> However after
> 200years of further study it is not valid to
> suggest the translations (particularly of the
> hieroglyphs )are based on (particularly
> entirely) on that "1000 year later" style
> and content of such writings.
I could provide examples for almost every word in the PT and would remind you that this vocabulary breaks Zipf's Law proving we don't understand it but let's just take the one word that best exemplifies Egyptology's horrendous and illegitimate methodology. Let's take 'rennenutet" as an example. I know a great deal more about this word than I'll let on but suffice to say it is a device that is in the upper eye of horus and collects gas (specifically "I3.t-wt.t"/ CO2) and channels it to the mks-sceptre to keep it afloat. It causes a gas to flow through a conduit that a moving thing can remain "alive". Egyptology as often is the case has it right in a left handed sort of way; they believe that "Rennenutet" is the "Goddess of Respiration". They believe this not because they solved it in the PT because it's mentioned a single time in the PT: They ripped it straight out of the "book of the dead". After the language changed this is the exact same misunderstanding the people had who wrote the book of the dead.
How can Egyptologists ever see their mistake when they can't even see the obvious? They blithely interpret and translate the PT improperly so they can't see the nature of words and of language changed. The pyramid builders used science just like all people before the language failed. It looks like aliens mustta built them because it was an entirely different species that did build them. They used knowledge > creation > understanding to build the pyramids and not superstition.
People will laugh some day.
> Sam, criticises the actual translation of ancient
> Egyptian writing without any ability himself to
> decipher or translate it.
Nobody can translate Ancient Language and it's impossible anyone ever will. It is not translatable into any parseable language. Just like you can't parse one plus one as one times one. The meaning exists in context and evaporates when it is parsed.