> Yes, of course I believe the Dynastics were
> heavily invested in the funerary context, but I
> believe the presumptions drawn from that context
> on the part of the translation methods may have
> been in error.
Indeed. Egyptologists are just playing semantics and word meanings. In this case their whole belief system hinges on the meaning of the word 'funerary". Most of the utterances in the PT are obviously about the dead king and his ascension to the sky but calling this "funerary" carries a lot of baggage. The texts literally say over and over in many ways that the king doesn't really die at all but is merely transfigured. All the words in the PT are about life and not about the king lying dead in a pyramid. Indeed it specifically states the king is not dead and he actually ascends to heaven on the smoke of incense.
This "funerary" concept is as important to their beliefs as the stone box being a "sarcophagus" and the absence of an obvious means to build indicating they "mustta used ramps". They need the word "neter" to mean an imaginary consciousness or their entire paradigm falls flat on its face.
It is widely agreed tht the PT are "funerary" but there are different understandings of what "funerary" actually means. In light of the fact the PT is merely incantation and can't be understood it's just semantics to label it anything at all. It would be more true to call it 'life affirming" rather than funerary since the words are about life rather than death which is a remarkable achievement for a culture that used the words at what was a funeral held during the w3g-festival!!!
Without tactics, et als, semantics, smoke, mirrors, and insults there is no such thing as the paradigm.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18-Oct-17 18:15 by cladking.