scientific word for Biblical Filament in Genesis 1: Universe in the Nutshell

[cladking]

Third, the hieroglyphs of the Old Kingdom period haven’t changed all that much in the later periods, eg Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom and the Late Period. Some new words may be introduced, but largely it have been pretty static.

Well, yes, they did.

I'm always struck by the fact that Egyptology believes the PT contradicts itself over and over. They say this is because their superstitions arose in many different cities.

But the reality is that it doesn't contradict itself when taken literally. One of the things it says repeatedly is that the "king is the pyramid". They actually used the words "the king is the pyramid". They said it in many dozens of different ways. They said the pyramid is the ka of the king and he will never die. They said they rebuilt the body of the king so he could be eternal (as a mnemonic).

149d. Thou perishest not, thy ka perishes not, (for) thou art a ka.

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt07.htm

The language changed a great deal in its appearance. Egyptology merely assumes that it was parsed just like later language.

 

[cladking]

...quack conspiracy theory... ... and your conspiracy theory of the Ancient Language.

I believe in NO conspiracies of any sort. I believe all the evidence can be explained by the fact that modern people see only what they believe.

It is a simple fact that Zahi Hawass has made several disparaging comments about scientists and has said no data will be released by Egyptology if it contradicts the paradigm.

 

[gnostic]

Well, yes, they did.

I'm always struck by the fact that Egyptology believes the PT contradicts itself over and over. They say this is because their superstitions arose in many different cities.

What facts, cladking??!!!

You have provided any evidence so far.

You talk against Egyptology and Egyptologists about the Pyramid Texts, and you have not cited one work from a single Egyptologist.

And second. The Pyramid Texts were the works of the priesthood, not the kings, not the bureaucratic officials, not the builders.

The priesthood are not known for being consistent, so if contradictions were found, then that are shortcomings of priests.

You do realise that are no single canon version of the Pyramid Texts, don’t you?

There are no canonical texts anywhere in Egyptian religion and culture.

Even though there are not number of Book of the Dead, they were written in different periods by different people, so there are bound to be inconsistencies when you compare one version against the other.

And the Egyptian priesthood weren’t know for producing masterpiece of literature.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is a better work of literature than anything written by Egyptians, and the story of Gilgamesh (the Sumerian version) is almost just as old as the Pyramid Texts.

By the 18th century BCE, a standard version of the Gilgamesh epic, written in the Akkadian dialect of Old Babylonian, persisted well into the 7th century BCE (Neo-Assyrian).

The plot, theme and the characters in the Epic, are something that Egyptians could never match.

You are being pedantic by fussing over something as trivial as contradictions.

 

[cladking]

You talk against Egyptology and Egyptologists about the Pyramid Texts, and you have not cited one work from a single Egyptologist.

I do not "talk against Egyptology". I am pointing out that their methodology is highly flawed and they never noticed the snake right in front of their face. These are the facts.

And second. The Pyramid Texts were the works of the priesthood, not the kings, not the bureaucratic officials, not the builders.

There is no evidence there even was a "priesthood" except for interpretation. There were individuals known as various types of "priests" but evidence suggests they were different types of scientists. The evidence is very weak for this but no evidence exists that they were "religious". I mentioned THERE WERE NO WORDS FOR "BELIEF" in the entire language so there were no words for "religion" either. Egyptologists invented this religion from the book of the dead. They used improper methodology. Rather than testing and experimenting on the pyramids and artefacts they secluded themselves in ivory towers and parsed the Pyramid Texts. This is not scientific methodology. It lies outside of metaphysics and is therefore wrong.

The priesthood are not known for being consistent, so if contradictions were found, then that are shortcomings of priests.

The literal meaning of the PT is CONSISTENT. Obviously it's because the literal meaning was the INTENDED MEANING.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is a better work of literature than anything written by Egyptians, and the story of Gilgamesh (the Sumerian version) is almost just as old as the Pyramid Texts.

The older versions are as incomprehensible as the PT.

You are being pedantic by fussing over something as trivial as contradictions.

Hmfff. Egyptology even fixes the grammar, spelling, and tenses of the ancient writing. These words are chiseled in stone LITERALLY and there are no errors except in the minds of Egyptologists.

 

[cladking]

What facts, cladking??!!!

You have provided any evidence so far.

You just -snip- the evidence and logic and then complain I present none.

I respond to all of your points.

 

[gnostic]

I do not "believe" in the Tower of Babel nor do I know if there was anything in the bible related to the REAL change in the language. I am merely speculating that perhaps there was a REAL change in the language about 2000 BC that was confused into the story of the tower of babel. The only "evidence" for a collapsed "tower" to my knowledge is the Meidum Pyramid.

Then why bring up the Tower of Babel at all, if it is merely an analogy?

As to the Meidum Pyramid, the original design was that of step pyramid type, but when it was expanded and redesigned by Sneferu, it collapsed due to error in constructing the expanded section were built on sands, instead of rocks.

It has nothing to do with the Tower of Babel.

Nothing in the Genesis story say that the Tower being destroyed. All it say that they abandoned the construction because the builders couldn’t understand each other, because they instantly spoke different languages.

All you are doing is making wild speculations, just more of your conspiracy theory.

 

[cladking]

All you are doing is making wild speculations, just more of your conspiracy theory.

AND WHAT CONSPIRACY IS THIS EXACTLY????

Modern humans don't conspire to see their own beliefs preferentially to reality. We just do it. We don't conspire to parse language. It's how modern language works.

Egyptology doesn't conspire to use poor methodology. It's what they inherited from the et als.

THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY.

 

[cladking]

It has nothing to do with the Tower of Babel.

I don't believe the tower of babel is an analogy. I believe it is a confusion of real events. There IS a Sumerian version of this story as well and there are versions of the Bible story that say the tower collapsed. This is irrelevant however if I am correct because it was Ancient Language that collapsed as well as ancient science and 40,000 years of human history dating back to S3h and Sopdet. The tower is no analogy. Rather the story is a confused version of something real.

There was no conspiracy because Ancient Language CAN'T BE TRANSLATED. There was no means to preserve ancient knowledge though there were many attempts. The words and the knowledge were all twisted by language and beliefs. Now they are discounted entirely by the belief in the infallibility and omniscience of "science"; the new religion.

Most everything that exists today is derived from ancient knowledge and its confusion. It is derived from ancient vocabulary.

 

[gnostic]

There were individuals known as various types of "priests" but evidence suggests they were different types of scientists. The evidence is very weak for this but no evidence exists that they were "religious". I mentioned THERE WERE NO WORDS FOR "BELIEF" in the entire language so there were no words for "religion" either. Egyptologists invented this religion from the book of the dead. They used improper methodology.

Again you are being pedantic.

They don’t need word for “belief” to show that the Egyptians believe in something, eg belief in gods and their practices.

You are being absurd here.

The facts that the names of the gods in the pyramid texts are the same ones written with the same hieroglyphs in the coffin texts or books of the dead, naturally lead to conclusion, that they have religions and their belief.

Many ancient religions have no names of what they are called, but that doesn’t mean that their religions don’t exist.

The more I communicate with you, debate with you, the more convince I am that you are are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist with unsubstantiated wild and wishful speculation.

 

[cladking]

Again you are being pedantic.

They don’t need word for “belief” to show that the Egyptians believe in something, eg belief in gods and their practices.

You are being absurd here.

They had no words for "belief" or "thought" or any of their synonyms. Indeed the missing words make up some three quarters of modern vocabulary. They had only some 20,000 words and most of them were nouns. This is not consistent with our "beliefs", "theories", or "guesses" about the ancients. Just as we positively know they lacked levitation rays and high tech because there is no evidence of experimental science or the technology, knowledge, and materials to build levitation guns we also know positively they did not experience "thought" or understand the concept of "belief".

We can't function at all without belief but they DID. This implies a difference of Biblical proportions between their nature and our's. The nature and scale of this difference can be seen in the literal meaning of EVERYTHING THEY WROTE.

The facts that the names of the gods in the pyramid texts are the same ones written with the same hieroglyphs in the coffin texts or books of the dead, naturally lead to conclusion, that they have religions and their belief.

You could be an Egyptologist. Not only did the meaning of the word "god" change but the very nature of words themselves changed as well as the way meaning was expressed. We "define" symbolic words" in terms of other "symbolic words". They named words. Indeed this was another snake that bit Egyptology on the nose; all through the PT are references to "in its name of". If they had been paying attention they'd have realized that this phrase was part of the grammar and used as a sort of determinative of meaning. BUT THEY MISSED IT just like everything else. It's just like they translated the PT and then never bothered to read their own translations.

...conspiracy theorist...

Yep! You have no idea what conspiracy I propose but I must be a "conspiracy theorist" to be so deluded.

 

[gnostic]

I don't believe the tower of babel is an analogy. I believe it is a confusion of real events. There IS a Sumerian version of this story as well and there are versions of the Bible story that say the tower collapsed. This is irrelevant however if I am correct because it was Ancient Language that collapsed as well as ancient science and 40,000 years of human history dating back to S3h and Sopdet. The tower is no analogy. Rather the story is a confused version of something real.

Again more wild speculation.

There are no records of writing beyond 5300 years ago (or 3400 BCE), a more primitive form of cuneiform found in ancient Uruk. Archaeologists referred to these inscriptions to be proto-Sumerian written language.

The Sumerian civilization, or the Sumerian proper, started withe Jemdet Nasr period (c 3100 - c 2900 BCE).

Only a few primitive hieroglyphs were found in predynastic Egypt a century-and-a-half or 2 centuries max later, were found in Nekken and Naqada.

Everything before that (before 3400 BCE), no other written records. What languages people spoke before 3400 BCE, are all guessworks.

This 40,000 years human history is largely prehistoric, so no written records of any kind, so you can only speculate on this silly “Ancient Language”. What we do have some tools, and even rarer some drawings or paintings, but not much else, before 10,000 years ago.

From 10,500 years ago, marked the beginning of the Neolithic period, where permanent settlements, village-like settlements became increasing more abundant, with each new centuries or millennia.

The reason why permanent settlement, instead of the nomadic lifestyle of the Upper Palaeolithic hunters-and-gathers, is because people learn how to farm, grow crops and animal husbandry. By 5500 and 5000 BCE, they learned how to store food longer, because they learned how to make pottery out of clay.

Like I said. No written language were available before the the 4th millennium BCE, which was largely referred to as the Chalcolithic period, when they were making and using copper tools alone with the stone tools of the late Neolithic period.

My points is that they achieve all this, long before writing exist. What we don’t know is what languages people spoke before the usages of Sumerian and Egyptian languages.

And I don’t think people spoke only one language like this Tower of Babel episode claimed. And I don’t think your own version of Ancient Language any better than Babel myth, they are both mythological babbles.

 

[cladking]

This 40,000 years human history is largely prehistoric, so no written records of any kind, so you can only speculate on this silly “Ancient Language”. What we do have some tools, and even rarer some drawings or paintings, but not much else, before 10,000 years ago.

You are continuing to ignore my arguments while repeating your beliefs.

There was no written record, no recorded history, because language was nearly sufficient to the task. Language was metaphysical so all known science was included in it. History required an oral tradition but most individuals would have known the highlights of this tradition. This is evidenced not only by the fragmentary and confused history passed down to us in religious sources, myths, and legends but in references in the PT. Your belief that there is no basis in reality to any of this is irrelevant to the facts. Our ignorance of a possible source for the tower of babel is irrelevant to whether or not any such event ever occurred. You have beliefs generated by a century and a half of a "science" that performs no experiment and I have evidence, logic, and the ability to make predictions.

It is illogical to propose that ancient humans survived through beliefs and superstition. Any tribe that operated like this would always have their lunch eaten by another tribe that operated scientifically. Since we operate on belief the only possible conclusion is something changed. Something very fundamental killed off Homo Sapiens and gave rise to Homo Omnisciencis. Since this change is invisible in the fossil record, tombs, and graves it follows that the change was much more subtle in origin. I merely propose that it was the formation of a second speech center that arises in each individual in order to learn modern language that is this change. This is why the location of this speech center varies among individuals and why recorded history didn't begin for more than 1000 years after the invention of writing.

It's quite apparent that human progress was linear right up until the tower of babel and then we started over with nothing but a lost past, beliefs, and ancient scientific technology that allowed us to survive our superstitions.

 

[The Anointed]

That’s why worm hole falls under the theoretical category in physics.

Much the same as evolution remains only a theory.

 

[Polymath257]

Much the same as evolution remains only a theory.

Nope. Not in the same way. Wormholes have not been detected and may well be difficult to produce in the real world.

Evolution *has* been detected and we know several mechanisms for it to happen.

 

[gnostic]

Much the same as evolution remains only a theory.

This thread has nothing to do with evolution.

But for your information, evolution is a scientific theory, which is a falsifiable and well-tested explanation to the fact of biodiversity.

The word "tested" mean there are evidences to back up the theory.

And since its inception in 1859, numerous evidences have backed up natural selection evolution. And since the 20th century, other evolutionary mechanisms have expanded the theory, to include Mutation, Genetic Drift and Gene Flow, again backed by evidences.

So being a theory is not a bad thing.

Newtonian gravity and law of motion are also theory, but not a complete theory. Einstein improved our knowledge on gravity with General Relativity, which is also well supported theory, while his Special Relativity plugged a big hole in the Newton's law of motion, for a far more dynamic motion, and for object that approach the speed of life.

All these are scientific theories.

What are not a "scientific theory" are String Theory, Multiverse model, M-theory. These are theoretical hypotheses or models that haven't been tested, but they have been debunked yet because they are mathematical feasible.

But any scientific theory, don't rely on maths or logic alone, they required observable, testable and verifiable evidences, which the theory of evolution have already done so, repeatedly.

It is only your utter ignorance what is a scientific theory, that make you look willfully ignorant, because you refused to understand scientific theory explain facts.

Will you ever understand the difference between scientific theory and the colloquial use of theory?

From my experiences with creationists, NEVER, NOT IN A MILLION YEARS!

 

[gnostic]

It is illogical to propose that ancient humans survived through beliefs and superstition. Any tribe that operated like this would always have their lunch eaten by another tribe that operated scientifically. Since we operate on belief the only possible conclusion is something changed. Something very fundamental killed off Homo Sapiens and gave rise to Homo Omnisciencis.

Again, with this non-existence "Homo Omnisciencis".

There is no such thing as Homo Omnisciencis.

The only person I know of who used Homo Omnisciencis, is the quack named Graham Hancock. He is a bloody journalist, who write conspiracy theory about ancient civilisations, but he isn't a historian, archaeologist or engineer. He is the idiot who wrote Fingerprints of the Gods.

Are you fan of Hancock?

Second, if Omnisciencis is meant to species, it should always be spelt with lower case "o", never capitalized. Only the genus, eg Homo, is capitalized.

But since Homo Omnisciencis doesn't exist, it is a pointless term.

And Homo Sapiens should be written as Homo sapiens or the modern human, Homo sapiens sapiens.

Lastly, I have never claimed that humans survived through belief and superstitions, alone. This is straw man.

But the Pyramid Texts does prove that Egyptian believe in magic and superstition. The frequent mentioned of Atum, Ra, Nut, Isis, Osiris, Horus and Seth, in the Pyramid Texts, demonstrated their belief.

The Pyramid Texts even include a brief version of the creation myth where Atum/Ra created his offspring, Shu and Tefnut. Which was expanded in the Coffin Text, and given even more details in a papyrus (now kept in the British Museum), which is titled The Book Of Knowing The Evolutions Of Ra, And Of The Overthrowing of Apep (papyrus number 10,188, British Museum)),

Are you sure there is no belief in the Pyramid Texts?

 

[cladking]

There is no such thing as Homo Omnisciencis.

And you know that how?

Lastly, I have never claimed that humans survived through belief and superstitions, alone. This is straw man.

It doesn't matter if you actually say it or not. You believe ancient people were highly superstitious. Egyptologists say it is this superstition that made the Egyptians strong enough to drag stones hither and yon despite the fact there's no evidence or reason to believe they dragged stones to build pyramids. It is agreed today that ancient people lacked science and technology. It is claimed they invented agriculture and cities through trial and error. Are we really supposed to believe cavemen were so inept and stupid that they didn't know plants come from seeds? So why did it take 30,000 years to invent agriculture?

Modern beliefs about our past are illogical and based on assumptions that are not evidenced. Ancient people weren't sun addled bumpkins, we are!

The frequent mentioned of Atum, Ra, Nut, Isis, Osiris, Horus and Seth, in the Pyramid Texts, demonstrated their belief.

All complex constructions require infrastructure and a foundation. There were no words for "belief" so they lacked the infrastructure. There is no evidence of belief in "gods" so they lacked the foundation.

Egyptological beliefs are very complex and are founded on the erroneous assumption that ancient Egyptians were stinky footed moribund bumpkins.

Are you sure there is no belief in the Pyramid Texts?

I am 75% confident that there are absolutely no beliefs expressed in the PT. They wouldn't understand the concept of belief any more than a sparrow or a gnat would comprehend it.

I am 99.9% confident they had no infrastructure or means to express beliefs or thoughts and that Egyptologists never even noticed! It follows that they probably had no beliefs or thoughts so they were NOTHING AT ALL like Egyptologists.

 

[gnostic]

It doesn't matter if you actually say it or not. You believe ancient people were highly superstitious. Egyptologists say it is this superstition that made the Egyptians strong enough to drag stones hither and yon despite the fact there's no evidence or reason to believe they dragged stones to build pyramids. It is agreed today that ancient people lacked science and technology. It is claimed they invented agriculture and cities through trial and error. Are we really supposed to believe cavemen were so inept and stupid that they didn't know plants come from seeds? So why did it take 30,000 years to invent agriculture?

Modern beliefs about our past are illogical and based on assumptions that are not evidenced. Ancient people weren't sun addled bumpkins, we are!

Again, more idiotic straw man.

I have never claimed the ancient people were stupid.

The only bumpkins I see are conspiracy theorists, who make up all sorts of ridiculous craps.

You are a fan of Graham Hancock, aren’t you? Or is it Robert Bauval?

They are the nutcases who wrote about the conspiracy theories about Giza.

 

[viole]

I ask you a simple question with a simple answer...

Does God lie?

If He really inspired Genesis, then He lies or He has no clue (inclusive OR).
Or we can interpret it as figurative language. Which is the standard paradigm of liberal Christianity:

1) if it has really been proven wrong by science, then it is figurative
2) if it has not been yet, then it is literal. Might become figurative in the future, though

Ciao

- viole.

 

[Polymath257]

It doesn't matter if you actually say it or not. You believe ancient people were highly superstitious. Egyptologists say it is this superstition that made the Egyptians strong enough to drag stones hither and yon despite the fact there's no evidence or reason to believe they dragged stones to build pyramids. It is agreed today that ancient people lacked science and technology. It is claimed they invented agriculture and cities through trial and error. Are we really supposed to believe cavemen were so inept and stupid that they didn't know plants come from seeds? So why did it take 30,000 years to invent agriculture?

Well, one obvious aspect is that if they were hunter-gatherers, they would want flexibility to follow the herds. This means not settling down and tying themselves to a piece of land. So, we don't expect to see agriculture developed until they domesticate some animals to provide a consistent food supply.

The other, less obvious, reason is that settling down to do agriculture is actually a *bad idea*. For most early agriculturalists, the overall nutritional level went *down*. The variety of foods went *down*. The amount of work went *up* significantly.

If you can gather enough wheat for your meal by simply walking through a field and gathering what you want, why plant, tend the fields, etc?

It was only when the climate went drier and the natural fields started to decrease that we see the rise of agriculture, settled communities, etc. That happened about 10,000 years ago.