Where The Word God Comes From - The Real Origins of Religion Stolen From Egyptians

[Medicate]

Breh broke it down beautifully......

 

[valet]

God spelled backwards works in English. But what about the origninal languages? Same thing with Amen/Amon-Ra. Yes, they sound alike in our language but what about in the original languages?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So funny when people push that 'Afrocentric' nonsense about this subject not realizing that ALL of it comes from 'White' men.

Google Gerald Massey and Godfrey Higgins if you doubt me.​

 

[bouncy]

Breh broke it down beautifully......

Thanks for putting me onto this guy. I was watching his videos yesterday, he is definitely worth watching.

 

[bouncy]

So funny when people push that 'Afrocentric' nonsense about this subject not realizing that ALL of it comes from 'White' men.

Google Gerald Massey and Godfrey Higgins if you doubt me.​

You just proved his point. Gerald Massey was about AE spirituality. He explains in the video the AE connection to the word. I think y'all just like disagreeing with shyt, just to do it.

Anyway, did you see the link on walking across America I gave in the Ancient Egypt thread? The distance was much shorter then I thought. There is no doubt in my mind they were walking back, and forth, after reading that.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You just proved his point. Gerald Massey was about AE spirituality. He explains in the video the AE connection to the word. I think y'all just like disagreeing with shyt, just to do it.

I disproved his point. Those two dudes are responsible for this whole 'theory' and both were absolutely wrong according to Egyptologists, archaeologists, and historians worldwide.
​

Anyway, did you see the link on walking across America I gave in the Ancient Egypt thread? The distance was much shorter then I thought. There is no doubt in my mind they were walking back, and forth, after reading that.

Evidence (DNA, archaeology, etc.) doesn't support that theory at all and it is nearly 3,000 miles from Egypt to Mauritania by plane.​

 

[bouncy]

I disproved his point. Those two dudes are responsible for this whole 'theory' and both were absolutely wrong according to Egyptologists, archaeologists, and historians worldwide.
​

​

Evidence (DNA, archaeology, etc.) doesn't support that theory at all and it is nearly 3,000 miles from Egypt to Mauritania by plane.​

Why would I put my stock in DNA if it goes against common sense? To me it seems they have an agenda. If it goes against common sense, and what has been proven that could be done, only a fool would put stock into DNA. You know how many people are in your DNA alone? DNA is only good for recent people, and to give a clue who may be your ancestors, but it can't go in depth, so why would you put all of your stock into it? They can't test the millions of people who lived AE, just a few, and then compare that to people now. That is not something I would put a lot of stock in, so I use my common sense, and connect the dots.

Archeology only goes by what they find, they might find something tomorrow that proves me right, or prove me wrong, but why would I base arguments only on what is found, when that always changes? Only a fool would do that.

If I just follow historians, I would think nobody traveled within Africa. The story they always tell goes towards Europe, then elsewhere. It's all based on Christianity, and alluding to Israel, and the area being the holy Land. They don't say this, but if you pay attention, this is the goal.

I don't understand your point. It's 3,000 miles, but that still doesn't mean you can't get there by walking. I proved that already.

You are still ignoring the fact that you can get from east to west within a year, but I understand, gotta ignore what makes sense to keep that ego going.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Why would I put my stock in DNA if it goes against common sense?

Because it proved the Pharaohs were 'Black' which is common sense. It also proved that every ethnicity on the planet comes from Africa.
​

Archeology only goes by what they find, they might find something tomorrow that proves me right, or prove me wrong, but why would I base arguments only on what is found, when that always changes? Only a fool would do that.

Nothing found thus far has proved you right.​

If I just follow historians, I would think nobody traveled within Africa. The story they always tell goes towards Europe, then elsewhere.

This is false. Africans migrated to Asia first and had traveled within Africa for over 100,000 years.
​

I don't understand your point. It's 3,000 miles, but that still doesn't mean you can't get there by walking. I proved that already.

There really was no need to go that far and comparing an overland trek through the present-day United States to an overland trek through Africa 5,000+ years ago isn't exactly valid.​

You are still ignoring the fact that you can get from east to west within a year

It is just a red herring and defies logic. Egyptians had everything they needed within easy reach......

.....so no need to travel through the second largest desert in the world for a year to get what they needed.​

 

[bouncy]

Because it proved the Pharaohs were 'Black' which is common sense. It also proved that every ethnicity on the planet comes from Africa.
​

Nothing found thus far has proved you right.​

This is false. Africans migrated to Asia first and had traveled within Africa for over 100,000 years.
​

There really was no need to go that far and comparing an overland trek through the present-day United States to an overland trek through Africa 5,000+ years ago isn't exactly valid.​

It is just a red herring and defies logic. Egyptians had everything they needed within easy reach......

1-Proving a race is not the same as proving being related to a certain group, especially when that group has been gone for thousands of years. Race is the easiest to prove, so like I wrote, I wouldn't put too much into DNA to prove certain things.

2-Did they go look? I doubt it, because it costs money, and who will fund something that is not in there favor. Until blacks get money to do this, and there are artifacts still left, I'm not going to put stock into that.

3-I know that, the point was until recently it was about Europe, and the "holy" land. In fact I was just watching discovery channel on YouTube, and the host did exactly what I said. He was saying man left Africa, then went to Europe, then Asia. This is not the first time I heard this. If it wasn't Europe, they still tried to keep it within the middle East.

If mainstream scientists are doing this, I'm not going to just repeat what they say without thinking about it.

4- Why wouldn't they go that far when they were an empire that ruled for thousands of years? It's called business, and just being curious to whats out there. America has most of what we need, but we still go other places, right?

5-It defies your logic, but not mine. You act like we are talking about people who just lived in a jungle. These people built pyramids that took YEARS TO BUILD, but you are trying to get me to believe they wouldn't travel to distant lands, that wasn't hard to get to? Please!

6-It wasnt always a desert, and when it became one, you can't still bypass the desert, and go other routes. In fact just going by the coastline can get you from east to west, while providing food along the way.

Lets just end this because you are just repeating yourself, but proving nothing that makes sense. You are just repeating the same stuff that has been out there, even though it makes no sense when you consider who we are talking about. Gotta open up your mind. If you believe they built pyramids, was deep spiritually, and had deep ways of communicating, how can you believe they would not travel within the land?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

If you believe they built pyramids, was deep spiritually, and had deep ways of communicating, how can you believe they would not travel within the land?

Like I posted earlier, there's the second largest desert in the world blocking them from traversing from east to west and I never stated they didn't travel.

Comparing modern-day societal travels to those 5,000+ years ago is why you're having difficulties.​

 

[bouncy]

Like I posted earlier, there's the second largest desert in the world blocking them from traversing from east to west and I never stated they didn't travel.

Comparing modern-day societal travels to those 5,000+ years ago is why you're having difficulties.​

Just ignored where I wrote they could go along the coastline, right?

You are funny!

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Just ignored where I wrote they could go along the coastline, right?
You are funny!

That's another red herring. Had they done that, they'd have recorded the existence of the Atlas Mountains and Phoenicians wouldn't have been the first people to settle in Libya after the Berbers.

There is no evidence Egyptians traveled along the coast to get to Western Africa.​

 

[bouncy]

That's another red herring. Had they done that, they'd have recorded the existence of the Atlas Mountains and Phoenicians wouldn't have been the first people to settle in Libya after the Berbers.

There is no evidence Egyptians traveled along the coast to get to Western Africa.​

How do you know they would have recorded it? Just because one group does something, it doesn't mean another would have done the same. I can't believe you just made that statement. The fact that their writing system, and spiritual beliefs were much different from the people you just named, and so many others, why would you believe they would no doubt record about the atlas mountains? It might not have been that important to them. We can see they were more focused on the sky, and deeper aspects of life. This is your problem, you think like people do today, and forcing this thinking on them, even though you can see they didn't think like us.

And why would you assume just because they travelled through there, that they would make settlement there? They might not have seen the need to settle in a place like that.

And why would there be evidence if they never settled there?

And you are assuming the evidence isn't there. It may have just not been found yet. You have to look first.

Just let it go. You have not wrote one thing that required thought, you are just repeating told history, and that is based on what we have found so far. What if someone actually goes looking based on the theory I gave? I bet you will still find ways to downplay what they have found because you are stuck on what you have learned so far. This isnt new. In most fields , older people tend to cling to what they were taught when they were younger.

Just forget it.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

How do you know they would have recorded it?

Egyptians recorded all their conquests/travels meticulously.

We could speculate forever, but the simple fact is there is no evidence to support Egyptians settling Western Africa.​

 

[bouncy]

Egyptians recorded all their conquests/travels meticulously.

We could speculate forever, but the simple fact is there is no evidence to support Egyptians settling Western Africa.​

I think you are confused, those in power recorded things, I'm not just referring to them. You act like there weren't regular people who were Egyptians. Get out of the books, and use your common sense. A society is made up of people, not just the people who run the government. Now, I see why you are not getting me. I'm talking about the regular people of the land, which was in the millions over the years, not the few who controlled the societies.

You are seeing this as people who came from far lands, and conquered different areas. Only select people were!doing that because they were from foreign lands who worked for the higher powers. In Egypt, they are right on the land, it would be nothing for them to walk along the coast. Like I wrote, open your mind, and stop repeating what you read, unless it relates. Now, you are just connecting everything, and not separating everything to their proper context.