> I understand my "interpretation" is supremely
> difficult to accept for everyone and this goes
> many times over for Egyptologists.
Have you presented them to Egyptology at a forum or speaking engagement? Perhaps submitted a paper to a journal in that field?
> 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.
I don't see how modern metaphysics applies to the PT, or any other AE writing. I feel projecting our views in this area onto them is foolhardy.
> It still
> required genius to get where Egyptology got.
> They're always wrong but this is perfectly
If they are completely wrong, then you relieve yourself from using any of their versions of translation for your purposes. You therefore cannot cite a word meaning from the WB; cannot employ a single item of work from the entire Egyptological catalogue. Sounds over the top from me? Don't mean to, it just comes across that way, and it seems the only way to go. If you such deep concerns, the way around it is make an official presentation.
> 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.
It's because it does.
> could also be a lot more grammatical "mistakes"
> that could have alerted Maspero that this language
> was different.
Could you explain the reference to Maspero here?
> 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.
It was drawn from modern Coptic, but it is like (rather, worse than) using modern English to decipher ancient English. Languages morph over time, so that's why some of it remains elusive.
> 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.
The PTs do not say the pyramids were not tombs. The describe a mere portion of their function.
> 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
Again, official presentation would help.
> 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.
Do you feel it is a waste because they don't receive your view well?
> Meaning in the ancient language was expressed
> differently and exists in layers and is defined by
Ancient language can't be translated
I agree even more.
> 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;
But, as I said, compare this to Faulkner:
"I am this head-band of red colour which went forth from the 'Iht the great ..." [Faulkner:186-7]
Knowing this slight difference, what do you feel is the next step when reviewing these texts?
> 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.
Source for this?
I would begin with 'Iht, which you have appended wtt ('beget') [Gardiner:562], whereas Faulkner follows with 'the great', which is wrt [Ibid: 561]. See also 'Iht as the phoneme in 'domain'. Compare relation to 'akhet' for further study. Current result is, " ... went forth from the great domain ... "
How you got to CO2 is quite the stretch.
> 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
The good part is that your actually trying, while others just cite lines. This will pay great dividends down the line for you. Of course, I disagree with your conclusion here, but that's not to say your attempts are futile.
> 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.
I was following, but then, you've introduced metaphysics (plus a relationship to science?) which I don't concur with.
> 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 astronomy.
I'd agree here.
> > 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.
> > 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.
If you keep up the translation work, I can promise one day you'll break through to see the gods were more than nomenclature. So on the one hand I disagree about taking gods out of the equation, and on the other agree some is missed by how they are interpreted.
Faulkner, R.O., "The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts", Oxford, 1989 Ed.
Gardiner, Sir A, "Egyptian Grammar", Griffith Institute, Oxford, 3rd Ed. 1973