> I'm saying that the beliefs and practices of
> people who came after the great pyramids are
> wholly and utterly irrelant to the way and reasons
> the pyramids were built. This is one of the four
> big assumptions of Egytology; that the people
> never changed. In reality there is only cause and
> effect and the pyramids nor their builders can
> possibly be an effect of later people. It's
> simply impossible.
Pete's point is about consistency. When you look at the structure of funeral beliefs from at least the Vth Dynasty to the Late Period, the consistency is intact. Very little changed over thousands of years, which is amazing when you consider the progression of human beliefs in other regions and eras. It is a staggering accomplishment to have to remained so true to a funeral formula. If you would like some links to documents on this subject, please advise, I will do my best to help.
> Egyptology ASSUMES the people were the same
> because when they parse the Pyramid Texts they see
> what they think is the exact same religion of
> later people. But the reality is far different.
> The reality is the only similarity between the PT
> and the book of the dead is they employ the same
> vocabulary. The book of the dead is
> understandable but the PT is not. YOU CAN'T
> UNDERSTAND PEOPLE BASED ON SOMETHING THAT ISN'T
> UNDERSTOOD!!!!!! This is such an obvious thing
> but Egyptology doesn't get it.
Have you had a chance to read and compare the large corpus of texts which say otherwise? Fair warning: it will require a lot of spare time and dedicated reading.
> > So, intrusive burials aren't indicators that
> > believed they had a funerary function? What
> > fully intact original, contemporary mummies
> > Merenre?
> > Or even the fact
> > that well into the New Kingdom Egyptians were
> > buried in pyramids like those in the Theban
> It's cause and then effect.
> It is never the other way
> > Or Egyptian texts from trials detailing
> > that they looted pyramid tombs?
> And these writing are from AFTER the great pyramid
> building age. They are good evidence that the
> later little tiny piles of rubble euphimistically
> called "pyramids" were, in fact, tombs.
Well, yes they do. They specifically relate to past events, and highlight antiquated thievery, i.e. robbing tombs was commonplace.
> How can there be a
> mountain of evidence yet nobody has ever come up
> with any sort, type, or kind of evidence that they
> were tombs?
Did you watch Pete's video? I remain bewildered when people are given evidence, then complain they were not given evidence.
> Then add in
> the actual words of the builders specifically
> said they were the ka of the king and his tomb was
> in the sky and the belief they were tombs seems
> very misplaced.
Well, yes, that's the clear esoteric rendering they had of the structure. But it 'processed' the soul - prepared it - for the journey to the sky.
Let me ask you: You agree they had kings, yes? That these kings held an important hierarchical position in society (the living Horus; 'god' represented in physical form)? And with such reverence, a grand structure was only reserved for them, not the general public (do you see millions of pyramids?)?
Ok, then ... if they aren't tombs, where did they put the bodies of pharaohs? Seems even the high court officials got tombs all over Giza and Egypt (plenty with remains intact.) Was pharaoh's body chucked into the Nile? The desert? Thrown to the hyenas? Surely they received a proper burial in a structure equal to their import, and at least greater then 'lower' officials?
You tell us. If they aren't tombs, where are the bodies? Heretofore not-a-one ever found elsewhere?