254 replies to this topic

[cladking]

I've had a change of opinion on the relevency of any interpretation
of the Pyramid Texts in this thread.  It is about the PT so any inter-
pretation should be relevent.  Since orthodox interpretation appears
so nonsensical I'll try to show how even the PT fit more closely to the
concept of astral projection than they do as a set of incantations for
the king to enter the afterlife.  Since all the translators agree but
one I'll mostly limit my work to those who get the same meaning from
the work and use the same means of organizing it.  

kmt_sesh, on 12 May 2010 - 02:25 AM, said:

You're evidently the only one in the world who suffers from some sort of ramp obsession. You've also closed your eyes to many decades of research, each subsequent year of which becomes more sophisticated and comprehensive than the last.

ROFL!!! I have a ramp obsession?  Two egyptologists can't talk for three
seconds without pretending the means of building doesn't matter since ramps
have already been assumed.  They are the only technologhy the primitives
might have possibly mastered so there can be no doubt that ramps were used.
The only question is what configuration but this isn't a question for po-
lite company and every idea gets shot down as unfeasible, unworkable, AND
unevidenced.  

Quote

Many scholars much smarter than you and I have been figuring out how the pyramids were built, and there is a vast body of literature out there to support their work.

Yes!!! Quite true on all counts.

But every siogle one of these people ay we don't know how the great
pyramids were built.  

Quote

You cannot blame the researchers and their solid work for the fact that nothing points to geysers or hydrology technology. Pretending their theories and results can be ignored will not get you anywhere.

This is one of the arguments and denying the evidence exists is skip-
ping ahead to a conclusion.  Let's just start (later) on the PT as astral
projection and see how tenuous orthodoxy is.  Stick with evidence though
and not conclusions.  

Quote

Tests and studies have been going on without a stop of over a century, and you have to realize that nothing observed by people who've actually been there and studied the Plateau and its monuments, would tend to support your personal opinions. If you somehow have the tenacity to believe countless professional researchers are wrong and only you are right, you have no recourse but to prove you're right. You have not yet done so.

I'm waiting for them or anyone to show me why the evidence is ir-
relevent or to show me better evidence for another solution.  

Quote

Mercer's online translations and internet photos of the Great Pyramid do not even put you in a position to begin to question orthodoxy.

The last thing I want to do is try to understand orthodoxy.  Literally.
Show me I'm wrong or you're right and then I'll care about ramps and
tombs.  In the mean time I intend to continue to attempt to prove
you wrong.  

Quote

You're only possible recourse is to become expert in linguistics to prove the linguists wrong about the Pyramid Texts, and to spend a hell of a lot of time at Giza itself to prove geologically that geysers were there.

I have absolutely no doubt that I could learn how to read and write
Egyptian and then translate the PT so it's even more supportive of my
ideas than it is now.  This is the way peoples' minds work.  So let's
save me years of hard work and pretend I have a version of the PT that
is 90% consistent with water rather than only 80%.  

Quote

Somehow you seem to think you can get around this. You cannot. Professional researchers are not going to be looking for something for which there is no evidence, so you're going to have to find it yourself.

They sure spend enough time looking for ramps and not talking about them.

[kmt_sesh]

cladking, on 12 May 2010 - 10:13 PM, said:

...

ROFL!!! I have a ramp obsession?  Two egyptologists can't talk for three
seconds without pretending the means of building doesn't matter since ramps
have already been assumed.  They are the only technologhy the primitives
might have possibly mastered so there can be no doubt that ramps were used.
The only question is what configuration but this isn't a question for po-
lite company and every idea gets shot down as unfeasible, unworkable, AND
unevidenced.  

...

I know a number of Egyptologists personally and have attended countless lectures presented by Egyptologists, up to and including topics on Giza. I cannot even count the number of books I've read about pyramids and Bronze Age engineering in general. I mention this because in the pages of UM alone, you have written more about ramps than any Egyptologist I can think of. Yes, you have an obsession for ramps. No one heaps as much attention on them as you. You don't see it, but ramps are not nearly the all-important fact to refute that you think they are.

I think you were of the right mind in the first place to discontinue this debate of ours. I agree that it is still germane to the overall topic of this thread, and feel free to write your own post about Pyramid Texts and astral projection. Funny that even The Puzzler came to the rightful conclusion that the article in the OP was incorrect, but feel free to try to defend it. I was thinking of writing my own post about the article, since I have not directly addressed it yet, myself.

However, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. You openly state that you have no need to study orthodox research and that it is okay for you to go on presenting your ideas, even though anyone versed in the subjects about which you write can see how lacking in substantive fact your posts are. As such I don't see any reason to continue this debate. Knowing the legitimate research and debating the fine points of it is one thing and can be quite enjoyable; pretending science and research are irrelevant and trying to pass one's self off as knowledgeable is akin to blowing a bunch of smoke, and I am not interested.

[cladking]

kmt_sesh, on 12 May 2010 - 11:15 PM, said:

You openly state that you have no need to study orthodox research and that it is okay for you to go on presenting your ideas...

Yes, I openly state I have no interest in the orthodox interpretation
of the evidence and the culture.  This is because I believe it has been
wholly misinterpreted.  I pick up a lot of this interpretation because
I read thousands of posts, web sites, and books which believe this inter-
pretation.  

This is really a simple concept.  Imagine it's 1865 and you're a well re-
spected surgeon.  You have a very heavy work load and don't have time to
wash your hands and instruments between operations because patients will
die if you waste your time being neat.  You know from many years of exper-
ience and reading that the most important thing to save the life of a pat-
ient is timely attention.  An attendent whose sole job it is to wheel the
patients in and out of the operating room approaches you and says that he's
observed that the first patient of the day and the first patient after lunch
have a five times better chance of survival than any other and he believes
it's because you start the day with clean hands and rewash them at lunch.

Of course you know this theory is ludicrous yet this crackpot keeps finding
circumstantial evidence such as those patients who are first in the day and
after lunch have less than a 10% as high odds of succumbing to strep infec-
tions and that new bone saws also reduce the odds of infection.  

At what point do you quit telling him to learn a little medicine and look at
his evidence?  At what point do you stop falling back on what you know and
look at the evidence from a different perspective?  

How many have to die before you consider that you don't know everything.


Don't take my point wrong here.  You are a very open minded person and ap-
pear to have considered much of the evidence I've presented.  The point is
that orthodox interpretation is not a defense against a new injterpretation.  
You need facts.  You need logic.  I don't believe that the orthodox inter-
pretation can stand on the evidence alone.  This goes double when the inter-
pretation appears to even be at odds with human nature.  

I'll go ahead and try to show that the PT fit the concept of astral projec-
tion but better than orthodox ideas I'm beginning to believe that there's
nothing that can shake your (or anybody's) certainty that the ancients were
incapable of using any other technology than ramps.  

...And then most people say I'm insulting the ancients!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kmt_sesh]

I realized only today that after all of the debating I've been doing in this discussion, especially with cladking, I never exercised the proper conduct of contributing my own thoughts on the article The Puzzler provided in the OP. Hopefully I can keep my response somewhat short, or as much as the word "short" would apply to a windbag such as I.

Down through the years countless scientists and other specialists with no background in the study of ancient Egypt have been drawn to the topic nonetheless. It's important that such people contribute their ideas and beliefs, based on their own specialized fields of training. But also vitally important is that such specialists take the time to research ancient Egypt adequately so that their contributions are sensible, accurate, and useful.

A good example of a success story is Bob Brier (in this photo he's the one standing up, not lying down   ). Technically Brier is not an Egyptologist. His university training and Ph.D. are in philosophy. This has enabled him to contribute important points to our understanding of the thought process of ancient Egyptian people, but it's not his main contribution. Due to many years of careful research and study on his own part, he's become one of the world's leading experts on Egyptian death and burial, mummification, and paleopathology in ancient Egypt. He is the only modern scientist who has ever mummified a human cadaver, to assess the degree of our current understanding of Egyptian mummification, considering the ancient Egyptians do not seem to have ever written down the processes themselves.

The author of the article in The Puzzler's OP, Alison Chester-Lambert, comes up somewhat lacking, however. It is clear she is an intelligent and well-educated individual, but it is also clear she is positing a position without a fundamental comprehension of ancient Egypt and its religion.

I do not outright dismiss some of the things about which she writes. The term "astral-projection" might be a bit too anachronistic and New Agey to take seriously, so I tend to prefer the term "out-of-the-body experience." I searched my books on ancient Egyptian religion and the Egyptians' own thoughts on the divine elements of each person, but could find nothing to corroborate a belief in out-of-the-body experience. However, I do seem to recall having read at some point in time an argument that could be made in favor of the idea. I apologize to one and all that I cannot corroborate it more than that. As close as I can come with more certainty is the well-known albeit fragmented tale known as the Discourse of a Man with his Ba.

This tale is not really about out-of-the-body experience but it clearly suggests, at least to a point, that the Egyptians regarded the ba as potentially self-aware and able to exist even in life as a separate entity from the body. The ba, for those who are not familiar with the word, is one of the most important divine elements of each person, in Egyptian thought. This is one of those ancient words for which a precise translation is simply not possible, but it's basically the aspect of the person which possesses his or her character, personality, and intelligence. After the death and burial of the individual, the ba could travel freely between the land of the living and the land of the dead and was believed to rejoin the mummified body every evening at dusk, as illustrated in this graphic.

But it remains true that Chester-Lambert's assessment of the Pyramid Texts is far off the mark. She writes that this vast collection of writings from the third millennium BCE seems "random and seemingly unrelated," which tells the savvy student of ancient Egypt that the translations she used for her study were most likely quite old and, arguably, outdated. For example, a student reading Kurt Sethe's translations of the Texts from his 1908 publication might well be confused by the chaotic nature of these writings. The mistake Chester-Lambert makes, and a mistake made by many people not aware of the nature of the early translations, is that there is in fact a recognizable order to the Pyramid Texts. As with any other field of study, it simply took subsequent translators with a greater command of the context and language to discern the logical order of the many spells, which begin in the burial chamber and lead out through the main corridor entrance of the pyramid--the same direction in which the king's soul was expected to travel.

Chester-Lambert writes that "Experts consider them to be magical formulae and 'not coherent,' which is true only to an extent. I've already demonstrated that the spells must be read in a specific order that went unrecognized by early scholars, but to a narrow point Chester-Lambert is correct. The Pyramid Texts are not a story, nor a cohesive narrative, nor were they intended to be. This is something that trips up many beginners in the study of ancient Egyptian religion. It was not the intent of the people who wrote and carved the Pyramid Texts thousands of years ago to compose a novel; it was their intent to ensure that the divine soul of their god-king would safely reach his place in the heavens. This was accomplished through the spells that compose the Pyramid Texts, which to the Egyptians were potent magic. The written word was powerful, most especially when penned in hieroglyphs: what was written was expected to come true.

The author also states: "They [the spells] make constant reference to the cosmos and another invisible world that is intertwined with ours." This is correct. In the Old Kingdom the "heaven" to which kings were believed to reside after death was in the cosmos, in among the stars. The invisible world intertwined with ours is expressed by the ancient Egyptian term Duat (transliterated dwAt), which was the underworld or land of the dead, where everyone else was expected to reside after death. Some of the earliest spells in the order of the Pyramid Texts make it clear how the king was supposed to be spiritually resurrected, retrieved from the Duat, and guided up into the cosmos.

That the Pyramid Texts are funerary in nature is irrefutable. Countless spells make reference to such terms as Krst, which means "place of burial." The Egyptian term for burial chamber, Xnt, is mentioned numerous times, as are items of burial equipment such as the coffin (Krsw). Many spells are devoted to the rituals of offering and anointing the funerary statue and the ceremony known as the Opening of the Mouth, which are well-attested as funerary rituals before the time of the pyramids and for the remainder of dynastic history.

I will wind this up with a note about the hieroglyphic script in which the Pyramid Texts were written. Chester-Lambert writes:

Quote

The hieroglyphs are symbols…not words or letters. They can be read as words or letters…but they can also be read on many other levels. They speak to technicians in their own language. The truly awesome power of the hieroglyphs is that they will lend themselves to interpretation through the eye of the shaman, the psychologist or the physicist. Because they all simply have different ways of viewing the SAME world and it`s invisible forces! The hieroglyphs have multiple levels of meaning.

This is a teeny bit of truth stretched far into and beyond absurdity. It is here where Chester-Lambert reveals her most singular failure of proper familiarity with the topic. The hieroglyphs form a phonetic, consonantal script that is well understood today. We do not know how many of the words actually sounded based on the absence of vowels in the script, but we certainly understand the meanings of nearly all words (scholars still quibble over the precise meanings of a handful or verbs and nouns in the Pyramid Texts). It is true that a particular hieroglyph can represent more than one sound and in some cases can even mean what it pictorially shows (for example, the face-glyph can mean "face"), but this is all governed and tightly regulated by the context of a glyph within a word, phrase, or sentence. So it's true that a single glyph in many cases can be used in more than one way, but its context tells the translator how it is meant to be used. The idea that hieroglyphs are a magical and divine pictographic symbology that conceal esoteric secrets was how people regarded them before Champollion deciphered hieroglyphs in 1822. Champollion and those who followed in his footsteps proved definitively that the old attitude about hieroglyphs was foolish whimsy and needn't be taken seriously.

All told, Chester-Lambert is simply trying to invent her own meaning for the Pyramid Texts, just as countless poorly informed fringe writers have tried to do with this and other aspects of ancient Egyptian culture down through time. All have singularly failed. In their vigorous efforts to ignore proper research criteria and the scientific method, they have contributed really nothing to our understanding of ancient Egypt. Their material might be entertaining, and it can certainly give us a merry chuckle, but it's not useful.

[cladking]

The Puzzler, on 10 May 2010 - 01:05 AM, said:

This is not based in anything sci-fi or Sitchin-like, it is based in what seems like an obvious answer (to me).

The Great Pyramid was built to be able to be a vehicle for the body to astral travel or astral project, that is have an out of body exprience (OOBE) that took one to the stars and Heavens for a journey and back again.

If anyone is interested I'll add some links and other info on why I think this is the most logical answer for the Pyramid Texts and their use.

Here is a small link to a part that seems to indicate the Pharoah was not dead when he used the texts, he was very much alive.
http://www.midlandss...ntum_realm.html

There appears to be a great deal of support for this contention in the
Pyramid Texts.  The problem for me exploring this avenue is that there
is no incentive to study astral projection.  While I don't discount the
possibility that the ancients believed in it and this was the purpose
of the pyramid and the PT, my interest lies primarily in learning how
these were built.  

The problem with the orthodox interpretation of the PT is that from the
earliest time the translators were able to "skip ahead" because it was
immediately obviouis that this work was the earliest version of the book
of the dead and the various other books of spells.  It seemed to follow
that this must be a book of spells and this affected the translation. Al-
most nothing survives from the era of the PT and the building of the great
pyramids so the interpretation of this work has a profound effect on the
understanding of the pyramid builders themselves.  

While I personally don't find much justification for the orthodox inter-
pretation of this work anyone who wants to reinterpret it in terms of as-
tral projection will both have a field day because there are ample refer-
ences and a nightmare because there are numerous contradictions and non-
sequitors.  Some of it just flows as a  description of astral projection
but then comes to a brick wall;

1414b. He who ascended, ascended, N., that he might purify himself in the Marsh of Reeds.
1415a. He who ascended, ascended, Horus of the Horizon, that he might purify himself in the Marsh of Reeds.
1415b. He who ascended, ascended, N., that he might purify himself in the Marsh of Reeds.
1416a. N. is purified; N. has taken the śwḥ-vestment.
1416b. N. truly ascends to heaven, permanent like the earth.

N is forever ascending to heaven as birds or by other such extraordinary
means but then there will be a line like 1416a which just reeks of the
concrete.  N is in heaven in the concrete. This can only mean that the
pyrasmid is N or that N has taken the properties of a mountain or other
man made structure.  But this same thing is reinforced by

N rests in heaven, as a mountain as a support.

This rings of concrete as well.  Since there are no mountains in the Land
of Horus we are forced to conclude that they are referring to the pyramid.
Since they repeatedly say that the pyramid is the ka of N we're really left
a dead end.  

But with some work I'd wager you could get this to be pretty consistent
with the concept of the great pyramids for the purpose of astral projection.  
Afterall there's simply no reason that the dead king might not be intended
to serve as a launch pad for initiates after his death and internment in the
sky.

The simple fact is that the literal meanings of their words have been dis-
counted since even before Masperro was done translating them!  No matter
who says otherwise the fact is that words have meanings and the meanings
of the words have not been taken at face value.  Of course when there are
people and Gods ascending to the marsh of reeds and there are tossing in-
undations that come to the uplands it can be difficult for right thinking
people to believe in literal meanings.  All the words had to be accepted
in a different way so they could have some sort of coherence.  Of course,
this coherence could never be achieved if the words are meant literally.  All
the meaning has been interpreted right out of them.  

I'd applaud anyone who wanted to work on astral projection vis a vis the PT.
I'd be happy to lend support and pitch in.  I don't have enough interest at
this time to take it on myself but the simple fact is whether orthodoxy is
right or wrong about everything else, the pyramids might have been built
for astral projection.  It's somewhat better evidenced than that they are
tombs; that's actually plundered tombs since there's no evidence of burials
and precious little evidence of riches.  And this would still be despite the
fact that the builders said that the sky was the tomb of the king (repeatedly)
and that the pyramid was the ka of the king (repeatedly).

[Harte]

Paracelse, on 12 May 2010 - 06:48 AM, said:

  Yet I worked on several translation to found it's extremely difficult work.

As started, you have to be a fantastic individual because you have certainties I couldn't dream to have.

I think you fail to consider here that the body of work being translated from hieroglyphs is limited.

People have been working on translations of the same writings for a century and a half.

Also, there is a difference between a proclamation, a eulogy, or even a book of short spells, and a novel.

Harte

[cladking]

Did someone say astral travel;

1483b. ’Imś.ti, Ḥȝpi, Dwȝ-mw.t.f, Ḳbḥ-śn.w.f,
1483c. who live on truth, who lean upon their d'm-sceptres,
1483d. who guard the land of Upper Egypt.

1484a. He flies, he flies from you, O men, as birds;
1484b. he takes his flight from you (lit., he takes his arms from you) like a falcon;
1484c. he takes his body from you like a kite;
1484d. he is delivered from that which shackles his feet on earth,
1484e. he is freed from that which ties his hands.

[Harte]

IOW, "He's a deader."

Harte

[Qwasz]

So the mainstream theory is that everyone who dies goes to the underworld. But the Pharaoh, using his burial device and the spells on the walls, can prevent this happening to himself and can instead go into space and hang out with the Gods.. right?  Is that a fair layman's understanding of the mainstream theory?

And the Astral theory is more or less saying that the spells are describing the experience the Pharaoh is going to have while he (while living) hangs out in his astral project device, right?

So from there, I'd be interested in the spells themselves.  To be more precise:

1. Do the spells themselves DIRECTLY reference traditional death and the underworld?
2. Do the spells actually call out the following logical expression:  (Normal people go to the underworld but if you use these spells you can go to space)
3. If the above are not true, then mainstream view is getting it's story of the underworld from OTHER Egyptian texts, and are instead are getting #2 by inference across the culture?

So do the spells actually reference the underworld, or is that inferred?

[cladking]

Qwasz, on 13 May 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

1. Do the spells themselves DIRECTLY reference traditional death and the underworld?

Not exactly.  The king doesn't truly "die the death".  There are a few
lines which seemingly contradict this but the referent isn't clear and
it could be relevent to astral projection;

285a. So said he who is chief of his department (or, thigh offering). Thou decayest in the earth
285b. as to thy thickness, as to thy girt, as to thy length
285c. (but as spirit) thou seest Rē‘ in his bonds, thou adorest Rē‘ in-his freedom (from) his bonds,

It's improbable that the referent is the dead king since in all cases
he is said to ascend to heaven where his tomb is in the sky.  There's
no obvious referent but I believe this is the Osiris aspect of Osiris N.  

Mercer didn't translate "D[].t" which later translators translate as
"duat" which is where the dead Gods lived according to much later the-
ology.  There's no reason from context in the PT to suppose this word
means "duat".  Indeed, context suggests this is something which is a
source for water to be avoided.  There's a "hell" translated by Mer-
cer and the earliest translators as well as an underworld but these are
apparently distinct from the "D[].t".  

Things could die or never exist according to the PT but this work is
about life and its maintenance even after a life on earth.  

Quote

2. Do the spells actually call out the following logical expression:  (Normal people go to the underworld but if you use these spells you can go to space)

No. Certainly not but stay tuned in twenty years they might.  

There is very little about people in the PT and almost every reference
to them is of critical importance if you accept the literal meaning.  
One reads "men and Gods your arms under me as you raise me and lift me
to heaven".  In other words men were necessary to get the dead king to
ascend in the afterlife.  Another suggests that men helped to build the
stairway for the king to heaven.  Another suggests a possible motive force
for how this was accomplished; "men bury themselves, the Gods fly up".  
Mercer opined that this was "in the grave".  Men are also said to have
damaged one of the doors and implied they were severely punished and for
the sake of comprehensiveness there is a passage which suggests that if
the Gods don't build a pyramid then men won't be able to die and the Nile
Valley will "heal over".  There are a few lines like this that smack of
magic but the bulk has no obvious references to magic if read literally.  

Quote

3. If the above are not true, then mainstream view is getting it's story of the underworld from OTHER Egyptian texts, and are instead are getting #2 by inference across the culture?

I believe this is quite apparent.  The PT just don't say what orthodox
opinion believe they say.  The literal meaning has been stripped from
almost every single line in the work and a  metaphoric meaning inserted.  
If they were meant metaphorically then this is justified and one can see
how the later works evolved from them.  If it's not justified one can still
see how the later works evolved from them and the orthodox interpretation
is greatly in error.  

Quote

So do the spells actually reference the underworld, or is that inferred?

They reference the D[].t.

This word apparently meant the carbonated water under the ground, the hole
through which it shot up (Eye of Horus), the column of water, the lakes form-
ed, and the abundance it generated.  The verb appears to have been []gb which
means a violent inundation which causes abundance which is translated various-
ly as "violent", "inundation", or "abundance" dependent upon context.  

When the CO2 (I[].t-wt.t) level dropped too low for the Gods to stand they
offered natron "libation" which caused eruptions.  Over time this level con-
tinued to drop and natron no longer worked.  The Gods became just the dead
part under the ground.  This is basically what the word "duat" came to mean;
dead Gods under the ground.

"His name lives on account of natron-offerings and he is divine"

It appears this meaning has been injected into the older writing inappropri-
ately.  The words are D[].t (geyser), []gb (what a geyser does), and I[].t-wt.t
(what makes a geyser work).  

If you substitute these concepts into the PT it is no longer a book of spells
but a coherent explanation for a theology built on a natural phenomenon as well
as a good glimpse into how great pyramids can be built with water pressure.

Edited by cladking, 13 May 2010 - 10:09 PM.

[cladking]

Qwasz, on 13 May 2010 - 08:51 PM, said:

So do the spells actually reference the underworld, or is that inferred?

I should be much more clear here.  

There is almost nothing in the PT concerning any sort of "underworld".  
The very little that is there is mostly "D[].t" which from context al-
most certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the underworld except
that Nun (the God of water) controls the water in the underworld.  Nun
existed before Atum who was the first God who created himself.

There simply is no underworld to speak of.  The PT says the king ascends
to heaven to be an imperishable star.  He needs men's help for this and
ascends upon a ladder made by the Gods.  His tomb is in the sky and the
pyramid is his ka.  

This is what the builders of the great pyramids said. They did not con-
tradict themselves and I see no evidence that they made grammatical
mistakes.  The apparent errors appear to be caused primarily by misun-
derstanding.

Edited by cladking, 13 May 2010 - 10:05 PM.

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

Quote

Qwasz, on 13 May 2010 - 02:51 PM, said:

1. Do the spells themselves DIRECTLY reference traditional death and the underworld?

Quote

If you substitute these concepts into the PT it is no longer a book of spells
but a coherent explanation for a theology built on a natural phenomenon as well
as a good glimpse into how great pyramids can be built with water pressure.

Qwasz,

If you follow this advise, you will have effectively bastardized a significant piece of Ancient Egyptian religion and rituals (and the understanding thereof), all on the word of someone who isn't even remotely qualified to make the pronouncements concerning same, that he does.

You might want to find someone who's actually knowledgeable on the subject.

cormac

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 13 May 2010 - 10:29 PM, said:

If you follow this advise, you will have effectively bastardized a significant piece of Ancient Egyptian religion and rituals (and the understanding thereof), all on the word of someone who isn't even remotely qualified to make the pronouncements concerning same, that he does.

Quite true.  It's not often we are in nearly complete agreement.

But this doesn't change what the builders said.  The builders
said the king's tomb was in the sky and the pyramid was his ka.
They used words that implied the so-called duat shot water high
in the air and was equipped with a rainbow.  

It's a little late to argue with the great pyramid builders.  

Quote

You might want to find someone who's actually knowledgeable on the subject.

This is never bad advice but in this case it might not be the best.

[cormac mac airt]

Quote

But this doesn't change what the builders said.

YOU don't know what the builders said, so pretending competency or relevancy in discussing same is entirely meaningless.

cormac

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 13 May 2010 - 11:00 PM, said:

YOU don't know what the builders said, so pretending competency or relevancy in discussing same is entirely meaningless.

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

Enjoy!!!

Everyone can read what they said and can see I'm right.