> charly wrote:
> > I know you believe that, no need to repeat that in every
> If you don't like the builders saying they weren't tombs take
> it up with them. They're all spinning in their graves so stop
> one and tell him the complaint. Hell, ask him why they didn't
> think pyramids were tombs.
The builders say no such thing, you just think / immagine they do.
> > Why would that be immpossible? Building a complicated machine
> > that was geyserpowered using water as counterweights is a
> > times more "impossible". Especially since there's no evidence
> > for geysers and no evidence for complicated machinery.
> > stone blocks up ramps is realistic and reasonable.
> But it's unevidenced.
> What's evidenced is using balance.
Ramps are there, were's the balance?
> > Problem is: you assume that the PT must be taken literaly
> > is of course a wrong assumption.
> What I've done is show that the Pyramid Texts have a literal
> meaning and suggested that about the only possible cause is
> that they were meant literally.
And why does almost everyone think it's your immagination instead of the literal meaning?
> > Then you procede to give
> > hidden meanings to Gods, sceptres etc. which has nothing to
> > 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).
> These are not "hidden meanings". They are stated in the plain
> English of the translations. It's orthodoxy that looks for
> hidden meaning in a metaphoric interpretation.
No, Cladking they don't state Osiris is a geyser, you make that up. You try to re-write the whole concept of AE religion; a religion you haven't even tried to study or understand.
> I'm just reading it in black and white. When they say that the
> king flew up to heaven in a boat that is the actual literal
> meaning. If they say stones fly like swallows it's because
> that's what they look like flying up tpo the pyramid being
> pulled by counterweights. But it doesn't stop here; almost the
> entire work has a coherent literal meaning.
Flying and being pulled up a pyramid the same??? Immagination needed here, no literal meaning and so it goes on with every aspect of the PT you mention...
> > Using a
> > method like this you make "fit" whatever you want of course.
> It's orthodoxy with free reign in interpretation. I am bound
> by what they actually said. If they describe a rainbow, and
> then define a rainbow in perfectly accurate terms and then name
> it a bow or a sky arc then logically there is a damn good
> chance that they mean "rainbow". Just because Osiris is
> adorned with a rainbow and sweats yeast gas onto the sand
> doen't prove anything but it certainly is a pretty good reason
> to get out there and look for geysers.
You think they describe a rainbow, that doesn't make it a fact. For Osiris sweating yeast gas goes the same.
BTW IIRC you already had your theory about geysers, before you "discovered" them in the PT.
> > Then you continue to claim this "literal meaning" concerns
> > so-called "great pyramids" and not the pyramids the PT were
> > found in...
> There is a very obvious difference between great pyramids and
> the little pointy things built later. Why does orthodoxy not
> see this.
Egyptology does see this, but you apparantly don't see that the 4th and 5th dyn pyramid-complexes have more in common than those of the 3rd and 4th dyn.
> > Egyptologists are very carefull when claiming a certain part
> > the PT is older; there has to be evidence for the existence
> > the gods / rituals etc. mentioned for example.
> Good for them. I like it when scholars take care in making
> pronouncements. But it still doesn't answer why so little is
Why so little is known? A lot has been lost over the milennia, some answers we may never find due to the partial or total destruction of the evidence. For some mysteries a reasonable assumption or best guess is all we gonna get. The real danger is proclaiming these reasonable assumptions or best guesses to be proven facts. Of course beginning to make up stuff is worse still.
> Even if I'm right about the PT and no one else is I'm not
> really an expert on them. One needs more knowledge than I on
> this subject to be a proper expert. But some of these are very
> datable if the intent is literal. Some might actually be dated
> to the day they were written someday if I'm right. You can
> just tell which pyramid and how far along sometimes.
> > Even then they
> > are carefull to make conclusions since atributes and meanings
> > of gods are known to evolve.
> Evolution isn't nearly so large a factor as locale in this
> instance probably. Religion was local and the PT are the local
> religion where water sprayed from the earth. They evolved for
> decades before our first copy but most of this evolution was
> apparently removing a live Atum and replacing him with a less
> live Osiris. Atum kicked the bucket as it were.
As long as you don't have any geological evidence for geysers at the sites of the so-called "great pyramids", no one is going to take your so-called "literal meaning" of the PT seriously.
> > 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
> > in the PT.
> > Yet you somehow seem to know how to pinpoint the parts that
> > concern the "great pyramids"... I don't think so.
> No. The entire work is ritual. There's no magic in it.
erm... ritual and magic are closely connected...
> > Fact is: you don't have a shred of archaeological evidence
> > support your claims.
> All the archaeolgical evidence supports the concept. None of
> it supports ramps or even sheds any light on the sceptres or
> icons. These icons are explained in terms of the literal
> meaning as are several of the sceptres (machine parts).
There's no archaeological evidence to support your concept. Show the evidence please.