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

[bouncy]

It doesn't prove your point since it is north of Lower Egypt.​

Did I say it proves my point? I wrote it HELPS prove my point that they traveled the coastline, and there is probably more artifacts in the sea somewhere.

Isn't this from my previous post:
"You just keep repeating that like it means something big.

1- The evidence could have been destroyed from new people moving to the land.

2-The evidence might have not been found yet.

3-i don't even think they went looking for it.

4-they might have not left evidence, at least that will last for over 5,000 years! Even a thousands years might not be enough to last, considering the type of climate it is along the coast."




What's funny is I knew you were going to reply exactly as you did, so I know who I'm dealing with. Peace.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

You assume they didn't go west based off of what you have previously learned. You can't say this as fact, and this is my problem with you, you act like these are concrete facts, when they aren't.

There's a big difference between what might have happened and what we know actually happened.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Did I say it proves my point? I wrote it HELPS prove my point that they traveled the coastline, and there is probably more artifacts in the sea somewhere.

There very well might be, but there have been none found. If there are anymore artifacts, they probably lie North/Northeast of Egypt, not West.

Like this.......

http://archive.archaeology.org/9701/newsbriefs/negev.html

​

The discovery of an Egyptian-style tomb at Tel Halif in the Negev Desert suggests an Egyptian colonial presence in southern Israel ca. 3000 B.C. Most burials in the region are in caves or shaft tombs attributed to the Canaanites, but this one, built during the Early Bronze 1B period (3300-3000 B.C.), is typical of contemporary tombs in Egypt, according to excavators Thomas Levy of the University of California, San Diego, and David Alon of the Joe Alon Regional Research Center in Israel. A 30-foot-long passageway descends to the burial chamber, which is about 26 feet long, 16 feet wide, and nine and one-half feet high. Within the dome-shaped chamber is a plastered stone platform on which the skeleton of a woman was found. About 25 years old when she died, she was found in a fetal position facing east, characteristic of Egyptian burials.

That an Egyptian was buried at Tel Halif "gives us evidence of a full-blown Egyptian colony in Israel right after the crystallization of the first Egyptian state," says Levy. "Egyptians were known to have very profound and elaborate belief systems about the afterlife and what was required to get there. One of these requirements was to die and be properly entombed on Egyptian soil. I think it's very likely that this part of southern Israel was considered part of greater Egypt during this period."

Egyptian ceramics, seal impressions, and bread molds found at Tel Halif support an Egyptian occupation. Among these artifacts is a potsherd engraved with the serekh, or sign, of King Narmer, who is believed to have united Upper and Lower Egypt between 3050 and 3000 B.C.

 

[bouncy]

There's a big difference between what might have happened and what we know actually happened.

Now you are doing what he is doing. We don't know for a fact, until we find the evidence, but it all starts with the idea, and using your brain. That is why I linked that article. The only reason they found it is because of an old description of the city. If everyone thought like y'all, no one would have even went looking to see if the tales were true.

The only things we know as facts are things that have been written in the language we use, so we can interpret them properly, or we have found actual artifacts in a certain place. Everything else is theory, but for some reason y'all take it as fact, and downplay anything that doesn't go along with YOUR TAUGHT theories. I rarely get a back ,and forth, of creative thinking that can help answer questions. It's always, "never happened, there's no evidence". shyt is depressing because it seems like no one has any type of creative thinking to figure things out themselves. If it isn't out there, it doesn't exist with y'all.

 

[bouncy]

There very well might be, but there have been none found. If there are anymore artifacts, they probably lie North of Egypt, not West.

Like this.......

http://archive.archaeology.org/9701/newsbriefs/negev.html

​

Thanks for this. I don't know if you noticed, but you actually HELPED prove the point that they could have also traveled along what is now the Sahara desert. Look at the timeline the story gives:
"Egyptian ceramics, seal impressions, and bread molds found at Tel Halif support an Egyptian occupation. Among these artifacts is a potsherd engraved with the serekh, or sign, of King Narmer, who is believed to have united Upper and Lower Egypt between 3050 and 3000 B.C."

That means over 5,000 years ago! Right when the sahara started drying up!

So, if they could travel east around this time, why wouldn't they travel west along a route that can provide food along the way. They had two routes they could have walked, the coastline, and the Sahara.

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

Those accounts are unreliable and are more recent than the height of Egyptian civilization.
​

All of which is East Africa and them crossing the Sahara is farfetched since the Old Kingdom didn't start till about 3,100 BCE.........2,000 years after the Sahara dried up. The construction of pyramids isn't due to Egyptian influence, it's just a matter of convention and practicality. Pyramids are the most stable structures of any significant height.
​

Libyan Pharaohs didn't come into power until the 9th Century BCE........2,000 years after Pre-dynastic Egypt. Libyans are descendants of Berbers and Phoenicians, not Egyptians.

Egyptians didn't go west until Alexander the Great and Ptolemy came to power in the 3rd/4th Century BCE.​

No one said the Libyans were descendants of Egyptians, but you claimed that Egyptians never went west. It's clear they had contact with at least one African Civilization to the west of them.

So other Africans traveled but Egyptians( a powerful civilization in its day with travelers from around Africa and ME ) force some iron curtain that prohibited them from traveling west? They could travel east, south and north to Greece but its unthinkable for them to travel west? Sahara didn't stop travel and All one has to do is travel between the Sahel and SSA to avoid Sahara and reach West Africa.




Look at the distant between Modern day Khartoum and Modern day North Eastern Nigeria. So you telling me Egyptians where not sophisticated enough to travel down the nile to Khartoum( which they did) and head a few miles west to modern day Northeast Nigeria? But they could travel to fukking Greece Easily?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

No one said they Libyans were descendants of Egyptians, but you claimed that Egyptians never went west.

I claimed this......​

The people who built the pyramids stayed in Northeast Africa and didn't head west due to the Sahara.​

....and this.....​

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

 

[bouncy]

No one said they Libyans were descendants of Egyptians, but you claimed that Egyptians never went west. It's clear they had contact with at least one African Civilization to the west of them.

So other Africans traveled but Egyptians( a powerful civilization in its day with travelers from around Africa and ME ) force some iron curtain that prohibited them from traveling west? They could travel east, south and north to Greece but its unthinkable for them to travel west? Sahara didn't stop travel and All one has to do is travel between the Sahel and SSA to avoid Sahara and reach West Africa.




Look at the distant between Modern day Khartoum and Modern day North Eastern Nigeria. So you telling me Egyptians where not sophisticated enough to travel down the nile to Khartoum( which they did) and head a few miles west to modern day Northeast Nigeria? But they could travel to fukking Greece Easily?

That's another route they could have taken!

So, we now see they had THREE different routes they could have took, but we are told "it didn't happen, no evidence" or "they didn't need to go west, they had everything where they were". shyt is wild.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Thanks for this. I don't know if you noticed, but you actually HELPED prove the point that they could have also traveled along what is now the Sahara desert.

Which there is no evidence to support.​

That means over 5,000 years ago! Right when the sahara started drying up!

Which is what I stated a few posts ago.​

So, if they could travel east around this time, why wouldn't they travel west along a route that can provide food along the way. They had two routes they could have walked, the coastline, and the Sahara.

There is no evidence they traveled west through the Sahara or west along the coast.

They could travel north and east because there was no desert and there is evidence to support that.
​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

That's another route they could have taken!

And there is no evidence to support that, either.​

 

[GetInTheTruck]

Now you are doing what he is doing. We don't know for a fact, until we find the evidence, but it all starts with the idea, and using your brain. That is why I linked that article. The only reason they found it is because of an old description of the city. If everyone thought like y'all, no one would have even went looking to see if the tales were true.

The only things we know as facts are things that have been written in the language we use, so we can interpret them properly, or we have found actual artifacts in a certain place. Everything else is theory, but for some reason y'all take it as fact, and downplay anything that doesn't go along with YOUR TAUGHT theories. I rarely get a back ,and forth, of creative thinking that can help answer questions. It's always, "never happened, there's no evidence". shyt is depressing because it seems like no one has any type of creative thinking to figure things out themselves. If it isn't out there, it doesn't exist with y'all.

Forget about Egypt for a second, what makes you think your logic here is reasonable? Any creative thinking going on take has to take place within the context of available evidence. Postulating theories is one thing, asking for them to be accepted without being vetted is absurd.

 

[bouncy]

Found another article about people who were buried in the Sahara. The case just seems to get stronger that AE might have been connected to the rest of Africa, not just the people directly connected to them. I don't know if this group had a connection to AE, but I highly doubt all these people were near each other, and no mingling happened.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5593387
Ancient cemetery found in 'green' Sahara desert

 

[bouncy]

And there is no evidence to support that, either.​

That's why I wrote COULD!

We are back at square one

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

Which there is no evidence to support.​

Which is what I stated a few posts ago.​

There is no evidence they traveled west through the Sahara or west along the coast.

They could travel north and east because there was no desert and there is evidence to support that.
​

The east is desert! So they could travel though the desert in the middle east but can't go west. There was nothing known in history stopping them from traveling west. Not the even the Sahara. There is no evidence because Ancient Africa is already an understudied topic in academia. We really are just now getting information about African civilizations.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

That's why I wrote COULD!

We are back at square one

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

​