1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Who build the pyramids?

Discussion in 'World History' started by Amenhotep IV, May 20, 2003.

?

Who build the Pyramids

  1. the ancient Egyptians (Khufu, Chafre, Menkaure)

    40 vote(s)
    76.9%
  2. the Atlantian's ancestors

    2 vote(s)
    3.8%
  3. the Atlantian's ancestors with the help of the Egyptians.

    4 vote(s)
    7.7%
  4. someone else

    6 vote(s)
    11.5%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pawpaw

    pawpaw Now Farve-Proof

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,229
    Location:
    u.s.a
    how would an excavation be able to tell from half a skeleton if it was a slave or not? and if one believes in the bible , moses says it was slaves.
     
  2. pandora

    pandora Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Messages:
    64
    moses :rolleyes:

    how to tell, they where not slaves? simple: they had burocracy at that time too. if you find notations that worker nr. 141 of pack 17 is away (his aunties cementary) while worker nr. 37 of pack 12 cannot work ,cause he was bruisin last night, you become a bit silly calling them slaves ;)
    what do you need more? birthday parties?

    it is so simple. you are an allmighty godlike king living in excess while your people are out at the farms. but 3 month a year the farms are flooded.
    what will you do when you see , after a few years ,that you have built more than enough stupid temples, palaces, statues and the people begin to question the sence of these things?
    ...
     
  3. Evie

    Evie Pronounced like Eevee

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,940
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    How would the people who actually wrote down the bible in Babylon in 500BC or so (historical fact : the bible was written down in Babylon for the most part, as a mean of strengthening the jewish people identity during the exile) have ANY serious knowledge whatsoever of events that took place 2100 years before (2600 BC : construction of the pyramids) without the benefits of all our modern means of archeology, and without the benefits of egyptian scholars around to tell them, if they had even bothered asking?

    One simply has to accept that while the moral and spiritual commands of the Bible may well come straight from God (not a debate I have any desire to get in ; I'm neutral on that score), it is no sourcebook on history and biology, both because its writers lacked access to the proper information, and because it's biased, being written by and for the jews.
     
  4. allhailIndia

    allhailIndia Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2001
    Messages:
    3,328
    Location:
    Casa de Non Compos Mentis
    Recent excavations have found entire cities being built for the workers and the fact that they were cared for and protected by their bosses shows that these were not some captives who hauled up big blocks to the Pyramids.

    Plus, as injured worker was not just left to die but actually treated and healed by physicians, as was found out by the discovery of the workers cemetery.:egypt:
     
  5. Mark Young

    Mark Young Formerly Sir Eric

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,799
    @pawpaw
    The bible states that the Hebrews when enslaved in Egypt built storage cities not the pyramids. They built Pi-ramses in the Nile delta which is where historians think the land of Goshen was. The Pyramids were built approx 400 years earlier.
    The Historian Josephus mistakenly said that the Jews built the pyramids. If you want references to where he said it just let me know and I'll find it for you.


    BTW
     
  6. pawpaw

    pawpaw Now Farve-Proof

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Messages:
    5,229
    Location:
    u.s.a
    allhailindia, let me get this right, we can tell they were all egyptian because of there skeletons? if we a skeleton in europe from the 1500's you can tell if its spanish,german or french, i don't think so. they built structures for the workers, acourse they did do you think thousands of slaves sleep in the sand for 20 years in a row building these. a dead slve serves no one. then you say cemeterys prove medical attention for the workers, now i don't know adout were you live but here cemeterys are for dead people! people with medical attention live, do not get burried. i put the bible fact in as sarcasm- if people a thousand years later didn't know the facts how can people five thousands years know. the only ones who know for sure are dead and not coming back.
     
  7. vonork

    vonork Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,173
    Location:
    Sweden
    Pawpaw: regarding medical thretment, you can on the bones see it if has been broken and heald, if surgery has been conducted on the head and if has heald. So you can see if they have medical threatment. You can also se porx how old they became, and if they had enough food and what they eat.
     
  8. thedirk

    thedirk Master of Stealth

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2001
    Messages:
    553
    Location:
    The future centre of the universe
    Just a few notes to clarify. The Bible does not mention the Pyramids or their construction. And the Hebrew scriptures were compiled during the Hebrew exile in Babylon from a wide variety of sources, most of which were written well before the demise of the Israelite kingdoms. Also, oral history (which might later be written down) can be as accurate as written history. Just because something was written at the same time an event happened does not make it accurate, nor does the fact that a written account is based on oral history make it inaccurate. Just my 2 cents for the day.
     
  9. Evie

    Evie Pronounced like Eevee

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,940
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    True, Thedirk. However, given the circumstances of the writing of the Bible, and the nature of the book (IE, religious work of one specific religion belonging to one specific ethny in a region where conflicts are everpresent and harsh, assembled during a time where logic dictate nationalist feelings were quite strong), if the finding of archeology such as have been reported here disagree with what the bible has to say (which is apparently not the case here, incidentaly - the bible had nothing to say on pyramids), then the bible got it wrong.

    Which does not take away from the spiritual value of the text, but simply remind us that written when it was, where it was, by who it was, we should NOT expect it to be an unbiased accurate history report, anymore than we could expect it from another religious holy book.

    It's not a matter of "If it's in the bible, it's wrong.". It's a matter of "If the bible says A and archaeological finding says B, then the bible is wrong." (The same as with whichever of the Kojiki and Nihon-Shoki goes back in time to the coming of Amaterasu's grandson et al, and claim that Japan dominated Korea, etc)
     
  10. allhailIndia

    allhailIndia Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2001
    Messages:
    3,328
    Location:
    Casa de Non Compos Mentis
    The bones were of people not badly deformed by years of brutally hard work, i.e, slaves.
    They had separate graves and not mass graves as slaves are usually shoved into.
    They had been cared for as the bones had healed and injuries had been allowed to recover.
     
  11. Evie

    Evie Pronounced like Eevee

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,940
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    How would we know today if it wasn't known to people two thousand years after the fact?

    Did the writers of the bible have access to specialists who had made egypt and its history (such as things two thousands year in the past by then) their life study? No.

    Do we? Yes.

    Did they have access to all of our modern archaeological techniques? No.

    Do we? Yes.

    Did the writers of the bible have a pro-Israeli, anti-everyone not with them bias? Given the circumstances of the writing, more than probably.

    Did the researchers have a massively pro-egyptian bias? There's no reason to assume so.

    Hence why people 5000 years later could well know more than people 2000 years later.
     
  12. Mark2010

    Mark2010 The holy fighter

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    62
    Location:
    New Jersey
    "Who build the pyramid?"

    a little bad english there man, i just hope next you wont be saying all your base are belong to us!



    Oh and the ones who built the pyramids...Egyptians.
     
  13. pandora

    pandora Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Messages:
    64
    :crazyeye:

    maths rnt made for me :D
     
  14. Mark Young

    Mark Young Formerly Sir Eric

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,799

    Can I suggest a little bit of research into Egyptian thinking before making wild assumptions?

    Did the writers of the bible have access to specialists who had made egypt and its history (such as things two thousands year in the past by then) their life study?
    The Bible isn't a history of other cultures but the Hebrew one ONLY! So they aren't going to go in to detail about irrelevant ( to them anyway) details.

    Did the writers of the bible have a pro-Israeli, anti-everyone not with them bias? Given the circumstances of the writing, more than probably.
    Even a cursory glance at the Bible will show you that the Isrealites recorded all of their history both bad and good. In fact if you spend a bit of time in the book of Kings and Chronicles you will notice that Isreal had some pretty rotten Kings, Even David their greatest king had all his failures recorded for us all to read.
    This hardly sounds like it is biased?
    If the Authors of the bible were biased toward their country they certainly wouldn't record their failures?
    The Egyptians on the other hand did. Have you heard of a pharoah by the name of Hatschepsut? She was wife to Pharoah Thuthmoses and when he died his son was too young to reign so she reigned as regent until her son eventually deposed her.
    After her death all her images in her mortuary temple near the valley of the kings was defaced and all records of her removed. She was even left out of the record of the Kings in a temple in Abydos. Does this sound biased to you? Do we have a record of the Egyptians recording their mistakes? Perhaps you might want to check out my personal fav Akhenaton (Ahmenhotep lV). A man definetly worth researching.

    Did the researchers have a massively pro-egyptian bias? There's no reason to assume so.
    Now this one I just dont understand. If someone is passionately involved with something it is very hard for them to be subjective all of the time. Constantly we see assumptions made because people tend to get carried away and jump the gun a little.


    In some ways we do know more than the people who lived a couple of thousand years ago, but to assume that they couldnt know something that we now know or dont still know, leads us to believe that history cant teach us a thing.

    Did the writers of the bible have a pro-Israeli, anti-everyone not with them bias? Given the circumstances of the writing, more than probably.
    I would like to know what "circumstances" you are reffering to?
     
  15. Pangur Bán

    Pangur Bán Deconstructed

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    Messages:
    9,019
    Location:
    Transtavia
    Aliens of course, everyone knows that :lol:
     
  16. earendil 1

    earendil 1 The Halfelven

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    This is just crazy. The Egyptians built the pyramids. And the incident to which Plato reffered to was actually a much more local incident-the explosion of Stroghyle volcano on the Greek island of Thera. This is I beleive the best explanation for Atlantis, as it is archaeologically approved. The explosion was probably the cause of the palgues of Egypt and the parting of the Red SEa. I am not exaclty sure about your dates. And I have direct quotes from Plato if you are interested.
     
  17. earendil 1

    earendil 1 The Halfelven

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    136
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    The incident to which Plato reffered to was actually a much more local incident-the explosion of Stroghyle volcano on the Greek island of Thera. This is I beleive the best explanation for Atlantis, as it is archaeologically approved. The explosion was probably the cause of the palgues of Egypt and the parting of the Red SEa. I am not exaclty sure about your dates. And I have direct quotes from Plato if you are interested.
     
  18. Evie

    Evie Pronounced like Eevee

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,940
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Originally posted by Sir Eric

    Can I suggest a little bit of research into Egyptian thinking before making wild assumptions?


    Your reply seems more centered about Hebrew thinking...

    Did the writers of the bible have access to specialists who had made egypt and its history (such as things two thousands year in the past by then) their life study?
    The Bible isn't a history of other cultures but the Hebrew one ONLY! So they aren't going to go in to detail about irrelevant ( to them anyway) details.


    More or less my point. The people who wrote the bible didn't care wheter or not what they said about egypt et al would be accurate.

    Hence why we could well today know better than them about the pyramids-era egypt, even though there's been a further 3000 years.

    Did the writers of the bible have a pro-Israeli, anti-everyone not with them bias? Given the circumstances of the writing, more than probably.
    Even a cursory glance at the Bible will show you that the Isrealites recorded all of their history both bad and good. In fact if you spend a bit of time in the book of Kings and Chronicles you will notice that Isreal had some pretty rotten Kings, Even David their greatest king had all his failures recorded for us all to read.
    This hardly sounds like it is biased?


    Yet nearly all the time any "bad" that is recorded either serves to :

    A)Explains why some calamity fell on the Israeli (who are, after all, God's chosen people - so they think). "We did this bad thing, that's why that bad thing happened to us."

    B)Serves as a moral lesson (IIRC, David's "failure" only serves to show how properly remorseful he was afterward, doesn't it?)

    In addition, any book that present a group as "God's chosen people" is, by definition, biased in favor of that group - unless it's a satanic book, anyway.

    If the Authors of the bible were biased toward their country they certainly wouldn't record their failures?

    Unless recording these failures served to explain away some of their moral points. See above.

    The Egyptians on the other hand did. Have you heard of a pharoah by the name of Hatschepsut? She was wife to Pharoah Thuthmoses and when he died his son was too young to reign so she reigned as regent until her son eventually deposed her.
    After her death all her images in her mortuary temple near the valley of the kings was defaced and all records of her removed. She was even left out of the record of the Kings in a temple in Abydos. Does this sound biased to you? Do we have a record of the Egyptians recording their mistakes? Perhaps you might want to check out my personal fav Akhenaton (Ahmenhotep lV). A man definetly worth researching.


    Never said the egyptians were honest. Never even thought so ; to assume any country is honest with its past is ridiculous. Japan gloss over its darkest moment, America does it, France does it - EVERYONE does it, and everyone did it in the past.

    Did the researchers have a massively pro-egyptian bias? There's no reason to assume so.
    Now this one I just dont understand. If someone is passionately involved with something it is very hard for them to be subjective all of the time.


    True, to some extent. However, I'll still hold that there are more chances of a religious book being off-track on its history records than there are chances of archeology being off-track in the same situation.

    If and when modern history - based on facts and proof - disagree with the bible on the history of the world, I'll trust historians and archeologist.

    The historian MAY have a private agenda other than finding historical knowledge. The point of the bible was never to be an history record to begin with, hence I simply won't expect unbiased historical interpretation from them (religious book are written to expose religous believes, not to be historic records), whereas unless proven otherwise I'll expect historians to at least try to make an effort to hold back any bias he might have. Of course, they won'T always suceed, and as often as possible one should turn to a source which has the less emotional stake in the matter as possible (ie, a French historian of long time french ancestry would probably be less biased on history of the Japan people than either Korean or Japanesse historians), while still being somewhat knowledgeable about it..


    In some ways we do know more than the people who lived a couple of thousand years ago, but to assume that they couldnt know something that we now know or dont still know, leads us to believe that history cant teach us a thing.

    Agreed - but if what information modern science has (quite literaly) unearthed disagree with what information they had in the bible, I would tend to believe what modern science tells us first and foremost - there is no guarantee of how the information used for the bible was found (when dealing with non-hebrews group especially), whereas we know how our modern information was obtained.

    Did the writers of the bible have a pro-Israeli, anti-everyone not with them bias? Given the circumstances of the writing, more than probably.
    I would like to know what "circumstances" you are reffering to? [/B]

    Exile to Babylon. When a group is faced with terrible circumstances, nationalist (or "group-ist") feelings tend to run very strong. See for an example : United States of America, since 9/11.
     
  19. Mark Young

    Mark Young Formerly Sir Eric

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,799
    A) Yes I agree. The ancient Israelites believed that if they disobeyed God they would suffer curses and if they obeyed Him they would be blessed. The period of the Judges points this out very clearly.
    B) Yes it is a moral lesson but is that bad? Davids failures were due to him not dealing with circumstances as he should have. eg His son Absolom tried to usurp the throne because David didn't deal with the raping(?) of his sister Tamar by his half brother (cant remember his name). As a result he was chased from Jerusalem.
    I dont believe that by recording their faliures as a nation they were excusing them but as a lesson to the following generations.

    Yes I was coming from a Hebrew point of view as I thought that you weren't aware of why the bible was written. It was written as a history of them only so I agree that they probably wouldn't know of the pyramid era as much as us because it wouldn't be relevant to them.
    I interpreted what you said as meaning people in the past in general.

    Ummmm..... The Jews aren't the only ones who think of themselves as Gods chosen and I dont agree that if you think that then you are in the same class as Satanism.(if that is what you were implying?).
    But by that same train of logic, are you suggesting that if a group, orginisation, gov or person writes a book on what ever topic, that they are therfore biased towards that topic?
     
  20. Evie

    Evie Pronounced like Eevee

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,940
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    My comment about satanism was that if you start the book saying "People X are the chosen people of God", you are going to have a book biased in favor of People X - unless the writers are satanist or similar groups opposed to God and his chosen people, in which case the book will be biased *AGAINST* them.

    As for the bible being a morale lesson, it's not a bad thing at all. My point was more or less that them including "bad" stuff in their book did not necessarily show them as unbiased, as they may have other motives than intelectual honesty to include those "bad parts" - namely explain the power of God, and why at time he chose to turn on his chosen people.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page