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

#106    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,624 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 04 June 2012 - 12:42 AM

I await Saru's attention, or that of a Mod acting on behalf of him. If Saru or one of the Mods feels I've overreacted, so be it. I'll apologize for that. For the moment I apologize to the group for the negative tone some of my own posts have taken in this discussion. It's not usually how I care to conduct myself, and I know I am capable of better.

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

Visit My Blog!

#107    Time Spy

Time Spy

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:here and there... from time to time...

  • Examining history delivers a clearer perspective on tomorrow, while providing a closer focus on the most important moment of all, right here and now.

Posted 04 June 2012 - 12:45 AM

Respectfully to both Kmt and Scott.  You guys please get back to the debate and don't make it a quarell.  Like you said Kmt.  There is no use in seeing a good thread get locked up because of an off topic aggravation.  This is a good thread, so was the Nephilim pyramid one for example.

Likewise don't either of you just 'go away', and PLEASE don't ignore each other.  That ruins it for everyone.  Harte is a good example of not hearing anything from anyone he doesn't agree with.  He has said so himself, that ignoring is his choice.  That is really too bad, because his input was appreciated by myself, agree or disagree, which is the purpose of the debate, to discuss.


#108    Saru

Saru

    Site Webmaster

  • 20,032 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious." - Albert Einstein

Posted 04 June 2012 - 10:02 AM

The key point here is to avoid making things personal - attack the points being presented, not the person who has made those points. Furthermore if you believe someone else is acting inappropriately then the best thing to do is ignore them and hit the 'report' button, don't engage them with more of the same.

Let's try to keep this discussion civil and on topic please.

Thank you.


#109    Sensible Logic

Sensible Logic

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • If I alter the reality to fit the fantasy I can prove anything.

Posted 04 June 2012 - 01:02 PM

View Posttri-lobe, on 03 June 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

HEY SS,

Thank you for your input.....it really help the thread move forword in a positive drection.....


are you part of the cabal.....if so bite me ......are you part of the unpreductive dead wood on this forum .......

So how does your post, particularly the part in bold move this thread forward in a positive direction?

The sheer odds of a civilization advancing, developing space travel, deciding to search our little corner of the galaxy, arriving at just the right time and actually helping us is so huge, you would have a greater chance of winning several lotteries in a single year. - SensibleLogic

#110    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,431 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 04 June 2012 - 02:20 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 03 June 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

Reader responds to Vandecruys:



Within the geological community, this particular debate is far from over. Fact of the matter remains, Reader's opinion of an earlier Sphinx is supported and corroborated by what the AEs themselves have written in the Inventory Stele (believed to have been based on a much more ancient and original text).

Best wishes,

SC

Who believes this, Scott?

From what I have read about the Inventory Stela, it is essentially a 26th Dynasty view/perspective of the 4th Dynasty, and has no 'ancient source' attributable to it's creation.

So, what indeed are the "facts of the matter", in this case?

Certainly not that the Inventory Stela adds any credibility to Reader's thesis. That thesis will gain credibility if it shows it's claims are more supported by the evidence (archaeology) than the orthodoxy. To date, that has not been the case and the only debate ongoing is concerning that thesis - orthodoxy stills stands as the best fit for the available evidence.

Edited by Leonardo, 04 June 2012 - 02:20 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#111    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,394 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 04 June 2012 - 03:42 PM

View Postlakeview rud, on 03 June 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

Blaming recent pollution for the apparent weathering of the Sphinx is quite a stretch; please see Robert Temple's book about the mysterious origins of the temple of Anubis... He makes some pretty strange claims but the collection of very old photographs in the book attest to the erosion and also to the fact that the sphinx has been modified to the point where you loose sight of the original.  His previous books were short on research but on this one he seems to have done his homework. Particularly when it comes to examining the head of the sphinx to find out who best fits the look.  He suggests that its Amenhotep(?) from something like the 17th dynasty based on facial similarities and the fact that the nemes headress fits the 17th dynasty.  No way that that was a pharoah from the 4th dynasty!!  So was it originally Anubis? (a dog!!) Tough to tell but that would make a perfect guardian for a necropolis.  He also suggests that the weathering is due to the enclosure being flooded periodically for ceremonies which might please you folks who cannot stomach 10,000 BC as a date.  Since you cannot accurately date stone and the amount of stone quarried out of the enclosure was minimal compared to what was used on the pyramids, I'd say that the actual date of its creation is still very much in doubt. More research is needed...

Certainly not in the pollution deterioration of sandstone, this gargoyle was restored 5y ears ago:



They could have saved their money.

Attached File  gargoyle.jpg   12.19K   3 downloads
Posted ImagePosted Image

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#112    Eldorado

Eldorado

    Unforgiven

  • Member
  • 10,465 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

  • I reckon so.

Posted 04 June 2012 - 03:44 PM

Any word on the search for his nose?  Tis a damned disgrace, stealing a God's nose.


#113    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 04 June 2012 - 04:06 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 04 June 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:


Quote

Leo: Who believes this, Scott?

SC: Anyone with a brain who can apply critical thinking.  In the words of good old John Anthony West:

Quote

"...To dismiss it [the Inventory Stele] because of its Late Kingdom date is like having only a 20th Century translation of the Bible available and concluding from that, that the Bible is a 20th century document because of the language.

The Inventory Stela is a suggestive piece to the puzzle, no more than that, and we have never claimed otherwise. Without it, the geologiy would still be the geology. Until ***an and the Ma'at pack of attack Chihuahuas find a way to explain away the differential weathering to the Sphinx enclosure wall (along with the other extensive marshaled array of geological evidence) the geology stands and refutes the argument from archeological context." – from here.

Quote

Leo: From what I have read about the Inventory Stela, it is essentially a 26th Dynasty view/perspective of the 4th Dynasty, and has no 'ancient source' attributable to it's creation.

SC: Oh sure. We find repair work on the back of the head of particular dimensions that is described almost in the same fashion as on the Inventory Stele.  We find a sycamore tree growing close to the Sphinx – just as stated in the Inventory Stele.  We find paint on the side of the Sphinx’s head – just as stated in the Inventory Stele.  We have a pyramid attributed to Khufu – just as stated in the Inventory Stele.

So what do we have then?  We have a stone record that makes at least four specific statements that have been checked and are verifiable facts that cannot be denied (although some will argue that it was not Khufu’s pyramid that is being referred to in the Stele).  If this cannot have been made up what must this all be to you, then?  Oh, let me guess – it begins with the letter ‘c’.  Oh yes, ‘coincidence’.  Coincidence - the last refuge of the bankrupt argument.  You are perfectly happy to accept all these verifiable facts stated on the stele (you don’t really have a choice) but just not the part where it states that Khufu repaired the Sphinx and only because that one piece of information upsets the cosy, we-got-it-all-figured-out world of Egypt-apology.

So there you go folks – another example of wanting their cake and eating it; cherry-picking at its absolute finest.

Quote

Leo: So, what indeed are the "facts of the matter", in this case?

Certainly not that the Inventory Stela adds any credibility to Reader's thesis.

SC: No one said the Inventory Stele gave credibility to Reader’s thesis (or vice-versa). These are two independent pieces of evidence from entirely different sources (fields of study) that essentially say the same thing – the Sphinx predates Khufu, ergo, could not have been crafted by Rachaf. Whether you like it or not, accept it or not or even acknowledge it or not (I don’t expect that you ever will but that’s not the point) – these two independent sources state in their own way that the Sphinx predates Khufu (ergo Rachaf) thus they independently corroborate this statement; two different witnesses testifying to the same central truth. The 'sum of the parts' and all that.

Quote

Leo: That thesis will gain credibility if it shows it's claims are more supported by the evidence (archaeology) than the orthodoxy. To date, that has not been the case and the only debate ongoing is concerning that thesis –

SC: Let me remind you of what you said earlier:

Quote

"...Ancient Egyptian history and archaeology is not one of the subjects I know an awful lot about." – Leonardo from post #53 here.

Your quote (above) really sums it up for you.  Best leave such matters to the professionals and let them argue it out.

Quote

Leo: …orthodoxy stills stands as the best fit for the available evidence.

SC: But you WOULD say that, wouldn’t you. I would hardly expect an Egypt-apologist to say anything else.  I do not see that you are here to learn anything new and have it change your mind since your mind was made up long ago and already has all the answers. Let me paraphrase your above statement for you:

“Orthodoxy still stands as the best fit for the available evidence that we choose to consider as evidence. Any piece of evidence that does not fit our paradigm we simply ignore.”

Quote

He who believes he has all the answers hasn't been asked all the questions - Confucius

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 04 June 2012 - 04:10 PM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#114    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,624 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 04 June 2012 - 04:16 PM

View PostLeonardo, on 04 June 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

Who believes this, Scott?

From what I have read about the Inventory Stela, it is essentially a 26th Dynasty view/perspective of the 4th Dynasty, and has no 'ancient source' attributable to it's creation.

So, what indeed are the "facts of the matter", in this case?

Certainly not that the Inventory Stela adds any credibility to Reader's thesis. That thesis will gain credibility if it shows it's claims are more supported by the evidence (archaeology) than the orthodoxy. To date, that has not been the case and the only debate ongoing is concerning that thesis - orthodoxy stills stands as the best fit for the available evidence.

An astute observation. Many people make the mistake of taking the Inventory Stela at face value—especially in fringe circles, where the Great Pyramid and adjacent monuments are envisioned as something otherworldly or apart from the norm. The language of the stela and some of the deities mentioned obviously postdate Dynasty 4 by a great length of time.

I am not aware of any evidence, on or apart from the stela, suggesting its inscription comes from an earlier record. Rather, it fits well within Dynasty 26, the Saite Period, when Giza experienced a resurgence. The people of Dynasty 26 would not have had much practical understanding of peoples and events from more than 1,800 years before their own time.

The Inventory Stela is no more an historical record than is the Famine Stela, which is another oft-misunderstood monument.

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

Visit My Blog!

#115    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 04 June 2012 - 04:29 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 04 June 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Quote

KMT: An astute observation.

SC: No – the same old, tired Egypt-apologist objection.

Quote

KMT: Many people make the mistake of taking the Inventory Stela at face value—

SC: Just as the Egypt-apologists take the Dream Stele at face value. “Oh looky! It mentions ‘Chaf’.  Oh my! That means Rachaf musta built it!”  Where, of course, it says no such thing. But the Egypt-apologists just take it at “face value”.

Quote

KMT: …especially in fringe circles…

SC: Oh, the “fringe”.  I keep telling you – it’s a really great place to be.  You get a great perspective from here. You should take some time off, spend some quality time here.

Quote

KMT: …where the Great Pyramid and adjacent monuments are envisioned as something otherworldly or apart from the norm.

SC: “Otherworldly”? No. “Apart from the norm”?  Well, how many Great Pyramids are there in the world? Wasn’t really a “norm” thing to do by any stretch of the imagination, fringe or otherwise.

Quote

KMT: The language of the stela and some of the deities mentioned obviously postdate Dynasty 4 by a great length of time.

SC: I guess the Bible I have here must be a 21st century document then?

Quote

KMT: I am not aware of any evidence, on or apart from the stela, suggesting its inscription comes from an earlier record. Rather, it fits well within Dynasty 26, the Saite Period, when Giza experienced a resurgence. The people of Dynasty 26 would not have had much practical understanding of peoples and events from more than 1,800 years before their own time.

SC: But those of only 1,000 years before their own time would?

Quote

KMT: The Inventory Stela is no more an historical record than is the Famine Stela, which is another oft-misunderstood monument.

SC: Except that the Inventory Stele makes (at least) four statements of verifiable fact which, were that all it said, it would most probably be accepted into the Kirk of Egyptology. But it won’t ever be because it says that one thing that debars it – Khufu repaired the Sphinx!  Jings, crivens, help-ma-boab!  How is this heresy possible?

Answer – we’ll just ignore it and carry on regardless. If the heresy is not spoken of, it'll be forgotten.  Out of sight, out of mind and all that.

How so very convenient, how so very expedient.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 04 June 2012 - 04:32 PM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#116    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,624 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 04 June 2012 - 05:06 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 04 June 2012 - 04:06 PM, said:

SC: Anyone with a brain who can apply critical thinking.  In the words of good old John Anthony West:





SC: Oh sure. We find repair work on the back of the head of particular dimensions that is described almost in the same fashion as on the Inventory Stele.  We find a sycamore tree growing close to the Sphinx – just as stated in the Inventory Stele.  We find paint on the side of the Sphinx’s head – just as stated in the Inventory Stele.  We have a pyramid attributed to Khufu – just as stated in the Inventory Stele.

So what do we have then?  We have a stone record that makes at least four specific statements that have been checked and are verifiable facts that cannot be denied (although some will argue that it was not Khufu’s pyramid that is being referred to in the Stele).  If this cannot have been made up what must this all be to you, then?  Oh, let me guess – it begins with the letter ‘c’.  Oh yes, ‘coincidence’.  Coincidence - the last refuge of the bankrupt argument.  You are perfectly happy to accept all these verifiable facts stated on the stele (you don’t really have a choice) but just not the part where it states that Khufu repaired the Sphinx and only because that one piece of information upsets the cosy, we-got-it-all-figured-out world of Egypt-apology.

...

J.A. West is hardly the source you'd want to use. He's not an historian. West is far from the worst of the fringe sect, but he's not terribly well informed when it comes to the meat of historical facts. Actually, he probably is well informed, judging by his intelligence, but as with most fringe writers, he ignores facts where convenient and invents scenarios to fill in the blanks. The analogy of the Bible, for instance, is a clever one but not exactly realistic.

There are plenty of well-researched papers and books about the Inventory Stela written by professional historians who know what they're talking about, so it would certainly be sounder to turn to them than to West. Off the top of my head I would suggest the description of it by Christiane Zivie-Coche in her book Sphinx: History of a Monument. The relevant passage from the Inventory Stela is translated as such (Zivie-Coche 2002: 84):


Live the Horus Medjed, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Cheops,

given life. He found the house of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramids, next to
the house of Haurun, northwest of the house of Osiris, Lord of Rasetau.
He (re)built the pyramid of the king's daughter Henutsen beside this
temple. He made an inventory, carved on a stela, for his mother Isis, the
mother of the god, Hathor, Mistress of the Sky. He restored for her the
divine offerings and (re)built her temple in stone, that which he found
in ruins being renewed, and the gods in their place.


For one thing, there is no evidence for a cult of Isis in Khufu's time. She does not enter the pharaonic historical record until late in the Old Kingdom, so there's a clear sign that the stela is not based on an earlier historical record but in fact dates to long after Khufu's time.

Next, "the house of Isis" refers to a temple that Khufu was supposed to have rebuilt. I've already established how Isis was not even a state deity in Dynasty 4, but "the house" refers to a temple for her at Giza. There was in fact a small temple to Isis at Giza, specifically at the site of the queen's pyramid designated G1c. But this little Isis temple cannot be dated to any earlier than Dynasty 21, early in the Third Intermediate Period—and a very long time after the Old Kingdom. The temple was built on what had been a small mortuary temple erected for the royal woman who had been buried in G1c. The Isis temple simply did not exist in Khufu's time, nor could it have.

The Inventory Stela describes G1c as "the king's daughter Henutsen," but there is no attestation of a woman by this name in the family of Khufu (Dodson and Hilton 2004: 52-53).

These are the sorts of things which prove the Inventory Stela is not based on an historical record. There's more than this, but this establishes the case well enough. J.A. West is ultimately pulling his argument from Zecharia Sitchin, who is the origin of so much uninformed fringe woo-woo, and I wrote a more detailed refutation of Sitchin's take on the Inventory Stela in the OP of this discussion.


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

Visit My Blog!

#117    Sensible Logic

Sensible Logic

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • If I alter the reality to fit the fantasy I can prove anything.

Posted 04 June 2012 - 05:55 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 04 June 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

SC: No – the same old, tired Egypt-apologist objection.



SC: Just as the Egypt-apologists take the Dream Stele at face value. “Oh looky! It mentions ‘Chaf’.  Oh my! That means Rachaf musta built it!”  Where, of course, it says no such thing. But the Egypt-apologists just take it at “face value”.



SC: Oh, the “fringe”.  I keep telling you – it’s a really great place to be.  You get a great perspective from here. You should take some time off, spend some quality time here.



SC: “Otherworldly”? No. “Apart from the norm”?  Well, how many Great Pyramids are there in the world? Wasn’t really a “norm” thing to do by any stretch of the imagination, fringe or otherwise.



SC: I guess the Bible I have here must be a 21st century document then?



SC: But those of only 1,000 years before their own time would?



SC: Except that the Inventory Stele makes (at least) four statements of verifiable fact which, were that all it said, it would most probably be accepted into the Kirk of Egyptology. But it won’t ever be because it says that one thing that debars it – Khufu repaired the Sphinx!  Jings, crivens, help-ma-boab!  How is this heresy possible?

Answer – we’ll just ignore it and carry on regardless. If the heresy is not spoken of, it'll be forgotten.  Out of sight, out of mind and all that.

How so very convenient, how so very expedient.

Best wishes,

SC

You quite readily dismiss the work of people who have spent years and decades in the field studying Egypt and it's works.  Perhaps you can tell me how much time you have spent there doing your own research?

The sheer odds of a civilization advancing, developing space travel, deciding to search our little corner of the galaxy, arriving at just the right time and actually helping us is so huge, you would have a greater chance of winning several lotteries in a single year. - SensibleLogic

#118    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 04 June 2012 - 06:12 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 04 June 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:


KMT: J.A. West is hardly the source you'd want to use. He's not an historian.

SC: People can check for themselves West’s Credentials here. From what I’ve read of you:

”I state flat out that I am not a professional historian. I am not an Egyptologist or Assyriologist or anything else of the sort. I categorize myself as an amateur historian.”

SC: I think the above comparison says it all really. I know where I would place my money. Don’t misunderstand me here. I have read (and still read) many, many mainstream books on Egyptology. But I am not so snobbish as to limit my reading to some ‘approved list’ of authors. It’s my view that one can only ever get a full grasp of anything by looking at the subject matter (regardless of what it is) from every conceivable angle. In the case of Egyptology I read books from both sides of the argument since it is often the case that one side will mention something that the other has never before mentioned.  That way, having considered all the competing evidence I can agree, disagree or indeed, form my own opinion.

KMT: West is far from the worst of the fringe sect, but he's not terribly well informed when it comes to the meat of historical facts.

SC: From the credentials presented, I rather suspect good old JAW would eat you as a light snack.

KMT: Actually, he probably is well informed, judging by his intelligence, but as with most fringe writers, he ignores facts where convenient and invents scenarios to fill in the blanks.

SC: The kettle, black, calling, the pot – rearrange into a well known phrase.  

KMT: The analogy of the Bible, for instance, is a clever one but not exactly realistic.

SC: Not realistic? Prove it.

KMT: There are plenty of well-researched papers and books about the Inventory Stela written by professional historians who know what they're talking about, so it would certainly be sounder to turn to them than to West.

SC: I wasn’t quoting JAW as an authority on the Inventory Stele but rather for his clever “analogy of the Bible”.

KMT: Off the top of my head …

SC: Good to see that you’ve found your head again (after losing it). :clap:


KMT: I would suggest the description of it by Christiane Zivie-Coche in her book Sphinx: History of a Monument. The relevant passage from the Inventory Stela is translated as such (Zivie-Coche 2002: 84):
Live the Horus Medjed, the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Cheops,
given life. He found the house of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramids, next to
the house of Haurun, northwest of the house of Osiris, Lord of Rasetau.
He (re)built the pyramid of the king's daughter Henutsen beside this
temple. He made an inventory, carved on a stela, for his mother Isis, the
mother of the god, Hathor, Mistress of the Sky. He restored for her the
divine offerings and (re)built her temple in stone, that which he found
in ruins being renewed, and the gods in their place.


KMT: For one thing, there is no evidence for a cult of Isis in Khufu's time.

SC: Who said there existed a cult? The Stele merely makes reference to Isis as a goddess and Osiris as Lord. Cults die out but the god/goddesses names live on.

KMT: She does not enter the pharaonic historical record until late in the Old Kingdom,

SC: Not according to the Inventory Stele.

KMT:L …so there's a clear sign that the stela is not based on an earlier historical record but in fact dates to long after Khufu's time.

SC: How many times does it have to be said to you?  No one is disputing the fact that the Inventory Stele dates to long after the 4th Dynasty.  So what!  Just because my Bible is written in modern language does not mean it wasn’t based on much older, original texts. The Inventory Stele is inscribed with statements of verifiable fact.  VERIFIABLE FACT.   So why accept the verifiable facts but not that one fact that Khufu repaired the Sphinx?  Tell us – why?  Or do you just think the Saite priests of the 26th dynasty knew about Khufu doing all these things at Giza but LIED about him repairing the Sphinx?  What benefit would such a 'lie' have been to them? This statement of Khufu repairing the Sphinx is almost stated in passing, as if it didn't mean anything to the Saite priests because they knew it to be the truth - they knew the Sphinx predated Khufu. That simple truth of Khufu repairing the Sphinx was not in any way a problem to these priests as it is to modern Egyptology and its apologists. The priests simply stated fact - a simple fact that has become somewhat inconvenient to Egyptology and its apologists.

KMT: Next, "the house of Isis" refers to a temple that Khufu was supposed to have rebuilt. I've already established how Isis was not even a state deity in Dynasty 4, but "the house" refers to a temple for her at Giza.

SC: You’ve established absolutely NOTHING because you have established it ONLY through dismissing a critical piece of evidence that does not fit into your paradigm. When you allow for the Inventory Stele (which there is no reason NOT to since it speaks of verifiable facts) then your whole argument crumbles to dust and is seen for the bogus argument it really is.  Use ALL the evidence, not just the parts that suit you. And don’t just dismiss evidence because you find them inconvenient.

KMT: There was in fact a small temple to Isis at Giza, specifically at the site of the queen's pyramid designated G1c. But this little Isis temple cannot be dated to any earlier than Dynasty 21, early in the Third Intermediate Period—and a very long time after the Old Kingdom. The temple was built on what had been a small mortuary temple erected for the royal woman who had been buried in G1c. The Isis temple simply did not exist in Khufu's time, nor could it have.

SC: Except the Inventory Stele tells us it did.  Deal with it – without dismissing it.

KMT: The Inventory Stela describes G1c as "the king's daughter Henutsen," but there is no attestation of a woman by this name in the family of Khufu (Dodson and Hilton 2004: 52-53).

SC: And I am sure the Saite Priests were closer in time and had more records at their disposal that Dodson and Hilton. There’s no name of ‘Khufu’ in the Abydos King List either – how many authorities are you going to quote who say that there is?

KMT: These are the sorts of things which prove the Inventory Stela is not based on an historical record.

SC: Except the Inventory Stele disputes what you write because it has recorded events of verifiable fact.  What – it’s all just a coincidence to you?  Of course it is.  Coincidence – the last refuge of the bankrupt argument.

KMT: There's more than this, but this establishes the case well enough.

SC: Only in ‘Planet John’.

KMT: [snip]

SC: Sitchin?? What the heck are you twittering about now? Wakey-wakey, McFly  - we’re discussing the SPHINX.  Stick to the topic.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 04 June 2012 - 06:33 PM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#119    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 801 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 04 June 2012 - 06:15 PM

View PostSensible Logic, on 04 June 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

You quite readily dismiss the work of people who have spent years and decades in the field studying Egypt and it's works.  Perhaps you can tell me how much time you have spent there doing your own research?

Have you seen how the Egypt-apologists on this Forum dismiss authorities such as Hawass and Lehner when it suits them.  Go have a look.  You'll find it enlightening.

Best wishes,

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#120    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,431 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 04 June 2012 - 06:28 PM

View PostScott Creighton, on 04 June 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

SC: How many times does it have to be said to you?  No one is disputing the fact that the Inventory Stele dates to long after the 4th Dynasty.  So what!  Just because my Bible is written in modern language does not mean it wasn’t based on much older, original texts. The Inventory Stele is inscribed with statements of verifiable fact.  VERIFIABLE FACT.   So why accept the verifiable facts but not that one fact that Khufu repaired the Sphinx?  Tell us – why?  Or do you just think the Saite priests of the 26th dynasty lied about Khufu doing all these other things at Giza but DIDN’T repair the Sphinx?

Why should a few veriable facts obscure that much of what was written on the Inventory Stela is supposition? Any good author/writer/scribe can build a novel/false history around a few verifiable facts, and that doesn't mean the rest of what was written is factual, or accurate.

Because the Stela is not completely reliable, what is accepted to be reliable has to be gleaned from other sources. Those other sources tell us the Sphinx post-dates Khufu, so the inscription stating Khufu repaired the Sphinx is held to be unreliable. Very reasonable and logical.

If the Sphinx can be reliably placed pre-Khafre, then I'm sure the Inventory Stela will get another look.

Quote

SC: Who said there existed a cult? The Stele merely makes reference to Isis as a goddess and Osiris as Lord. Cults die out but the god/goddesses names live on.

The Ancient Egyptians were clever, but they were also practical enough to only build temples when there were worshippers who would use them. I doubt they were so clever as to think "Hey, let's build a temple to Isis, even though no-one will use it, because it'll bamboozle people digging up ruins a few thousand years from now."

Where there is a temple, there is a cult.

Edited by Leonardo, 04 June 2012 - 06:31 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users