[wildbill]

There are so many arguments against the theory that the Sphinx was an original statue honoring a pharoah that the theories of a pre-pharoahan Sphinx are gathering adherents.

[Flick Lives]

I like the theory of the Sphinx originally being carved as the god Anubis. Makes sense. Ancient god of the dead.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Never date a sphinx!

They are cold and impersonal. They just stare and give you the silent treatment.

Don’t be that desperate!

[Robert DeLong]

I doubt it was ever a lion.

[Grimmy]

Thanks for the youtube link. Love this sort of stuff.

[Swordmaker]

Ping for your list

[Swordmaker]

Odd. If he agrees with Robert Schoch, why does he then reject all of Robert Schoch's evidence and conclusions? He basically says I agree with Robert Schoch, "BUT" which means he doesn't agree with Robert Schoch.

Robert Schoch bases his conclusions on the erosion seen on the base and original area excavated by the original builders of the Sphinx clearing which required a specific amount of water erosion over time to wear away the stone to the depth observed. In addition, Robert Schoch further uses the astronomical placement of both the gaze of the Sphinx and the Sphinx's causeway leading directly to the rising of the constellation Leo, the Lion on specific dates in antiquity as part of his dating of the construction as part of his theory.

Yet Colin Reader rejects all that testing, observation, and architectural placement to claim only a few hundred years of additional age. Ergo, Reader does NOT agree with Robert Schoch at all. If the Sphinx is NOT associated with the construction the Pyramids, then who did build it and why? It bears no relationship architecturally to the style of the pyramids. There is no reason to connect it to the pyramids. There is no evidence at all there was sufficient rain to account for the observed erosion at the time Reader postulates. . . and later the areas eroded were covered by sand.

[Windflier]

I’m with Robert Shoch on the dating of the Sphinx. The water erosion of the rock surfaces that compose the enclosure could not have happened during or since dynastic times.

Why?

Because Egypt has been a desert since before the time of the first pharaohs.

The last time Egypt had sufficient rainfall to cause that sort of deep erosion was 10,500 years ago.

[Grimmy]

I found this to be interesting. Got it from the suggested vids on the link you provided.

The Mystery of the Balochistan Sphinx | Indus Valley Civilisation | Ancient Architects
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC_7c7WrZpQ

If the Balochistan formation does turn out to be man carved or man made, then imo, it’s not a huge stretch to consider that the area we now know as Egypt was part of the same culture at one point.

[PIF]

Robert Temple's original Sphinx Egyptian Jackal Representation, the symbol of Anubis.

The Sphinx - a rare photo taken from the Valley Temple roof.

The modern "restored" Sphinx - the head is darker because it is carved from harder material.

[taxcontrol]

My father was fond of the expression “Paul’s shoe size.” by that he was implying that people are so focused on the details, that they are missing the larger message. This was in response to a number of Bible study classes that were very focused on the When and Where and Travels of Paul, but did not get into the content of Paul’s letters.

So The Sphinx is a few hundred years older?

Paul’s shoe size.

[Raycpa]

Pre Noah?

[Jack Hammer]

As it is now, the head just looks too darn small.

[Cronos]

keeping in mind what we know about Gobekli Tepes, a date of 10,500 BC doesn’t seem far-fetched