eyeofhorus33 wrote:

> The language also wasn't really "reverse engineered" as you
> suggest. The Rosetta stone is the same text, composed in
> hieroglyphs, hieratic and demotic Greek. It provides an
> irrefutable way for a cryptologist to "crack a code" of
> meaning, even though we remain completely and utterly clueless
> about the actual sound of the language.
>
> Hieroglyphs make as much sense as any other language, once you
> have learned how to read them. They do to me, anyhoo! It takes
> time, patience and determined effort but it is most rewarding -
> I can heartily recommend Bill Manley's books if you are curious
> to learn for yourself.
>
> I disagree when you describe it as "gibberish" because it does
> make sense as a language and, like all languages, it has rules
> and grammar which govern its expression. Once you have learned
> these - and, like learning any modern foreign language, you
> have to - you can then read inscriptions for yourself quite
> easily. Of course, we've no idea of the actual pronunciation
> but the 'meaning' is clear.

There's nothing existing in the ancient language that makes any sense. It's all religious twaddle according to the experts who reinterpret and retranslate it over and over. There isn't even any agreement on the most simple concepts as what the eye of horus is. None of the religious icons or sceptres are understood as to their function nor origin. There's simply no proof that this is even a religion other than they translate "neter" as "god" but who knows how they'll translate it in the future.

Simply stated all the writing from before 2000 BC has this attribute to a greater or lesser extent. It is incoherent and contradicts itself repeatedly per our interpretation. They speak of swamping a fire to light the darkness. Such expressions even survive translators who attempt to force meaning into it.

> Moreover, when a person can read hieroglyphic inscriptions
> independently and the "meaning" of what is being read is clear
> and appropriate to the context in which the expressions were
> originally produced, I can only disagree with you when you
> write "It's nonsense and they know it" because it does actually
> make sense.

I little doubt that some passages especially from after 2000 BC are very clear. I have great doubt that such really exists in the tiny amount of writing from eaerlier. This is of great interest to me though.