"In constructing King Solomon as Rameses II, you are mistaken. The Bible states that for all of his reign, Solomon had peace. In addition, he had trade ventures with Egypt, which indicates a time of peace. (Frankly, I would suggest that the daughter of Pharaoh whom Solomon married could have been the former wife of Tutankamen,Anchesenamun, which certainly would solve her disappearance.) The time of Akhenaton was in the time of King Saul, as indicated by recordsAndis Kaulins replied on March 19, 2006 as follows:
of subject nations calling on Egypt for resources to fight Israel, which were ignored by Ahkenaten.
The facts are that Rameses II was a noted conqueror. Solomon's predecessors cleaned up all the enemies that he might have warred with; in his own time, he was successful in trade such that the Bible states "silver was like rocks in the street" -- a good reason for a lack of rebellion. As soon as Solomon died, however, 10 families of Israel seceded into the country of Israel after being refused tax breaks.
Surely, God on high has not refused to give us enough wisdom to find ways to bring us an improvement in relations between the two great nations on earth.--Mikhail Gorbachev"
"Thank you for your comment. It will serve as an instigator for me to publish some materials that have been sitting on my hard disk for a number of years now . See e.g. the next posting on Nofretete (or Nefertiti) - both of those transcriptions are wrong.
To reply to your posting, I am not infallible and I can make mistakes on details, especially when I am in a hurry. However I am very seldom mistaken on the big picture of things. Indeed, very few equivalences in ancient times are so certain as the equivalence of Ramses II with King Solomon.
Indeed, as you well know, no mainstream scholar has been able to present even the most minimal requisite evidence necessary to rebut my challenge to current chronology as posted (thanks to you) at [the now defunct ane list at the U of Chicago Oriental Institute].
Egyptologists, Oriental and Biblical scholars do not like to be confronted with facts - rather, they continue to build their nice little houses of cards as if facts contrary to their ill-conceived theories and chronologies simply did not exist.
The arguments you now raise on behalf of the mainstream "beg the question", i.e. they assume the truth of the very thing to be proven. In my arguments below, I do not criticize you - you are one of the open-minded ones - but my comments are levelled straight at the closed-minded majority of Egyptologists who seem to have a limited capacity for critical thinking.
Just how long did Ramses reign? They assume it is 67 years of sole regency, but the evidence is against them.
It is quite clear that Ramses did not rule alone for 67 years but like Solomon only ruled 40 years as a sole regent.
36 of these 40 years were peacefully ruled after his reaching the age 30 (when the 30-year ceremony was held). After the success of the battle (and peace) of Kadesh (which led to peace in the ancient Near East), Solomon could build the Temple in celebration, indeed 480 years after the Exodus from THEBES (= EGYPT, eTHEBETE) which in ancient times was "Egypt", whereas the Delta-region was "Judah" and so also was always marked on the ancient hieroglyphs, i.e. as SUTah (from Gardiner: su-plant phon: sw log: sut-rush (swt), king (nsw), see in this regard http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/people/gardiner/m.htm).
It is a hieroglyph which the helpless Egyptologists now write totally incorrectly with a preceding N, even though the hieroglyphs place the N at the end - how foolish on the part of the scholars. The original Indo-European-based Pharaonic term is similar to the Baltic term SUTENIS which means "hot humid area, marshy region" i.e. the Nile Delta, and which is a homophonic term also for SŪTNIS "envoy, ambassador", which the king of the Delta was in ancient days to this region. The N which the Egyptologists now artificially set in front of these hieroglyphs - in the totally faulty reading "nesubait" - is sheer idiocy, misunderstanding the placement of the Indo-European prefix no- as identical to Baltic no- ("from, off, out of, with, of, out of, etc.") in front of Pharaonic viz. similar Baltic words sach as SŪT- "to send", whence SŪTNIS "envoy, ambassador" and NOSŪTIT "to send off" but also SVĒT- "holy" and whence NOSVĒT- "holy of, to celebrate something holy" and ZIB "to shine" whence NOZIBĒT "to flash, twinkle", with the latter accounting for the NESUBAIT of "star names" of the Pharaohs. What the Egyptologists have made of this simple grammatical Indo-European construction is an Alice in Wonderland creation wondrous to be behold for its lack of relation to actual reality.
But to return to the matter at hand. There is in fact substantial evidence - acknowledged but ignored by the mainstreamers - that the early years of rule of Ramses II were a coregency with Sethos (King David), whose daughter he married (as Solomon also married the daughter of the pharaoh). Is it not remarkable that a Jewish king is marrying into the royal "Egyptian" Pharaonic family, which allegedly was not Jewish - come on, what nonsense is that, the scholars are clueless!
It was during the rule of Sethos (Seti, Setoy, i.e. King David) that the war and conquering took place. Ramses did not rule for 67 years ALONE but rather ruled 27 in coregency with King David and then ruled 40 years alone. Indeed, Clayton in Chronicle of the Pharaohs writes that Ramses took sole regency at age 25. These ca. 40 years of sole regency by Ramses II (i.e. King Solomon) were also peaceful (except for the battle of Kadesh) and marked the greatest period of building by any pharaoh since the days of the pyramids - this was the reign of Solomon (Ramses II, i.e RA-Messias "born of the Sun") and such an era of construction could only have occurred in a time of peace.
One should also point out in this connection that Ramses had already married two of his wives ten years before he became the sole Pharaoh, which, presuming that he became sole regent at the age of 27, would have meant that he was 17 at the time of first marriage, which makes sense, given the initial ancient ages at which it made biological sense for a man to take a woman for a wife.
As written at
http://www.touregypt.net/magazine/ancientegyptianpeople.htm:"Ramesses II probably married the first two principal wives at least ten years prior to the death of his father, Seti I, before Ramesses II actually ascended the throne."Ramses as Solomon thus ruled only 40 years ALONE (36 years of peace) plus 27 as coregent, during the war period.
As for the ladies of the Pharaohs, I get into that in the next posting. I think my comments will interest yoou particularly, Joan. I do not expect that the establishment will pay much attention to my ideas, for that, these people are too stupid and closed-minded."