Originally posted by smallpeeps
reply to post by Byrd
Simple question here: Do you exist only to debunk?
I have yet to read anything on Egypt from you, that is not "defense". That is to say, you are fast to correct things according to your superior
knowledge, and yet I never see any thesis or actual work you have done, though I know it must exist?
You know, when I first read Byrd's post I took it that way too. And then I re-read it a few times and realized that I was mis-reading her tone in her
post. For example, in her last paragraph-- at first I read it and I thought that she was 'belittling' me. And then when I went back and re-read it a
few times-- I realized that she wasn't belittling me-- she was genuinely trying to be helpful.
Maybe you are making the same mistake that I made on first read of Byrd. Look at it as her trying to be helpful rather than belittling. Not sure why I
misread her post that way at first, but I did.
Byrd probably just got heavy into studying the "official" publications and assumptions about Egypt and she probably feels that she is helping people
with her knowledge. And I'm going to try and help her think about things...maybe things she never thought of before. Don't know if it will work. But
I sure am going to try.
Originally posted by Byrd
What do you find odd about it? The lineages of the kings and queens were well known, and brothers and sisters did marry (as did fathers and daughters
and so on and so forth.) Some were ceremonial "god's wives" and some were true marriages with offspring.
A Pharoah really is not the equivalent of a "King".
THE DEFINITION OF A KING is a man who rules by divine right (no matter what religion), born into the position, who's eldest male
offsping inherits the throne.
That's just not the definition of a Pharoah. Whenever someone claims that the Pharoahs of Egypt had to "marry" their sisters to keep the
throne...that's NOT a king. The throne in Egypt was determined by the female lineage. It was the Queens eldest daughter who became the next Queen.
Whether or not the Queen appointed her brother as Pharoah is irrelevant. A Queen could appoint anyone she wanted to be Pharoah. A Queen could appoint
her brother, her uncle, HER SISTER, her lover. A Queen could even appoint a foreigner as Pharoah. And if the Queen wanted to, she could appoint
herself Pharoah while still being the Queen.
Therefore, Pharoahs are not and never have been "kings" by the standard definition of a king. The Pharoahs position is appointed by the FEMALE
BLOODLINE, not necessarily his own bloodline. Technically a Pharoah would be the equivalent of a judge--but less than the position of a US Supreme
Court Justice. A Supreme Court Justice is appointed like a Pharoah, but a Supreme Court Justice is appointed for life. If a Queen and her Pharoah did
not get along or if the Queen felt that a Pharoah was damaging Egypt--she could strip the Pharoah of his title and appoint a new and different
Pharoah. In otherwords--a Pharoah didn't have the position for life. That's less power than a Supreme Court Justice.
You can't argue with this. After all, if you claim that the Pharoahs were "marrying their sisters" to keep the throne--to keep with the
bloodline--THEN YOU ADMIT THE POSITION OF PHAROAH IS DETERMINED BY THE FEMALE BLOODLINE. A Pharoah isn't necessarily born into the position, like a
king would be. A Pharoah's eldest son doesn't necessarily become the next Pharoah. The next Queen appoints whomever she sees fit as best for the
job. A Pharoah just doesn't fit the western idea of what a king is.
As for brothers and sisters allegedly having sex if the Queen appointed her brother as Pharoah--by all means...COUGH UP SOME DNA EVIDENCE
it allegedly happened all the time...then it should be easy for you to produce some DNA evidence to back your statement. But you won't find such DNA
evidence. What you will find is all kinds of DNA evidence that Pharoahs named as suceeding Pharoahs weren't father-and-son. That when a Queen's
brother is named Pharoah (allegedly a brother-sister marriage), that the succeeding Pharoah who was claimed to be the son of the Queen was not the
offspring of the Pharoah.
If these alleged brother-sister marriages occured with incest children--then you should have no problem coughing up DNA evidence to back your
statement. There's plenty of Pharoahs accused
of marrying their sisters...plenty of brothers-sister Queens and Pharoahs accused
having incest children...so this shouldn't be a problem for you. Link to some DNA evidence if it's allegedly true.
Originally posted by Byrd
You're looking at it from YOUR viewpoint -- not theirs. These goddesses WERE real, and the king (or queen) was actually seen (and worshiped) as an
aspect of the god... and were addressed like this. This is a common practice throughout the Levant (the rulers were seen as divine) and there's lots
of letters from client kings and so forth, addressing these pharaohs as though they're real gods.
I guess you aren't following my logic about how humans examining an ancient civilization could make some very big mistakes about ideas of another's
religion. I'll help you understand what I'm trying to illustrate in some examples.
A theorectical example of how archeologists could misinterpet ancient religion
would be Abraham Lincoln. Imagine that the year is 5697
and future archeologists don't understand and can't read early 2000's English--they only know bits, pieces and fragments of early 2000s English.
They are examining America and all its statues of Abraham Lincoln
, Mount Rushmore, monuments, how Lincoln's face is on every penny. And how
those statues and pennies have the word "god" in it. The future archeologists understand that the word "god" means some deity. So they come to
the conclusion that Ancient Americans worshipped the god Abraham Lincoln. Each penny with Lincoln's face says "In God We Trust".
future archeologists give as proof
a bunch of pennies with Lincoln's face stamped with "In God We Trust". It's his face with the words.
Does the evidence of seeing Lincoln's face with the words "In God We Trust"--does that mean that Americans worshipped Abraham Lincoln as a god? No.
He was just a beloved forefather-- a beloved leader. And shrines everywhere, Mount Rushmore, monuments for Lincoln don't mean that Americans
worshipped him as a god. Americans holding pennies with Lincoln's face saying the words "In God We Trust"-- their religions would be Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and some could be Deists, Atheists, and Agnostics. What it says on a penny with Lincoln's face doesn't mean that
Americans worshipped him nor the religion stamped on the coin. And if a penny were found in the coffin of an Ancient American-- that doesn't indicate
what religion they are at all. It could be the coffin of an Ancient Atheist-American. To say that the Atheist in the coffin worshipped the Ancient
American god Abraham Lincoln because of the penny-artifact found in his burial suit--that could be a big mistake.
Another theoretical example of how archeologists could misinterpret the religious beliefs of an ancient civilization. Imagine the year is
and archeologists come across the "ancient city of Memphis, Tennessee".
They find museums and statues of musicians. And they keep
finding all these statues/manikins, books, records of Elvis Presley. So these future archeologists seeing all these Elvis-shrines everywhere assume
that there was a religion and Elvis was a god worshipped by the Ancient Americans of Memphis.
Many people who "immortalize" Elvis-- they are Christian. They worship God and Jesus. Christianity is their religion. So seeing Elvis memorabilia
everywhere doesn't mean that Elvis was a religion equivalent to Christianity, nor does it mean that Elvis memorabilia is evidence that those
collectors worshipped Elvis as a god and weren't Christian.Their religion would be Christianity, irregardless of Elvis-shrines The absence of
Christian-god statues and the absence of Jesus-statues doesn't mean that Elvis collectors worshipped Elvis instead of God/Jesus. Elvis would be
something they collect. A shrine to a loved one--not a religion.
And the same would be true of Egypt. To put out shrines for ancient and beloved Queens and Pharoahs doesn't mean that the ancient people of Egypt
worshipped them anymore than Americans viewing statues of Lincoln and holding Lincoln pennies alleged worshipped the god Abraham Lincoln. Not even the
words "In God We Trust" on the face of each coin--that doesn't indicate the personal religious beliefs of each American holding those pennies.
Shrines for Egyptian leaders, Queens, Pharoahs, or other important ruling positions--doesn't necessarily mean those Egyptians worshipped those
Since each Egyptian Queen would have on some stela, some scroll, some sculpture/statute--either the word for Aset/Iset/Isis and/or the word
Ht-Hr/Hathor--it's far more plausable that they were additional titles of the Queen. It would be illogical to conclude that each Queen claimed to be
the "goddess Isis herself" or the "goddess Hathor herself." It is illogical to assume that each Queen would claim to be the very goddesses that
they were said to have worshipped themselves. Either those Queens didn't worship Isis and Hathor and they were arrogant women claiming to be
goddesses themselves...or...those words were additional titles to each Queen...or...words legitimizing those Queen's rule. Which is it? They
can't worship a deity and then claim to be the very deity that they are said to worship.
Originally posted by Byrd
Err... you really might want to read up more on the genealogy and look at the names on the statues. The queens were always depicted as humans. The
goddess with the horns on her head isn't a queen -- it's Hathor.
[snip to shorten]
Perhaps you might like to pick up some books on Hieroglyphs? I have a number in my library... the one I always recommend is this one --
Collier's book for beginners The sounds and symbols change through
the centuries, but he has a good list of names and dates and sounds and is an excellent resource for beginners.
I ask you to think about something simple about human behavior: Do MEN in ruling positions order a bunch of statues to be made of themselves and
ask the sculptor to put a fictitious FEMALE floating-spirit deity in every statue of themself?
Has this ever been something indicative of behavior of any RULING MAN, any country, any timeframe--anywhere? (other than allegedly
Egypt) ? Do
ruling MEN (such as Kings) order a sculptor to make a bunch of statues of them and tell the sculptor to put a FEMALE floating deity in every statue
with them? There's kings in France-- did any of them make a bunch of statues of themselves with fictitious floating female goddesses? No. Did any
king of England ever make a bunch of statues of themselves with fictitious floating FEMALE deities in each statue? No. How about Ancient Greece? Did
any king of any tribe anywhere in Ancient Greece make a bunch of statues of themselves with fictitious floating female deities in each statue with
them? No. How about anywhere in the Mesopotamia region or even China? Did any king of any group of people make a bunch of statues of themselves and in
each statue they put fictitious FEMALE deity in each statue with them? No.
Ruling Men don't do that. Kings don't do that. Pharoahs don't do it either. It is not the behavior of any ruling MAN
of any time frame to
order a sculptor to make a bunch of statues of himself and order the sculptor to put a fictitious floating FEMALE deity in each statue with
That means the woman in each statue isn't some fictitious floating goddess. She's a real and fleshy human being wearing a crown--a Queen.
And each Queen has a name.
In the case of Pharoah Menkaure, the Queens name is at her feet in each of the three statues. If she is on the left of the statue, her name is below
When she is seated on the throne, her name is at the base of the statue just to the right of her feet.
All 3 Statues at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston.
Nowhere on that statue does it say "King/Pharoah Menkaure with the fictitious goddess Hathor". It just doesn't say that at all. Take a good look
at the clearly visible hieroglyphs on all three statues. And anyone is welcome to google hieroglyphic alphabet charts online to take a stab and
translating themselves. (The only argument I would expect is the Old Kingdom "S" symbol which is translated into the "K" symbol in the 12th
It's not difficult to read these statues. ANYONE CAN DO IT. Google a hieroglyph chart...take a stab at it..