> 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.
Thank you, I'm sure.
The problem here is you are claiming to know about the beliefs of people in the 5th dynasty and I know you can't substantiate this. Yes, There is some writing that survives and, yes, some of this is understood but most of it is not. None of the science is known. Even if you could show a complete unbderstanding of the 5th dynasty (and you can't) you can't say anything about earlier times such as when the great pyramids were built. The Pyramid Texts itself is understood only in terms of later writing. Even the simplest terms like w3s-sceptre, eye of horus, or ankh are not understood as to their meaning and origin. Egyptology doesn't know a ba-sceptre from a tie of isis. They can't tell a cartouche from a dm-sceptre. They can't say how to lift a stone beyond that they mustta used ramps.
So why are there no tomb builders or stone draggers? Why were there no "quarrymen"? Where is the evidence that any of the culture or any of the beliefs are understood? Appeals to "cultural context" are meaningless when you can't answer fundamental questions about that culture. Why isn't the word "ramp" attested from the great pyramid building age?
> 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.
I have no interest in Egyptological writings. I have studied everything concurrent with the great pyramid building age or ealier in depth. There's not much to read.
> Well, yes they do. They specifically relate to
> past events, and highlight antiquated thievery,
> i.e. robbing tombs was commonplace.
Cause ands effect occur in order. Every single thing that happened or was believed after the great pyramid building age from the 5th dynasty to today is irrelevant to how and why the pyramids were built. You would first have to show something was relevant. Egyptology did it backward; they showed something existed later and projected it back to the pyramids. This is improper methodology.
> Did you watch Pete's video? I remain bewildered
> when people are given evidence, then complain they
> were not given evidence.
We've been through all this before and blown it out of the water point by point by point. There's nothing left but floatsom by the time each point is analyzed. It isn't "evidence" at all, it is merely the reason that Egyptology believes in tombs. If you'd read other peoples' opinions maybe you'd see where the real evidence leads. There are lots of good theories but orthodoxy is largely just a series of circular arguments that don't add up to the evidence.
> 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.
There's no such thing as magic and the ancients didn't believe in it. They assumed the existence of reality; amun. Somehow Egyptologists can't talk about pyramids without appeals to magic or belief in magic.
> 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?)?
It's far more complex than this. The king was chief and ruled absolutely so long as he remained robust and healthy. When he weakened or ages they practiced regicide and he ascended to become a star. Stars were simply mnemonics to remember their history and great individuals. But it wasn't only kings who were assigned stars but all important men and women; everyone who made contributions to knowledge and humanity. "Horus" was the concept of the Land of the Horizon up out of the Nile Valley. But horus was really two concepts and the second was the horus in the rays of the sun; the concrete horus who was born with no feet and no arms. Horus the younger was given birth by isis through osiris and was the stone of which the pyramid was constructed. The king was the pyramid and it was his ka making each horus part of the dead king.
Most of this is pretty simple if you just read the PT.
It really doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong since Egyptological methodolgy is STILL FLAWED. There's plenty of room for both of us to be wrong. Since Egyptology is so illogical it's not likely it is correct. If it were then they'd probably be doing simple science and not hiding results.
> 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'
Right in this very thread!!!
It's hard to see what doesn't fit preconceptions.
> You tell us. If they aren't tombs, where
> are the bodies? Heretofore not-a-one ever found
The king's tomb is in the sky.
Ashes to ashes dust to dust...
Expecting ashes to survive 4,750 years is unreasonable. In all probability most of them were lost when the ceramic jar they were in got broken within decades after their cremation.
It's entirely reasonable to suppose that these ashes along with the ashes of the kindling and the incense was all just shoveled into the winding watercourse. It would make good fertilizer and they'd be well aware of this fact. Since the body was mummified it would require very little kindling to make it burn up.
There are lots of bodies missing from that era. This fact proves that no structure is a tomb.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09-Feb-16 02:17 by cladking.