All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 

Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:33 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:00 am
Posts:912
Location: England
nileqt87 said: "and the word "wedjat" means "blue" in Egyptian"

nileqt87, I don't know where you're sourcing this information from - the quotes you give can all be found on a number of websites, most of which seem hugely dubious. I have never known the word 'wadjet' in the context of the Eye of Horus (the Udjat eye) to mean 'blue.' I can assure you that it means 'brown' or more literally 'papyrus brown.' This is of no bearing to race at all - I don't care about that. What I do care about is people passing on faulty information and referencing it incorrectly (without even mentioning the website from which it is drawn).

This may sound like an overreaction, but many people use this website for reports and so on, and KTO is frequently the No. 1 Google hit for searches regarding Egyptology. I told you a while back it didn't mean blue anyway, and yet you still state it as though it were a fact - alongside many other dogmatic and equally dubious statements - such as your insistence on the skin colour of King Tutankhamun.

These topics repulse me slightly - I would have thought the sorts of people who use this forum were beyond arguing over things as petty as what colour the Egyptians' skin was.

*Phew* I hope that wasn't too vehement!


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 2:44 pm 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:52 pm
Posts:25
Location: by the nile
no not at all thanks :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:29 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:00 am
Posts:912
Location: England
"It is proven just by the bible alone. noah had three sons . . . Ham was whom the egyptian came from along with others in africa. . . ."

I do not wish to disillusion you if you are a strict Christian or Jew, but the vast majority of historians and biblical scholars now discount the Bible as an accurate historical source. Whilst the Bible is not explicit in mentioning dates, it is not particularly difficult to add up the ages of various members of the Biblical lineage in order to date the various occurences of the Old Testament and Torah. Most learned scholars have (on many separate occasions) predicted that the Great Flood occured c.2300 BC, and this was indeed the date accepted by the Catholic and Protestant churches after the Great Schism of 1054. Any modern alterations of this date have little or no foundation on Biblical references, and scholars struggle to force the Great Flood any earlier than 3000 BC.

As you probably are aware, the Egyptian civilisation continued completely unaffected by this flood - the writings of the 'heretic' Manetho which supposedly disproved the Great Flood were verified by Champollion when he was able to accurately date the tombs at Saqqara and the valleys near Thebes.

Saying that the Bible proves Egyptian lineage is about as accurate as saying that it proves the existence of God. Whilst I am not prepared to go into that particular route of thought, even the most dogmatic Christian must accept that almost everything they think to be true stands a chance of being wrong. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:29 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:49 pm
Posts:914
Location: Long Beach, CA
Using the Bible as a cronological reference-work can be iffy, at best. I think one of the main things to help understand Biblical writings is to realize that, for many centuries, the Bible was mainly an oral tradition. Over the years I'm sure errors were made in reciting many passages. Also, it must be remembered that, basically, the Bible (or the Torah) was used as an example for belief and the power of God to show the Israelites that they were the chosen, that their God was THE God. Most references in the Bible to places and names were loosly made, with not much worry over accuracy, but more concerned, again, with showing the Israelites the power of their God. Some, not many, places that are named in the Bible have been found, but usually no-where near as described.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 9:12 am 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:32 am
Posts:18
Most of the genetics dealing with the subject puts AE negroid blood at between 1% and 5%. That allows for some influx of Nubian genes from the south. It also means that some were a little higher and that many had almost none.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:52 am 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:30 pm
Posts:55
I don't think any of the reconstructions look like King Tut. By looking at his mummy you can get an idea of how he looked, it doesn't seem like any of these teams looked closely at the boys mummy to get an idea of how he would look.
Doesn't ham mean black in the ancient egyptian language? the bible and the ancient egyptian have agreat deal of similarities.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:51 pm 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:38 pm
Posts:8
ankhesenamun 3s wrote:
you know if you put chemicals in your hair and go into the blazing sun it will change colors. and not just white have blue eyes my black grandmother has blue eyes and my hair when i am in the sun turns bloneish by cusion has red hair. and to put it in short wirds egyptians were not white. it is proven just by the bible alone. noah had three sons one whit one orintel and one of africa. they slpit apart and took up beiffrent land. ham was whom the egyptian came from along with others in africa. and as for the slaves every peoples in africa were slaves to some one else it was the way of the erra. and nuit to me has always been shown with the egyptian wig. and egyptian eyes the charmes the eye brows were blue too. the egyptians were african and thats all we know for fact no one can really say what they were for sure but. someone please clear it up that they were not white.
i was reading through this topic and seen the ugly head of what race the ancient egyptians were arise. this is a unsettled issue and the assumtion by black people that the ancient egyptians were black because that egypt is on the african continent is not an accurate assumption,and a good example to look at is the continent of asia, india and china are in asia right and both of those peoples refer to themselves as asians right though obivously they are not the same race but come from the same continent.and the eye color thing it is extemely rare for someone outside of the caucasian race to have color eyes outside of brown eye especialy rare for blacks to have eye color outside of brown but of course not impossible in the crazy world of genetics.the thing in those pictures that are astounding is not the color of the hair but the hair was straight i have never in my life seen a black person with natural straight hair and never heard of people in ancient times straintening there hair unheard of.all i am saying is under the defintion of caucasian scentific term for white people which is a term i hate being white is a misnomer it makes people think to be white means you must look swedish caucasian denotes fair skin people and under the definiton in any dictionary is people of european north african and southwest asian decent. i dont know for sure what race they were. and mainstream science is afraid to investigate this because they think they would be seen as racist and such so race is always left out of the mainstream egyptoligist discusion wrong or right.me im curious like evryone else.but have my own scientiffic guess and that is under the scienttific terms of the definiton is that there is a very good chance that many of the ancient egyptians were infact white and with the close proxmity of nubia which are black for sure and a great civ in there own right there had to have been black egytians and pharoahs i mean we are talking about 6 or 7 thousand years of history there. i mean it has been proven in ancient rome there were black roman citizens . in ancient times and race was not thought of in the terms as it is thought of today cultural differences was more of a sticking point in ancient times than racial ones .


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:04 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:49 pm
Posts:914
Location: Long Beach, CA
Please, folks!! Let's not get into the mud of the color of the ancient Egyptians--it has been done to death! (And should just be completely ignored)
The ancient Egyptian civilization was a mixture of many races, therefore many colors. 'nuff said...


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:35 pm 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:38 pm
Posts:8
Osiris II wrote:
Please, folks!! Let's not get into the mud of the color of the ancient Egyptians--it has been done to death! (And should just be completely ignored)
The ancient Egyptian civilization was a mixture of many races, therefore many colors. 'nuff said...
everybody would stop if a mod would delete any obvious afrocentric propaganda post that clearly have a hidden agenda but as long as they keep the posts up i will challenge any afrocentric here period


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:36 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Psusennes I wrote:
"
I do not wish to disillusion you if you are a strict Christian or Jew, but the vast majority of historians and biblical scholars now discount the Bible as an accurate historical source. Whilst the Bible is not explicit in mentioning dates, it is not particularly difficult to add up the ages of various members of the Biblical lineage in order to date the various occurences of the Old Testament and Torah. Most learned scholars have (on many separate occasions) predicted that the Great Flood occured c.2300 BC, and this was indeed the date accepted by the Catholic and Protestant churches after the Great Schism of 1054. Any modern alterations of this date have little or no foundation on Biblical references, and scholars struggle to force the Great Flood any earlier than 3000 BC.

:wink:


Edited for sanity sake :) anyone today that prefers a chronology created before 1054 AD; this includes scientists that do. Needs to stop counting and start using the science they have worked so hard on. When this is DONE another chronology appears that supports Mesopotamian/Egyptian and Hebrew Biblical history. Science is able today not a chronology that is excuse the pun “as old as Moses”.


Top
 Profile  
 

Re: Tut's Likeness
PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:50 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Osiris II wrote:

As the CT scan showed us, he was a normal, health young man who, for some unknown reason, died in his teens.




Hey! Osiris II nice to see you batting your real and intense knowledge around. Thank you sincerely. An update on Tutankhamun's death is that he died days after a broken Left upper leg caused most likely from a chariot accident. The current (haha) belief is; he died of an infection due to the accident. However, medical training tells me that due to the long leg fracture he most likely died not of an infection (Egyptians were great at treating infections) but of a fat embolism. This was a very common death throughout history, after the break of a long leg bone. The embolism of fat circulates through the body and ends in either the heart or lungs. I hope it landed in his heart; it is a faster easier death than into the lungs.

As you stated the CT scan showed a healthy young man. One who ought to have been able to fight off an infection under Egyptian doctors. Only modern medicine has been able to fight and win over fat embolism.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 10:04 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:49 pm
Posts:914
Location: Long Beach, CA
Sekhmet has stated:


As you stated the CT scan showed a healthy young man. One who ought to have been able to fight off an infection under Egyptian doctors

So true, Sekhmet. And this is what has lead Egyptologists, including Hawass, to hint that some form of poison "helped" in his exit.
We'll probably never know for sure, but it certainly seems unlikely to me that a young, healthy man would not recover from a break, even if it were serious. Of course, allowances must be made for improvements in treating infections, but as you say the Egyptians were quite well-known for their successes in that field.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:34 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Osiris II wrote:
Sekhmet has stated:


As you stated the CT scan showed a healthy young man. One who ought to have been able to fight off an infection under Egyptian doctors

So true, Sekhmet. And this is what has lead Egyptologists, including Hawass, to hint that some form of poison "helped" in his exit.
We'll probably never know for sure, but it certainly seems unlikely to me that a young, healthy man would not recover from a break, even if it were serious. Of course, allowances must be made for improvements in treating infections, but as you say the Egyptians were quite well-known for their successes in that field.


Dear Friend, Egyptologists are not medical specialists. If you do a Google on fat embolisms you will see what many medical specialists know about them and long bone fractures. :lol: Why would an Egyptian medical specialist not speak up? Who would want to cross Hawass in his field?


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


  Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Style by web designer custom , optymalizacja seo pozycjonowanie stron pozycjonowanie
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group