And this how they wrote in ancient times. The meaning got lost and now we think they wrote hymns and religious mumbo-jumbo. Whilst everything else they wrote was exact and descriptive in nature. Yet we exempt these because we lack understanding."
I wholeheartedly agree with you that they wrote literally. Eg. Result: "The dog ran down the street." Understood.
Had they deliberately applied esoterics and poetry, we'd be lost. Eg. Result: "Ferfloofin glade his wings upon the Lane of Winding Love." We'd never know what they meant.
But they wrote literally based on what was literal to them; they did the best they could to interpret the environment given the level of understanding they had of it. For example, all they knew of the sun was that it was a flat disc rising in an area of the horizon, travelling across the sky, and setting in another area. Because they did not know what we know of the sun today, the best they could conceive of it was to apply a god-like interpretation (Kheper/Ra/Amun respectively.) The sun then assumed abstract qualities, but not because it was a choice, but because they couldn't conceive of it any other way.
We do not think it was religious mumbo-jumbo, and many scholars have and continue to resolve items which appear non-descript or allusive.
I kindly disagree with you that aspects of their 'religion' were passed on without the slightest inkling of understanding; the rituals were certainly not puppeted acts lost in translation. Although I understand where you're coming from, I just don't think the reasoning is sound.
For the most part we know what they were trying to convey. Your points seem to be an attempt to open the gates of interpretation to suit whatever theory requires the texts to be mumbo-jumbo, i.e. Cladking's views.