Well, I can believe the Sphinx is very old, was much larger and obviously had a different carving for the head.
The head as we see it now is too small, and also is not weathered the same as the rest.
The weathering on the other parts of the Sphinx isn’t compatable with the moat theory, though. It is compatable with the rain theory, but can they be so certain the rain over the past 4000 years hasn’t produced such erosion?
If there was a moat there would be a moat ring around the Sphinx. No mention of that at all. Just an obvious conclusion.
If the Sphinx was 7000 years old then the real question is how could a people so long ago, which I’m pretty sure we believe were very backwards, have produced such a large statue. Even larger than the one we see today, which we are amazed at.
No mention of the fact that we’d have to rework our theories of the abilities of this sort of civilizational era.
Yep, Schoch points out that the Sphinx couldn’t have been surrounded by a moat, and gives the reasons; he’s also the geologist who confirmed the earlier statements by non-geologists that there’s water erosion on the Sphinx, the walls of the Sphinx enclosure, and some other nearby structures — but not the Giza Pyramids. The reasons the erosion must have happened prior to the 4th dynasty include texts (New Kingdom copies of Old Kingdom records regarding repairs made to the Sphinx by Khufu; Egyptologist Rainer Stadelmann won’t go as far as 7000 years old, but does admit that the Great Sphinx antedates Khafre) and Old Kingdom-era repairs covering water erosion marks on the Sphinx and at least one of the temples in front of the Sphinx. Also, the nearby mudbrick pyramids at Saqqara, built by the 2nd Dynasty, don’t show rain-induced damage, hence they weren’t around when the Sphinx (or whatever was there before) was getting rained on.