Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 2 votes

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?


  • Please log in to reply
1650 replies to this topic

#1441    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:17 AM

View PostLRW, on 03 December 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

...

Like i said, i see a bird, not "Kemet" written in latin alphabet.

Posted Image



You're entitled to your opinion, but i think its mindless drivel.

Forgive me for being quite blunt, LRW, but I've been reading a number of your posts lately, and the more you post, the more scattered you seem. The above is a very good example. Please share with us the training you've undergone to transliterate and translate Egyptian hieroglyphs and to comprehend the ancient language.

Well, allow me to answer that: you have no training, and therefore your understanding of this topic is demonstrably weak.

The monument you found happens to be one of the best ones I've seen in some time for the spelling of one of the ancient names of Egypt. You see a bird, indeed, but do you know how it functions? I thought not. It is a monoliteral representing the "m" sound, in this instance. The hillock in front of it represents a "k" sound. The small bread loaf behind the owl represents a "t" sound. So, put them together in the proper order: k + m + t = kmt, an ancient name for the country of Egypt. The circle glyph behind the owl is a semantic determinative representing a physical place, land, or location, which reinforces the meaning behind kmt.

That is how one properly interprets this particular grouping of glyphs. I honestly don't understand what you're hoping to achieve with your fit over calling the pharaonic Egyptians "ancient Egyptians." Why do you think this term is used, considering "Egypt" is in fact not one of the names for the ancient country? How many laypeople are going to understand terms like Kemet, or Tawy, or Ta-mery, or rekhyt, or other terms the ancients themselves used to describe their nation and themselves? There's a reason a certain lexicon is employed. No reason, really, to throw a fit over it.

I come across as terse because I've grown weary of your presumptions that your opinions can match the level of knowledge represented by legitimate scientific and historical research. Your opinion doesn't matter at all. Nor does mine. What matters are the conclusions reached by peer-reviewed research. You go on and on with opinions and try to paint some ludicrous conspiracy theory lurking behind the world of academia, which really only shows you have very little understanding of how the world of academia functions.

I can see why you post the way you do. You clearly don't understand the methodology of research, so you toss aspersions at the academic community and hope they'll stick. They do no stick. They fall flat and reflect very poorly on you.

Goodness.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#1442    LRW

LRW

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:17 AM

View Postorangepeaceful79, on 04 December 2012 - 03:13 AM, said:

I can't say I dislike anything other than your rather floppy views on the nature of truth and fact.

what truth and fact? show them please. Bring them on.


#1443    LRW

LRW

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:19 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 04 December 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

Forgive me for being quite blunt, LRW, but I've been reading a number of your posts lately, and the more you post, the more scattered you seem. The above is a very good example. Please share with us the training you've undergone to transliterate and translate Egyptian hieroglyphs and to comprehend the ancient language.

Well, allow me to answer that: you have no training, and therefore your understanding of this topic is demonstrably weak.

The monument you found happens to be one of the best ones I've seen in some time for the spelling of one of the ancient names of Egypt. You see a bird, indeed, but do you know how it functions? I thought not. It is a monoliteral representing the "m" sound, in this instance. The hillock in front of it represents a "k" sound. The small bread loaf behind the owl represents a "t" sound. So, put them together in the proper order: k + m + t = kmt, an ancient name for the country of Egypt. The circle glyph behind the owl is a semantic determinative representing a physical place, land, or location, which reinforces the meaning behind kmt.

That is how one properly interprets this particular grouping of glyphs. I honestly don't understand what you're hoping to achieve with your fit over calling the pharaonic Egyptians "ancient Egyptians." Why do you think this term is used, considering "Egypt" is in fact not one of the names for the ancient country? How many laypeople are going to understand terms like Kemet, or Tawy, or Ta-mery, or rekhyt, or other terms the ancients themselves used to describe their nation and themselves? There's a reason a certain lexicon is employed. No reason, really, to throw a fit over it.

I come across as terse because I've grown weary of your presumptions that your opinions can match the level of knowledge represented by legitimate scientific and historical research. Your opinion doesn't matter at all. Nor does mine. What matters are the conclusions reached by peer-reviewed research. You go on and on with opinions and try to paint some ludicrous conspiracy theory lurking behind the world of academia, which really only shows you have very little understanding of how the world of academia functions.

I can see why you post the way you do. You clearly don't understand the methodology of research, so you toss aspersions at the academic community and hope they'll stick. They do no stick. They fall flat and reflect very poorly on you.

Goodness.

Peer viewed research is only an opinion.

Do you admit that there is potential that Egyptologists could be wrong?

Also, i do not feel the need to boast about my credentials for attention and recognition like you and others.

I prefer to just talk about the topic at hand.


#1444    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:28 AM

View PostLRW, on 03 December 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

Yes they do, a lot of material about the pyramids comes from the bible, a lot of their motivations stems from biblical text, speaking about so called dynasties in the region. Many of the Egyptologists translations are based on the bible text. Mainstream Egyptologists also apply AD/BC chronology to papyrus texts and inscriptions. The translation of those texts and inscriptions is dodgy to say the least and is all subjective.

...

This is quite amusing, and reinforces the necessary tone of the little tirade I had in my preceding post. Your unfocused rant against "AD/BC" aside (the correct terminology is now BCE and CE, by the way), your claims about the Bible stand out rather clearly. Other posters have already commented on it, but I'll take it a step further and advise that you consult a Bible very carefully right now. Tell us exactly where in the Bible, Old Testament or New, pyramids are even mentioned. I issue you this challenge.

I issue a further challenge that you consult professional Egyptological research from the last half century or so and show us clear examples of where an Egyptologist has used the Bible, Old Testament or New, as the primary source for any major paper, article, or book he or she has authored.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#1445    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:37 AM

View PostLRW, on 04 December 2012 - 03:19 AM, said:

Peer viewed research is only an opinion.

Do you admit that there is potential that Egyptologists could be wrong?

Also, i do not feel the need to boast about my credentials for attention and recognition like you and others.

I prefer to just talk about the topic at hand.

What credentials? I have no Egyptological credentials, nor am I a professional historian. I never claimed to be one. I see no boasting in my previous post—I see only where I pointed out your obvious errors. Numerous other posters have done the same.

You clearly do not understand what peer-reviewed research is. True, fringies cringe at the mere mention of it because the methodology would sink their own ideas in a heartbeat, but you seem to be equating opinions with facts.

I can and do admit that Egyptology can be wrong. It is hardly a static discipline. No useful discipline can be static and continue to function. I could compose a lengthy post to describe old theories that have been discarded and other instances where Egyptology has been in error—and I can compose another long post explaining how extant evidence has pointed Egyptology in the right direction. It is a field of study that's been thriving for well over a century now, and the more time goes on, the more solid it becomes.

You cannot even begin to challenge it. That's clear to me. All you're doing is touting your opinions and claiming "conspiracy." This is not how one confronts real-world research. It's how one avoids confronting it. You appear to be one of those folks who claims to have special knowledge that can somehow place you in front of countless dedicated researchers and scientists. You see no problem in credibility with this?

Like I said in my previous post, stop tossing out unsubstantiated allegations. Other posters have asked you to present something, anything, to corroborate your claims. I'm asking you to do the same.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#1446    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:38 AM

View Postorangepeaceful79, on 04 December 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

You know what I find to be an interesting coincedence?  That since LRW has been posting his flexible fact theories we have heard but very little from our old friend Harsh_Patel.  I smells a proxy :D

LOL "Flexible fact theories," I like that description. I might have to steal it.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#1447    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:39 AM

View PostLRW, on 04 December 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

what truth and fact? show them please. Bring them on.

Well you seem to like to think that science and academia haven't identified anything approaching truth in your estimation.  My good sir that is what science DOES.  It attempts, through the process of hypothesis, research, experimentation, and peer review to establish truth and facts that are universal for us all.  It succeeds mostly too.  You are interacting with this website through a computer or phone interface - have you not paused to reflect on how much science, truth, and fact are wrapped up in your ability to post your opinions on these topics?  How many disciplines and practitioners have to be speaking the same language to create a computer that does even the now simple task of internet browsing?  The language they speak is the language of science.  

If all those facts and truths were all open to interpretation as you say, do you really think that a cohesive, functional machine could ever be produced anywhere?  It is because of the painstaking process that establishes scientific fact that modern civilization as we know it is possible.  Its the glue that holds everything together.  

If you wish to be a scientific anarchist, then please feel free.  Perhaps you are some sort of visionary thinker.  Many things are possible.  It seems more likely however that you chose this tack because you have discovered that its way easier to say everyone is wrong and claim that the reason is because facts are malleable than it is to actually learn and understand those facts that you seek to undermine.  

Wake yourself up to reality.  You have been distant from it for long enough it would seem.


#1448    LRW

LRW

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:41 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 04 December 2012 - 03:28 AM, said:

This is quite amusing, and reinforces the necessary tone of the little tirade I had in my preceding post. Your unfocused rant against "AD/BC" aside (the correct terminology is now BCE and CE, by the way), your claims about the Bible stand out rather clearly. Other posters have already commented on it, but I'll take it a step further and advise that you consult a Bible very carefully right now. Tell us exactly where in the Bible, Old Testament or New, pyramids are even mentioned. I issue you this challenge.

I issue a further challenge that you consult professional Egyptological research from the last half century or so and show us clear examples of where an Egyptologist has used the Bible, Old Testament or New, as the primary source for any major paper, article, or book he or she has authored.

To your question about the bible, well, i have seen Egyptologists when being interviewed they will conflate the issue of biblical stories with their so called academic discipline that they refer to as "Egyptology" the latter of which is only a theory not definitive scientific truth in my opinion. I am also not going to bother searching the web for such interviews, but i frequently hear Egyptologists conflate the bible with their so called research, i am sure that i am not the only one who has noticed it.

Egyptology was established as an academic discipline through the research of Emmanuel de Rougé in France, Samuel Birch in England, and Heinrich Brugsch in Germany. In 1880, Flinders Petrie, another British Egyptologist, revolutionized the field of archaeology through controlled and scientifically recorded excavations. Petrie's work determined that Egyptian culture dated back as early as 4500 BCE. The British Egypt Exploration Fund founded in 1882 and other Egyptologists promoted Petrie’s methods. Other scholars worked on producing a hieroglyphic dictionary, developing a Demotic lexicon, and establishing an outline of ancient Egyptian history.

Petrie's study is not definitive proof of anything in my opinion. As he has not lived thousands of years ago, his assumptions is only a conclusion stemming from his own research and guess.

He is not the only one who researches the pyramids and the region of afar.  

Parading around in the cloak of legitimate academic research that is heavily funded by institutions and private donations is not going to win you kudo's in my opinion. You'l have to try harder than that.

Edited by LRW, 04 December 2012 - 03:41 AM.


#1449    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,650 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:42 AM

View PostLRW, on 04 December 2012 - 02:49 AM, said:

Egyptologists when translating heiroglyphs are only expressing an opinion as am i, when i look at them.   

...And your opinion of the meaning of the translation is irrelevant according to many
people because only Egyptologists are qualified to read English!!!

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1450    LRW

LRW

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:51 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 04 December 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:


You clearly do not understand what peer-reviewed research is.

I can and do admit that Egyptology can be wrong.

Other posters have asked you to present something, anything, to corroborate your claims. I'm asking you to do the same.

I am fully aware what peer reviewed research is.

I am glad that you have admitted that Egyptology can be wrong.

Can you corroborate your claims that Khufu built the pyramid? By the way, if you think that its not in human nature for people to conspire? then i would say you are being naive. From what i have seen, "Egyptologists"  are masquerading around in the cloak of academic research and applying false history to the ancient world, thats an opinion, i'm not able to prove it 100% but it is something i do believe strongly.

Also, just because something can not be proven, it does not necessarily mean there is not something there.

The earth was once considered flat, when in fact it was not.


#1451    LRW

LRW

    Apparition

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 351 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:54 AM

View Postcladking, on 04 December 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

...And your opinion of the meaning of the translation is irrelevant according to many
people because only Egyptologists are qualified to read English!!!

Yes, apparently only "Egyptologists" are only allowed to give translations of hieroglyphs on the forum. Heaven forbid anyone else giving an opinion on the matter.


#1452    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:56 AM

View PostLRW, on 04 December 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:

Yes, apparently only "Egyptologists" are only allowed to give translations of hieroglyphs on the forum. Heaven forbid anyone else giving an opinion on the matter.

You didn't offer a translation...only a diatribe on how the prevailing translation was incorrect.


#1453    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 04 December 2012 - 03:56 AM

View PostLRW, on 04 December 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

To your question about the bible, well, i have seen Egyptologists when being interviewed they will conflate the issue of biblical stories with their so called academic discipline that they refer to as "Egyptology" the latter of which is only a theory not definitive scientific truth in my opinion. I am also not going to bother searching the web for such interviews, but i frequently hear Egyptologists conflate the bible with their so called research, i am sure that i am not the only one who has noticed it.

This is the problem I'm having with you here, and I'm speaking as a Moderator at this moment. You continue to make allegations about what you've "seen" or "heard" but seem to refuse to back up your claims. I could cite countless instances in which Biblical lore has been the subject of Egyptological research, but in almost every case the Egyptologist is showing how a Biblical tale cannot be evidenced in the real world. This extends to the research of biblically oriented archaeologists like William Dever and Israel Finkelstein. The body of professional literature on this topic is considerable.

More than a couple of us have now asked you to support your claims, but you refuse to do so. Look at it this way: if you're about to write something controversial but are not at all willing to contribute corroborative material to support your claim, then don't write it in the first place. It contributes nothing to this discussion and is only irritating people.

Quote

Egyptology was established as an academic discipline through the research of Emmanuel de Rougé in France, Samuel Birch in England, and Heinrich Brugsch in Germany. In 1880, Flinders Petrie, another British Egyptologist, revolutionized the field of archaeology through controlled and scientifically recorded excavations. Petrie's work determined that Egyptian culture dated back as early as 4500 BCE. The British Egypt Exploration Fund founded in 1882 and other Egyptologists promoted Petrie’s methods. Other scholars worked on producing a hieroglyphic dictionary, developing a Demotic lexicon, and establishing an outline of ancient Egyptian history.

Petrie's study is not definitive proof of anything in my opinion. As he has not lived thousands of years ago, his assumptions is only a conclusion stemming from his own research and guess.

He is not the only one who researches the pyramids and the region of afar.  

Parading around in the cloak of legitimate academic research that is heavily funded by institutions and private donations is not going to win you kudo's in my opinion. You'l have to try harder than that.

The first paragraph is a brief albeit sufficient mini-summary of the origins of Egyptology. A common fringe tactic is to avoid almost all current research. What of the past century of research? Are you the least aware of Egyptological methodology?

So you disagree with Petrie. In what way, exactly? In what specific case or protocol or theory contributed by Petrie do you believe he was wrong? Write something specific, for goodness sake. You seem to be going in the direction of claiming Petrie's theories about the pyramids are wrong. And yet, as anyone familiar with Petrie knows, aside from his land surveys of Giza and its monuments, pyramids were not the focus of Petrie's larger body of work.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#1454    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,344 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:01 AM

View PostLRW, on 04 December 2012 - 03:54 AM, said:

Yes, apparently only "Egyptologists" are only allowed to give translations of hieroglyphs on the forum. Heaven forbid anyone else giving an opinion on the matter.

You're misrepresenting me again. I suggest you do so no longer. I am not an Egyptologist.

Yes, I can translate hieroglyphs, but only because of my interest in the ancient language and the many years of hard work (and some expense) I've put into it. You could do the same. This is what irritates me. You can have whatever opinion you want, but when it's demonstrably incorrect, you can reasonably expect to be called on it.

Or perhaps I should just invite you to show how my earlier translation was wrong. Please feel free to do so, but leave "opinions" at the door.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#1455    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:01 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 04 December 2012 - 03:38 AM, said:

LOL "Flexible fact theories," I like that description. I might have to steal it.

Its yours for the using, Sesh.  Make good use of it.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users