How old is the Sphinx ?

[kmt_sesh]

25 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Except its not as the newer, more accurate translation DOESN'T mention the Sphinx at all. 

Actually since the removal of material from the Sphinx Enclosure has been shown to match the quality and quantity of material used to make the Valley Temple/s the Sphinx in its totality couldn't have existed before the Temple/s construction, which would only leave a knob projecting up out of the ground possibly for the head and nothing else. You're putting the cart before the horse and trying to climb uphill during a snowstorm with what you consider 'obvious'. 

cormac

The mentioning of the Sphinx is obliquely mentioned in both translations as Haurun. It's one of the confusing parts of translation work that comes from the ancient Egyptians penchant for having so many gods and so many names for them, The full version of the name is Haurun-Hamarkhis. It is so mentioned on the Inventory Stela.

The problem is, we have zero evidence that the Sphinx went by this name in the Old Kingdom. In fact, I believe it comes along n the Late Period. And that is the case with a number of the deities on the stela: they somply didn't exist in the Old Kingdom. So the fringe's tenacity in holding on to the Inventory Stela is really an act of gross anachronism. No one in the professional academic community believes the Inventory Stela belongs to the Old Kingdom. The people who want to believe this have no idea of the plethora of evidence that exists aginast the. You mentioned a good example: the stones cut from the enclosure went in to building the two temples.

The Sphinx is Dynasty 4. The Inventory Stela is Dynasty 26.

[cormac mac airt]

4 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

The mentioning of the Sphinx is obliquely mentioned in both translations as Haurun. It's one of the confusing parts of translation work that comes from the ancient Egyptians penchant for having so many gods and so many names for them, The full version of the name is Haurun-Hamarkhis. It is so mentioned on the Inventory Stela.

The problem is, we have zero evidence that the Sphinx went by this name in the Old Kingdom. In fact, I believe it comes along n the Late Period. And that is the case with a number of the deities on the stela: they somply didn't exist in the Old Kingdom. So the fringe's tenacity in holding on to the Inventory Stela is really an act of gross anachronism. No one in the professional academic community believes the Inventory Stela belongs to the Old Kingdom. The people who want to believe this have no idea of the plethora of evidence that exists aginast the. You mentioned a good example: the stones cut from the enclosure went in to building the two temples.

The Sphinx is Dynasty 4. The Inventory Stela is Dynasty 26.

And that's my point, the translation you provided using Haurun says "House of Haurun". It really doesn't matter IMO what the Sphinx itself was called in the Old, Middle or New Kingdom as the structure being cited in the Inventory Stela was the "House" which would translate IMO to "temple or chapel" and NOT the Sphinx itself. I think Captain Risky is grasping at straws. 

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And that's my point, the translation you provided using Haurun says "House of Haurun". It really doesn't matter IMO what the Sphinx itself was called in the Old, Middle or New Kingdom as the structure being cited in the Inventory Stela was the "House" which would translate IMO to "temple or chapel" and NOT the Sphinx itself. I think Captain Risky is grasping at straws. 

cormac

Right you are. It refers to the Sphinx temple. In Risky's translation it's stated as "the side of the hollow of Hwran (The Sphinx)." The translation is incorrect.

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, kmt_sesh said:

Right you are. It refers to the Sphinx temple. In Risky's translation it's stated as "the side of the hollow of Hwran (The Sphinx)." The translation is incorrect.

I think CR's interpretation is about as inaccurate as if someone had a garage set away from their house in which they were building a motor, yet telling everyone that they actually built the motor in their living room. Bzzzz, wrong answer. 

cormac

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

Except its not as the newer, more accurate translation DOESN'T mention the Sphinx at all. 

Actually since the removal of material from the Sphinx Enclosure has been shown to match the quality and quantity of material used to make the Valley Temple/s the Sphinx in its totality couldn't have existed before the Temple/s construction, which would only leave a knob projecting up out of the ground possibly for the head and nothing else. You're putting the cart before the horse and trying to climb uphill during a snowstorm with what you consider 'obvious'. 

cormac

so let me get this straight... you won't accept the translation of one egyptologist over another due to a missing mention of the sphinx. Okay. yet you contradict yourself here... 

• 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.

Haurum Harmahis is the cult of the sphinx. 

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=xmAoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT154&lpg=PT154&dq=inventory+stela+house+of+Haurun&source=bl&ots=u9sUr1Z3JI&sig=bL3tnWuifmfZg8bdUcsclJUEjTQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipyN7A547cAhWLHJQKHcIoANkQ6AEITTAJ#v=onepage&q=inventory stela house of Haurun&f=false

the link above suggests that Zivie-coche translation stopped short of identifying what exactly this house of Haurun was. where as the other translation told the reader what the Haurun was.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=rZPAREkaS2oC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=sphinx+Haurun&source=bl&ots=xsZW30JJiB&sig=rPPR1qtrhVbPt_8GawlxYOsem-o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8w-Hv6I7cAhXGq5QKHfi4CuIQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=sphinx Haurun&f=false

[Harte]

You link a geophysicist to explain an Ancient Egyptian text?

Harte

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

Right you are. It refers to the Sphinx temple. In Risky's translation it's stated as "the side of the hollow of Hwran (The Sphinx)." The translation is incorrect.

again more contradiction. if the temple is the focus of the translation (as you suggest) and not the sphinx itself then why would it need to be rebuilt if both were new/newish structures? wouldn't they have been around the same time...

found suggests it was hidden and forgotten. so the old sphinx during excavations and rebuilding was found to also have a temple next to it. if the fourth dynasty built the sphinx then wouldn't they have been aware of it? 

 

Edited July 8, 2018 by Captain Risky

[Harte]

That would mean that a thousand years after the fact, the AEs didn't know much about Giza construction projects.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

5 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

so let me get this straight... you won't accept the translation of one egyptologist over another due to a missing mention of the sphinx. Okay. yet you contradict yourself here... 

• 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.

Haurum Harmahis is the cult of the sphinx. 

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=xmAoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT154&lpg=PT154&dq=inventory+stela+house+of+Haurun&source=bl&ots=u9sUr1Z3JI&sig=bL3tnWuifmfZg8bdUcsclJUEjTQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipyN7A547cAhWLHJQKHcIoANkQ6AEITTAJ#v=onepage&q=inventory stela house of Haurun&f=false

the link above suggests that Zivie-coche translation stopped short of identifying what exactly this house of Haurun was. where as the other translation told the reader what the Haurun was.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=rZPAREkaS2oC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=sphinx+Haurun&source=bl&ots=xsZW30JJiB&sig=rPPR1qtrhVbPt_8GawlxYOsem-o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8w-Hv6I7cAhXGq5QKHfi4CuIQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=sphinx Haurun&f=false

Nope, no contradiction, you just don't understand what is being discussed in the translations and YES the newer translation is the most accurate. That you don't like that is entirely beside the point. 

There is no evidence that Haurun-Hamarkhis was a cult of the Sphinx in the 4th Dynasty. What it may or may not have been in Dynasty 26 is entirely irrelevant. 

The only thing the link suggests is that you do crappy research and use such p***-poor sources as Robert Schoch and Robert Bauval. Try again. 

cormac

[Unusual Tournament]

10 minutes ago, Harte said:

That would mean that a thousand years after the fact, the AEs didn't know much about Giza construction projects.

Harte

but 4000 years latter you do? they were closer to the truth than you or i. it could have been a copy you just don't know. 

• 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.

now what i also find interesting in this statement is this... if the 4th dynasty, built the pyramids then why would they describe finding the house of Isis as the mistress of the Pyramids as some sort of great discovery. were the pyramids dedicated to ISIS? as if this solves the pyramid riddle. why would they attribute her as the mistress of the pyramids? the fourth dynasty are the builders. 

Explain that?   

[Unusual Tournament]

8 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Nope, no contradiction, you just don't understand what is being discussed in the translations and YES the newer translation is the most accurate. That you don't like that is entirely beside the point. 

There is no evidence that Haurun-Hamarkhis was a cult of the Sphinx in the 4th Dynasty. What it may or may not have been in Dynasty 26 is entirely irrelevant. 

The only thing the link suggests is that you do crappy research and use such p***-poor sources as Robert Schoch and Robert Bauval. Try again. 

cormac

i got links there. read them or don't i don't care for your uninvited input or your tone. 

[cormac mac airt]

21 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

i got links there. read them or don't i don't care for your uninvited input or your tone. 

Crappy researcher it is then, sorry to hear it.

Quote

if the 4th dynasty, built the pyramids then why would they describe finding the house of Isis as the mistress of the Pyramids as some sort of great discovery. were the pyramids dedicated to ISIS? as if this solves the pyramid riddle. why would they attribute her as the mistress of the pyramids? the fourth dynasty are the builders. 

Explain that? 

"They" don't. The Inventory Stela was written in Dynasty 26 which is nearly 2000 years later. There is no evidence that any version of the Inventory Stela translation or story existed at the earlier date.

cormac

Edited July 8, 2018 by cormac mac airt

[Harte]

26 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

but 4000 years latter you do? they were closer to the truth than you or i. it could have been a copy you just don't know. 

• 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.

now what i also find interesting in this statement is this... if the 4th dynasty, built the pyramids then why would they describe finding the house of Isis as the mistress of the Pyramids as some sort of great discovery. were the pyramids dedicated to ISIS? as if this solves the pyramid riddle. why would they attribute her as the mistress of the pyramids? the fourth dynasty are the builders. 

Explain that?   

The stela was written in a time when different gods were exalted.

It's what's called  "pious fraud."

Harte

[Unusual Tournament]

Just now, Harte said:

The stela was written in a time when different gods were exalted.

It's what's called  "pious fraud."

Harte

pious fraud. okay. so ISIS wasn't around during the time of the 4th dynasty? 

[Harte]

32 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

but 4000 years latter you do? they were closer to the truth than you or i. it could have been a copy you just don't know. 

• 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.

now what i also find interesting in this statement is this... if the 4th dynasty, built the pyramids then why would they describe finding the house of Isis as the mistress of the Pyramids as some sort of great discovery. were the pyramids dedicated to ISIS? as if this solves the pyramid riddle. why would they attribute her as the mistress of the pyramids? the fourth dynasty are the builders. 

Explain that?   

That's not what I said.

Why would you put words in my mouth?

Lack of an argument?

Harte

[Unusual Tournament]

49 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

again more contradiction. if the temple is the focus of the translation (as you suggest) and not the sphinx itself then why would it need to be rebuilt if both were new/newish structures? wouldn't they have been around the same time...

found suggests it was hidden and forgotten. so the old sphinx during excavations and rebuilding was found to also have a temple next to it. if the fourth dynasty built the sphinx then wouldn't they have been aware of it? 

 

i really am not in the habit of quoting my self but this is import and central to the discussion. trying to seperate the two translations of the inventory stela is wrong. they are both correct and complement each other. you cannot seperate the sphinx temple from the sphinx, as the two are intertwined. 

[Unusual Tournament]

3 minutes ago, Harte said:

That's not what I said.

Why would you put words in my mouth?

Lack of an argument?

Harte

i have replied to the best of my knowledge and abilities in a honest manner. also, you are a grown man and have control of what you say. or you should. now do me the courtesy, stop deflecting from my post 416, and please answer it. 

[Advenix]

8 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Well, “found” could mean “created” in the way that “founded” is a past tense meaning “created” or “established”, but you’re right there’s a statue in that inventory that he restored.

Having again a great deal of trouble to comprehend the context?

 

[jmccr8]

6 hours ago, Harte said:

That would mean that a thousand years after the fact, the AEs didn't know much about Giza construction projects.

Harte

Could have been the whiskey

Mighta been the wine

Could have been the 2,4,6 pack

I don't know

jmccr8

[Nnicolette]

On 4/18/2018 at 2:29 PM, Harte said:

The "generations before us" believed quite a few things that are not only untrue, but even border on the idiotic.

Harte

That's hardly relevant.you could say that about present day as well but it isn't definitive evidence that every story a modern person tells is a lie. This kind of lazy thinking is pretty prevailent here dismissing anything that doesn't fit into your paradigm..  

[Harte]

11 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

i have replied to the best of my knowledge and abilities in a honest manner. also, you are a grown man and have control of what you say. or you should. now do me the courtesy, stop deflecting from my post 416, and please answer it. 

You implied that what I said meant "Isis wasn't around" in the 4th Dynasty.

You want honesty, then where did that come from?

Different periods in the AE timeline saw different gods exalted over other gods.

The inventory stela was an attempt by the cult of Isis to glom on to a MUCH older tradition.

Similar to the way Mormons glom on to several MUCH older Mesoamerican traditions.

IOW, pious fraud.

As you can see, your question was already answered.

Harte

Edited July 8, 2018 by Harte

[Harte]

1 hour ago, NicoletteS said:

That's hardly relevant.you could say that about present day as well but it isn't definitive evidence that every story a modern person tells is a lie. This kind of lazy thinking is pretty prevailent here dismissing anything that doesn't fit into your paradigm..  

If you read the ensuing posts after that one, I gave several examples.

Now, would you explain how modern-day Egyptians would know more about the Sphinx than Egyptologists?

Harte

[jaylemurph]

14 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

i got links there. read them or don't i don't care for your uninvited input or your tone. 

No one's ever liked your uninvited input or tone and you're still permitted to post.

--Jaylemurph

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, jaylemurph said:

No one's ever liked your uninvited input or tone and you're still permitted to post.

--Jaylemurph

Last I looked I created this thread to discuss what I wanted. 

[jaylemurph]

58 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Last I looked I created this thread to discuss what I wanted. 

Last I looked, Saru owns the site and the mods administrate it.

--Jaylemurph