> In talking about the language and math being translated and
> translatable, to what we have today from what the AEs had back
> then, it appears that we do have a certain grasp of what they
> intended. But this is not to say that they themselves knew what
> they were intending.
I can't buy this line of thinking.
It seems that any words etched in stone must mean a great deal to both the author and the etchor. Yes, there's absolutely no reason to rule out the apparent meaning of any given sentence. There's no reason to rule out that they believed in gods and magic based on any given sentence.
The problem is that we have hundreds, thousands of sentences in the PT and none of them are comprehensible in terms of gods and magic. Even the most basic concepts in the PT such as "the eye of horus" is simply not understood. None of the symbols etched in the stone, the icons, or the objects of magic are understood. Yes, we can "translate" it in terms of later ideas and in terms of the book of the dead but they are not coherent. There is no sense in them and they are like a sort of "word soup". This could mean they were stumble-footed bumpkins as Egyptology suggests but it could also mean we don't catch their meaning. If we really don't catch their meaning then we know nothing at all about the great pyramid builders because the PT is the only thing that really survives. There are numerous numbers in the PT and there's no reason to believe we understand any of these either. There are numbers such as "the four sons of horus" and then four names are offered which suggests they used numbers just as we do but then there are other numbers that simply don't add up like "to divide in three these your four days and your eight nights". Or "Like swnt who crosses the sky nine times in a night. Or "his year is calculated for him".
The bottom line is simple. If we understand the PT then we need a new definition for the concept of "understanding" and our ancestors were superstitious fools who dragged 6 1/2 million ton tombs up ramps and never changed. Of course there is no evidence whatsoever to confirm these concepts and the powers that be refuse to even try to gather evidence to support them. If it is true that the ancients used superstition to invent agriculture and cities then we should reexamine the utility of logic and knowledge. If paradigms that are incapable of making predictions are to be elevated to "truth" then we should reexamine reality itself. Maybe it does matter if Shroedenger's cat is alive or maybe we don't exist merely because we think we do.
Maybe the real "scientists" are studying magic and counting the number of angels which can dance on the head of a pin.
When you can get two Egyptologists to agree on the meaning (or translation) of something in the PT then we'll know that the world really does operate on magic and superstition. Until then I believe they are wrong and the ancients were right. They said what they meant and meant what they said. They just didn't talk like Egyptologists and it will take years to figure out exactly what they did say.
Post Edited (12-Jul-14 18:53)