Originally posted by TheKingsVillian
Has anyone ever thought that the Abydos Temple hieroglyphics are not images depicting what they saw in their time, but are in fact depictions of things they saw from the future?

This is a possibility. It is written in the Bible that prophets were given visions of the future. Revelations is filled with predictions based on God given visions of what is to come.

I do not see why the ancient Egyptians who created these glyphs would not have been some of those prophets given visions of the future.

The glyphs are either depictions of a time long before Seti's or what you have suggested, visions of the future. I do not believe that these things were in existance during their time.


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 6-3-2009 by RFBurns]

nonsense-post-edited-out

[edit on 11-3-2009 by Skyfloating]

For whoever browses through this thread:

Please take note how the dozens of pieces of hard evidence are ignored while the weakest aspects of the theory attacked.

Not a single self-proclaimed "Debunker" even touches on the geomagnetic anomalies recently discovered in Nazca for example. The post was entirely ignored...as were many others.

I do think the Ancient Astronaut Theory is very sound and there's alot of circumstantial evidence to support it.

The fact that we label these things as myth, makes no sense to me. Who decides if it's a myth or were the ancients trying to describe advanced technology in the language of the day?

It seems to me that the ancients wouldn't give a dissertation on quantum mechanics when they describe these things. If they thought the gods were responsible for thunder and then they see a spacecraft fly overhead they are going to call the occupants the gods.

At least the ancients tried to explain things that they couldn't fully understand, what we do is worse. We try to explain these things away.

Why does life in the universe have to be reduced to a box? The universe started 13.7 billion years ago and we don't know what constitutes 96% of it. We may be a branch of an infinite number of universes. We could be a hologram or a simulation. Some think the universe is a quantum computer.

Yet we feel that everything has to be explained in a box that started 4.5 billion years ago.

Who decides what's a myth? What's the criteria for deciding what's a myth? Is it just, well that couldn't have occured so it must be a made up story?

It's like we start with a narrative of the universe that excludes ufology and then we try tio fit the universe into that narrative. So when an ancient may be writing about advanced technology, it has to be a myth because it didn't fit the narrative.

When ancients may have had visions of future wars and they describe a helicopter as a giant flying locust with breasplates of iron whose wings made loud noises, we should be enlightened enough of a species to examine these things.

Like I said, at least the ancients tried to describe what they couldn't understand. We just deny that it even exists.

Good post.

"his books are being used in archaeology lectures to first year students as an example of a baseless hoax"

OK that really annoys me. Legitimate theories should be given the time of day, especially in a classroom where people are there to learn.

These days people are there to promote the viewpoint of the school/curriculum whether or not it is wrong.
Having read Forbidden Archeology it is clear that the time-line of humanity is punctured with holes but they just get ignored in the classroom and the same old story is told over and over.