Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SC: Suggest you re-read what I wrote.
Suggest you write better in the first place.
> SC: See images below:
Remarkable you should find something beyond pp. 319—330, my having mentioned it.
> Then we are presented with other sources which say
> Surid and co were buried in the pyramids. These
> other sources may be Coptic-Egyptian but,
> from Dr. Sprenger's notes, this is not absolutely
> clear. So yes--there are other texts that have
> come down to us that tell us the pyramids were
> tombs of kings (most notably Herodotus –
> although Diodorus says the AE kings apparently
> decided against having themselves buried in the
> pyramids attributed to them). That some sources
> tell us the pyramids were tombs is not in doubt.
> My point here is that this Coptic-Egyptian
> tradition tells us something quite different. The
> question is: which one is right?
What did Sprenger actually write?
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=x2FdAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA330
“The story is related by Masoudi, but this relation of it by Al Kodhai is given, because he was a cadi in Egypt; and mentions the persons by whom the tradition had been handed down from former times.”
The story of Surid and his relatives being buried in the pyramids is attributed to Coptic tradition as clearly as is any of this material. To interpolate “may” and quibble that “this is not absolutely clear” is wilful distortion in pursuit of cherry-picking (otherwise known as barefaced lying).
> Then we are presented with other sources which say
> Surid and co were buried in the pyramids. These
> other sources may be Coptic-Egyptian but,
> from Dr. Sprenger's notes, this is not absolutely
> clear. So yes--there are other texts that have
> come down to us that tell us the pyramids were
> tombs of kings (most notably Herodotus –
> although Diodorus says the AE kings apparently
> decided against having themselves buried in the
> pyramids attributed to them). That some sources
> tell us the pyramids were tombs is not in doubt.
> My point here is that this Coptic-Egyptian
> tradition tells us something quite different. The
> question is: which one is right?
See the conjuring trick Creighton has pulled here?
M.
-------------------------------------------------------
> SC: Suggest you re-read what I wrote.
Suggest you write better in the first place.
> SC: See images below:
Remarkable you should find something beyond pp. 319—330, my having mentioned it.
> Then we are presented with other sources which say
> Surid and co were buried in the pyramids. These
> other sources may be Coptic-Egyptian but,
> from Dr. Sprenger's notes, this is not absolutely
> clear. So yes--there are other texts that have
> come down to us that tell us the pyramids were
> tombs of kings (most notably Herodotus –
> although Diodorus says the AE kings apparently
> decided against having themselves buried in the
> pyramids attributed to them). That some sources
> tell us the pyramids were tombs is not in doubt.
> My point here is that this Coptic-Egyptian
> tradition tells us something quite different. The
> question is: which one is right?
What did Sprenger actually write?
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=x2FdAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA330
“The story is related by Masoudi, but this relation of it by Al Kodhai is given, because he was a cadi in Egypt; and mentions the persons by whom the tradition had been handed down from former times.”
The story of Surid and his relatives being buried in the pyramids is attributed to Coptic tradition as clearly as is any of this material. To interpolate “may” and quibble that “this is not absolutely clear” is wilful distortion in pursuit of cherry-picking (otherwise known as barefaced lying).
> Then we are presented with other sources which say
> Surid and co were buried in the pyramids. These
> other sources may be Coptic-Egyptian but,
> from Dr. Sprenger's notes, this is not absolutely
> clear. So yes--there are other texts that have
> come down to us that tell us the pyramids were
> tombs of kings (most notably Herodotus –
> although Diodorus says the AE kings apparently
> decided against having themselves buried in the
> pyramids attributed to them). That some sources
> tell us the pyramids were tombs is not in doubt.
> My point here is that this Coptic-Egyptian
> tradition tells us something quite different. The
> question is: which one is right?
See the conjuring trick Creighton has pulled here?
M.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.