"JTEM" <jtem01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:82b4b126-a99b-4710-9f12-136ef527e411@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Lars Wilson" <siaxa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Here's a statement regarding the unique embalming process
>
> #1. It wasn't all that unique.
>
Oh, please! Now YOU'RE playing the misleading game. All I can do is
provide a quote for the basis of statement that this was a unique
embalming
process:
" "What his mummy does reveal, however, is that special measures were
taken by the embalmers to restore his corpse some of the semblance of his
appearance in life by packing a *mixture of resin and natron* under the
skin, an innovation which is not repeated until four centuries later...."
Note: SPECIAL MEASURES
Note: INNOVATION which is not repeated until four centuries..."
And you're saying this still qualifies as not unique? Business as usual?
You're biased, clearly. But inconsistent. What YOU have to prove is that
ALL the mummies from this time were embalmed EXACTLY like Amnehotep III
and
there was nothing at all different with this embalming. Which you can't,
obviously. All you can do is try to minimize the significance that the
researchers themselves tells us was first and unique for over 400 years.
"Smith himself had noted (in the same re****t in RM that caused Derry's
uncertainties) that the method of packing used in Nebmaatre-Amenhotep's
mummy is altogether UNIQUE..." (same source)
> #2. This was all explained to you back in 1996... July of 1996.
>
Sorry, claiming past debate victories doesn't count. The way I see it,
you
did NOT win that argument back then just like you are not winning it now.
For instance:
YOU SAID: "Amenhotep III was depicted late in life (presumably not too far
from death) as overweight. It's likely that, post-desiccation,
he would have resembled more of a dried prune than a human,
and required some efforts to restore/preserve his kingly shape."
The forensics say he was only about 50 years of age. Historically, he
ruled for about 37 years but was a boy when he started to rule. If he was
13 years of age then he would have only been about 50 years of age, the
same
age as is claimed by the forensic team.
Sorry JTEM, mistaking and misrepresenting the facts out of desperation or
claiming you effectively countered in the past when you are ineffectively
countering now doesn't cut it. Your position tells far more about you
and
your biases than it does about Amenhotep III, I'm afraid.
> #3. The fact that you're raising it here again, effectively
> pretending
> that all the facts, all the answers you had previously been given
> never existed, demonstrated your dishonesty.
>
They were not answered and cannot be contradicted (as above). So it's
YOUR
dishonesty we're dealing with here. Now I give you the benefit of the
doubt
that you might THINK you may have effectively addressed this, but that's
just your opinion, and certainly not mine. The difference is, I was
merely
reflecting the basic facts. Claiming a king was "late in life" and near
death anyway when his historical rule of 37 years begun when he was a
youth
is shameless. Trying to minimize an embalming process that others have
described as "unique" is ridiculous. Sorry, you lost that argument back
then and you've lost it again, 400 years later... and you will continue to
lose it 400 years from now.
> You're promoting your literal-bible agenda here, and you're not the
> least bit interested in facts.
>
That's YOUR characterization, you're opinion. You're entitled to it.
However, the fact is, you just don't like my opinion and have not
adequately
refuted anything I'm saying. Someone who knows someone is about 50 years
old and claims they are "near death"? Now that is what I call
"dishonest."
> Here's a cut-and-paste of the reply I posted to you in July of 2006:
>
> A not-very-careful glancing at the other 18th dynasty
> mummies would have revealed that resins were frequently
> used, including in efforts to preserve the shape of some
> body feature (the nose, as one example).
>
I am quoting DIRECTLY for the reference to a "unique" embalming process.
You say nothing. This is a special reference to this unique process that
you are not addressing. You may as well say that like "...all the other
mummies he was placed in a coffin. See! Nothing unique about his burial
at
all!" Address the SPECIFICS. Dismissed.
> Amenhotep III was depicted late in life (presumably not too far
> from death) as overweight. It's likely that, post-desiccation,
> he would have resembled more of a dried prune than a human,
> and required some efforts to restore/preserve his kingly shape.
>
HA! Everybody knows, as stated, that he was a child when he begun a
37-year
rule and was thus close to 50 when he died. You're description fits
someone
who is 80 or 90.
> Anyhow, please get some integrity. Thanks in advance.
>
Sorry, but saying someone is OLD and CLOSE TO DEATH when he was only about
50 is where the lack of integrity lies.
There is NOTHING you can do about this JTEM. It would have been better to
accuse me of "exploiting" the evidence than misrepresenting it.
Besides that. The pharaoh did die in the Red Sea near age 50. The
Amarna
Letters suggest that his death was quite an event and quite famous as he
heard about it in detail from others than the king. It was a huge PUBLIC
event and embarassing. Why else would one king tell the other that "I
know
what happened" unless it was indeed something unusual? Why wish to
exchange 10,000 others, as if a "ransom" exchange, unless he died with
others in a punitive manner? That is absolutely consistent with his
dying
in the Red Sea at the hands of a powerful and real God. So the king is
just
saying, basically, it was inevitable the king had to be punished by
destroying him and his army, but he would have preferred that more people
were killed as part of the punishment and the king himself were spared.
So THANKS for your process, but I'm perfectly capable of finding and
distorting the facts for myself in this case.
ciao
Lars Wilson
Scores:
Lars: 3
JTEM: 0
....but whose counting?
|
