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

[bouncy]

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.

Who said be accepted?
It's reasonable because its makes sense if you consider different things, especially when I just gave you multiple links to support my theory. You are just ignoring them. I even explained in depth why I think this, and you still ask me what makes them reasonable!
Do you know what reasonable means? Let me show you:

Reasonable
adjective
1.
agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical:

I showed why they could have walked to these places within a year. I showed why there could be evidence in the sea. I showed why I think they could have travelled along the coastline to west Africa. I showed why they could have went through the Sahara.

These are four things I gave to help prove my point, yet you ask me what makes my theory reasonable?

Just forget it.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The east is desert! So they could travel though the desert in the middle east but can't go west.

No evidence to support them going west and the eastern portion of the Mediterranean forms part of the Fertile Crescent. No desert there.
​

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.

Well, when there is evidence, I'll consider it objectively.​

 

[bouncy]

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 desertis evidence to support that.
​

There was no desert 5,000 years ago. It started around that time. The link I gave is before the desert became what it is now!

Here's another link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...lowers-Sahara--proving-desert-green-lush.html
Amazing 5,000-year-old skeletons layed on bed of flowers found in Sahara - proving desert was once green and lush

Proof of life: The three skeletons buried at Gobero in the Sahara desert

The first group, known as the Kiffian, hunted wild animals and speared huge perch with harpoons. They colonised the region when the Sahara was at its wettest, between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago.

The researchers said the Kiffians were tall, sometimes reaching well over 6ft.

The second group lived in the region between 7,000 and 4,500 years ago. The Tenerians were smaller and had a mixed economy of hunting, fishing and cattle herding.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-proving-desert-green-lush.html#ixzz3fptQ7E3t
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

There was no desert 5,000 years ago.

Yeah, there was since the Sahara dominated North Africa by 5,000 BCE which would be 7,000 years ago.​

 

[bouncy]

Yeah, there was since the Sahara dominated North Africa by 5,000 BCE which would be 7,000 years ago.​

So you are just ignoring the two links I just provided you?

 

[Oceanicpuppy]

No evidence to support them going west and the eastern portion of the Mediterranean forms part of the Fertile Crescent. No desert there.
​

Well, when there is evidence, I'll consider it objectively.​

The people lived along the fertile crescent doesn't mean they didn't travel. People live on the coast of the US does not mean the population does not travel into barren lands or even settle.

There are tons of thesis and papers written about pre dynastic/ dynastic trade route between Mesopotamia(Assyrians) and Egypt. Many state the possibility of traveling though desert land.

I do remember reading an Egyptian pharaoh did travel east into the desert( modern day Saudi Arabia). Once I find the link I will post it. So yes there is evidence.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So you are just ignoring the two links I just provided you?

They state the same thing I did.​

 

[bouncy]

They state the same thing I did.​

Stop it man. You act like we can't read. You are really playing yourself. This is what you just posted:
"Yeah, there was since the Sahara dominated North Africa by 5,000 BCE which would be 7,000 years ago."

This what the articles state:
"The second group lived in the region between 7,000 and 4,500 years ago. The Tenerians were smaller and had a mixed economy of hunting, fishing and cattle herding."

So there was no desert at the time!

Just give up!

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So there was no desert at the time!

In part of Niger, not Egypt or Libya or Algeria or Chad or Sudan or Mali.
​

 

[bouncy]

In part of Niger, not Egypt or Libya or Algeria or Chad or Sudan or Mali.......
​

Explain more.

 

[bouncy]

@Dafunkdoc_Unlimited I know you won't give up, so you are just making up stuff. So I will end this now.

The Sahara dried up 5,000 years ago, not 7,000, and this includes the horn of Africa. So, since we know the Sahara wasn't a desert 7,000 years ago at the horn of Africa, and in Niger, where are you getting this nonsense from that only Niger wasn't a desert?

The link @Canadadry showed EVIDENCE. You wrote, you wanted to see proof. There is a video in the article if you dont want to read it or understand it.

Now, what's your excuse?

The link
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/11/08/when-the-sahara-turned-to-sand/

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Explain more.

The region covered in the article lies at the southern edge of the Sahara Desert within Niger.​

 

[bouncy]

The region covered in the article lies at the southern edge of the Sahara Desert within Niger.​

Read my last post.

Just be intellectually honest, and stop giving the run around.

You are not using your own principles. You just made a claim the only Niger wasn't a desert, but no proof. I see you are a hypocrite!

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

@Dafunkdoc_Unlimited I know you won't give up, so you are just making up stuff.

Proof?​

The Sahara dried up 5,000 years ago, not 7,000, and this includes the horn of Africa.

It dried up in Niger and in Northern countries such as Egypt and Libya 7,000 years ago. Niger lies southwest of Egypt and the Sahara travels south a few inches/year.​

So, since we know the Sahara wasn't a desert 7,000 years ago at the hornmof Africa, and in Niger, where are you getting this nonsense from that only Niger wasn't a desert.

I didn't say any of that. What I said was that part of Niger wasn't desert.​

The link @Canadadry showed EVIDENCE. You wrote, you wanted to see proof. There is a video in the article if you dont want to read it or understand it.

That is not evidence Egyptians traveled West.​

Now, what's your excuse?

You have yet to provide evidence of Egyptians traveling through the Sahara or otherwise to get to West Africa.

Only excuses in this exchange have been yours.
​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Read my last post.

Just be intellectually honest, and stop giving the run around.

I have given you evidence and you have given nothing more than 'could have' and 'might have'.

​