explain why there has been no giant mummies found amongst 500+ (not counting the noble wives) king/royalty/nobility mummies in egypt first, and then ill re-participate in the discussion.
your evidence apparently, conveniently missed the 'master-servant' part of the issue. it doesnt matter whether entities are of the same sex - if one is in higher status than the other, master, owner of the field, or anyone else with a higher status, it is bigger than others. pharaoh and the high priest are both male, however one is smaller than the other.
what mistake ? the one who had provided a parchment with akhenaten and his wife on it, and said that this was not a pharaoh 'definitely' because it didnt have 'pharaoh headgear', and when presented with endless numbers of similar parchments, fresks, obelisks with the same headgear (not to mention all are akhenaton, and maybe half depicting the same scene of receiving blessings from sun disk aton), you have just forgotten what you have said and moved to other supposed evidence you have found.
moreover, you are making uninformed statements on a subject you have NO information about :
i dont know any such thing, for such a situation does not exist.
egyptian is still being spoken as official language of coptic church in all the masses they hold wherever they are :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language
moreover, it is still being spoken by coptic christians in egypt and in the places they have migrated to, even if those who use it in daily life are rather few :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_language
and actually, this situation was the reason why champollion, the person who deciphered hieroglyphs in 1822, was able to decipher them - he went to a coptic church after an insight, and used the language to decipher hieroglyphs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C...hampollion
there is no trouble anyone is having either due to egyptian language, or hieroglyphs. they can be read very easily and very well since 1822. we even know the daily lives of ordinary egyptians due to endless number of records.
..........
with your logic these also hold true :
http://www.nashfordpublishing.co.uk/chur...hurch.html
apparently there were giants in britain in middle ages too then.
moreover, apparently jesus/apostles were also giants :
http://www.nashfordpublishing.co.uk/chur...hurch.html
the 'weak side' of your 'theory' is not the size of mummies. its the fact that among 500 or so king and royalty mummies found in egypt, there are NO oversized persons, despite ALL being shown as 'giants'. and this goes way back to 5200 year old mummies.
i had had replied again, because i thought that you were making an effort to learn things that you didnt have enough information on. this was the motive.
however, as of this point, i regret it.
not only you have turned this into an 'i am right' competition, but also still are talking on things you dont have enough information to talk about, like saying 'hieroglyphs are hard, egyptian language is a language that does not exist' and so on.
excuse me, no disrespect, but, you cannot go about discovering 'mysteries' like unreal existence of anak etc, by skimming egyptian history, if you dont even know that egyptian language still exists, think that hieroglyphs pose a problem and so on.
im not going to reply to you again. im thinking that you are just discussing by selectively ignoring whatever you want, especially things that invalidate your approach totally. there are 3 possibilities for doing as such, and any of them means that discussing with someone doing them is unproductive.
i wish you good luck in your newly found egyptian history enthusiasm.
Quote:Did you miss my evidence above. Let me help you out:
your evidence apparently, conveniently missed the 'master-servant' part of the issue. it doesnt matter whether entities are of the same sex - if one is in higher status than the other, master, owner of the field, or anyone else with a higher status, it is bigger than others. pharaoh and the high priest are both male, however one is smaller than the other.
Quote:I have given up on the possibility of you admitting that you made a mistake. Instead, you still opt for discrediting me. Do you know how research works? People collaborate, share ideas and present proof of their assessments.
what mistake ? the one who had provided a parchment with akhenaten and his wife on it, and said that this was not a pharaoh 'definitely' because it didnt have 'pharaoh headgear', and when presented with endless numbers of similar parchments, fresks, obelisks with the same headgear (not to mention all are akhenaton, and maybe half depicting the same scene of receiving blessings from sun disk aton), you have just forgotten what you have said and moved to other supposed evidence you have found.
moreover, you are making uninformed statements on a subject you have NO information about :
Quote:As you know, the researchers attempting to desipher the hieroglyps, had a tough time, since it's an ancient language not in existance anymore.
i dont know any such thing, for such a situation does not exist.
egyptian is still being spoken as official language of coptic church in all the masses they hold wherever they are :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language
Quote:Egyptian is the indigenous language of Egypt and a branch of the Afroasiatic language family. Written records of the Egyptian language have been dated from about 3400 BC,[1] making it one of the oldest recorded languages known. Egyptian was spoken until the late 17th century AD in the form of Coptic. The national language of modern-day Egypt is Egyptian Arabic, which gradually replaced Coptic as the language of daily life in the centuries after the Muslim conquest of Egypt. Coptic is still used as the liturgical language of the Coptic Church. It has a handful of fluent speakers today.[2][3]
moreover, it is still being spoken by coptic christians in egypt and in the places they have migrated to, even if those who use it in daily life are rather few :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_language
and actually, this situation was the reason why champollion, the person who deciphered hieroglyphs in 1822, was able to decipher them - he went to a coptic church after an insight, and used the language to decipher hieroglyphs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Fran%C...hampollion
there is no trouble anyone is having either due to egyptian language, or hieroglyphs. they can be read very easily and very well since 1822. we even know the daily lives of ordinary egyptians due to endless number of records.
..........
with your logic these also hold true :
http://www.nashfordpublishing.co.uk/chur...hurch.html
apparently there were giants in britain in middle ages too then.
moreover, apparently jesus/apostles were also giants :
http://www.nashfordpublishing.co.uk/chur...hurch.html
the 'weak side' of your 'theory' is not the size of mummies. its the fact that among 500 or so king and royalty mummies found in egypt, there are NO oversized persons, despite ALL being shown as 'giants'. and this goes way back to 5200 year old mummies.
Quote:...and the lunacy continues...
i had had replied again, because i thought that you were making an effort to learn things that you didnt have enough information on. this was the motive.
however, as of this point, i regret it.
not only you have turned this into an 'i am right' competition, but also still are talking on things you dont have enough information to talk about, like saying 'hieroglyphs are hard, egyptian language is a language that does not exist' and so on.
excuse me, no disrespect, but, you cannot go about discovering 'mysteries' like unreal existence of anak etc, by skimming egyptian history, if you dont even know that egyptian language still exists, think that hieroglyphs pose a problem and so on.
im not going to reply to you again. im thinking that you are just discussing by selectively ignoring whatever you want, especially things that invalidate your approach totally. there are 3 possibilities for doing as such, and any of them means that discussing with someone doing them is unproductive.
i wish you good luck in your newly found egyptian history enthusiasm.