> charly wrote:
> > Problem is, if taken literally they mean nothing (unless you
> > begin to imagine there are hidden meanings such as
> > Osiris=geyser etc.)
> How can you say such a thing? How much more clear can they be
> than to say the dead king rests in heaven as a mountain as a
> support. Or the earth is high under the sky by means of thine
> arms Tefnut.
> It's all there in plain English and egyptology insists it has
> to be parsed to be understood.
> Anyone who reads it with the assumption the ancients weren't
> mad will come to the same or similar conclusions. Just assume
> they meant it.
Why would anyone assume the ancients egyptians were mad?
There's no reason to assume the PT were meant literally. If we would take them literally, THEN we must assume they were mad, since it's impossible to have an actual tomb in the sky.
> > This is everything!!! Pyramid texts evolve in Coffin text,
> > Coffin Texts into the Book of the Dead. The evolution is
> > Coffin texts appear for the first time with PT on walls of
> > pyramids, BoD texts appear for the first time together with
> > Coffin texts on coffins. It's not a hunch, it's a fact. To
> > claim the PT are an explanation of building methods used is
> > totally unreasonable.
> I might agree it's rather strange and most highly unexpected
> but we have to deal with the facts even when the facts say the
> ancients took an unexpected and forgotten turn 4500 years ago.
> One thing the inventors of writing didn't anticipate was that
> language evolves and old wrirings can be lost faster than it
> This certainly can explain why they started started chiseling
> the words in stone.
Not sure which point you're trying to make here.
> > It's apparent that
> > someone who doesn't even read hieroglyps isn't in a position
> > make any reasonable statements about the PT that contradict
> > findings of someone who has studied the language and culture
> > the AE.
> This isn't about translation.
> This is about reading plain English. This is about discovering
> whet the referents are for the words by believing thy meant
> what hey said and seeing what fits in context.
No Cladking, it's about translation and interpretation not letting loose your immagination over a PT translation in English.
> > The "builders" don't agree with you, you just imagine that.
> Of course the builders agree with me. They agree with me
> because my theory was built around what they actually said. It
> goes along with what thy didn't say as well, like that they
> never said they used ramps or any ramp builder ever died. All
> those people in the cemeteries and there isn't a single ramp
> builder anywhere.
> Either the tomb builders and ramp draggers are still alive or
> they never existed. You do the math.
> > You haven't shown egyptology is wrong since you don't have a
> > single shred of (real, not imagined) evidence. You have shown
> > to have a vivid imagination, that's all.
> I've got that 6 1/2 million ton shred surrounded by a water
> collection device that transported water to the cliff face at
> the ideal place for counterweights and the words of the
> builders who said in plain English what this "winding waterway"
> was used for. I've even pointed out the routes of the stones
> straight up the side of the pyramid and the routes water took
> under the earth to get here.
Claiming that the "winding waterway" is a machine using water as counterweights is pure fantasy and has nothing to do with literal meaning at all. Just imagination.
BTW there is no such thing as a water collection device on the Giza plateau.
> I might not be right and there's no doubt I'm wrong about at
> least some things but egyptology is wrong about almost
> everything as it concerns the great pyramids. If you build a
> huge construct on a shaky foundation then the result is merely
> a conglomeration of aspects which are a distortion of reality.
> It simply doesn't matter that someone can understand one of
> these aspects in far greater detail than I might ever be able
> to it's still a distorted view when it is founded on premises
> that are untrue. Some of these distortions in understanding
> can be nearly insignificant but for the main part most are too
> twisted out of shape to even recognizable as reality.
Again, how would you know what egyptology is wrong or right about? You stubornly believe they haven't changed since the 19th century and refuse to read books on the subjets. IOW, you don't know what you are talking about.
> > - ramps have been found; no trace of complicated geyser
> > block lifting machinery though (unless you imagine it's
> There is no evidence in the physical world or in the culture to
> show that a single stone was lifted on any great pyramid using
> ramps. No one has proved me wrong on this.
> Yet I can show evidence a child can see that they used
Nope, all evidence you have is imaginary.
> > Egyptology doesn't ignore the evidence, they review it al the
> > time, a lot of things have changed since the start 150 years
> > ago.
> But they are still assuming ramps without any evidence.
> They assume ramps because it works so well to support their
> tomb theory.
Again you make wrong claims about egyptology; egyptology doesn't connect the use of ramps with the function of the pyramids. You're the one who is doing that. This has already been pointed out to you, yet you continue to make these false claims...
> Take away one assumption and it all collapses.
> Why can thy prove tombs in 150 years of digging and
> translating? My guess is they can't prove these were tombs
> because they weren't tombs. If I never even heard of any
> alternative explanations I'd be very concerned that in the
> mountains of evidence they have they can't come up wiuth
> anything more credible than a stone box.
Again, you dismiss the evidence for tombs. Reasoning like that makes it impossible to prove that an emptied tomb is or was ever a tomb.
> > The only one who makes things up Cladking, is you.
> I'd ask for an example but creating or recreating is a form of
> making things up. Historians try to make up a recreation of
> the past and a builder makes up something new.
> I'm making up something from the past. I'll be very proud of
> those things once I'm proven correct.
You're definately making stuff up, that's for sure... But unfortunate for you, you'll never be proven correct.
> >When people
> > point that out you just ignore them in spite of the evidence.
> I's ask for an example but it would be my refusal to accept the
> obvious like ramps or sarcophagi.
> > Your methodology consists off ignoring, denial, dismissal,
> > ridicule and a lot of imagination.
> > IOW a reasonable discussion with you is just impossible (at
> > moment).
> > A pity, if you would put your energy into learning about AE
> > culture you would discover the real mysteries. Perhaps one
> > day...
> I think your real problem with me is that I refuse to accept
> concepts and ideas from later Egyptian history and apply them
> to the great pyramid builders.
You're not making sense here Cladking, you do accept concepts and ideas from later Egyptian history, the PT. But that's ok, egyptology does the same. My problem lies with your so-called literal meaning, that should be obvious by now.
> I'm not going to change this until someone can prove that the
> ancients were just like the later people. This isn't going to
> happen in my opinion because there were changes.
Define "ancients" and "later people" please, can't make much sense of what you are trying to say.