Notes prior to Moses from,"Excavations at Ur" by Sir Leonard Woolly
He mentions that during the time of the 2nd Dynasty of Ur that there
were Habiru in Ur. Habiru is another ancient word for Hebrew. Note the
similarity to the word Nibiru. This was the name for the Alien gods
that made mankind. If Woolly had no trouble finding 'Habiru' settlements
in Ur from the times before the Exodus, why can't they find the same
thing in Egypt? After all, they were there for 400 years before they
became slaves! I'm afraid Archaeology is showing itself to be either one
of the biggest lies of all time or the biggest blunder. Take your pick.
In describing one of the temples he likens many of the features in the
temple, especially those rooms having to do with the handling of
offerings for the gods as being the same as the Hebrew temple methods
as set down by Moses. In the instance of the alters, it is stated that
they were all made of uncut or unaltered stones. This was one of the
laws of Moses. But bear in mind that these Hebrew temples in Ur had to
have existed BEFORE THE EXODUS AND MOSES! And if I am right about him
being in Ur and all of this taking place in Ur then we have been reading
history wrong all these years!
It is my belief that if they were in Ur, as I claim, and Moses was a
Princesses adopted son,that was not of the family and could not therefore
become a King, he may have been destined for the priest hood and that
would be where he picked up all the rules for the temple. Since I do
not acknowledge that the events that occurred during the time of the
Exodus were anything to do with a real God, but were the disasters
going on with the advent of Venus into our sky�s, then he certainly was
not getting these instructions from direct contact with the Nibiru(alien
gods) but he did know what the proper procedures were for appeasing
them or for the behavior of the priestly cast. Also, as the adopted son
of a high ranking Princess, he was very familiar with protocol etc., and
would have known very well how to control people. And if Sitchin is
right about the Niberu then as a priest of Ur Moses was also very well
acquented with those Gods!
Since we learn that Abraham was descended from a high priest of UR, he
was very familiar with many of the beliefs of the priests there. He may
have disagreed with what was happening in UR and decided to go his
own way. And we know from the geneology tables that Abraham's father
was also in direct line of Noah and he would have a complete history
and knowledge of the time before the flood, and the event of the tower
of Babel.
The fact that Woolley dug up or found � the Ram in the Bushes� in Ur
cannot be ignored or fobbed off as a coincidence. He claims that the
Hebrew picked up a lot of these stories to weave into their own religion.
That may be true but first of all Abraham would have had to know the
significance of the Ram in the first place. Or the story was brought
to Ur when the famine hit and as a priest of Ur he could have told his
old friends about it and they would have seen it as a divine experience
that they could record. As a one time priest of Ur, that would have been
of great significance to them. After all there are no records so far of
what the Ram meant to the priests of Ur. One other thing that Woolley
dug up in Ur has only come to light recently. There is a picture of a
statue of a woman who is human holding a baby with the face of a
reptile. We know from Sitchin's work that the Annunaki were playing
around with DNA and creating all kinds of strange hybrids. This may
have been one of them. It does not neccessarily mean that the gods
were lizards. Or as one man today claims; shape shifters.
One of the other things that Moses would have been familiar with was
the Laws of Hammurabi, the Law Giver, who�s laws are duplicated in the
�Ten Commandments " that Moses gave to the people. You must understand
that if the Hebrews had been slaves for over 400 years they would not
have been familiar with temple procedures that closely. There is no
mention of them having anything other than their kinship to Abraham and
Joseph until this time. None of their rituals or laws go back beyond
the Exodus. And while most of their temple laws can be traced to Ur and
the Chaldeans, None can really be traced to the Egypt of the Nile before
the time of the Hyksos. And as slaves in Ur for over 400 years would
they have had access to the temples of the Chaldeans? No! But Moses
would have.
Woolley also claims that the word,"Egypt" derives from the Greek and
that it applies only to one small area where a temple was built= Memphis.
In other words he is saying that the Memphis of Greece was the first one
and that the other one on the Nile was named afterwards. And that was long
after the Exodus! And it may have come from Ur via Turkey to Greece and
then to the Nile. Or it was given to the Nile valley in the days of the
Hyksos, who came from a sheep raising area = Ur.
During his dig he (Woolley) was constantly coming across layers of
ashes and fallen or destroyed walls of the period between 1700bc to
1400bc, dating which he ascribed to invasions, since another race or tribe
moved into the area after this took place. Since there was no dating
system at the time of his dig they could have been displaced tribes
looking for a place to live after the disasters at the time of the
Exodus. Especially if their land had suffered badly. Everyone would
have been on the move. One temple showed signs of great disaster. Far
more than an invading army would have done, with walls caved in,
broken pottery and ashes. During the Exodus there were many fires
all over from the fallout of the passing planet. Everything was burning.
Hammurabi is at the time of 1700bc, and it was one of his generals
that took credit for the destruction of Ur. But it is far more likely
that he found the place in ruins from the events that took place during
the start of the Exodus, and if I am right about the place of the crossing
being in the Gulf of Aquaba then a wall of water destroyed Ur, not this
general who took credit for the destruction after he reported to Hammurabi.
Whooley claims a date of 1737bc for the destruction of Ur when homes and
temples and walls were deserted, burnt and thrown down. These were
massive walls that were too well built to have been thrown down easily.
Thanks to Velikovsky,s books many people are now looking at a date of
between 1750 and 1725BC for the time of the Exodus. Not 1400B.C. as the
present scientists claim. That means it was destroyed during the
Exodus! That means It could very well have been the real site for this
event. Only dredging the sea in that area for the remains of Pharoh's
army will prove me right.
