> Point taken. But on the other hand, just because it was done in
> recent history doesn't mean it was done 4,000 yrs ago.
> I criticize egyptologists because..... every subject I've
> researched, Khufu, Sothis, Sphinx, I've run across these same
> feeble explanations for their conclusions. They change names,
> insert names where there are none (dream stela), translate
> words to suit their purpose (sothis). I've grown tired of
> their inaccuracies and their mental gymnastics in making the
> translations fit into the Manetho timeline. Not enough time
> between two kings for a newly discovered king? No problem, just
> rearrange names. They had a big problem with the 4th dynasty,
> co-regents/brothers/sons, just what was going on they couldn't
> figure it out. There wasn't time for another king after the G1
> builder (if I remember correctly) they eventually concluded
> that it wasn't a new name discovered, it was just another name
> for Khufu. I wish I could remember which newly discovered
> pharaoh was given a particular position in a dynasty simply
> because it was the only place where there was room for the
> length of his reign.
> When I read of cuneiform, there are sentences and whole
> documents that make sense. It's amazing that anyone was able
> to decipher that language. Cuneiform is an older language, yet
> the outcome is readable, coherent. But the hieroglyph
> translations are gibberish. It's nonsense and they know it,
> so it's explained away as religious beliefs in a fantastic
> parade of bizarre deities. Better to have a bizarre religion
> than to admit of gross mistranslations.
> The language was reverse engineered, so to speak, from Coptic
> and Greek. You present the final outcome, how it stands now,
> with the "fact" that a king had 5 names. It sounds perfectly
> believable when you state it as...... they had 5
> titles....period. It is presumed to be fact for the simple
> reason that an egyptologist would not state it if it were not a
> fact. But you do not present what went on behind the scenes,
> what transpired to make that "fact" come about. We presume
> that the discovery of this fact was born of meticulous study,
> indisputable written records, etc., being double and triple
> checked by the savants of the time. We also presume that these
> savants were pure of motive.
> But is this the truth?
> Regarding Chemmis ; Cheops and Suphis are mentioned once in
> extant literature. There is no history or etymology to study.
> But there is history for Chemmis, so of course the name is more
> interesting. If Cheops and Suphis were legendary, as claimed, I
> would expect to find the names in other authors. Especially
> since the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, left such a wealth of
Egyptology has done a very remarkable job almost across the board. They took a couple of bad turns and they are too quick to extrapolate data. It's vexing that they all use different words to name the same thing and then fail to leave a trail of bread crumbs so average folk can't follow them.
There is one thing they must address to get with the times. They must stop understanding the culture in terms of a book of incantation. It is affecting their understanding of what they know. The first step is to admit they don't have a clue what this book says and that no evidence exists that it is just like the book of the dead. If they did nothing but this it would reright their boat and put us back on a course that would lead to answers.
I fear Egyptology is going to become superfluous and irrelevant if they stick the present course. They will find a world according to superstitious tomb builders who never existed.