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

#1366    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,948 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:27 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 01 December 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:


Still mangling and reinterpreting what the AE wrote 150+ years after the GP, I see.


Utterance 491.
1055a. To say: When N. dies [his] ka will gain power ---------

I didn't say it.  I merely say that what the ancient Egyptians actually said does not support Egyptological beliefs.

We know that later Egyptians believed the king was a Horus god who lived forever.  So, when did they change?

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1367    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,625 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

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

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:29 PM

View Postcladking, on 01 December 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Why don't you show where they said it was a tomb?

Why don't you show where they said anything that supports Egyptological beliefs?

Well, in very few cultures they keep records and seeds  in a cemetery, do they? Well, that is what the whole Giza Plateau is: a Damn big cemetery... but we might also ignore that little fact now that we are fantasizing... an it was a cemetery way before the pyramids ever came into existence as stone age tombs demonstrate.

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

#1368    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,948 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 01 December 2012 - 09:51 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 01 December 2012 - 09:29 PM, said:

Well, in very few cultures they keep records and seeds  in a cemetery, do they? Well, that is what the whole Giza Plateau is: a Damn big cemetery... but we might also ignore that little fact now that we are fantasizing... an it was a cemetery way before the pyramids ever came into existence as stone age tombs demonstrate.

So your contention is the Sphinx is a tomb as well!!!

They said nothing at all except that Neefermaat is he who makes his gods in
words that can not be erased.  How you get ramps, tombs, superstition and
people who don't change out of that I do not know.  How you gewt the Sphinx
being a tomb one minute and the exception to the rule the next minute I do not
know.

What I do know is that we have very little data to work with and most of it is
embraced by Egyptologists when it supports their conclusions and held at arms
lenght when it doesn't.  What I know is there is more evidence it was a seed
vault than that it was a tomb when interpretations are cast aside.  What I know
is there is a very low probability that they were solely tombs or solely anything.
There is a very low probability they were tombs at all unless the people were
very superstitious AND didn't mean what they (their grandchildren if you must)
actually said.  What I know is the evidence doesn't well support mainstream op-
inion.  Saying the evidence does and 5 generations of Egyptologists can't be all
wrong changes nothing.  The fact is they can be wrong and the evidence sug-
gests they are wrong and no argument to the contrary is forthcoming because
there is no evidence outside the paradigm with which to argue.  Did I ever men-
tion that almost no evidence exists?

There is almost no evidence the Sphinx is a tomb.  We don't know what existed
at Giza before the pyramids so saying those things are tombs is also devoid of
evidence.  The list of isn't known is lengthy while the list of what is known is not.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1369    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 7,789 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:08 AM

View PostQuaentum, on 30 November 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

...

The KA was the vital essence that distinguished the difference between a living and dead person and I don't believe had anything to do with the pyramid itself.  The BA was the soul and personality of the person that which made it unique.  This could also have applied to inanimate objects that could be considered having the Ba of their owner.  In the case of G1 it could have the BA of Khufu but would not have a KA as it was not a living thing.

I would respectfully disagree. The ka and ba were both manifestations of the individual, the ka being the representation of the physical needs and the ba the representation of the non-corporeal. "Personality" or "character" are good interpretations of the ba so we are in agreement on that, but the ka was definitely a living, cognizent life force. The Egyptians believed you were born with it, and it went on for eternity so long as it was properly tended to in the tomb—which is what tombs were for (pyramids included).

I think cladking and others have confused themselves with the "pyramid as ka" based on an insufficient basic understanding of Egyptian funerary religion. One of the most common words for "tomb" in all periods of Egyptian history was pr-kA (per ka), which literally translates as "soul house." The tomb was the home in which the ka was meant to dwell forever, and it did not leave that place. When loved ones or priests brought food offerings to a tomb's offering chapel (in the case of pyramids, the mortuary temple), they were providing sustenance to the ka. The relief carvings of cattle butchery, food production, fishing, and fowling so typical of offering chapels were not art, per se, but were assurances to the ka—the ka would always directly benefit from the cattle butchery, food production, fishing, and fowling.

This practice carried over in a wider sense that was already firmly in place by Dynasty 3: tomb statues. One of the ancient Egyptian words for these statues was kA-twt, "ka statue." The ka of the tomb owner was believed to inhabit these statues, and the statues served as another place to dwell in case the mummy was destroyed. The mortuary temples of pyramids were replete with stone statues serving the same purpose. None of Khufu's have survived, but a number have from the complexes of Khafre and Menkaure.

View PostPHFATY, on 01 December 2012 - 07:28 AM, said:

Until we the alternative historians can conclusively rule out that modern carbon dating methods are valid and do in fact work, we should remain skeptics.  The science behind carbon dating although plausible contains wide margins of error.  So until we come up with a better and more accurate way, I will remain a skeptic of the validity of its claims.  The Earth afterall is much older than what carbon dating can accurately or apporiximately imagine.

This is incorrect. At this point in time, as long as the samples are good, carbon dating for something as old as the Great Pyramid (c. 2500 BCE) can accurately produce a date within a century either way. Organic materials from the New Kingdom (c. 1550 BCE) can be accurately dated within around fifty years either way.

Radiocarbon dating is in fact a very solid and reliable science, which is why it's universally employed in archaeology so long as good samples exist at the site. Archaeologists and the various scientists with whom they work do not question the validity of radiocarbon dating. Usually the only folks who do question it are creationists. Given that creationism (a.k.a. intelligent design) is the antithesis of science, I'll trust the scientists on this matter.

Nothing in the archaeological makeup of Giza would require anything more than radiocarbon dating—so long as we're talking about paleolithic, neolithic, predynastic, and dynastic Egypt. C14 dating can accurately measure organic materials up to around 60,000 years of age, so that pretty much covers it all. Other methods of high accuracy exist, such as thermoluminescence to date pottery. However, if a geologist comes into play and wants to date actual stones, numerous other dating techniques can be used (e.g., potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead). This is how we know the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, but such is not really relevant to the archaeological investigations of Egypt.

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

Visit My Blog!

#1370    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 7,789 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:11 AM

View Postcladking, on 01 December 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

So your contention is the Sphinx is a tomb as well!!!

They said nothing at all except that Neefermaat is he who makes his gods in
words that can not be erased.  How you get ramps, tombs, superstition and
people who don't change out of that I do not know.  How you gewt the Sphinx
being a tomb one minute and the exception to the rule the next minute I do not
know.

What I do know is that we have very little data to work with and most of it is
embraced by Egyptologists when it supports their conclusions and held at arms
lenght when it doesn't.  What I know is there is more evidence it was a seed
vault than that it was a tomb when interpretations are cast aside.  What I know
is there is a very low probability that they were solely tombs or solely anything.
There is a very low probability they were tombs at all unless the people were
very superstitious AND didn't mean what they (their grandchildren if you must)
actually said.  What I know is the evidence doesn't well support mainstream op-
inion.  Saying the evidence does and 5 generations of Egyptologists can't be all
wrong changes nothing.  The fact is they can be wrong and the evidence sug-
gests they are wrong and no argument to the contrary is forthcoming because
there is no evidence outside the paradigm with which to argue.  Did I ever men-
tion that almost no evidence exists?

There is almost no evidence the Sphinx is a tomb.  We don't know what existed
at Giza before the pyramids so saying those things are tombs is also devoid of
evidence.  The list of isn't known is lengthy while the list of what is known is not.

Where in the hell did questionmark say the Sphinx was a tomb?

In any case, Nefermaat's tomb is at Meidum, not Giza. I'm willing to bet, in the end, you're acquainted with perhaps 1/32 of 1% of the Giza tomb inscriptions dating to Dynasty 4. Know before ye speak, or something like that.

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

Visit My Blog!

#1371    pbarosso

pbarosso

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,001 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2005

Posted 02 December 2012 - 04:19 AM

i see this thread is still going for some reason so i feel the need to take a dump on it. NO the sphinx and great pyramid are not 12000 yrs old.

the pursuit of knowledge will force you to pick a side. Choose wisely.
                                                --me

#1372    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,948 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 02 December 2012 - 05:15 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 02 December 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

Where in the hell did questionmark say the Sphinx was a tomb?

To be precise he implied anything in a cemetery is a tomb and said Giza was a
cemetery even before the pyramids so by the transitive property the Sphinx must
be a tomb.  I disagree both that the Sphinx was a tomb and that any great pyramid
was a tomb yet they all sit in cemeteries.  

Quote

I'm willing to bet, in the end, you're acquainted with perhaps 1/32 of 1% of the Giza tomb inscriptions dating to Dynasty 4. Know before ye speak, or something like that.

I've read all the books on the Giza mastabas. Well, I made lists of all jobs that might
be related to building pyramids and looked at the pictures anyway.  My attention span
is somewhat limited and there's a lot of googling to do.

The important point that everyone seems to not notice is that no writing from this era
makes any sense except for lists and any writing that doesn't involve grammar.  But
no one seems to be willing to consider the possibility that the language (grammar)
isn't understood.  We know the titles of the builders but we have to assume their be-
liefs coincided with later people because we can't understand what they wrote.  Yet
over and over direct quotes of what they actually said are not consistent with later be-
liefs.  Everything is based on interpretation and the interpretations are not supported
by evidence that is concurrent with the time period that the pyramid and Sphinx are
claimed to have been built.  This lack of support is universal across all evidence types
other than what's interpretative.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1373    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 7,789 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 02 December 2012 - 06:56 AM

View Postcladking, on 02 December 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

To be precise he implied anything in a cemetery is a tomb and said Giza was a
cemetery even before the pyramids so by the transitive property the Sphinx must
be a tomb.  I disagree both that the Sphinx was a tomb and that any great pyramid
was a tomb yet they all sit in cemeteries.  

Questionmark said nothing of the sort. You're misrepresenting him, which is transparent but no less improper to do.

He stated that Giza was a cemetery long before the pyramids were there. On that point he is unequivocally correct. I recall reading of predynastic burials on the Plateau, and tombs dating to the Early Dynastic Period have been excavated at the south end of the Plateau.

Look at many modern, Western cemeteries, particularly those of mostly Christian character. Many of these cemeteries include a church or chapel on the grounds, but a church or chapel is not a tomb (unless there are subterranean crypts, which is no longer common). Better yet for the sake of comparison, the Sphinx was a guardian figure for the Plateau. Many Christian cemeteries have a statue of Jesus or Mary at or near the entrances, where they serve a similar role. No one is saying one of these statues is a tomb.

Questionmark's statement is valid on all levels, so there is no cause to misrepresent him. That Giza was a cemetery throughout the Old Kingdom cannot be questioned in any logical way, given the dizzying number of ancient burials there (including many mummies and other human remains retrieved from tombs and graves).

Quote

I've read all the books on the Giza mastabas. Well, I made lists of all jobs that might
be related to building pyramids and looked at the pictures anyway.  My attention span
is somewhat limited and there's a lot of googling to do.

The Giza mastaba series is a valuable resource and should be carefully read by anyone with a legitimate interest in Giza. This would include you, so I'm glad you've reviewed them but a short attention span won't serve you. Trust me, I know how dreadfully boring those books tend to be, but they're important to digest from cover to cover. Just the same, those books hardly represent a full treatment of all of the inscriptional material on the Plateau. They offer but a small sampling of Giza tombs. I've read dozens of articles just on inscription translations from Giza, including translations of only fragmented inscriptions, and I doubt I myself have done much more than scratch the surface.

You will rarely find legitimate research resources via Google. The internet's collection of informal websites (and a great many crack-pot websites) is of minimal assistance in this regard. Try JSTOR, a very useful and important internet-based database of articles and papers. Osiris.net is also reliable and is more accessible to every-day people but not nearly as inclusive.

Quote

The important point that everyone seems to not notice is that no writing from this era
makes any sense except for lists and any writing that doesn't involve grammar.  But
no one seems to be willing to consider the possibility that the language (grammar)
isn't understood.  We know the titles of the builders but we have to assume their be-
liefs coincided with later people because we can't understand what they wrote.  Yet
over and over direct quotes of what they actually said are not consistent with later be-
liefs.  Everything is based on interpretation and the interpretations are not supported
by evidence that is concurrent with the time period that the pyramid and Sphinx are
claimed to have been built.  This lack of support is universal across all evidence types
other than what's interpretative.

Perhaps none of the writing makes sense to you, but you've never studied the writing or how the language works. You cannot approach it from the perspective of someone who speaks English—a language that didn't even exist contemporary to pharaonic Egypt. In point of fact the grammar is very well understood and solidly evidenced in linguistic studies. There is nothing alien or mysterious about it. Even though ancient Egyptian is a dead language, in grammar it is closely related to Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic, Berber, and other languages of the region. There are plentiful cognates within these languages and similarities in construct and syntax.

So when making such a statement, refrain from saying "we can't understand what they wrote". Such a statement is not framed from knowledge on your part. Be honest and say, "I can't understand what they wrote." There are plenty of us out there, from professional historians to amateur historians such as I, who can and do understand what they wrote. Translating ancient Egyptian is no different in the end from translating Latin or other dead languages preserved in ancient writings, nor is it all that much different from translating modern languages.

The mystery you're trying to present in the ancient language is not based on reality, but serves to support your personal agenda. It doesn't succeed.

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

Visit My Blog!

#1374    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 7,789 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 02 December 2012 - 06:57 AM

View Postpbarosso, on 02 December 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

i see this thread is still going for some reason so i feel the need to take a dump on it. NO the sphinx and great pyramid are not 12000 yrs old.

Well, that says it, then. I guess we're done here. Good show!

(Yeah, I wish it were that simple. :whistle: )

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

Visit My Blog!

#1375    Hanslune

Hanslune

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 916 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pacific Northwest

Posted 02 December 2012 - 07:46 AM

Oh my Cladking is still at I see......yah nothing is more impressive than personal incredulity about the understanding of a language by a guy who cannot read it.....sheesh

Love your stuff Kmt - I come by when I can to to read yours, Cormac's and many others insights


#1376    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 9,176 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 02 December 2012 - 08:05 AM

Hans rears his head and deigns to weigh in!

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#1377    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,625 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

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

Posted 02 December 2012 - 11:19 AM

View Postcladking, on 01 December 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

So your contention is the Sphinx is a tomb as well!!!

They said nothing at all except that Neefermaat is he who makes his gods in
words that can not be erased.  How you get ramps, tombs, superstition and
people who don't change out of that I do not know.  How you gewt the Sphinx
being a tomb one minute and the exception to the rule the next minute I do not
know.

What I do know is that we have very little data to work with and most of it is
embraced by Egyptologists when it supports their conclusions and held at arms
lenght when it doesn't.  What I know is there is more evidence it was a seed
vault than that it was a tomb when interpretations are cast aside.  What I know
is there is a very low probability that they were solely tombs or solely anything.
There is a very low probability they were tombs at all unless the people were
very superstitious AND didn't mean what they (their grandchildren if you must)
actually said.  What I know is the evidence doesn't well support mainstream op-
inion.  Saying the evidence does and 5 generations of Egyptologists can't be all
wrong changes nothing.  The fact is they can be wrong and the evidence sug-
gests they are wrong and no argument to the contrary is forthcoming because
there is no evidence outside the paradigm with which to argue.  Did I ever men-
tion that almost no evidence exists?

There is almost no evidence the Sphinx is a tomb.  We don't know what existed
at Giza before the pyramids so saying those things are tombs is also devoid of
evidence.  The list of isn't known is lengthy while the list of what is known is not.

Not every monument on a cemetery is a tomb, though they are dead related, like funerary temples and funerary monuments. The sphinx seems to be a funerary monument... no sarcophagus inside, you know?

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

#1378    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,948 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:22 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 02 December 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

Questionmark said nothing of the sort. You're misrepresenting him, which is transparent but no less improper to do.

If you're right that he wasn't implying that the pyramid is a tomb because it sits in a cemetery
then he simply evaded the question about where is the evidence that says they are tombs.  No
one wants to admit there is no evidence to show they were tombs and then they want to hit
Scott Creighton (et al) over the head with the assumption they were tombs.  And it goes on and
on.  To sum up the orthodox position; they must be tombs therefore it is perfectly acceptable
to assume they were tombs and anything derived from this assumption is valid.

Quote

So when making such a statement, refrain from saying "we can't understand what they wrote". The mystery you're trying to present in the ancient language is not based on reality, but serves to support your personal agenda. It doesn't succeed.

This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my "personal agenda".  This is about meaning
and the actual beliefs of the great pyramid buiulders and the authors of the PT.  This is about the
simple fact that Egyptologists say they don't understand the meaning of this work and this is sup-
ported by the fact that they each say it's a dead language whose meaning can only be circums-
cribed.  But most importantly this is about the fact that the literal meaning of the translation in our
languages don't support the assumptions which orthodoxy uses to understand and argue about
the great pyramids.  The fact is there is no direct evidence of any sort that the Great Pyramid was
a tomb yet there is shallow direct evidence it was a seed vault.  The fact is the evidence for water
erosion on the Sphinx might well be anomalous to traditional dating.  I might not know what all this
means but I do know that there is very little evidence and people are playing fast and loose with it.
Meanwhile the powers that be can't be bothered to do the testing that would answer questions like
whether there are flecks of gold or flecks of grain husks in the cracks in the pyramids.  They can't
be bothered to do any of the basic science that would resolve some of the issues.  They can't be
bothered to look at the evidence in any light other than 150 year old assumptions.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#1379    Oniomancer

Oniomancer

    Soulless Minion Of Orthodoxy

  • Member
  • 3,266 posts
  • Joined:20 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • Question everything

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:23 PM

View Postcladking, on 02 December 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

To be precise he implied anything in a cemetery is a tomb and said Giza was a
cemetery even before the pyramids so by the transitive property the Sphinx must
be a tomb.  I disagree both that the Sphinx was a tomb and that any great pyramid
was a tomb yet they all sit in cemeteries.  

This is the gatehouse at Evergreen cemetery at Gettysburg:

http://en.wikipedia....etery_gatehouse

By your logic, this too ought to be a tomb.

"Apparently the Lemurians drank Schlitz." - Intrepid "Real People" reporter on finding a mysterious artifact in the depths of Mount Shasta.

#1380    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,948 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 02 December 2012 - 03:35 PM

View PostHanslune, on 02 December 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Oh my Cladking is still at I see......yah nothing is more impressive than personal incredulity about the understanding of a language by a guy who cannot read it.....sheesh

You read enough of these translations and you soon find that it is being
translated into gobblety gook.  Imagine that!!  The translations sometimes
include phrases that aren't sentences and words that don't exist. Mean-
while the translators want to "fix" the grammar in which they were written
when they don't understand the language they're translating or the one
to which they are translating.    

Yes, I am incredulous.  Part of the incredulity though is that I get so little
argument or assistance and that no one else seems to notice.  It's incred-
ible that anyone could consider any of these answers cut and dried.  We
have a mummified ham sandwich in a poke and there's nothing wrong with
that.

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users