902 replies to this topic

[Mangoze]

So which date system do you propose; and how does it prove that ET made massive piles of Iimestone?

[kmt_sesh]

LRW, on 03 January 2013 - 10:46 PM, said:

BCE/CE is still an invention of the christians and still based on anno domini calendars. CE, is sometimes called "Christian Era" because the whole chronology is biased towards christian institutions that invented it. It is a ridiculous chronology. Changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE does not make any difference at all, both chronologies were developed by christians, therefore are biased.  

Reference: http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Common_Era

Common Era (also Current Era^[1] or Christian Era^[2]), abbreviated as CE, is an alternative naming of the traditional calendar era, Anno Domini (abbreviated AD).^[3] BCE is the abbreviation forBefore the Common/Current/Christian Era (an alternative to Before Christ, abbreviated BC). The CE/BCE designation uses the year-numbering system introduced by the 6th-century Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus, who started the Anno Domini designation, intending the beginning of the life of Jesus to be the reference date.^[4][5] Neither notation includes a year zero,^[6] and the two notations (CE/BCE and AD/BC) are numerically equivalent; thus "2013 CE" corresponds to "AD 2013" and "399 BCE" corresponds to "399 BC".

Don't place your trust in Wikipedia alone. People make this mistake every day. The Wiki article is wrong, plain and simple. Wiki might be convenient but it's a collection of articles written by every-day people. Rarely do real scholars contribute. In the very least, if you read a Wiki page and find something you want to use, you must corroborate it with at least one paper or article or book written by a professional historian. No one can force you to do this, of course, but on the negative side you'll place all your trust in a Wiki article and you, yourself, will be wrong. As you are here.

The modern convention of BCE and CE is meant to avoid religious overtones. This is for two reasons in particular. First, it is unbalanced to base the entire history of the world on the birth and death of one man from the Christian tradition. Second, and more to the point, we don't know exactly when Jesus was born. Was it in year zero? Was it in the year 15, or 30? No one can answer this, so we cannot reliably base an entire system of dating on it.

BCE stands for "Before the Common Era" and CE for "Common Era," and it's that simple. Consult some modern books on archaeology. Never regard Wikipedia as the end all and be all. You will be proven wrong often enough. I've lost count of the incorrect statements found in Wiki articles. Sometimes they're wrong because the contributor is not sufficiently versed on the subject, and sometimes they're wrong because the contributor is actually some fringie trying to push his half-baked agenda. I recently came across a Wiki article that actually and deliberately misquotes a paper by Mark Lehner on the construction of the Sphinx. I know this because I've read the paper in question, and it's not quoted properly in the Wiki article—but this is the sort of thing fringies do with great abandon.

Quote

The character "Jesus Christ" never existed in my opinion, the character is blatant fiction, the character is simply a metaphor and allegory for the sun. Christianity is nothing more than a sun worshipping cult. Their main day of prayer and celebration is on what day? Ah yes "SUN-DAY" the suns day, since christ is only a metaphor for sun worship.  

I take it you're either not a Catholic or are a Catholic with no training in the religion. Whether or not Jesus existed can be argued back and forth all day. I personally see little reason to doubt someone similar to Jesus of Nazareth was a real living man in the first century CE. It was a time of religious upheavals in the Holy Land, so the underlying story is perfectly plausible. What's most difficult to do is determining how much embellishment occurred in the New Testament.

In any case, I am not a practicing Catholic but was raised in the religion, including the years of schooling required of all Catholic youths prior to confirmation. I also attended private Catholic schools as a youth. Jesus Christ has nothing to do with sun worship. This is a stunning misunderstanding of the very basic reasons the religion surrounding Jesus came to be. I suggest carefully perusing the New Testament in the very least, but there are also all sorts of scholarly, academically framed books on the time of Jesus and why such a figure might have risen to prominence in the Holy Land in that time.

Our basic argument still stands. You are incorrect in assuming Egyptologists use Christianity in their studies of ancient Egypt. Christianity has nothing to do with ancient Egypt. It would not even be a relevant study except for the emergence of the Coptic traditions—some of Christianity's earliest origins lie in Egypt, but not in ancient Egypt.

In that regard I would also suggest a book or two covering the basic methodologies of Egyptology. It would seem you don't understand the principles of it very well.

[DieChecker]

LRW, on 03 January 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

Its all wrong, the translations, the theory on how it was built, the theory the pyramids were tombs etc, its all epically wrong.  

Everything they say, should be disregarded and thrown in the garbage can, because its wrong, just like christianity is wrong.

There are no answers to be found in egyptology, by listening to them, you will never get the answers you seek.

Thus are the words of the True Believer... on how to disregard the current belief based on facts for some one other person's unsupported opinion.

[cladking]

kmt_sesh, on 04 January 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

Our basic argument still stands. You are incorrect in assuming Egyptologists use Christianity in their studies of ancient Egypt. Christianity has nothing to do with ancient Egypt. It would not even be a relevant study except for the emergence of the Coptic traditions—some of Christianity's earliest origins lie in Egypt, but not in ancient Egypt.

I disagree.  I don't believe any human being can be completely scientific
and completely free of belief when studying the ancient past.  Just as each
translator comes up with a different product tied to his time and place so, too,
do the scholars who study and report evidence.  This isn't about the beliefs of
the ancients, this is about our beliefs which are heavily determined by our place
and time.  Virtually all the evidence is open to wide interpretation.  Naturally every-
one will interpret the evidence according to his preconceptions.

It is our argument that our beliefs are so alien and so different than the real people
who left all these clues that it is difficult to see them as they were. Our understanding
of the ancients is heavily biased by not only our preconceptions but they are to a very
real extent are religious in nature.

I think it's perfectly legitimate to say that religion is impeding progress both directly by
its influence on individuals but indirectly by its influence on the characteristics that com-
prise our time and place; we are each predisposed to at least a small degree.

[cladking]

DieChecker, on 04 January 2013 - 02:44 AM, said:

Thus are the words of the True Believer... on how to disregard the current belief based on facts for some one other person's unsupported opinion.

It is not based on fact.  It exists despite the facts.  It has no power to predict.  It
creates mysteries rather than solves them.

Show me the evidence that the people never changed.

It's impossible to prove this point yet all Egyptology hangs from it.  You can pretend
there is no evidence to support the alternative theories but in many ways all the alter-
native theories have a sounder basis in fact than the current paradigm.  It might be
true that generally the alternative theories are just a snapshot of some aspect of the
past rather than a comprensive picture like the paradigm.  Having more facts and know-
ledge has never made anyone right and it doesn't in any way impact the veracity of
other ways of looking at the evidence.  Simply stated the evidence that supports the
paradigm is all very low grade evidence and aspects of the paradigm are inconsistent
with logic and some with the facts.

[kmt_sesh]

cladking, on 04 January 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

...

Show me the evidence that the people never changed.

It's impossible to prove this point yet all Egyptology hangs from it...

The same point I made to LRW applies to you. To this day, despite the hundreds of posts you've contributed, you've still not obtained a basic understanding of Egyptological methodology. You've expended countless hours deriding Egyptology and repeating the same errors due to your personal beliefs, a perfect example of which is your statement above.

Why expend so much effort trying to demean something you don't understand?

[cladking]

It is not my intention to deride egyptological methodology.  In general the methodology
has been adequate and in most others ample to the task.  Egyptology has done a remarkably
good job almost across the board and superb in their ability to connect dynasties and events.
Their deciphering of the vocabulary has been exemplary and how it was accomplished is still
beyond my ability to even comprehend.

This doesn't change the fact that the assumptions to which they append their knowledge and
follow their methodology are all in error in my considered opinion and as shown in most of my
posts.  This isn't to say the paradigm can't be right, merely that there are other people who ap-
pear to be more right and if any of them are right then Egyptology is likely wrong about every-
thing.  You can't add seed vaults, aliens, or even sacred geometry without making the paradigm
wrong; wrong about corpse drippings and wrong about bodies in pyramids.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 04 January 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

It is not my intention to deride egyptological methodology.  In general the methodology
has been adequate and in most others ample to the task.  Egyptology has done a remarkably
good job almost across the board and superb in their ability to connect dynasties and events.
Their deciphering of the vocabulary has been exemplary and how it was accomplished is still
beyond my ability to even comprehend.

This doesn't change the fact that the assumptions to which they append their knowledge and
follow their methodology are all in error in my considered opinion and as shown in most of my
posts. This isn't to say the paradigm can't be right, merely that there are other people who ap-
pear to be more right and if any of them are right then Egyptology is likely wrong about every-
thing.  You can't add seed vaults, aliens, or even sacred geometry without making the paradigm
wrong; wrong about corpse drippings and wrong about bodies in pyramids.

Sure it is since you do it nearly all the time. If you didn't intend to do it, you wouldn't be doing it, REPEATEDLY.

If their deciphering of the vocabulary is so exemplary and beyond your ability to comprehend, then don't you think maybe you should bow out of spouting so much meaningless rhetoric about what the language says? Particulary when you've admitted a comprehension problem.

Your "considered opinion", based on your own admission to having a comprehension problem concerning the AE language, is really rather meaningless and is just another take on the "I don't know what I'm talking about, but you're wrong" mentality. Just because it's apparently beyond you doesn't mean it's beyond others.

cormac

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 04 January 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

Sure it is since you do it nearly all the time. If you didn't intend to do it, you wouldn't be doing it, REPEATEDLY.

If their deciphering of the vocabulary is so exemplary and beyond your ability to comprehend, then don't you think maybe you should bow out of spouting so much meaningless rhetoric about what the language says? Particulary when you've admitted a comprehension problem.

Your "considered opinion", based on your own admission to having a comprehension problem concerning the AE language, is really rather meaningless and is just another take on the "I don't know what I'm talking about, but you're wrong" mentality. Just because it's apparently beyond you doesn't mean it's beyond others.

My meaning was not that I have a comprehension problem with the Egyptian language.  I meant
I don't comprehend how they were able to translate so large a proportion of the ancient words while
having no concept of what they meant.

I believe I do know what the Egyptians were talking about but this is beside the point.  The point is
that Egyptology obviously doesn't know what they were talking about but were still able to translate
it pretty well.  The point is that many of the alternative theories are better supported by direct evi-
dence than Egyptology is supported by direct evidence.

On many bases and for many reasons I believe Egyptology is wrong and it was caused by precon-
ceptions, sampling error, and jumping to the wrong conclusions.  This doesn't make them stupid or
highlight poor methodology as it simply makes them wrong.  It is the lack of direct evidence that im-
pedes discussion and it's the fear of being wrong that keeps them from investigating.  There is very
little evidence and for the main part it does not support the paradigm.  The direct evidence supports
all manner of theories better than it supports orthodoxy.

[killahraay]

Ive seen a video somewhere. (I'll try to find again) that the egyptians had a tool that would manipulate protons and electrons in huge rocks for example that would allow it  too levitate as if it where weightless. Onr man had re-invented this tool... i need to find it asap.

[TheSearcher]

cladking, on 04 January 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

My meaning was not that I have a comprehension problem with the Egyptian language.  I meant
I don't comprehend how they were able to translate so large a proportion of the ancient words while
having no concept of what they meant.

I believe I do know what the Egyptians were talking about but this is beside the point.  The point is
that Egyptology obviously doesn't know what they were talking about but were still able to translate
it pretty well.  The point is that many of the alternative theories are better supported by direct evi-
dence than Egyptology is supported by direct evidence.

On many bases and for many reasons I believe Egyptology is wrong and it was caused by precon-
ceptions, sampling error, and jumping to the wrong conclusions.  This doesn't make them stupid or
highlight poor methodology as it simply makes them wrong.  It is the lack of direct evidence that im-
pedes discussion and it's the fear of being wrong that keeps them from investigating.  There is very
little evidence and for the main part it does not support the paradigm.  The direct evidence supports
all manner of theories better than it supports orthodoxy.

As oposed to what exactly is Egyptology wrong, by preconceptions, sampling error, and jumping to the wrong conclusions? Because you say so? Honestly I see more real evidence in Egyptology, than in what you say. Your so-called evidence is based on jumping to the wrong conclusions and an incomplete and fragmented understanding of the ancient egyptian language. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Your methodology for translation is, sadly so, rather amateuristic and not so good. I translate on a proffessional level between 4 languages and I wouldn't even dare to make the interpretations you do, based on a incomplete understanding of the cultural background and the exact context the word or words are used in.

I could easely return the question to you : I don't comprehend how you were able to interpret such large a proportion of the ancient words, whilst having no real concept of what they mean or the exact cultural and sociological context. It's all based on your personal interpretation, which in my humble opinion does not make it right.

[LRW]

kmt_sesh, on 04 January 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

Don't place your trust in Wikipedia alone. People make this mistake every day. The Wiki article is wrong, plain and simple.  Rarely do real scholars contribute. In the very least, if you read a Wiki page and find something you want to use, you must corroborate it with at least one paper or article or book written by a professional historian. No one can force you to do this, of course, but on the negative side you'll place all your trust in a Wiki article and you, yourself, will be wrong. As you are here.

You were wrong about the calendar and you were exposed as being hypocritical. You also have discredited wikipedia, but you forget to mention that everything wikipedia says can be referenced through citations at the end of their page. Its not the ramblings of one contributor, the person who writes the articles cites his references at end of page. Many of the references are from the academia world.

No one in the academia world would deny that the origins of BCE/CE are based on anno domini christian calendar. Denying it makes you look ignorant to the own academia world whom you glorify.

One of the references is from "princeton university".

http://wordnetweb.pr...4=&s=Common era

• S:Christian era, Common era (the time period beginning with the supposed year of Christ's birth)

Adverb

• S:CE, C.E., Common Era (of the period coinciding with the Christian era; preferred by some writers who are not Christians) "in 200 CE"

CE can not only mean common era but also christian era, thats a fact.

The calendar is still based on the anno domino calendar invented by a christian, the only difference is that it uses BCE/CE to avoid christian connotations, but it makes no difference, because the calendar is still based on the anno domino christian one and is highly offensive to non christians.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Common_Era

The expression "Common Era" can be found as early as 1708 in English,^[7] and traced back to Latin usage among European Christians to 1615, as vulgaris aerae,^[8] and to 1635 in English asVulgar Era. At those times, the expressions were all used interchangeably with "Christian Era", and "vulgar" meant "not regal" rather than "crudely indecent". Use of the CE abbreviation was introduced by Jewish academics in the mid-19th century. Since the later 20th century, use of CE and BCE has been popularized in academic and scientific publications, and more generally by publishers emphasizing secularism or sensitivity to non-Christians.


BCE/CE was traced back to usage among european christians at first, its their invention. Egyptologists have based their model on a christian calendar, therefore there is connections to christendom with egyotology. To deny it is ridiculous.

Anno Domini (AD or A.D.) and Before Christ (BC or B.C.) are designations used to label or number years used with the Julian and Gregorian calendars. This calendar era is based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus of Nazareth, with AD counting years after the start of thisepoch, and BC denoting years before the start of the epoch.

Alternative names for this era include vulgaris aerae (found 1615 in Latin),^[2] "Vulgar Era" (in English, as early as 1635),^[3] "Christian Era" (in English, in 1652),^[4] "Common Era" (in English, 1708),^[5] and "Current Era".^[6] Since 1856,^[7] the alternative abbreviations CE and BCE are sometimes used in place of AD and BC.

There is no difference between BC/AD AND BCE/CE, they are based on the exact same christian calendar based around a fictitious character called "Jesus Christ" who is really only an allegory for the sun and never existed in real.

There is no one in the academia world that would deny that the connections between the BCE/CE chronology and the original BC/AD chronology it is based on. Same models different clothes.

References:

Ephemerides of the Celestiall Motions, for the Yeeres of the Vulgar Era 1633. 1634. 1635. 1636:



Oxford dictionary.


Origin:

Latin, 'in the year of the Lord'

http://oxforddiction...ish/Anno+Domini


Year of the lord? the same calendar that BCE/CE comes from, there are no differences.

[LRW]

kmt_sesh, on 04 January 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

In any case, I am not a practicing Catholic but was raised in the religion,

Thanks for confirming that. Now i can see that you were indoctrinated into christendom, no wonder you wave the flag for chistendom. Mainstream indoctrination into christendom is only exoteric not esoteric.

kmt_sesh, on 04 January 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

Jesus Christ has nothing to do with sun worship.

Oh really? who are you trying to fool? Do you even have a basic understanding of the esoteric nature of christianity? It seems not.

I suggest you look and look carefully.

Jesus christ has always been a personification of the sun, he is a sun deity, his birth is celebrated during winter solstice, a time that is generally celebrated as the return of the sun or rebirth of it.

Again. blatant personification of the sun.



Blatant personification of the sun.




More personification of the sun, it really never ends.



"Christ is the Morning Light, the rising Sun, Mal. 4:2." (Jenkins, 417)

Matthew 17:2:

"And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light."

Revelation 1:16:

"...in his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth issued a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength."

It was Pope Leo X who made the most infamous and damaging statement about Christianity in the history of the Church. His declaration revealed to the world papal knowledge of the Vatican's false presentation of Jesus Christ and unashamedly exposed the puerile nature of the Christian religion. At a lavish Good Friday banquet in the Vatican in 1514, and in the company of "seven intimates" (Annales Ecclesiastici, Caesar Baronius, Folio Antwerp, 1597, tome 14), Leo made an amazing announcement that the Church has since tried hard to invalidate. Raising a chalice of wine into the air, Pope Leo toasted: "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors

Pope Leo X quote: How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors

They even admit it themselves.

kmt_sesh, on 04 January 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

Our basic argument still stands. You are incorrect in assuming Egyptologists use Christianity in their studies of ancient Egypt. Christianity has nothing to do with ancient Egypt.

You don't have an argument. I am perfectly correct in noting that egyptologists have based their history models on an anno domini calendar that was invented by christians, BCE,CE time chronology originates with that calendar. Egyptologists are stooges for christendom.

Since christianity is a sun worshipping cult, it does have connections with ancient egypt, that place had also strong sun worship seen in the inscriptions.

Also, please stop suggesting what i should read or should not read, you're preaching to the choir.

Please cite one credible academic source that says that the BCE/CE chronology did not ultimately originate with the Anno Domini calendar invented by christians?

Good luck with that.

Edited by LRW, 04 January 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[LRW]

Mangoze, on 04 January 2013 - 12:44 AM, said:

So which date system do you propose

One that does not have a relation to any character being described as a lord.

Not everyone will believe in the ramblings of an institution with a history for suppression, their "Jesus Christ" is about as real as micky mouse and his adventures in wonderland.

Christendom has no business sticking its noses into historical research, especially when they have had a notorious reputation for suppressing the religons of others in the past, being branded a heretic by them would warrant execution by them.

Since they have suppressed polytheistic religons, then its no surprise to figure out that they also suppress polytheistic peoples true history. After all, they murdered the tribal leaders of what they called barbaric pagans. That was suppression of the culture.

They also are refusing the public access to their hidden archives.

The Vatican Secret Archives have been estimated to contain 52 miles (84 km) of shelving.

They only grant access to people from their own institutions that were educated by them. . Publication of the indexes, in part or as a whole, is forbidden.

Egyptologists are only their shills.

  

Edited by LRW, 04 January 2013 - 04:09 PM.

[cladking]

TheSearcher, on 04 January 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

Your methodology for translation is, sadly so, rather amateuristic and not so good. I translate on a proffessional level between 4 languages and I wouldn't even dare to make the interpretations you do, based on a incomplete understanding of the cultural background and the exact context the word or words are used in.

I could easely return the question to you : I don't comprehend how you were able to interpret such large a proportion of the ancient words, whilst having no real concept of what they mean or the exact cultural and sociological context. It's all based on your personal interpretation, which in my humble opinion does not make it right.

You know what each of the four langauges you translate mean. You aren't calling any
of these languages a "dead language" and saying you can only "circumscibe" the meaning.
You aren't calling everything you see written in one of the languages "incantations and magic"
and then CORRECTING THE GRAMMAR AS IT APPEARS ETCHED IN STONE!!!!!!!

If you were doing any of these things anyone would be wholly justified in retranslating or re-
interpreting the original work or your translation.

We all derive meaning from context all the time.  It is the nature of modern languages.  It's not
just the difference between "I met a real fox last night" and "I shot a real fox last night" but it's
also the fact that we see and hear  words all time and don't know their meaning or are not fam-
iliar whih the usage. How many of the 75,000 words you know have you actually looked up in dic-
tionary and can utilize?  Egyptologists read these translations and they don't even know the En-
glish word but still feel confident to make pronouncements about meaning. Some translators use
bad English so are translating what they think is gobblety gook into actual gobblty gook.  If you
don't know the translator then you don't know the translation.

I'll put this as simply as possible.  Words in modern languages all take meaning from context.  All
translators of the PT write in modern language.  If the PT wasn't written in this way then it can't be
understood in this way and since it is not understood there is a possibility it was meant in another
way.  In any language word meaning can be deduced from context given a sufficient amount of in-
formation.  Simply stated the PT appears to provide ample information for this purpose.  It appears
to have been written in a totally different format than are taken by modern languages.