> Egyptologists expect to
> see evidence consistent with tombs dragged up
But they're not looking in the PT to find whether or not pyramids are tombs. I believe you are assuming they are looking there. This creates a strawman perspective.
> This is because modern people tend not to
> understand metaphysics. Of course it's more
> complicated than this because metaphysics is a
> product of language just as modern people are.
> When we see a sentence from ancient times we cast
> about looking for the definitions of words to
> force it to make sense to us.
Yes, seems natural to want it to makes sense.
> We can almost
> always force one to make sense but then we don't
> notice that all the sentences are contradictory
> and writings have no self consistency.
Yes and no. A few things may be contradictory and may lack consistency. But certainly not all of it. As I said in another reply, I think it has more to do with some texts being incomplete rather than incorrect.
> We simply don't see that the ancient language
> itself was metaphysical because we don't
> understand our own metaphysics. Ancienrt language
> itself was their metaphysics.
The difference might be that they weren't trying to be metaphysical at all. Their intent was to be as literal as they could be; they didn't set out in advance to write poetry.
> > If you such deep
> > concerns, the way around it is make an official
> > presentation.
> I seriously doubt I'd be allowed.
If you at least put up a detailed paper to establish the core of your critique, it may open some doors -- even if it is non-conformal. At least trying is worth it.
> One almost has to understand the concept that one
> plus one doesn't equal two in order to understand
> the PT. Even if they were to accept some sort of
> paper written by me they wouldn't read it. If
> they started reading it they wouldn't finish. If
> they finished it would just be for the laugh.
Perhaps you're not so sure about your views?
> The very concept that the ancients meant exactly
> what they said literally and that they were
> exactly correct is simply beyond what
> Egyptological belief can consider.
> > > 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.
> Yes, indeed. This is because the vocabulary
> didn't change when the language changed and
> because the authors of the book of the dead
> misunderstood the Pyramid Texts in the exact same
> way we do.
I would suggest perusing Middle Egyptian language. Faulkner and Allen. (Ps. Never get only one book; comparing them helps to 'dig out' the inconsistencies you are speaking of ... and many of which I have found.)
> > Could you explain the reference to Maspero here?
> He was first to translate the PT
Well, no. He found them. I believe the first attempt at translation was by Sethe (whom Faulkner and Gardiner heavily rely on.)
> > The PTs do not say the pyramids were not tombs.
> > The describe a mere portion of their function.
> The only function they speak to is as a water
> source and they hint at use as laundries etc.
> They said the pyramid was the king who didn't rot
> in the earth and his tomb was in the sky;
> 616d. Thou art given over to thy mother Nut, in
> her name of "Grave";
> 616e. she has embraced thee, in her name of
> 616f. thou art brought to her, in her name of
> They said this many times in many ways and they
> were highly consistent.
Lost me ... I was saying the PT give a portion of what a pyramid's function was, and you answered the function is as a water source? Plus, the Utt you give as an example does not even show the water aspect you brought to the table.
> > Knowing this slight difference, what do you
> > is the next step when reviewing these texts?
> Obviously what's most needed is a literal
> retranslation of the text by someone who
> understands their meaning. This would look less
> like modern language but would be more
> comprehensible to those who do understand. Even
> the uninitiated could pick out more meaning with
> study. But most importantly the rules of grammar
> would emerge and this would cause more meaning to
> be visible.
Much agreed. When I started out a long time ago, it became more and more apparent with each new reference work I needed to get back to the source -- the actual glyphs themselves on the walls and papyrii. Not someone's original drawings; clear, legible photography of the texts.
> .... CO2, etc ... [clipped]
> 2110b. ’I3;.t-wt.t, thou art not enveloped by
> the earth.
> 2110c. Thy fame is by day; thy fear is by night,
> as a god, lord of fear.
> 2110d. Thou commandest the gods like the mighty
> one, chief of the mighty.
> 2111. [O] Osiris, the overflow comes, the
> inundation hastens, Geb groans.
> It is CO2 that causes the water to not be
> enveloped by the earth. It is CO2 that gets lots
> of attention by day but is fatal at night when
> solar heating stops and the wind slows. It is the
> ending of CO2 being enveloped by the earth that
> brings the inundation in the uplands.
> CO2's words were;
> Scientific; "i3.t-wt.t" (risings begetter,
> Colloquial; "efflux" (osiris)
> vulgar; "sweat"
> The bubbles of CO2 were called "spirits" (ie
> spirits well equipped by reason of their mouth)
> and stars.
I tried to edit down your post here (above) for clarity in my response. Hope you don't mind.
I really can't see the transition from what is written by the AE to CO2. One glaring problem I see is they did not (could not) have know what CO2 was .. as in, distinguishable from air. This level of chemistry did not come until thousands of years later, i.e. our modern age.
Also, I think we're really stretching this tangent discussion into a whole new realm. I don't feel it's something I'd like to pursue at this time.
> Thanks for thinking about the last post. It's
> probably much farther than I've gotten before.
> I know all this is very difficult to believe
> because it flies in the face of what we all think
> we know. I was very surprised at every step as
I agree there are problems with some translation, wherein my perspective is of incompleteness, or a combination of the latter with outright error. Unfortunately, I cannot join in agreement with your translations because - at this point - I don't see strong connections in what you convey (in some cases I don't see the connection at all.)
I'm not asking you to give up. The fact that you're even on the path is a good sign. Just may need a sturdier set of wheels, i.e. study material for your cart. :)