Did Early Egyptians Base There Gods On What They Saw?

I read a few years ago and I just recently revisited the topic on Ancient Egypitian gods.

It is thought that these early gods might actually be from extraterrestrials creating beings which could be viewed as gods. These "gods" might have been experiments by aliens, ex. dog-human hybrids.

The reason I'm posting this is because we are having a debate very soon about this and i need as much information as you people can dig up.

There are no aliens in Egypt. The Egyptions based there beliefs on animals. Theres Osiris the dog god and Gatekeeper of the afterlife because dogs were trained to guard property. Theres Ra the sun Falcon god because They saw falcans in the sky and thouhjt that a falcon must carry the sun and anybody that blames human creativity on aliens are Ignorant

Originally posted by Vegemite

There are no aliens in Egypt. The Egyptions based there beliefs on animals. Theres Osiris the dog god and Gatekeeper of the afterlife because dogs were trained to guard property. Theres Ra the sun Falcon god because They saw falcans in the sky and thouhjt that a falcon must carry the sun and anybody that blames human creativity on aliens are Ignorant

and anybody that blames human creativity on aliens are Ignorant

Coffee hasn't quite kicked in...could you elaborate on this statement?

What he meant to say was "In my opinion...".

An opinion I don't support by the way.

Let me collect some info from my resources and I will try and help you out GoldEagle.

*My ATS points hit 1111 after I posted this...guess that means im supposed to help you out heh


[edit on 5-10-2004 by Lucid Lunacy]

I was of the opinion the the dog god was Anubis, guardian of the dead.

Originally posted by intrepid
I was of the opinion the the dog god was Anubis, guardian of the dead.

Of course. I'm not inferring that egyptologists and professionals from other relevant fields mistranslated the egyption culture so bad as to say Anubis was a dog god, where in fact he was a rat god. Or that he was actually the guardian of sandals. I'm going to suggest that there may be more meaning to:

dog god was Anubis, guardian of the dead

that is when one considers their conceptual frame of reference in that time period.

Actually the head is that of a jackal...

I'm not sure of the Egyptians but I believe the Mayans,Aztecs,and other Ancient southern and central American civilizations based their gods on aliens especially those of the Reptilian kin.It is more than coincidence that more than one of these ancient civilizations share similar serpent gods that can fly,came from the sky,etc...I also believe that secrets and proof lurk in those temples/pyramids somewhere.

This also leads to ancient mesoplataimia (hope i spelt it right) and how some of there artifacts have very strang creatures in them:

Heres a link:
xfacts.com...
Go to the artifacts section first!

It's about the sumerians artifacts but some of them looked in a very creepy way like... aliens! I nearly jumped when I saw them.


**I used the dog head thing as an example I know Anubis was a jackal.

Ignorance is not understanding a problem in a neutral state of mind and biasing it on the opinions and actions of others.




[edit on 10/5/2004 by GoldEagle]

[edit on 10/5/2004 by GoldEagle]

Originally posted by Gazrok
Actually the head is that of a jackal...

Lol...haha yeah

A jackal IS a type of dog though, Canis aureus. Now I'm REALLY confused.

Originally posted by intrepid
A jackal IS a type of dog though, Canis aureus. Now I'm REALLY confused.

I thought I did a good job clearing up the initial confusion.

If you notice, the Egyptian Gods have human bodies, to represent their intelligence and agency, which is like that of humans. The head is of an animal (or an object) to show what kind of qualities the deity has.

Anubis was the guardian of the dead. People feared jackals because jackals often stole into cemeteries after dark and dug up corpses and ate them. For a people who believed that they needed their body for the afterlife, this was quite a threat. So they gave the god of death a jackal's head, hoping to appease that god. Praying to the god of jackals, making a deal with him, ought to keep all the physical jackals from eating grampa's corpse. Anubis carries sandals because sandals are a sign of life. Corpses don't need shoes, because they are not going anywhere, just lying in a box. Anubis carries sandals because he promises to conduct them to a new life, where they will be walking (wearing sandals) again. The ankh symbol, a cross with a loop on top of the T, is actually a sandal strap. You'd put your foot through the loop, and then the arms of the ankh strap across the instep and outside of the foot, while the long par goes down over the toes. Look at pix of anubis, from a sales site:

www.egyptiandreams.co.uk...

Horus has has a falcon for a head because falcons fly high up, even over the desert, and they see everything. They are also the fastest birds, and can dive at up to 200 mph.

The Goddess Maat has a human face, but her emblem (on her crown) is an ostrich feather. The feather is considered a symbol of truth, because it is practically weightless, and is stirred by even the gentlest breath. The Epyptian book of the dead shows the deceased person's heart weighed in the balance against Maat's feather. Any sins in the heart will weight it down, so that it cannot be added to the mummy when the person is reborn in the afterlife.

www.aelives.com...

Isis has cow horns on her crown because she is the goddess of fertility. And if the cattle are infertile, then there's no meat, no milk, and no animals to pull the plow; in other words, the nation would starve. Like anubis, this is a way of picturing the god as presiding over what the egyptians are most afraid of.

Ra is often imaged as a scarab beetle. This beetle rolls up a ball of elephant dung, and rolls it up a small hill or mound, and then down a hole where it lays its eggs in the center. The act of rolling up the ball is kind of like building a snow man. The Egyptians were reminded of the way the sun "rolls" across the sky and down below the horizon, and saw an image or archetype of eternal repetition. So they used the scarab as a symbol of eternal cycles.

One of the basic principles of science is that simpler explanations are probably the best. Egyptian beliefs about gods can adequately be explained in terms of what the Egyptians themselves wrote about their beliefs; there is no need to believe in aliens as an explanation for Egyptian achievements.

It's a kind of chauvinism to assume that ancient people were not as smart as we are, and if they achieved anything, then they must have had the help of superior brains watching over them.

Which is funny, since many of the really important technical and philosophical ideas (like the scientific method, steam engines and the fact that the earth is a ball, the use of anaesthetics and the concepts of democracy, liberty, and metaphysics) were discovered in antiquity. Later people forgot those things, because they had no interest in what people before them had achieved.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
It's a kind of chauvinism to assume that ancient people were not as smart as we are, and if they achieved anything, then they must have had the help of superior brains watching over them.

I don't think most people feel that the ancients were not as smart as we are....certainly in some ways, they were more intelligent than we.....however, I....for one....do believe that they received "help" along the way, as I believe we have. I do not think they thought up the battery by themselves.....

www.world-mysteries.com...

www.stateoftheart.nl...

www.geocities.com...

you're right. That was probably too harsh. Its just that from my perspective (degree in anthropology), I see a lot of people passing judgment on ancient cultures without really knowing the meaning of various cultural artifacts.

Personally, I think that the Mesopotamians certainly could have developed the battery on their own. While I understand what you're saying, I also know that they developed a lot of basic metallurgy. They were fascinated with gold and silver plating of 'inferior' objects (as was classical chinese culture).

If you look at other gold artifacts, you can see that over time, Mesopotamians began with hammered gold casings on their religious artifacts (to make them worthy of the gods), then they developed gold leaf, wherein gold was pounded into sheets very much thinner than aluminum foil, and then applied to religious artefacts. The Chinese, who were in contact with them early on, used this skill to cover the faces of dead royalty with gold leaf.

Sometime around 2000 bc, the Mesopotamians began to acquire tin with trace amounts of mercury in it. (Probably, the Phoenicians were no longer supplying them with tin from Britain). The Mesopotamians were making bronze out of tin and copper, and then plating it with gold in order to make it look like pure gold.

The thing is, gold, though inert, will bond with mercury and go into a liquid suspension with it. I think they saw this when plating bronze. Then, it was a short step to realizing that changing the valence by applying acid to the suspended gold caused it to fall out of suspension and adhere to the surfaces of the vessel that contained it.

I believe that is what the "battery" actually is, is a device for gold plating objects placed inside the battery. Basically a battery is the reverse of "plating," since it produces electrical current by removing copper molecules from the cathode and depositing them on the Iron anode. Applying current to the battery reverses the chemical process, and causes the copper to go back into the acidic solution/electrolyte. Gold would work the same way, if the electrolyte contained aqua regia rather than sulfuric acid.

In support of my argument, I can point to the Sumerians' advanced metalworking technology, some of which we acquired only in the industrial revolution. Gold-plating technology was important to them, and they had the supporting tech to use this skill.

On the other hand, they had no supporting equipment for manufacturing or utillizing electrical batteries. They could not manufacture sulfuric acid (which is a much better electrolyte than the wine that I believe was used in the famous artefact). There are traces of gold in the "battery." gold makes a poor anode; but it is critical for the process of gold plating. So the Mesopotamians had all the tech needed to use the device the way I believe they were in fact using it.

But if it was a battery, then what did they use it for? They had no electronic devices, no clocks or walkie-talkies or flashlights or any other devices that required electricity. On the other hand, they had a HUGE appetite for gold plated artefacts, for gold-plated dishes for the king and for the house of the gods.

I certainly cannot prove you or anyone else wrong, LadyV. But on the other hand, I think that my theory of the "battery's" use fits in with the rest of their culture, and their other artefacts, in a much more coherent way, than does the idea that they copied the battery from aliens.

One of the principles of archaeology, a rule of thumb, is that primal cultures, when confronted with more specialized technology will always copy military technology first. I.e., the plains indians quickly stole horses from the spanish, and would only trade beaver pelts for gunpowder with the british and french. They didn't copy the western alphabets, or our medical knowledge; they wanted gunpowder. So why, if the mesopotamians were in contact with aliens, would they copy a battery? Much better to copy antigrav technology, or stun rays or whatever. And if they did, why don't we find any evidence of THAT in the millions of artifacts we have from the middle east?

I agree with Occam's razor, that the simplest explanation that works is usually the best. In the absence of other data, the idea that the "battery" was naturally developed explains the evidence; in my opinion, it does a better job than an alien contact hypothesis does.

Of course, everyone must decide for themselves what they think of the evidence, and of various interpretations of it. That is the power of science, that conclusions are not set in stone, and are reached independently of any appeal to authority.

Very good points you made, I posted this just to see if anybody has seen this topic before and give some points about it.

well...

I agree with the anthropologist... look at the creativity of humanity, in this day and age.

However, is it possible that aliens have visited us? I believe so, they come around every now and again, those venturesome cultures that come out here to the boondocks (we are on the outer edge of the Sagittarius arm), but they may not stay around long (either that or we're some undisturbed ecological habitat).

I'm actually of the belief that humanity, itself, had at one point achieved spaceflight and great technology in the distant past, but we obliterated ourselves (the Raman/Atlantean wars).

I wouldn't be surprised to find ancient artifacts on the moon.

Here, take a look: www.crystalinks.com...

I don't really think ancient history is so bland that we can outrightly discount that theory... but, circumstantial evidence is always open to interpretation (which is why it's of little value in the court system).

I got a kick out of that link, irony wit. Thanks!

If you look at that pic, you'll notice that that entire transom is seriously damaged by erosion, as are some of the pictographs that supposedly show ancient artefacts. I don't know much heiroglyphics but I do recognize the shape in the bottom right, and it's not Luke Skywalker's air raft. I believe it is the symbol for the crow-bar like device used to open the mouth of the dead during the mummification ceremonies. If I remember right, it is the verb "to open" in hieroglyphics.

The reed on the left of the image is a number, hundreds or thousands i think (don't remember, and can't find my textbook this morning.) You can see the rows of vertical hashmarks next to it, that show horizontal streaks of erosion, indicating that the whole panel has serious horizontal cracking going on.

You'll also notice that the pictograms that the site claims are spacecraft all have grooves or varying depths inside the carved out space of the image. The egyptians, when they carved symbols, didn't do that. They didn't carve grooves or ridges down inside each symbol. Look at the better preserved symbols on the left, and you'll see what I'm saying. So it's safe to conclude that the "antigrav" images are either seriously eroded or defaced. Sometimes a pharaoh would deface the name of the previous guy, in order to steal his glory. Raamses II did this a lot, and so did Tutankhamen. Both lived in the New Kingdom, when you'r pics were carved . . .

Too bad that this one badly defaced panel is also the only evidence that the ancient Egyptians had seen the Star Wars trilogy!

If this was technology they had, why didn't they use it to stop the Hyksos nomads from conquering the Old kingdom ~2200 BC? This is a (later) new kingdom inscription, but then the tech didn't help them against Assyria, which took Egypt's Judean and Moabite satelites around 700 BC.

If they saw these objects in the sky, how come there's no glyph for sky on this panel? If I'm right about the number and the symbol for opening, it looks like this panel is counting something that belongs to the pharaoh whose name appears in the cartouche to the left of the symbols in question.

The whole argument would be like looking at this sentence, and deciding that the dot over every "i" was symbolic of an antigravity vehicle.

It certainly is fun to play with (hey, I'm interested in antigrav research) and the Egyptians sure drew some odd pics, since they were obsessed with sex and death. (Maybe they should have a cable network!) But it does an injustice to their history for us do ignore what THEY meant by the images, and read into them whatever we feel like.

Here's my argument in a nutshell. MOST of the stuff we see in ancient cultures that looks alien to us is due to our own ignorance of the artefacts we are viewing. IF aliens did visit the earth in ancient times, their influence on human technology and culture has been minimal.

Maybe Ezekiel WAS talking to a UFO (again, I can give you arguments about what HE was trying to say about Jahovah, but that's another thread.). But even if he was, the generations of Rabbis and Bible scholars who came after him didn't read it that way, and they didn't incorporate any alien tech into their cultures. Instead they absorbed Ezekiel's imagery into their understanding of the one God they already worshipped. Again, minimal influence.

Notice, I'm NOT saying it is impossible, or even that it didn't happen. I'm saying that I with my limited knowledge cannot see how alien contact was formative for our or any other earth culture.

I would not dissuade anyone from doing research in this category. Science moves forward by questionning authority, questioning the status quo, and basing conclusions on best evidence.

The only one that convinced me was that helicopter one!

The question is why would shuch an amazing thing to them (the UFOs) be located in such a insignificant area in a temple and and why is this the only place it's documented. If a saw a UFO back then I would use an entire wall in a temple to document it. Not some door header that can be easily missed.


[edit on 10/7/2004 by GoldEagle]

[edit on 10/7/2004 by GoldEagle]

and much more succinct, er . . . succinter . . . um, more to the point in a short space than my post. good job.

LoL. That's a helicopter. As for why that depiction was secluded to a small area inside a specific temple. Maybe they had a government that liked to conceal the exsistence of alien life

[edit on 7-10-2004 by Lucid Lunacy]