> Yeah for belief I would write 'Gods' which they
> did use - all you do is deny the existence of that
> word and pretend it isn't in the PT.
The word "Gods" would represent a belief. It would be indicative that our belief that ancient people were highly superstitious is correct. But it is NOT a synonym for "belief". You can't say "I god that it's going to rain today". This makes no sense in any language.
Egyptologists believe the word they translate as "god" was an imaginary consciousness believed in by the great pyramid builders. The word they actually used was "neter" and this word is always translated as "god"; an imaginary consciousness. Egyptologists believe that they believed in many "gods" including "Tefnut", "Atum", and "Amun". But I don't believe this. Based on the literal meaning of what the pyramid builders wrote and how these words were used in context I believe we mistranslate the word "neter". It did not mean "god", it meant a natural phenomenon and the closest possible translation is "theory". Each "god" was really a different "natural phenomenon" and the word represented this "theory" in the sentence. Meaning was formatted differently than in our languages. "Theory" simply identified the subject of the sentence. No word was symbolic and this is why they had no reductionistic words, taxonomies, "beliefs" or "thoughts". These concepts are symbolic. They are abstractions and the language lacked the need or the ability to use symbolism. Amulets were representative. Words were representative. Ceremony and ritual were representative.
Ancient people didn't think like Egyptologists and this makes the "words of the gods"/ the "words of natural processes" impossible for Egyptologists to understand. Or more accurately it makes them impossible to translate and very difficult for modern people to understand. We must model the language to understand it because meaning is destroyed when it is parsed.
If you want to understand ANYTHING AT ALL IN THE COFFIN TEXTS it is absolutely mandatory you understand both the Pyramid Texts and how Egyptologists got everything wrong because the Coffin Texts is orders of magnitude more complex than the Pyramid texts. I understand very little of the CT and am not even certain what is in Ancient Language and what is in modern language. Some is obviously AL and some is obviously modern language. Most of it is indeterminate or a strange amalgam of both. Probably this amalgam was caused by modern language speakers who tried to translate AL which they partially understood so the result appears to be a mixture. Faulkner was not a very good translator compared to Sethe or the older ones and led Egyptology astray by introducing so many concepts and translations from the "book of the dead". But most of this material doesn't appear to have been translated before Faulkner in 1978. Some older translations were made but are even less available than Faulkner. His work is in three volumes and you can pay over $200 for them. The binding isn't excellent and the paper is already deteriorating because it is acidic. There are other issues besides just bad translation and bad formatting. The work is important in its own right but it is still riddled with problems. Obviously each of these so called spells have many sources in various coffins that were found before 1978 and since. These sources vary just like the PT. In the PT the similar utterances are actually identical in meaning. This probably doesn't apply to the CT. But just like the PT it is very poor methodology to interpret and translate it in terms of the "book of the dead" which was done.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15-Jan-20 17:24 by cladking.