Alright, I’ll bite. Let’s take the section on religion as an example:
The zodiac was first used in lower Mesopotamia within the first milllenium B.C., not ten thousand B.C. as implied. Of course, the narrator does not actually say what time period he is talking about, and he doesn’t even mention the names of the “early civilizations” he keeps referencing, which is, you know, kind of important when you start throwing around words like “God’s sun, the light of the world, the savior of humankind”, which these “early civilizations” all supposedly used to refer to the sun. That seems rather unlikely, given that almost all cultures at the time were polytheistic. The same goes for the interpretation of Aquarius as “the water-bearer”, which derives exclusively from Greece mythology but is presented as universal. It removes all credibility from your work when you try to talk about entirely separate civilizations spread across many thousands of miles and many thousands of years, without even saying what time period you are talking about, as if they are interchangeable. It shocks me that anyone could take this seriously.
The description of Horus is a beautiful example of gross over-simplification and cherry picking, by someone with no understanding of cultural evolution. Horus was a recognized figure from well before 3000 B.C. through to Greco-Roman times. Through this time, his mythology changed dramatically, as would be obvious to anyone with half a brain. However, the most common mythology tells that he was born to Isis, the wife of the god Osiris, not to a virgin. I find no mention anywhere of a star in the east, December 25, or 3 kings, the latter being particularly unlikely because, contrary to the narrators apparent opinion, Horus was not at all considered a god made human like Jesus, but a good old-school creation god whose eyes are the sun and moon and who ripped off Set’s testicle and made the desert infertile. Not exactly the baby in the manger being delivered frankincense and myrrh. The thing about being a teacher at twelve and being baptized by Anup is absolute bullshit, for the same reason. He was either a classic no-nonsense God of the does-whatever-he-wants variety, or he was the pharaoh. Not an itinerant preacher.
Trying to counter the claims of the video with contradictory fact is not really possible, however, because Egyptian mythology simply did not work like that, at all. It did not have a nice organized canon administered by the Church; it evolved over thousands of years and contradicted itself constantly. Frankly, the video might be true, because you could say whatever you want, and at some point over the millenia of Egypt’s existence, someone probably believed it.
I do actually have a life, so I will let you do your own research for the rest, or even just read the research of other people who have refuted this video. I realize that what I have written here does not refute the guy’s argument, per se. But if he has this many blatant errors and distortions in the first 3 minutes of this video segment, I think he rather loses the benefit of the doubt, don’t you?
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
