To Heiser on Egyptian Dinosaurs

To Heiser on Stele of Naram-Sin · To Heiser on Egyptian Dinosaurs · Responding to Heiser's Presentation on Angelology

Dinosaurs in Ancient Egypt - Is There Evidence to Support It?
FringePop321 | 14.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvSNBu6hwnA

I

1:21 "the Consensus of palaeontologists is"

What's called "consensus science". When it comes to Latin having 6 cases distinguished by normal endings in normal nouns and adjectives, consensus can be trusted. Latin is a known language, not a reconstructed one.

But on top of this being "consensus science" it is reconstructive of a lost past.

"that dinosaurs died out long before humans appeared on earth"

Well, this seems on top of that also to be contradicting the Bible. Plesiosaurs would have been created on day five, just like whales and the kind of fish they still call fish. Man about 24 hours later.

1:28 "that marine reptile lived in the Mesozoic era"

I bet you can easily find some areas where Palaeozoic trilobites are below it. Perhaps any and every place you find plesiosaurs at all.

I would not be too sure I could find areas where Cenozoic whales are above it. In fact I am farily certain of the opposite.

The trilobite any (marine) place, the whale in Lienz and the Plesiosaur in Peterborough were arguably covered in sediment during the Flood of Noah.

Obviously, trilobites would have been lower down than large aquatic creatures, whether whales or plesiosaurs or giant sharks. But as obviously, the named ones, specifically plesiosaur and whale, needing air from time to time, would have been swimming near top, and therefore would have been same level. This means a plesiosaur level in one place is classified as Mesozoic, and a a whale level in another place (like Lienz in Austria) is classified as Cenozoic, but it could very well be the same actual level of the pre-Flood world, and just different biotopes, different habitats. Whales and sharks were as much day five creatures as plesiosaurs.

II

3:44 Gardner's grammar sounds like a great source.

It seems to be arranged like Latinets 1500 vanligaste ord och deras avkomlingar i svenskan, engelskan och franskan by Ingemar Düring. Thematically. (Title means "the 1500 most usual words of Latin and their descendants in Swedish, English and French").

And I believe you that the hieroglyph is a goose, not a great aquatic reptile.

I'll watch the video on the lookout for something else. Serpopards on Narmer palette.

Btw, your grammar quote actually does state the glyph for unknown reasons is used as determinative in snd meaning fear. I mean, plesiosaurs could be fearful, I wouldn't be surprised, and the specific arrangement of a goose or duck after neck wrung off could have been associated with plesiosaurs having a much more pliable since longer neck ... so, even on your own side of Gardner's grammar, your refutation is not foolproof. I say this as in 4:20 you are actually showing a strip from the grammar.

III

7:08 out of 7:20.

It is obvious, you have not been treating my favourite argument for ancient Egypt or people not far earlier knowing live dinosaurs.

The serpopards on the Narmer palette.

Now, on the Narmer palette, you see two land animals (at least no visible sea or water involved) composed of sth like lion or leopard bodies, but with very long, serpentine, necks, intertwined, and the necks just below the heads held in some noose by animal keepers holding strings.

As they are shown, they are clearly too lean to be sauropods. However, start describing a very unusual beast, you end up using terms from better known ones and they end up showing in the pictures. Whether it was a rhinoceros or a triceratops, the unicorn as usually depicted in Medieval and Medievalising Fantasy Art is not a product of direct observation, but of arranging the depictions according to approximations in the descriptions.

The serpopards could easily be that about sauropods.

The cylinder in Uruk shows somewhat different feet, bovine instead of leopardic, but is otherwise very similar.

Could easily be based off another description of sauropods. Also inaccurate, because there too the artist had not seen the beasts for himself.