[kmt_sesh]

cladking, on 18 November 2009 - 04:35 PM, said:

"Davidovits's declaration that "enduring like the heavens" means nothing is a bit distrurbing, if he professes to understand ancient Egyptian religion. It's a common phrase in hieroglyphic inscriptions. To the Egyptian mind only the heavens (cosmos) would last forever. Eventually all of creation would be destroyed, and all that would remain would be Atum, Osiris, and the formless void of the heavens."

This entire concept is nearly wholly invisible in Mercer's translation of
the Pyramid Texts. My guess is it's from a later era but perhapps it is
found in some of the other translations.

There is not a very high agreement between the various translations. They
have each circumscribed different meanings.

Yes, the phrase is more common later in history. The inscription Davidovits uses dates to Dynasty 18, in the reign of Amunhotep III. The basic premise of the destruction of the cosmos existed in the Old Kingdom, too, but is treated with more regularity later on. Davidovits also uses the famous Djoser inscription from Sehel Island, the source from which he draws his misidentification of iri-kAt, but makes the fundamental error in believing it actually dates to the time of Djoser. It does not. It was inscribed in the Ptolemaic Period.

Really, Davidovits should avoid trying to rewrite inscriptions and stick to his expertise in material sciences. Every time these fringe folks hit on something they feel is a "new discovery," they branch out into areas where they shouldn't tread. The more scattered their arguments become, the less believable they are. Robert Schoch is another classic example.

As I've noted, it is the nature of translating inscriptions to produce translations with a different feel. That is due to the training and preferences of the individual translator. Nevertheless, with the proper training, a bunch of different translators will arrive at the same essential meaning. Most translations of a single source are in fact very similar. When something like the Amunhotep son of Hapu inscription has been translated many times through the years and the translations say the same thing, you know to doubt the results of someone who produces something entirely different. This is the same problem with Sitchin and the translations he's invented in cuneiform inscriptions.

[questionmark]

kmt_sesh, on 19 November 2009 - 03:48 AM, said:

Really, Davidovits should avoid trying to rewrite inscriptions and stick to his expertise in material sciences. Every time these fringe folks hit on something they feel is a "new discovery," they branch out into areas where they shouldn't tread. The more scattered their arguments become, the less believable they are. Robert Schoch is another classic example.

To which I want to add that in that field he is really good. I doubt there is anybody who knows more about ancient concrete than he does.

[Hanslune]

questionmark, on 19 November 2009 - 06:29 PM, said:

To which I want to add that in that field he is really good. I doubt there is anybody who knows more about ancient concrete than he does.

Wouldn't that be a 'geopolymer'LOL

KMT thanks for your comment and attempts to solve or obtain that answer. Stumping Egyptologists I've done before.