Subject: Re: What is this, Biblical Archaelogy?
From: sudsm@aol.com (SUDSM)
Date: 7 Jan 1997 21:23:50 GMT
Janet:
.
>I appreciate your comments and grant that I can't disprove the notion
>that a previous civilization (perhaps extra-terrestrial) may have
>influenced our ancient history
.
Why do you introduce any such bizarre notion as extra-terrestrial
interlopers? The one thing in which I differ from others who have
defended the Bible, is that while I analyze it more literally, I have
advocated nothing bizarre. Yes, I do believe that the Sumerians,
Babylonians, and early Egyptians were, as they indicated, preceded by
an earlier and more advanced civilization, but that nation developed
normally, for many centuries, in the protected seclusion of the Tarim
Basin, where it settled after it was driven out of Mesopotamia (Eden --
Gen. 3:24) and after it had begun the spread of literacy (Homo sapiens
litterati) in the ancient world.
There is nothing like "extra-terrestrials" or anything else so
bizarre in all of that. I do take note that:
.
"the hypothesis of the monogenesis of language is one that most
linguists believe to be plausible. Indeed, the appearance of language
may define modern Homo sapiens" SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN April 1991
Philip E. Ross (Staff writer) "Hard Words" pp. 138-147
.
and that therefore that nation began the verbal life form, man --
Heb. "ADM" (Homo sapiens litterati) -- with the alphabet (Petrie's
"Mediterranean Signary") about 6000 years ago. There is plenty of
evidence that that happened and that it is pure fantasy to say:
.
"The early Sumerians did not think of themselves as upstarts, but
rather as the late recipients of a glorious tradition. THEY
ORIGINATED THE TALE OF MAN'S GOLDEN AGE."
Geo. Sarton, A HISTORY OF SCIENCE (Harvard, 1952) p. 96
.
That early nation was also responsible for concluding that there
is a Supreme ruling entity over human behavior (God) manifested on
earth as words (Gen. 2:19, Deut. 4:12 et seq., John 1:1 and 6:63 --
for example). Those who don't believe in God should not, therefore,
appeal to words to express their thoughts -- that is hypocrisy or
simple ignorance! Thus in ignorance you say:
.
The existence of previous advanced civilizations does not provide
proof of a supreme being
.
But that early nation is responsible for concluding that there is
an underlying invariant (Eternal) reality; that that Eternal is the
source of all knowledge (and in that sense is Omniscient); that that
Eternal) cannot be defeated (and in that sense is Omnipotent) &c.; All
of which is why leading physicists can say:
.
"The scientific world-view is clearly a product of the Western
theological world-view, although scientists today rarely appreciate the
theological origins of their assumptions."
Physics and our View of the World -- edited by Jan Hilgevoord, Cambridge
U. (1995) ISBN 0 521 47680 1 (paperback), p. 288
.
>nor [is it proof] of the chosen-ness of the Jews, etc.
.
Nor does the Bible say that the Jews are any more than a small
part of the chosen people -- Israel. Israel, it identifies as a
people who were to become a Nation and a company of Nations, with a
mighty brother Nation, before the end of the 6000 years of labor (6
days, with every day as a thousand years) -- beginning at the Autumnal
Equinox of 4000 BC and ending, therefore, at the Autumnal Equinox (23
Sept.) of 2001 AD. That is what the Bible says, and it does not sound
like the Jews to me.
Suds
jubran@coyote.csusm.edu
Darwin is buried in Westminster Abbey with Church of England Greats
Subject: Is the Swastika evidence of a common origin?
From: "Gord Bowman"
Date: 8 Jan 1997 00:31:03 GMT
The Swastika (the original, not the flipped Nazi version) is an ancient
symbol of unknown origin that has been employed for thousands of years as a
religious sign and a decorative emblem. This symbol appears in such
cultures as ancient China, Egypt, India, old Norse, Ancient Crete, Mayan,
Aztec, American Indians, and the list goes on.
Some of these cultures supposedly had no contact with each other, yet the
general consensus of the scientific community seems to be that "There is no
reason to suppose that all of these have been derived from a common
source...." (Gough & Parker--"A Glossary Of The Terms Used In Heraldry").
The Swastika could be just a clever Sun calendar illustration found all
over the world (see The History of the Swastika at
http://www.wcha.org/catalogs/oldtown/designs/ud-25-ic/swastika.html ).
Now, I understand that finding just one such commonality between different
cultures is not proof that they had contact with each other, however I
don't understand why the idea of a common source is so far fetched. Isn't
it a common theory that the native peoples of North, Central and South
America at some point in the past crossed either a land or ice bridge
probably between Siberia and Alaska? If this is true, then why could the
symbol not have been in existence before such a crossing? Shouldn't this
common symbol at least be viewed as evidence that such widely separated
cultures (such as the Mayans and the Egyptians) MIGHT have a common origin?
Just wondering...
--
Gord Bowman (gbowman@atlsci.com)
Subject: Re: Are Egyptologists Interested In Ethnicity (was "A Question For Marc Line)
From: The Hab
Date: 7 Jan 1997 22:48:49 GMT
pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
[snip]
>>>From your previous posts, you seem to have no problem classifing
>>>Egyptians as Caucasians,
>>
>>Not Caucasians...Caucasoid. That is, most Egyptians are closer to people
>>that are classified as "Caucasoid" than other groups. Not that they are
>>but that they are closer to.
>>
>
>Well, Caucasoid is also a term used in "Western" literature, so why don't
>you object to it. Why do you only object to Egyptians being called
>"black," or "Africoid."
I don't object to "Africoid" since we are African...however, "black" =
"negroid" which is incorrect when applied to Egyptians. "Caucasoid" is a
term I used when saying that we are *closer to* the Caucasoids than the
other groups. I did not say we are but that we are *closer to*. read
below.
>>>following the Eurocentric literature,
>>
>>Wrong. Eurocentric literrature, like Afrocentric litterature, believes
>>that somehow, the present people are racial imposters, that they *became*
>>more "Negroid" or "Caucasoid". I do not believe this. I believe that, for
>>the most part, the peoples of the area are the same as they were in the
>>past. In that sense, I am neither "Eurocentric" not "Afrocentric".
>>
>>> but
>>>object to their classification as Africoid.
>>
>>I prefer "Negroid" because the "Caucasoid" peoples of North Africa are as
>>African as their counterparts further south. In other words, all Africans
>>are "Africoid".
>>
>>> However, Keita and
>>>Angel have suggested that the ancient Egyptians were tropical
>>>Africans.
>>
>>Keita suggest that Egyptians are the same as they were in the past.
>>However, he says that the Badarians may have been tropical Africans.
>>Brace compared the Badarians with their Lower Egyptian counterparst and
>>showed that they are cloeset to each other than any other group. This is
>>the flaw in Keita's work. He does not take into account the
>>base similarity between all Egyptians.
>>
>
>So, basically you're saying you think Egyptians are Caucasoid.
Read above.
>Well
>others think they are Africoid.
They are African...why don't you say they are "Negroid"? Why do you not
want to use that term? Maybe because "Africoid" is a broad term?
>So you're contention that we are
>biased because of these views is wrong.
My contention is that you are racist.
>BTW, I think Keita's arguments
>are much sounder than Brace's.
Not really...both are accurate except Brace's was more of a comparison
study. That is why I accept it more than Keita's.
>>> Again, what percentage of the Copts do you think are
>>>black? Are any of them black?
>>
>>That's a subjective question. I will just say that all are ethnically and
>>culturally Egyptian (like their Muslim brothers), but that some may be
>>considered "black". I would put it at 1 in 10 or 1 in 9. But that is just
>>my estimate. Most of these "black" (sic) Egyptians are Aswani.
>>
>
>I would say the majority of Egyptians in Upper Egypt and the southern
>part of Lower Egypt are "black." At least 30 to 35 percent of those
>in northern Egypt are "black" or "mulatto."
"mulatto" is different than "black"...not only that, but it is also not
accurate. Since the Egyptians are not white, they could not be "mullatto"
(mixture of white and black).
>BTW, I'm not black myself
>(noting that this is a subjective question).
But you certainly hold a racist view (that's is not subjective;).
The Hab
Subject: Nimrod built Erech (Uruk) a.2240 BC misdated as 4300 BC
From: John the ForeRunner
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 17:27:37 +0000
> > Nimrod is the one who is accredited with The City, which since cities
> > existed before the Flood, this can only refer to the SYSTEM of control,
> > when SUDDENLY people were too old to work at a mere 240 years of age
> > and dying as if they had reached the normal 900. THAT is why they stopped.
> > Evidence proves that the 5th dynasty death caused the pyramid plan to
> > dwindle to a size 4x smaller as life was 4x shorter.
Doug Bailey wrote:
> This is incorrect. The genesis of the city concept of organization
> (economic, social, political, etc.) is generally accepted to have begun
> in the Early and Middle Uruk periods (6300 BP - 5450 BP or 4300-3450
> BC). In fact, Uruk was occupied for some five millenia from the Early
> Ubaid period to the 3rd century AD and is the site where the earliest
> examples of writing can be found (dating from 5300 BP or 3300 BC). As
> for the people living for nine centuries, there is no evidence to show
> anyone in history has lived for so long and so conjecture based on such
> presumption has no value.
He says this is incorrect. Yet Bible scholars know that Nimrod built Erech,
the same Uruk Doug Bailey refers to above. Erech was built shortly
after Babel was in 2240 BC.
The Uruk dating by C-14 fits the correction curve to Noah's Flood
whose debri is dated as 20,000 BC of which the ice left debri in
2320 BC dating as 10,000 BC. One can easily see that an Erech of
2232 BC would be misdated as 4300 BC without the Floodcurve-correction.
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
The 144,000 will rule before this first year ENDS.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
Subject: Re: children's toys in the archaeological record?
From: akaulins@aol.com
Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:20:38 GMT
In article <32D288C0.3359@earthlink.net>, Judith Stroud
writes:
Judith, re: King Tut, you write
>The boys father wasn't the Pharaoh-his wife's father was (the heretic
>king Akhtenaton/Amenophis IV) And he was most certainly dead and his
>city at Amarna abandoned when Tutankhamun was given the pharaohship.
Judith, the really disturbing thing about Egyptology is that much of it is
like reading fortune cookies, it all depends on which one you got - in
this case, which source you happen to read. In Clayton's Chronicle of the
Pharaohs, Clayton devotes a special section to "who was Tutanchamun",
indicating that there is great dispute about this among the scholars and
even pointing out that the red granite lion in the Temple of Sobek
specifically states that Amenhotep III (Amenophis III) - not the 4th or
Akhenaten - was Tut's father. Now, I do not mean this unkindly, but how
can you possibly write a paragraph such as the above as if this was a
FIXED fact, when it is not. Is this science?
>
You write:
>It does Tut an unfair justice to call him important. He most likely was
>kept under a close watch by the priesthood and appears to have neither
>led any trade or war campaigns to try to restore any of the empire that
>Akhtenaten had dissipated to a mere shadow of Thutmose III's Egypt.
You use the words "most likely", and "appears". These are all
suppositions. OK.
The fact is, the Egyptologists do not know. But ten years from now - if no
one challenges these things - these will be "facts" in the textbooks.
Indeed, many such suppositions of the past today ARE regarded as facts -
which is incorrect.
You write:
>The strangeness of his burial, the disappearance of Smenkhare, and Tut's
own
>very short reign all can be explained by the chaotic legacy of
>Akhtenaton, the heretic monotheist who certainly sealed his fate when he
>cut off the temples from the religion.
All of these things "can" be explained in a hundred different ways. What
if Smenkhare was Tut's name prior to his death, at which time he was given
a new name to conform to the new religion? - would that explain the use of
Smenkhare's sarcophag for Tut? Maybe Smenkhare did not disappear at all.
You yourself write:
>The change of his name to Tutankamun upon
>ascendancy is critical evidence of ... ... a forced change.
Aktenaten's
>city was abandoned and his legacy eliminated as thoroughly as the
>priesthood could manage. Tut's short reign necessitated using some of
>Smenkhare's funerary goods (which interestingly were not already in use
>by the dead Smenkhare). The chaos of this turbulent period is preserved
>by the archaeological record.
So you see, "facts" are one thing and "interpretation" is quite another.
Were Tut and Smenkhare one and the same?
You write:
>
>I agree that modern Archaology in general is far too eager to throw out
>old chronologies (let alone king lists) on very sketchy evidence.
>However, there are some cases with lesser known kings that have led to
>revisions based on the fact that more recently discovered inscriptions
>use a different name for the same pharaoh.
Yes, I agree with you, "far too eager". And now, the Egyptologists should
go out and figure out how many different names were used for the same
pharaoh and what they meant. I predict when they discover this, many
alleged pharaohs simply did not exist, but are represented two or three
times in the kings' lists by different names.
You write:
>Keep in mind that many of these cartouches (Pepi, for example, or Khufu,
>etc) are contemporaneous with the king and show the king as a bull or
>smashing people with a mallet. One never finds "a cartouche somewhere
>with a name on it" by itself; the cartouche is associated with a stele,
>a monument, a papyrus, a burial, and it is from such imagery and kingly
>terms that the status of the bearer of the cartouche is determined. I
>recall that Rekhmire's name is in a cartouche, and he is known as
>Thutmose III's vizier and chief steward, not as a king himself...
Aha. Note that last sentence. A cartouche may not mean "ruling pharaoh".
Various cartouches just "may" represent the various stages of the career
of ONE pharaoh. I do not know if Rekhmire is a good example, but if
Rekhmire ever advanced from vizier to pharaoh - in which case, according
to my analysis, his "name" would have been changed - which Pharaoh would
this be?
P.S. Hope I am not being too hard on you. This is not a battle of
personalities, but simply one of the selection and EVALUATION of evidence.
Egyptologists are just going to have to start being far more precise than
they have been.
- Andis Kaulins (J.D. Stanford University, 1971)
Subject: spuradic bursts of zeal (Hindu Flood epoch)
From: John the ForeRunner
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 17:35:58 +0000
>>Closing my site on March 25.
>I'm curious, why are you closing?
My information is true, but damn if I'll be the only one on
this planet believing it. I had an offer of help by a JW who said he
would gather information and send it to the Watchtower, but he
turned out to be a liar when September arrived and he said my view
was not pertinent to send off. As if the submission to government threat
as Jesus did in dying would just happen as God's will if it were so.
That's like saying Jesus was a fool for throwing the tables a 2nd time
as he did 3 years earlier, and then insulting Judas to go do something.
It's like saying Jesus didnt have to do that because God's FATE to
fulfill prophecy would have occurred WITHOUT Jesus' efforts.
SORRY ! but fate, the only TRUE fate, is an inevitable irreversible result
from events which were put into action. JHVH means cause and effect as
Moses then proved. When something DOESN'T happen, it is so easy for
people to wash their hands and say it wasn't what God wanted. Well gee,
(sarcasm)
I guess since we didn't get a peaceful world it must be how God wanted it.
So the man became a liar by not sending it before Yom Kippur, and he
also became a liar because I used a 2nd account for him to create a
non religious asteroid site for me. He did a 2-pager in 2 weeks and then
as if it was so complete he said LOOK AT ALL I HAVE DONE FOR YOU.
Well sorry, but I see the world as all wanting to eat Chicken Little's
cake without getting any ingredients or stirring the pot.
So I downloaded the asteroid stuff, closed it, and increased my elijah site
to 12 MB which expires (amount prepaid by credit card) on March 25.
>By the way, I ran across a reference to a computer program developed at
>Cornell that does, or attempts to do, correlations among ancient calendar
>systems. I don't have the reference in front of me, but if you're
>interested, I can find it and send it to you.
yes I am interested. Happy to see you're open-eyed enough to insert
the word (or attempts to). God knows enough books contradict.
I have neglected my work...example...
know-it-all Toni Aveni says Hindu epoch is midnite which starts
Julian Feb 18 of 3100 BC.
Facts On File says Jan 21 of 3102 BC (easily presumed as Julian but...)
(Julian Feb 16 of 3102 BC = Greg Jan 21
Britannica says Julian Feb 18 of 3102 BC (= Greg Jan 23)
More probable the 2-day difference proves the Jan 21 date to be Gregorian.
Confusion also due to -3100 is 3101 BC, and -3101 is 3102 BC
so that Aveni's 3100 BC is -3099
In either case the only true 1200-year cycle is that of
1200 Egyptian years for venus where every 600 Egyptian years
(219,000d) venus drifts 30 days less (218,970d) so that the
1200 year cycle is actually 1199 Julian plus 5 days.
Thus Feb 18 of 3100 BC should have its evidence on
Feb 22 of 1901 BC, determined on Feb 27 of 702 BC.
This is the first time I have attempted to correlate the
702 BC with Aveni's year 3100 BC. It has been at least 3 months
since I discovered that it was Shelah's death (1901-1900 BC)
(Shem's grandson) who was mistaken as Ammizaduga's death (1626-1625 BC)
by these Hindu of 702-701-700 BC. Yet only now have I
figured the dates for 1901 BC and 702 BC to be Feb 22 and Feb 27
to show you how I have neglected all this crap I'm growing sick of.
I guess astronomy, geometry, calendars and math have been an adiction
since childhood. I dont even know the position of venus for
Feb 27 of 702 BC. Haven't looked it up, and as always, I can do it
tomorrow. (dont you have an astronomy program...?)
I got two, and I wish it would save the data lists to its
conjunction searches.
Subject: spuradic zeal (Hindu Flood epoch)
From: John the ForeRunner
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 17:39:40 +0000
>>Closing my site on March 25.
>I'm curious, why are you closing?
My information is true, but damn if I'll be the only one on
this planet believing it. I had an offer of help by a JW who said he
would gather information and send it to the Watchtower, but he
turned out to be a liar when September arrived and he said my view
was not pertinent to send off. As if the submission to government threat
as Jesus did in dying would just happen as God's will if it were so.
That's like saying Jesus was a fool for throwing the tables a 2nd time
as he did 3 years earlier, and then insulting Judas to go do something.
It's like saying Jesus didnt have to do that because God's FATE to
fulfill prophecy would have occurred WITHOUT Jesus' efforts.
SORRY ! but fate, the only TRUE fate, is an inevitable irreversible result
from events which were put into action. JHVH means cause and effect as
Moses then proved. When something DOESN'T happen, it is so easy for
people to wash their hands and say it wasn't what God wanted. Well gee,
(sarcasm)
I guess since we didn't get a peaceful world it must be how God wanted it.
So the man became a liar by not sending it before Yom Kippur, and he
also became a liar because I used a 2nd account for him to create a
non religious asteroid site for me. He did a 2-pager in 2 weeks and then
as if it was so complete he said LOOK AT ALL I HAVE DONE FOR YOU.
Well sorry, but I see the world as all wanting to eat Chicken Little's
cake without getting any ingredients or stirring the pot.
So I downloaded the asteroid stuff, closed it, and increased my elijah site
to 12 MB which expires (amount prepaid by credit card) on March 25.
>By the way, I ran across a reference to a computer program developed at
>Cornell that does, or attempts to do, correlations among ancient calendar
>systems. I don't have the reference in front of me, but if you're
>interested, I can find it and send it to you.
yes I am interested. Happy to see you're open-eyed enough to insert
the word (or attempts to). God knows enough books contradict.
I have neglected my work...example...
know-it-all Toni Aveni says Hindu epoch is midnite which starts
Julian Feb 18 of 3100 BC.
Facts On File says Jan 21 of 3102 BC (easily presumed as Julian but...)
(Julian Feb 16 of 3102 BC = Greg Jan 21
Britannica says Julian Feb 18 of 3102 BC (= Greg Jan 23)
More probable the 2-day difference proves the Jan 21 date to be Gregorian.
Confusion also due to -3100 is 3101 BC, and -3101 is 3102 BC
so that Aveni's 3100 BC is -3099
In either case the only true 1200-year cycle is that of
1200 Egyptian years for venus where every 600 Egyptian years
(219,000d) venus drifts 30 days less (218,970d) so that the
1200 year cycle is actually 1199 Julian plus 5 days.
Thus Feb 18 of 3100 BC should have its evidence on
Feb 22 of 1901 BC, determined on Feb 27 of 702 BC.
This is the first time I have attempted to correlate the
702 BC with Aveni's year 3100 BC. It has been at least 3 months
since I discovered that it was Shelah's death (1901-1900 BC)
(Shem's grandson) who was mistaken as Ammizaduga's death (1626-1625 BC)
by these Hindu of 702-701-700 BC. Yet only now have I
figured the dates for 1901 BC and 702 BC to be Feb 22 and Feb 27
to show you how I have neglected all this crap I'm growing sick of.
I guess astronomy, geometry, calendars and math have been an adiction
since childhood. I dont even know the position of venus for
Feb 27 of 702 BC. Haven't looked it up, and as always, I can do it
tomorrow. (dont you have an astronomy program...?)
I got two, and I wish it would save the data lists to its
conjunction searches.
Subject: Re: Are Egyptologists Interested In Ethnicity (was "A Question For Marc Line)
From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 97 22:27:05 GMT
In article <5aujsh$6mq@news.inforamp.net>,
The Hab wrote:
>pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>>>From your previous posts, you seem to have no problem classifing
>>>>Egyptians as Caucasians,
>>>
>>>Not Caucasians...Caucasoid. That is, most Egyptians are closer to people
>>>that are classified as "Caucasoid" than other groups. Not that they are
>>>but that they are closer to.
>>>
>>
>>Well, Caucasoid is also a term used in "Western" literature, so why don't
>>you object to it. Why do you only object to Egyptians being called
>>"black," or "Africoid."
>
>I don't object to "Africoid" since we are African...however, "black" =
>"negroid" which is incorrect when applied to Egyptians. "Caucasoid" is a
>term I used when saying that we are *closer to* the Caucasoids than the
>other groups. I did not say we are but that we are *closer to*. read
>below.
>
>>>>following the Eurocentric literature,
>>>
>>>Wrong. Eurocentric literrature, like Afrocentric litterature, believes
>>>that somehow, the present people are racial imposters, that they *became*
>>>more "Negroid" or "Caucasoid". I do not believe this. I believe that, for
>>>the most part, the peoples of the area are the same as they were in the
>>>past. In that sense, I am neither "Eurocentric" not "Afrocentric".
>>>
>>>> but
>>>>object to their classification as Africoid.
>>>
>>>I prefer "Negroid" because the "Caucasoid" peoples of North Africa are as
>>>African as their counterparts further south. In other words, all Africans
>>>are "Africoid".
>>>
>>>> However, Keita and
>>>>Angel have suggested that the ancient Egyptians were tropical
>>>>Africans.
>>>
>>>Keita suggest that Egyptians are the same as they were in the past.
>>>However, he says that the Badarians may have been tropical Africans.
>>>Brace compared the Badarians with their Lower Egyptian counterparst and
>>>showed that they are cloeset to each other than any other group. This is
>>>the flaw in Keita's work. He does not take into account the
>>>base similarity between all Egyptians.
>>>
>>
>>So, basically you're saying you think Egyptians are Caucasoid.
>
>Read above.
>
>>Well
>>others think they are Africoid.
>
>They are African...why don't you say they are "Negroid"? Why do you not
>want to use that term? Maybe because "Africoid" is a broad term?
>
>>So you're contention that we are
>>biased because of these views is wrong.
>
>My contention is that you are racist.
Me racist? It was you who last year started a racist thread on
this subject which resorted to nothing more than slinging racial
slurs. I'm sure the usenet archives have plenty of your posts
were you clearly show your feelings toward black people.
>
>>BTW, I think Keita's arguments
>>are much sounder than Brace's.
>
>Not really...both are accurate except Brace's was more of a comparison
>study. That is why I accept it more than Keita's.
>
>>>> Again, what percentage of the Copts do you think are
>>>>black? Are any of them black?
>>>
>>>That's a subjective question. I will just say that all are ethnically and
>>>culturally Egyptian (like their Muslim brothers), but that some may be
>>>considered "black". I would put it at 1 in 10 or 1 in 9. But that is just
>>>my estimate. Most of these "black" (sic) Egyptians are Aswani.
>>>
>>
>>I would say the majority of Egyptians in Upper Egypt and the southern
>>part of Lower Egypt are "black." At least 30 to 35 percent of those
>>in northern Egypt are "black" or "mulatto."
>
>"mulatto" is different than "black"...not only that, but it is also not
>accurate. Since the Egyptians are not white, they could not be "mullatto"
>(mixture of white and black).
>
So there just black then. ;)
>>BTW, I'm not black myself
>>(noting that this is a subjective question).
>
>But you certainly hold a racist view (that's is not subjective;).
No, you are a poser who wants people to think you are white. You deny
Egyptians are racist, but don't set a very good example. In Mohamed Heikal's
biography of Anwar Sadat, _Autumn of Fury: The Assasination of Anwar Sadat_,
he calls Sadat the descendent of a "black slave," and constantly refers
in a derogatory manner to Sdat's "Negroid" features. I think there is a
lot more racism in Egypt than most people realize, and you're a prime
example.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Subject: Re: Marduk is 24 years not 3600 years
From: Pcrafts@sedona.net (Profoundess)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 01:33:19 GMT
John the ForeRunner wrote:
>> Eliyah wrote:
>> >it was Sitchin who claims that Marduk is a planet which
>> >arrives every 3600 years. But he claimed that planet collided and is now=
> destroyed
>> >with our 3rd planet from the sun (Tiamat) and split it into two.
> =
>Gilgamesh wrote:
> > It was the a Moon of Marduk that deystroyed Tiamat, leaving Marduk
>> intact, but most likely damaged due to near orbit gravitations.
> =
>> >The half remaining in one piece he says is Earth.
>> Half of Tiamat is the Earth. The other half the asteroid belt,
>> comets, and asteroids, all of which, including the earth, have water.
>> Thus there is no Oortt Cloud to mention, though mainstream science
>> still contends this. Thus the arrival of larger comets, Hale-Bopp,
>> may be a precursor of things to come.
>> The Epic of Creation is where the account of this battle is found.
>> Gilgamesh
>> Ovni Continuum
>Tiamat's two halves are An and Ki, heaven and earth.
>Tiamat is a person's 360=B0 sphere when standing on earth's surface.
>The horizon splits it in two. Marduk has no moon in the myth.
>Amazing that the whole story can be fabricated without previous
>links to known mythology. Marduk has 24 orbits in 52 years
>(24x 780-day Mars =3D 52x 360-day calendar New Year)
>so how is it that Sitchin gives it a Shar (3600 years)
>and claims these 24 orbits are 24 fateful years of Abram against Aram-Sin.
>************
>A voice crying out and going unheard,
>(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24 =
>God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
>The 144,000 will rule before this first year ENDS.
>http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
>Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
I have Sitchins book in front of me as I write this. He did not claim
that Marduk had a moon. Tiamat was NOT ACTUALLY HIT by the planet
Marduk. What happened is that large parts of Tiamat were torn away by
the gravitational pull of Marduk as it came near.
He also states that the term HEAVEN was used to describe the asteroid
belt. Thus Tiamat would have been torn into two parts, Heaven and
Earth.
I realize that Sitchin is NOT considered to be a reputable source,
however if one is to argue against his theories, at least quote them
correctly!!!!
Subject: determining validity of theories
From: John the ForeRunner
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 17:41:45 +0000
>Let me give an example: I assert that the ages of the Patriarchs and
>Matriarchs should all be divided by two. This makes Sarah only 45 when she
>gave birth, unusually old for a first child, but not unheard of.
>Evidence: There are two New Years in the Jewish calendar, six months apart.
>There is the Rosh Hashanah that most know of and Rosh Hashanah ha'Ilanot
>(New Year of the Trees). At one time these were of equal importance so the
>word shanah=year meant the six month time between the two. Now, of course,
>the latter is only a minor holiday so that the meaning of "shanah" has
>changed to the current 12 month period (13 in leap years).
For future comprehension, I am accustom to hear the phrase
intercalary years for months...
and leap years in reference to the 1 day per 4 years.
Good point of issue. I like your reasoning ability.
Have never heard of this second New Year (other than Nisan/Tishri), and
though I do not accept it simply because what good does it do to cut
Eber's 464 years in half to 232...I would still like to live that long.
And if Eber could live 232 then certainly Sarah as 90.
I do disagree with the apostle Paul who claimed Abram was old at 100
and remained at such a deteriated state until 175. It is contrary to
God's natural evidence for a man of 175 to have his years of
90-100 an equal state of current 90-100 yr olds, including Paul's day.
I remain convinced that circumcision eliminated infection of
a specific person's foreskin which was UNCLEAN and not just a
religious claim that all foreskins are scientifically unclean.
Sarah's menopause is proven by JHVH (cause and effect) informing
her at 75 and then Abram (85) to take Hagar. And menopause CAN be
spuradic for 15 years (til her 90). So you see I do look for
God's natural law and not claimed miracles. Moses does not call
Sarah a miracle but an answer to those who wait in faith.
Most men were polygamous, infertile wife or not. Thus Abram is
excused with listening to God to impregnate Hagar, yet he knows
by impregnating Sarah he failed to faithfully wait long enough.
BTW, Pharaoh he blamed for giving them Hagar who always pushed
her Egyptian beliefs as greater than Chaldean.
The Bible's intent is to help us get eternal life by avoiding death.
We must recognize the causes of death and be preventative.
Eve's eating the fruit was her rejecting to be preventative but rather
take, eat, do, and find out. We must be willing to learn what others
have before us, and accept it unless other evidence comes along.
Someone's word (Satan's) is not sufficient to be considered as
evidence enough to test ourselves in ways which could be fatal.
Our longevity has dropped from C-14 increase eaten by us
and now INSIDE our cells. This increase cut life in half of all
born after the Flood, and 100 years later cut that in half again,
so that the first dying unbiasly to religious faith, race, genetics,
family, culture, government, laws, hygiene occurred in 2030 BC
to Peleg founder of Ur (Mesanipada), and Unas of Sakkara ending the
lives of these gray haired men who were claimed to have been given
gray hair to show how smart they are to be the world's first post-Flood
kings (Egypt's 5th dynasty). Ten years later Noah died at 950 as the
last man to pass Adam's 930...
(showing that Adam's 930 could still be reached if not for the new factor
which is C-14)
God is now going to strike the earth to release volcanic carbon to dilute
the C-14 and give us our 900 years back. We must not only make our
own Garden of Eden, but we must learn what aged all humans to 900 years.
The Bible predicts we WILL learn this and still be young when 1000 years
is reached (2996 AD).
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
The 144,000 will rule before this first year ENDS.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
Subject: Re: hale-bopp as 3600-year Marduk (nephilim & tiamat)
From: "Charles R. Pfaff"
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 18:15:45 -0800
John the ForeRunner wrote:
>
> > Eliyah writes:
> > > No you are correct, it was Sitchin who claims that Marduk is a planet which
> > > arrives every 3600 years. But he claimed that planet collided and is now destroyed
> > > with our 3rd planet from the sun (Tiamat) and split it into two.
> > > The half remaining in one piece he says is Earth. However, when planets
> > >
> > > Nephilim?
> > > Crossbreeding can only occur with male dominants and female recipients
> > > such as a male horse and a female donkey creating a very larger-than-donkey
> > > very strong sterile male mule.
> > > The Nephilim having angel fathers but human mothers
> > > were male, sterile, very large and strong. They were the sons
> > > of the kings, the angels who ruled, having come from heaven. Atmospheric
> > > formula for materilization is no longer the same, and the angels who have
> > > since materilized certainly arent about to give it to them. These angels
> > > now proving themselves demons are reserved for binding for 1000 years.
> > > It is why they wish to defend themselves by increasing spiritistic interest
> > > among humans so that they can pass their blame onto the gullibility of humans.
> A voice crying out and going unheard,
> (40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
> God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
> The 144,000 will rule before this first year ENDS.
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
>
> Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
> http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
You aught to cry-out in the wilderness and remain unheard for posting
such drivvel....
Everyone knows that Sitchen never sais Marduk struck Taimat; rather one
of the massive bodies ripped from Saturn or Jupeter on one of its 2600
or 3600 year orbits of our Sun; named for the four great winds;(North
East South West) did the dastardley deed.
Subject: Re: The Tiles of Ramses III: Another Answer
From: akaulins@aol.com
Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:20:31 GMT
In article <5ascrj$6a9@sun.sirius.com>, Greg Reeder
writes:
>The royal mummy caches discovered at Thebes were for Kings that existed
> at least 1,000 years later than the pyramid builders at Giza. Why would
>you expect Old Kingdom royal mummies to show up at Thebes? To say that
>there is no assurance that most of pharaohs of the Old Kingdom even lived
> is to render the discussion of history meaningless and dialogue
>futile.
Greg,
I am sorry, but I can not accept this argument because it assumes as true
("the Kings at least 1000 years" older) - the very proposition under
dispute.
You say that there are no mummies for the pharaohs of the Old Kingdom
because they ruled so far back in antiquity that all trace of them has
been lost - and I am saying that these kings did not exist, except in the
legendary sense. Your method of argument is used by "Atlanteans" to
contradict those who rightly ask, "OK, if Atlantis existed, where are the
artifacts?" and the answer is, "so far back, they have all have been lost
or submerged by the flood". Very convenient.
Do you not find it a bit strange that ONLY the mummies of the Middle
Kingdom have been found - and of those - not just isolated specimens, but
mummies in great number, accounting for many of the kings of this period.
Prior to that - nothing.
No mummies. No remains of any other kind. NOTHING.
I am sorry, but this stretches my "belief" beyond its breaking point.
You seem to imply that discussion of history is meaningless and dialogue
futile if I ask questions, expect evidence and do not just accept current
chronology simply on the basis of belief. What then is the difference
between the Egyptologists and the people who believe in the literality of
the Bible simply on their FAITH. Sorry, there is then no difference and
Egyptology has entered the ranks of religion - but it is then a far cry
from science. We are talking here about an accurate portrayal of the
history of MAN's civilization - OUR civilization - no small subject - and
I think that it is only proper to expect that evidence can be produced to
support how scholars are presenting this history. I hardly regard that as
a meaningless discussion or a futile dialogue.
The fact is that the Egyptologists have taken the ancient dates for the
reigns of kings found in Manetho, the Turin Canon, etc. and have accepted
them as "literally true", much as those who believe in the literality of
the Bible and who continue to argue that Adam lived 930 years, Methuselah
lived 969 years, etc. The same scholars who laugh at THOSE people,
however, have no problem in assigning Pepi a reign of 94 or 100 years
(depending on whether you take the dates of Manetho or Eratosthenes as
your source). I do not see any difference in their approach - it is pure
faith - but not verified by anything in the archaeological record.
- Andis Kaulins (J.D. Stanford University, 1971)
Subject: Re: Racism and ancient history
From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 97 22:32:25 GMT
Path: csus.edu!csulb.edu!gatech!ennfs.eas.asu.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!math.ohio-state.edu!not-for-mail
From: vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology,soc.history
Subject: Re: Racism and ancient history
Date: 7 Jan 1997 14:19:07 GMT
Organization: Me? Organized?
Lines: 127
Message-ID: <5atm0r$3h7$1@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>
References: <59erca$aek@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <5abvut$nid@news.sdd.hp.com> <5aj3c5$2r0$1@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu> <5arp6e$p8f@news.sdd.hp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: math.mps.ohio-state.edu
X-Newsposter: Pnews 4.0-test50 (13 Dec 96)
Xref: csus.edu sci.archaeology:59620 soc.history:79823
Status: N
In article <5arp6e$p8f@news.sdd.hp.com>
Gerold Firl (geroldf@sdd.hp.com) wrote:
>In article <5aj3c5$2r0$1@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
>vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) writes:
|> in article <5abvut$nid@news.sdd.hp.com>,
|> Gerold Firl (geroldf@sdd.hp.com) wrote:
|> >Interesting. I must confess to having some doubts about the
|> >revisionism you mention; I have not researched indian prehistory to
|> >any depth, but the general picture of indra, "the destroyer of
|> >cities", as patron diety of the indo-european invaders still looks
|> >very persuasive to me. [...] I find the lack of archeological
|> >evidence for the post-conquest period to be a natural consequence of
|> >the pastoral lifestyle of the early indo-europeans, but I can
|> >understand why post-colonial indian scholars would prefer to interpret
|> >such negative evidence as an indication that it never existed.
|> You have not researched Indian prehistory in any depth, but assume
|> that ``revisionism'' is due to the nationality of the doubters.
>I'm not *assuming* that post-colonial nationalism is coloring the
>slant of indian scholarship, but I do understand where such tendancies
>come from. It's nothing like the excesses of afro-centrism, of course,
>but the repeated cycles of conquest provide a difficult problem for
>the indian national identity; at what point should assimilated foriegn
>ideas be considered indian? Particularly when they are utterly
>contradictory to longstanding aspects of indian culture? In the case
>of vedic culture, which is often considered to form the nominal basis
>of hinduism, and yet is totally antithetical to modern hindu thought
>and the dravidian base culture from which it developed, it's easier to
>declare that the aryan invasion never occured at all.
I suggest that you read Jan Gonda's ``Change and continuity in
Indian ... '' [I am not sure of the exact title, but the last word is
something like `Religion'] before throwing around such claims as you
make in your last sentence.
There are more studies of the same type which raise serious questions
concerning the conventional wisdom about sources of Hindu beliefs.
Ahimsa, for example, has Vedic antecedents. See `Origins of Ahimsa'
by Hans-Peter Schimdt in Festshrift Renou.
>I do not claim to know exactly when and how the indo-europeans arrived
>in india, but the general picture of a military conquest followed by
>gradual assimilation (retarded, but not prevented, by caste
>restrictions) looks very plausible to me. That is the standard model,
>as I understand it. What information do you have which contradicts it?
The simpel fact that philologists who defend that theory have been
unable to find hard archaeological evidence to support it; the
fact that realia present serious anomalies that philologists are
not even aware of; that many have given up the idea of military
conquest, and have retreated to a position of `gradual inflitration'
by Indo-Aryans.
The first has been discussed threadbare in the literature. I have neither
the time nor the inclination to rehash them. I will limit myself
to a few examples of the second.
There is no evidence that bits were used in India to control horses
before the time of Indo-Greeks and Sakas. Vedic texts do not have
any term that could be translated by `bit'. Sanskrit word for bit
is a loan from Greek. On the other hand, Sredny Stog Culture, the
proto-IE culture according to the `Standard Model', shows evidence
of bit use, way back in the fourth millennium BCE. If horses were
introduced into India by people derived from Pontic-Caspian area,
why were bits not used in India?
Another problem with philologists is that they ignore simple mechanics
and basic knowledge of horse harnessing and driving when discussing
chariots which supposedly where the secret weapon of Indo-Aryans.
The Vedic chariot, as resconstructed by philologists from Vedic texts,
is technologically backward compared with chariots from the Near East.
Vedic harness lacked yoke saddles (aka neck forks), crucial in adapting
to horses the neck yoke developed for bovids; Near East shows evidence
for them from 17th century BCE onwards. The Vedic harness would not
be usable except for horses at a walk on level groun or very gentle
slopes (less than 1% grade). And Indo-Aryans rode them from Central Asia
to Punjab, over the mountains of Afghanistan? [References to
get started on this: Sparreboom, `Chariots in the Veda';
Spruytte, `Ancient harness systems'; Littauer and Crouwel,
`Wheeled vehicles and riden animals in the Ancient Near East'.]
>|> Why don't you look at the possiblity of Westerners being misled by
>|> their racial prejudice?
>
>I do consider that possibility, but I don't see any evidence supporting
>the notion that it's played a major role in our understanding of
>indian history. If you have contrary evidence, I'd like to see it.
It is as plain as the nose in your face. Just think about the
way `anaas' has been translated and uncritically accepted by
Mallory or by you.
>|> All available evidence indicates of early IE were agricultural, a fact
>|> accepted by everyone except Indologists (which indicates, IMHO, the
>|> mendacity of Indologists).
>
>Depends on what you mean by "early" IE. The aryans of india certainly
>were not agriculturalists; they reckoned their wealth in terms of
>cattle. If you are referring to the androvno and srubnaya cultures of
>the eastern steppes (likely ancestors of the indian aryans) then a
>characterization of them as "agriculturalists" seems misplaced. Most
>of their territory was too arid for agriculture, though it's very well
>suited to pastoralism.
Andronovo cultures show evidence of >irrigation< agriculture. Grindstones
have been found in Andronovo sites. See Kohl, `Central Asia, from
Paleolithic beginnings to the Iron Age'. [Sorry, I don't have the
exact page numbers handy.]
>|> Archaeological evidence shows that
>|> steppe pastoralism developed out of agricultural lifestyle.
>
>This doesn't look right to me. Can you explain?
I suggest that you simply follow up the references found in Mallory's
`In search of Indo-Europeans'. That even such a staunch defender of the
`Standard Model' accepts this should tell you how strong the evidence is.
--
****************
The most important thing to me is that you simply don't suggest
Indo-Europeans "invaded" India without hard evidence. The original
argument for this theory was based primarily on linguistics and
interpretation of the Rgveda. The latter approach was *very* sloppy.
The main battle in the Rgveda involves "Arya" kings in Madhya Pradesh
who go to battle with, and defeat, the "Dasa" kings of the Punjab
to the northwest. This hardly supports the idea of an invasion from
the northwest of India towards the southeast.
While I don't agree with the theories of Kak, Frawley, Feurstein,
Elst et al., they do have a point in saying that the Vedas
contain no passages suggesting migration from outside of India at
all. Most of the argument centers around Mt. Meru and Uttara
Kuru, both of which are probably in Tibet or to the east of
the Indus. Afghanistan, Iran or the western part of Central
Asia are not important at all.
Also, where is the archaeological evidence showing that the Indus cities
were destroyed by IE invaders? Most specialists have deserted this
idea in favor of climatic or other natural causes for the downfall.
There also is no anthropological evidence showing a sudden eruption of
a different racial type into the region.
The main culture focused on by Aryan invasion theorists is the Painted
Grey Ware Culture (PGW). However, PGW culture was sedentary and
had subsisted mostly on rice agriculture and pig raising (rather than
wheat and cattle). They made mostly wheel-made pottery, which was
associated with the "asuras" in the Vedas. Hand-made pottery alone was
considered "arya." As far as I can remember, no chariots have been
identified in PGW although they did have horses.
PGW culture sites, furthermore, are mostly to the northeast of Harappan
sites. There is little, if any, overlap, so the idea that they invaded
the IVC is not supported. PGW culture only appears centuries after
IVC had already disappeared.
So the idea is that before suggesting something as spectacular as an
Aryan invasion of India, you should have plenty of hard evidence.
Especially if you expect this theory to be accepted by all.
Subject: Re: HOW THE PYRAMIDS WERE BUILT
From: bb089@scn.org (James Conway)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 22:46:10 GMT
gq@news.enterprise.net>
Organization: Seattle Community Network
In a previous article, NotPublic@Nowhere.net (Bjorn Pedersen) says:
>Off course he knew about Santorini. But Santorini is only what remains
>after a much bigger island was blown to bits by an underwater vulcano.
>I'm not sure when this happened, but I'm pretty sure it happened
>before the Mycaenean age and before the Minoan age. I saw the theory
Date of Thera is now 1628 BCE. It looks like this is going to be
'the' date of preference and unbelievably difficult to move more
than plus or minus 25 years.
>aired on the Discovery Channel once, and it seems much more likely
>than most other "theories", especially the ones that claim that
>America or Scandinavia would be Atlantis. But having looked into it
>now, it might as well be the Thira theory. Or it all might be pure
>fiction - which is what I lean toward, having seen no evidence to
>convince me otherwize.
>
>> In my opinion the Atlantis issue is still an open question. One
>> day we will find the answer to this connumdrum, most likely in the
>> West Indies. But don't let's keep on mixing Santorini into the
>> story. Let's keep looking for the real thing.
>
>I really don't think there has ever been an entity known as Atlantis.
>Why? Because there are no evidence what so ever of it: no jugs, no
>amphoras, no ships or armours, or ruins. If the egyptians knew about
>Atlantis for real, then they would have traded with them and would
>have items to display.
>
>But there is nothing, except Plato's tales.
>
>Take Care Now,
>Bj�rn
At Jericho there was a vase from the 9th Millennium BCE level
with an inscription on it stating it was a royal gift from Atlantis.
--
James Conway bb089@scn.org
Seattle, WA 98101 USA
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/kjh/
Subject: Re: Marduk is 24 years not 3600 years
From: gilgamesh@cyberconnect.com (Gilgamesh)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 22:15:48 GMT
John the ForeRunner wrote:
>> Eliyah wrote:
>> >it was Sitchin who claims that Marduk is a planet which
>> >arrives every 3600 years. But he claimed that planet collided and is now=
> destroyed
>> >with our 3rd planet from the sun (Tiamat) and split it into two.
>Gilgamesh wrote:
> > It was the a Moon of Marduk that deystroyed Tiamat, leaving Marduk
>> intact, but most likely damaged due to near orbit gravitations.
>> >The half remaining in one piece he says is Earth.
> John wrote:
>Tiamat's two halves are An and Ki, heaven and earth.
>Tiamat is a person's 360=B0 sphere when standing on earth's surface.
Ohhh boy this is some great stuff.
How can one possibly have any proof that this is what the Epic of
Creation refers to in the battle.
Earth is the half we stand on,
heaven is the hammered out bracelet, as mentioned in the Epic of
Creation, the asteroid belt.
But that is what I read into it. But then everybody has a different
read of it don't they? Even of our esteemed scholars, none agree.
>The horizon splits it in two. Marduk has no moon in the myth.
Marduk, really Nibiru, has 'arrows' that puncture and split Tiamat,
that cleave her. The arrows are the moons.
Gilgamesh
Ovni Continuum
Subject: Re:Shroud
From: Mark W. Tiedemann
Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:42:11 GMT
In article 32CDAE11.370@hancock.net,
"Thomas F. Crossett" said:
>
>The RC Church has not declared on the shroud. However, three Popes,
>Paul
>VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II have declared their opinion that
>it is
>genuine.
>The Bishop of Troyes wrote to the antipope, Clement asking that
>showing
>of the shroud be supressed he claimed his predeccesor talked to the
>artist. However, this predecessor also approved the viewings in the
>first place. Clement did not supress them and told the bishop to
>remain
>forever silent on the subject under threat of excommunication.
>Many books exist on this subject, so why the uncertainty about the
>data?
>
>
Excuse me, but that is patent bs. The church has, after the unambiguous dating done at three university labs--Zurich, Oxford, and Arizona--and the forensics work done previously, declared that the shroud "may serve as an object of veneration" but it is not, in their opinion, J.C.s burial cloth. In other words, they said it makes a good icon and nothing more. The HRC has gotten very careful about ignoring science, despite the wishes of the faithful and the faithfully ignorant in their own ranks.
Subject: Re: The Tiles of Ramses III: Another Answer
From: bb089@scn.org (James Conway)
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 02:49:18 GMT
In a previous article, akaulins@aol.com () says:
>In article <19970106170800.MAA00112@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>ariwyler@aol.com (AriWyler) writes:
[deletions]
>> ...there is no reason to doubt the existence of the
>>others [kings] whose names we know.
>Of course, I accept the logic of your argument, i.e. we have this
>business about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
>I see no reason to argue with the gist of your point - but it still
>does not resolve the issue, which remains debatable.
The existence of these kings isn't debatable as the year of their reign
was used in many common trade transactions as the date of the legal
exchange and its occurrence not to mention royal records like King
Sargon of Akkad. But that has nothing to do with whether or not the
_names_ of these kings were 'used' in divine chronology such as the
numbers given by Manetho which _don't_ match the records of the actual
historic monuments and records. The only significant agreement is the
structure and order of the dynasties of kings and events which sadly is
questionable after the 12th dynasty. 13 - 16 is impossible to pin down
accept that it is between the 12th and 17th. 17 - 19 are together but
it isn't known where on the time line it is. 20 - 24 is a mess. You
have to get to the Manethoian 25th dynasty to know historical dates of
firm foundation using stela information.
>The problem as I see it is that the Egyptologists have not seriously
>examined the alternative explanations - among which would be the idea that
>the pyramids were NOT tombs - whence NO mummies (but rather built for
>astronomical reasons in honor of legendary, "astronomical" personages,
>concepts or "gods", if you will).
>
>Let me take the cartouche of Cheops as an example.
>
>At Jerf el-Ahmar on the Euphrates, they have recently found some small
>stone tablets with symbols on them and which are being dated to 12000 BPE
>(a date which I doubt). Lucien-Jean Bord sent me a scan of one side of one
>of these tablets and you can take a look at it at
Why do you doubt the dating?
>http://members.aol.com/akaulins/expak/euphrat.htm
>
>Lucien-Jean Bord - biblio.abbayeliguge@interpc.fr (Abbaye Liguge) - tells
>me that there will be an important congress of Assyriologists this summer
>in Venice and that a communication about these tablets and inscriptions
>may be done there.
>Let us hope so.
>
>This tablet was found together with another tablet having 34 "crescents"
>on it, which I interpret to be similar to the 33-34 holed "kernos" of
>Malia (Crete) and which I think may have to do with the 33-moon (32.5)
>system of luni-solar calendration - i.e. the period required for the moon
>and sun to come seasonally into phase again in a system using lunar
>calendration (this is what the Muslims still use today).
>
>I interpret the tablet pictured at the above web site to be summer /
>winter (with the snake as Hydra), much as heliacal risings are used on
>other Bablyonian tablets.
>
>Now, for our purposes, it is of interest to compare the symbols used on
>the Jerf el-Ahmar tablet with the Cheops hieroglyph - which - correctly -
>is written vertically on the munuments, with the chick and the round lined
>circle at the top and the snake and the other chick below.
>
>I would suggest that the basic "picture" in both cases is the same and
>represents the same "seasonal"/"astronomical" concept, and that the Cheops
>hieroglyph is thus not a living "king" but a "calendric" notation -
>suggesting that the Cheops pyramid indeed has to do with astronomical
>calendration/observation.
>
>This practice is known from the Mayas. The Enc. Brit writes: "Children
>were often named after the day of their birth; and tribal gods, who were
>legendary heroes of the past, also bore CALENDAR names" (my emphasis).
>
>So, the alternative "astronomical" intepretation for the "kings" of the
>Old Kingdom which I suggest is not without precedent. Indeed, I am quite
>sure that this alternative explanation is the correct one.
>
>- Andis Kaulins (J.D. Stanford University, 1971)
Are you stating that kings would not use divine names for
themselves even following a certain order of those names? I
see no reason to force those kings to be just a gods name.
Kings had many names at the same time changing them every once
in a while when important events occurred and the king dropped
a name and took another while some names were given to kings
after the kings death. King Solomon's name is likely one
attributed to him post death.
--
James Conway bb089@scn.org
Seattle, WA 98101 USA
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/kjh/
Subject: Re: TIME Magazine (Nov 25) humans living 420 years
From: ewill@hpewill.sje.mentorg.com (Eric Williams @ PCB x5577)
Date: 8 Jan 1997 02:42:05 GMT
Followups reset to alt.atheism only.
In article <32CB82C5.1EB5@raccoon.com>, SilverCat writes:
> Arian Mead wrote:
> >
[Gilgamesh's stuff snipped]
> > This is because Gilgamesh wrote about the flood, virgin birth, etc. long
> > before the bible was written and all sorts of religions, etc. took these
> > stories and added them to their own. Look up Gilgamesh, interesting!!
>
> Wasn't he the cat that always chased the smurfs around or was he
> the evil wizard guy?
>
> =-D
>
> Oops...I just dated myself. ;D
>
> SilverCat
At the risk of being totally off-topic...
The wizard's name was Gargamel. The cat's was Azrael. I do not recollect
what the name of the wizard's boy apprentice was; I assume he had one, though.
And no, I do *not* have a crush on Smurfette...though I do note that she
was blonde...
(alt.fan.smurfs??)
--
eric_williams@mentorg.com, wondering if he's turning blue yet.
The preceding is *not* to be construed in any way as an official (or unofficial)
public policy statement by Mentor Graphics, Incorporated, my employer, or
any of its employees, legal representatives, affiliates, customers, or vendors.
Subject: Re: What is this, Biblical Archaelogy?
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 06:49:39 GMT
On 7 Jan 1997 21:23:50 GMT, sudsm@aol.com (SUDSM) wrote:
>
> That early nation was also responsible for concluding that there
>is a Supreme ruling entity over human behavior (God) manifested on
>earth as words (Gen. 2:19, Deut. 4:12 et seq., John 1:1 and 6:63 --
>for example).
suds,
i wonder if, in working out your view on god as words, you've given
any thought to the laws of material implication (from the
propositional calculus - often called the paradoxes of material
implication)...they indicate an inherent tendency towards truth in the
making of statements...the "true" statement might well be called a
"strange attractor" for the enengies used in (and required for) the
making of any statement in any concievabel fashion, mode, or
form...thus an evolutionary tendency toward god (as true word) built
into universe...further, a process of creation and decay of
biodegradable (false or "not as true as" statements) gods along the
way...an analysis of the osirus-isis-horus process as sequence of
truthward statement might also prove of interest to you...
frank
Subject: BETTER than the SUPER BOWL (MacRae vs. Conrad)
From: edconrad@sunlink.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 07:02:49 GMT
On Tues., Jan. 7, 1997, Andrew MacRae (macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca)
wrote to talk.origins in response to Ed Conrad's posting entitled,
``Why Andrew MacRae's opinion LACKS CREDIBILITY," and
Ed Conrad now responds to at least a part of Andrew's response:
Andrew MacRae's response
-- ``Re: Why Andrew MacRae's opinion LACKS CREDIBILITY (LONG)" --
can be found on talk.origins.
Please go there first, then return here, which is why I've dubbed my
response to his response:
>>>> ED'S TURN AT BAT (finally!)
On Tue, 07 Jan 1997, Andrew MacRae (macrae@geo.ucalgary.ca)
wrote a long and windy (hot air) response to my posting and, the way
I figure it, it's probably going to require a 14-part series to answer
it.
All I can do is try (although I fear my response might be somewhat
helter-skelter).
+++++
>: In article <32cceccc.3388557@news.sunlink.net>,
>: Ed Conrad wrote:
>: Why did you switch providers, Ed? This is your chance
>: to set the record straight. People were speculating quite a bit
>: over the Christmas holiday.
The fact is, Andrew, Prolog (PenTelData based in Palmerton, Pa.)
had terminated my services -- unjustly and quite improperly when all
factors are taken into consideration.
Joann Norwood, Customer Service, informed me in an Email dated Nov.
27, 1996 that it had been receiving ``multiple complaints from users
of our service . . . from sci.groups . . . of harassment. Please
review the FAQs before posting . . .
``Any further complaints will result in the immediate termination of
your service. Please contact this office if you have any questions."
____
I phoned Ms. Barwood twice, on two different days, but both times
was told she was out of the office.
I left a message for her to return my call the first time, which she
failed to do. The following day I was told she wouldn't be in until 1
p.m. so I left another message, stressing that my phone call was
urgent and emphasizing the importance that she return the call
immediately upon receiving the message. She never did.
I simply wanted to explain that the sci.groupers were ganging up
on me -- as indeed they have been, and still are. But, most
importantly, I wanted to point out that if Prolog were to check the
dates of postings by various individuals, it would quickly learn that
the very people who were complaining about being harassed actually had
been responsible in a large way for institigating it.
Ms. Barwood never had the courtesy to return either call, so I never
had an opportunity to explain anything to her (to explain to her
superiors).
Lo and behold, two weeks went by and I received a snail-mail letter
from Prlog, dated Dec. 13, 1996, in which Ms. Barwood wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Termination of Account #007790
User Name: Ed Conrad
Dear Mr. Conrad:
This is to advise you that your above referenced account has been
terminanted for the following reasons:
Usernet abuse;
Harassment;
Flame bait;
Multiple complaints have been received.
Please contact our office if you have any questions regarding this
matter.
_______
I phoned Prolog's office and asked for Ms. Barwood but this time was
asked who wanted to speak to her. Only then was I told she wasn't in.
I called back and once again had to say who was calling, then was told
once again that she wasn't available.
I wanted to inform Ms. Barwood that Prolog was playing the role of
both judge and jury in this matter. It had terminated my account
without even giving me an opportunity to defend myself, to present my
side of the story.
I also wanted to ask her why the Email warning had mentioned
harassment but that the letter informing me of the termination of my
account suddenly accused me of ``Usenet abuse" and ``Flame bait."
I believe Prolog is out of line and presently am seriously pursuing
legal action against PenTelData for violating my First Amendment
rights of free speech.
It is not that Prolog, or any other server, can terminate a client's
services but it must be done according to defined procedures of
operation -- some rules of law -- which unfortunately apparently are
still unclear and rather vague on the Internet.
Common courtesy by Prolog, in Ms. Barwood's warning letter via Email,
would've been to mention all of these alleged ``abuses." This
certainly was NOT the case.
By outrageously terminating my account, Prolog failed to operate above
board in its dealing with a loyal, bill-paying client who apparently
had caused it no problems duirng the first year or so, since it never
had any cause to issue any previous warnings .
It sort of reminded me of the sad, deplorable state of affairs
involving the publishing fiasco pitting the incredibly powerful
scientific establishment against Immaneul Velikovsky in 1950.
Even before Velikovsky's stirring, sensational book, ``Worlds in
Collision," was published, academicians and scientists -- denizens of
today's ``sci.groups" -- threatened the MacMillan publishing house
that it would exercise its forceful influence to assure that colleges
and universities across the country would refuse to purchase its
scientific textbooks if it didn't (1) cancel its plans to publish the
book, or (2) rid itself of the title if the presses had begun rolling.
Gutless MacMillan bowed to the intimidation and, even though ``Worlds
in Collision" was greeted with wide acclaim and meteorically rose to
No. 1 on the New York Times' Best Seller List, it transferred the
publishing rights, free of charge, to rival publisher Doubleday (not
a publisher of scientific textbooks).
.
~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> The followings will be a permanent fixture
>>> at the tail end of all 14 parts of this series
>>> of responses to Andrew MacRae's tearjerker:
>: Andrew MacRae's get-tough paragraph:
_
>I now expect some sort of public acknowledgement
>that you have erred. I know an apology is too much
> to ask for, but your usual tactic of slinking away and
>hoping people forget about your insults is not acceptable in
>this instance. The error is too obvious and the accusations
>too serious. Please defend your accusations or withdraw
>them, preferably before another month has expired.
=======
Andrew:
You do not deserve an apology and definitely will not get
one.
You are no better than the rest of the pathetic crew of pseudo
scientists I have had to deal with over these past 15-16 years,
the majority totally defiant of the advice about honest scientific
investigation offered so eloquently by good ol' Thomas Alva Edison:
>> ``The right to search for the truth
>> implies also a duty; one must not
>> conceal any part of what one has
>> recognized to be true."
My two specimens, which you had examined and tested in your
laboratory, are indeed petrified bone. Nothing you can EVER say
or do will turn them into rocks or concretions.
=====
Meanwhile, I once again remind you of the editorial in The
Princetonian in February 1964, responding to the deplorable tactics
that had been employed by the academia in opposition to Velikovsky's
eye-opening masterpiece, ``Worlds in Collision":
>> ``What the Velikovsky affair made crystal clear . . .
>> is that the theories of science may be held not only
>> for the truth they embody, but because of the vested
>> interests they represent for those who hold them."
________
> Ed Conrad (edconrad@sunlink.net)
> Home page (actually Ted Holden's):
> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
> and
> http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/contest1.htm
> Disclaimer: I, Ed Conrad, am solely responsible for any statements
> that I make which for some strange reason always seem to ruffle
> a lot of scientific feathers.
