+
/ Subject > Re: On Living Waters From Temple Stones /
/ Newsgroup: alt.bible.prophecy / 10Feb2002 /
.
> On 9Feb Lester John wrote:
> I'm not too interested in what was posted
> except perhaps for the title...
.
textman replies: It's a package deal there, Lester. You can't
appreciate one without the other. Besides, what's the point
of hanging out in abp if you're not, you know, interested in
prophets, prophetic literature, & Christian prophecy in general?
.
> but there is water flowing from the Temple Mount in
> Jerusalem and it has been flowing for a few years now.
> in the blood of Jesus, Lester
.
Now that *is* interesting! A few years, you say? Hmmmm ...
That's just about how long it's been since your friendly
neighborhood cyber-prophet hath breaketh through to the
timeless and spaceless realms of cyberspace!
.
The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says
to the churches. To the one who conquers, I will give him
some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone,
and on that stone will be written a new name that no one can
understand except the one who receives it. -- Rev 2:17
.
I know your deeds. (Look! I have put in front of you an
open door that no one can shut.) I know that you have little
strength, but you have obeyed my word and have not denied
my name. -- Rev 3:8 / both from NETbible
.
The prophet of Patmos had a vision of Cyber-Space? Seems
unlikely. And yet, what else is the WWWeb if not "an open
door that no one can shut"?
.
>> Then Otho ([email protected]) wrote: You sure it's not
>> blood? But you have one big problem, Zionists still do not
>> know where about the Temple was located so how would you
>> know. Could be a leaking sewer pipe in one of the Dome's
>> toilets.
.
Probably ... Thx a bunch there Otho!
Just when I was getting excited about it too ...
.
- one who thirsts for living waters - ttextman ;>
x
+
Was the Black Pharaoh Black, Brown, or Orange?
.
/ Forum > Guardian's Egypt's Ancient Egypt Bulletin Board /
/ Newsgroup > alt.bible.prophecy / Topic > Tombs and Temples /
/ Subtopic > The Complete TEMPLES OF ANCIENT EGYPT /
.
> On 9Feb James M. Vance wrote: textman, you obviously do not
> accept or believe any of the accepted and proven statements
> made by accredited Egyptologists, which is your right.
.
On 10Feb2002 textman replies: Hi, Mr Vance. Allow me to modify
your assertion somewhat: Of course I listen to the experts and
Egyptologists. I just don't feel constrained to accept every-
thing they say without some little critical reflection of my own.
.
> Discussions here, by the people on this BB, tend to be
> thought-provoking, with the emphasis on accepted ideas
> and proven theories.
.
And if perchance some of these accepted ideas and proven
theories turn out to be insufficient, or just plain hogwash,
what then? How does any science correct its own errors if is
unable to think outside of the box?
.
> You show, by your statements, that you do not accept or
> believe any ideas that you do not personally accept. Don't
> you think this is the ultimate bigotry?
.
Not at all. I believe what I believe because I think as I do.
If you know a better way of doing it, please tell us about it.
.
> No one on this board is biased enough to reject without
> examining the idea that Akhenaton may have been a black man.
.
There's no 'may' about it; so lets accept it and move on.
.
> If he was the son of AIII and Tiye, he most likely was of
> mixed blood--as near white as his father was and more than
> likely Nubian blood from his mother--her statues and reliefs
> show a person who more than likely is black. To tell us you
> have bust of Akenaton on your desk
.
A jpg graphics file of a bust as my wallpaper on my desktop
... on my monitor ... in the computer ... a digital bust!!!
.
> that is positively a black man is wishful thinking
> on your part and nothing more.
.
Good Grief! I just KNEW you were going to say that.
.
> I repeat, there is no provable evidence that he was either
> white or black. If you can show me such evidence from
> accredited sources,
.
The evidence is not IN the so-called "accredited sources",
James. The evidence is IN the archeological artifacts dating
back to the Amarna period. I really don't think that you're
going to find ANY evidence anywhere else. This is not bigotry;
this is only common sense.
.
> I will be happy to accept that theory. Until that
> time, I will continue to believe that Akhenaton was
> a typical Egyptian
.
He was anything but *that*, but whatever
.
> --a blend of many races, with skin color
> that really doesn't matter.
.
In a way I quite agree with you. That's why I said before that I
judge it to be a non-issue. Chiefly because I don't think it's worth
fighting about ... Then again, I may be wrong about that. Maybe
it *is* something worth fighting about? I'll give it some thought.
Anyway, the evidence is conclusive from any rational approach, I
think. But I do understand why the scholars are reluctant to admit
that Akhenaton was a black pharaoh. It's because the art of the
period was of a highly stylized expressionistic flavor that is a
great deal less than realistic. In this I quite agree, since it is only
a logical precaution (ie. methodologically).
.
BUT this does not rule out the existence of specific pieces that
are far more naturalistic than expressionistic; and it is *those*
items that constitute reliable evidence confirming the reality
of the black pharaoh. If you want to deny the validity of the
evidence, you are certainly free to do so. And if the experts
prefer to avoid the issue because they dislike the implications,
that is certainly their right. So if I am biased in not rejecting the
truth of things, then that is a risk I am willing to take if it keeps
me on the road to true knowledge.
.
Besides, if his skin color doesn't matter at all, why don't you just
admit that Akhenaton was indeed the black pharaoh? And if you
can't do that, why don't you admit that the evidence allows for
the *possibility* that he was the black pharaoh? This idea of the
experts that he was of an undetermined and irrelevant color
strikes me as worse than silly; indeed, it almost smacks of
intellectual dishonesty.
x
+
> On 9Feb Rick wrote: textman - I went to the pharaohs of the
> sun exhibit. It was there that I saw in living stone the
> absolute, unretouched by photographers, statuary of Akhenaten
> and guess what? Not one single one of them was BLACK,
.
textman replies: Hi, Rick. So what? The bust on my monitor is not
BLACK either. It appears to be of a reddish-orange type of sand-
stone or something. What I mean when I say that it shows a
black man is just that it manifests the features, qualities, and
characteristics of a "typical" negroid male head and face. That
is to say, it falls well within the normal range. This is what I call
conclusive evidence. Of course some moldy old bust is not as
good as a quality photograph. But it *is* good enough to serve
as a basic reference point against which the more expressionistic
evidence can be measured and evaluated. At the very least its a
good place to start ...
.
> nor was there any possible way that any the statues could
> have been a portrait of anything other than what Akhenaten
> was; a typical egyptian.
.
Akhenaton was a typical egyptian again? LOL ...
Why does everyone say that? He was anything but typical.
He was a pharaoh. That rules out all possibility of typical.
.
> So hopefully we can put this silly argument to rest.
.
That is my most fervent prayer also.
.
> The evidence doesn't support any of your proposal and
> in fact refutes your basic premise.
.
Could you be more specific, please? I have yet to see
anything that refutes any of my proposals or ideas.
.
- one who puts'em all in order before losing em - textman ;>
.
P.S. "Where's the beef?" -- unknown
X
textman
*