> You've no need to worry about embarrassing me,
> You need to remind yourself which body part Isis
> never recovered and where it ended up to
> appreciate why the Nile - according to Plutarch's
> description - was regarded as the "effusion
> of Osiris", Sam.
> I know you're not a fan of the mythology or
> metaphor but it's hardly an oblique reference.
> The Nile is the liquid which brings new life, in
> agrarian contexts, relating to the annual
> inundation and as is evidenced in the
> archaeological record by the Osirian seed-beds.
> Ask Scott. He'll confirm them for you!
> The Nile is not "Osiris" himself but the "effusion
> of Osiris".
Thank you for your response.
I'm sure many of my responses to your objections look just as idiotic, contrived, and highly convenient.
But bottom line it here. You are merely assuming that they used words that changed meaning with context. Worse you are assuming that they necessarily had the same language as we do. You are rejecting out of hand my contention that the words had a single fixed meaning and that author intention appeared in context. If I'm right then your interpretation of the symbolism and metaphor leads you to believe the Nile and the moon are identical. It you're right then there still exists the literal meaning of the words that suggests knowledge and no means to explain how such knowledge was gained.
If I'm right there is no argument an Egyptologist can't make to prove his beliefs. No evidence is required since any of the words can just be reinterpreted and if this looks bad then they can be retranslated and then reinterpreted.
If you're right I can still show that the literal meaning of the words agrees with Scott Creighton and other alts. I can show that nut was the granary and the pyramid existed in nut. What can you do other than to show what later people and Egyptologists believe?
Egyptologists are parsing reality itself, not with experiment as is demanded by real science but by observation and interpretation. This methodology is wrong. I would go to far as to say it is evil except that few individual Egyptologists seem to have the intention to deceive. At some point they must realize this and either change their ways or admit they are not real scientists.
We can not understand reality though observation because we lack the words to be able to pass the knowledge generationally. We perceive this more as preferentially seeing what we believe but the reality is the same. You can't understand reality be analyzing myths and books of incantation. It's metaphysically contradicted. You can never understand the Egyptians using these techniques and the fact that no two Egyptologists agree on anything except they were superstitious and religious is PROOF of this. The fact that they can't agree on translations and interpretations shows just how far you can get parsing a book of magic. ...Nowhere at all. They believe they've uncovered a mountain of evidence yet can't say how or why the Great Pyramid, or any great pyramid was built. This is why every time these subjects come up no one can point to an answer supported by the evidence and modern knowledge. There is no et al to say the pyramids were tombs and the builders were stinky footed bumpkins. Rather they have parse reality by means chiefly of their conclusions rather than even observation or experiment, as is demanded by science.
These are all simple tautologies. Egyptology can no longer hide behind the cloak of science because real science doesn't obfuscate, it makes transparent.
If this sound harsh there is a simple solution. Start using proper methodology. You don't have to jettison all the et als until you learn they are all wrong about everything. Indeed, even if they are mostly right you'll learn to spot the difference between incorrect speculation and interpretation of fact.