Egyptology is not at all accurate in that assumption. Western academia took over Egyptology to craft a narrative more coherent for the garbage they teach us. What the evidence shows, in hieroglyphics and the weathering of the structures, is that they are much, much older. The sphinx as at least 12,000 years old, and the great pyramid is likely older. The Egyptians took record-keeping to such an extreme, that the hieroglyphics of their kings lost dates back 150,000 years. That claim is backed up by a few ancient texts where historians found writings of Greeks who often traveled to Egypt and were taught what the hieroglyphs said. Dynastic Egypt, which is what you’re referring to, was a culture that found the site at Giza and just set up shop. They are not representative of the legacy Egypt had.
I don't know but history is weird. Any record is full of anomalies. The evidence suggests some of our ancestors had huge populations, cities in the 10s of millions. Mayan. Chinese. Possibly others Eastern. Where Rome didn't patent. While Europeans were considerably smaller at the same assumed historic points.
How many groups wiped out, entire populations put to the sword. Multi millions dead throughout our known history of war famine disaster and disease.
But okay the entire Neanderthal narrative. They coexisted briefly with humans. It was thought we killed them off. Changed now on finds of coexistence, until, what, the ice-age?
As far as killing off entire demographics goes all of a 150 years ago America. Its colonisation. Tribes wiped out.
But was far worse then. Like in the bible. In the Koran. In the Torah.
Entire populations killed. Julius Caesar put an entire city to death. He surround it. Seiged starving them out. They sent their kids and younger women. He impaled them, then chopped up, and catapulted them back into the city. They surrendered he killed them off. Took the king captive walked him naked like a dog as a trophy, before sending him off to death in the mines or galleys. But okay the seige of Bhagdad by the Mongols multimillions killed the same. Philistines. Troy. Etc etc.
Entire populations killed by conflict. What happened in Meso America was much of the same inquisition. As the Spanish inquistion.
Afterwards more of the same until recent human history after WW2.
Numbers who knows. They simply aren't accurate at all. Concentric narratives full of anomalies. Look at Gunung Padang. The size of it suggests an enormous population. Or perhaps the mythical giants. There are other places of big industrial scale agriculture dating back supporting huge populations. It is believed even in the UK evidence of larger agriculture goes back 10k years in its Southern Coast. But then they gives us the bullshit Cheeseman, a cavern troglodyte Neanderthal from 7k years ago. Perhaps he dug the tunnels all over Europe. https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/extensive-ancient-underground-networks-discovered-throughout-europe-00540 Scotland to Turkey. Not quite. But quite. What went wrong? The Neanderthal did.
The thing about our past was we culled ourselves. Top of the food chain. A lot of the means and rituals keeping populations under control have changed, into you tell me. It hasn't changed. It descends into the same if it goes there.
Hmm. Yeah, because like they'd get wiped out. It makes sense to close your borders.
Although the Vikings disappeared. So did Roanoke. Few others, like Roman galleys off Brazil. Perhaps even the Phonecians. Captain Cook, although they called him a god to begin with, until he tried to rape them, or so they suggest, when ultimately it was a soothsayer of their gods. He's not a god, no way. They all got wiped out. So I disagree. Apart from in certain folklore. Where it's been this other word of mouth, because it literally didn't have any vocabulary. They fanatisized like every other cannibal. It was the giants and they walked over the sea. No it was vikings and they never made it back.
Yes they also wiped each other out. It's why they were conquered. They hated each other until it was too late. They were cannibals and savages, and when they weren't scalping, they were flaying, and roasting over a spit, using for all kinds of animal entertainment and bait. They did it to such extremes. Days of torture. Slow. They'd blind, and remove the tongue. Then they'd get real creative in removing the skin, and finally roasting or letting animals gorge, bite, sting. Because they worshipped Satan, the great Serpent.
Honestly they wiped each other out. Aztecs were Mayan squatters. They were the soldiers who couped when the Mayans collapsed. They were cruel and savage. They weren't your happy little tree friends, but happy little cannibals. They were human sacrificing Satan worshiping slaving headhunters. They sacrificed women and children as well. Ripped their hearts out of their chests, and sliced off their heads, they even ate the hearts. If they were sacrificed, that was clean death to having your scalp opened and walking around with a hole in your brain. Oh yea they did that. Scalp comes off how long and what functions does that person have, then they start putting insects in there. They'd wet themselves hooting and dancing. Their rituals of exorcism they'd cut and cut and cut, severing the spirit, until there was no spirit, it was consecrated from their land. So when they spirit walked it wasn't bound on their soil. Children, women as well. Their soldiers Aztec wore skulls, children's skulls. Made armour out of them. It has been found. Children's skulls in their armour.
Of course they were killed, and for their gold, and land. Cannibals aren't worth it. No sir.
Yes slight exaggeration. Not fully. Read up about their tortures and cruelty. Of course any colonists were as bad and worse. But that was then. Now there's dumb hippies. Such nice little cannibals. They were so in touch with their land taking only what was necessary. No, the Maya killed mammoths on the scale of industrial whaling.
Suggested numbers tempting one to ignore perceivable units (ones)
record
RE (response to) CORD (bound by twisting); hence scriptures like "the cords of the wicked are the snares with which they catch the unwary".
How does one respond? By "free" will of choice. What does consenting by "free" will of choice to being "bound by twisting" imply?
extermination
EX (response to) TERM (Latin terminus, a limit or boundary) ATION (action); hence choice (ex) responding to momentum (term) of motion (ation).
Extermination implies ones status quo of being; which others invert by suggesting it to mean the end of being.
extinct
Extinction is suggested as annihilation (reducing to non-existence) aka creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). Being (partial) implies within everything (whole). Another suggested inversion.
tl; dr...ignoring self (singular) by joining others (pluralism) will destroy every group. A many are being tempted to destroy one another by joining; which in return permits a few chosen "ones" (singular) to remain apart at the center of a self destructive circumference, hence circumcision (cutting of surrounding to protect center).
The bible documents at least a dozen.
I learned that civilization dates back to around 4000 BC
Ancient Egypt began around 3000 BC
Egyptology is not at all accurate in that assumption. Western academia took over Egyptology to craft a narrative more coherent for the garbage they teach us. What the evidence shows, in hieroglyphics and the weathering of the structures, is that they are much, much older. The sphinx as at least 12,000 years old, and the great pyramid is likely older. The Egyptians took record-keeping to such an extreme, that the hieroglyphics of their kings lost dates back 150,000 years. That claim is backed up by a few ancient texts where historians found writings of Greeks who often traveled to Egypt and were taught what the hieroglyphs said. Dynastic Egypt, which is what you’re referring to, was a culture that found the site at Giza and just set up shop. They are not representative of the legacy Egypt had.
I don't know but history is weird. Any record is full of anomalies. The evidence suggests some of our ancestors had huge populations, cities in the 10s of millions. Mayan. Chinese. Possibly others Eastern. Where Rome didn't patent. While Europeans were considerably smaller at the same assumed historic points.
How many groups wiped out, entire populations put to the sword. Multi millions dead throughout our known history of war famine disaster and disease.
But okay the entire Neanderthal narrative. They coexisted briefly with humans. It was thought we killed them off. Changed now on finds of coexistence, until, what, the ice-age?
As far as killing off entire demographics goes all of a 150 years ago America. Its colonisation. Tribes wiped out.
It has been. It goes there. Always has.
But was far worse then. Like in the bible. In the Koran. In the Torah.
Entire populations killed. Julius Caesar put an entire city to death. He surround it. Seiged starving them out. They sent their kids and younger women. He impaled them, then chopped up, and catapulted them back into the city. They surrendered he killed them off. Took the king captive walked him naked like a dog as a trophy, before sending him off to death in the mines or galleys. But okay the seige of Bhagdad by the Mongols multimillions killed the same. Philistines. Troy. Etc etc.
Entire populations killed by conflict. What happened in Meso America was much of the same inquisition. As the Spanish inquistion.
Afterwards more of the same until recent human history after WW2.
Numbers who knows. They simply aren't accurate at all. Concentric narratives full of anomalies. Look at Gunung Padang. The size of it suggests an enormous population. Or perhaps the mythical giants. There are other places of big industrial scale agriculture dating back supporting huge populations. It is believed even in the UK evidence of larger agriculture goes back 10k years in its Southern Coast. But then they gives us the bullshit Cheeseman, a cavern troglodyte Neanderthal from 7k years ago. Perhaps he dug the tunnels all over Europe. https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/extensive-ancient-underground-networks-discovered-throughout-europe-00540 Scotland to Turkey. Not quite. But quite. What went wrong? The Neanderthal did.
The thing about our past was we culled ourselves. Top of the food chain. A lot of the means and rituals keeping populations under control have changed, into you tell me. It hasn't changed. It descends into the same if it goes there.
...and those colonizing tribes wiped out the colonizing tribes that came before them. It is ongoing on every continent, past, present, future.
Hmm. Yeah, because like they'd get wiped out. It makes sense to close your borders.
Although the Vikings disappeared. So did Roanoke. Few others, like Roman galleys off Brazil. Perhaps even the Phonecians. Captain Cook, although they called him a god to begin with, until he tried to rape them, or so they suggest, when ultimately it was a soothsayer of their gods. He's not a god, no way. They all got wiped out. So I disagree. Apart from in certain folklore. Where it's been this other word of mouth, because it literally didn't have any vocabulary. They fanatisized like every other cannibal. It was the giants and they walked over the sea. No it was vikings and they never made it back.
Yes they also wiped each other out. It's why they were conquered. They hated each other until it was too late. They were cannibals and savages, and when they weren't scalping, they were flaying, and roasting over a spit, using for all kinds of animal entertainment and bait. They did it to such extremes. Days of torture. Slow. They'd blind, and remove the tongue. Then they'd get real creative in removing the skin, and finally roasting or letting animals gorge, bite, sting. Because they worshipped Satan, the great Serpent.
Honestly they wiped each other out. Aztecs were Mayan squatters. They were the soldiers who couped when the Mayans collapsed. They were cruel and savage. They weren't your happy little tree friends, but happy little cannibals. They were human sacrificing Satan worshiping slaving headhunters. They sacrificed women and children as well. Ripped their hearts out of their chests, and sliced off their heads, they even ate the hearts. If they were sacrificed, that was clean death to having your scalp opened and walking around with a hole in your brain. Oh yea they did that. Scalp comes off how long and what functions does that person have, then they start putting insects in there. They'd wet themselves hooting and dancing. Their rituals of exorcism they'd cut and cut and cut, severing the spirit, until there was no spirit, it was consecrated from their land. So when they spirit walked it wasn't bound on their soil. Children, women as well. Their soldiers Aztec wore skulls, children's skulls. Made armour out of them. It has been found. Children's skulls in their armour.
Of course they were killed, and for their gold, and land. Cannibals aren't worth it. No sir.
Yes slight exaggeration. Not fully. Read up about their tortures and cruelty. Of course any colonists were as bad and worse. But that was then. Now there's dumb hippies. Such nice little cannibals. They were so in touch with their land taking only what was necessary. No, the Maya killed mammoths on the scale of industrial whaling.
Suggested numbers tempting one to ignore perceivable units (ones)
RE (response to) CORD (bound by twisting); hence scriptures like "the cords of the wicked are the snares with which they catch the unwary".
How does one respond? By "free" will of choice. What does consenting by "free" will of choice to being "bound by twisting" imply?
EX (response to) TERM (Latin terminus, a limit or boundary) ATION (action); hence choice (ex) responding to momentum (term) of motion (ation).
Extermination implies ones status quo of being; which others invert by suggesting it to mean the end of being.
Extinction is suggested as annihilation (reducing to non-existence) aka creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). Being (partial) implies within everything (whole). Another suggested inversion.
tl; dr...ignoring self (singular) by joining others (pluralism) will destroy every group. A many are being tempted to destroy one another by joining; which in return permits a few chosen "ones" (singular) to remain apart at the center of a self destructive circumference, hence circumcision (cutting of surrounding to protect center).