Hi

Bold and underlines in your statements are my emphasis. No "screaming" intended!

Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [snip]

> SC: Yes – the Coptic-Egyptian tradition as cited
> by al-Masoudi (up to the point where it ends) that
> states only that the pyramids were constructed as
> ‘Recovery Vaults’ (my term). The
> Coptic-Egyptian tradition (up to where it ends),
> as cited by al-Masoudi, makes no mention of the
> pyramids being used as tombs for the burial of
> specific AE kings.

So, no other bodies other than the kings ancestors, according to the fanciful fairy tale hey?
That is what you claim.


> [snip]

>> SC: Suggest also that you read where the
> al-Masoudi Coptic-Egyptian tradition ends.
>
>
> SC: See images below:
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Sprenger tells us where the Coptic account
> ends (2). This account he also explains Masoudi
> took from a Coptic modern history (5). Up to the
> point where Dr. Sprenger tells us the Coptic
> account ends (2), there is no mention of the
> pyramids being tombs for specific AE kings—only
> that they were ‘Arks’ and also that the bodies
> of the ancestor kings were placed therein.


You seem to repeat over and over this "where the Coptic account ends".

I see, and had noted previously, the footnote 3 ....your label(2).

So I gather that you claim the beginning section quoted in the highly esteemed Col H Vyse - Operations ... Vol2 from page 321 to the second line of page 328 is the copied Coptic text?

That your weird hypothesis relies mainly or solely on that section? This is despite you copying what you label as (5) statement in his fragmented Akbar -Ezzeman where he appaears to state (all) the knowledge of the fantasy Surid came from Coptic sources.

How do you call them "texts" (plural) if you only mean one small part?

I originally took the footnote to be ambiguous given the passage it refers to starts on page 327 with the statement :
"The author then says that according to the Coptic account the...
Wonder why he inserted that , if that whole previous section is as you claim the important (LOL! reliable )Coptic part?

No matter!! I can and will accept your version or interpretation after all it is your fantasy and delusion we are politely "discussing".

My small contribution was as you quote in your ref (3). To highlight burials claimed .
It was followed by M Stower with yet another similar quote of burial from yet a different document still authored by Masoudi still claiming to be Coptic inspired.

However!!! There is MORE! (Sorry no free steak knives)

Quote
Same document within your "Coptic" part

Within the coloured Pyramid were laid the bodies of the deceased priests in sarcophagi of black granite and with each was a book in which the mysteries of his profession and the acts of his life were related...

Page 326

They are not kings, it appears to be the Red , but these Coptic writers reckoned priests got a burial in pyramids as well. Not only that according to you, to be consistent, there must be some imaginary secret place in there too?

Talk about 'have your cake and eat it too'! Clearly you are attempting to just make up your own story and vaguely accepting only some parts of what source you claim is valid and reliable.


>
> 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?

I am sure you will decide and make up a completely different cherry picked version and claim it as "evidence".

Since you seem to like repeats, why plural texts?
>
> > [snip]
>
> SH: -reading you claim to Charly they never were
> tombs (not possible),
>
> SC: No—I said, (to paraphrase) given the vital
> role to the kingdom a deceased AE king played in
> the Afterlife and, for which reason, his body had
> to be preserved and protected, it would seem
> rather stupid to place such an important
> (deceased) king in a (relatively) accessible
> chamber within the most visible man-made structure
> on the planet (at that time).

So, do you remember this? One of several such statements. Underline my emphasis

Quote
Scott Creighton to Charly
Claiming the pyramid is a tomb simply because that is what you think, will NOT make it a tomb. If what passes as evidence to you is the best you have then understand that it falls far short of the level of evidence I and many like me would expect. All you appear to have is nothing more than a BELIEF bordering on a cult and like most cults, they are difficult to shake.

You have the audacity to accuse Charly of being in a Egyptology cult with mere "BELIEF" and at the same time you accuse me of insult and further base your latest brainwave hypothesis on a document that says wacko things like this: (only one of many examples)

Quote
Operations - your coptic section
It is added that the spirit of the northern Pyramid had been observed to pass around it in the shape of a beardless boy with large teeth and a sallow countenance that the spirit of the western Pyramid was a naked woman with large teeth who seduced people into her power and then made them insane she was to be seen at mid day and at sunset and that the guardian of the coloured Pyramid in the form of an old man used to scatter incense round the building with a thuribulum like that used in Christian churches

Page 328

Now I wonder in your visit to Egypt did you happen to run into that naked woman with fangs ?


>
> SH: …then insist the very purpose included
> incorporating the actual bodies of ancestors …
>
> SC: Into an inaccessible chamber, yes. The primary
> function of the pyramid is still a ‘Recovery
> Vault’ and, actually, becomes even more so with
> the bodies of the ancestor kings placed within an
> inaccessible chamber since, according to AE
> beliefs, the Kingdom needed the divine
> benevolence of their deceased kings (gods) to
> ensure the kingdom would flourish. If they had all
> been destroyed then this would surely have made
> any recovery (from the deluge) much more
> problematic if not impossible. So, you can
> understand why it would have been vital that they
> did this.
>
> SH: …of a fantasy unattested, never existed
> folklore pre history king with Semitic
> name/genealogy.
>
> SC: Surid is an Arabic name which Lehner believes
> may have been a corruption of Suphis.

Do you not realise Arabic is a Semitic language? I was referring mainly to the custom of "Surid ben X, ben Y etc". Definitely not an attested AE method /titulary of referring to an Egyptian king!
>
> SH: One who had dreams, had them interpreted,
> consulted astrologers, about a flood and the
> timing given for such "flood" coincides roughly to
> biblical timeframes and not your fantasy ice age
> speculation.
>
> SC: Such traditions are often embellished to make
> the King appear with ‘divine’ or supernatural
> abilities. It doesn’t change the fact that they
> state that they anticipated a deluge that would
> destroy their entire kingdom. The AE Book of
> Coming Forth by Day (Book of the Dead) speaks also
> of a flood that would drown the entire kingdom.
> The Pyramid Texts relate to us the “Night of the
> Great Flood” that “issued from the Great
> One”.

I accept there was some form a major global catastrophe or many smaller ones at some point in history. I think GH speculation is possible.

However, if you choose not respond to anything above. Let's face it , as requested you , that you "prefer I try to ignore you" (see below) then probably best if you do not. But if permissible could you answer just these questions.


1. If there was such a flood tsunami that necessitated the height of G1 approx. 60m asl so top near 200m asl Then:
a. Why not build them on the highest land around Giza? or in Egypt ?
b. That would wipe out most of the population of humans animals and vegetation for a considerable while. Where did the survivors hide from your fantasy size flood ?
c. What did they eat? Wouldn't the few starving broken survivors need to raid your seed grain?
d. Why would they build pyramids with such low entrances as say G2
e. Since you argue elsewhere that the G1 DP was accessible to tomb raiders why didn't the water get in to the below ground level chambers, whether via entrance or possible fissures in bedrock? Not very smart planning for flood !


> [snip]
>
> SH: is said to have built all the pyramids in a 65
> year time frame! Hypocrite !
>
> SC: Other versions say 61 years. My issue wasn’t
> with the time it took Sneferu to build his four
> pyramids but that, if the orthodox theory is to be
> believed (i.e. he kept building until he had
> perfected the true pyramid), then after the fault
> in the Bent had been realised, why continue
> building that structure far beyond the point of
> its 'failure'? That tells me that Sneferu was NOT
> too bothered about perfecting a true pyramid but
> simply wanted to build as many pyramid
> recovery-vaults in his lifetime as he possibly
> could. Sneferu’s building activity also tells us
> that he was building/converting pyramids in
> parallel. If Surid did likewise then, if he had
> ruled for 61 years, it is entirely feasible that
> all the Gizamids could have been constructed
> within such a timeframe.

Yes I admit a small mistake, the document said 61 years not 65 (based on quick review)

However now you claim Snefru and Suphis (Khufu) were building at the same time?

The Coptic stuff in document, which now I realise is only your ruse to try to have some basis for your fantasy
declares Surid built them all in 61 years! You ALSO claim there was 16 of them! What in 61 years!?

>
> [snip]
>
> >>
> SH: You have every right to post your views
> (perhaps more than I).
>
> SC: Nope. No more than you and no less than you.
>
> [snip of accused meanness]

> SC: Now that’s just mean and wholly uncalled
> for. It’s simple—if you don’t like what I
> have to say, ignore it.
>
> >
> SC

I will try to do so, after a short period of amusement!

Edit 1: Maybe (no promises) and that is entirely my call, not yours! As it is your prerogative to ignore me if you wish! (I would just have to talk about your ideas with others, not directly to you)

Edit 2. The strike out above I figured it out all by myself. He mentioned it is still the Coptic because according to Coptic tradition King Surid:

Quote
From Coptic
The author then says that according to the Coptic account the following passage was inscribed in Arabic upon the Pyramids "I Surid the king have built these Pyramids and have finished them in sixty one years. Let him who comes after me ...."

So the claim seemingly already at translation, justifiably strange already to Masoudi, confirms the original tradition , is the builder of pyramids wrote on it in Arabic. All those years before we even knew about Arabic, those clever aliens or whatever could already write in ARABIC!.....(weally and truly LOL!)

Edit 3. Speldink



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10-Jan-18 03:45 by Corpuscles.