> Since the pure, original language of the ancient
> Egyptians is long gone, we should recognize there
> will be moments of natural errors, however, this
> is a far, far cry from meaning 'completely wrong'
> in every way. Modern translations of ancient
> Egyptian texts can never be 'perfect', but they
> can be regarded as generally fluent. Thus, while
> Mercer can provide ample opportunity for study,
> the works should not the basis upon which any
> intrepid 'glypher' should rely.
Of course Egyptology using unscientific and unholy methodology could have managed to get the translation "completely wrong". Indeed, there was every opportunity to be so far off they "weren't even wrong". They have to get much closer to author intent to be considered merely wrong if their methodology affects the results. Even the translators themselves have said things like they can only circumscribe the meaning but the reality is they circumscribed the meaning of the words but wholly and utterly missed author intent. I think I've made it clear already in this thread why Egyptologists hate Mercer so much. But let's look at what Mercer actually wrote.
There are several passages where author intent clearly shines through in Mercer's translation but this doesn't exist in any other because later English translators applied such poor methodology.
The best example is here but if anyone can see author intent here, I'd be happy to cite others as well.
445a. To say: O Hrti of Nsȝ.t, ferryman of the ’Iḳh.t-boat, made by Khnum,
445b. bring this (boat) to N. N. is Seker of R-Śtȝ.w.
445c. N. is on the way to the place of Seker, chief of Pdw-š.
445d. It is our brother who is bringing this (boat) for these bridge-girderers (?) of the desert.
445a the "ferryman" is bringing a well made "boat".(khumn was the phenomenon of craftsmanship)
445b this boat is to be brought to "seker" who was said to "tow the earth by means of balance" and he is in "R-Śtȝ.w." (this means "Rosteau" which means "Mouth of Caves" and is the ancient name for Giza.
445c the dead king also goes to Giza; to "seker" "Chief of "Spread Lake".
445d It is "our brother" bringing a boat to the "bridge girderers of the desert." (those who build bridges in deserts)
If you don't know what these terms mean and don't know they used funiculars called "the two boats tied together" to build pyramids which were "bridges" for the king to ascend to heaven then these words might look like superstitious claptrap. But once the words are solved for context then I can merely say that they are consistent with the use of funiculars and Egyptology used extraordinarily poor methodology to translate the words. Rather than trying to solve the meaning of words by context they instead solved them in terms of a book that wouldn't be written for ten centuries!!!
Many times and many places the ancients made it quite clear what many of these words actually meant but instead Egyptology translated what the words meant to later generations instead, and they did this quite consistently.
I think it's telling that Egyptology refuses to discuss this with me. Sure, they're willing to point out where their theory differs but they won't comment on things like why the builders consistently used words in ways that are not in agreement with changeless stinky footed bumpkins dragging tombs up ramps.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 27-Jan-18 03:16 by cladking.