cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you believe that if you post claptrap in enough
> places that it isn't even relevant that it
> magically comes true.
>
> You believe that if they believed strongly enough
> that they could literally move mountains.
>
> I believe you don't know how things work today or
> how they worked 4750 years ago. Spoiler alert; it
> is exactly the same. There's nothing new under
> the sun.
>
> 304a. To say: There is a clamour in heaven.
> 304b. "We see a new thing," say the primordial
> gods.
> 304c. O Ennead, a Horus is in the rays of the
> sun.
>
> If there ever were anything new it would be so
> noteworthy that it might even be mentioned in a
> book of the rituals read at the kings' ascension
> ceremonies.
>
> The king didn't ascend on ramps. Just like the
> stones the king ascended by means of the Bull of
> Heaven;
>
> 1431c. A ladder is made for him, upon which he
> mounts, in its name of "That which mounts to
> heaven."
> 1432a. His boat is brought to him by the
> d‘m-sceptres of the imperishable stars.
> 1432b. The bull (or, ox) of heaven lowers its
> horn, so that he may pass thereon to the lakes of
> Dȝ.t.
> 1433a. O N., thou dost not fall to the ground.
>
> It's a shame Egyptology doesn't do English or
> they'd know that there were NO ramps and the Bull
> of Heaven lifted the king and stones to heaven.
> They'd know that the king then ascended from the
> funeral pyre called the iskn on the "smoke of
> incense".
>
> 1718b. he gives thee the incense wherewith the
> gods cense themselves.
> ...
> 1719c. Rē‘ calls to thee out of the ’iskn of
> heaven,
>
> Of course when you have an elemental belief
> system, you don't need no stinkin' knowledge
> or intelligence.
>
> Do you read your own posts or just spread them
> around like manure?

None of the above...


my point is clear

1. I do not think that the employment of ramps can be proved or disproved via proving or disproving what they believed.

I do however think that part of appreciating the immensity of the project, and the possibility of carrying it out, is understanding and appreciation the motivations for doing so.

Your referencing your interpretation of someone else's translation is as unprofessional know as it was 15 years ago.

More so, due to the fact that you have done nothing to rectify the situation or in any way tried tp present your ideas and DATA in a coherent way(it ain't hard, Steve's doing it) makes your reference to claptrap and manure...

the immature uneducated petulant ranting that it is.



Warwick