> First, let me say I appreciate how you read this
> text. Honestly.
I understand my "interpretation" is supremely difficult to accept for everyone and this goes many times over for Egyptologists.
It's funny that I started reading Egyptological opinion about the PT a few years back and was simply amazed at their ability to be exactly correct but always in a left handed sort of way. It's difficult for me in some cases to figure out how they got something right when they don't even understand what the author meant.
Now I realize that most of these things are related to the nature of language and epistemology. Most are a direct result of not understanding the ancient metaphysics and not having a working knowledge, a visceral understanding, of modern metaphysics. It still required genius to get where Egyptology got. They're always wrong but this is perfectly logical.
With the nature of ancient and modern language and their similarities it's just a shame that there aren't more direct contradictions. It's mere sample bias that the PT happens to sound like the book of the dead in almost every instance. There could also be a lot more grammatical "mistakes" that could have alerted Maspero that this language was different. There could have been some intention somewhere that makes the ancient language sound a little like modern language. I can imagine several ways this could have occurred naturally such as using versions of text that that sounded "right" to those who no longer spoke the ancient language.
Whatever the case the PT still says the pyramids were not tombs. These are mere rituals read to the crowds so it's not logical to expect a great deal of direct evidence for their "beliefs" or how they understood their enviroment.
Egyptologists who read my interpretations must see about the same thing; that I am right in a left handed sort of way. Of course almost no one reads it.
> Continuing, I note you are using Mercer (nothing
> wrong with that at all), but I would say you will
> find great joy when comparing to Faulkner. Also,
> be aware of the full utterance (510) and others of
> similar content. Example, in Faulkner S1147 (you
> stopped at S1146) has something very interesting
> to say. Rain isn't red.
I believe I have a nearly full understanding of #510. I know from experience that interpreting these utterances for people is a waste of time. Meaning in the ancient language was expressed differently and exists in layers and is defined by perspective. Ancient language can't be translated directly. It would have to exist as logic and flow charts. Most people wouldn't understand these either and those who did still wouldn't believe it. I believe you are referring to;
1147a. N. is the red bandage, who comes forth from the great ’Iḫ.t;
This is the dead king who exists as the pyramid and the water which is driven by "’Iḫ.t-wt.t" which is CO2. This word means "risings begetter" because it causes cake, foam, and the water at Giza to rise. This water contains large amounts of siderite dissolved from egyptian red sandstone which stains the bottom 162 1/2' of the pyramid red. The dead king is also this staining. In life he was responsible for everything and in death he is everything. The king like the staining comes forth from the great rising (water).
> think what you'll agree with is we are looking at
> it from a fresh 'oustide' perspective, i.e. no so
> blinded by their early conflations.
I do believe other interpretations are possible but I doubt any are as consistent with the actual words and known science. It's difficult for people to even see this consistency with known science (God knows I've tried extensively) because few people understand metaphysics or its relationship to established science. They see even metaphysics in terms only of what they know and scientific models making science itself a sort of circular argument to most practitioners. It's right because it's right because it's right.
> I would think a hydraulic cycle is immediate in
> their environment, thus more easily 'discovered'.
The language was universal but it would hardly be surprising that it was the Egyptians who discovered the hydraulic cycle. When the wind was off the Sahara it was hot and dry and when it was off the sea it was cooler and rained. They lived on a river rather than lived in the land with a river running through. This and the hot dry enviroment certainly simplified the observations needed to discover "nehebkau".
> Observing boiling water on a fire pit could pique
> an inquisitive AE. As for the sun, the tangible is
> completely lost; the could not know it was a
> monstrous sphere of fire 93 million miles away;
> that we were on a sphere travelling around it;
> that the moon phases were a consequence of this;
> etc. When the ancients questioned what they saw,
> they came up with a pretty good, reasoned idea ..
> to them. It 'made sense' it was a god
> crossing 'nut' (the sky) on a barque.
I worked a lot on developing the ancient science. I think you'd be amazed how much they knew. Some of their estimates were way off but they had a decent cosmology and an excellent astonomy.
> Do they get it all wrong? No. The more material
> you dive into, it becomes more apparent the
> general understanding is locked in quite good. But
> not all of it, otherwise they still wouldn't be
> writing books about it, right?
So long as Egyptology believes in "gods" they are missing one third of the language and the subject of every sentence.