eyeofhorus33 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You wrote:
>
>

Quote

I could even cite chapter and verse of how
> what was said got tangled up in confusion to
> become the beliefs of the authors of the book of
> the dead and eventually the beliefs of
> Egyptologists.

>
> I lay down that gauntlet.
>
> Having explained my position to you, I'd now like
> an opportunity to see you elucidate your
> reasoning.
>
> The floor is all yours.

No!

As I said, "Such endeavor would be wasted time though. How do you parse confusion even where its origins are right before you?".

I'm not going to get involved in the minutia of confusion even where it's painfully obvious to me. However I am willing to point out a couple of things. To the ancients everything was a function of theory which they called gods. This is exactly what modern scientists believe as well but the ancients knew their total knowledge was insignificant and we are truly "homo omnisciencis". Since reality expressed itself as this theory we confusedly understand as "gods" it simply follows logically that we'd believe the ancients thought the gods were all powerful. Since they were "named" we confusedly think they believed they were individuals rather than anthropomorphized reality. Since they were anthropomorphized they are ascribed functions consistent with animals and humans so we confusedly think they believed in walking and talking consciousnesses that determined mans' destiny. None of these things is real. Neters were natural phenomena developed by natural science and were merely a placeholder in a metaphysical language. This same confusion we have today was exactly the same as the confusion of the authors of the book of the dead from which Egyptologists borrowed to translate and interpret the Ancient Language.

My favorite example though is the "duat". This was the spraying water which resulted from the interactions of the gods. Together they produced not everything known about them, but the spraying water itself; the duat or d3.t

This was represented by the arm of nut expressed as a circle with a bubble known as an "imperishable star" inside. The hole through which the water sprayed was an arm of the "sky" and it was only imperishable styars (CO2) that drove the water up. "Duat" always meant spraying water and only spraying water in the PT and it is only used in this exact context which I used to deduce the meaning. It is obviously spraying water in context since it is "atum" standing in the eye of horus.

Eventually the spraying water died so atum was written out of the silly little rituals and dead "osiris" was inserted in his place. "Osiris" thus became lord of the duat but the only thing left of the spraying water were natural processes under the earth that no longer created columns of water. Osiris was a dead god of the dead gods in the ground.

You can trace all the confusion back to the very beginning and this will provide great insights into what the sun addled bumpkins who wrote the Bible were thinking. It will provide insights into many Bible passages such as the story of the Tower of Babel. We are the confused offspring of the tower builders and can't even see that language is still confused or that there used to be a global metaphysical language. We can see only what we expect to see so everything we see is within our knowledge base. We are truly "homo omnisciencis"; a little confused, none too smart, and wholly ignorant but this doesn't affect our beliefs.

Well... ...mebbe I can parse confusion. ;)




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 13-Jan-18 20:06 by cladking.