It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

page: 15
3
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
Maybe Noah is more like this guy: Utnapishtim.

Noah is based on Atrahasis
Atrahasis is based on Upnapishtim
Upnapishtim is based in Ziusudra

iirc

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Marduk]


Or they are all based on an original, who's name was Noah.
It's infinitely more logical and certainly hinted at in the sumerian/akkadian/babylonian versions. You can tell the mainstream versions were massaged a bit, and in some cases, the real reason was extracted and a completely lame one was put in its place, like "enlil couldn't sleep"... i mean, gimme a break.




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
so what you are saying is that the ones named in Sumerian Akkadian and Babylonian were based on a Hebrew name that didn't exist at the time
err ok
whos using your brain this week Beth



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
so what you are saying is that the ones named in Sumerian Akkadian and Babylonian were based on a Hebrew name that didn't exist at the time
err ok
whos using your brain this week Beth



Well, now I ain't so shure who done named him Noe, but this'n had been my idea that they did keep them a record in their heads, that they had to recite to one 'nother and when it were finally time to write it down, by then the name were Noe. But if'n I am thinkin' with me noodle, seems to me that them all had come from the same dang story, and the one that made the most logic were probably the correct one. if'n you follow my meanin'.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Before this gets personal and nasty, please let me interject and say; "attack the thinking and not the thinker."

Ya'll play nice, now...ya hear?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by masqua
Before this gets personal and nasty, please let me interject and say; "attack the thinking and not the thinker."

Ya'll play nice, now...ya hear?



Thanks! He's pickin' on me. That mean ole' Marduk person. Kidding. He's okay. I'm not the least bit offended by this. Gave me the chance to use my rather botched up southern drawl.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   
you have a southern Drawl Beth
i take it back
for some reason i am suddenly much more interested in hearing what you have to say

I have standard southern english accent btw in case you were interested

(note to forum) both me and Undo have been aquainted for some time
over across three forums iirc (since i posted a link to maat yesterday)



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   
Play nice? but but... thats no fun..


So Marduck is just a Devil advocate then?


So where did all dem xperts get to? Ain't dun wit em yet!





[edit on 8-9-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Play nice? but but... thats no fun..


So Marduck is just a Devil advocate then?


So where did all dem xperts get to? Ain't dun wit em yet!





[edit on 8-9-2006 by zorgon]


What? You actually WANT him to attack me?


He was being amicable, I think? Per the moderator's request.

But if you'd like, I can always tease him for naming himself after that babylonian god who laid claim to the activity of Enlil, Enki, Enmerkar, Inana and a few others, to boot, in the Enuma Elish, and had a list of official titles about a mile long (okay, not a mile long, but well, exaggeratedly long, err exceedingly long).



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
...As far as the Naqada site is concerned.... actually, the morphological studies from Naqada clearly indicate a difference between Naqada royals and the indigenous population. Anthropologist Douglas Derry:



"The predynastic people are seen to have had narrow skulls with a height measurement exceeding the breadth, a condition common also in negroes. The reverse is the case in the Dynastic Race, who not only had broader skulls but the height of these skulls, while exceeding that in the Predynastic Race, is still less than the breadth."


Derry was wrong on a few of his premises regarding intelligence and cranial size, but he definitely wasn't wrong on the origin of the Falcon Tribe.


Whether Derry was correct or whether he wasn't has yet to be established. To say "he definitely..." was either is to misuse the very concept of communication. "Spin" (as Marduk put it,) in other words.

Let me say here that the entirety of Undo's argument from the post to which I am responding can be found in the Christian writings of one Peter D. Goodgame, an advocate for an evangelical Christian worldview, you know the one, that includes the rapture, pre-rapture tribulations, and all the associated Biblical stories and mythos (yes, including the worldwide flood fantasy.) You can find the quotes Undo provided (but, mysteriously, did not reference) at this link:Red Moon Rising.com.

Now, I don't want to put anyone's faith down. And anyway, they might be right! Who wants to spend eternity in Hell, after all? But Goodgame's argument relies heavily on a book by Dr. David Rohl, who has proposed a "new" chronology for ancient times, and specifically for Egypt, that turns out to be untenable in very many areas. See:

www.bga.nl...
or

www.bga.nl...
or any of the other links at this page:

www.bga.nl....

Rohl is trying to shoehorn the established facts that have been discovered concerning the ancient world into an artificially constructed timeline that is tailor made to match up with his interpretation of what the Bible is and what the Bible means. In such circumstances, I must ask, whatever happened to Undo's plea for not simply buying what others (such as our pastors) "told us to believe"? See:


Originally posted by undolet's at least try to be so out of personal understanding of the subject matter and not out of what someone else told us to believe. In short, be and think for yourself, be original, you'll enjoy it, and it's probably going to be alot closer to the truth than what you're told to believe.



Originally posted by undo
The materials they had with them, including their lapis lazuli jewelry, square ships, sumerian pottery styles, the pear-shaped mace, the cylinder seal, niched façades, Naqada II burial pits lined with mudbricks, are all of mesopotamian origin.

One of several arguments for Egyptian-Sumerian contact and the influencing of early Egypt by the Mesopotamians.


Originally posted by undo
The list of credible scholars, archaeologists and anthropologists that believe these things to be of mesopotamian origin is long and impressive, starting with the original contemporary discoverers of the Osirieon at Abydos - Flinders Petrie and Margaret Murray and going right on up to today, many of which are NOT what you would define as fringers. For example, Helene Kantor had this to say about the pottery found there:

"Among the decorated pot shapes are relatively large jars with three or four triangular lug handles on the shoulder. These lugs are reminiscent of those which were already in use on Mesopotamian pottery in the Ubaid Period and which became particularly typical and frequent on protoliterate pottery."

"More convincing are the vessels with tilted spouts... Although made in the old, indigenous polished red ware, the spouts are completely un-Egyptian; as a whole these jugs resemble Mesopotamian ones of the earlier part of the Protoliterate Period."

IBID.

But Petrie in particular came to discount the very view you so slyly attempt to include the man in:


In 1894 Petrie arrived at Naqada on the west bank of the Nile, about 20 miles north of Luxor. He took on James Quibell as companion and assistant. Quibell himself would go on to work at Hierakonpolis and discover the Narmer palette in the Main Deposit there.

Over the next few months, more than 2200 shallow pit graves were discovered, each occupant curled into fetal position and accompanied by lavish grave goods, from ivory figurines and combs to simple slate palettes, and a variety of pots and jars. No inscriptions were found, leading Petrie to conjecture that these graves belonged to foreigners who had invaded Egypt during the First Intermediate Period. But by 1899, after examining more cemeteries at Abydos and Hu, Petrie concurred with the theory held by Quibell and others, that these were the cemeteries of the earliest settlers in Egypt.
(my emphasis)
Source: touregypt.net...

You may think that Tour Egypt, being an "orthodox" site, is not a good reference for what Undo claims about Petrie, but I took this link from Goodgame's own footnote list at the bottom of the article from Red Moon Rising.com that I linked above (the article from which Undo is quoting.)

Here is Goodgame's footnote list:

Footnotes
1. touregypt.net...
2. Legend – the Genesis of Civilisation, David Rohl, 1998, p.311
3. Ibid, p.314
4. Ibid, p. 317
5. Ibid, p.315
6. Ibid, p.317-18
7. Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus, Chapter IV,2
8. Rohl, pp. 164-165, 217
9. Ibid, p.303, citing Herodotus, Book I:1
10. Ibid, p.253, citing Strabo, Book XVI, 3,4
11. Ibid, pp.252-253
12. Ibid, pp.304-305


Told you he relies heavily on Rohl!

Speaking of quotes, let's have a few more from the same article:


One of the most mysterious achievements of early Egyptian civilization is their almost instantaneous development and perfection of a complex system of writing.

Balderdash. While it may be true that the concept of the written word may have come from Sumeria to Egypt, there is today reams of evidence for the evolutionary development of heiroglyphic characters from predynastic ivory and wooden inventory-type tags.


In Genesis chapter ten there is a long list of the many different tribes of the earth that existed after mankind emerged from Noah's flood. This passage is known as the Table of Nations and the list is organized under the three sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth. It is to this list that David Rohl is drawn after he brings his readers to accept the inevitable conclusion that dynastic Egypt was founded by invaders from Mesopotamia.
...Bahrain was the very first stepping stone from ancient Mesopotamia when the sons of Ham were dispersed after the Flood.

Ahem. Nuff said about this.

To sum up my view of this subject, like I said before, I require some evidence in order to form any personal opinion where there is some question remaining. I don't want to preclude everything that everyone other than Zahi Hawass has to say on the subject, but as it stands now, there's just no reason to believe Rohl's chronology over any other, and many reasons to discount it almost in it's entiirety, not the least of which is his obvious ulterior motive for proposing it in the first place, namely blind faith in a collection of religious scribblings dated to circa 500 BC.

Harte



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Oh now Harte you know for a fact, that a historical text, no matter who writes it, is still a historical text. The biblical writings are no worse for the wear than the egyptian hieroglyphs, the sumerian cuneiforms and so on, and in some cases are more reliable if not less metaphorical and more logical. (Enlil brought the flood because people were too noisy, it says in the akkadian and babylonian flood accounts). What you seem to avoid taking into consideration is that I use almost all the ancient texts to reach my conclusions. You, unfortunately, throw half of them away. That's a mistake in my estimation. You're a bigot, but that's okay, I'm accustomed to bigots.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Oh now Harte you know for a fact, that a historical text, no matter who writes it, is still a historical text.

The problem is separating what was intended for fact from what is intended for fiction and what was intended as metaphor and teaching tale. Look at the fuss over Plato as an example.


The biblical writings are no worse for the wear than the egyptian hieroglyphs, the sumerian cuneiforms and so on, and in some cases are more reliable if not less metaphorical and more logical. (Enlil brought the flood because people were too noisy, it says in the akkadian and babylonian flood accounts).

Actually, there were several "great flood" accounts.

But, to return to the topic at hand, there are a number of Egyptian texts that refer to building monuments (including pyramids) and the earliest history to mention them attributes an age and a builder (Cheops) to them.

No hieroglyphic material mentions the Jews/Israelites/Hebrews.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   


What you seem to avoid taking into consideration is that I use almost all the ancient texts to reach my conclusions

i find it a little odd however that i who use all of and not "almost" all of the ancient texts have reached a far different conclusion to you
which kinda means that you're actually the bigot Beth



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



What you seem to avoid taking into consideration is that I use almost all the ancient texts to reach my conclusions

i find it a little odd however that i who use all of and not "almost" all of the ancient texts have reached a far different conclusion to you
which kinda means that you're actually the bigot Beth


Do you really? I can't say ALL of them because some of them I haven't read yet.
I ain't superwoman, ya know! And seems to me, that it's assumed as a matter of course that the flood didn't occur, but that means ignoring as fiction, flood accounts from several different mesopotamian cultures down through the years.

[edit on 9-9-2006 by undo]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by undo
Oh now Harte you know for a fact, that a historical text, no matter who writes it, is still a historical text.

The problem is separating what was intended for fact from what is intended for fiction and what was intended as metaphor and teaching tale. Look at the fuss over Plato as an example.


The biblical writings are no worse for the wear than the egyptian hieroglyphs, the sumerian cuneiforms and so on, and in some cases are more reliable if not less metaphorical and more logical. (Enlil brought the flood because people were too noisy, it says in the akkadian and babylonian flood accounts).

Actually, there were several "great flood" accounts.

But, to return to the topic at hand, there are a number of Egyptian texts that refer to building monuments (including pyramids) and the earliest history to mention them attributes an age and a builder (Cheops) to them.

No hieroglyphic material mentions the Jews/Israelites/Hebrews.


Dear, you do know the German Higher Criticism that lead to such text book fallacies, was composed primarily by men who did not appreciate judaism and sought to write them out of history, by whatever means necessary? I realize religion is viewed dimly but history is not such a flippant thing that it can be easily erased after thousands of years. It took a concentrated effort at the "university" level, where new textbooks could be compiled with the new view of history. We still havent' recovered from their preconceived notions, written during a time when our current science would've been considered supernatural, and therefore a fairy tale.


[edit on 9-9-2006 by undo]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo

What? You actually WANT him to attack me?


He was being amicable, I think? Per the moderator's request.



Oh come on now, surely you can handle a few credential-less old school skeptics?


Beside, we're al amicable here... my swords are still peace tied


What I want to do is snoop around in the basement of the Smithsonian and the British Museum and have a close look at all those "problematica" they are "storing" I here tell the Vatican has archives they don't want you to see either...

But then those are all just rumors... no one is hiding anything... archeologist faithfully record everythig they find...

Now would one of you experts please tell me what the "official" translation of the following hieroglyph is? I cannot seem to find it in any texts...





While we are at it I would like your opinion on the following image... yours, not a long list of debuker sites LOL I have heard all the "what it isn't" stories, yet no one seems to want to say what it is. And there are lots of these images around not just one





Here is a video by Marduck's favorite author and researcher...


IT WORKS!!

[edit on 9-9-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Oh now Harte you know for a fact, that a historical text, no matter who writes it, is still a historical text. The biblical writings are no worse for the wear than the egyptian hieroglyphs, the sumerian cuneiforms and so on, and in some cases are more reliable if not less metaphorical and more logical. (Enlil brought the flood because people were too noisy, it says in the akkadian and babylonian flood accounts). What you seem to avoid taking into consideration is that I use almost all the ancient texts to reach my conclusions. You, unfortunately, throw half of them away. That's a mistake in my estimation. You're a bigot, but that's okay, I'm accustomed to bigots.


Bigot is too strong a word, in my estimation. You should perhaps take some comfort in the fact that I also do not take as literal fact the Egyptian version of the creation, for example. I don't consider myself to be the descendant of any divine masturbatory session.

The problem here is that I believe that we must at least have some reason to hold one particular theory to be the likeliest. And by 'reason" I don't mean "because it's such an intriguing idea" or "it just feels right." IOW, I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion upon the discovery of enough new and contradictory evidence.

No archaeologist worth his salt would ever claim to be absolutely and undeniably correct in every single detail in his theories. All "soft" science theories are conjectures based on the available evidence. As new evidence is unearthed, hypotheses are either altered or discarded. In fact, it is for this very reason that "true believers" such as yourself and Goodgame must reach back seventy five or a hundred years (Derry, Petrie, etc. - for others it's Ignatius Donnely, Madam Blavatsky, "California state geologist J. D. Whitney" [Google it if you don't know what I'm talking about]) into previous theories to find any support for your ideas.

Also, allow me to point out that you are yourself quite selective in what "ancient tales" you deign to use in forming your opinion. Or did I miss your reference to the daily consumption and nightly regrowth of the liver of a certain Titan? Also, if I may ask, where in your theory does the gigantic turtle that holds up the world fit in? Does the continuous reincarnation of Vishnu dwell anywhere in your ideas? And, if you consume meat, then how is it that you became a cannibal, eating your very relatives? Is that their kharma and if so, who are you to decide it?

Harte



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Well part of my star gate theory (which is why my studies follow certain paths and not others at this point) lead me to study of Mt. Meru /Sumeru, which I believe is the same as Enki's E.ABZU and/or Enlil's E.KUR, but in this case, the hourglass shape depiction of Mt. Sumeru in the hindu and buddhist legends, is trying to explain the wormhole of a star gate. You asked.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Now would one of you experts please tell me what the "official" translation of the following hieroglyph is? I cannot seem to find it in any texts...



While we are at it I would like your opinion on the following image... yours, not a long list of debuker sites LOL I have heard all the "what it isn't" stories, yet no one seems to want to say what it is. And there are lots of these images around not just one




Zorgy, baby,

Why do you in one case want to have a translation of the heiroglyphs, while in the other refuse to consider any of the glyphs surrounding your picture of the Pharoah's lightbulb from Temple of Hathor at Dendera (Hathor was the really hot Goa'uld chick on SG-1.)

Zorgon, are you familiar with John Anthony West? If so, you must realize that at least he is no "debunker." Here's what he has said about these carved depictions of early Egyptian "electrical technology":


The splendid but enigmatic reliefs of the crypt are cosmogonical and depict the serpent (dualizing principle underlying all creation: In Genesis the separation of heaven and earth) borne aloft by the lotus, the symbol of creation as a manifestation of consciousness.

From West's The Traveler's Key to Ancient Egypt, page 402.

What do the "orthodox" experts say? here ya go:


Harsamtawy, son of Hathor, here takes the form of a serpent (he also appears as a hawk). It was "in this form," wrote Budge, that "Horus was believed to have sprung into existence out of a lotus flower which blossomed in the heavenly abyss of Nu at dawn at the beginning of the year."


You know Budge, right?

Here we gots orthodoxy and "unorthodoxy" in complete agreement (snake in a lotus blossom), with the usual exclusion of your old buddy EVD, of course (I suppose that should go without saying by now, right?) Why should this be? Because what these reliefs are depicting is written right there on the walls next to where the reliefs appear!
EVD goes out of his way not to tell you that little (but important) nugget, doesn't he?

The other photo I don't recognize, and I don't read the hieroglyphic text. But Byrd reads glyphs. She'll probably let you know.

Harte



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
harte, isnt this thread like lastdayprophet's all over again?

there is no evidence to prove that anyone BUT egyptians built the pyramids

if you live in egypt, you ARE egyptian

end of story

(my logic is stupid AND flawless for all of you that don't get irony)



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
harte, isnt this thread like lastdayprophet's all over again?

there is no evidence to prove that anyone BUT egyptians built the pyramids

if you live in egypt, you ARE egyptian

end of story

(my logic is stupid AND flawless for all of you that don't get irony)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join