“Ahem. This is a stack of rocks.”

originally posted by: Dalamax
Maybe Nile river reeds?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Maybe. Used like bamboo. In Asia they build huge skyscrapers with that stuff. It's lightweight, durable and can be used when you need something either solid or flexible. I once read an article about the people who build Stonehenge possibly using sticks to wrap around the stones so they could just be rolled to where they were going. (See below.) Maybe the Egyptians figured out something similar using bamboo. Although there doesn't seem to be any artwork depicting that, unlike them dragging things on sledges.

History tells us that the Egyptians preserved the dead bodies of kings and pharaohs because they had a believe that one day they would return to the land of the living.
The question remains who taught them such skills and why did they believed that one day they would come back to the land of the living?
The Christian answer of course would be the fallen angels.
There are 2 distinct lines of fallen angelic beings, one fell with Lucifer during his rebellion against God, and the other fell out of lust for human women and the desire to bear their offspring.
The fallen angels that rebelled with Lucifer were permitted to roam the earth and in no way shape or form were bounded while the ones that fornicated with human women were.... dealt with.

see: bookofenoch.ueuo.com...



All replies lean towards the pyramids being conceived and engineered by neo-lithic/bronze age Egyptians...

I propose fallen Aliens generated the engineering and vision & techniques/devices to accomplish the GPyramid, the population were slaves to the project(s)

History tells us that the Egyptians preserved the dead bodies of kings and pharaohs because they had a believe that one day they would return to the land of the living.
The question remains who taught them such skills and why did they believed that one day they would come back to the land of the living?

originally posted by: St UdioAll replies lean towards the pyramids being conceived and engineered by neo-lithic/bronze age Egyptians...

I propose fallen Aliens generated the engineering and vision & techniques/devices to accomplish the GPyramid, the population were slaves to the project(s)

Because, obviously, human beings can't think of anything themselves. There would definitely never have been any cultural tradition of any sort that was invented by humans over the last 250,000 years.

Harte

originally posted by: St Udio
I propose fallen Aliens generated the engineering and vision & techniques/devices to accomplish the GPyramid, the population were slaves to the project(s)

I suggest that you can't get slaves to give you that kind of quality production. Besides, they have indications that they worked in coordinated teams that would compete with each other like football teams. Maybe they even got bonuses.

Carrot, not stick.

not only did the EA not use masses of slaves to build the pyramids but they even fed them very well with bread, beer, fish, cattle and gave them medical treatment..there are treatments records of recovered broken worker's bones.

a reply to: Harte

Because, obviously, human beings can't think of anything themselves. There would definitely never have been any cultural tradition of any sort that was invented by humans over the last 250,000 years.

Is that also how far back in time you're willing to say the
obvious world wide culture of pyramid building goes
Harte?

How do you explain the obvious world wide culture of pyramid building?
Exactly similar (not by construction) to our WORLD WIDE culture of sky
scrapper building in the modern age? The knowledge of building structure
had to have spread to other countries for this to become evident. And
coincidence does not suffice. Not by a damn site. I know archaeology
doesn't claim to have all the answers. But the academic world sure does
a lot of rejecting other notions. There is no other pyramid in the world
like the GP. At least not that have been found yet. Why is it, if I learned
of a great fantastic flood that wiped out most of humanity at one time.

Is it perfectly reasonable for me to see that there was a world wide
civilization of pyramid builders. That got wiped out with it? What
ever was going on before that flood would be lost to us now. And I'll
be hot damned sh1t fire saving matches. That's exactly what I see.
I guess I just want to ask you in this regard why does science seem
prejudice to a world wide flood?

Don't give me any of the usual crap about it can't be proven either.
Because in many ways it can be. Why is archaeology so prejudice
against an ancient text that archaeologists often refer to still today?
And has proven itself time and again many times over.

I ask with great respect for your knowledge. I don't ask just
anybody these kind of questions.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
How do you explain the obvious world wide culture of pyramid building?

A pyramid structure is the easiest and most natural large scale structure you can build with only rocks. They emulate mountains, which tend to also be big on the bottom and get smaller at the top. It's not unreasonable to suggest that many different cultures that decided to build large rock temples would have ended up building pyramids. Not that they had any cultural contact with each other.

a reply to: Blue Shift

A pyramid structure is the easiest and most natural large scale structure you can build with only rocks.

Sorry that sounds stupid when you're talking about the GP.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Blue Shift

A pyramid structure is the easiest and most natural large scale structure you can build with only rocks.

Sorry that sounds stupid when you're talking about the GP.

Thanks for the insult. But try it yourself. See how high you can stack bricks without mortar. It won't take you long to figure out that in order to make the stack as tall as possible without falling over, you're going to need to start making the higher levels narrower until you get to a point at the top. TRY IT.

a reply to: Blue Shift

I didn't mean to insult you. And I've worked for a mason.
So I have stacked block before. Your comparison isn't doing it for
me at all. I'll put it that way for you but you aren't even coming
close to the Godly design of the GP. And you aren't addressing any
of my questions either. Where's Harte? Also people that choose to
be obtuse should be ready to hear words like stupid and take and
on the chin. I never said YOU are stupid because I know better
than that of you my good member.

Everyone says stupid sh1t no matter how bright they are so
don't take it so hard.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Harte

Because, obviously, human beings can't think of anything themselves. There would definitely never have been any cultural tradition of any sort that was invented by humans over the last 250,000 years.

Is that also how far back in time you're willing to say the
obvious world wide culture of pyramid building goes
Harte?

You can't read? I replied to this idiocy:

The question remains who taught them such skills and why did they believed that one day they would come back to the land of the living?

In what way does my post imply anything about construction?

originally posted by: Randyvine2How do you explain the obvious world wide culture of pyramid building?

Cube - fall down
Pyramid - stay up.

originally posted by: Randyvine2Exactly similar (not by construction) to our WORLD WIDE culture of sky
scrapper building in the modern age? The knowledge of building structure
had to have spread to other countries for this to become evident.

Or, they could have at at least the mind of a three year old.

originally posted by: Randyvine2And coincidence does not suffice. Not by a damn site. I know archaeology
doesn't claim to have all the answers. But the academic world sure does
a lot of rejecting other notions. There is no other pyramid in the world
like the GP. At least not that have been found yet.

There are a few features of the GP that sets it apart from other pyramids, but method of construction isn't one of them.

originally posted by: Randyvine2Why is it, if I learned of a great fantastic flood that wiped out most of humanity at one time.

Why is it you think you have learned about such a flood?

originally posted by: Randyvine2Is it perfectly reasonable for me to see that there was a world wide
civilization of pyramid builders. That got wiped out with it? What
ever was going on before that flood would be lost to us now. And I'll
be hot damned sh1t fire saving matches. That's exactly what I see.
I guess I just want to ask you in this regard why does science seem
prejudice to a world wide flood?

You already know the answer to that last question.
See, science limits itself to the evidence in hand. None exists for any such flood as you described.

originally posted by: Randyvine2Don't give me any of the usual crap about it can't be proven either.
Because in many ways it can be. Why is archaeology so prejudice
against an ancient text that archaeologists often refer to still today?
And has proven itself time and again many times over.

Why should Archaeology consider one ancient text over any other? You realize that "Archaeology" has lots of ancient religious texts. Several of them far older than the one you refer to.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Idiocy is just an opinion and if that's all you have to offer
I like mine better. Because they all make a lot more sense
in the face of obvious bias.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Harte

Idiocy is just an opinion and if that's all you have to offer
I like mine better. Because they all make a lot more sense
in the face of obvious bias.

All I have to offer?

What about people asking who "taught" Egyptians about their own cultural afterlife belief? Who "taught" them mummifying, or resurrection?

I offer far more than that vapid, empty quote. Which quote is, as stated, idiocy.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

What about people asking who "taught" Egyptians about their own cultural afterlife belief? Who "taught" them mummifying, or resurrection?

It all came from the line of Cain
This guy is smart as a whip.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Harte
How do you explain the obvious world wide culture of pyramid building?

There doesn't seem to be one. The first true pyramid was built by Khufu's father (who went pyramid happy and built 3 or 4 of them with a volume greater than G1) and before that his grandfather and great-grandfather who built stepped pyramids and variations on that. That's in 2700 BC or thereabouts.

Nobody else was building them at that time.

There are "sort of" pyramids in Greece (Pyramids of Argolis) possibly built as early as 3000 BC, but it's not clear that they had pointed tops and they seem to have functioned as guard towers. The slope of their sides is much steeper than the Egyptian pyramids. They're also completely hollow inside, unlike Egyptian pyramids. Some of them were tombs.

So they didn't inspire the Egyptians.

Egyptians began building them with Djoser, and has several failed examples before they got what they wanted, including some unfinished ones. They quit after Amenenhat (at least for awhile), reviving it in the 25th dynasty with the Nubian pyramids which are very very different. However, they had conquered Egypt and were ruling Egypt so it's no surprise that the Nubian rulers enthusiastically adopted the Egyptian culture (with sphinxes, cartouches, scarabs and all.)

The Olmec pyramids were built around 300 BC and were made of clay. They don't look like the pyramids that Egypt was building at that time or like the older ones. Additionally, the Egyptians weren't building pyramids that late.

The Maya who lived near the Olmecs were making stone pyramids and also used for burial at that time, but during the Classic period the flat topped pyramids they built had temples on top of them (and steps up to the top) and had a large series of open air painted rooms inside them. They were constructed at a different angle than the Egyptian ones because of different stone types and different techniques. Olmec, Maya, and Aztec pyramids ARE related and show cultural transmission but only among those three cultures from about 300 BC though the Spanish Conquest (1600 AD) They were also used for sacrifice.

China also build a very few pyramids around 200-300 AD, basically by burying a big tomb under an earth pyramid. No other culture did this and the 'pyramid' wasn't very square or pointy.

The Mound Builders in the US were building... well... earthwork mounds with flat tops. Usually chiefs resided there, but other important buildings were on these flat-topped mounds. Some of them are pyramid shaped. In the case of a chief's house, we visited a site where the chief was buried within the (pyramid-ish-shaped) mound and the next chief burned the old house and had dirt built up and then put his house on top of that site. This is nothing like the pyramids elsewhere (other than it's a squarish mound with a flat top.)

Caius Cestius in Rome was the next (chronologically) to build a pyramid about 300 AD, but it looked more like the Nubian ones. He was a great fan of Egypt and basically tried to be Egyptian. But his passion can't be considered a cultural transmission because nobody copied him.

In 300 AD, the Aztecs began building the biggest pyramid in the world, Great Pyramid of Cholula, but it's nothing like Egyptian pyramids and ... is actually not like any other pyramid (other than it has four sides that slope upward.)


...etc.

In order for it to be a cultural phenomenon, they would be getting the basic plan at the same time, would be using the same (or similar materials)... including the burial shafts, king's chamber, relieving chambers, etc, etc. And they would be sharing other things such as food and art and jewelry. You can trace many things through artifacts where one culture copies another, but they flow together in time.

They aren't disjointed by thousands of miles of distance and hundreds and thousands of years.

a reply to: Byrd

I admit being a lowly truck driver I can not totally reject the
well accomplished science. Much of which I so admire. It isn't
like My aim is to totally diminish the great minds of archaeology.
If I come off that way forgive me. I just think really hard on all
of this and I look to see it thru scripture. And with a few changes
to certain ideas the academics have I can see the whole story
line up perfectly. And even fill a lot of the gaps that archaeologists
seem to struggle with. In science is it not the easiest answer is usually
the correct answer? I could go into examples but I'd be here for days
lacking the proper education sadly.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Byrd

I admit being a lowly truck driver I can not totally reject the
well accomplished science. Much of which I so admire. It isn't
like My aim is to totally diminish the great minds of archaeology.
If I come off that way forgive me. I just think really hard on all
of this and I look to see it thru scripture. And with a few changes
to certain ideas the academics have I can see the whole story
line up perfectly. And even fill a lot of the gaps that archaeologists
seem to struggle with. In science is it not the easiest answer is usually
the correct answer? I could go into examples but I'd be here for days
lacking the proper education sadly.

You should disconnect your religious beliefs from your understanding of history.
Constantly trying to confirm the Biblical account of creation, flood, etc. using archaeology (or rants against archaeology) only serve to put your lack of faith on full display.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

You should disconnect your religious beliefs from your understanding of history.
Constantly trying to confirm the Biblical account of creation, flood, etc. using archaeology (or rants against archaeology) only serve to put your lack of faith on full display.

I assure you my good man it isn't like that at all. Everything in this world is connected
in one gigantic tapestry that transcends time space and matter.
In the beginning (Time) God created the heavens (Space) and the Earth. (Matter)

You think God is not in total control. God is science.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Dalamax
Maybe Nile river reeds?

a reply to: Blue Shift

Maybe. Used like bamboo. In Asia they build huge skyscrapers with that stuff. It's lightweight, durable and can be used when you need something either solid or flexible. I once read an article about the people who build Stonehenge possibly using sticks to wrap around the stones so they could just be rolled to where they were going. (See below.) Maybe the Egyptians figured out something similar using bamboo. Although there doesn't seem to be any artwork depicting that, unlike them dragging things on sledges.

Meant to comment on this earlier:

It's an unlikely scenario. The Stonehenge blocks are very long and thinner than the blocks used for the pyramids... and there's also only 82 of the big stones at Stonehenge. To move 2,300,000 stones (many of which are up to 10 times heavier than Stonehenge's henge stones) would have required all the wood in Egypt plus wood from a lot of other places. Reeds wouldn't work and palm wood (common in Egypt) is very soft and not durable.

However, if you use the wood for shadoufs (levers and lifts) and use rope commonly used to haul things and even ramps, you can build without stripping all of North Africa and part of the Levant of trees.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Byrd

I admit being a lowly truck driver I can not totally reject the
well accomplished science. Much of which I so admire. It isn't
like My aim is to totally diminish the great minds of archaeology.

I didn't see your response as being unkind or dismissive -- only that someone told you "here's a great site!" and you read it and similar sites and found them convincing. But nobody asked the follow-up question: WHEN were they made?

It's kind of like a new driver getting into one of your big rigs and driving off without checking to see if there's gas, if the lines are connected properly, if the load is correctly balanced, if the mirrors are aligned, etc. They do that kind of stuff in the movies and tv all the time because it looks really great and nobody writing the script knows a thing about commercial trucks or trucking.

Same with these ideas that people complain we're being dismissive of.

That's what we learn in college --basically how to drive that particular truck (academic discipline.)

If I come off that way forgive me. I just think really hard on all
of this and I look to see it thru scripture.

Let me ask an unusual question, here: "Is this a proper use of scripture?"

Scripture tells the story of the Jewish people and the beginnings of the Jewish faith and the Christian faith, as well as the ethics of the religion and the stories of the important people.

But it doesn't tell everyone's history. There's nothing about Plato or Socrates or Hero of Alexander (it's thanks to his inventions that we have trucks and electricity and air conditioning) even though all of them were alive before the first books of the Torah were written (at the request of Ptolemy I, Alexander's general and ruler of Egypt, who wanted them for the Great Library of Alexander.)

There's nothing about Sparta and Athens and the Peloponnesian wars (though those shape world history and were well known at the time of Alexander) and nothing about Alexander himself, whose very presence (and choice of generals) led to the first books of the Bible being written down instead of being relayed by word of mouth.

Scripture is about morality, but it doesn't tell you how to forge a sword or how to harness a horse or weave cloth.

Should it really be used to try and construct history when there's nothing there that's about the history of those nations (like Greece, or Germany or England (all of which were known by then and had known histories by then))?

And with a few changes to certain ideas the academics have I can see the whole story line up perfectly.

It may be a challenge to explain why your ideas are better than those of Biblical scholars like William Albright (father of Biblical archaeology) or John Collins who is a Biblical scholar and expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Second Temple in Jerusalem or Dever, who's noted for his archaeology of early Israel. All of these people and more have worked on timelines and worked directly with material they found in the field (scientific expeditions) and verified.

There's a really good list of them on this page about Old Testament. Some of their writing is kind of (don't tell them!) dull, but some of the older books can be read for free and all can be gotten through your library.

And even fill a lot of the gaps that archaeologists seem to struggle with.

This sounds like an idea that might have come from one of those "i dont' know anything about trucks but imma gonna write about trucks" sites. Let's ask the next questions: WHICH archaeologists are struggling? Biblical? Middle East? Levant? Sumerain? Egyptian? (because they could all possibly be involved here) and WHAT exactly are they struggling with (other than the order of succession at Amarna -- which is a mess but not mentioned in the Bible -- or perhaps the names of the kings and the centers of power during the Intermediate periods)?

The Amarna period is probably the most contentious. They do sometimes squabble about timelines but it's on the (fairly trivial) order of a dozen years rather than something more earth shaking.)

In science is it not the easiest answer is usually
the correct answer? I could go into examples but I'd be here for days
lacking the proper education sadly.

(chuckle) Nooooooo.... easiest answer is not usually the correct answer. Trust me on this one!

Research is difficult and finding the right answer is like ... walking into a dark warehouse room armed only with a flashlight. Someone has taken a hundred thousand jigsaw puzzle boxes and opened them all and has thrown the pieces of the puzzle all over the warehouse floor (and the puzzles are different sizes. Some are those little wooden puzzles for kids and others are those huge thousand piece puzzles. And some are even 3D models (like the puzzle where you can build a replica of Notre Dame.)

You find pieces everywhere and they've been shuffled and moved by everyone who ever walked into that room. You take a few pieces out into the sunlight (where other people are putting together pieces they've found) and try to see if yours matches anything. Sometimes it matches a bunch of stuff and then you have to figure out which of the possibly right answers it REALLY is.

So no. Not simple, not easy, and really hard to explain to folks. I hope I've given you a little insight, though, on what it's like.

Contributions by non-scholars ARE useful -- but the kicker is that they have to be really up on what the scientists are doing. A good example is paleontology, where amateur fossil hunters are always coming up with new and exciting stuff and even significant stuff. One of our locals has found ancient fossil birds that were new species... and he even had one of those birds named after him!