Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You don’t think this is a little bit off the OP topic?
>
> M.

Perhaps, but the overlying point of the OP was to further discredit the hypothesis that one or more of the paint marks in G1's rafters are fraudulent. And we also see subsequent posts by Scott which include the possibility that such references are not necessarily contemporary with a living Khufu (or Khnum-Khfu, etc.). So I was following up on the analogous historical references today, introduced by Scott, regarding the "Followers of Jesus" and whether translations like "Followers of Khufu", etc., were necessarily contemporaneous vs. historical references to a single entity that went by various names like "Khufu", "Khnum-Khfu", etc.

I agree of course that there are Christian fundamentalists who believe the Almighty God was actually human, just as some believe that the dinosour fossils are merely a ruse planted by Satan as a decoy to mislead humans, but the majority of Christians today (including me) do not hold that belief. Meanwhile, raising this issue here is simply a way to draw an analogous context in the modern world as an example of using a proper name as a historical reference (Jesus or God, vs. Khufu) rather than assuming that every use of the name necessarily implies a reference to a single human that's living in the present day.

For example, while most people (including Christians) believe there was only one ancient Jesus, there is in fact compelling evidence that there were both a Jesus of Nazareth as well as a Jesus Barabbas who were two different individuals. So yet another example of how a presumably unique name in ancient times wasn't actually so unique.

And so I do think this is relevant to the current discussion regarding references to the name "Kh-u-f-u". I think the notion that Khufu was a living human being, that Khnum-Khfu, Khnum-Khuf, and Khufu are all references to that same singular human being, and that the presence of those names necessarily refer to a human who lived contemporanously with the occurance of the writing of that name are all still open questions that warrant further investigation.

But ok, enough about modern contextual analogies to the "Followers of Khufu". The primary issue raised in the OP doesn't seem to be reconciled yet regarding the formatting of numbers vs. dates vs. what we see in the rafters. I don't see any merit to the suggestion that those marks were painted in situ rotated 90 or 180 degrees by workers who built the structure.

In fact, I'm not even fully convinced that the access route to Davison's Chamber did not originally extend to the upper RCs as well. Rather, I allow the possibility that at some point in ancient times, that access was blocked after those paint marks were made by an adaption culture some time after the departure of the culture that was responsible for the original construction. None of the discussions I've read about the RCs make any sense of why only Davison's had original access, and Breitner, et al's attempt to explain it is full of logical contradictions.

But I agree that's a different discussion too.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11-Jun-18 13:05 by Origyptian.