> Your grasp of modern English is as weak as your
> understanding of hieroglyphs.
> You wrote:
If I'm right then your
> interpretation of the symbolism and metaphor leads
> you to believe the Nile and the moon are
> Again, no.
> The Dendera inscription is a statement
> which reads: "Osiris is the moon".
> Plutarch explains that the river is the "Effusions
> of Osiris".
> He is one; the other is of him.
> It is apparent you have failed to grasp the
> distinction because, as is evidenced by your
> comment I have quoted above, these things are most
> certainly not identical.
> Perhaps someone else with more patience than
> myself can explain the very simple distinction. I
> grow tired of it.
You are merely cherry picking and you are cherry picking from fruit that didn't grow until thousands of years AFTER the pyramids were built.
The builders said the pyramid is osiris.
1657b, this pyramid of N is osiris...
They said the exact same thing in many ways so I'm inclined to believe them. Nowhere did they say osiris is the moon. You are merely making the assumptions that Plutarch and later ideas are relevant. THEY ARE NOT.
You are grasping at the same straws that Egyptology tries to use to stay afloat.
There is no science, no logic, and no facts to support Egyptology which is why they agree on nothing except the assumptions that the great pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by changeless stinky footed bumpkins.
The moon barely appears at all in the PT except as a unit of time or place in time; "new moon". I believe there is an oblique reference to a moon bow (rainbow produced by moonlight) but this is about it. What they also never said is that osiris was the river or the river was his effusions. These are more misunderstandings because his "effusions" are cool effervescent water and most assuredly not the warm muck that rolled downstream at "high Nile". Egyptology read this all wrong. It's like they translated the inscriptions in the tombs, the labels, and the PT and never bothered to read their own translations. Their own translations don't really agree with the book of the dead but they never noticed.
I have a lot of trouble communicating in English but this is not entirely my fault. I repeatedly say I mean everything literally and there's nothing between the lines. There's no metaphor, symbolism etc in my writing but people often seem to see something else. Remember my contention is ALL MODERN LANGUAGE is confused so our trouble with my English is evidence to support this. People lack referents for my words and read into them what they expect or whatever is needed to make them sound irrelevant to reality.
Ask yourself why everything you know that supports the paradigm is derived from later ideas and no methodical effort is being made to understand the pyramids. I and my poor command of the language are not the problem here. The problem is Egyptology has defined ancient reality only in terms of their own assumptions. There are only so many ways to say this and then repeat when people refuse to parse my words as I intended.
Many people still seem to be unaware that I believe Egyptologists are wrong about everything. I say this over and over and then to attack my evidence they tell me what Egyptological opinion happens to be. They are wrong! Egyptology is wrong! It's wrong and quoting Egyptologists is not an argument at all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Jan-18 21:32 by cladking.