Welcome back to Ancient Egypt! This chapter addresses the period of the Old Kingdom, from about 2700 BC to 2200 BC and is more accurately a continuation and refinement of the Pre-Dynastic Period rather than a definition of any abrupt changes in culture, religion, and politics.
A major significance in religious and political developments is the change from stellar beliefs to solar beliefs. This is evidenced in the purpose of pyramids. During the Pre-Dynastic Period you will recall that the Step Pyramids were not funerary but stairways to the stars; with the reign of Snefru the purpose became a solar symbol and a representation of Life. The title “Son of Ra” was added to the growing list of affirmations bestowed upon the king of Egypt. Snefru modified the step pyramid of Meidum to a true square-based pyramid and built the Bent Pyramid. All the great pyramids of Giza were built during the 4th Dynasty.
The impact of pyramid and temple building on Egypt was political in nature as the need to control men, material, supplies, and state-sponsored artists engendered a strong administration at both the central and local levels. The need for expensive raw materials for artists brought with it the need for the exploitation of the Sinai for its copper and turquoise, and military posts and trading centers in Nubia to obtain great amounts of its gold ore. As part of these military forays into lands beyond the Nile Valley, a warrior caste was developed within the military.
At the end of the 5th Dynasty, pyramid and temple artists began to inscribe “Pyramid Texts” which described the fate of the king in the afterlife in addition to relating his accomplishments during life. From these texts we learn the breadth of the Egyptian religion of the time.
During the end years of the Old Kingdom the annual flooding of the Nile decreased. The added strain on how best to provide for the people became difficult from a single centralized administrator. Decisions regarding how to best use what flood effluence was experienced was left to local administrators. Power, once granted, is hard to regain and the Old Kingdom power center eroded and finally collapsed at the death of Pepi II. What followed was a period of turmoil called the First Intermediary Period.
Visit again and follow the history of Egypt through the First Intermediary Period.
by Vicki Gardner
All About Reading
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Snapshots in Time: Ancient Egypt, the Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic Periods
Egypt is a land with a long history – one of the longest histories recorded for mankind. In this series we will cover the most important eras of this fabled land, highlighting the accomplishments of each era. This is not a definitive work; rather it is a synopsis of catalogued historical facts.
Pre-Dynastic Period
Due to worldwide climate changes around 30,000 BC, parts of the continent of Africa began to dry out and the Sahara Desert began its formation. Early peoples and animals began to migrate to more fertile areas. One of those areas was along the Nile River with its seasonal flooding which enriched the soil for early agrarian societies. These societies needed more sophisticated stone tools than had been previously been in use and the development of spears and bows arose. At about 13,000 BC these seasonal communities began to develop ritual burials and cemeteries. By 7000 BC the seasonal communities had become permanent settlements in the Nile Valley. These settlements had structures typically made from bricks, wood, and reeds.
Early Dynastic Period
The Early Dynastic Period is approximately the first 500 years of what is usually considered Ancient Egyptian History and begins in 3100 BC with Menes, the king who first conquered and unified Upper and Lower Egypt. Prior to this time kings of both realms where recorded as being various gods and demigods, Menes is the first king to be considered the embodiment of Horus and not the actual god himself. The concept of “divine kingship” instead of divinity being king is significant in that it allowed the development of centralized government. The new centralized government needed more sophisticated communication skills, which forced the evolution of artistic writing into hieroglyphics with both phonetic and ideographic values.
The new centralized government also promoted the rise of urbanism with its need to have skilled craftsmen readily available. These craftsmen began to change the landscape of the new urban areas by building in stone instead of brick and wood. The architecture developed in this period, while refined over time, characterizes Egyptian architecture for the next 3000 years until the Greco-Roman Period. With the rapidly developing physical and social structures came a need for security and the first true career military came into fashion. These developments in the Nile Valley demonstrate the consolidation of the cultural, religious, and political evolutions of the Pre-Dynastic Period. The most visual reminders of the accomplishments of this era are the Step Pyramids at Saqqara. Built of stone, they were not intended for funerary use like later pyramids, but they do show the development of high levels of engineering and lead us to the next era: the Old Kingdom.
Visit again and follow the history of Egypt through the Old Kingdom.
By: Vicki Gardner
Pre-Dynastic Period
Due to worldwide climate changes around 30,000 BC, parts of the continent of Africa began to dry out and the Sahara Desert began its formation. Early peoples and animals began to migrate to more fertile areas. One of those areas was along the Nile River with its seasonal flooding which enriched the soil for early agrarian societies. These societies needed more sophisticated stone tools than had been previously been in use and the development of spears and bows arose. At about 13,000 BC these seasonal communities began to develop ritual burials and cemeteries. By 7000 BC the seasonal communities had become permanent settlements in the Nile Valley. These settlements had structures typically made from bricks, wood, and reeds.
Early Dynastic Period
The Early Dynastic Period is approximately the first 500 years of what is usually considered Ancient Egyptian History and begins in 3100 BC with Menes, the king who first conquered and unified Upper and Lower Egypt. Prior to this time kings of both realms where recorded as being various gods and demigods, Menes is the first king to be considered the embodiment of Horus and not the actual god himself. The concept of “divine kingship” instead of divinity being king is significant in that it allowed the development of centralized government. The new centralized government needed more sophisticated communication skills, which forced the evolution of artistic writing into hieroglyphics with both phonetic and ideographic values.
The new centralized government also promoted the rise of urbanism with its need to have skilled craftsmen readily available. These craftsmen began to change the landscape of the new urban areas by building in stone instead of brick and wood. The architecture developed in this period, while refined over time, characterizes Egyptian architecture for the next 3000 years until the Greco-Roman Period. With the rapidly developing physical and social structures came a need for security and the first true career military came into fashion. These developments in the Nile Valley demonstrate the consolidation of the cultural, religious, and political evolutions of the Pre-Dynastic Period. The most visual reminders of the accomplishments of this era are the Step Pyramids at Saqqara. Built of stone, they were not intended for funerary use like later pyramids, but they do show the development of high levels of engineering and lead us to the next era: the Old Kingdom.
Visit again and follow the history of Egypt through the Old Kingdom.
By: Vicki Gardner
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Defining a civilization
What is the definition of a civilization? What are the characteristics of civilized countries?
At first I thought I could rattle off the answers. Then..... When you stop to really think about things, it is never as simple as you originally think. Sometimes definitions can really be from a perspective. What does it mean to be civilized?
The most common answers involve developing tools and progressing in the areas of science, math, and the arts. But is that all a civilized culture is? They have to achieve great things that last for centuries? Or does it go much deeper than that?
History can define a civilization as one that has created a sense of unity among its members, create forms of art, and had a developed sense of government. Many others might show development in humanitarian efforts and agricultural areas. But in today's world does that still fit the definition of a civilization?
That is something to be considered. We sometimes call people civilized or uncivilized. These same people fit the definition of civilization, yet we might call them "uncivilized". Does having a government, art, and a structured society mean that the civilization is civilized or are they in reality the barbarians that they condemn?
A civilization is a group of people with a common purpose and goal. Does that mean the countries of today are not civilized civilizations?
At first I thought I could rattle off the answers. Then..... When you stop to really think about things, it is never as simple as you originally think. Sometimes definitions can really be from a perspective. What does it mean to be civilized?
The most common answers involve developing tools and progressing in the areas of science, math, and the arts. But is that all a civilized culture is? They have to achieve great things that last for centuries? Or does it go much deeper than that?
History can define a civilization as one that has created a sense of unity among its members, create forms of art, and had a developed sense of government. Many others might show development in humanitarian efforts and agricultural areas. But in today's world does that still fit the definition of a civilization?
That is something to be considered. We sometimes call people civilized or uncivilized. These same people fit the definition of civilization, yet we might call them "uncivilized". Does having a government, art, and a structured society mean that the civilization is civilized or are they in reality the barbarians that they condemn?
A civilization is a group of people with a common purpose and goal. Does that mean the countries of today are not civilized civilizations?
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Why should the doctrine of predestination never be used as an excuse not to evangelize?
This is a good question because some people will use predestination doctrine as an excuse to not spread the Word. But we cannot use any doctrine as the litmus test on our actions. The Bible has to be the only one.
What happens if we do use predestination as an excuse not to evangelize? First and foremost, we are disobedient to God. Before Jesus physically left the earth, He gave a command to ALL who follow Him. He did not say that only a select few were to do this. He did not say that we could sit on our rears because the work was already done.
What do we get out of evangelizing? One, we are obedient. Two, we grow. When we are humble enough to submit to God's authority, we are learn new dimensions of ourselves. We learn more about human nature and we learn how far we can really go.
We do not know who is "predestined". We do not know what is in anyone's heart. There are people who are yearning for God and need someone to be there for them to explain it. The Ethiopian eunuch was needing Philip to explain the scriptures. If Philip thought, "I do not need to say anything. God already has it worked out.", then Philip would have missed being a tool and being a part of something so wonderful. We never know what is before us or around the next corner. When we can be submissive and willing to be used the way He needs us, we are blessed and get to experience so much more.
What happens if we do use predestination as an excuse not to evangelize? First and foremost, we are disobedient to God. Before Jesus physically left the earth, He gave a command to ALL who follow Him. He did not say that only a select few were to do this. He did not say that we could sit on our rears because the work was already done.
What do we get out of evangelizing? One, we are obedient. Two, we grow. When we are humble enough to submit to God's authority, we are learn new dimensions of ourselves. We learn more about human nature and we learn how far we can really go.
We do not know who is "predestined". We do not know what is in anyone's heart. There are people who are yearning for God and need someone to be there for them to explain it. The Ethiopian eunuch was needing Philip to explain the scriptures. If Philip thought, "I do not need to say anything. God already has it worked out.", then Philip would have missed being a tool and being a part of something so wonderful. We never know what is before us or around the next corner. When we can be submissive and willing to be used the way He needs us, we are blessed and get to experience so much more.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
What is the "foreknowledge view" of predestination?
This is the version of predestination that I lean more toward. In this view, God in His omniscience already knows eternity. He can see the beginning and the ending of time. He already sees how the tapestry will look. Therefore, He knows who will answer the call and know ahead of time who will enter the gates.
Sproul (author of Chosen by God) disagrees with this stance though he once was in support of this in the past. He believes that we can only answer God's call because He has called. The calling comes first. The acceptance second. I tend to believe that but that the only calls those that He knows will answer. He might send us to witness to someone who might not be called but it might be more for our benefit and not for the other person's.
As I read more on this topic in comparing the "foreknowledge" vs. the "reformed" view, I feel that it comes more to semantics. In the end we all have to answer on accepting Christ as our Savior or not. It does not excuse us from witnessing and doing our part of the great commission.
Sproul (author of Chosen by God) disagrees with this stance though he once was in support of this in the past. He believes that we can only answer God's call because He has called. The calling comes first. The acceptance second. I tend to believe that but that the only calls those that He knows will answer. He might send us to witness to someone who might not be called but it might be more for our benefit and not for the other person's.
As I read more on this topic in comparing the "foreknowledge" vs. the "reformed" view, I feel that it comes more to semantics. In the end we all have to answer on accepting Christ as our Savior or not. It does not excuse us from witnessing and doing our part of the great commission.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Chosen by God - a Review
My daughter had to read Chosen by God written by RC Sproul. Since she would be asking questions, I decided to read the book before her so that I could be prepared. I did not realize how much I would enjoy it and get into it.
It is not what you would call a "pleasure book". You don't just pick it up and think that you will have a good rest by the fire. It is a book that could cause confusion, deep thought, and even a fight or two. The topic it addresses is predestination.
Predestination is the thought that God has chosen you before you were even born. Now, there are variations of that thought that Mr. Sproul discusses in his book. This topic has caused many a fight in Christian and even non-Christian circles. It can get a discussion going and can get it heated just as fast.
Before reading this book, my thoughts on the subject was that since God knows our hearts and since He exists outside our dimensions, He can see ahead and knows whether or not we will accept Him and acts accordingly. Mr. Sproul takes a different stance. He feels that God decides ahead of time who will accept Him and those and only those He calls and they will answer.
I was not too sure how to take much of this as I read it. But in several sections, he was able to give me food for thought. The verses he pulled seemed to support his stance. Being a dedicated student of the Bible, I looked up the verses myself, read the passages before and and after, and even checked various translations. They still seemed to support His stance.
In this work, Mr. Sproul also gets more into the Calvinistic view and discusses the acronym "TULIP". I had heard about it before, but never really fully understood it. He really laid it out plainly and explained it very well. I learned a lot from that section.
One of the things I enjoyed about his work was that he discusses the other views on predestination. I got a better understanding of them all and got a deeper look at free will. When it came to my stance, I actually read it a couple of times to understand why he believed that stance was wrong.
I'm not perfect, and I'm still learning. Just because I was taught something does not make it completely right. I need to get the full story and decide for myself. Even the Apostle Paul said that we were to test our believes to make sure that man-made ones have not crept in and tradition has not taken over the basic believes.
My husband is the one I turn to much of the time to ask the deep questions since he has attended seminary. We had several discussions that were very educational. I learned a lot. When I was done, I actually wanted to re-read the book to get deeper into and chew on it some more.
In the end, where did I end up? Did Mr. Sproul change my stance? Not really. I'm not saying that I'm still right and he is wrong. But I am thinking more on the subject of predestination than I ever have. In that regard, I would say that Mr. Sproul was successful. Predestination is not a subject I run from now. It is something I want to dig into and learn more about. But as my loving husband says, "In the end it is all in God's hands anyway."
Thank you Mr. Sproul for an excellent book and some thought-provoking topics.
It is not what you would call a "pleasure book". You don't just pick it up and think that you will have a good rest by the fire. It is a book that could cause confusion, deep thought, and even a fight or two. The topic it addresses is predestination.
Predestination is the thought that God has chosen you before you were even born. Now, there are variations of that thought that Mr. Sproul discusses in his book. This topic has caused many a fight in Christian and even non-Christian circles. It can get a discussion going and can get it heated just as fast.
Before reading this book, my thoughts on the subject was that since God knows our hearts and since He exists outside our dimensions, He can see ahead and knows whether or not we will accept Him and acts accordingly. Mr. Sproul takes a different stance. He feels that God decides ahead of time who will accept Him and those and only those He calls and they will answer.
I was not too sure how to take much of this as I read it. But in several sections, he was able to give me food for thought. The verses he pulled seemed to support his stance. Being a dedicated student of the Bible, I looked up the verses myself, read the passages before and and after, and even checked various translations. They still seemed to support His stance.
In this work, Mr. Sproul also gets more into the Calvinistic view and discusses the acronym "TULIP". I had heard about it before, but never really fully understood it. He really laid it out plainly and explained it very well. I learned a lot from that section.
One of the things I enjoyed about his work was that he discusses the other views on predestination. I got a better understanding of them all and got a deeper look at free will. When it came to my stance, I actually read it a couple of times to understand why he believed that stance was wrong.
I'm not perfect, and I'm still learning. Just because I was taught something does not make it completely right. I need to get the full story and decide for myself. Even the Apostle Paul said that we were to test our believes to make sure that man-made ones have not crept in and tradition has not taken over the basic believes.
My husband is the one I turn to much of the time to ask the deep questions since he has attended seminary. We had several discussions that were very educational. I learned a lot. When I was done, I actually wanted to re-read the book to get deeper into and chew on it some more.
In the end, where did I end up? Did Mr. Sproul change my stance? Not really. I'm not saying that I'm still right and he is wrong. But I am thinking more on the subject of predestination than I ever have. In that regard, I would say that Mr. Sproul was successful. Predestination is not a subject I run from now. It is something I want to dig into and learn more about. But as my loving husband says, "In the end it is all in God's hands anyway."
Thank you Mr. Sproul for an excellent book and some thought-provoking topics.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
God Using Sinful People
A great question that have been asked is if God can use sinful people in accomplishing His will. Does He?
From my research and studies, I would have to answer "yes". Throughout the Bible there is so much evidence of Him using people and their sinful natures. One of the earliest ones that gets discussed is Pharaoh. I think that everyone can agree Pharaoh had a little bit of a sinful nature. He wasn't what you would call a righteous person. But the question then comes down to if God actually used him. Read Exodus again. God knew Pharaoh's heart. He knew when the ruler would cave in and when his stubbornness would rule. He knew the final result. And He used the sinful man to accomplish His will. The Hebrew people were released. God was glorified.
Proverbs 16:9 says, "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps." In the end, God's will wins out. There are always sinful people in this world. You cannot avoid them. They are in every aspect of our lives. What wonderful way to show God's glory by His use of them! Not even they can avoid His power and His plan.
The sinful people used? Herod, Judas, and Pilot. How about the ones in your own life? God uses sinful people to teach us lessons, help us grow, and advance to the next level of our spiritual growth.
Why would God avoid using sinful people? Some would argue because He is so holy and righteous therefore He cannot use the sin of other people. Why not? Is that His weakness? All someone has to do is be evil enough that God won't be able to touch them and use them? There is the hole in the argument.
You have to ask yourself these questions:
If you answer "no" to the first three and God for the last, then how can you take a stand that God cannot use sinful people to accomplish His will?
This is a question to spark hours of theological discussions. It also leads to the fact that God can use your own sinful actions to accomplish His will and show His glory. How humbling! Not even my own acts can alter the plan. In the end He will prevail and I will witness His glory!
From my research and studies, I would have to answer "yes". Throughout the Bible there is so much evidence of Him using people and their sinful natures. One of the earliest ones that gets discussed is Pharaoh. I think that everyone can agree Pharaoh had a little bit of a sinful nature. He wasn't what you would call a righteous person. But the question then comes down to if God actually used him. Read Exodus again. God knew Pharaoh's heart. He knew when the ruler would cave in and when his stubbornness would rule. He knew the final result. And He used the sinful man to accomplish His will. The Hebrew people were released. God was glorified.
Proverbs 16:9 says, "In his heart a man plans his course, but the LORD determines his steps." In the end, God's will wins out. There are always sinful people in this world. You cannot avoid them. They are in every aspect of our lives. What wonderful way to show God's glory by His use of them! Not even they can avoid His power and His plan.
The sinful people used? Herod, Judas, and Pilot. How about the ones in your own life? God uses sinful people to teach us lessons, help us grow, and advance to the next level of our spiritual growth.
Why would God avoid using sinful people? Some would argue because He is so holy and righteous therefore He cannot use the sin of other people. Why not? Is that His weakness? All someone has to do is be evil enough that God won't be able to touch them and use them? There is the hole in the argument.
You have to ask yourself these questions:
- Is God's power limited?
- Does anyone have power over God?
- Can anyone thwart God?
- Who has complete power?
If you answer "no" to the first three and God for the last, then how can you take a stand that God cannot use sinful people to accomplish His will?
This is a question to spark hours of theological discussions. It also leads to the fact that God can use your own sinful actions to accomplish His will and show His glory. How humbling! Not even my own acts can alter the plan. In the end He will prevail and I will witness His glory!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)