> I doubt egyptology is completely mistaken about everything
> after the 5th dynasty. I have no reason to believe they are
> wrong about anything after the 5th dynasty.
> But all the known facts suggest they are mistaken about almost
> everything before the 5th dynasty. I'm referring here to the
> important things like how and why they built the pyramids and
> what these people believed. I'm not suggesting thy're wrong
> about where the provincial capitals were or who was buried in
> Campbell's tomb (if anyone).
There are no facts to suggest such a thing.
> The builders of the great pyramids distinctly and repeatedly
> said the great pyramids were not tombs.
I know you believe that, no need to repeat that in every post.
They never suggested
> that the king needed to memorize 20,000 words to read to the
> Gods and attain the afterlife. The people did not believe the
> things egyptologists ascribe to them. It would have been
> impossible to build the pyramids the way egyptologists say they
Why would that be immpossible? Building a complicated machine that was geyserpowered using water as counterweights is a 1000 times more "impossible". Especially since there's no evidence for geysers and no evidence for complicated machinery. Pulling stone blocks up ramps is realistic and reasonable.
> The builders said that the Gods built the pyramids
> by getting out the boats, ropes, and ladders.
> These people were not sun addled.
No one claims such a thing.
> They knew what they were
> saying and meant what they said. The king and the stones went
> to heaven in a boat that flew up and alit. This agrees with
> the evidence as well.
I seriously doubt that...(exept the part "they knew what they were saying")
> You won't argue any of these facts because you already know the
> evidence is on my side.
Problem is...they aren't facts... and I know for a 100% that the evidence isn't on your side (since you don't have any).
> The words of the builders are on my
I know you believe that.
> Egyptology is wrong and the proof is they don't know any
> of the 17 sceptres, the ankh, or anything important about the
What do 17 sceptres and the ankh have to do with actual pyramid building? Answer: nothing at all.
Problem is: you assume that the PT must be taken literaly which is of course a wrong assumption. Then you procede to give hidden meanings to Gods, sceptres etc. which has nothing to do with literal meaning but everything with personal interpretation (I know that you don't accept this, don't know why though since it's obvious for almost everyone). Using a method like this you make "fit" whatever you want of course. Then you continue to claim this "literal meaning" concerns the so-called "great pyramids" and not the pyramids the PT were found in...
Egyptologists are very carefull when claiming a certain part of the PT is older; there has to be evidence for the existence of the gods / rituals etc. mentioned for example. Even then they are carefull to make conclusions since atributes and meanings of gods are known to evolve. A god in the PT that we know existed already in the 2nd dyn might not have had a certain attribute, meaning etc. in the 2nd dyn that is ascribed to him in the PT.
Yet you somehow seem to know how to pinpoint the parts that concern the "great pyramids"... I don't think so.
Fact is: you don't have a shred of archaeological evidence to support your claims.