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: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   
If the Sphinx and the three pyramids of Giza are truly an imprint in time of the heavenly bodies, then I love one of the ancient names it is known for.

Seshep-ankh Atum, 'the living image of Atum'

I don't know for sure if the English word Autumn (latin word Autumnus) are somehow derived from the Egyptian word Atum?

The Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary says this about the word Autumn:

The season between summer and winter comprising in the northern hemisphere usu. the months of September, October and November or as reckoned astronomically extending from the September equinox to the December Solstice-called also fall.

Now if Enoch was right about the future being crappy for harvest and longevity, then Autumn would fit the bill as the start of the season where everything begins to die off.

The Sphinx and the three pyramids are showing when the first Autumn began from an astronomical point of view. Maybe?




posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

The books were never written in Chaldean.

However, Isaiah doesn't say..........

In the time periods you're discussing, Giza wasn't the border.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by Byrd]


I am sorry for this confusion, as you detailed, and would like to explain.

I've been using the Strong's for twenty or so years, and it's just become second nature to refer to the Old Testament and Translations as "in the Chaldean", apposed to "in the Chaldean and Hebrew". Whenever questioned about it, I've explained simply to obtain a Strong's Concordance. It is the best one out there. You study the KJV and use a Strong's so you know what you just read.

I will correct my addressing of this as Chaldean for Linguistic reasons and I agree with you that the Vast Majority of the Old Testament was recorded in Hebrew.

But there is also Chaldean, (Aramaic) scattered amongst the Hebrew, in several Books.

And it was nice that you also took the effort to confirm what I was noting in respects to the meanings, and did not leave people with the belief I was blowing wind up their @$$es.


I cut your Isaiah remark to re-affirm one thing. Isaiah 19:19 isn't Isaiah saying anything. It's the Lord of Hosts speaking through Isaiah in an Oracle against Egypt.


And you last comment is exactly what we are discussing Byrd. I am not being cheeky, but I believe the Great Pyramid predates all of your commentary on what and who Egypt was. A date I find accurate would be 8800 BC. Scholars abound that 2500 BC would be accurate. Thats the discussion we are having, is it not??


I would like to make it very clear here Byrd.

YOU ARE A VERY EXCELLENT POSTER and EXCEEDINGLY KNOWLEDGEABLE in these areas.

It's been nice having this discussion, and I hope someday down the road, we can split the difference and at least come to the conclusion the Great Pyramid IS a Pre flood Topic.

Have a great Texan Afternoon my friend

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shane

Originally posted by Byrd

The books were never written in Chaldean.

However, Isaiah doesn't say..........

In the time periods you're discussing, Giza wasn't the border.

[edit on 22-4-2006 by Byrd]


I would like to make it very clear here Byrd.

YOU ARE A VERY EXCELLENT POSTER and EXCEEDINGLY KNOWLEDGEABLE in these areas.

It's been nice having this discussion, and I hope someday down the road, we can split the difference and at least come to the conclusion the Great Pyramid IS a Pre flood Topic.

Have a great Texan Afternoon my friend

Ciao

Shane

Shane,
I would certainly agree with you about Byrd, but I definitely want to be here the day you get Byrd to agree that anything is "pre-flood," considering there's no evidence for this flood. That will truly be the day.


Harte



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

..........the day you get Byrd to agree that anything is "pre-flood," considering there's no evidence for this flood. That will truly be the day.


Harte


I was definately not aware of such details Harte.

Well, I am certain if you wish, we could discuss this at lenght in something specific to the Great Flood, because, there is evidence above and beyond.

If there was such a Post, with past info, I would like to review it.

Anyone know if there was and where it could be found. If not, we can start one.

Let me know?

Always up for a Challenge.

Ciao

Shane



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
If the Sphinx and the three pyramids of Giza are truly an imprint in time of the heavenly bodies, then I love one of the ancient names it is known for.

Seshep-ankh Atum, 'the living image of Atum'

I don't know for sure if the English word Autumn (latin word Autumnus) are somehow derived from the Egyptian word Atum?

No.

English is derived from Latin, German, and the Romance languages (French and Spanish.)

Egyptian is a Hamitic language and comes from an entirely different culture and people.

Humans can make only a limited number of sounds. "Han" in Chinese sounds like "Hand" in English, and "hund" in German sounds sort of like it, too, but you'll find there's no relation in the three words.

There's no relation in Atun and Autumn. And besides, we're not actually sure how Atun is pronounced (we use Coptic Egyptian as a reference but we're not dead sure. Egyptian, like many other languages of the time, dropped out the letters that represented vowels.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cowboy1
I am again indebted to you 'byrd' for your very knowledgable comments and advice. To check all the 'leads' on information will take much time, which I have at present, and I look forward to exploring some of your proposed sites.
I would have to disagree however with your comment that whereas Dr Hawass can't jump up and down over every l'ittle' thing only 'major' discoveries I would humbly suggest that discovering HOW the pyramids were indeed build would be classed as a 'major' discovery and not a minor one.
I have read Hancock, Bauval, Lerner and Von Deiniken who lend strength to the old adage that 'figures can lie and liars can figure' as some of the theories proposed by them do tend to stretch the facts to suit each of their theories. I find Gordon Pipes theory using levers to be the most genuine and practical of them all, but the question remains as to the purpose of their being built. Herodotus does indeed declare that 'they used a lifting device' which would put all 'ramp' theories into the 'out' basket. I have also read, pertaining to your information regarding evidence scattered around the buildings and various sites in Egypt, that sections of the outer casing bearing engravings (salvaged from an earthquake causing them to fall from the sides of the pyramid and some that were removed by some high-ranking chap in the 14th century) were indeed used in the building of a number of Mosques throughout Egypt and are still there to this day. It is a pity that this invaluable evidence has been destroyed like throwing the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle to the 4 winds.
I look forward to many more comments on this theme and look forward to exploring this wonderful and informative site in the future.
Have a nice day.


Some of us believe that Hawass is a liar and crook. He is in with them at the top and they have found the hall of records and that is why access to the sites has been gradually restricted in recent years. They are hiding the secrets of the ages from humanity for their own profits.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   


And you last comment is exactly what we are discussing Byrd. I am not being cheeky, but I believe the Great Pyramid predates all of your commentary on what and who Egypt was. A date I find accurate would be 8800 BC. Scholars abound that 2500 BC would be accurate. Thats the discussion we are having, is it not??


I'm so sorry... I kind of lumped your arguments into the same pile as LostInSpace. Ooops!

However....

I don't think you can support an 8800 BC date for the pyramid using the bible. Your source is Isaiah, and if you recall, Isaiah starts out clearly framing who he is and when he's talking:

1:1 The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah


This is somewhere about 800 BC, as we all agree.

Now... your verse:

19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

Not "Did come." "SHALL come." It hadn't happened as of 800 BC.



19:17 And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself, because of the counsel of the LORD of hosts, which he hath determined against it.

Note: future tense. Judah hasn't been a military threat to Egypt either before 800 BC or after (Judah. Not Israel.)

Chapter 19 continues with the parallel structure:


19:19 In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD


Again, future tense. When will it come? According to Isaiah, the altar and pillar will be erected when 5 cities in Egypt speak Caananite (they never did, by the way) and when various calamaties and civil wars afflict Egypt. Further:


19:23 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians


This announces a unified state or group of states: Egypt, Assyria, and Israel (which hasn't happened yet.)

Assyria didn't exist until 2000 BC, some 1500 years after Egypt was united from Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt. So in addition to the future tense usage that indicates that as of the time of Isaiah it hadn't happened, there is also the issue that there was no Assyria in 8800 BC nor was there an Upper and Lower Egypt. Or Egypt.

The verse is, however, perfectly consistant with a prophet yelling doom and gloom in the 800 BC era -- a time that is fun for historians to contemplate but one that must have been agnonizing to live through.

The Assyrians were under the command of Ashurbanipal and his sons and successors, and there was an aggressive war of expansion. Almost all of the Middle East, except Judah, was chomped up by them and forced into their empire. Egypt gets Assyrian princes as rulers until Psamanik overthrows them in about 625 BC.

Just for fun, here's a link to a map of the Assyrian empire during this time. Ashurbanipal was such a busy dude!
en.wikipedia.org...:Map_of_Assyria.png

So niether the Bible nor the historical records support an 8800 BC date for the Great Pyramid (which is the YOUNGEST one on that plateau... he wanted it larger than the others to tower over them in the afterlife.)

I'd toss one other bit into the basket, here: the oldest reliable references we have about the Great Pyramid (not the others, just the last one) comes from the Roman writer Herodotus in about 400 BC. He is the one who is the source of the "that pyramid took 20 years to build" estimate -- and that Cheops directed it.



[edit on 23-4-2006 by Byrd]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 01:25 AM
link   
I personally believe the pyramids predate the deluge. I had a vision some time back, in which I learned about the Giant offspring born from the fallen angels, and the daughters of men. I believe either the fallen angels, or these giants could have built these pyramids.

My vision didn't speak of the pyramid, but I learned a lot about these giants because of the vision through the book of Enoch, Jubilees, Jasher, fragments of the book of the giants....etc.
www.belowtopsecret.com... That's the vision thread I posted, and an explanation of what I learned from it.

I remember reading this too some time ago, so I dug it up to post the story. It was about the Egyptain's planning to put a golden cap stone on the pyramid for the millenium festival. They never put it up, and there were several speculations why?? One in the story said that many people believed that the pyramid was a machine, and placing a cap stone on it may turn the machine on. I thought that was interesting. Here's the link, I think the source was from AP?? originally.
www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

Call me crazy, but I do believe the pyramid pre-dates the deluge of Noah, and I believe these giants and the act of their parents were a prelude to the deluge in the first place.




[edit on 23-4-2006 by jensouth31]



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
My mother has a Masters degree in Egyptology from Brown University, and we have had this discussion before. I could ask her more specifically about it, but she has told me that it is widely held by many reputable Egyptologists that the pyramids did predate the Old Kingdom by at least a few thousand years. The problem is that a lot of the common belief is based on old knowledge that modern tech and research have overcome.

Early on, after the translation of the Rosetta stone, Egyptologists thought they had it all figured out. They translated the stuff on the walls, and thought they got the whole history. Instead what they got was a bunch of boastful Old Kingdom Pharoes tagging up some abandoned property with their own stories. THis has been shown time and again.

There is evidence that some parts of the Pyramids were occupied and/or constructed thousands of years before the old kingdom ever existed.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
My mother has a Masters degree in Egyptology from Brown University, and we have had this discussion before. I could ask her more specifically about it, but she has told me that it is widely held by many reputable Egyptologists that the pyramids did predate the Old Kingdom by at least a few thousand years.


Ask her for names and scholars. We're all a curious bunch and we can hammer away at their theories. I haven't seen any great packs of them supporting this theory, so we can go off and look at them.

But... you might ask her WHICH pyramids since there are at least 100 of them in Egypt and more in Nubia. I believe this is correct for some of the oldest pyramids and mastabas, but I don't know of any that promote this idea for the Giza plateau. I could be wrong, so I'd like to hunt up these guys and see what they're saying!



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I agree with you and your mom, that certain Egyptian edifices predate the old kingdom. Specifically, the megalithic ones: the ones that incorporate megalith size blocks, like the great pyramid, the oseirion, the mortuary temple, etc.. I also feel the Sphinx appears to be as old or older than these. The erosion channels are one reason, but an even better one is the repair work dated to the time of Khafre....
How could erosion cause enough damage as to need repair work within the same reign as it was constructed? More likely, the only thing Khafre did was repair it, spruce it up a bit, and possibly have his visage carved in it. The proportionally undersized head suggests that the face was a later addition, by some African ruler, whether or not it was Khafre.
It makes more sense to me that Khufu and Khafre attached their names to these glorious structures for their own personal gain, and had nothing to do with their origins. Certainly the vast majority of Egyptian pyramids may well date to the old kingdom, but the exceptionally astounding ones like the great pyramid just don't fit. They are so vastly superior, and supposedly date to near the beginnings of the old kingdom, which is an anomaly I cannot ignore.
On a similar note, I have recently learned that sophisticated mummification in Nubia predates the Egyptian mummies by a millenia. Also, Chilean mummies found in the Atacama desert also predate Egyptian ones by a millenia. This does not surprise me, and supports my long held beliefs that a Nubian/Egyptian/Olmec connection existed long ago. The Olmec heads, Egyptian mummy tissue lab test results containing coca and tobacco, and the Egyptian sponsored, Phoenician ocean journeys like the circumnavigation of Africa thousands of years ago, all support that bond.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Okay Byrd, I asked her, and you were right.

I probably misunderstood how widely this was thought during the conversation. She seemed to give the idea some actual credit, which must have made me think it could be more accepted than it was.


Asked by Rasobasi420
You mentioned before that some Egyptoplogists believe the age of the pyramids to be older than is currently accepted.

1. Do you have any names of these researchers?
2. Are they credible?
3. have they written any books on the subject?
4. Why do they believe it?


And her answer


Answered by Dr. C. M. Sullivan PhD
Right now all I can think of is a book called "The Great Pyramid Decoded" which is not cosidered at all seriously by mainstream Egyptologists, and may be in those boxes of books. Also, a geologist from Attleboro dated the Great Sphinx several thousand years earlier than the mainstrean Egyptologists on the basis of patterns of weathering, which he claims could only have taken place in a moister climate, such as existed in that earlier period. I can't remember his name, it was in the early 1990s.


The Geologist she's talking about is Robert Schoch, who I mentioned before in this thread. Here's Schoch's Boston University faculty web page.
www.bu.edu...

It's still a very interesting theory.



[edit on 12-5-2006 by Rasobasi420]



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Okay Byrd, I asked her, and you were right.

I probably misunderstood how widely this was thought during the conversation. She seemed to give the idea some actual credit, which must have made me think it could be more accepted than it was.

It's been looked at by archaeologists (and wasn't dismissed out of hand, as supporters often like to claim.) The problem is that the data says this is simply not true, and that doesn't satisfy people who liked it.


Answered by Dr. C. M. Sullivan PhD
Right now all I can think of is a book called "The Great Pyramid Decoded" which is not cosidered at all seriously by mainstream Egyptologists, and may be in those boxes of books. Also, a geologist from Attleboro dated the Great Sphinx several thousand years earlier than the mainstrean Egyptologists on the basis of patterns of weathering, which he claims could only have taken place in a moister climate, such as existed in that earlier period. I can't remember his name, it was in the early 1990s.


His theory was tested and examined by a number of geologists and was refuted (he's as much of a geologist as I am -- knows quite a bit about the subject, BUT... a real geologist knows more and a geologist with fieldwork knows far more than any of us.) It was the geologists with PhDs and fieldwork who said that his theory didn't hold up.


The Geologist she's talking about is Robert Schoch, who I mentioned before in this thread. Here's Schoch's Boston University faculty web page.
www.bu.edu...

It's still a very interesting theory.


It is, but the idea falls down in other ways -- and that includes the knowledge of the world (maps and geography.) I won't go into detail here, but I have been reading a scholarly book (with references out the wazoo to vey ancient and occasionally obscure Greek texts and more) that talks about how people viewed the world through most of the Bronze Age (unlisted beginning time to about 300 BC.)



posted on May, 15 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
It is, but the idea falls down in other ways -- and that includes the knowledge of the world (maps and geography.) I won't go into detail here, but I have been reading a scholarly book (with references out the wazoo to vey ancient and occasionally obscure Greek texts and more) that talks about how people viewed the world through most of the Bronze Age (unlisted beginning time to about 300 BC.)


How did they view the world in regards to the pyramids, if you don't mind me asking. I'm not sure if I understand where ancient Greek concepts of the world would cause this theory to collapse. Did they have their own time-table of how long the pyramids were around?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
My English is not so good so hope you will anderstand me.
This is my teory.The Egyptians buid the piramid thats for shure but of the help and orders of the aliens
The piramids form Mars and Earth are linked.This is the storyline.
First the piramids are made on Mars I do not know the purpose but evencialy on
mars came to an icy age .So the Aliens from sowere near the Orions Belt
needed a new planet Earth . So the piramids on earth were made again like on Mars .People on earth loked at the aliens like gods,the aliens chose the smarthest to be the pharaon to lead the men to build the piramids I say again I do not know the purpose of that.The pharaons are mumificaised in belife that some day the aliens wod come back and bring them back to life,Reincarnation.The main piramid is showing towards the constalation of Orion or Egyptian god Osiris.Do you know that the height of the piramid wh en multipyied by one bilion you get the distance between Earth ande the Son thats whiy the Egiptyans had the god Ra god of the son. Thats my teory.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 01:34 AM
link   
It really angers me when people underestimate the human race. The Egyptian Empire was not all that long ago when looking at the history of earth. I dont see why people can not believe that we humans could not make something as marvelous as the Great Pyramid. Even though they did not have computers that create the designs, they used that pink thing in our skull. The most powerful computer. Also, i realize that they did not have cranes or earth movers to construct the pyramid, but they have something close to it. Slavery. Saying that aliens had something to do with the pyramids is like saying they had something to to with the parntheon or the aqueducts in roman times. We know why the romans created the parntheon and the aqueducts. Since we dont know how the egyptians created the pyramids we use the easy exuse of aliens. Just because we may not be as intellecutally enlightened as someone 9000 years ago we should not take the easy excuse and belittle our early ancestors.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by wild_cat]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 02:10 AM
link   
wild_cat:

While I generally agree with your enlightening statements, I find it oddly lacking in one area. There's no scientific evidence to even suggest that any of the peoples that history tells us made the pyramids actually had the knowledge or machinery to do so. Add to that the fact that we, even now, cannot procure blocks of the caliber used in the pyramids and get them laid in the time that the Egyptians said they did, and you can begin to see the main problem with that line of thinking.

Now that doesn't mean that I believe that aliens helped to make the pyramids. I simply admit that it's something that's FUN to think about. That's a very intriguing thought; that an advanced extraterrestrial civilization came here, bestowed grand knowledge on the humans here at that time with the abilities to build fantastic buildings, and then let them do it. That's just cool to ponder.

In reality, no, I doubt anything of that nature actually occurred. Well, exactly in that way anyway. I think it was more of a previous creation that was here before our's that put those structures here. After they all died, the buildings somehow survived to the present-day, and here we are talking about them. Well, that's one of my theories anyway. I have two very well-built ones that I may share someday, when I get them a bit more fleshed out, and I find more time. Until then, we're left to ponder....

TheBorg



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
That is a good point you made. However i still believe they had the knowledge of making those buildings. Pulleys and levers had been discovered already so no one knows what types of machines they could have used. The only place that would know how, when or why these buildings were built would be in the libraries of Alexandria and Constantanople, but those buildings were burned down with all the knowledge in them. If those buildings and there documents were still around today then our whole view of ancient civilazations would not be what they are today



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:07 AM
link   
last year i read a book by guy tarade, about Atlantis, the book show many theories about what might've happened, before, during and after its disappearance.
the three main theories about where the atlants went after the destruction (iam not going to expose anything of how it possible happen (if it really happened) because it would take to long), the tree locations are the hiperboreo (some where in northen europe), south america and the egypt. some say that the remaining atlants went to one or two of this locations, other that they went to all.
whats intriguing is that there is no civilization in egypt and in a short period of time a hugly devoleped one emerges, and the emerging occurs shortly after the collapse os atlantis.
if it really happen its quiet compreensive that the first survivers arriving at egypt would related to the atlant culture then their descendents.
it is possible that the great pyramid was created in the begining of the egypt civilization... but like 99% of what we know about anything are but theories, and whats true today might not be tomorrow.

hope this is relevant information



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wild_cat
That is a good point you made. However i still believe they had the knowledge of making those buildings. Pulleys and levers had been discovered already so no one knows what types of machines they could have used.


Amazingly, this is just not true. The Egyptians had no knowledge of the wheel or the pulley when they constructed the pyramids.


Originally posted by wild_catThe only place that would know how, when or why these buildings were built would be in the libraries of Alexandria and Constantanople, but those buildings were burned down with all the knowledge in them.


Sorry, but that's pretty unlikely as well. Both libraries post-dated pyramid construction by a couple of thousand years.

However, there is at this moment a researcher that truly is hot on the trail of the tomb of Imhotep, the architect of the pyramids. If this tomb is found, and it's not been too badly robbed, we might just be on the verge of finally discovering exactly how it was done. If this archaeologist is right, then we should know within the next few years.

Harte



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join