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 ... 6, 7, 8, 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
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
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.


I don't know how to say this other than I already did. It's impossible to invent religion and magic without words to express belief, thought, and taxonomies. How does one say that "I believe Shu and Tefnut are gods and know how they affect the lives of men" if all these concepts are so wholly alien to the people that NONE OF THEM have words in the language? WE SEE "gods" as "imaginary consciousnesses" but they had no word for "imaginary" or "consciousness". The reality is that shu just meant "upward" when upward was the subject of a sentence and tefnut meant downward. THIS is how the words in the PT are used and it is shown by the FACT that the literal meaning of their words don't agree with our beliefs. They said the "king doesn't rot in the earth" but we believe he did. They said the king's grave was in the sky but we believe he was buried under pyramids.

At every point they said one thing and we believe the opposite or something at right angles to what they said.

Translating the word that mean "observation" (heka) as our symbolic word "magic" can't magically turn the meaning into magic nor can it turn the "Rituals of Ascension" into a book of incantation we call the Pyramid Texts. There IS NO MAGIC and this is as true today as it was when the great pyramids were built.

Since there was no magic and no words of magic it is up to us to figure out why they said the opposite of what we believe. I believe I figured out exactly why we are confused just like the authors of the book of the dead were confused. The only difference between us and our understand and the understanding of the authors of the book of the dead is that they KNEW THEIR ANCESTORS WERE POWERFUL AND WISE. We can't see this because we parse their words and assign new meanings to everything they said.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
We can't see this because we parse their words and assign new meanings to everything they said.


Speak for yourself, please. I don't attempt to assign meanings at all, particularly to religious writings, since it will inevitably be something other than the writer intended.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
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.


The ancients had only a few hundred words other than nouns and some of these are noun-like in nature. We have over a hundred thousand words no including highly esoteric words and jargon like "episodicity" and "bandaid". We have many thousands of words for taxonomies and when we see the ancient word "neters" we believe it is taxonomic and means "gods". But neters is not taxonomic and only appears to be because we deconstruct (parse) the Pyramid Texts. Our word "gods" is symbolic and taxonomic but their word was representative, literal, and a simple noun that meant "Theory" (plural). In aggregate all the gods and their names was everything known about reality that they called "amun" (the hidden).

This lack of taxonomic words alone should cause people a lot of dissonance because we couldn't organize our knowledge or remember what we do know without words like "mammal" or even "animal". They not only lacked the taxonomic words but even the names for taxonomic words like "category", "type", and "sort" etc etc etc etc. This clearly shows they used some other means to remember what they knew and this means is apparent in the literal meaning of their words as well.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
cladking wrote:
We can't see this because we parse their words and assign new meanings to everything they said.


I don't attempt to assign meanings at all, particularly to religious writings, since it will inevitably be something other than the writer intended.


Of course you do and so did Egyptologists when they translated it. Just as "the king does rot in the earth" denies any possibility the pyramid was a tomb the fact that definitions like "Rennenutet" being the "Goddess of respiration" were ripped straight out of the "book of the dead".

We MUST assign meanings to every single word to understand ANY KIND OF utterance. This is how modern language works and it's why we can't understand the plain English of the Pyramid Texts; Ancient Language can'ty be parsed or the meaning evaporates and it does this because every single word had only one single meaning!!! When they said the king's tomb was in the sky they literally meant the king's tomb was in the sky and they said it in a metaphysical language that can not be parsed.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:


Of course you do and so did Egyptologists when they translated it. Just as "the king does rot in the earth" denies any possibility the pyramid was a tomb the fact that definitions like "Rennenutet" being the "Goddess of respiration" were ripped straight out of the "book of the dead".



D'oh. Still can't edit. The builders said "the king does NOT rot in the earth".
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 419

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
We can't see this because we parse their words and assign new meanings to everything they said.

No, you do, and in the face of common sense if not the work of people who can actually read the texts in their original hieroglyphic form and have spent decades getting into the minds of the ancient Egyptians.

I'll tell you why you use Mercer's old and bad translation of the PT, it's because it's full of vagueness, hence one of the reasons I put his translation of spell 250 alongside that of Faulkner's to show how unreliable Mercer is. He never even put the god Sia into his translation of spell 250, a huge omission that you did not see, even though Faulkner published in 1969, and so have constructed an entirely wrong interpretation of a translation that was itself wrong.

Where there is any vagueness, and room for doubt about any aspect of ancient Egypt, in march the fringe with their utter contempt for Egyptology, for only they know "The secrets of the ancients"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ikon wrote:
cladking wrote:
We can't see this because we parse their words and assign new meanings to everything they said.

No, you do, and in the face of common sense if not the work of people who can actually read the texts in their original hieroglyphic form and have spent decades getting into the minds of the ancient Egyptians.

I'll tell you why you use Mercer's old and bad translation of the PT, it's because it's full of vagueness, hence one of the reasons I put his translation of spell 250 alongside that of Faulkner's to show how unreliable Mercer is. He never even put the god Sia into his translation of spell 250, a huge omission that you did not see, even though Faulkner published in 1969, and so have constructed an entirely wrong interpretation of a translation that was itself wrong.

Where there is any vagueness, and room for doubt about any aspect of ancient Egypt, in march the fringe with their utter contempt for Egyptology, for only they know "The secrets of the ancients"


I have no contempt at all for Egyptology.

The fact of the matter is I believe Egyptology is wrong about every single thing related to the great pyramids and their builders. You have contempt for this and anyone who would suggest it. Somehow you have the strange notion that being wrong diminishes a person and a group of people who all hold the same belief.

You are wrong.

There is no sin and no evil in being wrong; you're just wrong. Basing a science on consensus and opinion is wrong and lashing out at those who point this out is wrong.

God knows I'm wrong about a lot of things and this even include my belief that Egyptology is wrong. It probably doesn't because the literal meaning of what they said AGREES WITH ME and not with Egyptological opinion.

You post the same thing endlessly and never really address a single point I make which is why I tend to ignore your posts. If you ever did read my posts and respond to them then you'd have long ago addressed the simple fact that Allen's, Mercer's, and Faulkner's translations are all essentially the same and they are all wrong. Instead you choose to harp on the fact that I find Mercer's version the least wrong of all of them. It's still wrong and Mercer was wrong.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ikon
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Posts: 419

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:

You post the same thing endlessly and never really address a single point I make which is why I tend to ignore your posts.

That's a pretty bizarre comment when you have not addressed a single pertinent point I have raised. My post about the differences between the Mercer and Faulkner translation, and how inadequate the Mercer translation is, is crucial here,yet you ignore it. Do you have anything to say about how you interpret spell 250 from a translation that has got it so wrong as to completely omit any mention of the god Sia and that the dead king has become that god. How can you continue to justify your interpretations now it is shown, at least on spell 250, and I'm not going through the entire thing, that you absolutely must be wrong as your primary source is wrong.

I don't care if you don't respond, but what I have shown about your fundamentally flawed source material, and I know many others have in the past, needs addressing. You need to read the Faulkner edition, and a number of other works, and seriously reappraise your position. Start with spell 250 and explain, if only to yourself, why your interpretation omits any mention of Sia and what the spell is actually about, that is the king taking the role as the god Sia.

And, you say you do not have contempt for Egyptologists, yet you wave them away with an imperious wave of your hand as being "wrong", and you, a man you cannot read hieroglyphs is right. I'll put it you that making such comments on this forum shows contempt for it. But somehow I think you don't even understand how "odd" your posts really are, do you. Please, just go back to the fringe forums, not least because such nonsense is not actually allowed here, and you do say that the stones of the Great Pyramid were raised up by using a geyser, don't you, and your assertion that all of Egyptology is "wrong" and only you are right is just as fringe, if not actually downright bonkers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
Basing a science on consensus and opinion is wrong and lashing out at those who point this out is wrong.


This is a common verbal dodge of what Asimov called "the exoheretic," i.e., someone from outside the field going against accepted theory and understanding: mischaracterizing the weight of established theory and research as a "majority rules" sort of situation, as if it's decided by vote or consensus. It is not. These questions are decided by research and evidence, not by "consensus." If you have an opinion that goes against decades or a century of research and analysis, it is up to you to prove your point, --and not by mere rhetoric, which is what that "consensus" statement is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

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

Montuhotep88 wrote:


This is a common verbal dodge of what Asimov called "the exoheretic," i.e., someone from outside the field going against accepted theory and understanding: mischaracterizing the weight of established theory and research as a "majority rules" sort of situation, as if it's decided by vote or consensus. It is not. These questions are decided by research and evidence, not by "consensus." If you have an opinion that goes against decades or a century of research and analysis, it is up to you to prove your point, --and not by mere rhetoric, which is what that "consensus" statement is.


I know nothing about what Asimov said.

But I do know that "consensus" is a part of the scientific process in Egyptology. At least this appears in many places on the net and Egyptology does not accept papers from the outside. "Every" Egyptologist believes the pyramids are tombs despite the utter lack of direct evidence that this is true. "Every" Egyptologist believes that Egypt was a "3,000 year civilization" despite the fact that the only writing from the first 800 years is what they themselves call a book of incantation. "Every" Egyptologists therefore believes there was no change in the culture during a time period that the only means to know the culture is a book of incantation. This is highly illogical and derives from their interpretation of the Pyramid Texts in terms of the "book of the dead". "Every" Egyptologist believes a highly primitive and savage means (brute force) was used to build the pyramids despite the fact we don't know how they were built. "Every" Egyptologist believes they built these during peak growing season with no crop in the ground endangering their lives and the lives of their families.

If you don't share these beliefs then your paper will not be considered by the peers. Those who advocate anything different will lose funding and support. Egyptology is determined by consensus on each of these points and no school will graduate somebody who doesn't agree. If you don't agree that changeless and highly superstitious people who never changed in 3000 years dragged tombs up ramps then you are not an Egyptologist.

I believe they are wrong on every single one of these assumptions and this is why the evidence doesn't support their beliefs. The gravimetric scan shows they pulled stones up the side. The PT shows the pyramids were not tombs. The literal meaning of the PT shows all of this.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Every" Egyptologist translates the PT to sauy the king is the pyramid;

Here is just one of Allen's lines that says this;

#336;



This Pepi is the hill of land in the midst of the Great Green,...



They all say the same thing because the source is the same. Where they disagree is merely indicative of how poorly this language is really understood. But make no mistake they all say the same thing; the sky is the grave of the king and the pyramid IS THE king.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Montuhotep88
Priest
Priest


Joined: 12 Dec 2008
Posts: 570
Location: Central Ohio

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
I believe they are wrong on every single one of these assumptions and this is why the evidence doesn't support their beliefs.


Your belief notwithstanding, you don't have a shred of evidence beyond your own highly questionable interpretations and your declarations that those that don't see it your way are wrong.

But I am still curious enough (or masochistic enough) to ask: What indeed is a pyramid for, in your view, if not for a tomb or edifice of funerary/mortuary architecture?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4202
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cladking wrote:
... Here is just one of Allen's lines that says this;

#336;

This Pepi is the hill of land in the midst of the Great Green,...

Apart from the fact that it is a picture from the creation myth of Iunw (Heliopolis, the first land / hill which rises from the primal waters), in my edition of Allen's "The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts" (2015) on page 74 there is a significantly different translation for Spell 336:


_________________
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: 176

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Montuhotep88 wrote:
cladking wrote:
I believe they are wrong on every single one of these assumptions and this is why the evidence doesn't support their beliefs.


Your belief notwithstanding, you don't have a shred of evidence beyond your own highly questionable interpretations and your declarations that those that don't see it your way are wrong.

But I am still curious enough (or masochistic enough) to ask: What indeed is a pyramid for, in your view, if not for a tomb or edifice of funerary/mortuary architecture?


There's plenty of evidence Egyptology is wrong and there'd be a lot more if the proper and appropriate testing were done. The gravimetric scan clearly shows stones were pulled straight up the sides.

To understand why they built great pyramids you must have some understanding of how. This is because we imagine tremendous human effort was required so the only possible purpose was of exceeding importance. The reality is the gods built the pyramids and total human effort is a fraction of what people think. The pyramids were built for a host of reasons but chiefly most were built as a mnemonic to remember those kings who were "justified". Building pyramids and remembering great kings helped bring the country together and keep them on the same page. It was a project that countless thousands could contribute to and keep a hand in. It was peak growing season but the valley was flooded making transportation of stones on the river possible. With ample food storage it was easy enough to provide for the few thousand workers at Giza.

These site were important long before the pyramids were built for industrial purposes. There were saw mills, canning sites, and laundries. Much of the infrastructure for building pyramids already existed at the sites so they merely moved the operations and converted to lifting stones to build pyramids.

Each pyramid was unique and owed its existence to unique factors as well. For instance G1 was also built as a time capsule to preserve knowledge of ancient people and their science. Djoser's Pyramid started life as a tomb but was converted into a great pyramid.

There may well be many more functions but with the highly limited knowledge we have of the structures and how they were built it is very difficult at the current time to do much more than speculate about why and how they were built and the nature of their builders. You can not know the pyramids by turning your back on them or parsing the Pyramid Texts.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cladking
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
cladking wrote:
... Here is just one of Allen's lines that says this;

#336;

This Pepi is the hill of land in the midst of the Great Green,...

Apart from the fact that it is a picture from the creation myth of Iunw (Heliopolis, the first land / hill which rises from the primal waters), in my edition of Allen's "The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts" (2015) on page 74 there is a significantly different translation for Spell 336:



http://www.siamcostumes.com/cutters_guides/pdf/the-ancient-egyptian-pyramid-texts-james-p-allen.pdf

I'm not sure what the discrepancy is here. I've found a couple of places in Allen's version that says the king is the pyramid but there are many more in other translations.

I believe that the "primeval mound" was a naturally occurring source of water and had the ben ben on top through which it flowed. "Zep Tepi" was the theoretical "first eruption" of this water which defined the earth and sky giving birth to shu "upward" and tefnut "downward". Man used the water to lift the ben ben high in the air by building a pyramid under it. As time went on the specifics evolved but nothing really changed until the language failed.

The dead king was the pyramid and he was the hill which originally stood where the pyramid was built.

None of the translators have any of it right because the nature of language and even the nature of the words which comprise it changed. This is why the Pyramid Texts says the opposite of what we believe. The PT literally says one thing but we believe the opposite. Ancient Language was literal and every word had a single meaning. This often survives even a highly botched translation.
_________________
Tempus Fugit
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 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 7 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