Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> No it does not. You have imposed a meaning on it
> that anyone can clearly see it does not have nor
> would there be any reason for it to.

If you are right that I3.t-wt,.t doesn't mean CO2 then why does "CO2" fit in context?

All anyone is "clearly doing" is parsing the words in the same way the translator did. Then they are clearly ignoring the inconsistencies and contradictions. they are ignoring the fact that the translators have to repair this incantation so it can be translated at all. there are no errors inscribed in the walls. The errors are all errors in interpretation.

I don't know how to say this in words that will get through. Egyptology is wrong about everything and so long as everyone chooses what they have right and what they have wrong no progress will come. They have EVERYTHING WRONG.

> No where does this passage refer to Giza or
> pyramids in any way. The "inundation" has nothing
> to do with geysers but rather, as would make sense
> to anyone, the inundations related to the Nile
> river which have happened every year for thousands
> of years-the very foundation of the existence of
> Nilotic cultures. The "uplands", though vague,
> would more likely refer to Upper Egypt (southern
> Egypt).

I just showed you!!! They said that even their dead buried on thew horizon got inundated some times. You want to pick and choose what to believe even though every single thing the builders said was exactly right.

Here they refer to "Giza" BY NAME and say the bridge builders need a boat;

Utterance 300.

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.

I have no doubt you can explain this all away. You believe scolars are right and ancient people were sun addled so obviously it can be explained away. It's all explained away but it still has a literal meaning and this meaning isd CONSISTENT, COHERENT, and LOGICAL. I believe it is exactly accurate and they did use boats that flew up and alit to build pyramids. No ramps, just common sense.

> Nothing of the sort. Again, no mention of any of
> this in any way shape or form.

Every line in the PT says the same thing; the pyramids were mnemonics to remember the dead king. These are simple rituals that are read when that which ails the king is removed.

> No where do they say this, literal or otherwise.
> Again, you have literally just made all of this
> up.

Of couyrse they said it.

But if you want to pursue this we should find a new thread since we are drifting away from the topic.

> Good grief. My initial response to you was not an
> invitation or excuse to derail yet ANOTHER thread
> with your hobby horsing bat shit crazy. You say
> these same things over and over and over again all
> over the internet and yet anyone who can read,
> even if they do not understand the PT, can clearly
> see for themselves it has nothing to do with
> anything you say it does the least of which
> pyrmaid building, geysers, et al.

You clearly derailed the thread with Egyptological beliefs;

[grahamhancock.com]

There is no evidence to support these contentions. They are strictly beliefs passed down from et al to et al. They are marginally related to the point of my post which concerned pyramid construction and Steve Clayton's theory.

> Maybe you can be honest for once and answer these
> simple questions: we, and by "we" I mean all of
> the countless websites you have been to in the
> last 10+ years mainstream , alt, and fringe
> posters alike, have evaluated your methods and
> conclusions and have rejected them in their
> entirety-why do you keep forcing them on people
> wherever you go? Why do you keep talking about the
> same exact things over and over again?

I'm always talking about facts and logic. I see none in this paragraph. It is an attack and a dismissal of something you refuse to discuss. If you don't like it then don't derail the conversation and don't even respond.

I love talking about the people and the PT. It doesn't really bother me that people don't care what they actually said. It is your choice to ignore them and your choice to not discuss it with me and then blame me for drift.

And by the way. I hate these off topic posts because I get blamed for them by the very individuals who take it off topic. then I get blamed for enjoying talking about the ACTUAL CULTURAL CONTEXT rather than the nonmsense generated by assumptions.

Egyptology is wrong across the board. If you can't remember this simple mnemonic than why talk to me? If an et al ever said it then it is wrong. All opinion about the Egyptians is wrong and we aren't even the same species. They didn't think like Egyptologists yet Egyptologists assume they did.

I'm always interested in evidence and logic but I have no interest in Egyptological opinion. I rarely respond to Egyptological opinion any longer because it excites the peanut gallery. But where that opinion is used to address my beliefs then I do respond.