1650 replies to this topic

[docyabut2]

Sorry kmt, but Peter had it right, there is a evolution of the pyramid, not out of place as some would suggest:)

[cladking]

docyabut2, on 13 November 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

About Egyptian Pyramids

by Pete Vanderzwet

In the last two decades much has been written on the pyramids, anchored not with archaeological evidence, but instead with wishful thinking and un-evidenced, fanciful imagination. This scholarly error has resulted in a general public that believes the pyramids, Khufu's in particular, are mysterious, magical monuments that appear overnight and with no architectural or cultural evolution. This could not be further from the truth; the Egyptian pyramid is the result of centuries of development, experiment and adaptation to various evolving cultural manifestations.

http://www.touregypt...idevolution.htm

This can not be defended.  The evidence is interpretative and inconclusive.

It has been shot down dozens of times.

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 14 November 2012 - 12:04 AM, said:

And as the Pyramid Texts are first found in the tomb of, and addressed to, Unis the Dream Stela is addressed to Thutmose IV. They are quite specific to those individuals.

Almost the exact same Pyramid Text rituals are found in other pyramids with a different
king's name in place of "Osiris/ Unis".  This says point blank that these rituals were not
rewritten each time they were used.  The implication is if we had an earlier copy it would
read "Osiris/ Khufu" except that it is apparent that Osiris was inserted in Atum's place.
Therefore the ritual read to the crowds at Khufu's ascension ceremony would use the
words "Atum/ Khufu" instead of Osiris/ N.

This stuff is really pretty simple if you believe the builders instead of the Egyptologists.

[cormac mac airt]

cladking, on 14 November 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

Almost the exact same Pyramid Text rituals are found in other pyramids with a different
king's name in place of "Osiris/ Unis".  This says point blank that these rituals were not
rewritten each time they were used.  The implication is if we had an earlier copy it would
read "Osiris/ Khufu" except that it is apparent that Osiris was inserted in Atum's place.
Therefore the ritual read to the crowds at Khufu's ascension ceremony would use the
words "Atum/ Khufu" instead of Osiris/ N.

This stuff is really pretty simple if you believe the builders instead of the Egyptologists.

All of which date after Unis.

You invalidate your own argument since you've already claimed (previously) that one can't use anachronistic evidence to support their claims, which you've argued is what Egyptologists have done, yet you aren't held to the same standards. Even if Egyptologists did that (they don't) you still come off as a hypocrite. Which means that your claim can be no better than theirs. So much for your facts.

But that's enough going off-topic just so you can stroke your ego.

cormac

[cladking]

cormac mac airt, on 14 November 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

All of which date after Unis.

You invalidate your own argument since you've already claimed (previously) that one can't use anachronistic evidence to support their claims, which you've argued is what Egyptologists have done, yet you aren't held to the same standards. Even if Egyptologists did that (they don't) you still come off as a hypocrite. Which means that your claim can be no better than theirs. So much for your facts.

But that's enough going off-topic just so you can stroke your ego.

This is the way you interpret the evidence.  

The way I interpret it my methodology is eight  times better than Egyptology because my resource
material is eight times closer to the building of the great pyramids.  It's really even better than that
because the book of the dead obviously isn't related to building great pyramids as the ka of the king
while it's quite apparent this is what the Pyramid Texts are.

It's illogical to apply anything from the book of the dead to the PT but it's perfectly logical to apply
the Pyramid Texts to the pyramids.  They fit together.

[samspade]

cladking, on 14 November 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

it's perfectly logical to apply the Pyramid Texts to the pyramids.  They fit together.

What is  not logical is to claim the great pyramid was a representation on the ground or
on the horizon to be 1 of the belt stars of Orion.

That is totally wrong and insane - Khufu would be insulted by such a suggestion if he would around today.

Edited by samspade, 14 November 2012 - 05:47 AM.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Alcibiades9, on 13 November 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

but we are no more obliged to accept it just because of his proximity in time to 2500BC that we are obliged to say that Budge must know slightly more about the AEs than us because he is 80 years nearer to them than we are.

Though I think it unfair to Thutmosis IV not to give him, or any other AE, the benefit of the doubt, as it cannot be denied that we cannot possibly know what he did or didn't know, it is suposition on our part. When I wrote about there being no great fracture in Egyptian culture, I did not mean to say there were no changes through all their history, only that there were no changes so great as to suplant the native people, their language and, at least, basics of their religion. These major events happened in other countries for sure, but not in Egypt before the end of the dynastic period. Purely hypothetical, but if Thutmosis went back in time 1,000 years, I think he would be able, after a few shocks, get to grips with the culture he found infinitely better than us. I genuinely cannot see why orthodox and alternaviks disagree with me over this point about knowledge of AEs, which indicates, maybe, perhaps, that there is a third position to be taken. I do not know, yet

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

cladking, on 13 November 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

The assumption flies in the face
of the words left by the builders who clearly stated many times that the king's grave was in the
sky

I'm sure they thought his ka was in the sky, but his remains, in whatever form, where in the pyramid. I think it reasonable to say that were your remains lie, is your tomb. It does not matter if G1 was a landing pad for an Hatak, or a power plant, acoustic whatever, flood defence, stasis chamber for Khonsu in his vampire form etc etc. If a King's physical remains were interred in a pyramid, then a pyramid is a tomb, as well as all the other things, or none of them, or something we still cannot even imagine....

[samspade]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 14 November 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

If a King's physical remains were interred in a pyramid, then a pyramid is a tomb, as well as all the other things, or none of them, or something we still cannot even imagine....

most cant imagine the great pyramid having a prophency regarding jesus and the rejected stone of the builders.

I tend to believe there is a good chance in a Prophecy in the Great pyramid.
I believe the person who came across the rejected stone of the builders by the great pyramid, would be the one to know the truth about the great pyramid.

Perhaps the djedi team may find some clues, but the person holding the stone knows more about the great pyramid and its mystery and the plateau than the djedi team.

just by opionion.

[cladking]

Atentutankh-pasheri, on 14 November 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

I'm sure they thought his ka was in the sky, but his remains, in whatever form, where in the pyramid. I think it reasonable to say that were your remains lie, is your tomb. It does not matter if G1 was a landing pad for an Hatak, or a power plant, acoustic whatever, flood defence, stasis chamber for Khonsu in his vampire form etc etc. If a King's physical remains were interred in a pyramid, then a pyramid is a tomb, as well as all the other things, or none of them, or something we still cannot even imagine....

I don't disagree at all.

They said the pyramid itself was the king's ka.  They implied (or stated) that the king was
cremated.  Yes, the pyramid could be his tomb.  To my mind the only given is that they
considered that the king's "soul" to be the interplay of the pyramid and the sky.

Obviously, this is largely interpretation (even though this interpretation is they they spec-
ifically stated as much) so I might well be wrong.  I'd be happy as a clam if they just began
to do the scientific tests that would answer basic questions and do all basic measurements.
It makes no sense to guess when you can know.

This is the third millineum and questions that can be answered by science should be ad-
dressed by science.  Instead we're running around like barefoot bumpkins.

[kmt_sesh]

cladking, on 14 November 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

Almost the exact same Pyramid Text rituals are found in other pyramids with a different
king's name in place of "Osiris/ Unis".  This says point blank that these rituals were not
rewritten each time they were used.  The implication is if we had an earlier copy it would
read "Osiris/ Khufu" except that it is apparent that Osiris was inserted in Atum's place.
Therefore the ritual read to the crowds at Khufu's ascension ceremony would use the
words "Atum/ Khufu" instead of Osiris/ N.

This stuff is really pretty simple if you believe the builders instead of the Egyptologists.

Your "Atum/Khufu" is a perfect example of assumption. It is not related to verifiable fact for two reasons: 1) No Pyramid Texts prior to Dynasty 5 exist for us to form substantial conclusions and 2) as deities Atum and Osiris were two very different gods with very different roles. This is besides the fact that Osiris is not known in any context prior to late Dynasty 5.

Your entire approach with the Pyramid Texts lies in your belief that some great schism occurred within the civilization sometime between the building of the Great Pyramid and the first inscriptions of the Texts inside Unis' pyramid. As many times as I've had to write this, I guess it's necessary I keep doing so—if only for the benefit of other readers who happen across these posts.

No such schism occurred in this timeframe. There is simply no evidence for it. Although the authority of the state was weakening by late in the Old Kingdom, there was no societal breakdown or socio-political collapse till after the Old Kingdom (c. 2200 BCE). This is not an arguable point, it is a basic fact.

Moreover, the Pyramid Texts represent an unbroken funerary tradition beginning in the Old Kingdom. Although the tombs of kings and some queens in late Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6 were the principal venue for the Texts, they were not exclusive. The tombs of provincial officials beginning in Dynasty 6 feature excerpts of the Pyramid Texts, taken straight from the pyramids of the rulers. The Texts transitioned in to the Coffin Texts in the First Intermediate Period, but the Pyramid Texts were used alongside them in numerous tombs (e.g., the Middle Kingdom tomb of Senusretankh at Lisht). The earliest identifiable spells from the Book of the Dead date to Dynasty 13, on the coffin of a queen. Excerpts from the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts were still appearing in tombs well past the New Kingdom, even when the Book of the Dead was predominant.

There was no schism in the Old Kingdom, and even though the political order collapsed after the Old Kingdom, we have abundant evidence of the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts still being used, alongside each other, clear past the Middle Kingdom. This was an unbroken tradition with a lively and deeply meaningful evolution in religious meaning.

Your theme does not stand up to scrutiny no matter how many times you present the same mistakes.

[questionmark]

kmt_sesh, on 15 November 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

Your theme does not stand up to scrutiny no matter how many times you present the same mistakes.

The biggest error of most proponents of fringe theories is that Egypt was a uniform culture for more than 3000 years, which is how you get the funniest interpretations attributing later developments to older times.

Fact of the matter is that there never was a civilization that remained static for more than a few generations unless displaced an mourning their old home.

[Scott Creighton]

questionmark, on 15 November 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

The biggest error of most proponents of fringe theories is that Egypt was a uniform culture for more than 3000 years, which is how you get the funniest interpretations attributing later developments to older times.

Fact of the matter is that there never was a civilization that remained static for more than a few generations unless displaced an mourning their old home.

SC:The biggest error of most proponents of the Pyramid Tomb Theory is that all pyramids that Consensus Egyptology has not classed as a Cenotaph or a Provincial Pyramid is regarded as the tomb of an AE king.

The early, giant pyramids were *not* conceived or built as tombs. They were built as Recovery Vaults to protect against the anticipated end time 'Flood of Thoth'; a means to effect the (eventual) rebirth of the kingdom, of the two lands. As instruments to effect the ‘rebirth of the kingdom’ these first pyramid structures *may* have influenced the ongoing development of the AE religion and provided the impetus for the building of the later, much inferior pyramids as instruments to facilitate the rebirth of the king i.e. as tombs. But these first pyramids were, first and foremost, about the protection, preservation and rebirth of the kingdom. Later this concept *may* have morphed into the protection, preservation and rebirth of the king.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 15 November 2012 - 03:28 PM.

[questionmark]

Scott Creighton, on 15 November 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

SC:The biggest error most proponents of the Pyramid Tomb Theory is that all pyramids that Consensus Egyptology has not classed as a Cenotaph or a Provincial Pyramid is regarded as the tomb of an AE king.

The early, giant pyramids were *not* conceived or built as tombs. They were built as Recovery Vaults to protect against the anticipated end time 'Flood of Thoth'; a means to effect the (eventual) rebirth of the kingdom, of the two lands. As instruments to effect the ‘rebirth of the kingdom’ these first pyramid structures *may* have influenced the ongoing development of the AE religion and provided the impetus for the building of the later, much inferior pyramids as instruments to facilitate the rebirth of the king i.e. as tombs. But these first pyramids were, first and foremost, about the protection, preservation and rebirth of the kingdom. Later this concept *may* have morphed into the protection, preservation and rebirth of the king.

SC

Nice rant, and that has something to do with cultural continuity because of... ? (besides being dead wrong).

[cladking]

Quote

Moreover, the Pyramid Texts represent an unbroken funerary tradition beginning in the Old Kingdom. …There was no schism in the Old Kingdom, and even though the political order collapsed after the Old Kingdom, we have abundant evidence of the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts still being used, alongside each other, clear past the Middle Kingdom.

This is the root of our disagreement and the point at which Egyptology took a wrong turn. This is the exact assumption that Egyptology makes to justify the interpretation of the Pyramid Texts as being understandable in terms of the book of the dead. There is no basis to justify this assumption. It is made because otherwise the PT exists in a vacuum and couldn’t be understood before now.

It is quite obvious that the PT is an earlier version of the book of the dead but this does not mean in any way whatsoever that it must have the same meaning or the same referents for the words. We don’t know what these words meant to the pyramid builders because they exist nowhere other than the PT. It is illogical in the extreme to insist that the referents and meaning “must be” the same as they were thousands of years later but this is exactly what Egyptology does. Rather than seeking concurrent information or meaning by context they use concepts that wouldn’t be invented for countless centuries. Rather than try to project the PT back into time, they project the book of the dead back in time. It simply makes no sense and can’t return any facts or accurate data unless their assumption is true. Meanwhile the assumption appears to be obviously untrue.

Quote

This was an unbroken tradition with a lively and deeply meaningful evolution in religious meaning.

There’s no evidence that the meaning of the Pyramid Texts has anything to do with “religion”. Yes, one might say that this concept is “apparent” but it’s only apparent because Egyptology insists on translating the word “neter” as “god”. From context though it is obvious the word “neter” should be translated as “natural phenomenon”. And this is only the first of the huge changes, the first schism, that happened.

Quote

No such schism occurred in this timeframe. There is simply no evidence for it.

This first one is the subject here. It concerns the birth of Osiris who was for practical purposes “born dead” because he was conceived to take the place of the very first God (Atum) who had “died”. We can’t see this specific change very clearly because by the time our copy of the PT came into being the process was already well advanced. But it’s apparent that Mercer could see it and he even titled one of his chapters, “a series of old Heliopolitan texts, some partially Osirianized”.

Quote

Your "Atum/Khufu" is a perfect example of assumption.

This isn’t really assumption but deduction. Deductions can be incorrect but I don’t treat my deductions as truth. If my interpretation of the PT is correct then it’s very very probable that an earlier version that was written in the days of great pyramid building would include words that would be properly translated as “Atum/ Khufu” or some equivalent. Obviously even you’d agree that there would have most probably been the concept “Osiris/ Khufu”. Since Osiris didn’t exist in the time of Khufu how do you believe this concept would be expressed?

This is the problem, we are forever talking about the great pyramids and Egyptology is forever bringing little other than the book of the dead to the table. We know what the book of the dead is talking about but it is wholly irrelevant to the great pyramids. As Cormac Mac Airt never tires of pointing out; even the Pyramid Texts is barely relevant to the great pyramids so we need to keep the book of the dead out of it altogether. You can’t simply claim no change occurred and start thumping the book of the dead from a soapbox because it is not relevant until someone proves it’s relevant. Of course, they can never prove it’s relevant because they took a wrong turn that generated bad theory and this is exactly where the bad turn was taken. Bad theory can’t answer any question at all. The best it can do is say things like “there mustta been no change” and “they mustta used ramps” and they “mustta been superstitious”. Meanwhile no coherence exists in theory and no evidence is consistent with theory. You often say that no alternative theory has ever damaged orthodoxy but this is solely because orthodoxy is founded on assumptions and anything that doesn’t accept these assumptions is simply discounted. Any evidence that doesn’t fit the assumptions is pronounced a red herring and anything too big to ignore is said to have had an unknown religious function. It appears to be quite improbable that mainstream opinion is correct. It’s not merely for evidentiary and logical reasons I say this but because mainstream theory has failed to make even the most basic predictions.

Quote

1) No Pyramid Texts prior to Dynasty 5 exist for us to form substantial conclusions

Yes. Any deductions are only possibilities. But such deductions are possible even if you don’t know the meaning of the PT.

For instance try this simple search;

site:sacred-texts.com utterance osiris Atum

This will return hits for every page of Mercer’s PT where the terms Osiris and atum both appear on a single page. It would seem this would be a very long list because of “Osiris” is ubiquitous in the PT and “Atum” is quite common. But it’s surprisingly short because of a large tendency for only one or the other to appear in the text. This logically might be explained by them being essentially identical concepts and one is supplanting the other. You’ll find where they do appear in the same utterance that there is a large tendency for only the role of Atum in the family tree to justify his presence. In other words they couldn’t extract him from the utterance without destroying the meaning of the utterance. Each God was born in a specific order and when the first “died” he could not be extracted without destroying the entire earthly ennead.

Quote

2) as deities Atum and Osiris were two very different gods with very different roles.

Kings transmogrified into Atum. Egyptology uses the word “akhafied”, I believe. But Atum “died” and Osiris was “born” (dead) to take his place. They even said as much;

1686b. (for) he has appointed thee, father Osiris N., (to be) upon the throne of Rē‘-Atum,
1686c. that thou mayest lead the blessed dead(?).

This is very fragmented in terms of meaning and translation errors are to be suspected. As it stands it hardly constitutes proof of my contention. But there is an apparent meaning here that was likely garbled in edits 4500 years ago or damaged by modern translation. It appears to say that the king transmogrified has been appointed to take the place of the place of Atum who was shaped in the sun by Horus. But it hardly stops here because Atum and Osiris share all their defining properties.

1466b. N. was given birth by his father Atum,

Atum is even the father of N just as is Osiris!!!
It’s obvious that Egyptology is simply misunderstanding the meaning of this work. They believe it has no meaning but this is because they can’t see it and they can’t see it because their assumptions are invalid.

2065a. Behold N., his feet shall be kissed by the pure waters,
2065b. which come into being through Atum, which the phallus of Shu makes, which the vulva of Tefnut brings into being.

Both Atum and Osiris are cool effervescent water!
There are countless reasons people haven’t seen the intended meaning of the Pyramid Texts but chief among them is 4000 years of tradition. We have been blind to the real beliefs of our ancestors for this long and misunderstanding them for this long. Our ancestors were primitive scientists who had no religion in any terms we could recognize. They used their science and technology to build structures that wouldn’t be exceeded in height for 4700 years and have yet to be exceeded in terms of lifting in a given place. They were far more advanced than we in numerous ways.

Edited by cladking, 15 November 2012 - 04:37 PM.