The Bible, Pyramids, and the Face on Mars

Ezekiel 41:19
"So that the face of a man was toward the palm tree on one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side: it was made through all the house round about."

Is there any signifigance to this passage from the Bible and the fact that the face on Mars resembles a man, and the Sphinx resembles a lion?


These images are mirrors of opposing sides of the actual structure. They are images of what you WOULD see if both sides were equal. As you can tell, one side is obviously human-like, the other is inarguably feline. In thinking on this, is there some sort of connection to Giza, or is it a mere coincidence? After all, the geometry of the pyramids on the Plateua as opposed to the DM Pyramid on Mars are roughly the same, and there is that interesting parallel between half feline/half human figuration that we have examples of on BOTH planets. And if this is the case, that the two ARE related, what does this have to do with Ezekiel?

Here is another image to add to the puzzle. This is an ancient MAYAN artifact. Notice any similarities?



Again, it is the center picture that is the actual artifact. The images on the sides are just mirrors to show what it would look like if both sides were the same.


[edit on 10-5-2006 by EdenKaia]

[edit on 10-5-2006 by EdenKaia]

If this stuff interests you, I highly suggest checking out the book The Cydonia Codex.

Book Description:
The authors' research encompasses over ten years of study and analysis of NASA photographs of the "Face on Mars" and its surrounding complex. Beginning with the famous 1976 photograph of a mile-long formation found on the surface of Mars that strongly resembles a human face, Haas and Saunders offer side-by-side comparisons of the art and sculpture of pre-Columbian Mesoamerica with a set of corresponding geoglyphic structures found in the Cydonia region of Mars. The implication is staggering—Earth's history and humankind's origins could be very different than commonly believed. Black-and-white photos, as well as illustrations, are featured throughout."

EdenKaia Noted

The Bible, Pyramids, and the Face on Mars

Ezekiel 41:19
"So that the face of a man was toward the palm tree on one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side: it was made through all the house round about."

Is there any signifigance to this passage from the Bible and the fact that the face on Mars resembles a man, and the Sphinx resembles a lion?

Ezekiel 41;19 is being removed from context. The Chapters 40, 41 and 42, and parts thereof, are of a vision of Israel, and I presume Jerusalem, since reference to the Temple and the Alter, were discussed at lenght. The actual balance of the text seemingly is describing duties and rites associated with the Levitical Preisthood, and their observances in the temple, since it was going to be rebuilt in the near future.

The passage you note, is actually part of the Text Speaking to the Temple.

This was written during the captivity in Babylon, so it would only be part of the 600 to 400 BC writings and long after the Sphinx was an ancient wonder.

You have an excellent question here though about these items noted, but I think the Biblical Passage here is about, what it is noting.

But this is not to indicate the Bible does speak about the Great Pyramid, and other items of unique design.

I maybe wrong, but thats just my opinion.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by EdenKaia
Ezekiel 41:19
"So that the face of a man was toward the palm tree on one side, and the face of a young lion toward the palm tree on the other side: it was made through all the house round about."
Is there any signifigance to this passage from the Bible and the fact that the face on Mars resembles a man, and the Sphinx resembles a lion?

I don't know. Do you think there's any significance to Ezekiel being a complete, likely schizophrenic, lunatic, and that there is no actual "face" on Mars shown in the latest high res photos, and that the Sphinx was probably originally a lion with a proportional head, but recarved much later to resemble a person?

I do.

Originally posted by Hermes Trismegitus
...the Sphinx was probably originally a lion with a proportional head, but recarved much later to resemble a person?

Hermes,

I agree with you all around, but I wanted to address this particular part of your post.

The Sphinx was carved out of the limestone bedrock of Giza, in situ. If you take a look at the Sphinx, you can easily see that it's head rises well above the surrounding landscape. In other words, the head, prior to the carving, was a limestone outcropping that could have been carved on numerous times before the Sphinx itself was finally carved out through excavation.

The head could well have been a lion's head for ages before the body was ever conceived.

Also, there is a very good reason that the body is not proportional to the head. There is a large crack running through the limestone in the area of the Sphinx. The crack runs through the native stone and is visible on two opposite sides of the Sphinx enclosure as well as through the Sphinx itself.

The placement of this natural crack is such that the rear of the Sphinx, had it been carved in proportion to the head, would be unstable, that is, the crack is too near the Sphinx's hindquarters.

It's thought that a decision was made during the carving of the Sphinx to lengthen the body well past this crack in an attempt to ensure that the rear of the Sphinx wouldn't just fall off.

Harte

Originally posted by Hermes Trismegitus
......and that the Sphinx was probably originally a lion with a proportional head, but recarved much later to resemble a person? I do.

Hello Enoch

I would suggest, the Head of the Sphnix was Originally a Womans, and in most likelyhood a representation of Virgo/Nut, the Sky Goddess.

Originally posted by Harte

The Sphinx was carved out of the limestone bedrock of Giza, in situ. If you take a look at the Sphinx, you can easily see that it's head rises well above the surrounding landscape. In other words, the head, prior to the carving, was a limestone outcropping that could have been carved on numerous times before the Sphinx itself was finally carved out through excavation.

The head could well have been a lion's head for ages before the body was ever conceived.

Harte

A very good point, but I note a lot of COULDs, I have not noticed in some of your more recent posts. Wish there was more of it.

The Sphinx, as you correctly note, is carved out the of Bedrock. But this was done during the construction of the Great Pyramid. It was quarried from where it sits. Not some distance as previously was suggested. So the Sphinx, would have had that Body available for Carving when the Head was being carved.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Shane

Originally posted by Harte
The Sphinx was carved out of the limestone bedrock of Giza, in situ. If you take a look at the Sphinx, you can easily see that it's head rises well above the surrounding landscape. In other words, the head, prior to the carving, was a limestone outcropping that could have been carved on numerous times before the Sphinx itself was finally carved out through excavation.

The head could well have been a lion's head for ages before the body was ever conceived.

A very good point, but I note a lot of COULDs, I have not noticed in some of your more recent posts. Wish there was more of it.

Actually, my comments were meant to show that, though the head may have been originally carved to some other likeness, the Sphinx itself need not have existed at the time. Hence what we think of as "The Sphinx" has not necessarily ever looked any different than it does now, except for the erosion, of course.

Originally posted by ShaneThe Sphinx, as you correctly note, is carved out the of Bedrock. But this was done during the construction of the Great Pyramid. It was quarried from where it sits. Not some distance as previously was suggested. So the Sphinx, would have had that Body available for Carving when the Head was being carved.

I might be wrong, but I believe you have your facts wrong. There is a temple in front of the Sphinx which, as I recall, was constructed entirely from blocks removed from the Sphinx enclosure. The blocks were matched up with the rock of the enclosure to show this.

And the Sphinx's head is an oucropping of limestone. There's no doubt that it had been exposed for millenia prior to the excavation and carving of the body. Whether or not this outcropping was ever shaped to resemble a face, a lion's head, or whether any artificial form was imposed on it, is all pure speculation. But that portion of the Sphinx undoubtedly was sitting there exposed aboveground before civilization came to the area.

Harte

And that is the point Harte

Most of everything is exactly Specualtion, until verified.

If I've given you a hard time, I am sorry, but I am glad to see you partaking again, and offering thoughts.

Ciao

Shane

I don't know. Do you think there's any significance to Ezekiel being a complete, likely schizophrenic, lunatic, and that there is no actual "face" on Mars shown in the latest high res photos, and that the Sphinx was probably originally a lion with a proportional head, but recarved much later to resemble a person?

It's possible, but if you look at the pictures I posted at the beginning of this thread, you can see that accounting for erosion, this face DOES actually resemble a humanoid face, and on the other that of a feline. This is of course, if you put any stock in the human/feline theory. And also, as far as I've been able to discern, these ARE the most recent high res photos. As far as the Sphinx being originally a lion with a proportional head, I would tend to agree with you. It would also actually follow this 'double sided' theory anyway, considering that if you follow it along, it would place the building of the Sphinx around 10,500. This is the year of the Lion, when the Sphinx would have aligned PERFECTLY with the constellation Leo, and the Pyramids would have been a perfect mirror of Orion's belt This is either very coincidental, or adds to the concept. In fact, if that is the case, then there is all the more reason to give a second look to Mars. Not only the face, but to Cydonia and the outlying DM Pyramid.

Originally posted by EdenKaia

As far as the Sphinx being originally a lion with a proportional head, I would tend to agree with you. It would also actually follow this 'double sided' theory anyway, considering that if you follow it along, it would place the building of the Sphinx around 10,500. This is the year of the Lion, when the Sphinx would have aligned PERFECTLY with the constellation Leo, and the Pyramids would have been a perfect mirror of Orion's belt This is either very coincidental, or adds to the concept. In fact, if that is the case, then there is all the more reason to give a second look to Mars. Not only the face, but to Cydonia and the outlying DM Pyramid.

The Mars Stuff is beyond me. Richard Hoagland has quite a bit to say in respects to this though. He certainly has some good Photos to review and reasons to speculate, as he does.

Your Dating is valid.

Leo saw a change from the Femine to the Masculine Age.

Whether the Mayans knew of this when cutting their Calendar, is a question, since in the truest sense, 2012 will become the Age of Aquarius, and thus, a return to the Femine from the Masculine age.

But to the constructors of the Sphinx, whoever they may have been, the Stars did mean a great deal, so in respects to the head, a Face of a Woman, would not be an absurdity either. It would portray the Processions in it's construction. From the Begining of the Cycle, to the End. Thus starting the Procession again. Whether the face represented Virgo in respects to this, or may have been the Sky Goddess (Nut), is all speculation.

It does tend to make more sense than having the Head of a Lion, representing, just one aspect of the Zodiac. I think the 'Whole' of the Zodiac (it's Cycle) was embraced in this Ruin.

But again, your observations are just as valid as anyother's at this point of time.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by EdenKaia
As far as the Sphinx being originally a lion with a proportional head, I would tend to agree with you. It would also actually follow this 'double sided' theory anyway, considering that if you follow it along, it would place the building of the Sphinx around 10,500. This is the year of the Lion, when the Sphinx would have aligned PERFECTLY with the constellation Leo, and the Pyramids would have been a perfect mirror of Orion's belt

Someday I'd like to read somebody posting this idea along with corroborating links. You know, showing reasons for us to believe that what we call "Leo" today was really thought of as leonine by anybody prior to the Sumerians.

Or, perhaps, explaining why we should believe that the Pyramids were actually built to align with Orion's belt as it appeared in 10,500 BC.

It is my understanding that the originator of the Orion theory, Robert Bauval, does not believe that the Pyramids were constructed that early. Nor does his collaborator, Graham Hancock. These two have been shown enough evidence for a much more recent construction of these monuments for them to be convinced, necessitating that they revise their theories. Today, their claim is that, though the pyramids were built in the era that Egyptologists claim, they were built in alignment with a 10,500 BC "memory" of how Orion looked.

This "new" theory is both patently absurd as well as ingenious. Absurd for the complete lack of evidence of any culture related to the Egyptians dating to 10,500 BC, ingenious because it completely removes the Orion theory from any possibility of being shown to be wrong.

Harte

Hello Harte

It would be silly to Link what common knowledge has already defined.

We know when the Age of Leo started and ended. I expect, you do as well.

The Dawn of the Age of Leo was roughly in 8950 BC and the Dawn of Cancer, which followed was roughly in 6780 BC One full Zodiac Movement recorded in the Stars. Of course, we have twelve signs, and today we are approaching the 7th of those with the coming Dawn of Aquarius in 2012.

This is not something hidden from anyone, and you can find evidence to support this without additional links.

In the case of the Pyramid, unfortunately that is arguementive, since it is speculative at best, as you point out. Yes, it would be nice to list Links. Edgar's Readings fall under the realm of Byrd's Mystic Impressions, The Evidence of Water erosion in the Sphinx, starts to date the Sphinx to an age where evidence of inhabitants is questionable, which is your realm of concern, and as they both should be. No one is arguing that.

But I am certainly amazed, how easy it is to assign some 'collective' concepts to items which have nothing to do with eachother. The Great Pyramid is, without any question, Unique. The Sphinx as well, is unique. What follows in Egypt is copies of these Originals. You even fall into this, by example.

Or, perhaps, explaining why we should believe that the Pyramids were actually built to align with Orion's belt as it appeared in 10,500 BC.

We know the copies sitting beside the Great Pyramid are lessor in details and plastered in the storyline of construction. These are Middle age items with dated Origins. Unlike the Great Pyramid, which no one even knows who's it is.

Ciao

Shane

mars face, lol

www.seawana.com...

www.badastronomy.com...

Originally posted by Shane
Hello Harte
It would be silly to Link what common knowledge has already defined.
We know when the Age of Leo started and ended. I expect, you do as well.
The Dawn of the Age of Leo was roughly in 8950 BC and the Dawn of Cancer, which followed was roughly in 6780 BC One full Zodiac Movement recorded in the Stars. Of course, we have twelve signs, and today we are approaching the 7th of those with the coming Dawn of Aquarius in 2012.
This is not something hidden from anyone, and you can find evidence to support this without additional links.

I think you missed my point.
Yes, knowing what we do about orbital mechanics and the positions of stars, we can know exactly when the "Dawn of the Age of Leo" was. My question is, assuming anyone in 8950BC even noticed it, why should I believe that they thought of the constellation Leo as a lion, rather than, say, a hyena? Of course, whose to say that (again, if they noticed it at all) they even considered the collection of stars that we see today? Why not just, say, half the stars we consider to make up Leo? Then, their constellation could have been shaped like anything imaginable, a spider, a palm, tree, whatever.
Of course, none of this matters at all, until, that is, you try to tie an ancient Sphinx into the age of Leo based on the idea that the Sphinx and Leo are both Leonine.

So, again, I wish someday I could see somebody actually provide supporting materials when they try to argue the Sphinx - Leo hypothesis.

Originally posted by Shane

Or, perhaps, explaining why we should believe that the Pyramids were actually built to align with Orion's belt as it appeared in 10,500 BC.

We know the copies sitting beside the Great Pyramid are lessor in details and plastered in the storyline of construction. These are Middle age items with dated Origins. Unlike the Great Pyramid, which no one even knows who's it is.

I believe this to be so, except for the "middle age" part and except I believe the Great Pyramid is Khufu's. Yet please remember, I was addressing what EdenKaia said about pyramid alignment. Edenkaia gave the impression that the Orion hypothesis puts pyramid construction back to 10,500 BC:

It would also actually follow this 'double sided' theory anyway, considering that if you follow it along, it would place the building of the Sphinx around 10,500. This is the year of the Lion, when the Sphinx would have aligned PERFECTLY with the constellation Leo, and the Pyramids would have been a perfect mirror of Orion's belt

This is certainly not the case.

Harte

[edit on 5/13/2006 by Harte]

I may have missed that 'Point' Harte.

I will ask, are you therefore under the presumption the Zodiac was made up of 'other' Signs, apposed to what seems to be a long standing line of records to place these items as they have been known?

As far as I can find in respects to Known and Recorded Evidence, (The type you like), see the following.

members.optusnet.com.au...

MUL.UR.GU.LA [ur.gu.la] (The "Lion;" [or Lioness], later to be one of the 12 ecliptic constellations.) (Greek zodiac: Leo (the Lion).)

(It is about half way down the Page, Lots of MUL Somethings)

This seems to be the Oldest Record from about 1000 BC, but it notes the Sumerian aspect dating a begining of about 3200 BC. (below all the MULs is a Breakdown of Period and the Signs and associations)

Leo has been the Lion in factual representation since at least 3200 BC. And it has not seemed to be anything else over the course of that time til now.

Of course, it is difficult to bring this link up, since it is not according to what I believe , but in all fairness, as requested, this is the best I can find for something tangable. Something we can sink teeth into at least.

It still does not address why Egypt had placed Leo as the begining of the Zodiac.

But again, as for something you would like to review, and find acceptable, I trust this shows, Leo has always been a Lion, according to the Known Scripts found.

Ciao

Shane

Someday I'd like to read somebody posting this idea along with corroborating links. You know, showing reasons for us to believe that what we call "Leo" today was really thought of as leonine by anybody prior to the Sumerians.Or, perhaps, explaining why we should believe that the Pyramids were actually built to align with Orion's belt as it appeared in 10,500 BC.
It is my understanding that the originator of the Orion theory, Robert Bauval, does not believe that the Pyramids were constructed that early. Nor does his collaborator, Graham Hancock. These two have been shown enough evidence for a much more recent construction of these monuments for them to be convinced, necessitating that they revise their theories. Today, their claim is that, though the pyramids were built in the era that Egyptologists claim, they were built in alignment with a 10,500 BC "memory" of how Orion looked.

"When the stars of Orion are observed at the meridian in the precise manner that the ancient Egyptian astronomers did over many centuries, the could not help noting that these stars crossed the south meridian at different altitudes at different epoch. This is, of course, due to the phenomenon of Precession (see The Orion Mystery, appendices 1 and 2). In short, the stars of Orion can be said to have a starting point or 'beginning' at the nadir of their precessional cycle. Simple calculations show that this occurred in 10,500 BC. Could the ancient astronomers of the Pyramid Age have used their very clever 'silent language' combined with Precession to freeze the 'First Time' of Osiris - somewhat like the gifted architects of gothic cathedral froze in its allegorical stonework the 'time of Christ'? In the summer of 1993 Graham Hancock and I got together to investigate this issue further. Graham was quick to realised the important implications this approach could have on the Sphinx problem. He had a hunch that the curious harking back to the epoch of 10,500 BC by the pyramid builders of Giza was an invitation by them to consider the actual age of the Sphinx. If this hypothesis was correct, then the Sphinx must be an 'original' time-marker of that remote epoch using an obvious celestial tag valid for 10,500 BC. But which tag? What could the Sphinx be representing that was in the sky? Could this have something to do with the due east direction of its gaze towards the horizon? In his ground-breaking book Fingerprints of the Gods (Heinemann-Mandarin), Hancock pointed out that the 'First Time' date of 10,500 BC also denoted the beginning or 'First Time' of the Age of Leo. This was when the 'lion' constellation would have risen heliacally (at dawn before the sun) on the day of the spring (vernal) equinox. This event brought the celestial lion to rest due east, thus in perfect alignment with the Sphinx. The Sphinx, in other words, was made to look at his own image in the horizon - and consequently at his own 'time'. Hancock pointed out that 10,500 BC was no random date. It very precisely denoted another beginning, that of Orion-Osiris defined on the ground with the pattern and alignments of the nearby Pyramids. Here, then, were not just the Pyramids but also the Sphinx luring us to the same date of 10,500 BC."
This is a direct quote from Robert Bauval's, "The Age of the Sphinx"
Here's the link.
Age of the Sphinx

I would have like to Edit something, but it seems I am past the point now.

I'd like to denote, several posts ago, I noted several dates for the Age of Leo, and Cancer, and for some reason (stupidity?) took 2000 years off of these dates.

Those Figures should have denoted

10950 BC as the Dawn of the Age of Leo
8780 BC as the Dawn of the Age of Cancer.

Give or take a few years, apposed to 2000 odd years.

Ciao

Shane

Originally posted by Shane
I will ask, are you therefore under the presumption the Zodiac was made up of 'other' Signs, apposed to what seems to be a long standing line of records to place these items as they have been known?

There are other "zodiacs" even today. Do they all have the constellation we know of as Leo in them? No.

Originally posted by Shane
Leo has been the Lion in factual representation since at least 3200 BC. And it has not seemed to be anything else over the course of that time til now.

...as for something you would like to review, and find acceptable, I trust this shows, Leo has always been a Lion, according to the Known Scripts found.

I'm glad to see somebody linking something, anyway. Unfortunately, I was already aware that the Sumerian zodiac contained the same constellation and considered it a lion. But see, the Sumerians weren't around in 10,500 BC.

As I said, even to this day, other old zodiacs still exist that do not consider what we call Leo to be a lion. The Chinese Zodiac, for example, places "our" Leo in in their "Fourth Region" (each of the four regions contains seven constellations, or "Xius".)

Apparently, from what I can tell, the Chinese consider this star pattern we call Leo to be located in either the fourth or fifth "Xiu" of this "Fourth region." These two Xius are designated "Star" and "Growth." I could be off by a little. Leo is possibly in the sixth Xiu, designated "wings."

I've deduced this in about 15 minutes by consulting the Chinese Zodiac chart at Wikipedia and then finding the corresponding "western" constellations at this constellation diagramming website.

That's the "Leo" page. Here's the main one:
www.astro.wisc.edu...
You'll need to look at Hydra as well, Crater and Sextans are visible in both charts of Hydra and Leo. Leo itself is not mentioned in the Wikipedia Chinese astrology chart, but Hydra and Crater are. You'll need to click on the "Sky Chart" link at the pages of Hydra and Leo to see what I'm talking about here.

This was just to illustrate that there are even today other traditions that call these star patterns something other than what we consider them to represent.

Originally posted by Shane...10950 BC as the Dawn of the Age of Leo

Originally posted by EdenkaiaHancock pointed out that the 'First Time' date of 10,500 BC also denoted the beginning or 'First Time' of the Age of Leo. This was when the 'lion' constellation would have risen heliacally (at dawn before the sun) on the day of the spring (vernal) equinox.

Edenkaia,
How do we reconcile the difference between these two dates?

Also, why is it that it's okay for the pyramids to have been built "in memory" of this "first time of Osiris" as Bauval called it, yet the Sphinx has to be actually carved at that distant age? Plus, see my argument about whether or not anybody in 10,500 BC would have necessarily thought of the star pattern we call "Leo" as a lion at all.

And another thing, I have seen several rebuttals of Bauval's theory that state that Orion's belt didn't actually line up very well with the pyramids, even in 10,500 BC. Are you aware of these arguments? Would you like to be?

Harte

Does anyone know whether the Egyptian "zodiac" is similiar to the one we use today (with the 12 constellations as the Pleiades is included in that of Taurus) or was it similiar to the Babylonian one of 13 constellations (Pleiades on its own), 28 days in the month, 364 days to each year?

Originally posted by mosca
Does anyone know whether the Egyptian "zodiac" is similiar to the one we use today (with the 12 constellations as the Pleiades is included in that of Taurus) or was it similiar to the Babylonian one of 13 constellations (Pleiades on its own), 28 days in the month, 364 days to each year?

From my understanding, The Egyptians had a Calander of 360 days, and Thoth, (You could insert Enoch or Hermes), won 5 days from the Moon, and they then had the 365 day Calander. Here's a short note.

Thoth became credited by the ancient Egyptians as the inventor of writing, and was also considered to have been the scribe of the underworld, and the moon became occasionally considered a separate entity, now that Thoth had less association with it, and more with wisdom. For this reason Thoth was universally worshipped by ancient Egyptian Scribes.

Also, he became credited as the inventor of the 365-day (rather than 360-day) calendar, it being said that he had won the extra 5 days by gambling with the moon, then known as Iabet, in a game of dice, for 1/72nd of its light (5 = 360/72).

When the Ennead and Ogdoad systems started to merge, one result was that, for a time, Horus was considered a sibling of Isis, Osiris, Set, and Nephthys, and so it was said that Hathor/Nuit had been cursed against having children during the (360) day year, but was able to have these five over the 5 extra days won by Thoth.

www.crystalinks.com...


Also for the Constellations, the storyline, being discussed here, indicated, from what I have found, that the Egyptian had a 12 Sign Zodiac, but this can be explained at the following in more depth.

www.mazzaroth.com...

Hope this is useful.

Ciao

Shane