources). But Ezzat produces the same thing again in his new response:

The father of the crooked Biblical finds by far is the American William F. Albright 1891 – 1971 (so called founder of Biblical archeology) who began digging in Palestine with a mindset soaked with (geographically misinterpreted) Biblical stories. The fake finds Albright (the evangelically brought up and Zionist-funded) contrived to make look authentic have earned him the notorious legacy of ‘being not right but Albright’ (a fact that has infuriated Mr. Alexis beyond measure).”

Again, how is that a scholarly refutation? If Ezzat cannot see that this is a circular argument, then there is nothing else to say here. He is welcome to dismiss whatever he does not like as “fake” or “fraud” without evidence, but he is not welcome to call it “scholarly.” If it is called “scholarly” where he lives, then fine. Far be it from me to spoil his treasure. Perhaps he is right: one has to leave the “western prism” behind and embrace this new historiographical approach.

Ezzat continues to stun us all by saying things like

“Alexis is brought up with a western mindset that doesn’t recognize Arabic scholarship/scholars as reliable source or references- even when we’re dealing with genuinely Arabian history and tales).”

The West doesn’t recognize Arabic scholarship/scholars as reliable source or references? Does he really want to insult people with this kind of drivel? Once again, why did the West have to embrace the Arabic numerals? Does Ezzat know that one of my favorite philosophers is a Persian polymath by the name of Avicenna (Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sīnā)?[11] It was Avicenna who said that

“Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.”

Ezzat’s argument here is so wrong and irresponsible that it would be completely silly to spend too much time refuting it here.[12]

 If Ezzat cannot start taking things a little more seriously, then there is no need for us to continue this endless conversation. If he cannot respond in a serious manner, then he is welcome to say whatever he wants, such as the following:

“Our dear Mr. Alexis can’t swallow the fact that an Independent Egyptian researcher is not only challenging but entirely shattering two-thousand-year beliefs and dogma (his own beliefs and dogma).”

It was Carl Sagan himself who said that extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence. If Ezzat wants to make some point, he certainly has a lot of work to do. Dismissing people without sober thought and citing dubious sources will not do. No, I cannot swallow that. I have exhaustively cited all the documentations in my critique of Ezzat’s book.[13]

What about the Israeli historians Ezzat mentions in his book as well as in his new article supporting his point?

Keep in mind that there are some good and decent people in Israel who do not like what the Israeli regime is doing to the Palestinians. Shlomo Sand comes to mind.  Those people seem to think that the source of the conflict lies in the Old Testament, when in fact the issue is primarily Talmudic. This is why some of those good and decent historians seem to be willing to support virtually any claim so as to  disprove the Zionist machination. Sand in particular has produced a rigorous and intellectually satisfying view in his book The Invention of the Jewish People, but he does have some minor issues that I would disagree with.

In any event, it could exegetically be argued that the Old Testament would disprove the “Khazarian Mafia” landing on Palestinian bodies in 1948 and beyond.[14]

Ezzat declared that I am in “in a state of denial to relieve serious cognitive dissonance.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. I do not have time to respond to every single point that he raises. If he continues to provide no serious response, then that would be the end of our conversation. I’ve got other fish to fry. 

[1] In fact, I have spent two chapters in Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism (Vol. I) discussing this very issue.

[2] Thanks to a math teacher (Mr. Hitch) who taught me how to read a little faster than usual in high school, and thanks to Mortimer Adler’s book How to Read a Book, I have tried to keep up with the scholarly literature and current events.

[3] By the way, why would he even bring up this “African mythology and theology” stuff here? Isn’t he implicitly positing the claim that Christianity is a “western” enterprise? Doesn’t he know that “The African presence has influenced the Catholic church in every period of its history?” [Cited in E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: Fidelity Press, 2000), 347-348.] Doesn’t he know that the Catholic Church in particular is not and can never be a “white” religion, which means that the Catholic Church could never join or support racist or racialist groups? Doesn’t Ezzat know that one of the first person to accept Christianity was an Ethiopian Eunuch?

[4] For further studies on this, see for example Toby E. Huff, The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China, and the West (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Phillip K. Hitti, The Arabs: A Short History (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 1996); Carl B. Boyer, A History of Mathematics (New York: Wiley, 1968); B. L. van der Waerden, A History of Algebra: From al-Kwarismi to Emmy Noether (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1985); E. T. Bell, The Development of Mathematics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1945); W. W. rouse Ball, A Short Account of the History of Mathematics (New York: Dover, 1960).

[5] Niall Ferguson, Civilization: The West and the Rest (New York: Penguin, 2011), 51.

[6] E. T. Bell, The Development of Mathematics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1945), 104.

[7] Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic Changes and Military Conflict from 1500-2000 (New York: Random House, 1987), 51.

[8] Ibid., 10.

[9] William F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1946); Archaeology: Historical Analogy and Early Biblical Tradition (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1966); New Horizons in Biblical Research (New York: Oxford University Press, 1966).

[10] James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

[11] See for example Jon McGinnis, Avicenna (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).

[12] For those who are interested in the connection between the East and the West, see for example Toby E. Huff, Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); George Saliba, Islamic Science and the Making of the European Renaissance (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, 2007); David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Pre-History to A.D. 1450 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).

[13] For those who are still wondering how I have been able to write those articles, please understand that I spent at least five hours virtually everyday researching and writing.

[14] I have briefly touched on this issue in Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism, Vol. I.

All content herein is owned by author exclusively.  Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or Veterans Today Network (VT).  Some content may be satirical in nature. 
All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.
About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy


  1. [CONT’D]: …There is less controversy regarding the traditional location of Shechem. The the Levantine location of this site is thoroughly attested by parallel ancient sources from 3rd millenium B.C. archives from Ebla, and on a Stele from the reign of Egypt’s King Senusret III (1880–1840 BC). At this stage, I would be remiss if I neglected to metion the tombs of the Jewish patriarchs on the Plain of Shechem, a site which has been revered by Muslims, Christians, and Jews since ancient times. As the burial place of Abraham and Sarah, this Levantine site attests to a history that traces back before the sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt–even to the period in which Dr. Ezzat alleges the same patriarchs supposedly resided in southern Arabia. Given the absence of any linguistic support in the Biblical text, and the thorough ancient documentation locating these sites in the Levant, it becomes difficut to view Dr. Ezzat’s theory as anything other that a bad jest.

  2. [CONT’D:] …Further examination of Old Testament geography brings attention to the sites of Shechem, Mamre, Sodom, Gommorah, Zoar/Bela, and Admah, which figure prominently in the Old Testament. The Levantine location of these sites is well attested in parallel ancient documents (see references, below). Although the locations of Sodom, Gommorah, Zoar/Bela, Admah, and Zeboiim are less well attested, many scholars in this field have accepted a reference to Sodom and Admah in a list of Middle Eastern trade destinations, together with proximate Levantine cities, on a tablet from the Eblaite Royal Archives. Dated c. 2400–2350 BC, these archives certainly predate the traditional date of Abraham’s residence in Canaan (modern scholars should not expect the Eblaites to acknowledge all of the “cities of the plain” mentioned in Genesis, inasmuch as archaeological surveys confirm that those absent from the Eblaite list had yet to be founded at the time the Eblaites wrote).

  3. [CONT’D:] While there are occasionally doubts about the locations of sites mentioned in the Old Testament, many of them have long been identified by parallel ancient documents, and parallel traditions. For example, the city of Haran/Harran, in southeastern Turkey, near the Syrian border, where Terah, the father of Abraham, made his home, was clearly known in ancient times, even as it is known to historians today. While I am aware that there are “minimalist” scholars doubt the historicity of the patriarchal age described in Genesis, there has otherwise been no significant doubt or controversy among scholars regarding the location of biblical Haran.

  4. Backtracking a bit in this comment, just a cursory examination of Dr. Ezzat’s theories raises blatant and serious problems. At the outset, I would be remiss if I were to neglect to specify that Old Testament text is better attested to by manuscript evidence than any other ancient document by several orders of magnitude, bar none. This is made more emphatic by the Dea Sea Scrolls Manuscript collection [DSS], from the 1st century B.C. Inasmuch as the Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew, the language of the Biblical text contraindicates Dr. Ezzat’s thesis of an Arabian location. On the contrary, the Hebrew language of the Old Testament (basically a dialect of Early Canaanite) attests to the Levantine residency of the Hebrews at the time Ezzat argues for a southern Arabian location.

  5. perhaps I have committed a faux-pas providing a link. Let me redress my apparent ‘error of etiquette’ but Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus from bahrain has a thesis one can look up that goes into great detail. In fact I would say reading it that it is where most of Dr Ezzat’s book came from. However, its scholarship is much more indepth and Jonas in his search for truth may enjoy the facts laid out there.

  6. Jonas is a lion on the battle of logos and well respected. Dr Ezzat has presented information that isn’t a scholastic form, yet his major premise is correct if one follows archeology and ancient scholastics. I will present here a source anyone may find and study at your leisure. They may just invalidate claims that holds the world hostage if more investigation occurs.

    • Was able to skim over link. I notice a distinction, with the authors on Soormaly’s page engaging the historical issues direectly, while Dr. Ezzat’ book adds some arguments concerning politics and the theism-vs.-atheism controversy. As we theists say, if God wills, I will try to study the 2006 article some more. Regrettably, at this time, my “smart phone” is not showing your link, and it probably can’t navigate Soormaly”s blog.

    • Ezzat applies wild logic to formulate some wild conclusions, but some previous Arab proponents of the theory of the Arabian residence of the early patriarchs do have a tighter argument. I would counter by arguing [1] that the Hebrew language of the Old Testament, itself being a development of Old Canaanite, attests to a Levantine origin; [2] that chronological markers conveyed in the form of ancient customs in Biblical story of Abraham concur with a specific historical timeframe of ancient Amorite civilization; and [3] that sites associated with the Biblical text [the well at Mamre, the cities of the Dead Sea Plain, Haran, Shechem, the ancient tomb of the Patriarchs on the Plain of Shechem (recognized by Jews, Christians and Muslims)] are well attested to by ancient, extrabiblical sources. As a fair man, if God wills, I will try to research both the “maximalist” side of this argument, and these new objections, in greater detail.

  7. I agree with you DaveE.
    Well stated.
    In my opinion his response to Dr. Ezzat shows that Mr. Alexis is having difficulty in overcoming his own spiritual cognitive dissonance with regard to blind acceptance of intellectualized theories of god/gods as promoted by organized religious institutions.
    True spirituality and affinity with that spirit of the source creator inherent by birthright of soul in each individual, is not based on intellectual argument, but rather comes from allowing that spirit to guide the intuitive perception which allows the heart to rule the mind. Not the other way around.
    I see no reason to afford the mythology promoted by the “Bible” any more credence than other recorded mythological documentation particularly that of the earliest known recordings which stem from Sumer. If anything, deviations from those earliest recordings must be held in question of veracity.

    See: “The Sumerian King List still puzzles historians after more than a century of research:

    Mr. Alexis, consider that the source creator is a universal spirit and larger than the perspective offered by organized Earth religions which specifically seek to control(spiritually and economically) in order to redirect individual soul intent from the freewill intent and truth of that universal spirit.
    The “Bible” falls short of the mark.

  8. Whether or not you like Ezzat’s book, his material mostly seems to be a rehash of what “minimalist” historians and archaeologists have previously written about Old Testament history, with the addition of some novel theories, whereby Ezzat ventures beyond the fringes of “minimalist” thought. I predict that his message will never get beyond the extreme fringes. Prof. Kenneth Kitchen’s “The Reliablity of the Old Testament” (2006) offered sufficient evidence for the maximalist view of Biblical historicity (Kitchen’s response to Israel Finkelstein and other “minimalist” scholars). Prior to the publication of his book, the history of the divided kingdom period had been attested to all the way back to the 9th century through parallel chronicles in the Assyrian Royal Archives, and in other ancient chronicles. Parallel accounts in the Assyrian documents describe the capture of Lachish, and the long siege of Jerusalem, which failed when, according to the Assyrian record, a plague broke out in the Assyrian camp. Not every event in the Exodus/Joshua/Judges period can be corroborated by archaeology, but the evidence linking the destruction of Jericho, Hazor, and Shechem to this period is considerable (and also the destruction of Ai according to some “maximalist” scholars who dispute the presently accepted location).

  9. Ezzat has done exactly what he has set out to do cause division. he is a dis information purveyor to woo gullible people by telling them what they want to hear. Jonas has always been very rational and explanatory.Jonas should not waste his time with this guy. You can tell a tree by the fruit it bears.

  10. Voltaire once said, ” Men use thought only to justify their wrong doings, and words only conceal their thoughts”

  11. Just to let you know, all American, all Iranian, am a dual, sad that the constitution which I swore an allegiance was obfusicated, Patriot act, NDAA, now I will come to the states and sue the US government, they sold me a lie?

  12. Guitar gal, do you think, is not your philosophy your religion? Is not as one thinks in one’s own heart is his religion or philosophy? As one thinks in his heart, so is that person, see ISIL, see zios (talmmud) ideology is where one is conquered… so what is your cult?

  13. Alexis please think before you contradict yourself. All examples you give applies to you and not ezzat.! It is shame that you haven’t recovered from the shock of truth yet. I would suggest better book – the Sumerian swindle and monsters of Babylon. Both by same anonymous writer.
    Also, if you can search my comments then I have already mentioned that all me wars is for destroying archeological proofs that Old Testament is a lie.! No, it ain’t for any oil or for greater israeli’e

    • Hey its Ezzat! Well at least your rebuttal sounds the same, spewing ad hominems at the person in question rather then refuting with your wisdom.
      Why are the zionists murdering and displacing so many Christians and demolishing ancient churches and historical sites in those same areas you are mentioning, if they are trying to hide so called evidence that its a lie? If anything they are destroying ancient religious sites to further degenerate us and take us away from religion, and bring in their own doctrine of atheism and mammon worship.

    • Ezzat,

      Ad hominems? Please, support this bold claim from anything I have said thus far. I’ll be waiting.

  14. Embracing Christianity for me was largely intellectual and had virtually little to do with emotion or feeling or indoctrination..Jonas, that may be your first mistake, as “intellectual Scholars” give way to much credit to their programmed brain…the teaching of the universities have been based on many many lies, yet to the “scholars” they fall back on this. our “brain” is part of their program, yes I know, not many want to grasp this, letting go of the ego is not easy. The Smithsonian has confiscated and hidden many finds, that is their job, to hid it..many articles, books on ancient America alone, has to beg one to question exactly what these “universities’ have been teaching .So to my thinking our programmed brain, filled with lies in “learning” is not the best source for truth, but our “feeling” as you put it, which to me is our “intuition” may be the best course to take. In my view, one who adheres to any religion, Islamic, Judaism or Christianity is limiting their growth..

    • America has long been lied to, the Scoffield bible, there is no feeling, all intel, pure reason and logic, but do not forget ethics or morals which are one in the same, do you think? The moral law is your guide, Religion is a diamond, 8 facets, my daddy told me to walk straight, that is my religion to you?

  15. As I have not read Dr Ezzat’s controversial book I will just stick with Jonas articles which I enjoy to read as they are sober and mature pieces of serious journalism.

    Jonas is no Zionist affiliate, far from it, and accusing him of such is a personal breach of respect, why more Zionists can be found in Egypt and other Arabic countries if charity starts at home.

    We people need to understand the so-called Arabic civilization as an Islamic civilization where almost all the contributors were non-Arabs but all using the then universal language of Arabic, just like English today serving as a global lingua franca. Persians, Kurds, West Africans, Sephardis, Tashkents etc.

    Before this topic gets too personal here at VT we need to establish firmly the current basis of our beliefs because many questions need to be answered first.

    – From what undisputable source do we get our belief that the Jews were in Egypt ? Is it only from the Bible ?
    – Who were the ancient Egyptians (Copts), are they the same as modern Egyptians ?
    – Who were the Hyksos and could they be the same as Jews or the modern Egyptians?
    – Are Egyptian Arabs, Jews, Hyksos or Copts today ?
    – Why, if Egptians are Arabic, can they not pronounce specific and distinct Arabic language consonants that are key to the Arabic language ?
    – How come the Ethiopians and southern Egyptians today are the only people using the Pharaonic calendar ?
    – Are the Arabs of today the same as the reknown ancient Arabians ?

    • – Can the Bible ever score the Historian Christopher Behan McCullagh 7 point benchmark ?

      Those wishing to see inconsistencies in the Bible should check this link:

      “O my father! I did see eleven stars and the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves to
      me!” (Sura12:4). – Surat Yusuf

      This is an incorrect English translation for ‘eleven stars’ as the Arabic word in the Quran is ‘kawkaban’ meaning
      planets so this verse should read as:

      “O my father! I did see eleven planets and the sun and the moon: I saw them prostrate themselves to
      me!” (Sura12:4).

      Now this verse was written 14 centuries before modern world discovered the 11 planets then revised them downwards to 10 somehow.

    • Unfortunately Aziz, I did read it. I want my four dollars back.

      While there is a great deal to be ‘rediscovered’ and some of his brief references led to well researched ideas ( Dr Kamal Salibi’s works I have read have been well researched and presented). Dr Salibi’s books, if you have an interest in the subject, are worth the ticket price. The two, I have read were intertwined with a hypothesis that has great merit.

    • @franktalk
      Ok I will refund you but the link to the 2 Volumes are are about inconsistencies in the Bible and they are to be found from vol 2 page 44
      where the Bible seem to contradict itself. And by the way I do not swear by the Bible ouut of personal choice but others are free to do so.

      This choice does in no way interfere with my respect for Christianity tho, the Orthodox variety.

      In the meantime I will check out Dr Kamal Salibi’s works pronto.

      “Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.”

  16. Thanks for this rebuttal. I thought my brain wasn’t ‘firing on all cylinders’ when I tried to make sense of Ezzat’s response to your review of his book. Then I remembered wise words I once heard that if something doesn’t make sense to you, chances are it’s not your reasoning capacity at fault, but that it is in fact nonsensical. Two points– could the word pharaoh come from the Egyptian word PER-OH meaning big house, i.e. royal palace? And are not Egyptian priest/historian Manetho’s (3rd c. BC) Pharaonic king lists corroborated by archeological finds? As far as authenticity goes, I’m sticking with the stories as written on the Sumerian tablets (4000 BC) which Sumerologists such as Samual Kramer noted the correlation between the Hebrew Bible stories (not the Greek translation) and the much older, more detailed, albeit polytheistic, stories as written on the Sumerian tablets which some view as historical writings, not myth.

  17. One of the most important goals of the zionists was to, and is to make the goyim hate all religions and the Bible in general. Everything you said above was parroted from our re-education systems or tv programming from one source or another, it is simple status quo to think those things you said about religion in these times. None are your thoughts or ideas, find the source of them.
    They got you good. >_0

  18. There is as much evidence and logical reason to believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is to believe in YHWH.

    I can see someone indoctrinated from early childhood being religious, and an adult converting from one Abrahamic religion to another, but an atheist or agnostic becoming religious is beyond my comprehension.

  19. Jonas, don’t waste your time with Ezzat. He’s incapable of critical thinking. He just spews random emotionally-driven non-sequiturs expressing his anti-religious bigotry.

    • This is the root cause of extremism (and its consequential outcomes), the lack of ability of having a meaningful reasonable discussion on such an important issue.

    • @jonnbrown
      The link is pure rubbish, it is just about those that think there is glory in being a Jew.

      Take the case of the Falasha who are intimately connected to the ancient Israelites, despite centuries of separation they never lost their original cultural identity nor their relgious beliefs and practices such that even the racist state of Israel was left with no choice but to accept them as ‘Jews’ and they also never took another ‘God,

      How come the Nords then take an Odin ?

      Please open eyes at:

      ‘You shall know them by the names more than the Devil has”. The Jews, Yehudi, Sephardi, Israelites, God’s Chosen people, etc.

    • @Aziz Khalfan … Your statement that my link “is about those that think there is glory in being a Jew,” is utter nonsense. It’s about knowing the identity of the REAL Tribes of Israel, which inadvertently exposes the reason why these false Jews / Khazarian Mafia have gone to such great lengths to claim THEY are “the chosen.” There is no glory in knowing the truth, only a greater responsibility comes with it, and the cockroaches scurry for the cracks as the light comes on.

  20. Establishing truth is important enough to make every one refrain from personal attacks and getting emotional / or be on the defensive, so I do pray.

  21. Ashraf Ezzat is right, Jonas. These sanctimonious old goats (with their “Western imperialistic prism”) of Oxford and all, are, or are at least controlled by an extremely overestimated bunch of self-important Zio-Nazis . . . Of course these psychotics like to call themselves scholars.

    • Laike von racist, just because the Italian robbed me, it does not make all Italiens thiefs? I have much respect for western culture, rich in its historical significance.

Comments are closed.