The Bible, what's literal and what's not?

[superstarr]

Sorry, but I'm not going to take an article where the author writes Ciaro, instead of Cairo, seriously. It's not that hard to run a spellcheck.

Search it for yourself then. I guess I picked a bad sourse, but this is a better possibility than that of Egyptians just suddenly knowing things that won't be discovered until 4000 years into the future. This guy from the website make not sound too reliable in that standpoint of spelling Cairo wrong, but if you take your time to search other websites, read books and watch some documentaries, you'll see that it's a much more likely possibility than that of gaining knowledge from nowhere.

Good. Glad to hear that.

---

Starr, I do have some problems with the whole scenario laid out by the Egyptology Club. Here's a link to a post I made at Archaeologica about 4 years ago.

http://archaeologica.boardbot.com/viewto...000+#p7186


P.S. - I'm still waiting for that experiment!

I was trying to get evidence on HOW they were made, not how long it took. Of course making it in 20 years is just crazy. We just don't know about that.

[Minimalist]

If you discount the 20 year assumption then it becomes possible to do it with the technology available. Egyptologists cling to the 20 year time frame because they insist that the pyramids were tombs-and-tombs-only. If they give up the 20 years...which is way too long for the average reign of a pharaoh... they would have to give up the tomb scenario. They would rather cut off their own balls than do that.

How long did it take to build the cathedrals of Europe? Centuries and they had far better technology than the Egyptians.

[Shell B]

Spelling Cairo wrong was the least of it. Yes, it was a bad source. That doesn't necessarily mean that it contained bad information, but, well, it did.

How do we truly know when such things are "discovered?" Obviously, they were discovered 4,000 years before you think they were.

I'm extremely skeptical about the idea that aliens showed up and taught the Egyptians how to build the pyramids. I assure you, I have read a great deal on the subject and there is no reason for me to believe that aliens are the source of their knowledge.

Just out of curiosity, what is it that they "suddenly knew" that wasn't discovered until 4,000 years later?

[superstarr]

Spelling Cairo wrong was the least of it. Yes, it was a bad source. That doesn't necessarily mean that it contained bad information, but, well, it did.

How do we truly know when such things are "discovered?" Obviously, they were discovered 4,000 years before you think they were.

I'm extremely skeptical about the idea that aliens showed up and taught the Egyptians how to build the pyramids. I assure you, I have read a great deal on the subject and there is no reason for me to believe that aliens are the source of their knowledge.

Just out of curiosity, what is it that they "suddenly knew" that wasn't discovered until 4,000 years later?

The "suddenly knew" thing was their ways of making the pyramids out of those millions of blocks that weighed tons of pounds and constructing structures like the pyramids themselves using complex mathematical concepts that weren't discovered until these past hundred years or so. Theories about them making the pyramids themselves are always contradicted in some manner. Unless they happen to have stumbled-upon the ideas out of nowhere, someone had to have told them. The hieroglyphics do indeed depict saying that they gained knowledge from beings of the skies, and you can't tell me that Osiris was the one who told them. Someone told them, but we just don't know who or what. Unless the heiroglyphics themselves are lying, which is doubtful.

[Shell B]

Like I said, that knowledge was obviously developed 4000 years earlier than you think. It's absurd to say, "they came up with it 4000 years before it was invented."

Why can't they have come up with it themselves? Other cultures did. Seeing that it is an idea, someone could have, you know, thought of it. Obviously it wasn't Osiris. How are aliens any more plausible?

[superstarr]

Like I said, that knowledge was obviously developed 4000 years earlier than you think. It's absurd to say, "they came up with it 4000 years before it was invented."

Why can't they have come up with it themselves? Other cultures did. Seeing that it is an idea, someone could have, you know, thought of it. Obviously it wasn't Osiris. How are aliens any more plausible?

I just realized that I didn't fully answer your question, by knowledge, I mean the complex mathematical concepts needed for such an accomplishment. And actually, cultures like the Mayan's also got knowledge from "beings of the heavens" according to their carvings. Even the native americans like in a place in the Arizona area (I'm trying to remember the name of the tribes) made some sort of astrological calander that was designed not by them, but by "gods from the skies." Does that mean aliens? Possibly. Aliens are more plausible because it is stated that "beings from the sky" informed the people of such knowledge. That knowledge could very well have been part of the building of the pyramids. No one can ignore what the carvings or the heiroglyphs decipher. Unless the heiroglyphs weren't literal.

How did this topic become a topic on how primitive people gained knowledge to build structures that would be nearly impossible with current technology today? Lol.

[Shell B]

I like this topic better, anyway.

I know you mean the mathematical concepts, etc. It is not unheard of for ancient people to attribute their knowledge, morality, etc., to "beings from the sky." Aliens more plausible than gods, yes. More plausible than a. misinterpreted symbols or b. misunderstood cultures, no. You're applying today's logic to something that was built and written about yesterday. Do you believe the ancient Greeks when they say (wrote) that gods were responsible for virtually everything in their lives? Do you believe the bible's explanation for the appearance of man on Earth?

This actually fits well in this thread. Should Egyptian hieroglyphs be taken literally?

[superstarr]

I like this topic better, anyway.

I know you mean the mathematical concepts, etc. It is not unheard of for ancient people to attribute their knowledge, morality, etc., to "beings from the sky." Aliens more plausible than gods, yes. More plausible than a. misinterpreted symbols or b. misunderstood cultures, no. You're applying today's logic to something that was built and written about yesterday. Do you believe the ancient Greeks when they say (wrote) that gods were responsible for virtually everything in their lives? Do you believe the bible's explanation for the appearance of man on Earth?

This actually fits well in this thread. Should Egyptian hieroglyphs be taken literally?

Well, the heiroglyphs aren't subject to misinterpretation since the language isn't extinct. The little trick with the "beings of the skies" thing, is that if they indeed were mentioning a God like Osiris, they would most likely have mentioned Osiris by name. The Ancient Greeks wrote down things a little differently than the Egyptians because the Greeks were developed much later than the Egyptians, and it was the time of the Old Testament and it was the age of "Gods did this" and the "They made us" garbage. The Greeks weren't part of the Bronze Age. But the heiroglyphs actually told stories on things that actually made some sense to their time, unlike the bible that often contradicts itself itself. It tells stories of the age of the pharoahs, how things were, and the heiroglyphs where the "other worldly beings" were, had carvings that resemble aliens that we picture today. Even the mayans had carvings that depicted some being in a modern spacesuit.

And I think I know how we started talking about this. I think that Godschild was trying to prove that people back when they wrote the bible weren't too primitive. But even if the Egyptians weren't primitive, the bible wasn't written until after the pyramids of giza, which was the age of the gods.