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.

 

The Lost Kings of Ancient Egypt's Old Kingdom / F.I.P.

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by theAymen

Originally posted by Byrd
Could you point to the texts that show that he was known as a god at the same time Djoser was (he actually served several pharaohs)...[or]... hieroglyphs that show he's worshipped before the time of his death?

imhotep was the first to class himself as a Demi-god, son of ptah


What are you using as proof that he called himself the Son of Ptah? None of his writings survived (if he wrote anything at all). To the best of my knowledge, the "Son of Ptah" is applied to him several hundred years after his death. Can you link to something that I can read that shows he's called "son of Ptah" during the time of Djoser?





khnum (god of nile/rebirth) was there before the time of imhotep, yes.....but, Imhotep started the” cult of khnum”, after the droughts, on the source of the nile, in Elephantine.


That's on the Famine Stela, yes -- but note that it is written 2,000 years after the time of Imhotep and Djoser, and on the Stela, Djoser is shown making offerings to three gods, not just Khnum:
en.wikipedia.org...


The teachings from this cult later became the cult of imhotep in the new kingdom.. the make up of the cult became what was basically a group of covenant priests who ultimately controlled Egypt. They influenced pharaoh, the people and the state....Though to take the throne, proved difficult....they needed proof of their divinity...


I don't think you'll find a good match with Egyptian history here. Cults changed throughout the centuries as gods became blended or took over new functions. Imhotep doesn't become a god until around 600 BC and the priests (as seen with Ahkenaten) certainly didn't control the state. Pharaohs didn't need to "claim a relationship to a god" -- they were "god on earth". Their names are "sayings" about their patron god (like "He of Beauty" (Sneferu) or "Body of the gods" (Djoser) or "Beautiful is Re" (Neferere.)

The god most often cited in their names is Re, not Khnum (Horus and Set are also popular but nowhere near the popularity of Re)
en.wikipedia.org...



even soliman used this template of imhotep

The source where you found that information is a site where someone's making stuff up. No artifacts have ever been found showing that Solomon existed (though a really convincing fake showed up in 2001) and I've never seen Imhotep's name linked with Solomon, even in the Bible
www.bbc.co.uk...

So I think you'd do well to mark that place off your list of "good information here" sources.




ok firstly...Osiris – is the only god concerned with the divine right to rule by pharaoh – he wears the Atef of upper Egypt. Horus`s crown was worn by new kingdom pharaohs who classed themselves as demigods...sons of gods like horus was. the worship of ra coinsided with its rays possesing a ruler on earth. sungod.


Except that in temples and inscriptions, it's Wadjet and Nekhbet shown crowning the pharaoh (an example is here of Pharaoh Ptolemy being crowned)
www.lessing-photo.com...

And Horus and Wadjet:
www.specialx.net...

Seti with Nekhbet (copy of panel.. not the original panel)
www.goddessgift.net...

Different pharaoh, coronation, Nekhbet and Wadjet with Sobek and Isis
www.flickr.com...@N00/3302737744/

(and lots of other examples.) Osiris is not shown crowning anyone.




. It's a character in a fantasy novel. (and that's not an Egyptian name, anyway. Nor is Tetisheri, to the best of my knowledge)


haha...taharraqa was a 25th dynasty ku*hite pharaoh. from upper egypt..the last real pharaoh...why would you think he was a fantasy character lol.


Well, because when you google his name, it says he's a character in a fantasy book. And #2, when you look at the pharaohs from Kush, you don't see that name anywhere:
en.wikipedia.org...

And thirdly, Kush-ites aren't Hittites:
en.wikipedia.org...



The hitties were defeated by the end of the 18th dynasty. In the 19th dynasty Seti1 ventured to destroy them. But there priests were captured and lived under his rule within the state, mainly to build his temple. He brought them back due to their extensive knowledge which they took out of Egypt prior, if anything he introduced them back into the state.


What's your source for this? Temples weren't built by priests (they didn't do manual labor.) They were built by skilled stonemasons. The Hittites actually never came in Egypt (they were rebuffed)


His Sons Wife, nefertari, an upper Egyptian was the cause of the major exodus of the hitties powerful priests. It became apparent to nefartari that these preists were attempting to outbreed the upper Egyptian lineage out from the crown by cross breeding with the pharaoh. though ramsees marrying nefartari annoyed the preists. Which is why they killed one of his first born.


What's your source for this -- particularly for their killing his firstborn son? Also, what's your source saying that Egypt's hated enemies (Hittites, who worshipped different gods), became priests in Egypt?


??.... Ay ruled for a brief period then horemheb took over.... as those two were non-royals they went about starting the19th dynasty with ramsees1.


Yes. In the section I was replying to, you claimed that Ramses attacked the hometowns of Ay and Horemheb. So I said "Horemheb died before Ay, who died before Rameses I came to the throne. He's the grandfather of Ramses II. So... what were you using as evidence that Ramses attacked the towns of Henen-nesut (the capital of the 20th Nome of Egypt) and Ipu (capital of the 9th Nome of Egypt)?"


my point was Ramsees2 was affirming his soverignty by marrying an upper egyptian royal. bearing in mind those days there was only one lineage that ruled.(marrying relatives was common).. him marrying a royal upset the hittite priests.


Err... where did you get this notion from? His official wives were Nefertari, Isetnofret, Maathorneferure, Meritamen, Bintanath, Nebettawy, Henutmire and his concubines were never numbered. Henutmire was the daughter of Seti 1 and was already royal. Nefertari was greatly beloved but she wasn't the one who produced his heir. Isisnofret was the mother of his appointed heir. Between the time he married Isisnofret and Maathoneferure, he married his daughters Meritamen (who was one of the most influential figures of her time), Nebettawy and Bintanath. Maathoneferure was Hittite, but doesn't marry Ramses until the 34th year of his reign.





It *might* be... except that this isn't a long line of father-to-son inheritances. The importance of a demigod in your past makes you divine, but if you're an usurper you have to introduce a new line of gods. Ramses II wasn't an usurper -- he was the son and grandson and great-grandson of pharaohs.

i didnt say ramsees was an usurper, i said the 18th dynasty pharaohs were...: tuthmosis,amenhotep,akhenaten.
as well as persians and greco-romans.


That would mean that each pharaoh of each group of dynasties were usurpers. I don't think I buy this.



more importantly this is the foundations of a religon.
Which religion?


the new kingdom interpretation of old kingdom gods. was in fact a new religon


The gods were constantly being reinterpreted and the religions being changed... not only of state gods, but local versions of gods as well.



as for the coptics..its not modern greek or ancient egyptian...its an ancient language spoken by mediteranean greeks written in arabic.


I gave links to the Coptic language saying that it was a variant of ancient Egyptian. Can you post some links to help prove your point that it was "an ancient language spoken by Mediterranean Greeks written in Arabic" The Wikipedia article shows a tablet written in Coptic which, if you look at it closely, is written with the Greek alphabet:
en.wikipedia.org...


to add ....The Wadjet of lower Egypt (red hollow crown) – worn by hitties and most 18th dynasty pharaohs onwards, was not the soverign ruler. Nekhbet (upper egypt eagle) holding wadjet (lower egyptserpent) in its claws


Err, all pharaohs wore it after Narmer unified Egypt.

And Nekhbet is a vulture. Not an eagle.




posted on Oct, 2 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Could you point to the texts that show that he was known as a god at the same time Djoser was (he actually served several pharaohs)...[or]... hieroglyphs that show he's worshipped before the time of his death?

What are you using as proof that he called himself the Son of Ptah? None of his writings survived (if he wrote anything at all). To the best of my knowledge, the "Son of Ptah" is applied to him several hundred years after his death. Can you link to something that I can read that shows he's called "son of Ptah" during the time of Djoser?



firstly, he was in the old kingdom..most relics from then are lost or DESTROYED.
there is no evidence of his father. His mother was said to be human ...his father a god. Therefore we only know him as a demigod..who worked for the pharaoh. nothing else.
That stella was a COPY of a stella written during the time of imhotep...in the stella Pharaoh calls him “son of ptah”.To add:
He is the first to make his pharaoh prey/give offerings to a lesser god.
pharaoh was obviously held at the whim of the high priest of khnum...imhotep
The pharaoh levies a tax of 10% on all of the population except for the priesthood. etc

It is believed that this stella was written during the 2nd century BC, by the “priests of Khnum” for the purpose of justifying their claim of some land privileges. Part of the inscription states the pharaoh dedicated some of the land and taxation to the god.

The preists of khnum...in 2nd century bc....which was just before hittite rule ...rewrote this stella, demanding rights for land...with this land. they got a foothold.....then, the Hittites took over...WHO HAD A COVENANCE/AGREEMENT WITH THE PREISTHOOD. of khnum/imhotep. to topple pharaoh.
Ie cult of khnum = cult of imhotep..... One was for the covenant priests, and one was for the state.






That's on the Famine Stela, yes -- but note that it is written 2,000 years after the time of Imhotep and Djoser, and on the Stela, Djoser is shown making offerings to three gods, not just Khnum:
en.wikipedia.org...


BUT KHNUM BECAME A GOD THE PHARAOH HAD TO MAKE OFFERINGS TO??.... ASK WHY.....



I don't think you'll find a good match with Egyptian history here. Cults changed throughout the centuries as gods became blended or took over new functions. Imhotep doesn't become a god until around 600 BC and the priests (as seen with Ahkenaten) certainly didn't control the state. Pharaohs didn't need to "claim a relationship to a god" -- they were "god on earth". Their names are "sayings" about their patron god (like "He of Beauty" (Sneferu) or "Body of the gods" (Djoser) or "Beautiful is Re" (Neferere.)


The god most often cited in their names is Re, not Khnum (Horus and Set are also popular but nowhere near the popularity of Re)


firstly imhotep became the god of medicine for the greeks and persians.
though he was always classed as a demigod...cmon ffs... even ramsees2 classed himself as a demigod.

as for akhenatens relationship with preists...lolol
Of course Ahenaten woudnt hold thembclose..he was himself a non royal. Of course he would hold the priests at bay. he wanted to change religon..making the preists cults obselete including the cult of imhotep, who most definatley help bring him to the throne

khnum is lower than re...but this cult was a cult that controled pharaoh...he became part of the holy triad

horus set osiris became secound to re in the new kingdom...when re was lesser than geb/nut.
well not lesser but different. horus osiiris were gods of men..re was a god.

You have to understand that the same people have existed through time until today!!
Theyr name changes, the Nubians of today were known as ku#es in the late new kingdom.
During the Hittites they were known as kemits, as hitties went as far south as “mount amun”.
In the old kingdom they were the pharaohs.




The source where you found that information is a site where someone's making stuff up. No artifacts have ever been found showing that Solomon existed (though a really convincing fake showed up in 2001) and I've never seen Imhotep's name linked with Solomon, even in the Bible


the idea of promoting yourself as a divine ruler.....
wait no evidence...wow..you think its the same as our fake extra kings that they added...as they are the same people....




Except that in temples and inscriptions, it's Wadjet and Nekhbet shown crowning the pharaoh (an example is here of Pharaoh Ptolemy being crowned)


he is a new kingdom pharaoh...showing that he has blessings from both lower egypt and upper egypt guardians.
which was complete BS.

if he was blessed by nekhbet then why did they never venture into thebes....they only stayed in alexandria which is a port lol.

THIS IS HOW DJET WAS SYMBOLISED IN THE 4TH DYNASTY...THE OLD KINGDOM

hmmm...looks like he is being contained somehow



And Horus and Wadjet:
www.specialx.net...


yes new kingdom would assoicitate horus with wadjet...which is blasphemy in the old kingdom.
he should only be assoiciated with nekhbet...but as egypt grew so did their soverignty...encompassing lower egypt...lower egyptians used these images to show the gods favoured there soerignty



Seti with Nekhbet (copy of panel.. not the original panel)

yes Seti1 was reintroducing the old kingdom religon/traditions.



Different pharaoh, coronation, Nekhbet and Wadjet with Sobek and Isis
(and lots of other examples.) Osiris is not shown crowning anyone.

the pharaoh embodies osiris..he IS osiris on earth...osiris wears the atef
wadjet is the "patron saint" of lower egypt, which the upper egypt pharaoh now is soverign over.
which is why isis brings them to bless pharaoh.
ask yourself why some relics survive while others are derstoyed...hmmm
.


Well, because when you google his name, it says he's a character in a fantasy book. And #2, when you look at the pharaohs from Kush, you don't see that name anywhere:
en.wikipedia.org...


wow ok..look!
25th dynasty..kush-ite pharaohs.
piy, 747-716
shabaqo, 716 -702
shabitqo, 702 - 690
TAHARQO (khunefertmre) 690 - 656

he lost the north (war) to the persians...who after a brief saitte rule became pharaohs.
the alexander the great was seen as a LIBERATOR....ever wondered why alexander never went south into thebes...he just went east through sinai.

And thirdly, Kush-ites aren't Hittites:
en.wikipedia.org...

i would never ever make that link...as i am a ku#e...well a nubian myself. the hittite pirates and there staless helpers in greece n rome stole the crown.





What's your source for this? Temples weren't built by priests (they didn't do manual labor.) They were built by skilled stonemasons. The Hittites actually never came in Egypt (they were rebuffed)


?? of course i know they didnt do labour..they lived better then pharaoh.
they DESIGN the temples. from top to bottom. helping the pharaoh in his quest to contact the gods.
only there army hwo came in force were redbuufed




What's your source for this -- particularly for their killing his firstborn son? Also, what's your source saying that Egypt's hated enemies (Hittites, who worshipped different gods), became priests in Egypt?



"Seti I, the second king of the 19th Dynasty was the son of Ramesses I and Queen Sitre. He reconciled with the Hittites who were becoming the most powerful state in the region"
this information is out there.. i recently found this out myself...as i knew they were banished.. but they were around with ramsees2 and the socalled exodus...how did they get reintroduced into the state after/during war.

a BBC documentary about 4 weeks ago stated that set1 brought them back so i checked it out..turns out set1 brought them back.

they were priests prior to the 18th dynasty...the cult of imhotep (covenant pirates)....who took the throne.
bear in mind the the lower egyptians consisted of mainly foreigners, including hitties.
only a preist could brainwash the ppl into fighting pharaoh...also only the priests can influence the pharaoh into war to appease the gods...



Yes. In the section I was replying to, you claimed that Ramses attacked the hometowns of Ay and Horemheb. So I said "Horemheb died before Ay, who died before Rameses I came to the throne. He's the grandfather of Ramses II. So... what were you using as evidence that Ramses attacked the towns of Henen-nesut (the capital of the 20th Nome of Egypt) and Ipu (capital of the 9th Nome of Egypt)?"


oh, ok...the hittite priests...tried to use ramsees and his army...to remove the threat that destroyed the hitties in the 18th dynasty. Ay @ horemheb... bearing in mind that their villages and relatives must of been formiddable during the start of the 19th dynasty

ramsees2 campaign in the south...was an attempt to weaken the upper egyptians...but it didnt work...ie, resulted in the exodus.




Err... where did you get this notion from? His official wives were Nefertari, Isetnofret, Maathorneferure, Meritamen, Bintanath, Nebettawy, Henutmire and his concubines were never numbered. Henutmire was the daughter of Seti 1 and was already royal. Nefertari was greatly beloved but she wasn't the one who produced his heir. Isisnofret was the mother of his appointed heir. Between the time he married Isisnofret and Maathoneferure, he married his daughters Meritamen (who was one of the most influential figures of her time), Nebettawy and Bintanath. Maathoneferure was Hittite, but doesn't marry Ramses until the 34th year of his reign.


so he did marry a hittite....see. they were in the country.....him and his father were arrogant enough to have them living in the state ....grrrrrr.

Firstly ramsees feared the power of the hittite gods.

nefertari was different....he married her to reaffirm the upper egyptians into the crown...well he did just destroy their men....on hittite orders/brainwashing.



It *might* be... except that this isn't a long line of father-to-son inheritances. The importance of a demigod in your past makes you divine, but if you're an usurper you have to introduce a new line of gods. Ramses II wasn't an usurper -- he was the son and grandson and great-grandson of pharaohs.

That would mean that each pharaoh of each group of dynasties were usurpers. I don't think I buy this.


if you were not from uper egypt you were an usurper.
certain pharaohs tried to use images of the gods blessing them to show they had the right to rule.

bearing in mind war was a divine court of law..if you were defeated then the gods didnt want you on the throne.
the hittites used this model to affirm their royalty...but AY removing them showed that there gods lied/didnt want them on the throne.
i also believed that because ramsees2 had foriegn blood..they inticed him to prove his divinty by fighting the upper egyptians....darn priests.





I gave links to the Coptic language saying that it was a variant of ancient Egyptian. Can you post some links to help prove your point that it was "an ancient language spoken by Mediterranean Greeks written in Arabic" The Wikipedia article shows a tablet written in Coptic which, if you look at it closely, is written with the Greek alphabet:
en.wikipedia.org...


coptics hey tut tut...i read in an earlier post that you noticed a transition from ancient religon to christianity.
so i pointed out that they are the only religon in that area.. that is the oldest and unchanged through from the ancient religon to modern christianity. it is christianity... from before jesus!!!??.

the transitional change of religon...is kept constant in that church...they know alot more if you care to look!

iv been to a coptic church...their bible texts are written in arabic...though the language is not.
its an ancient mix if you like...but its the greeks religon in egypt from the time of the late new kingdom.




Err, all pharaohs wore it after Narmer unified Egypt.

And Nekhbet is a vulture. Not an eagle.

firstly it was a greek who helped join the kingdoms.
the narmer is mostly recognised by the hitties and greco-romans....to the upper egyptians it became a farce.
the agreement was for an upper egyptian to rule over both..which was honored...untill the newkingdom. therefore that contract is now void.....

and an american calling nekhbet a vulture is very cute

by the way i dont have sources ....I AM THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION... i dont want anyone elses poisonous thoughts on egypt



edit on 2-10-2010 by theAymen because: (no reason given)




edit on 2-10-2010 by theAymen because: (no reason given)




edit on 2-10-2010 by theAymen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Oookay. I see from your answers that you don't provide any links to prove what you're saying. So... quickly...


Originally posted by theAymen
(re Imhotep)firstly, he was in the old kingdom..most relics from then are lost or DESTROYED.

I'm afraid that the existing material from Egypt gives a different picture... things with Imhotep on them survived from the age of the Old Kingdom.

I showed you two inscriptions made during his lifetime. They don't call him the son of a god. They give his title as "Chancellor of the King of Lower Egypt; First after the King of Upper Egypt; Administrator of the Great Palace; Hereditary nobleman; High Priest of Heliopolis; Builder; Chief Carpenter; Chief Sculptor and Maker of Vases in Chief."

Not "Son of Ptah". That doesn't come until almost 600 BC.


He is the first to make his pharaoh prey/give offerings to a lesser god.

Pharaohs made offerings to many gods (including what you would call a "lesser god.")


The preists of khnum...in 2nd century bc....which was just before hittite rule ...rewrote this stella, demanding rights for land...with this land. they got a foothold.....then, the Hittites took over...WHO HAD A COVENANCE/AGREEMENT WITH THE PREISTHOOD.

You might want to read up a bit more on both civilizations. The Hittites never ruled Egypt. The Lybians and the Nubians both did, but they are from Africa. The Hittites are from Anatolia.


BUT KHNUM BECAME A GOD THE PHARAOH HAD TO MAKE OFFERINGS TO??.... ASK WHY.....


Khnum was already a god... and the god of the Nile. So when no rain came and famines ensured, offerings were made to appease the god of the Nile... not a minor god, by the way. Pharaohs also made offerings to many gods (and built temples to them) including Ma'at, Re, Bast, Sobek, Horus (lots and lots of temples to Horus), Hathor (lots and lots of temples to Hathor), Hapi... and just about every other god in the Egyptian pantheon (close to 100, if memory serves.


firstly imhotep became the god of medicine for the greeks and persians.

By 14 AD, as recorded by Tiberius. The earliest depiction of him as a god comes right around 400 BC. Not in 2200 BC.


though he was always classed as a demigod...cmon ffs... even ramsees2 classed himself as a demigod.

I'm afraid you're not going to find any inscriptions that support your claim. In the time of Ramses he was called the "Father of Medicine" in several papyri.


as for akhenatens relationship with preists...lolol
Of course Ahenaten woudnt hold thembclose..he was himself a non royal.

I'm afraid you're not going to find any inscriptions that support your claim. Ahkenaten was the son of the pharaoh and his royal wife.


khnum is lower than re...but this cult was a cult that controled pharaoh...he became part of the holy triad


You might want to do a bit more reading on Egyptian religion. There wasn't a triad, though there were enneads. Wikipedia has a good article on enneads and the many different types of them.


Theyr name changes, the Nubians of today were known as ku#es in the late new kingdom.
During the Hittites they were known as kemits, as hitties went as far south as “mount amun”.
In the old kingdom they were the pharaohs.

I think you got your timeline tangled. Kush doesn't develop until the 22nd Dynasty. Kemt is the general name for Egypt. Wikipedia really does have a decent timeline for the kings and kingdoms here.



THIS IS HOW DJET WAS SYMBOLISED IN THE 4TH DYNASTY...THE OLD KINGDOM
hmmm...looks like he is being contained somehow

You will want to do more reading about ancient Egypt and learn to read heiroglyphs. This as a serekh; the temple of Horus and the oldest way of designating the king's name (dates to first dynasty):
en.wikipedia.org...



yes new kingdom would assoicitate horus with wadjet...which is blasphemy in the old kingdom.
he should only be assoiciated with nekhbet.

You might want to do more reading on the Egyptian religion and on the monuments and so forth. I'm afraid you're not going to find any inscriptions that support your claim.

(more unsupported claims follow... not bothering with those.)





What's your source for this -- particularly for their killing his firstborn son? Also, what's your source saying that Egypt's hated enemies (Hittites, who worshipped different gods), became priests in Egypt?


"Seti I, the second king of the 19th Dynasty was the son of Ramesses I and Queen Sitre. He reconciled with the Hittites who were becoming the most powerful state in the region"

Tossing out random quotes doesn't prove your point. There's nothing in that sentence that talks about killing the pharaoh's firstborn son OR about the Hittites becoming priests. It says he made a peace treaty with a powerful neighbor to end the wars they were having.



a BBC documentary about 4 weeks ago stated that set1 brought them back so i checked it out..turns out set1 brought them back.


Which documentary?




Yes. In the section I was replying to, you claimed that Ramses attacked the hometowns of Ay and Horemheb. So I said "Horemheb died before Ay, who died before Rameses I came to the throne. He's the grandfather of Ramses II. So... what were you using as evidence that Ramses attacked the towns of Henen-nesut (the capital of the 20th Nome of Egypt) and Ipu (capital of the 9th Nome of Egypt)?"


oh, ok...the hittite priests...tried to use ramsees and his army...to remove the threat that destroyed the hitties in the 18th dynasty. Ay @ horemheb... bearing in mind that their villages and relatives must of been formiddable during the start of the 19th dynasty


I see from your closing remark that you're not interested in the fact that these cities were capitals of their regions and didn't revolt against the pharaohs... so nobody came in and attacked them.




coptics hey tut tut...i read in an earlier post that you noticed a transition from ancient religon to christianity.
so i pointed out that they are the only religon in that area. that is the oldest and unchanged through from the ancient religon to modern christianity. it is christianity... from before jesus!!!??.

No, Christianity didn't start until around 100 AD.


iv been to a coptic church...their bible texts are written in arabic...though the language is not.
its an ancient mix if you like...but its the greeks religon in egypt from the time of the late new kingdom.

Yes, they're written in Arabic *NOW*... but they were originally written in Greek. And it's a Christian religion that dates from about 100 AD. However, your closing remarks indicate that you're not really interested in learning about them.


firstly it was a greek who helped join the kingdoms.

The Greeks didn't exist in Narmer's times.


and an american calling nekhbet a vulture is very cute

I take it you haven't seen any of the pictures of Nekhbet and aren't interested in learning about her.


by the way i dont have sources ....I AM THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION... i dont want anyone elses poisonous thoughts on egypt


Yes, we could tell. That's why you couldn't provide links as the proof of what you said.

It's a shame someone with your intelligence isn't interested in learning.
edit on 4-10-2010 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
(re Imhotep)firstly, he was in the old kingdom..most relics from then are lost or DESTROYED.
I'm afraid that the existing material from Egypt gives a different picture... things with Imhotep on them survived from the age of the Old Kingdom.


he classed HIMSELF as a demigod in later life.
he was WORSHIPED as a demigod in the NEW KINGDOM... then as a FULL god in 600bc

i will find you the evidence
point to add....i believe both hm and djoser classed themseles as demigods after the flood disasteer.



I showed you two inscriptions made during his lifetime. They don't call him the son of a god. They give his title as "Chancellor of the King of Lower Egypt; First after the King of Upper Egypt; Administrator of the Great Palace; Hereditary nobleman; High Priest of Heliopolis; Builder; Chief Carpenter; Chief Sculptor and Maker of Vases in Chief."


yes he was those things.... but you forgot
"high preist of ptah" - "dream interpretor".-. "and lived to 110 yrs"......also his name imhotep = he who cames in peace......that is a gods title..like pharaohs of the 18th dynasty amenhotep who was not a royal ie the blueprint of a commoner becomming a god...which is why they revered him...he taught them how to become a god

"Chief of all works of the King," "Supervisor of everything in the entire land," and "Supervisor of that which
Heaven brings, the Earth creates, and the Nile brings."... he was also charged with getting immortality forhis pharaoh.......he classed himself as a demigod in later life

to add he classed himsef a demigod in later life
he was worshipped as a demigod in the new kingdom
became a full god in 600 bc

i will find you the evidence
point to add....i personally believe both hjm and djoser classed themseles as demigods after the flood disasteer.



Not "Son of Ptah". That doesn't come until almost 600 BC.


no he was called son of ptah (demigod) in the NEW KINGDOM...he was classed as a full god in 600bc


He is the first to make his pharaoh prey/give offerings to a lesser god.
Pharaohs made offerings to many gods (including what you would call a "lesser god.")


owww..no this is a mistake...his preists made offerings...pharaoh is a god..on earth...he does not make offerings to gods...he gets blessings from gods...there is a difference...they only ask for blessings from ptah, nun & nuneat and the nine Tem, Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Set, and Nephthys. and new kingdom ..maat horus Ra.

the people and the preists worshipped/made offerings to the gods in the cult/preisthood...



You might want to read up a bit more on both civilizations. The Hittites never ruled Egypt. The Lybians and the Nubians both did, but they are from Africa. The Hittites are from Anatolia.


the hittites ruled in the 18th dynasty...hittite pharaohs tuthmosis amenhotep akhenaten all hittites.



I'm afraid you're not going to find any inscriptions that support your claim. In the time of Ramses he was called the "Father of Medicine" in several papyri.


i wonder what this symbol of medicine looks like....?? because imhotep was also the master of medicine was he not....and what would that mean exactly..

ramses definatly called himself a demigod in later life as well
..he lived for three generations...god like in those days



I'm afraid you're not going to find any inscriptions that support your claim. Ahkenaten was the son of the pharaoh and his royal wife.


yes... son of a hittite....they are not pharaoh...if they were, then why did the egyptians kick them out??
they are usurpers



You might want to do a bit more reading on Egyptian religion. There wasn't a triad, though there were enneads. Wikipedia has a good article on enneads and the many different types of them.


i think youl need to do the reading...
the Abydos triad...osiris isis and horus

but the oldest was in elephantine
khnum, satet and anqet...known as the first cataract triad gods
traid gods of elephantine



I think you got your timeline tangled. Kush doesn't develop until the 22nd Dynasty. Kemt is the general name for Egypt. Wikipedia really does have a decent timeline for the kings and kingdoms here.


but kush was the old egypt...the name/label came about later when the divisons in egypt where clearer and
politics changed.
KUSH - KEMIT- NUBIANS all are the same...though the name changes through time... today nubians are not even known as egyptians...greek/roman descendants are the modern egyptians...they are constantly pushing the nubians into sudan...but the nubians are pharaoh



You will want to do more reading about ancient Egypt and learn to read heiroglyphs. This as a serekh; the temple of Horus and the oldest way of designating the king's name (dates to first dynasty):
en.wikipedia.org...


no.... that is a serekh with djet inside the cartouche
serekh djet



what's your source for this -- particularly for their killing his firstborn son? Also, what's your source saying that Egypt's hated enemies (Hittites, who worshipped different gods), became priests in Egypt?


i cant find a good site for this but what i can tell you is the childs name i think was Harakhty, one of his and nefartari.. he had other brothers and sisters at the time apparantly as pharaoh told the hitties that his children are asking for their brother..i will try and find a link...

by the way, the hittites army differed from there preists...having the preists was like a spoil of war

and seti signed a peace treaty not because they were strong..but he wanted the knowedge they took with them




Yes. In the section I was replying to, you claimed that Ramses attacked the hometowns of Ay and Horemheb. So I said "Horemheb died before Ay, who died before Rameses I came to the throne. He's the grandfather of Ramses II. So... what were you using as evidence that Ramses attacked the towns of Henen-nesut (the capital of the 20th Nome of Egypt) and Ipu (capital of the 9th Nome of Egypt)?"


ramses military campaign was from thebes, all the way to where abu simbel is....ALL the nubian villages



I see from your closing remark that you're not interested in the fact that these cities were capitals of their regions and didn't revolt against the pharaohs... so nobody came in and attacked them.


they revolted against the hittites...the priests of which led ramsees on his military campaign...




No, Christianity didn't start until around 100 AD.


yes but the coptic churches were there from before that date....


Yes, they're written in Arabic *NOW*... but they were originally written in Greek. And it's a Christian religion that dates from about 100 AD. However, your closing remarks indicate that you're not really interested in learning about them.


the logical way to understand heiroglyphs is to learn coptic



The Greeks didn't exist in Narmer's times.


oh no but they did...also the names of narmers successor could be menes...(or others) plus memphis heliopolis
are greek words.



I take it you haven't seen any of the pictures of Nekhbet and aren't interested in learning about her.


yes i have...i know she is a vulture ... but she is very ,very similar to the american eagle you have on your seal..which is why it amused me that you think shes not an eagle...




by the way i dont have sources ....I AM THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION... i dont want anyone elses poisonous thoughts on egypt

Yes, we could tell. That's why you couldn't provide links as the proof of what you said.


your interpretation of heiroglyphs and the people of ancient egypt is percieved on a 2 dimensional plane. you do not know that certain relics are destroyed on purpose for people like you to never know the truth...but i am not like you..I AM PHARAOH
edit on 4-10-2010 by theAymen because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
i found this for you

inscription on the Isle of Philae, only this one has the priests of Isis stating that Djoser made the same gift to their god for the same purpose.

"Imhotep, the Voice of the God, Im (I AM)" ????

The name, Imhotep, in ancient Egyptian is translated to mean "the voice (or mouth) of Im"; however, there is no record of a god in Egypt called "Im". !!??


this place in philae later turned into the Coptic Pilak...not surprising these usurpers brainwashed the people through religon...COMMONERS BECAME GODS FROM IMHOTEPS BLUEPRINT



posted on Oct, 6 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


The pyramids line up with their appropriate constellations.....at approximately 10,500 BC. This is due to the procession of the equinoxes. There is currently a debate between the actual scientists....astronomers, geologists, vs. the Egyptologists regarding this matter. So much of history is lost.


Actually, there's no real debate on this -- the consensus is that they don't believe the pyramids line up with the constellations at 10,500 BC. There are many websites (including Wikipedia) that show how Hancock manipulated the data (turning the constellation upside down, and changing the proportions of the positions of the stars to make it fit)
en.wikipedia.org...


Hello Byrd,

I see you are still up to your old tricks - spreading disinformation. Why is it that you failed to make mention of the scientists (indeed the former Astronomer Royal for Scotland, Professory Archie Roy) who actually debunked Krupp? Play fair.

From your link:


In contrast, however, Archie Roy, professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Glasgow University, and Percy Seymour, astronomer and astrophysicist at Plymouth University U.K., have both publicly rejected several of Krupp's arguments, including the speculation that Bauval and Gilbert purposefully inverted the pyramid map. Both Roy and Seymour argue, for several reasons, that the orientation on the ground does not require the map to be "inverted to fit" the sky map in which Roy concludes "The accusation that the maps were placed upside down is therefore unfounded"


Indeed, even Ed Krupp's wife when asked to draw the Belt Stars on a blank sheet of paper drew Mintaka to the TOP of the page (top equating to our North). And, of course, when you observe Orion's Belt (looking south because you cannot observe it in the northern sky) you find that Mintaka is uppermost in the sky i.e. the top-most star. See below:







See how, when looking at the belt stars on the southern meridian, Mintaka/G3 is the star that is UPPERMOST in the sky? The ancient Egyptians, as I am sure you well know, saw south as 'UP' since this was the source of the sacred Nile. Why then in making this design using the belt stars would they not have placed Mintaka/G3 in the UPMOST position?

And - FTR - I categorically have NOT inverted any belt star images in the composites presented above. I have to state this because this is what you accused me of doing before. I am sorry to have to say but continuing to spread this complete disinformation about the OCT having to be "turned upside-down" only serves to make you appear somewhat foolish.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Hello Byrd,

I have to say, your complete silence to my previous post is quite revealing but not - I have to say - entirely unexpected. Now, I may well be wrong here but it does seem to me that when you have run out of answers or reasonable objections you simply disappear and do not respond.

So, just for the record, can you please attempt to counter the argument I have presented in my response to your post regarding the Orion Correlation Theory (OCT) i.e. the belt star/Gizamid orientation? Are you still of the view that Ed Krupp is correct and that the belt stars are the 'wrong orientation' in order to correlate with the Gizamid orientation? Have I not convinced you of the error of your ways, so to speak? Or, in the spirit of 'Denying Ignorance' might you not actually come forward and be one of the very few hidebound adherents of mainstream Egyptology who actually accepts that Ed Krupp was completely wrong with regards to his OCT orientation qurestion?

I would really appreciate your thoughts on this very important question. In short then. in light of what I have presented to you, do you still maintain that the Krupp orientation objection to the OCT is valid?

Yes or no? Silence on this important question is simply not an option.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
I see you are still up to your old tricks - spreading disinformation. Why is it that you failed to make mention of the scientists (indeed the former Astronomer Royal for Scotland, Professory Archie Roy) who actually debunked Krupp? Play fair.


Actually, my source was 1) hearing the claim, 2) checking on the declination of Cairo (Cairo, Egypt 30 degrees 2 minutes North, 31 degrees 21 minutes East), looking on the sky map to decide the declination of Orion (5 degrees north.) So I get a similar view (from Houston, TX Houston TX (29.77°N, 95.39°W) and almost exactly the same view of Orion when I stand in New Braunfels, just south of Austin, TX (Austin is 30.27°N 97.74°W)

I see the same view of Orion as the ancient Egyptians did. The westernmost star is the highest one, the easternmost is the lowest one.


Indeed, even Ed Krupp's wife when asked to draw the Belt Stars on a blank sheet of paper drew Mintaka to the TOP of the page (top equating to our North)

I'm not following you here -- what does an image drawn by someone's wife have to do with the subject of legendary kings of Egypt?


And, of course, when you observe Orion's Belt (looking south because you cannot observe it in the northern sky) you find that Mintaka is uppermost in the sky i.e. the top-most star.


Yes, the westernmost star is the northernmost star. Many people have made this point.


See how, when looking at the belt stars on the southern meridian, Mintaka/G3 is the star that is UPPERMOST in the sky? The ancient Egyptians, as I am sure you well know, saw south as 'UP' since this was the source of the sacred Nile. Why then in making this design using the belt stars would they not have placed Mintaka/G3 in the UPMOST position?


I'm not sure what this has to do with ancient kings. However, I wonder why you would make this claim when Cairo and cities around it were called the "Upper Nomes" and the ones closer to the source of the Nile the "Lower Nomes."


I am sorry to have to say but continuing to spread this complete disinformation about the OCT having to be "turned upside-down" only serves to make you appear somewhat foolish.


I just walked outside here in Texas and looked at the stars, Scott. Then I looked at Orion. Then I made a copy of Orion on the ground. The northernmost point is always the westernmost point.

However, this does not address the "when did the legendary kings first appear and how is this all attested." As I recall, you were looking for sources earlier than Rameses II.



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Byrd
 


Hello Byrd,

I have to say, your complete silence to my previous post is quite revealing but not - I have to say - entirely unexpected. Now, I may well be wrong here but it does seem to me that when you have run out of answers or reasonable objections you simply disappear and do not respond.


No, it means I'm working on my dissertation proposal (due in a month) and not posting a lot of replies.

If you find I'm unusually late in responding to things, please U2U me and I'll pay attention. Lack of response does not mean lack of comment. It does mean workload, however.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Yes or no? Silence on this important question is simply not an option.

I think ignoring your smug clap-trap is very much an option.

People most on discussion boards when they have the time and the inclination, not when you demand it.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
I see you are still up to your old tricks - spreading disinformation. Why is it that you failed to make mention of the scientists (indeed the former Astronomer Royal for Scotland, Professory Archie Roy) who actually debunked Krupp? Play fair.


Byrd: Actually, my source was 1) hearing the claim, 2) checking on the declination of Cairo (Cairo, Egypt 30 degrees 2 minutes North, 31 degrees 21 minutes East), looking on the sky map to decide the declination of Orion (5 degrees north.)


SC: “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”? I hate to break it to you, Byrd, but the Orion constellation cannot – let me repeat CANNOT – be observed in the northern sky so how do you come up with this “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”?



Byrd: So I get a similar view (from Houston, TX Houston TX (29.77°N, 95.39°W) and almost exactly the same view of Orion when I stand in New Braunfels, just south of Austin, TX (Austin is 30.27°N 97.74°W)


SC: So you’re saying here that from the locations quoted above, you get a similar view of the Orion constellation at a “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”? How is that possible when Orion is NOT present in the northern sky?


Byrd: I see the same view of Orion as the ancient Egyptians did.


SC: I doubt this very much since the ancient Egyptians would have observed the constellation in the southern sky.


Byrd: The westernmost star is the highest one, the easternmost is the lowest one.


SC: No one questions this. What IS being questioned is your arbitrary association of “highest” equating to our modern “north” (i.e. the UP position). This is nothing more than ethnocentric projection. The Egyptians regarded south (where Orion is viewed) as highest i.e. the “UP” position.


SC: Indeed, even Ed Krupp's wife when asked to draw the Belt stars on a blank sheet of paper drew Mintaka to the TOP of the page (top equating to our North)

I

Byrd: I'm not following you here -- what does an image drawn by someone's wife have to do with the subject of legendary kings of Egypt?


SC: You made a comment in the main thread regarding the orientation of the Belt stars/Gizamids being upside-down. I feel it is important to take you to task on that comment since this is not the first time you have made that comment, hence this sub-issue. Last time you made such a comment I presented images to show how you were in fact wrong and - in so doing - you then went on to accuse me of inverting the images I had presented to you which is a blatant untruth. You ignored my reply to you on that occasion - some several months ago now - even although you saw fit to respond to many other posts from other posters thereafter.


SC: And, of course, when you observe Orion's Belt (looking south because you cannot observe it in the northern sky) you find that Mintaka is uppermost in the sky i.e. the top-most star.



Byrd: Yes, the westernmost star is the northernmost star. Many people have made this point.


SC: No, Byrd. The rightmost star is the UPPERMOST star.


SC: See how, when looking at the belt stars on the southern meridian, Mintaka/G3 is the star that is UPPERMOST in the sky? The ancient Egyptians, as I am sure you well know, saw south as 'UP' since this was the source of the sacred Nile. Why then in making this design using the belt stars would they not have placed Mintaka/G3 in the UPMOST position?



Byrd: I'm not sure what this has to do with ancient kings.


SC: It is a sub-thread, Byrd – started when you made a completely false claim about the orientation of the Belt stars with regards to the Gizamids. I am merely responding to your completely false allegation. I am pointing out that other eminent professors of astronomy have completely debunked this claim you continue to perpetuate. One has to ask why you are intent in doing that, to spread such disinformation? This is not the first time you have done this.


Byrd: However, I wonder why you would make this claim when Cairo and cities around it were called the "Upper Nomes" and the ones closer to the source of the Nile the "Lower Nomes."


SC: I hope you are not trying to suggest here that the ancient Egyptians did not regard south as "up"? Here’s a map of Egypt, Byrd:



Source: Wikipedia

SC: See how ‘Upper Egypt’ is to the south whilst ‘Lower Egypt’ is to the north? The ancient Egyptians saw South as ‘UP’. This is why G3 is placed the furthest south on the plateu i.e. is in the UP position (and furthest right) on the plateau to correspond with its stellar counterpart, Mintaka, which is the UPPERMOST (and rightmost) Belt star. G1, on the other hand, is in the lowest (north=down) and left-most position thereby correlating with Al Nitak which is the lowest and leftmost Belt star.


SC: I am sorry to have to say but continuing to spread this complete disinformation about the OCT having to be "turned upside-down" only serves to make you appear somewhat foolish.



Byrd: I just walked outside here in Texas and looked at the stars, Scott. Then I looked at Orion. Then I made a copy of Orion on the ground. The northernmost point is always the westernmost point.


SC: This is a great example, Byrd. If you are looking at the Belt stars in the night sky you are looking SOUTH. If you then draw the stars (looking south) on the ground exactly as you see them which of your three dots (stars) in the ground is furthest south and furthest right? It MUST be Mintaka. And this is precisely what we find at Giza - G3 is furthest south (and right) than the other two Gizamids.




Byrd: However, this does not address the "when did the legendary kings first appear and how is this all attested." As I recall, you were looking for sources earlier than Rameses II.


SC: No, it does not address the main issue of the thread. But nevertheless, if you continue to perpetuate a blatant untruth within a thread then you are inviting someone to take you to task over it. I think it is important that folks reading your posts are given the full facts of the matter and not a corrupted version of them. I am sure you can agree with that?

Best regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”? I hate to break it to you, Byrd, but the Orion constellation cannot – let me repeat CANNOT – be observed in the northern sky so how do you come up with this “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”?


Every sky map in existence. Try Wikipedia for starters: en.wikipedia.org...




Byrd: So I get a similar view (from Houston, TX Houston TX (29.77°N, 95.39°W) and almost exactly the same view of Orion when I stand in New Braunfels, just south of Austin, TX (Austin is 30.27°N 97.74°W)


SC: So you’re saying here that from the locations quoted above, you get a similar view of the Orion constellation at a “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”? How is that possible when Orion is NOT present in the northern sky?


I have no clue where you're getting your star maps from, but astronomy's a longtime hobby of mine and Orion was a constellation I learned as a child. In any case, you can check here (first constellation under "non-circumpolar constellations) or any sky map at all. And I live close to the same latitude as the people at Cairo/Giza do. There are places here in Texas that are on the same latitude as Cairo:
www.summitpost.org...



Byrd: I see the same view of Orion as the ancient Egyptians did.


SC: I doubt this very much since the ancient Egyptians would have observed the constellation in the southern sky.


I take it you're not a backyard star watcher. I'm at the same latitude as Cairo. Hence, I see the same night sky.


SC: You made a comment in the main thread regarding the orientation of the Belt stars/Gizamids being upside-down. I feel it is important to take you to task on that comment since this is not the first time you have made that comment, hence this sub-issue.


So... what does the drawing of someone's wife who may not be an astronomer or skywatcher have to do anything.


SC: No, Byrd. The rightmost star is the UPPERMOST star.


Scott... the rightmost star IS the westernmost star.



SC: This is a great example, Byrd. If you are looking at the Belt stars in the night sky you are looking SOUTH. If you then draw the stars (looking south) on the ground exactly as you see them which of your three dots (stars) in the ground is furthest south and furthest right?


No, the furthest south is not Mintaka. It is, however the furthest west. And if they saw the south as north then on the ground they would still see the furthest west star in its same position. It would be closest to the "undying stars." Later ceilings show that they oriented their star maps toward the undying stars and that they didn't draw any of them with south as north.



Byrd: However, this does not address the "when did the legendary kings first appear and how is this all attested." As I recall, you were looking for sources earlier than Rameses II.


SC: No, it does not address the main issue of the thread. But nevertheless, if you continue to perpetuate a blatant untruth within a thread then you are inviting someone to take you to task over it. I think it is important that folks reading your posts are given the full facts of the matter and not a corrupted version of them. I am sure you can agree with that?


No.

I think you should bring it up in a separate thread.

I'm still interested in the first attestations to the legendary kings.

And for the record, since you were not the originator of the Orion theory, I hardly blame any misinterpretations or bad research on you. I do, however, think your sources are unreliable and are not well versed in Egyptology. You are welcome to bring them up, and I will still wave star maps and other material as rebuttals.

However, that's not the point of this thread. The topic was the interesting topic of the legendary kings with less-than-believable ancestry and lifespans.
edit on 19-10-2010 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 



SC: “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”? I hate to break it to you, Byrd, but the Orion constellation cannot – let me repeat CANNOT – be observed in the northern sky so how do you come up with this “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”?

Byrd: Every sky map in existence. Try Wikipedia for starters: en.wikipedia.org...


SC: Byrd, check the co-ordinates given in the link you provided from Wikipedia. Here they are: Coordinates: 05h 30m 00s, +00° 00′ 00″

Do you see the “s” in the co-ordinates, Byrd? That ‘s’ denotes SOUTH and NOT north.


Byrd: So I get a similar view (from Houston, TX Houston TX (29.77°N, 95.39°W) and almost exactly the same view of Orion when I stand in New Braunfels, just south of Austin, TX (Austin is 30.27°N 97.74°W)


SC: So you’re saying here that from the locations quoted above, you get a similar view of the Orion constellation at a “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”? How is that possible when Orion is NOT present in the northern sky?


Byrd: I have no clue where you're getting your star maps from, but astronomy's a longtime hobby of mine and Orion was a constellation I learned as a child.


SC: Then you will have learned that Orion is NEVER viewed in the northern sky. At night you can ONLY see Orion in the SOUTHERN sky. Do you accept this? Yes or no?


Byrd: In any case, you can check here (first constellation under "non-circumpolar constellations) or any sky map at all. And I live close to the same latitude as the people at Cairo/Giza do. There are places here in Texas that are on the same latitude as Cairo: www.summitpost.org...


SC: I know where Orion can be observed in the night sky, Byrd. By looking SOUTH. Do you agree with this – yes or no?


Byrd: I see the same view of Orion as the ancient Egyptians did.

SC: I doubt this very much since the ancient Egyptians would have observed the constellation in the southern sky.

Byrd: I take it you're not a backyard star watcher. I'm at the same latitude as Cairo. Hence, I see the same night sky.


SC: You may see the asterism the same but that is not what is being discussed. We are discussing in which part of the night sky you will observe the Orion constellation. Do you agree that Orion will be observed in the night sky by looking SOUTH? Yes or no?


SC: You made a comment in the main thread regarding the orientation of the Belt stars/Gizamids being upside-down. I feel it is important to take you to task on that comment since this is not the first time you have made that comment, hence this sub-issue.

Byrd: So... what does the drawing of someone's wife who may not be an astronomer or skywatcher have to do anything.


SC: Merely to point out that this individual drew Mintaka to the TOP and RIGHTMOST position on the page – just as anyone would by observing Orion in the southern sky.


SC: No, Byrd. The rightmost star is the UPPERMOST star.

Byrd: Scott... the rightmost star IS the westernmost star.


SC: Indeed – the POINT, however, was that you were claiming that “…the westernmost star is the northernmost star…” Looking at the Belt stars in the sky, the RIGHTMOST (or westernmost) star is Mintaka hence the westernmost pyramid is its terrestrial counterpart, G3. Go out again into your yard tonight, observe Orion’s belt in the southern sky and, still facing south, draw the belt stars on the ground exactly as you observe them in the night sky, ensuring that Mintaka is the rightmost/westernmost star. By so doing, Byrd, you cannot fail but to place Mintaka furthest south (and, of course, furthest right). Just as we observe at Giza.


SC: This is a great example, Byrd. If you are looking at the Belt stars in the night sky you are looking SOUTH. If you then draw the stars (looking south) on the ground exactly as you see them which of your three dots (stars) in the ground is furthest south and furthest right?

Byrd: No, the furthest south is not Mintaka. It is, however the furthest west.


SC: This is COMPLETE NONSENSE! If you are observing Orion in the southern sky and placing each dot on the ground (still facing south) you simply MUST place Mintaka furthest right and furthest south. This is inescapable.


Byrd: And if they saw the south as north then on the ground they would still see the furthest west star in its same position.


SC: Indeed. And they would STILL place Mintaka furthest south. You simply CANNOT have Mintaka as the furthest west and furthest north because then you would have to invert what you are ACTUALLY OBSERVING in the southern night sky.


Byrd: However, this does not address the "when did the legendary kings first appear and how is this all attested." As I recall, you were looking for sources earlier than Rameses II.


SC: No, it does not address the main issue of the thread. But nevertheless, if you continue to perpetuate a blatant untruth within a thread then you are inviting someone to take you to task over it. I think it is important that folks reading your posts are given the full facts of the matter and not a corrupted version of them. I am sure you can agree with that?


Byrd: No. I think you should bring it up in a separate thread.


SC: Then, with all due respect, I think you should not be making completely erroneous claims in the main thread. Start another thread if you want to do that.


Byrd: I'm still interested in the first attestations to the legendary kings.


SC: Actually (and I believe I said this previously to you), I am NOT speaking of the “legendary kings” of the pre-dynastic period but rather (if Africanus and Eusebius are to be believed) the missing kings of the early dynastic period (dynasties 1-8).


Byrd: And for the record, since you were not the originator of the Orion theory, I hardly blame any misinterpretations or bad research on you.


SC: What “bad research” would that be? Do explain.


Byrd: I do, however, think your sources are unreliable and are not well versed in Egyptology.


SC: The question here is about orientation, not Egyptology. I am quite sure Professor Archie Roy is better equipped to answer this orientation issue than either you or I.


Byrd: You are welcome to bring them up, and I will still wave star maps and other material as rebuttals.


SC: Your rebuttals have been rebutted. See above.


Byrd: However, that's not the point of this thread. The topic was the interesting topic of the legendary kings with less-than-believable ancestry and lifespans.


SC: No, not the “legendary kings” but the potentially 123 missing kings of the early dynastic period (according to Africanus and Eusebius using Manetho as their source).

Best regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 



SC: “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”? I hate to break it to you, Byrd, but the Orion constellation cannot – let me repeat CANNOT – be observed in the northern sky so how do you come up with this “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”?


It's not often you're right, but you're wrong again. The entire constellation of Orion is visible in the Northern sky from just after 10pm tonight until after 5am. You can write every post with caps-lock and it doesn't make you any closer to being right.



SC: Then you will have learned that Orion is NEVER viewed in the northern sky. At night you can ONLY see Orion in the SOUTHERN sky. Do you accept this? Yes or no?


...I'm embarrassed for you.




SC: I know where Orion can be observed in the night sky, Byrd. By looking SOUTH. Do you agree with this – yes or no?


Scott, you're somehow confused about what the Northern and Southern Hemisphere constellations mean. There are some constellations that can only be seen in the Southern Hemisphere...southern sky. Likewise, there are some constellations that can only be seen in the Northern Hemisphere...northern skies.

Looking south doesn't mean you're looking at the 'southern skies' in any astronomical sense.

Orion is an equatorial constellation that can be seen in the winter months in the 'northern sky (doh!)' and in summer months in the 'southern sky (doh!).'

I think Byrd's very decent in allowing your thread to remain in the Ancient and Lost Civilisations forum. In fairness, you should have posted it in your own section. In there, you get a far more positive response to your ideas.

Last year, I made the point that I would no longer reply to your posts. It's been over a year and I kept my word. This post is inspired by your contemptuous attitude and hectoring BS to Byrd. You seem to want it both ways...academics are all lying and to be dismissed yet you expect this forum's academic to respond immediately to your posts. It's as ironic as it's absurd. If you'd got past a high school education, you'd respect how much time is involved at academic levels. Allow me to be as dismissive of you as you are of her. Fair enough?

You'll drag your thread out with ridiculous and lengthy replies that will not concede a single point or read supporting links. It's still a source of amusement that you even attempted to re-write evolution to avoid admitting you were wrong in threads last year. The memorable 'Pre-Cambrian Parallel Evolution model' still beggars belief in how far a guy will go to avoid saying they were wrong.

I won't go on about it, you're well aware of my thoughts. I'd like to add that despite my antipathy to your ideas, I was happy to see you got a chapter in that guy's book. Well done. It's always nice to see somebody enjoying some success. Sincerely, it'd be cool if you got to publish a whole book one day.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Hello Kandinsky,

Nice of you to drop by – it has been a while.


SC: “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”? I hate to break it to you, Byrd, but the Orion constellation cannot – let me repeat CANNOT – be observed in the northern sky so how do you come up with this “declination of Orion (5 degrees north)”?

Kandinksy: It's not often you're right, but you're wrong again.


SC: Well. We’ll see. What I am MOST DEFINITELY wrong about is my faux pas in my reply to Byrd earlier. The ‘s’ is for ‘seconds’ and NOT ‘south’ as I had stated. Sorry, Byrd. However, moving on…


Kandinsky: The entire constellation of Orion is visible in the Northern sky from just after 10pm tonight until after 5am.


SC: Not from Giza it’s not. The Orion constellation is certainly visible in the northern hemisphere of the Earth right now (i.e. in the winter months) but rises only to a maximum declination of around 59º on the southern meridian. This keeps it well within the southern aspect of the northern celestial hemisphere i.e. you cannot observe the Belt stars when they are present in the northern hemisphere by looking towards the northern horizon. Orion is NOT a circumpolar constellation or even close to it.


Kandinsky: You can write every post with caps-lock and it doesn't make you any closer to being right.


SC: Well, maybe the actual facts will make me right. See here. These are annual star maps of Austin, Texas (close to where Byrd lives and at almost the same latitude as Giza). Show me one of the star maps presented in the link whereby Orion’s Belt is presented in the northern celestial quadrants – just one. Let's see it?


SC: Then you will have learned that Orion is NEVER viewed in the northern sky. At night you can ONLY see Orion in the SOUTHERN sky. Do you accept this? Yes or no?

Kandinsky...I'm embarrassed for you.


SC: No need to be – see the star maps in the link above.


SC: I know where Orion can be observed in the night sky, Byrd. By looking SOUTH. Do you agree with this – yes or no?

Kandinsky: Scott, you're somehow confused about what the Northern and Southern Hemisphere constellations mean. There are some constellations that can only be seen in the Southern Hemisphere...southern sky. Likewise, there are some constellations that can only be seen in the Northern Hemisphere...northern skies.


SC: Hmm – you really think I don’t know this……?


Kandinksy: Looking south doesn't mean you're looking at the 'southern skies' in any astronomical sense. Orion is an equatorial constellation that can be seen in the winter months in the 'northern sky (doh!)' and in summer months in the 'southern sky (doh!).'


SC: I think what you mean here is that Orion’s Belt – during the winter months of the northern hemisphere – is visible in the northern hemisphere whilst in the summer months of the northern hemisphere, is visible in the southern hemisphere. However, during the winter months of the northern hemisphere, Orion is viewed on the southern horizon since it only reaches a maximum declination of around 59º on the southern meridian. Indeed, even at maximum precessional culmination c.2,500 BCE, the Belt stars will only reach just under 60º declination on the southern meridian. Orion’s Belt, when viewed in the northern hemisphere, is a southern constellation. Period.


Kandinksy: I think Byrd's very decent in allowing your thread to remain in the Ancient and Lost Civilisations forum. In fairness, you should have posted it in your own section. In there, you get a far more positive response to your ideas.


SC: With respect, I will post wherever I feel is appropriate. The main thread is very relevant to anyone interested in ancient Egypt.


Kandinsky: Last year, I made the point that I would no longer reply to your posts. It's been over a year and I kept my word.


SC: That’s a shame. You were missed.


Kandinsky: This post is inspired by your contemptuous attitude and hectoring BS to Byrd.


SC: A tad melodramatic, me thinks.


Kandinsky: You seem to want it both ways...academics are all lying and to be dismissed …


SC: You seem to be implying that I have said that all academics are lying. Please can you show where I have said such a thing or even implied such? In point of fact – this forum’s academic effectively accused me of lying by accusing me of inverting images of Orion’s Belt stars which I categorically did not. I am sure she (Byrd) most likely now realises her mistake (it's pretty obvious if you look at the images I posted) but did she retract her statement or issue an apology? Chance would be a fine thing. If you really wish to see someone with a “contemptuous attitude and hectoring BS” just go look up Byrd’s post where she wrongly accused me of inverting the images I presented to her.


Kandinsky:… yet you expect this forum's academic to respond immediately to your posts.


SC: Not at all. I posted my question to Byrd some days ago. Indeed, the original OCT upside-down discussion with Byrd was several months ago. I am STILL waiting for a response to my final question in that exchange. So, I think I have actually been quite patient in waiting for Byrd to reply to my posts, don’t you?



Kandinsky: It's as ironic as it's absurd. If you'd got past a high school education, you'd respect how much time is involved at academic levels. Allow me to be as dismissive of you as you are of her. Fair enough?


SC: I don’t actually recall being “dismissive” of anyone, least of all Byrd. If anything I look forward to Byrd’s posts. You seem to be a tad upset here for no particular reason.


Kandinsky: You'll drag your thread out with ridiculous and lengthy replies that will not concede a single point or read supporting links.


SC: See above where I concede I got it wrong. There – satisfied?


Kandinksy: It's still a source of amusement that you even attempted to re-write evolution to avoid admitting you were wrong in threads last year. The memorable 'Pre-Cambrian Parallel Evolution model' still beggars belief in how far a guy will go to avoid saying they were wrong.


SC: No one, least of all me, was attempting to re-write evolution. I merely ask legitimate questions and if those questions provoke a discussion then I think that’s great. In fact, if I am not mistaken, a number of observers in that thread thought it was one of the best discussions they had seen on ATS and guess what – YOU were part of that discussion. Credit to you for making it so. (And no – just in case you think there is sarcasm here – there’s not. I really did enjoy that discussion).


Kandinsky: I won't go on about it, you're well aware of my thoughts. I'd like to add that despite my antipathy to your ideas, I was happy to see you got a chapter in that guy's book. Well done. It's always nice to see somebody enjoying some success.


SC: Thank you. It’s appreciated. Just hope you found it of some interest.


Kandinsky: Sincerely, it'd be cool if you got to publish a whole book one day.


SC: As I think I may have said to you once before – watch this space.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
Hiya Scott, I'm not getting into a fisking contest, I notice brevity is still a luxury you can't afford.

Download Stellarium. It's a very useful astronomy tool for viewing the constellations. By simply inputting 'Austin, Texas,' it can show you a real-time view of the skies. It just showed me Orion wheeling across the skies over Austin. Locations in the program include Egypt so you'll have a lot of fun with it...

I'm not getting into an argument about your low opinions of academics. In the past, you have made statements and rhetorical monologues accusing science/academia of institutional deceit. One in particular was venomous at the time. Yes, I could show you several, but what point would it serve? It would only lead to personal attacks on each other and there's been enough already.

Politely, I'm pointing out that an abrasive tone isn't conducive to a reasonable discussion. Neither does proclamation increase accuracy over evidence or academic research.

Take it easy



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 



Kandinsky: Download Stellarium.


SC: I have it – and several others just for cross-checking.


Kandinsjy: It's a very useful astronomy tool for viewing the constellations.


SC: Agreed.


Kandinsky: By simply inputting 'Austin, Texas,' it can show you a real-time view of the skies. It just showed me Orion wheeling across the skies over Austin.


SC: Of course it did because the constellation is presently visible in the northern hemisphere. Now why don’t you tell everyone, Kandinsky, the cardinal direction you must face in order to observe Orion when it is "wheeling across the skies over Austin" in the northern hemisphere? SOUTH, isn’t it? Did you even bother to check the link I sent you which shows that the Orion constellation (when present in the northern hemisphere) can NEVER be observed when looking to the northern horizon (of the northern hemisphere). Orion can only be viewed on the southern horizon (when the constellation is present in the northern hemisphere). Do you agree with this, Kandinsky? A simple yes or no will suffice.


Kandinsky: Locations in the program include Egypt so you'll have a lot of fun with it...


SC: Yes – it’s a great program as are many other star-mapping programs.


Kandinksjy: I'm not getting into an argument about your low opinions of academics.


SC: Good to hear it since it is not actually true. I have a low opinion of the actions SOME academics have employed in the past – and rightly so.


Kandinsky: Politely, I'm pointing out that an abrasive tone isn't conducive to a reasonable discussion.


SC: With respect, “an abrasive tone” has not been employed by me anywhere in this thread. If asking people to respond to a simple yes or no question is seen as being abrasive then I simply have to disagree. Alas, intonation is not something that carries too well in written form.


Kandinsky: Neither does proclamation increase accuracy over evidence or academic research.


SC: Tell that to Byrd. She’s the one who (falsely) proclaimed I inverted my Orion images thereby inferring I was lying with my presentation. And no, not even a simple apology. When people, such as Byrd, make false claims I think it is important that they be taken to task over it. I am quite sure if I did such there would be many here quick to take me to task over it - and rightly so.


Kandinky: Take it easy.


SC: Sure. And you.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
How on earth can you generate these long rebuttals to such short replies?

Two main points:

1, Looking south doesn't mean you're looking at the 'Southern Sky' in astronomy.
2, Your replies to Byrd are provocative and contemptuous.

Now, I'd love to engage you in a discussion, but experience tells me it's a futile pursuit and fairly tiring. With that in mind, you now have complete editorial freedom to have the last word in your reply. Bare in mind that I'll be very, very disappointed if you don't take full advantage of this opportunity. You can claim victory, gloat or express humble sadness that skeptics fail to engage with your ideas. I'm guessing righteous indignation could be the right way to go here...

I won't reply, but I'll definitely be reading your considered response and starring it if you manage to hit at least two of the four sentiments above.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 




Kandinsky: 1, Looking south doesn't mean you're looking at the 'Southern Sky' in astronomy.


SC: Looking south (in the northern hemisphere) doesn't mean you are observing the sky in the southern hemisphere (i.e. the sky below the terrestrial horizon). Of course not - that's just ridiculous. It means you are faced cardinal south. That is the region of the sky where (in the northern or 'upper' hemisphere) you will observe Orion's Belt. Period. That is what I have been arguing. And the facts back what I am saying.


Kandinsky: Your replies to Byrd are provocative and contemptuous.


SC: I have to disagree and, what's more, I am quite sure that Byrd is more than capable of speaking for herself.

[snip]

Best regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: Byrd, check the co-ordinates given in the link you provided from Wikipedia. Here they are: Coordinates: 05h 30m 00s, +00° 00′ 00″

Do you see the “s” in the co-ordinates, Byrd? That ‘s’ denotes SOUTH and NOT north.


Scott... that is "5 hours, 30 minutes, 00 seconds. Not "degrees south."



SC: Then you will have learned that Orion is NEVER viewed in the northern sky. At night you can ONLY see Orion in the SOUTHERN sky. Do you accept this? Yes or no?


We're running into a "science definition" versus "this is the way I define things" problem.

I'm using definitions I learned with backyard astronomy. Orion the constellation is at +5 hours, 30 minutes, 0 seconds declination above the celestial equator. It is a part of the northern sky map. Every map of the Northern Sky (full set of constellations) has it. I do look south to see it, but that doesn't mean it's a "southern constellation."

"Southern constellations" are the ones that appear below the celestial equator.

Do I look to the south to see Orion? Yes, because I'm at 40 degrees latitude. Are "southern constellations" all the constellations I see south of my house? No -- I'm using the astronomer's definitions.


Byrd: I see the same view of Orion as the ancient Egyptians did.

SC: I doubt this very much since the ancient Egyptians would have observed the constellation in the southern sky.


If you follow the line of latitude across the globe from Giza, you will end up in Texas and somewhat close to the place I live. I see the constellation when I look south. So do the Egyptians (both modern and ancient.)



SC: This is COMPLETE NONSENSE! If you are observing Orion in the southern sky and placing each dot on the ground (still facing south) you simply MUST place Mintaka furthest right and furthest south. This is inescapable.


Nooooo. Rightmost and northerlymost (closer to the pole stars.) I don't place it rightmost and closer to the horizon (south)



SC: Then, with all due respect, I think you should not be making completely erroneous claims in the main thread. Start another thread if you want to do that.


A claim was made, I responded to it. If you want to argue Orion, start another thread.


SC: Actually (and I believe I said this previously to you), I am NOT speaking of the “legendary kings” of the pre-dynastic period but rather (if Africanus and Eusebius are to be believed) the missing kings of the early dynastic period (dynasties 1-8).


Yes. I was quite interested in that conversation. Could we continue?


SC: No, not the “legendary kings” but the potentially 123 missing kings of the early dynastic period (according to Africanus and Eusebius using Manetho as their source).


Yes... a very interesting question, I agree. Shall we go back to it? You can start an argument about Orion in another thread.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join