cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hanslune Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Odd, okay how did you get this information? Of
> > course you never answer.
>
> I've answered this stupid question a dozen times.

No you haven't all you do is make up a silly story - oh my apology it is the same stupid story.

You asked before why no 'big cheese' fringe writer hasn't taken up your rambling incoherent idea - this is a good start to understanding why they haven't.



> I solved the Pyramid Texts in context.

Translation: I made up new meaning for the words to support my 'idea' that the AE used a geyser to make the pyramids. I cannot support it and will not support other than by continuing to make my claim. I need no evidence.

In every
> case I assumed what they said made PERFECT SENSE,
> and then used modern science and google to deduce
> what the words meant.

Yes they make such 'perfect sense' that when we apply the meanings to all uses of the word in the PT - does it fit? NOPE. So when are you going to face the face that the experiment of putting in these made meaning didn't work - how long will you lie to yourself that they did?

It was like solving
> simultaneous equations.

No it was more like creating a fairy tale.

It might have worked even
> if Ancient Language didn't have a single meaning
> for every word and a mathematical relationship
> between all words.

Pssst, Cladking it didn't work and your made up details don't make you any more creditable. Pssst, no such thing called 'ancient language' either if there is show it to us in the PT?

But this doesn't matter
> because Ancient Language DID HAVE a logical/
> mathematical relationship and a single meaning for
> every word.

Which blew up in your face when we tried to substitute your words for the real ones.
>
> Now you'll say I'm running from the question of
> how I can understand the language.

Because you are dude, because you are. You are admitting you just MADE THE STUFF UP.

Maybe in the
> very next post. You have done this many times
> before and I'm answering this "stupid' question
> for those who haven't seen how you operate.

That's what happens when you make claims - they get challenged - EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Yep and one see's there no science, no intellect just fantasy at play.

Thanks for confessing once again that your idea is based on a foundation of nothing.

Here is another version of your trying to answer this:

[www.hallofmaat.com]

I like your use of the Coffin text....lol

Quote
This is the best question I've ever been asked. I've been wondering why no one would ask it and my best guess is that no one takes seriously enough to even give it a second thought. There are other questions and objections that are obvious as well and so far have gone unmade. Yes, I remember the process well enough to reconstruct most of it. The reality was that due to the nature of understanding this that it was a long series of little and major breakthroughs. None of these are going to impress most people though. The best way I can describe it was that I just read the PT over and over until a few things and some of the formatting began to make a little sense. Then I began deducing what words had to mean in order for each line to being logical and scientifically accurate. This was principally accomplished by looking at every single usage of a word in the PT and figuring the meaning through context. I also used heiroglyphic dictionaries to a limited extent at this time. As word meanings emerged they would lend more context and meaning to determine more words so it snowballed. At this point it was becoming clear that there were no errors in the ancient writing and that the percieved errors resulted from misunderstanding. Eventually I reached the point that very very few new words were becoming solved. At this point (~2011) I began reading orthodox opinions about meanings (especially gods) and incorporatiung those provisionally as they fit context. Then finally other works were consulted (principally the Coffin Texts) to cross reference word meanings. In other words virtually my entire "translation" is founded mostly in the PT itself rather than the book of the dead like most translations. Concepts that don't fit in the PT are simply rejected. Others are simply considered. Recently I've observed that some of the ancient writing makes more sense to people backward. There is still a lot of the PT that isn't very clear to this method. There are dozens of lines which are virtually opaque and a few utterances that I can't see the perspective. The PT is liguistically complex though the meaning is simple enough. The average ancient Egyptian could understand most of it and when he didn't understand he heard gobbledty gook just like you or I.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29-Jan-20 05:57 by Hanslune.