Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Big Bad Voodoo

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

1,651 posts in this topic

I can agree that if not for the existence of G1 there there would be less debate probably.

But, the facts would not necessarily be any different. There are lots of fine details and good

craftsmanship in other structures and pyramids as well. For many of us, it's not at all the in-

terior of the great pyramids that first attracted our attention but the vast enormity of the struc-

ture and effort required to lift and build it. Even if G1 didn't exist, G2 is still nearly as massive

and even the smaller great pyramids must have been significant undertakings.

The facts remain the same and the facts are that there is no direct evidence that the kings

from before the 5th dynasty were buried in tombs. That they might have been is a given, that

they were is an assumption based on interpretation of facts. 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. 616d. Thou art given over to thy mother Nut, in her name of "Grave"; 616e. she has em-

braced thee, in her name of "Grave";.

It will take science to settle the matter but no science is being done.

And no matter how many times you make this false claim the Pyramid Texts inscribed within the tomb of Unis some 150 years after the fact are not the words of the builders of the GP.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no matter how many times you make this false claim the Pyramid Texts inscribed within the tomb of Unis some 150 years after the fact are not the words of the builders of the GP.

And no matter how many times you claim these words have nothing to do with the

great pyramids you can't show me they aren't their exact words. No matter how many

times you make the same empty claim you can't show me the actual words of the buil-

ders. No matter how many times you claim these words are distinct from the builders,

even Egyptologists agree with me that many of these words date back even earlier than

the builders of the great pyramids.

Egyptologists want to interpret these words in terms of the beliefs and language of the

writers of the book of the dead. THIS IS ILLEGITIMATE! We don't know that there

were no changes between these times. But it is perfectly legitimate to analyze these

words as having been used by the great pyramid builders. Top some small extent I

do agree with you that they are from a later time even if they were ancient in that spec-

ific later time so we need to not put undue weight on the words. We need to realize and

understand that even so simple a concept as "Osiris" was being written int the work in

the place of Atum, for instance.

You are simply wrong that these aren't the words of the builders. You'd be much more

correct to say we don't know exactly which words belong to the builders and which were

appended in the succeeding century. But these are the words of the builders and the

concept that the king was burned and the pyramid was his ka is woven into and though-

out the work. These concepts are intimately woven into the fabric of the PT and it seems

most unlikely that they were added in after the great pyramid buildinmg age.

This is what they said and it's OUR job to determine why they said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no matter how many times you claim these words have nothing to do with the

great pyramids you can't show me they aren't their exact words. No matter how many

times you make the same empty claim you can't show me the actual words of the buil-

ders. No matter how many times you claim these words are distinct from the builders,

even Egyptologists agree with me that many of these words date back even earlier than

the builders of the great pyramids.

Egyptologists want to interpret these words in terms of the beliefs and language of the

writers of the book of the dead. THIS IS ILLEGITIMATE! We don't know that there

were no changes between these times. But it is perfectly legitimate to analyze these

words as having been used by the great pyramid builders. Top some small extent I

do agree with you that they are from a later time even if they were ancient in that spec-

ific later time so we need to not put undue weight on the words. We need to realize and

understand that even so simple a concept as "Osiris" was being written int the work in

the place of Atum, for instance.

You are simply wrong that these aren't the words of the builders. You'd be much more

correct to say we don't know exactly which words belong to the builders and which were

appended in the succeeding century. But these are the words of the builders and the

concept that the king was burned and the pyramid was his ka is woven into and though-

out the work. These concepts are intimately woven into the fabric of the PT and it seems

most unlikely that they were added in after the great pyramid buildinmg age.

This is what they said and it's OUR job to determine why they said it.

It's real simple. They're inscribed within the tomb of Unis and addressed to Unis. Not to Khufu, not to Khafre nor even Menkaure. "Many" of the words dating back to the time of the Gizamids doesn't mean the text, as a whole, does as well. So unless you can provide evidence that the text as a whole dates to the earlier period then your claim is meaningless.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's real simple. They're inscribed within the tomb of Unis and addressed to Unis. Not to Khufu, not to Khafre nor even Menkaure. "Many" of the words dating back to the time of the Gizamids doesn't mean the text, as a whole, does as well. So unless you can provide evidence that the text as a whole dates to the earlier period then your claim is meaningless.

I disagree.

It's not my claim that the text as a whole dates to the great pyramid building age. My claim

is that it obviously dates to the great pyramid building age and can be deconstructed in that

light. It is my claim that it not only obviously dates to the great pyramid building age but the

consensus opinion of the experts is that it dates to the pyramid building age.

Calling the PT "the words of the builders" is only slightly hyperbolic. This claim is certainly

much better substantiated than that this can be interpreted in the terms of the book of the

dead. It is Egyptology engaging in poor methodology and not me. It is not my contention

that consensus opinion is worth much as it applies to the applicability of the Pyramid Texts

to the great pyramid builders even though they agree with me. It is my opinion that this is of

value to other people even though it is not to me. The PT is obviously the "religion" of the

great pyramid builders and has obviously been misunderstood for 140 years. This misunder-

standing is a large part of the reason that the erroneous assumptions were made in the first

place.

Whether you believe the PT is the words of the builders or not the fact remains that it says

exactly what it says and what it says is not in agreement with Egyptological interpretations nor

is it in agreement with the book of the dead. It much better supports Scott Creighton's argu-

ment than it does orthodoxy.

There must be some reason that there is no consistency between the PT and interpretation.

I believe I've identified and named those reasons. Everything is falsifiable but everyone is

too afraid to do the science to falsify orthodoxy's opinion, Scott Creighton's opinion, or any-

one else's opinion. They dig for ramps and desicrate graves as they damage the evidence

with drills, concrete, and iron bars. I shudder to think how much evidence is buried under many

tons of concrete or hidden away by gates and locks.

I don't believe any longer that people want answers. They want their beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling the PT "the words of the builders" is only slightly hyperbolic.

It's about as meaningless as the phrases "sorta pregnant" and "honest politician". Dating to the pyramid building age does not automatically equate to "dating to the construction of the GP".

It's not my claim that the text as a whole dates to the great pyramid building age.

It is when you've tried to imply it has any bearing of a timeframe 150 years prior.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about as meaningless as the phrases "sorta pregnant" and "honest politician". Dating to the pyramid building age does not automatically equate to "dating to the construction of the GP".

It is when you've tried to imply it has any bearing of a timeframe 150 years prior.

I'm not going to play word games.

They quit building pyramids after G2.

I will not discuss it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you give some credence to the text of the Dream Stella of Tuthmosis IV who lived about 1000 years after the buiding of GP1 would you also not have to give at least that same credence to the texts from 150 years after GP1 was built? If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

<<Moderator Snip>>

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

Edited by kmt_sesh
See Post 1121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you give some credence to the text of the Dream Stella of Tuthmosis IV who lived about 1000 years after the buiding of GP1 would you also not have to give at least that same credence to the texts from 150 years after GP1 was built? If not, why not?

The only thing the Dream Stela is meant for is an attempt to legitimize the kingship of Thutmose IV. That's it. 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.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posters are reminded not to copy and paste long passages of text from other sources. It likely comes across as too dense to interest other posters, and there are possibly copyright issues in many cases.

Copy and paste only a key paragraph, as well as a link to the rest of the article so that those interested can read it all.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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”.

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.