> This is fallacious. The myths which survive do not attest to
> this idea in any way or form. He was, in fact, killed in most
> versions of the Osirian myth which demonstrates he was 'living'
> and not "born dead", as you have claimed.
Of course your conclusions could be right. But, your story of Osiris is Greek in origin and not Egyptian. Even if it were Egyptian it is derived from the book of the dead and not the Pyramid Texts. This "story" isn't known from before the Greeks and is not supported by the PT. I can't even really tell you what the PT says because everything it says is contradicted somewhere else leading to any interpretation anyone chooses to make.
Whether or not he was "born dead" is mere semantics but the simple fact is he was a mummified non existent being and came into existence as a mummified non existent being according to Egyptology. Yes, He is also considered the annual flood since the PT specifically state he is cool water that tosses at Giza. So he is a non existent being who was born dead and is cool effervescent water. He is many other things as well such as the non existent being who falls in the ndit-canal after being slayed by set with the help of thot.
You can't get a handle on the PT because it is not consistent in our terms. Each god is first and powerful. Each god has highly nwegative attributes as well;
1267a. Let not Osiris come in this his evil coming;
1267b. do not open to him thine arms.
1267c. Let him be gone; let (him) go to Ndi.t; at once; let him be gone to ‘dȝ.
So he's a non-existent being who was born as a mummy and dies in the ndit-canal on a regular basis while other times leaking corpse drippings in heaven which people need a sharp soul and to walk on tip toe to get through. Of course this same non-existent being is also cool water at Giza.
We even know that Osiris smells like the eye of horus;
1754. To say: Osiris N., take to thyself the odour of the eye of Horus, like the eye of Horus, which he traced by its odour.
But these corpse dripping smell good it would seem;
1801c. it will collect thy flesh; it will let thy evil sweat flow to the ground.
1802a. Take its odour to thee, that thy odour may be sweet like that of Rē‘,
1802b. when he ascends in the horizon, and the gods of the horizon delight in him.
1803a. O N., the odour of the eye of Horus is upon thee;
I could go on like this all day because the PT really is about osiris and his nature and according to Egyptology this is the most convoluted and illogical referent ever devised by the minds of man. Osiris is simply an impossibility even as a belief because it requires one to hold contradictory concepts and definitions. This is the PT; constant contradiction and inconsistency. There's no "story" in it and there's no reason whatsoever to beliueve it has the same meaning as the book of the dead.
It's like Egyptologists went to extreme effort to translate this so anyone could read it and then they neglected to actually read it themselves. Meanwhile the physical evidence has been getting pounded into a framework of this utter nonsense for a century and a half. In other words they take "osiris" to be a "god" who happens to have whatever attributes are relevant to aspecific conversation. Other conflicting attributes are simply ignored until they become relevant.
These problems hardly apply only to "osiris", they apply to almost every proper noun in the PT as well as many regular nouns like "boat". Trying to express an understanding of ancient people in such terms simply causes a person to sound like a mystic. Forcing the physical evidence into this creates a paradigm incapable of making accurate predictions.
It's hard to rule out any theory when the evidence is so shallow and open to such broad interpretation. Even the evidence appears to be in doubt in some cases though obviously the pyramid was buily by Suphis, Cheops, Khufu, or whomever.