Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Big Bad Voodoo

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

1,651 posts in this topic

SC: Perhaps start with Murtadi, Saurid.

Searching for Murtadi, the only reference I found outside of fringe sites going back to about 2008 was the book "The natural genesis: or second part of a book of the beginnings" by Gerald Massey published in 1883. Reading the appropriate part of the book and comparing it to the fringe sites, I find problems with the story. Saurid is supposedly Khufu who lived 300 years before the flood but used the Great Pyramid as his abode alongside Noah during the flood. The pyramids were to contain, among other things, the bodies of the kings and were to be engraved with all things told him (Khufu) by the wise men.

When you look at what has been found so far about what Murtadi supposedly wrote, you find contradictions and elements of the story that are just plain false, and it pretty much shows the writings to be a story but not a historical account. If the 1672 translation could be found and the story were different, lacking the problems of what has been found, then perhaps it might support the theory. As it stands now though, it does not support the recovery vault theory.

SC: But catastrophe *did* occur. The Old Kingdom collapsed and it is becoming clearer that this resulted from sudden and dramatic climate change. The pyramids were breached and what had been contained therein was removed. The AEs tell us they did this in their own words.

SC: Nope. When the kingdom collapsed along with the rest of the Near East cultures, the pyramid contents would become vital. Why do you think that these other cultures faded from history after this collapse and yet the AEs were able to revivicate their civilisation and continue, not as the identical kingdom, but very close to what had been before the collapse? What did the AE do differently from their neighbours that allowed them to restart their civilisation after the catastrophic collapse?

The major drought in the 22nd century BCE was a large part of the reason for the collapse but not the only reason. The long reign of Pepi II caused problems for the succession of the throne and ruling families of the various provinces had grown resulting in intense rivalries and warfare.

Their reunification was not due to any materials in a recovery vault but because of an invasion of Upper Egypt in the 11th dynasty.

If the catastrophe was a bad as believed and the materials in the supposed recovery vaults was necessary, why did they not touch what was stored below Djoser's Pyramid?

SC: In which case, why bother with the Ascending Passage and why bother plug it with three granite blocks? The point here is that re-entry was needed and anticipated in the RVT but *not* the tomb theory. If you were hauling the king’s body up the Well Shaft there was no need to create the AP or to plug it.

As I said it was just a guess. However, you would not expect to haul every bit of treasure and royal goods that was to be buried with the king up the well shaft. Since the other pyramids had no AP, it is my guess that it was created to keep grave robbers from thinking of looking for one. They would have concentrated on the LP as that was common in all the pyramids before the Great Pyramid. A way to hide the king in plain site so to speak.

SC: Okay, I think something has gone awry here. The bull bones were found by Belzoni in the stone box of G2, not in G1. Belzoni sent them to London to be checked. Some Arab legends describe a dark pitch-like substance having been all that was found in the granite box in the KC of the GP. When earth, grain and water are mixed and left for decades/centuries/millennia, the grain will decay into the earth, turning into a dark pitch-like substance thus suggesting that the granite box did indeed serve as an archetype ‘Osiris Bed’.

I think I got mixed up as youtr post concerned both G1 and G2 but I somehow saw it referring to G1 only. Having read Belzoni's book online, he does not indicate that he shipped the bones anywhere only that he saw they were the bones of a bull. The arid conditions of the area would have dried out the dirt long before it could become a pitch like substance.

SC: You are quite unfamiliar with the wider RVT. Bull bones found in the stone box of G2 do indeed support the RVT.

SC: Exactly. You might want to have a read over this thread, The Birth of Osiris.

Yes the bones do support a possible ritual but not a recovery vault. The bones were never checked in any way to even get a rough idea of their age so they could have been placed in there well after the ontents of the pyramid were taken.

SC: It’s there. As I said before – better you do your own research than have me spoon-feed it to you.

I almost always do a thorough search which is how I can find things like Belzoni's book online and why I can say the only references to Osiris Beds I found were from the New Kingdom and later. Instead of making comments like spoon feeding, perhaps you would like to post a link to something that backs up your claim that they were used prior to that period.

SC: The ‘Osiris Bed’ with seed and earth (stated in some legends to have been found in G1 by al-Mamun) contained the Ka of the ‘pyramid body’. As Cladking has oft told us – the Pyramid is the Ka of the King. The bull bones found within the granite box of G2 (another part of the dismembered ‘body of Osiris’) would have been placed there as the Ba within the ‘body of Osiris’ i.e. the pyramids. As the Pyramid Texts clearly state: ‘This pyramid is Osiris… this construction is Osiris.’ The granite boxes within ‘the body of Osiris’ contained the soul aspects of Ka and Ba – imo.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

We are coming up with more accurate methods, like calibrating according to sediments in moors and lake that have been undisturbed for thousands of years, we know how old the sediments are by layering, we just have to see the margin of error in the carbon. By doing that at half a dozen locations all around the world the margin of error comes down to a few decades instead of a few centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: But catastrophe *did* occur. The Old Kingdom collapsed and it is becoming clearer that this resulted from sudden and dramatic climate change. The pyramids were breached and what had been contained therein was removed. The AEs tell us they did this in their own words.

CMA: Care to try again? The Ancient Egyptians, meaning those of the 4th Dynasty who actually built the Giza Pyramids, tell us no such thing.

SC: Once again you plod into this discussion with your big banana feet and completely misrepresent what has been said. Where do I say in my statement above that it was the AEs of the 4th Dynasty that breached the pyramids? The Old Kingdom did *not* collapse with the 4th dynasty. Why would the people of the 4th dynasty breach the pyramids they were building that they believed would be required around 300 years in their future?

Read what I write and *not* what you think I have written and *stop* misrepresenting my statements.

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Perhaps start with Murtadi, Saurid.

Q: Searching for Murtadi, the only reference I found outside of fringe sites going back to about 2008 was the book "The natural genesis: or second part of a book of the beginnings" by Gerald Massey published in 1883. Reading the appropriate part of the book and comparing it to the fringe sites, I find problems with the story. Saurid is supposedly Khufu who lived 300 years before the flood but used the Great Pyramid as his abode alongside Noah during the flood. The pyramids were to contain, among other things, the bodies of the kings and were to be engraved with all things told him (Khufu) by the wise men.

When you look at what has been found so far about what Murtadi supposedly wrote, you find contradictions and elements of the story that are just plain false, and it pretty much shows the writings to be a story but not a historical account. If the 1672 translation could be found and the story were different, lacking the problems of what has been found, then perhaps it might support the theory. As it stands now though, it does not support the recovery vault theory.

SC: Well, to be honest, I would not expect you to say anything else since it seems to me that your mind has been made up even before you entered into this discussion. The fact remains, whether you agree or not, we have texts from Arab chroniclers claimed to be from the Ancient Egyptian builders of the early, giant pyramids. These texts state that the pyramids were constructed to store all that was “of esteem in the king’s treasury” (i.e. important recovery items) to ensure the kingdom might be reborn. The catalyst event for the decision to construct the pyramid recovery vaults was the observation that the stars in the heavens had changed their course. There is much in the Arab chronicles that cannot be externally corroborated but there are two essential elements that can. We have scientific evidence that the Earth’s axis was disturbed around the time of the early pyramid-building age. A disturbance of the Earth’s axis would, of course, appear to the ancients that the stars had changed their course. Another part of the story that we have independent corroboratory evidence of is their use to store all “that was of esteem in the kingdom”. This would, naturally, include all manner of seed types, storage/distribution vessels and the remnant cache of such recovery items were found in massive quantities in and under Djoser’s pyramid complex.

So, far from being “plain false”, there are key elements of the Arab chronicles that can be independently corroborated. I rather imagine that if the tomb-theorists had such corroborative evidence they wouldn’t be slow to ram it down everyone’s throat as proof-positive of the tomb theory. Alas for them, however, they simply do not have such corroboration. If it s evidence that we judge a theory by then any person of reasonable mind can see that the RVT is better evidenced than the PTT (Pyramid Tomb Theory).

SC: But catastrophe *did* occur. The Old Kingdom collapsed and it is becoming clearer that this resulted from sudden and dramatic climate change. The pyramids were breached and what had been contained therein was removed. The AEs tell us they did this in their own words... When the kingdom collapsed along with the rest of the Near East cultures, the pyramid contents would become vital. Why do you think that these other cultures faded from history after this collapse and yet the AEs were able to revivicate their civilisation and continue, not as the identical kingdom, but very close to what had been before the collapse? What did the AE do differently from their neighbours that allowed them to restart their civilisation after the catastrophic collapse?

Q: The major drought in the 22nd century BCE was a large part of the reason for the collapse but not the only reason. The long reign of Pepi II caused problems for the succession of the throne and ruling families of the various provinces had grown resulting in intense rivalries and warfare.

Their reunification was not due to any materials in a recovery vault but because of an invasion of Upper Egypt in the 11th dynasty.

If the catastrophe was a bad as believed and the materials in the supposed recovery vaults was necessary, why did they not touch what was stored below Djoser's Pyramid?

SC: They did. There were 11 shafts leading to numerous underground galleries. Only 2 of these 11 underground galleries were found to have large quantities of various seed type, including tens of thousands of storage/distribution vessels. So, the other galleries were emptied (as were the other pyramids) of their recovery items. We could spend all year speculating as to why 2 out of the 11 galleries under the Step Pyramid were not emptied but it is fortunate indeed that they weren’t otherwise we would not have the evidence to show what they were used for – the storage of large quantities of various seed type and distribution vessels.

SC: In which case, why bother with the Ascending Passage and why bother plug it with three granite blocks? The point here is that re-entry was needed and anticipated in the RVT but *not* the tomb theory. If you were hauling the king’s body up the Well Shaft there was no need to create the AP or to plug it.

Q: As I said it was just a guess. However, you would not expect to haul every bit of treasure and royal goods that was to be buried with the king up the well shaft. Since the other pyramids had no AP, it is my guess that it was created to keep grave robbers from thinking of looking for one. They would have concentrated on the LP as that was common in all the pyramids before the Great Pyramid. A way to hide the king in plain site so to speak.

SC: Sorry, but I simply do not follow your logic here. Are you now trying to suggest that the king was buried somewhere else in the pyramid and that the AP was a decoy of some kind? If so, then think carefully before you reply.

SC: Okay, I think something has gone awry here. The bull bones were found by Belzoni in the stone box of G2, not in G1. Belzoni sent them to London to be checked. Some Arab legends describe a dark pitch-like substance having been all that was found in the granite box in the KC of the GP. When earth, grain and water are mixed and left for decades/centuries/millennia, the grain will decay into the earth, turning into a dark pitch-like substance thus suggesting that the granite box did indeed serve as an archetype ‘Osiris Bed’.

Q: I think I got mixed up as your post concerned both G1 and G2 but I somehow saw it referring to G1 only. Having read Belzoni's book online, he does not indicate that he shipped the bones anywhere only that he saw they were the bones of a bull. The arid conditions of the area would have dried out the dirt long before it could become a pitch like substance.

SC: It’s not important but Belzoni’s book *does* state the bull bones found in G2’s granite box were sent to London to be verified. The pitch-like substance was not in G2 (this is where the bull bones were found). The pitch-like substance is one of the many things that were supposedly found by al-Mamun in the stone box of G1. Mixed with potable water, earth and grain would, after a long period of time, decay into a dark, pitch-like substance. The germinating grain placed on the earth in the archetype ‘Osiris Bed’ symbolized the invisible life-force of the Ka. It is not unreasonable then to suggest that, given the early, giant pyramids as symbolizing the dismembered body parts of Osiris (as per the Myth of Osiris), the germinating grain in the archetype ‘Osiris Bed’ symblised the Ka within the allegorical body of Osiris i.e. the pyramid(s). The bull bones in the second pyramid at Giza would then symbolize the ba of Osiris within the allegorical 'body of Osiris'.

SC: You are quite unfamiliar with the wider RVT. Bull bones found in the stone box of G2 do indeed support the RVT.

SC: Exactly. You might want to have a read over this thread, The Birth of Osiris.

Q: Yes the bones do support a possible ritual but not a recovery vault. The bones were never checked in any way to even get a rough idea of their age so they could have been placed in there well after the ontents of the pyramid were taken.

SC: No, the bull bones were not dated because it was simply assumed by Lehner and Hawass that they MUST have been some bizarre intrusive burial from later times since this granite box, in their opinion, was the sarcophagus of a king. They cavalerely dismiss actual in-situ evidence because they cannot explain it within their tomb paradigm and they do not stop to think that another paradigm might actually offer an explanation for this in-situ evidence. The RVT explains these bull bones.

The Ka and the Ba together make manifest the Akh, ‘one that is effective’. As recovery vaults storing all that would be essential for the kingdom to recover, the kingdom would be raised up through the agency of the ‘body of Osiris’ (in the form of the pyramids as his allegorical body). “This pyramid is Osiris… this construction is Osiris” – PTs. Certainly these were symbolic aspects but they symbolized that the kingdom would be reborn through the (allegorical) ‘body of Osiris’. The allegorical body would require aspects of the soul to be placed within the body and this is what these archetype ‘Osiris Beds’ present.

SC: It’s there. As I said before – better you do your own research than have me spoon-feed it to you.

I almost always do a thorough search which is how I can find things like Belzoni's book online and why I can say the only references to Osiris Beds I found were from the New Kingdom and later. Instead of making comments like spoon feeding, perhaps you would like to post a link to something that backs up your claim that they were used prior to that period.

SC: It’s there. I won't say something unless I can back it up.

SC: The ‘Osiris Bed’ with seed and earth (stated in some legends to have been found in G1 by al-Mamun) contained the Ka of the ‘pyramid body’. As Cladking has oft told us – the Pyramid is the Ka of the King. The bull bones found within the granite box of G2 (another part of the dismembered ‘body of Osiris’) would have been placed there as the Ba within the ‘body of Osiris’ i.e. the pyramids. As the Pyramid Texts clearly state: ‘This pyramid is Osiris… this construction is Osiris.’ The granite boxes within ‘the body of Osiris’ contained the soul aspects of Ka and Ba – imo.

Q: 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.

SC: See above. “This pyramid is Osiris… this construction is Osiris.” The pyramid is personified as Osiris. As such it makes perfect sense that the AEs would symbolically place the Ka and the Ba within the allegorical ‘body’. How could the kingdom be reborn if the allegorical body had no allegorical ‘soul’?

Bottom line here - there is another paradigm that is better supported by the available evidence and which simply does not dismiss evidence. I really do not care whether you accept this more rational paradigm or not - you are obviously convinced of the unevidenced pyramid tomb theory. That's entirely your choice - just do not expect me to share your view. Most rational, thinking people actually demand good, compelling evidence before accepting the veracity of a theory. Sheeple accept an unevidenced theory on blind faith.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most rational, thinking people actually demand good, compelling evidence before accepting the veracity of a theory. Sheeple follow it on blind faith.

So, hear ye the voice of the "sheeple" (you really need to improve your PR and learn to laugh mister SC)

However, as regards the quote about rational thinking people, I refer you to these words..

We are confronted with a civilization where it seems sophisticated knowledge of the motions of the stars -- precession -- was understood. This is knowledge far in excess of that generally attributed to the ancient Egyptians of the dynastic period and may indicate a more sophisticated hand in the design and construction of the giant pyramids from an earlier time in ancient Egypt.

These words are from your book "The Giza Prophecy" and are to be found in chapter 3 "The Orion Key" on page 131. So, even though on this thread you have not once mentioned aliens, (to avoid ridicule?) in your book you are not so circumspect. Even though you have not said "aliens", any rational thinking people will see that is what you mean. So, ladies and gentlemen, here you have it, yet another aliens built the pyramids pyramidiot, though on this forum disguising himself under a blizzard of smoke and mirrors in the guise of spurious diagrams and mathematical formulae. By the way, the book is full of such, and makes what could be an entertaining book rather boring, though it's worth laughing at the photo of SC with arch-pyramidiot Bauval, looking rather like some sinister cartoon villain (page 99)

Still no responses about your theory of first intermediate period lasting two thousand years, or more........

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Once again you plod into this discussion with your big banana feet and completely misrepresent what has been said. Where do I say in my statement above that it was the AEs of the 4th Dynasty that breached the pyramids? The Old Kingdom did *not* collapse with the 4th dynasty. Why would the people of the 4th dynasty breach the pyramids they were building that they believed would be required around 300 years in their future?

Read what I write and *not* what you think I have written and *stop* misrepresenting my statements.

SC

I know exactly what you've claimed and it's another fabrication on your part. The only timeframe that's relevant to the Giza Pyramids is the period in which they were built, and sealed, which is the 4th Dynasty. Even extending it to the 11th Dynasty doesn't help your claim. Any texts/stela that some claim may have originated in some way from that timeframe have not been verified as having done so and are misrepresented by you to mean something they don't. That you pat yourself on the back for this puts you in the same category as Zechariah Sitchin IMO. Also, since it would have taken an incredible amount of crops over the 20+ years the Great Pyramid was built just to feed the people constructing it, as well as everyone else in the country, there likely wouldn't have been enough (if any) excess in which to deposit in the GP in any case. On top of the fact that since there's no evidence for a "Great Flood" in Egypt, particularly between the 4th and 11th Dynasties, then there would have been no reason to "recover" anything within the GP. And since there appears to be some suggestion that the GP was entered prior to al-Mamun and tomb-robbers were only interested in gold and other such valuables there should still be some evidence of these seed deposits within the structure. That there's not even the slightest hint of seed remains works against you.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know exactly what you've claimed and it's another fabrication on your part. The only timeframe that's relevant to the Giza Pyramids is the period in which they were built, and sealed, which is the 4th Dynasty. Even extending it to the 11th Dynasty doesn't help your claim. Any texts/stela that some claim may have originated in some way from that timeframe have not been verified as having done so and are misrepresented by you to mean something they don't.

Egyptology is nothing but smoke and mirrors. They interpret the evidence to fit

their beliefs and beat everyone on the head with the quality of their methodology

and the ability to hold numerous conflicting beliefs simultaneously.

Not everything changed after the 4th dynasty. Even a child could understand the

simple fact that men die.

Utterance 491.

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

This line is simply invisible to most until they first learn how to discount it. There is

no support for the assumptions and believers can't argue the facts without the assu-

mptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Egyptology is nothing but smoke and mirrors. They interpret the evidence to fit

their beliefs and beat everyone on the head with the quality of their methodology

and the ability to hold numerous conflicting beliefs simultaneously.

Not everything changed after the 4th dynasty. Even a child could understand the

simple fact that men die.

Utterance 491.

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

This line is simply invisible to most until they first learn how to discount it. There is

no support for the assumptions and believers can't argue the facts without the assu-

mptions.

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

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC says on this forum that there was no flood and the "recovery vaults" were not needed, yet in his book claims that the first intermediate period lasted two thousand years or more, and that because of what was stored in the "recovery vaults" enabled the AEs to get their civilization back on track after two thousand years while other peoples were struggling to recover from? this is not explained properly. So, as I already exposed, there is what SC says here, and there is what he says in his book. These contradictions have an explanation? The mirrors will stop flashing, the smoke blown away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Once again you plod into this discussion with your big banana feet and completely misrepresent what has been said. Where do I say in my statement above that it was the AEs of the 4th Dynasty that breached the pyramids? The Old Kingdom did *not* collapse with the 4th dynasty. Why would the people of the 4th dynasty breach the pyramids they were building that they believed would be required around 300 years in their future?

Read what I write and *not* what you think I have written and *stop* misrepresenting my statements.

CMA: I know exactly what you've claimed and it's another fabrication on your part. The only timeframe that's relevant to the Giza Pyramids is the period in which they were built, and sealed, which is the 4th Dynasty.

SC: Let us take a couple of steps back here, shall we.

SC: But catastrophe *did* occur. The Old Kingdom collapsed and it is becoming clearer that this resulted from sudden and dramatic climate change. The pyramids were breached and what had been contained therein was removed. The AEs tell us they did this in their own words.

CMA: Care to try again? The Ancient Egyptians, meaning those of the 4th Dynasty who actually built the Giza Pyramids, tell us no such thing.

Demonstrate to this Board where, in my statement above, I claim that the breaching and emptying of the pyramids was made by the AEs of the 4th Dynasty. That is what you have claimed I said so back it up. Put up or shut up. You will *not* be able to find such because it is not what I said – it is but *your* little fabrication. I will tell you again - *stop* misrepresenting what I have written.

CMA: Even extending it to the 11th Dynasty doesn't help your claim. Any texts/stela that some claim may have originated in some way from that timeframe have not been verified as having done so and are misrepresented by you to mean something they don't.

SC: Oh yes – the same texts that the Egypt-apologists attempt to use to prop up their defunct pyramid tomb theory. What’s good for the goose, dear boy…..

[snip – irrelevant]

CMA: Also, since it would have taken an incredible amount of crops over the 20+ years the Great Pyramid was built just to feed the people constructing it, as well as everyone else in the country, there likely wouldn't have been enough (if any) excess in which to deposit in the GP in any case.

SC: Yes – you just keep thinking that if it helps to soothe your anxieties whilst completely ignoring the large quantities of such that HAVE ALREADY BEEN FOUND.

CMA: On top of the fact that since there's no evidence for a "Great Flood" in Egypt, particularly between the 4th and 11th Dynasties, then there would have been no reason to "recover" anything within the GP.

SC: The Old Kingdom collapsed. The builders of the GP believed this would be caused by a great deluge, followed by drought. Drought very often follows flood. But it doesn’t matter if what the builders believed actually came to pass – it is what they *believed* that was their impetus for building the structures i.e. that their kingdom was destined to be destroyed. It doesn’t matter if the builders were right or wrong in their prediction and their motivation. The fact of the matter is that the pyramids were built and the builders tell us it was done to assist the recovery of the kingdom after an environmental catastrophe they *believed* was imminent. When the Old Kingdom *did* collapse, the pyramids were there (fortunately) to help reboot the civilization.

CMA: And since there appears to be some suggestion that the GP was entered prior to al-Mamun and tomb-robbers were only interested in gold and other such valuables there should still be some evidence of these seed deposits within the structure. That there's not even the slightest hint of seed remains works against you.

SC: And tomb-robbers wouldn’t be interested in pyramid recovery vaults. And you’d be really surprised at the amount of different seed types that have been found in the early pyramids. Suggest you do more research. And, suffice to say, not a single mummified king was ever found.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demonstrate to this Board where, in my statement above, I claim that the breaching and emptying of the pyramids was made by the AEs of the 4th Dynasty. That is what you have claimed I said so back it up. Put up or shut up. You will *not* be able to find such because it is not what I said – it is but *your* little fabrication. I will tell you again - *stop* misrepresenting what I have written.

Demonstrate where the Ancient Egyptians of the 4th Dynasty actually wrote and described the construction of the Great Pyramid for the purposes of being a 'Recovery Vault', because THAT'S the only timeframe relevant to same. That it's located in a necropolis with the layout of a tomb certainly doesn't support your conclusion. Stories written afterward, in texts or stela that can't be verified as originating in the 4th dynasty also don't support your conclusion. There's no evidence in the entirety of AE civilization that they were as forward thinking as to do something, expecting no results for centuries. Indeed, they were dependent on a yearly basis for what the Nile provided and at best could only hope for a few years or so good harvest at a time. They'd have no way to even know their civilization would even exist 300 years into the future.

The builders of the GP believed this would be caused by a great deluge, followed by drought.

You have an actual, verified 4th Dynasty text to support that claim?

And you’d be really surprised at the amount of different seed types that have been found in the early pyramids.

So then you have evidence of seed types found in the Great Pyramid then?

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Demonstrate to this Board where, in my statement above, I claim that the breaching and emptying of the pyramids was made by the AEs of the 4th Dynasty. That is what you have claimed I said so back it up. Put up or shut up. You will *not* be able to find such because it is not what I said – it is but *your* little fabrication. I will tell you again - *stop* misrepresenting what I have written.

CMA: Demonstrate where the Ancient Egyptians of the 4th Dynasty actually wrote and described the construction of the Great Pyramid for the purposes of being a 'Recovery Vault', because THAT'S the only timeframe relevant to same.

SC: So, when cornered, you try to shift the goalposts. You claimed that I stated that the AEs of the 4th dynasty breached and emptied the pyramids they built. Demonstrate where I said that. Let’s see it. A bigger person with a shred of integrity would simply withdraw the comment and apologise.

“The only time frame that is relevant to same.” Really? But when you want to use the Dream Stele and/or the Inventory Stele (and other non-contemporary evidence), both of which were written thousands of years after the pyramid-building age we are discussing, as evidence to support consensus Egyptology you are quite happy to do so. Are we then to dismiss those pieces of non-contemporary evidence since they were not of the relevant time-frame? Your double-standards here belie your desperation. It’s okay for the Egypt-apologists to use evidence from much later times that they believe suggest a funerary nature to these structures but when anyone that is not an Egypt-apologist does likewise then it is not permitted.

Don’t be so ridiculous.

CMA: That it's located in a necropolis with the layout of a tomb certainly doesn't support your conclusion.

SC: On that basis the attic in my house should be a tomb. And on that basis also, a church is the largest tomb in a graveyard.

CMA: Stories written afterward, in texts or stela that can't be verified as originating in the 4th dynasty also don't support your conclusion.

SC: If you want to start debarring all evidence not of the timeframe in question then I suggest you are on very dangerous ground since you will, on that basis, be debarring all evidence that Consensus Egyptology uses to try and prop up its pyramid tomb theory. I really don’t think you should go there.

CMA: There's no evidence in the entirety of AE civilization that they were as forward thinking as to do something, expecting no results for centuries.

SC: So what! What does that prove? The Arab texts that have comedown to us state that this was the reason the AEs built their pyramids. You don’t want to accept them. That’s your choice. But there is good scientific evidence that supports these Arab texts. You don’t want to accept that either. You want to bury your head in a sarcophagus. Good for you. This was a one-off event and I rather suspect if we were confronted by such in our time then our government would be making contingencies to ensure food production in the future. Think Svalbard. And what was their choice – do nothing?

CMA: Indeed, they were dependent on a yearly basis for what the Nile provided and at best could only hope for a few years or so good harvest at a time. They'd have no way to even know their civilization would even exist 300 years into the future.

SC: See above. Think Svalbard. What was their choice – do nothing?

SC: The builders of the GP believed this would be caused by a great deluge, followed by drought.

CMA: You have an actual, verified 4th Dynasty text to support that claim?

SC: There you go again. It can only be valid evidence only if it is contemporary with the period being discussed. Don’t be so ridiculous. On that basis then you want to start debarring all evidence that is not contemporary with particular periods that consensus Egyptology relies on. Consensus Egyptology has little at present upon which to hang their tomb theory but if we are then to adopt your methodology then you will quickly find that you have a big fat zero upon which to base the tomb theory. You really don’t want to go down that road but I can see why you need to do it – you have to do something, anything to render inadmissible the evidence I present. But on the basis you are trying to use then you make the scant evidence of consensus Egyptology inadmissible also.

SC: And you’d be really surprised at the amount of different seed types that have been found in the early pyramids.

CMA: So then you have evidence of seed types found in the Great Pyramid then?

SC: Do your own research. So, because we find large quantities of various seed types and tens of thousands of other recovery artifacts in one pyramid, just because we don’t find the same quantities in other pyramids means these other pyramids could not have been built for the same purpose – is that your argument? So, by your logic, an old-style fire-engine with all its hoses, ladders, and tanks of water can’t possible have the same function as a modern fire-engine because, although the modern fire-engine has all the hoses and ladders, its water tanks are empty. The recovery items were INTENDED to be removed which is why, in most cases, they were.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: So, when cornered, you try to shift the goalposts. You claimed that I stated that the AEs of the 4th dynasty breached and emptied the pyramids they built. Demonstrate where I said that. Let’s see it. A bigger person with a shred of integrity would simply withdraw the comment and apologise.

I said the peoples of the 4th Dynasty said no such thing and they're the only one's whose statements matter. Not yours and certainly not something written over 1000 years later.

Really? But when you want to use the Dream Stele and/or the Inventory Stele (and other non-contemporary evidence), both of which were written thousands of years after the pyramid-building age we are discussing, as evidence to support consensus Egyptology you are quite happy to do so. Are we then to dismiss those pieces of non-contemporary evidence since they were not of the relevant time-frame? Your double-standards here belie your desperation. It’s okay for the Egypt-apologists to use evidence from much later times that they believe suggest a funerary nature to these structures but when anyone that is not an Egypt-apologist does likewise then it is not permitted.

I've never used the Dream Stele or Inventory Stele to support an anachronistic belief, that's been your position, so now who's fabricating what's been said? YOU.

The Arab texts that have comedown to us state that this was the reason the AEs built their pyramids.

Who gives a damn about what the Arabs said nearly 3000 years later? Trying actually showing verifiable evidence from the 4th to 11th Dynasty supporting your fiction, because that's what it'll take.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demonstrate where the Ancient Egyptians of the 4th Dynasty actually wrote and described the construction of the Great Pyramid for the purposes of being a 'Recovery Vault', because THAT'S the only timeframe relevant to same.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.