cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The saddest thing about Egyptology ands their
> supporters is the total inability to actually
> address the points raised by those who don't agree
> with their assumptions. If you don't believe in
> changeless and stinky footed bumpkins dragging
> tombs up ramps they can't see your statements and
> can't follow your logic. These assumptions are
> part and parcel of what means to be an
> Egyptologist. There is no such thing as an
> Egyptologist who doesn't believe and no such thing
> as an Egyptologist who won't wax poetic about the
> power of superstition.

It makes me think of the Almagest (2nd cent a.d.). This book if full of math calculations (context) showing the heavens revolve around the earth. It would be believed until the 1500's. If Ptolemy's conclusions were wrong, his calculations were also wrong. I relate this to what you say about translations. If the original calculations (context) are wrong, so are the translations.

The big question from the alts seems to be - WHY do you say such and such.
And the big answer is always "context", which is only composed of what the Egyptologists have concluded. If we question the basis, the original calculations, we are insulted. It's an interesting phenomenon that those who are questioned, throw the insults.

> I have a lot of
> questions but not one of them can be addressed by
> believers because none of my questions reflect
> their assumptions.

And the questions probably won't be addressed for a couple hundred years, since Egyptology has no interest in using science to investigate the pyramids. They believe they have the answers and nothing else is necessary.