Pyramids at Giza were there BEFORE the Egyptians got there.

The Akkadians were semitic. They spread their language during the formation of Nimrod (Enmerkar)'s conquest of the post flood world, including to China and Egypt. It's really quite simple. As a result, several ancient cultures developed with semitic languages which were not actually semitic in nationality. And the whole world was of one language (Tower of Babylon scenario) - semitic. Then Enki and Co. were authorized to use the nam-shub (a device to confuse speech and potentially the visual cortex) and the rest is history.

and the rest is history

I couldn't agree more the rest is history
up til that point it was sci fi and religious fiction but don't let that stop you
so what about the chinese
did they have spaceships too ?

Kush (Cush) went to China, after settling in Ethiopia by the River Abbai (The Nile), in what is called Upper Egypt, today. He married a chinese woman, while in China, and brought her back with him to Ethiopia. Ham, his father, settled Lower Egypt, and may have been Khufu, himself. Khephren would correspond to Cush, if indeed this is an accurate translation of the various texts and etymological clues.

have you been drinking ?

if indeed this is an accurate translation of the various texts and etymological clues.

then it isn't an accurate translation of the various texts
this is fairly easy to deduce because
1) you are the only person saying this
2) you don't speak any ancient languages and have never translated a text
3) you don't understand etymology
4) you are not very good at puzzles
5) your geography stinks too, Ethiopia is 1000 km from egypt
[edit on 23-10-2006 by Marduk]


why don't you write fiction Beth and see if anyone is more interested in that
oops my mistake you already do




[edit on 23-10-2006 by Marduk]

Erm, it was a different map then, Marduk. The territories were bigger. Ethiopia would've comprised a great deal more land on the map than it does today. So this would not necessarily constitute 1000 km between . In fact, they may have been adjacent and incorporated.

Originally posted by Marduk
Akkadian Cuneiform was the diplomatic language in egypt for centuries
did you figure that out all on your own you genius
you may have heard of the Armana tablets
By the time of Egyptian Akhenaton, the Akkadian language, had become the international diplomatic language of Great Kings from Egypt and Babylon to Assyria, Palestine and Hittite Anatolia.

You're refering to the late Middle Kingdom & during the Second Intermediate Period. The timeframe I referred to was Pre-Dynastic & Early Kingdom timelines, while the Giza Pyramids have been referred to Early Kingdom/Fourth Dynasty. Are you comparing "fresh apples" with "rotting oranges" to make your point?

How does the use of Akkadian in the Temples during a much later time than the Giza Pyramids help the discussion of the timeframe of the Giza Pyramids? Getting off-topic again?

There was a program on TV once that depicted the work that was done to attempt to identify who was depicted on the Sphinx and all the computer models pointed to "purely" Egyptian features and symetry. The Nubians were just down the road so to speak geographically so knowledge of different racial features would not be out of place.

So this would not necessarily constitute 1000 km between . In fact, they may have been adjacent and incorporated.

prove it
speculating to confirm your own theory that isnt based on the evidence doesnt cut it
also you might want to check out this link and factor it in to your research
www.etymonline.com...

You're refering to the late Middle Kingdom & during the Second Intermediate Period. The timeframe I referred to was Pre-Dynastic & Early Kingdom timelines,

M.D. that response from me was answering one of Undo's posts


[edit on 23-10-2006 by Marduk]

Nubia and Cush were the same banana back then and Cush was Ethiopia. Nubia not only abutted the Egyptian border, many of the Nubians were Pharaohs. Nubians and Cu sh ites were once the same group. Nubia is today, Sudan, and Cush is Ethiopia. But once upon a time, they were one big nation.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by undo]

you'll probably find this map helpful


but then again maybe not

But once upon a time, they were one big nation.

for 130 years
and not in the timeframe you are suggesting


[edit on 23-10-2006 by Marduk]

No, it's the right timeframe. Nimrod was 2800 BC or thereabouts and since he was the son of Cush, Cush would've predated him. The argument really is, when was the GP built. Cush was a son of Ham. If Ham built the GP and was Nimrod's grandfather, and Nimrod was 2800 BC, the GP is at least 100 years older (at the very least). If Ham only refurbished the GP, then it could be even older than that.

[edit on 23-10-2006 by undo]

how is it the right timeframe
your mixing up fictional characters from the bible who date from the time of the flood which most scholars place around 10,000bce with known historical personages from the second and third milleniums
at this point you have but two choices
either spend a considerable amount of time attempting to understand this concept
dictionary.reference.com...
many do understand it and clearly are successful in this field in which a total understanding of it is essential. Many are not. these people generally are known under the title "Pseudo" and are laughed at by the knowledgable.
or you could fulfill the criteria laid out on this website
www.keelynet.com...

Originally posted by Marduk
how is it the right timeframe
your mixing up fictional characters from the bible who date from the time of the flood which most scholars place around 10,000bce with known historical personages from the second and third milleniums
at this point you have but two choices
either spend a considerable amount of time attempting to understand this concept
dictionary.reference.com...
many do understand it and clearly are successful in this field in which a total understanding of it is essential. Many are not. these people generally are known under the title "Pseudo" and are laughed at by the knowledgable.
or you could fulfill the criteria laid out on this website
www.keelynet.com...

Nimrod was the Akkadian Enmerkar, who is dated 2800 BC. This also dovetails nicely with the arrival of the Falcon Tribes, from the land of Shinar (Akkadia), to Naqada and Abydos in Egypt. And for the piesta resistance, it also fits in nicely with the rise of Osiris worship (who would've been the deified Nimrod (Akkadian Enmerkar).

Here's Nimrod in action outside the biblical texts, in 2800 BC:

Enmerkar and the Lord of Arrata
doormann.tripod.com...

Did I mention David Rohl is a genius?

without proof you have nothing
as usual

Originally posted by Marduk
without proof you have nothing
as usual

Oh I have as much proof as any of the other theorists. You realize, that is all anyone can do, is theorize.

your theories however are based on your personal beliefs
other theories are based on actual facts
actual facts always seem to be missing in your posts Beth
I believe this is because you don't know them
you can't make a theory until you have facts
so your theories aren't theories, they are just unproven hypothesis
and unproven hypothesis are worthless

for instance
prove that Nimrod was an actual figure
you haven't
you just think he is
he is in relaity based on a number of exploits from a number of different real people
so your belief that he is in fact Enmarker is an unproven hypothesis
which is what it will always remain

Enmarkar for instance
the bible states
Genesis 10 :-
8 Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD (YHWH); that is why it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD(YHWH)." 10 The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech (Uruk), Akkad (still not found) and Calneh (Nippur), in Shinar (mesopotamia)
Bracket descriptions added by me for the uninitiated

Enmerkar is an akkadian character
who was written about in several texts before Babylon existed
so how can Nimrod be Enmerkar without time travel
therefore to prove that Nimrod is Enmarkar you have to prove that Enmarkar was a time traveller from Akkad
good luck with that

like most pseudo theories yours disintegrate under the lightest of examinations which if more than anything proves that you either don't know what you are talking about or just don't care
which is it ?

The "Tower of Babel" was actually the rebuilding of Enki's E.ABZU. Later it would be called the Etemenanki. The word "babel" (for babylon) predated the babylonian period as described by mainstream archaeology and historians. The beginnings of his kingdom were at Eridu, the place where the Tower of Babel was built and which would later be known as Babylon. It's all frame of reference.

The "Tower of Babel" was actually the rebuilding of Enki's E.ABZU. Later it would be called the Etemenanki. The word "babel" (for babylon) predated the babylonian period as described by mainstream archaeology and historians.

then perhaps you can explain why the bible uses both Hebrew Babel and Greek Babylon. Surely if its a historical document it would just use Babel
It also uses Hebrew Shinar to describe the same area. which proves the stories in the bible are a mish mash of different texts rewritten to be contempreous by people that didn't unmderstand history very well because they weren't around when it happened....
you seem to think its ALL factual and even then you discard what doesnt fit your sci fi theory
perhaps you can explain where it says in the bible that any of the characters were from a different planet or that they used dimensioanl star gates to travel around in


the day you realise that the bible is historical fiction from purely a Hebrew cultural perspective based on older writings and a few contemporary ones you may be getting somewhere
until then
whatever...........


also have you noticed that I am the only person who ever responds to your posts
why do you think that is ?


[edit on 23-10-2006 by Marduk]

[edit on 23-10-2006 by Marduk]

Well the way I look at it is, Why do we think, thousands of years later, that we would know more about their history than they do? You claim they didn't know their own history. But we know their history so well, we can tell it's not true. Notice how the "We can tell it's not true" part, is very selective, according to the paradigm of German Higher Criticism, which was itself based on their limited knowledge of both science and archaeology. At least the biblical authors had the benefit of having lived there, and had ancestors who experienced many of the events described.

I'm not sure why you are the only one that responds to me, Marduk. Perhaps it's because you keep leading me off the topic by attacking some premise that has nothing to do, in the long run, with the subject of how old the GP is