> So why write something which says they did?
> Anyone reading what you wrote would be led to
> expect just such plain statements.
They said what they said. We are only confused by the meaning because when you parse the words they always come up nonsense. When you take the writing as religion and magic it is contradictory. Egyptologists explain away this contradiction by saying there were many origins of their various superstitions. Egyptologists believe that contradictions are caused by various superstitions so they are trying to understand each superstition. If they were correct it would still be impossible to unravel the meaning because there isn't nearly enough writing in existence to perform these "unravelings".
If Egyptologists are right we'll never understand ANY of the superstitions, their origins, or the meaning of any of the writing.
I simply believe they are not right. They are not translating a language like we and the authors of the book of the dead use. It has the exact same vocabulary but each word has one meaning and each thing has three types of words which represent it. One type represents the thing when it is the subject of a sentence, one when it is the object of a sentence and the third which expresses how the subject is to be understood.
We don't talk this way so it's hard to understand. More importantly though is that the word which is the subject of the sentence is represents theory and no one can understand the sentence if they don't understand that specific scientific theory. Ancient Language is formatted like computer code. You could say Ancient Language is binary and modern language is analog. They are incompatible. Any true translation of Ancient Language will appear like a logic chart to us. I can "interpret" the language for you but I can't translate it (yet).
Generally speaking there is a large tendency for our parcings (translations) to capture the meaning only literally. Where it says to "bring the boat in which the dead king flies up and alight" this is literally what they meant. But the boat isn't rowed to the king or dragged up on a sled. The boat is lowered to him by the actions of "He Who Would Bring the Boat to the Dead King" (the ferryman who operates the counterweight).
They had a different way of talking BECAUSE they had a different way of thinking. They had a different way of thinking because that was how the brains of all animals are wired. We can't talk to animals because they're binary and we're analog.
> Why tell people that “all of the writing says
> that they were not tombs” when it’s not
> true ? Glossing your tendentious
> “interpretation” as what the writing
> “says” is deception.
Of course it says they aren't tombs.
Let me turn this around and ask you to point out where they said they were tombs. You can't do it because they said the king was cremated and did not rot in the ground.
In all honesty there is one place they said the king was buried but I believe this was not the intention of the original author and is merely an artefact of translation. Everywhere else they quite clearly stated the reality that the pyramids were not tombs but were the king himself.