> He merely attempted to make the
> BEST POSSIBLE English translation of the PT and he
> obviously succeeded. It may not be obvious to
> those who haven't studied the literal meaning of
> the glyphs and their translations but it is to me.
I will point out to readers a couple of things here. Mercer's stated intention was to provide the world with an English translation, while the 'accuracy' part was secondary/consequential. Let us be aware Mr Petry ('cladking') feels Mercer 'obviously succeeded' in making the 'best possible' translation of the Pyramid Texts, but that this would require Mr Petry to have fully studied the hieroglyphs themselves in order to measure Mercer's success or failure. Since we know Mr Petry has and continues to refuse to apply scholarship and research toward the original hieroglyphs, his conclusion of Mercer's 'success' is not only wrong, but quite strange.
> Egyptology began this work right from Masperro of
> turning this work into the book of the dead.
For someone who claims to be a student of this discipline, we wonder why Mr Petry would still refer to these later texts as 'the book of the dead', when in fact we know what the ancient Egyptians actually called them, and others. Perhaps we could educate Mr Petry with the following: "The Book of Coming Forth By Day".
> can see this and its evolution quite clearly in
> every translation of the PT. Words that were used
> a single time in the PT are translated and
> assigned the exact same meaning they had in the
> book of the dead. This is what I call deadifying
> the PT.
What Mr Petry calls 'deadifying', others more in tune with the discipline would call 'cross-referencing the grammar/terminology'. For example, when we see a word written in English from our modern era, and see the same letters of the English alphabet used in an English text from 500 years ago, chances are they are the same word, regardless how much the language has been 'altered' by natural influences. In fact, hieroglyph scholars are well aware of the altered dialects from the Old Kingdom, the Middle Kingdom, etc.
They have force fit concepts that didn't
> exist when the PT were written into their
> interpretation. They have turned a book based on
> life and science into one based in death and
> superstition. They are blind to the fact that the
> words in the PT relate to life and not to death.
> Even after they incorrectly translate many words
> about life into death it still is obviously not a
> book about death. It is the rituals read at the
> kings' ascension ceremonies where they become an
> "imperishable star" a mnemonic such that they can
> live forever but Egyptologists learned everything
> they know from tombs so they see death. They see
> a mummy rotting in its tomb while priests dance in
> the corpse dripping and their superstitions has
> the king flying about at night like some mummy
Mr Petry is very clear with contradictions within his own paragraph. First he says it was originally 'science', and his own 'science' (agreed-upon) view is that a person becomes an imperishable star thus will live forever. Sounds pretty ethereal/abstract to me. But then Mr Petry immediately follows by lampooning such an idea as 'superstitious'. His coherence of thought is lost from sentence to sentence.
> The PT is NOT the book of the dead and if anyone
> wants to see author intent I strongly recommend
> they use Mercer's version and not the claptrap
> that was done later.
Strange how it is presented here why Mercer does not qualify as a good resource, let alone the last one standing we should ever reference (" ... not the claptrap that was done later ... "), and yet Mr Petry continues to defy it, actively telling readers to ignore any other scholarship.