Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
> Thank you for titling a thread that elicited
> interesting non fictional, factual,
> contributions.
What has been proven "fictional" as opposed to "factual"?
Who decides what supposedly is/isnt proven "factual"?
How can one assert if they don't give a geniune fair chance hearing of all the evidences pubically?
> I suspect the real issue is you would like some
> direct discussion on your OP?
Yes this thread/topic was about who was Imhotep (and if he could match someone like Almodad or other peoples propsed candidates).
Today i found 90 new posts which i'm not sure i am able to get through, but at first glance there seems alot that are not really very serious quality and on topic.
> When I was far more active here, long ago, I had
> noticed some of your other posts/threads and
> confess to having some curiousity for why so many
> try to link little known very ancient
> archaelogical Egypt with the much vaguer stories
> of the Old Testament.
The "trying to link" was objective looking to see if there is (or isn't) any real match with history, and was succesful.
No different to why we did same with other non biblical/religious sources with real history like the Atlantis Account and Nennius etc.
Doesn't seem "so many" do to me.
If so little is supposedly known then how can people so admantly assert there are no true historical matches?
There is enough known to see/show seeming strong matches.
If the bible is true then there should be some interesting matches.
> However , your OP I can only see/percieve a list
> of question marks and conflicting contradictory
> conjectures??? How can anyone comment on such?,
> other than those who have already highlighted how
> little archaeolgically is known about Imhotep.
Sorry i am often not writing/presenting very well (readible/understandible), but even so it was not really that complicated or "conjectural".
I was just very tentatively wondering if Imhotep might match Almodad of Genesis 11. (Though since then it seems doubtful.)
The second bit/block was just a table-like list of seeming matches between persons of Joseph story and persons of 3rd-4th dynasty. The question marks just mean that we can't necessarily be totally definite of the (correct candidate) matches.
> As you are probably aware there are a few names in
> OT that cn be supported by external reference but
> very late such as Darius I, or Nebacanezzer (Sp?)
> etc as many scholars now consider OT to be most
> likely complied in current form in late post
> Babylon captivity era.
Years ago they doubted/disputed even King David yet since then orthodox said they now accept K David is verified by house of David inscriptions.
We (I) and others have found many stark evidences if not proofs for other biblical persons etc before David. For example we have strong evidences for Joseph and Jacob in 3rd-4th dynasty.
The hyposthesis that OT of the bible only dates from 600s bc is highly disputible and is unproven. Plus, even if it were possibly so it doesn't mean it is fiction.
> I would be interested if you could provide any
> conclusive evidence of a "Hebrew nation" in
> captivity in ancient OK Egypt?
I can provide plenty of good evidences but what i consider cocusive evidence is not always accepted by . I do not have much time or health (or clean water etc) anyone but i have already posted many bits and pieces on the net/web:
Best to only pick one person/place/time (like Joseph or Moses) rather than too much/many/long. I can give strong evidences for Joseph and Jacob in 3rd-4th dynasty.
What will they/you give me if i spend/waste my time and effort and water proving to you Hebrews in Egypt from 3rd/4th to 12th dyns? Everytime i have done such efforts proving things to people before has been a waste of my time all for nothing, so this time I want a written public agreement/contract (and with no cunning ways for them to get out of it if we supposedly don't do every exactly correct minor jot and tiddle clause). Moreover first i need clean Water here right now before i can do anymore such excessive hard work efforts.
We have plenty of evidences but in our situation we can only prove it to a certain level/degree. There are somethings that just end up hopeless deadlock because the orthodox people adamantly assert or refuse that somethings are or aren't so and neither side can absolutely prove it either way to the other.
(Also i cna not reasonably be expected to also prove/solve all Egyptian / Biblical / World history just to prove one synchronism. I am only one person with limited time and health and water.)
> If OT is believed by you all to be factual
> then how could you possibly avoid the detailed
> ages of key characters and pedigrees that add up
> to a timeline far short of 4th Dynasty Eygpt?
Because the length of the Egyptian dynastic history timeline is incorrect and is far too long (and unproven/unprovable by orthodox). There are many evidences for this including:
- The orthodox Egyptologists admit that their Egypt dynasties/dates (& Jericho layer/date) doesn't match the biblical dating. (Eg "no trace of Joseph or Moses in Egypt then".)
- Joseph clearly only-best matches the 3rd-4th dyn not any other period/dynasty.
- Moses clearly matches the 12th dyn not any other period.
- Herodotus said Moeris (12th dyn) was only 900 years before [Amasis 2].
- The Sothiac/Siriadic dates for 12th & 18th dyn are admitted even by orthodox to be doubtful.
- Tacitus said only 4 phoenixes in Egytpian history.
- FIP is a lacuna of unknown/unproven length.
- Khufu's reign ranges from ... yrs to ... yrs.
- Josephus said Menes was 1300 yrs before Shishak, and Herodotus said Menes was (1)1300 yrs before Seti (19th dyn), which makes Menes not more than 2300s bc, and makes Shishak (900s bc) 19th dyn.
- Orthodox date for Menes has ranged from 5000s bc to 3000s to 2000s bc! Last major revision was 3400 to 3100 bc, and since then [Shaw?] moved it to 3000 bc.
- Clayton etc say orthodx dates may still be at a few hundred years out.
- They have no Sothaic/Siriadic date for Old Kingdom.
- Carbon dating is proven unreliable (eg Sekhemhet date).
Many other evidences.
One can not match by hitherto orthodox ascribed dates and dating methods because they are unreliable, one can only match by finding true horizontal synchronisms and vertical sequences (and lengths) between the 2 whole timelines. Though in time/future we will also crack ancient dates given by Manetho and others.
> Religious "beliefs" are very dangerous things as
> they tend not to need (but rather shun) any
> factual evidencial corroboration.
> So I praise you (all) for searching for some
> corroborative archaelogical support, at least it
> seems you have avoided in part the religious trap
> of believing something is factual and true because
> some unknown person(s) wrote it into a magic
> book!
It is not a religious belief. I approach all traditional historical sources the same way: i objectively and thoroughly look to see if there is (or is not) any quality matches evidence in history. We did this with many sources like Bible, Herodotus, Atlantis Account, "Nennius" ("Arthur's" battle sites), Robin Hood, etc. In each and every case we found that they do have strong matches with historical times and places etc.
Everyone has internal and external influences and [religious] beliefs.
Modern advertising and propaganda etc knows this well. People believe someone just becauswe they are claimed to be "science", "eperts", "professionals", "doctors", "good", "democracy", "health", etc and people disbelieve someone just because they are claimed to be "evil", "nazis", "racists", "woo-woo", "pseudo", "religious belief", "delusion", etc. People often do/don't believe what they do/don't want to believe.
> It seems you lot ("we") are all feeling left out
> or neglected?
> ....
> If it is any consolation, you seem to be doing
> nicely already in the self congratulation
> area!
> ....
> I suspect the real issue is you would like some
> direct discussion on your OP?
> ....
> Hope that makes you feel a little less neglected
> Cheers
Sorry it is just that in all the years posting on net/web i've almost never had any positive from anyone, and its almost all always been just either negatives (from many) or nothing (from many); and I have made many seeming discoveries myself (Arthurs battle sites, Atlantis, Joseph, Robin Hood, etc etc) and yet no one ever gives any positive (even when i did all the excessive maximum hard work for hours/days/weeks/months/years providing all the jot-and-tiddle proofs for everything that they demanded), but instead always just nothing or negative (and some may be done on prupose by ruling elite). I think i said something like this in a recent thread here in inner space, and so when others were offered positives in this thread I was just a very little bit paranoid that it seemed possibly abit im/personally offensive.
This modern western regime purposely neglects re credit and re no clean running water etc.
Thats not really very much fair or true about "self congratulation". I have my bad faults but i have also suffered many wrongs done to me by world.
Just once in my life i would like some people to admit something/s that i am right about instead of always either just negative or nothing. I may be wrong about somethings sometimes (as i sometimes find out myself) but i am not wrong aboiut eveyrthing all the time, there is at least one or some things that i am certainly not wrong about. A person needs morale, and a person has the right to credit or acknowledgment for good/great and/or for hard work.
p.s. the "we" is just me, doesn't seem right using "i". Pluralis majesticus is common with/in some writings/writers.
----
There are 3 (not just 1 or 2) enemies (& reasons to die) : Devil(s), others, self. There are 3 (not just 1 or 2) helps (& reasons to live) : God, others, self. The issue is which of the two 3s (ones, two-combinations, and all three) is stronger/weaker.
> interesting non fictional, factual,
> contributions.
What has been proven "fictional" as opposed to "factual"?
Who decides what supposedly is/isnt proven "factual"?
How can one assert if they don't give a geniune fair chance hearing of all the evidences pubically?
> I suspect the real issue is you would like some
> direct discussion on your OP?
Yes this thread/topic was about who was Imhotep (and if he could match someone like Almodad or other peoples propsed candidates).
Today i found 90 new posts which i'm not sure i am able to get through, but at first glance there seems alot that are not really very serious quality and on topic.
> When I was far more active here, long ago, I had
> noticed some of your other posts/threads and
> confess to having some curiousity for why so many
> try to link little known very ancient
> archaelogical Egypt with the much vaguer stories
> of the Old Testament.
The "trying to link" was objective looking to see if there is (or isn't) any real match with history, and was succesful.
No different to why we did same with other non biblical/religious sources with real history like the Atlantis Account and Nennius etc.
Doesn't seem "so many" do to me.
If so little is supposedly known then how can people so admantly assert there are no true historical matches?
There is enough known to see/show seeming strong matches.
If the bible is true then there should be some interesting matches.
> However , your OP I can only see/percieve a list
> of question marks and conflicting contradictory
> conjectures??? How can anyone comment on such?,
> other than those who have already highlighted how
> little archaeolgically is known about Imhotep.
Sorry i am often not writing/presenting very well (readible/understandible), but even so it was not really that complicated or "conjectural".
I was just very tentatively wondering if Imhotep might match Almodad of Genesis 11. (Though since then it seems doubtful.)
The second bit/block was just a table-like list of seeming matches between persons of Joseph story and persons of 3rd-4th dynasty. The question marks just mean that we can't necessarily be totally definite of the (correct candidate) matches.
> As you are probably aware there are a few names in
> OT that cn be supported by external reference but
> very late such as Darius I, or Nebacanezzer (Sp?)
> etc as many scholars now consider OT to be most
> likely complied in current form in late post
> Babylon captivity era.
Years ago they doubted/disputed even King David yet since then orthodox said they now accept K David is verified by house of David inscriptions.
We (I) and others have found many stark evidences if not proofs for other biblical persons etc before David. For example we have strong evidences for Joseph and Jacob in 3rd-4th dynasty.
The hyposthesis that OT of the bible only dates from 600s bc is highly disputible and is unproven. Plus, even if it were possibly so it doesn't mean it is fiction.
> I would be interested if you could provide any
> conclusive evidence of a "Hebrew nation" in
> captivity in ancient OK Egypt?
I can provide plenty of good evidences but what i consider cocusive evidence is not always accepted by . I do not have much time or health (or clean water etc) anyone but i have already posted many bits and pieces on the net/web:
Best to only pick one person/place/time (like Joseph or Moses) rather than too much/many/long. I can give strong evidences for Joseph and Jacob in 3rd-4th dynasty.
What will they/you give me if i spend/waste my time and effort and water proving to you Hebrews in Egypt from 3rd/4th to 12th dyns? Everytime i have done such efforts proving things to people before has been a waste of my time all for nothing, so this time I want a written public agreement/contract (and with no cunning ways for them to get out of it if we supposedly don't do every exactly correct minor jot and tiddle clause). Moreover first i need clean Water here right now before i can do anymore such excessive hard work efforts.
We have plenty of evidences but in our situation we can only prove it to a certain level/degree. There are somethings that just end up hopeless deadlock because the orthodox people adamantly assert or refuse that somethings are or aren't so and neither side can absolutely prove it either way to the other.
(Also i cna not reasonably be expected to also prove/solve all Egyptian / Biblical / World history just to prove one synchronism. I am only one person with limited time and health and water.)
> If OT is believed by you all to be factual
> then how could you possibly avoid the detailed
> ages of key characters and pedigrees that add up
> to a timeline far short of 4th Dynasty Eygpt?
Because the length of the Egyptian dynastic history timeline is incorrect and is far too long (and unproven/unprovable by orthodox). There are many evidences for this including:
- The orthodox Egyptologists admit that their Egypt dynasties/dates (& Jericho layer/date) doesn't match the biblical dating. (Eg "no trace of Joseph or Moses in Egypt then".)
- Joseph clearly only-best matches the 3rd-4th dyn not any other period/dynasty.
- Moses clearly matches the 12th dyn not any other period.
- Herodotus said Moeris (12th dyn) was only 900 years before [Amasis 2].
- The Sothiac/Siriadic dates for 12th & 18th dyn are admitted even by orthodox to be doubtful.
- Tacitus said only 4 phoenixes in Egytpian history.
- FIP is a lacuna of unknown/unproven length.
- Khufu's reign ranges from ... yrs to ... yrs.
- Josephus said Menes was 1300 yrs before Shishak, and Herodotus said Menes was (1)1300 yrs before Seti (19th dyn), which makes Menes not more than 2300s bc, and makes Shishak (900s bc) 19th dyn.
- Orthodox date for Menes has ranged from 5000s bc to 3000s to 2000s bc! Last major revision was 3400 to 3100 bc, and since then [Shaw?] moved it to 3000 bc.
- Clayton etc say orthodx dates may still be at a few hundred years out.
- They have no Sothaic/Siriadic date for Old Kingdom.
- Carbon dating is proven unreliable (eg Sekhemhet date).
Many other evidences.
One can not match by hitherto orthodox ascribed dates and dating methods because they are unreliable, one can only match by finding true horizontal synchronisms and vertical sequences (and lengths) between the 2 whole timelines. Though in time/future we will also crack ancient dates given by Manetho and others.
> Religious "beliefs" are very dangerous things as
> they tend not to need (but rather shun) any
> factual evidencial corroboration.
> So I praise you (all) for searching for some
> corroborative archaelogical support, at least it
> seems you have avoided in part the religious trap
> of believing something is factual and true because
> some unknown person(s) wrote it into a magic
> book!
It is not a religious belief. I approach all traditional historical sources the same way: i objectively and thoroughly look to see if there is (or is not) any quality matches evidence in history. We did this with many sources like Bible, Herodotus, Atlantis Account, "Nennius" ("Arthur's" battle sites), Robin Hood, etc. In each and every case we found that they do have strong matches with historical times and places etc.
Everyone has internal and external influences and [religious] beliefs.
Modern advertising and propaganda etc knows this well. People believe someone just becauswe they are claimed to be "science", "eperts", "professionals", "doctors", "good", "democracy", "health", etc and people disbelieve someone just because they are claimed to be "evil", "nazis", "racists", "woo-woo", "pseudo", "religious belief", "delusion", etc. People often do/don't believe what they do/don't want to believe.
> It seems you lot ("we") are all feeling left out
> or neglected?
> ....
> If it is any consolation, you seem to be doing
> nicely already in the self congratulation
> area!
> ....
> I suspect the real issue is you would like some
> direct discussion on your OP?
> ....
> Hope that makes you feel a little less neglected
> Cheers
Sorry it is just that in all the years posting on net/web i've almost never had any positive from anyone, and its almost all always been just either negatives (from many) or nothing (from many); and I have made many seeming discoveries myself (Arthurs battle sites, Atlantis, Joseph, Robin Hood, etc etc) and yet no one ever gives any positive (even when i did all the excessive maximum hard work for hours/days/weeks/months/years providing all the jot-and-tiddle proofs for everything that they demanded), but instead always just nothing or negative (and some may be done on prupose by ruling elite). I think i said something like this in a recent thread here in inner space, and so when others were offered positives in this thread I was just a very little bit paranoid that it seemed possibly abit im/personally offensive.
This modern western regime purposely neglects re credit and re no clean running water etc.
Thats not really very much fair or true about "self congratulation". I have my bad faults but i have also suffered many wrongs done to me by world.
Just once in my life i would like some people to admit something/s that i am right about instead of always either just negative or nothing. I may be wrong about somethings sometimes (as i sometimes find out myself) but i am not wrong aboiut eveyrthing all the time, there is at least one or some things that i am certainly not wrong about. A person needs morale, and a person has the right to credit or acknowledgment for good/great and/or for hard work.
p.s. the "we" is just me, doesn't seem right using "i". Pluralis majesticus is common with/in some writings/writers.
----
There are 3 (not just 1 or 2) enemies (& reasons to die) : Devil(s), others, self. There are 3 (not just 1 or 2) helps (& reasons to live) : God, others, self. The issue is which of the two 3s (ones, two-combinations, and all three) is stronger/weaker.
