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

> It is certainly understood to some degree, a lot
> of it is, but so what that some of it is not...

People believe the PT is understood solely because we can associate a meaning with each word. But they simply don't notice that no two translators are getting the same understanding and that no evidence exists that we understand any of it. Even the simplest terms like "eye of horus" are wholly opaque to our understanding. We must suggest that these terms had countless unknown definitions to make any sense at all out of them. No language can be so complex that words had so many definitions and there's no evidence that any word in the PT had more than a single definition other than modern interpretation that says it was just a silly little book of magic that had no meaning besides words that must be uttered by a dead king!

The fact is that each word can be solved by context and using this technique does yield a perfectly sensible meaning to the entire work. The PT isn't a book of abracadabra, it's a book of ritual and Egyptology can't be more wrong.

Saying it's understood means nothing. Tell me what the eye of horus is or how the ankh came to represent life itself. Tell me how this magic was supposed to work and how it arose. Of course nobody can because it is completely misunderstood. Horus was no "god", horus was "Lord of the Land of Rainbows". He oversaw the skyarcs and built pyramids and these pyramnids were composed of a "horus that came later"; "horus the younger". He built them through capturing the power of the eye of horus.


> ... as it
> has nothing to do with your nonsense that
> narrative writing did not exist prior to 2,000BC,
> because it clearly did, or that language was
> "confused" before this time.

I've suggested many times before that writing was invented principally because modern language required a medium to be relayed. Anything expressed in modern language can be deconstructed but ancient language can't. Modern language changes its meaning with each retelling so writing is needed. Writing wasn't necessary for the words of the gods.

> And again, why do you
> keep repeating the same things over and over
> again? Even when you know you are wrong? Don't you
> ever get tired of it?

I don't know that I'm wrong. I'm aware of very little evidence that suggests I'm wrong and lots of evidence that says I'm right. If people addressed the actual evidence and the logic then perhaps I might see I'm wrong.

> And what is it you do with your "interpretations"?
> You cannot read hieroglyphs and are reinventing
> English translations as you see fit which in your
> own words are wrong in the first place. It is
> insane to claim you somehow have it figured out
> when others have not.

I'm solving word meaning by context. I always ask what does a word have to mean so that a passage makes perfect sense. I list the conmnotative and definitional characteristics assigned by the context in which they actually exist until a meaning becomes apparent. It appears this system has been highly effective and shows our ancestors didn't survive and create through superstition but through science. What could possibly be more logical?

> > I'm very literal so there's a great deal I
> don't
> > understand

> Good. Admitting you have a problem is the first
> step in the healing process.

Actually it required a great deal of effort and change to get here. I'm not sure I could go back.

> It is only gibberish to you, but no doubt it made
> perfect sense to a Sumerian 4,500yrs ago. Here is
> another one for you:

No!!!

It's gibberish to everyone who doesn't understand it and no one understands it.

>

Quote

What figure of us think you he will bear?
> For you must know, we have with special soul
> Elected him our absence to supply,
> Lent him our terror, dress'd him with our love,
> And given his deputation all the organs
> Of our own power: what think you of it?

> Does any of this make sense to you?

I believe I might were I to study it long enough.

I'd guess that the original was in modern language and even I can usually deconstruct language even if the translator butchered it.

> "Troglodytes"? Are you sure you didn't mean
> "stinky-footed bumpkins"? Or do you use
> "troglodytes" on Wednesdays instead?

People are going to have to get used to the idea that we are the superstitious bumpkins. It is we who see what we expect and believe we know everything. These are problems that have been worsening for 4000 years and especially for 500.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 21-Jan-16 16:39 by cladking.