I am not willing to get into yet another philosophical diatribe with this poster, mainly because his overall points are merit-less. However, I will comment on the following quote from Sam Petry, aka 'cladking':
"... However Mercer's literal meaning is extremely close to author intent. Since I determined author intent by solving the literal meaning of Mercer's translations it's hardly surprising that I believe this."
The reasoning espoused here is beguiling. Mr Petry concludes he knows the original intent of the ancient Egyptian authors by 'translating' an error-ridden English translation of an earlier imperfect German translation. An original author's intent can only be gleaned from direct translation of the hieroglyphs appearing on pyramids walls. It is fair to judge such affirmative proclamations as not only flawed in the extreme, but quite bizarre all around as well.
Sam Petry 'believes' he has the original author's intent pinned down by virtue of having pinned it down himself.
Nothing more to say here. My opening post simply points out why Mercer is not a good resource. QED. There is nothing Mr Petry can argue that would alter this fact, as much as he would like to try.