Item description for Eden In Egypt by Ralph Ellis...
What are the origins of Adam and Eve, the world's best-known creation story' There is a strong concordance with the Genesis story of two Egyptian historical figures, Akhenaton and Nefertiti. The early chapters of Genesis are a perfect retelling of Pharaoh Akhenaton's Hymn to Aton. Aton was a god who later became the Jewish god Adjon, and later Adam. Ellis posits, with much compelling evidence, that Adam and Eve were actually Pharaoh Akhenaton and his famous wife, Queen Nefertiti. The downfall of Adam and Eve is also a reflection of the downfall of this Egyptian royal couple, as Akhenaton and Nefertiti were cruelly deposed. The river of Eden is described as having four branches, and only the Nile fits this description. That means Egypt was actually the Garden of Eden, and the true crucible for the Genesis story.
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 9.2" Width: 6.1" Height: 0.9" Weight: 1.2 lbs.
Release Date Mar 10, 2005
Publisher Adventures Unlimited Press
ISBN 1931882401 ISBN13 9781931882408
Availability 0 units.
More About Ralph Ellis
Ralph Ellis has been researching revisionary religious history for more than 20 years. He appears frequently at conferences, and when not traveling around the world he lives in Switzerland.
Reviews - What do customers think about Eden In Egypt?
Should be a university course Feb 13, 2008
The information contained in this and the 2 precursor books could change the world and the way we think. Ralph Ellis takes us on his journey of discovery and constantly reinforces his hypotheses, to the point of proving beyond "the shadow of a doubt" that 1) religion has been an evolution of ideas, initially stemming from one place, and then gathered together once again, and 2) the Bible truly is a family history, albiet altered beyond recognition of most people to fathom, and 3) history, as we know it, doesn't make sense for a very deliberate reason. The brilliance of Mr. Ellis' books cannot be overstated. True genius can present the most obscure ideas in an understandable format - he has accomplished his goal. As a side benefit, he also teaches us how to approach this most difficult of subjects and learn to "think". Hence, his books could be used for a university course. I have ordered all his books and look forward, with pleasure, to continuing my education. Thank you, Mr. Ellis.
1.2 Stars for Weakest Book of Speculation on the Hyksos by a Racist Folk Etymologist Feb 11, 2008
Usually I may give halved stars as this site does. So far, I have never partitioned my rating any further. The reason for the 1.2 stars is: Parts of the book I rate the average 2.5 stars for Ralph Ellis' books. However, in this one, I have to make this many subtractions that no star (i.e. the obligatory one star) would be left. However, this lowest rating I reserve for the absolute worst of the worst books, which this one doesn't qualify for as there are the above mentioned limited parts which merit at least some attention. I read the first edition of 2004. Keep in mind that Ralph Ellis frequently revises his books.
One subtraction is for the major premise of this book. The full title is: "Eden in Egypt: A translation of the Book of Genesis out of the original Egyptian text". As there are indeed original Egyptian texts of later Jewish (and other) versions, I was mislead into the idea that this book was about such an Egyptian original of the Genesis account(s). Not so. Instead, Ellis takes the Hebrew words of Genesis one by one and checks them against a real and in some cases speculated Egyptian derivation. These Egyptian words may then have additional connotations or even completely other multiple meanings. These - translated back into English - in turn are then replacing the respective words in the English text of Genesis, according to the best possible literal fit for Ralph Ellis' history revisions. I am for a loss of words here, but I would have to get used to that feeling further on.
This simply can't be done. In modern terms, this would be like doing the following linguistic acrobatics: In 4,000 years a descendent of Ellis will find out that George W. Bush didn't make an axis-of-evil speech, but a Hippie's peace offering for the world as a direct descendent of an Indian tribal chief with roots in Africa. How come? Well, Bush is obiviously derived from the BUSHmen, which are locally translated by other Africans as "San", i.e. meaning basically the same thing. Then, the modern speech is checked against the ancient Indian language SANskrit, as English is indeed derived from that, translating individual words forth and back into alternative connotations, till the above hypothesis is fulfilled. And in Bush's time of young adulthood, it was the Hippies' make-love-no-war-era, and he didn't go to Vietnam. Would I have more time and space, I could offer a more precise mock theory.
If you think, I am stretching it, here are some of Ellis' offerings: Nefertiti is both, Eve and Helen of Troy. Akhenaton is both, Moses' brother Aaron (previous book), now Adam and someone in EGYPTIAN Troy I presume. Which is ironic, as in the next book of the series Cleopatra to Christ (Jesus was the Great Grandson of Cleopatra) / Scota, Egyptian Queen of the Scots (Ireland and Scotland were founded by an Egyptian Queen) [Two Books in One], Ellis will correct himself and tell us that Akhenaton went into Exile to GREECE, not en route to Palestine under the guise of Aaron. What he doesn't tell us is, in what Biblical way Adam and Aaron could be the very same person.
Instead, read the Genesis story according to the meaning of the original Aramaic idioms by Rocco A. Errico, The Mysteries of Creation : The Genesis Story and Aramaic Light on Genesis. Which makes the important point clear that words should not get translated literally, if they are part of idioms, which cannot get literally overstood across the branches of culture. Also, Errico doesn't leave out theological factors as Ellis does. The latter is merely describing detached linguistic so-called common sense of what might have been the case, matchable to an atheist's modern mind. Actually, even within this parameter, his offerings make LESS sense occasionally. Such as the revision of that humans were made of dust/soil (which makes sense via the entire process of evolution AND in a mystic approach): Lower Egyptians were made from the ashes of the setting sun. Hmm...
If his linguistics would be sound, at least. Most readers will have to take his word for his revealing findings. As I would have to. In most of his other books, however, he makes mistakes with modern languages, I DO know, such as German - every time. This time, his worst folk etymology is concerning Tamascheq, the language of the Saharan Imuschaq. Actually, this linguist doesn't even recognize their language, instead, he thinks, it's Latin. It is correct that the countries Nigeria and Niger are derived from the name of the river Niger. However, this name isn't Black in Latin. It is "ghir n-igheren" in Tamasheq, which means literally "river of the rivers" or short: "big river". This blunder happens in a chapter specifically on the linguistic backgrounds of African rivers. But it doesn't stop here: He is using this folk etymology to defend the use of the word Ni**** against the "politically correct brigade". Last time I checked, the latter were battling between "Black" and "African American". Some ignorant people, such as in Germany, still use the word Ne***. However, never in my life time (i.e. also not anymore before the pc-age) have I encountered anyone defending the most derogatory version of this word with an "i" - unless openly celebrating their racism. Which Ralph Ellis denies. Waiting to be read on my bookshelf is The Name "Negro" : Its Origin And Evil Use, which is probably a good idea for Ellis to digest as well. So far I know the following (to balance the damage, this book may have caused): To differentiate between the comparatively better treatment of usually temporary slaves with the new colonial racism-based concept of absolute slavery with no-matter-as-long-as-it-isn't-good-treatment, the term was expanded to "ne*** slave" (bad words cause trouble for this site reviews, that's the main reason for the ***.) Upon the abolition of slavery in the US, the latter word "slave" was dropped from the term to describe black-skinned/African Americans. The colloquial meaning, however, didn't change. Even in countries such as Germany to this day terms like "I am not your Ne***" are used by beige-skinned to mean "I am not your slave", when they are asked to somehow serve someone. Which is not the case with the literal German translation of the Latin/English foreign word for "black". Context of culture is all-decisive, not literalism. And no, it doesn't stop here either. Ellis avers, there wouldn't have been ANY black-skinned pharaohs (in the succeeding book). Even orthodox historians say, there were at least five from Nubia. In this book, some historic figures are not supposed to be Black and the Egyptians not in general. Yet, curiously, he quotes Egyptian Thebes as being synonymous with "Ethiopia" and terms himself Egypt as Ethiopia. Which, I may add, is derived from Greek "Aithiops", meaning "of burned face", i.e. "black". (In history, "Ethiopia" is a term used for geographic areas other than/in addition to today's country of that name.) The other name for Egypt, "Kam" would mean black, also refer to the people, but not being derived from any skin color, but the color of the River Nile's bank soil. Even without any context of history, Ellis' folk etymologies and racist attitudes, this would represent a major stretch, which doesn't get substantiated beyond merely the assertion.
Ellis is also islamophobe beyond quotability, as I prefer not to repeat insults. And let this one melt in your mouth: The US would have invaded Iraq to ensure stability by a functioning police force and army to counter civil unrest in the face of the to be revealed information that God was an astronaut, which the Freemasons knew all along. I am not exactly sure, which part of that statement is the most funny.
At this point I may add that Akhenaton didn't let his image get distorted to look like an alien from outer space, but to make a symbolic mystic statement of the non-existence of genders. Speaking of which, Ellis contrives an inherent gender dualism for Egypt, the diametric opposite. He divides Egypt by saying the male would represent north, the female the south. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, the ankh symbolizes again the direct opposite. This is the symbol which looks similar to the modern symbol for female. This sign of life harbors parallel meanings, one of which concerns gender, based on the geography of Egypt. The River Nile is the phallus-part, the horizontal line is the border, or rather connection between Upper and Lower Egypt, the ancient capital Memphis located at the crosspoint. The loop above represents the Nile's Delta, which is symbolizing a vagina. I am amazed, Ellis could have missed such a basic cornerstone of Egyptology.
Ellis is also projecting the modern construct of nationalism upon ancient Egypt, in the tune of the reactionary culture clash theory of Samuel P. Huntington, ignoring even modern examples to the contrary.
Somehow I have the feeling, ANYTHING is in reality the pyramids of Giza, from the Tower of Babel to the Biblical burning bush, and nothing ever happened outside Egypt after indulging in the Ellis universe.
It doesn't help that this book offers a monotonous information overload with simultaneous lack of focus, making this one of the very most tedious and arduous books I have read. In addition, it is digressing big time, especially, but by no means limited to the 110 pages appendixes. If you think, it is only I who doesn't find Ellis' "evidence" very compelling, here's is Ellis on Ellis, as quoted from this book: "While I have speculated previously..., the evidence for this is not overwhelming. Alternatives may be..." and "At the end of the book JESUS... I indicated that... However, that assertion may have been incorrect..."
In case you want to catch up, the first part of this series is Jesus: Last of the Pharoahs
Title Misleading Jul 29, 2007
This book was a disappointment. After reading Tempest & Exodus I expected to find at least as much plausible evidence in Eden in Egypt. Only half the book contains material germane to Adam & Eve. The rest is peripheral and incidental. That portion is highly speculative, stretching linguistic associations even for his own usual style. Ralph went over the top with his conclusion that little gray aliens are the Grand Secret behind the Masons. While the roots of Masonry in Egyptian history is informative, Ralph finds a rabbit in every hole coming up with insubstantiable conclusions based solely on stretches of linguistic patterns. Tying his language roots to other known references is weak or non-existent in this volume.
The book is largely a compilation of notes on various topics, written in Ralph's characteristic rambling style of story telling. It fits neither in scientific investigation nor non-fictional literature categories. Useful tidbits of information and wonderful color plates, but in the end, it didn't reveal much about early Egyptian culture surrounding Adam & Eve, aka Akhenaton and Nefertiti.
Adam and Eve Mar 12, 2006
One of the primary suggestions the author makes, is that Adam and Eve were actually Pharaoh Akhenaton and Queen Nefertiti. There is not enough evidence to prove this, but the argument is certainly compelling.
I liked the item on the Egyptian roots of Masonry too, most entertaining and thought-provoking. Plus there is an Egyptian-Hebrew dictionary, which is interesting as I had not thought there to be any similarities here. Evidently, there are!
In summary - thought-provoking.
very different, original Mar 22, 2005
This is the only book I have encountered that talked about the scriptures are based on the ancient egyptian langauge. Most scholars today are trying to decipher the bible in its hebrew roots. Ellis takes the bible a step further by saying the bible should be interepreted by the egptian language. I think the book makes people think and has some "ah hah" sentences where the reader would be able to make new connections regarding the bible. The book is very detail and is not something to read overnight with a wealth of new information to assimilate. Though the proofs go only so far like many new age books. Defintiely, anyone not satisfied with current modern day bible itnerpretations this book is a must read.