Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Are the pyramids really tombs or are the experts wrong
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 563
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
Are you parting company because you can’t entertain the possibility they weren’t tombs or because of the actual evidence which you believe proves they were tombs?


I can't think of any other function they could have served-- again, in our definition, not necessarily in Egyptian metaphysical/religious theory. And again, I'm considering the entire sweep of architecture from the earliest Predynastic graves to the few surviving Late Period tombs in the Delta and on into the Greco-Roman era. The evolution of the structures is there to be read as surely as the evolution of the language is-- one simply can't pull out, say, the Valley of the Kings and look at them as utterly unique, for they're not-- and neither are any grouping of pyramids, whether we label them "great" or otherwise.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
karnsculpture
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 307

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I’m fine with them being tombs but also having other functions, some of which we may understand and some we can’t as we weren’t there.

I’m leaving it at that, the Amarna tar pits are looking inviting right now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4060
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
... They lacked even the words for "thought" or "ideas". ...

kAt = thoght, plan

jmt-jb = thought

sxr (sxrw) = plan, intentions, idea(s)
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
cladking wrote:
... They lacked even the words for "thought" or "ideas". ...

kAt = thoght, plan

jmt-jb = thought

sxr (sxrw) = plan, intentions, idea(s)


I know there are such words in the later languages and since the change isn't seen they get into the Egyptian language dictionary. But there are no such words in the Pyramid Texts. Despite its great length there are very few words used and words that mean or are synonyms for thought, belief, and taxonomic words don't appear. This is easily checked I use a search string for the PT found here;

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

The string is;

xxxx utterance "Sacred Texts Egypt Index Previous Next "

Just delete the xxxx and insert your search word.

They did use two words that we would mistake for words of "thought" but the meaning of the words is a little different in Ancient Language and actually reflected a state achieved by an individual. The words are "know" and "understand". They also used several words that look like taxonomic words to our eyes. The best example is "boat". There are many types of "boats" so this makes our word taxonomic and we use it to help categorize our knowledge just as all moderns languages do.

But words in Ancient Language were representative rather than symbolic and abstractions as they are in English. Also they needed words to do more heavy lifting since they had so very few of them. "Boat" didn't symbolize a man-made object that floated on water to them but rather it was that allowed a word to be transformed into a representation of something that was associated with the movement of things or water relative to each other. This is why there are huge numbers of boats that appear in the PT but in each case they are "named"; ie- the specific type of boat is used as a prefix. There are dndndr-boats and henu boats as well as many others. While the world was anthropomorphized things that were built by man were given attributes of boats. The "Boat of Re", for instance was the pyramid itself sailing north. So the bow was the north side and the crews which built the pyramid were assigned to different parts of this "boat".

And yes, we certainly translate hundreds of words to mean gods, magic, and superstitions. But in every single case our interpretation is wrong. "Heka" was "magic", it represented good observation. Since their "science" was founded on observation since no one had thought of nor needed experiment yet, heka was a sort of magic and this word was just one of many misunderstood by the authors of the "book of the dead' and Egyptology in their turn.

I always ask how can a language with almost no words allow for the complex communication and cooperation required to invent agriculture and cities? If you subtract the words we believe symbolize gods and magic from the language almost every sentence in the Pyramid Texts can have no meaning at all. Such words appear in almost every sentence. It is illogical to suppose such a language can support knowledge and communication necessary to run a civilization. It is quite apparent we misunderstand.

Their language was like the computer code that runs the internet. A mere handful of words are required because the language is formatted differently and it is my contention that Ancient Language shares a very similar formatting. Ancient Language is very similar to a very very very highly complex computer code made possible by the exquisite wiring of the human brain. This language is very similar to all other animal languages and lies at the heart of our near inability to communicate with even the simplest animals.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4060
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
Lutz wrote:
cladking wrote:
... They lacked even the words for "thought" or "ideas". ...

kAt = thoght, plan

jmt-jb = thought

sxr (sxrw) = plan, intentions, idea(s)


I know there are such words in the later languages and since the change isn't seen they get into the Egyptian language dictionary. ...

The document for "kAt" comes from the FIP (Hannig, Ägyptisches Wörterbuch IV - Altes Reich und Erste Zwischenzeit, 2003, p. 1346, #34811). This means it is closer in time to the Pyramid Texts than the pyramids of the 4th dynasty...

"jmt-jb" we find in the PT 250 (268b) (Hannig, 2003, p. 76, #1696) :


Sethe, Die Altägyptischen Pyramidentexte 1, 1908, p. 145)

And also "sxr (sxrw)" is several times known from inscriptions / objects from the Old Kingdom :


(Hannig, IV, 2003, p. 1210)
cladking wrote:
... But there are no such words in the Pyramid Texts. ...

Which does not prove that such words / concepts were not known and used. The PT`s are not the oldest and certainly not the only texts known from the Old Kingdom and before. Even if you seem to believe that ...
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:

cladking wrote:
... But there are no such words in the Pyramid Texts. ...

Which does not prove that such words / concepts were not known and used. The PT`s are not the oldest and certainly not the only texts known from the Old Kingdom and before. Even if you seem to believe that ...


I think it does prove that they didn’t have these words. Remember I’m not talking about a single modern word missing but the countless thousands of modern words that mean “belief”, “thought”, or are taxonomic in nature. We can hardly compose a sentence without one of these yet they aren’t represented anywhere in the language of the ancient Egyptians. This lack of vocabulary for belief simply shows they didn’t think like we do so when we try to understand their words we are missing the meaning. How ironic that the intended meaning is usually very close to the literal meaning of what they said. When they said “bring me the boat that flies up and alights”, this is EXACTLY what they meant. The didn’t require an imaginary boat for an imaginary god or a dead king but rather an actual boat that literally flew up and gently came to a rest.

268b. it is N. who says (is saying) what is in the heart of the Great One (Nut), at the Feast of Red
Clothes,

Here Mercer uses no such word. But the meaning is clear if you understand how they thought and spoke. The “heart” was the seat of their identity because they “lived in the amygdala” from their perspective. The heart was the place it seemed they loved and knew. We say “I know it in my guts” or “in my bones” about experiential knowledge but due to the way they “thought” they experienced it in their hearts and they use this same terminology and thinking throughout the PT.

They didn’t experience “language” as we do either. Words by nature and the means they used to invent new ones always rhymed with nature and its laws. “Language” was a perfect reflection of the gods themselves but from their perspective this was invisible so they couldn’t know it or say it and even lacked the words for it. But they did call it the “words of the gods” because the term is virtually synonymous with “knowledge > creation > understanding”. This was ancient thought in a nutshell. Words were powerful because they carried and represented understanding but their ability to carry (communicate) knowledge was not readily apparent to someone who thought in such terms and “knew” it could be difficult to learn all the “names of the animals“, or the gods. Communication to them would probably be experienced a little bit like telepathy would be by us if it existed. They knew they spoke and they knew they heard speech but they wouldn’t experience its composition and deconstruction like we do. Indeed, most people today hardly experience it either since we tend to speak instead of listen and it rarely occurs to us the speaker might have meant something different. We don’t see that we experience what we believe and are our beliefs. They didn’t experience thought or trying to understand someone else’s thoughts. Communication was like being in the other person’s mind.

Of course these are difficult concepts because most lie outside of our experience and no one ever even imagined a language that was mathematical and logical. No one ever imagined before that there was another type of language that lies at the heart of life, evolution, and creation. No one ever imagined a language that can’t be translated into English or that would say exactly what it meant but we would miss all its meaning.

267d. N. comes into being, he who knows, being in possession of the divine book, he who is at the right of Re‘.

“Knows” is not necessarily a bad translation. But this doesn’t mean the same thing it does to us. It means there is a piece of knowledge available to an individual. The word doesn’t symbolize “knowledge” or “knowing” but rather it represents a specific fact in a specific individual.

If we persist in thinking like modern people we can never understand the pyramid builders.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt10.htm
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 563
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It does appear to me that you are starting from the improbable basis that the translations and language cannot be understood... and then proceeding from there to interpret the translations and language.

Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4060
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sun Mar 10, 2019 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

... And you are using translations by Egyptologists, whose validity you doubt. An approach that disqualified itself, in my view, morally and scientifically considered ...
_________________
Ägyptologie Forum (German)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
... And you are using translations by Egyptologists, whose validity you doubt. An approach that disqualified itself, in my view, morally and scientifically considered ...


I just have a few minutes now...

...Egyptologists have done the heavy lifting of translating the words.

But Ancient Language shares the same vocabulary as modern languages. , It's not the words that changed but the way they were formatted to create meaning.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 563
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
But Ancient Language shares the same vocabulary as modern languages. , It's not the words that changed but the way they were formatted to create meaning.


That doesn't make any sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 276

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

... Particularly as he cannot read hieroglyphs.

I can understand why he uses the online translation by Mercer and not the more recent physical book by Faulkner, as with Mercer there are no explanatory notes, which there are in Faulkner and outright contradict the spin Cladking is putting on the texts.

As for him saying that he alone can understand how they thought is utterly ridiculous. Between them, Assmann and Hornung have been grappling with this topic for a combined total of more than 100 years, and can read hieroglyphs, yet are contemptuously dismissed because they are Egyptologists, hiss, boo, charlatans, and their modern minds cannot possibly understand the ancient mind. Good grief, may Sekhmet protect us from this nonsense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 276

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
267d. N. comes into being, he who knows, being in possession of the divine book, he who is at the right of Re‘.

“Knows” is not necessarily a bad translation. But this doesn’t mean the same thing it does to us. It means there is a piece of knowledge available to an individual. The word doesn’t symbolize “knowledge” or “knowing” but rather it represents a specific fact in a specific individual.


Let's compare Mercer's translation of spell 250 in it's entirety to that of Faulkner's.

Mercer
Quote:
267a. To say: "It is N. who is chief of the kas, who unites the hearts," so says be (or she) who is chief of the wise, the Great One,

267b. "he who is in possession of the divine book, who knows, who is at the right of Rē‘."

267c. N. comes to his throne, he is chief of the kas, N. unites the hearts, (so says she) who is chief of the wise, the Great One,

p. 77

267d. N. comes into being, he who knows, being in possession of the divine book, he who is at the right of Rē‘.

268a. O thou who art vindicated by N.,

268b. it is N. who says (is saying) what is in the heart of the Great One (Nut), at the Feast of Red Clothes,

268c. (for) it is N., it is N., who knows, who is at the right of Rē‘;

268d. (thus) the heart of the chief of the abyss of Nun is vexed.


Faulkner

Quote:
The king is announced as Sia
267
This is the king who is over the spirits, who unites hearts - so says he who is in charge of wisdom, being great, and who bears the god's book, (even) Sia who is at the right hand of Re.

The king declares himself to be Sia
268
I have come to my throne which is over the spirits, I unite hearts, O you who are in charge of wisdom, being great. I become Sia who bears the god's book, who is at the right hand of Re. O you who are protected by my han, it is I who say what is in the heart of the Great One in the Festival of Red Linen. I, even I, am Sia who is at the right hand of Re, the haughty one who presides over the Cavern of the Abyss.


Very different, aren't they, in fact radically different. Faulkner doesn't even use the word "knows", to which you attributed even in Mercer's translation a meaning that is not there as it is about the attributes of Sia, and to quote Faulkner's note on Sia,

The personification of intelligence and understanding

And I'll also refer to the entry for Sia in The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt by Richard Wilkinson. It's on page 130.

Take note of the word "understanding" and it's context here with Sia. "Understanding" is another word for "knowing", and it does mean knowing all, not a specific fact about an individual. How do you even arrive at that conclusion, as you are not only misinterpreting what Mercer has written, but are presuming that he did not understand the attributes of Sia. Do you know better than either Mercer, Faulkner, Wilkinson and many others? no, you do not, and that is painfully obvious.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
Lutz wrote:
... And you are using translations by Egyptologists, whose validity you doubt. An approach that disqualified itself, in my view, morally and scientifically considered ...


I just have a few minutes now...

...Egyptologists have done the heavy lifting of translating the words.

But Ancient Language shares the same vocabulary as modern languages. , It's not the words that changed but the way they were formatted to create meaning.


People need to keep asking themselves that if I'm wrong about the meaning of the Pyramid Texts then why do they keep saying over and over without contradiction that the pyramids are not tombs.

As for how words can change their meaning dependent on formatting the simplest explanation might be math. obviously 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 does not equal 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 or 1 - 2 - 3 - 4. And this goes many times over when
we are adding apples and oranges or subtracting worms from apples.

Even the nature of words changed. To us words are abstractions and symbols but top them words represented actual things is sentences and the type of word used defined the subject, object, and meaning of the sentence rather than subject, predicate, and action.

To the ancient Egyptians water (^^^^^) wasn't what was thrown on Helen Keller but rather what she experienced when it was thrown on her.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 174

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
It does appear to me that you are starting from the improbable basis that the translations and language cannot be understood... and then proceeding from there to interpret the translations and language.

Idea


It can be understood.

I started with a single assumption; that all people always make perfect sense in terms of their premises. When I started with the Pyramid Texts I had no conclusions at all and frankly, I expected them to be about magic and religion. I hoped to understand the meaning well enough to find clues about their day to day lives and how they thought. By understanding why they used one word instead of another I can gain insights into what people believe. I can understand their premises. It was this, their premises I had hoped to learn.

But I found something entirely different than magic and religion. To understand anything in Ancient Language required me solve word meanings in context and to build models of the grammar. From these models the meaning is seen.

Anyone can do it with effort. But the simple fact is they pretty much just said exactly what they meant in words that lose their meaning when they are parsed. They said the pyramids are not tombs.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 563
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
But I found something entirely different than magic and religion.


Then you are clearly reading something other than the Pyramids Texts I'm familiar with, which are all magic and religion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Pyramids, Tombs, & Monuments All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 6 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group