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 6
dreamland

Secret Caves under the Pyramids

969 posts in this topic

You can translate ancient Egyptian language as every other language, too.

Well, you could try to, but it would be a great injustice to the symbols and what they meant, the translations would be highly inaccurate, offensive and sound like jibberish. The people who encarved the script and knew its meaning would be probably bursting into fits of laughter upon hearing the translations, either that or they would be greatly insulted and take offense.

If such ancient people were still alive and were versed in their own hieroglyphic way of communication, and then went on to learn how to communicate in the latin script and a modern language, you would get more accurate translations, but even thats pushing it, because modern english or modern languages especially the latin script might not have the correct words to accurately describe the real meanings of the hieroglyphics.

Polytheistic peoples did not use the latin script to communicate their message. Look at it in another way, take for instance the latin script, imagine if you had no esoteric or real true understanding and knowledge of the script, then how would you decipher its words and the letters in those words and what the whole of the words mean, by using a different script built on different culture, religon and ways of communicating. The translations would not come out right, because the script used by the polytheistic peoples would not have accomodated the words seen in the modern languages.

Take for instance, the words "popcorn", "television", "chocolate" "bugs bunny" "micky mouse"

How on earth could you translate them in a script that would not accomodate such words, as i said earlier, the ancient peoples scripts were highly symbolic ways of communicating used for incantations, they were symbolic magical charms with hidden esoteric meanings that activate the subconcious mind.

Humans can communicate not only by written language with word, but also can communicate their message with symbolic pictures that have hidden esoteric meanings that stimulate the mind at a subconcious level.

The "English Language" attempts to have a word for everything, but they dont, because some things can not be described with such languages and latin scripts.

Also i have said numerous times that i don't believe hieroglyphics can be translated to any accuracy, i believe the rosetta stone to be a blatant fake. Napoleon was not a character of good repute and neither was his frency army. He was a christian, therefore i believe he was biased.

But tell us more on this, this is interesting, do you have examples?:

"Even the latin script itself contains many hidden esoteric meanings"

Yes, i can give you an example of one of the hidden esoteric meanings seen in the latin script. That most people don't seem to be familiar with.

Take for instance the letter "S" in latin script, look at it more closer, you will see the depiction of a serpent i.e. a snake. Then ask yourself why is the letter "S" used in the word "sex", "snake" and "serpent" is it a coincidence? no it is not, it was done on purpose, and also remember that english is the lingua fraca of christendom.

They "S" i.e. serpent signifies DNA, the double helix. What happens during sex? people procreate, the double helix DNA is used in creating a new being. Thats why you will see the first letter in the word "sex" being represented by the serpent.

You didn't answer the question "Which date system do you propose?"

I have already answered the question, i said one that does not have a relation to a calendar based around the anno domini one, a calendar that has no relation to the christendom one describing a fictitious character as a lord.

Christendom has indoctrinated billions of people unfortunately and a new "non christian calendar" for the masses would probably never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you could try to, but it would be a great injustice to the symbols and what they meant, the translations would be highly inaccurate, offensive and sound like jibberish.

I should point out here before you make even a bigger fool of yourself that the Egyptians themselves regularly translated their own language into other scripts.

Ever heard of the Rosetta Stone?

Take for instance the letter "S" in latin script, look at it more closer, you will see the depiction of a serpent i.e. a snake. Then ask yourself why is the letter "S" used in the word "sex", "snake" and "serpent" is it a coincidence? no it is not, it was done on purpose, and also remember that english is the lingua fraca of christendom.

They "S" i.e. serpent signifies DNA, the double helix. What happens during sex? people procreate, the double helix DNA is used in creating a new being. Thats why you will see the first letter in the word "sex" being represented by the serpent.

Oops. Too late.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard of the Rosetta Stone?

i believe the rosetta stone to be a blatant fake. Napoleon was not a character of good repute and neither was his frency army. He was a christian, therefore i believe he was biased.

Oops. Too late.

Harte

I'm quite sure you would have never noticed, if i did not enlighten you first.

B for beaver you say?

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polytheistic peoples (including the ones in ancient egypt) used different scripts to the christian script that modern people use.

The script being written here (classical latin alphabet/roman alphabet/christian alphabet) is a script that was promoted by romans, its the common latin script used by christians. Many ancient peoples used no such script. Its basic, boring and quite bland.

Translating hieroglyphics into a latin script is ridiculous, if the hieroglyphics were potent runic symbols used for magic, which they almost certainly were.

The futhark runes were magical symbols, trying to translate them in a latin script is an excerise in futility as is trying to translate the ancient egyptian hieroglyphics into a latin script.

Some of their meanings are not justified when its put into words from a latin script.

The hieroglyphics seen in ancient africa are not justified when put into a latin script, if anything the translations sound ridiculous, ancient scripts are different and contain many esoteric meanings and symbolism that its hard, if not impossible to put into words from vastly different scripts like latin.

On the flip note, trying to translate latin words into ancient egyptian hieroglyphics and futhark runes would not be acceptable, it would sound ridiculous, the true meanings would be lost.

Trying to translate such scripts into latin alphabet is losing the true meanings of the symbols. Latin alphabet is its own script, its vastly different to hieroglyphics and futhark scripts.

<<Image Snips>>

Even the latin script itself contains many hidden esoteric meanings that are taken for granted and little understood by the people who use such letters in the script.

A better understanding would only be achieved by taking lessons from the people who invented, designed and encarved the scripts, they were initiated into the manufacture of them, only they can give the true meanings.

I'm always curious where you get your information from. Why on earth would it matter what "script" was being used? Scripts are merely symbols meant to represent the sounds of a language. It's how writing works. There is no such thing as a "Christian script." Most Christians use English or another Western alphabet when they write, but that has nothing to do with their religion because Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists living in the same regions tend to use the same Latin-derived script. This doesn't even say anything about Arab Christians living in the Middle East and Christians in China or Korea or other countries, who use entirely non-Latin-derived scripts.

Your reasoning is fuzzy sometimes and can be difficult to follow.

Translating ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs is little different from an American or German or Frenchman using his language to translate Chinese or Japanese or Arabic or Aramaic. Should we discount the Japanese, for that matter? They've done a lot of very good work in Egyptology and publish their papers and books in the Japanese language, so should we regard their work as suspect or should we regard it as okay because they're not writing in a Latin-derived script? Do you see the problems here?

I am not a professional historian but I've been studying and translating hieroglyphic inscriptions for over fifteen years. I've taken a lot of training at my own expense to be able to do so. Others at UM who've done the same can testify to the realities of doing this. No one can deny there are difficulties and uncertainties when translating an inscription. The English language possesses a vocabulary considerably larger than ancient Egyptian possessed, which is why two translators might produce subtly different translations of the same inscription.

There are words in ancient Egyptian for which a direct translation into most modern languages is not possible. These include certain religious terms like the components of the soul, such as kA, bA, and Ax. But that doesn't mean we don't understand their meanings. We do. And we do because the ancient Egyptians described them adequately enough so that people living thousands of years later can make sense of them. But the majority of the ancient vocabulary is not nearly so mysterious, so there is no problem translating standard words like god(s), tree, river, king, priest, people, overseer, land, life, tomb, house, sky, and cow.

You're trying to present a mystery that does not exist. The fact that an amateur historian such as I can work on any given inscription and produce a cohesive, understandable translation is a direct reflection of the many brilliant historians and linguists who figured it out long before I was born. The script in which I write my translation is irrelevant. What's relevant is what the ancients themselves wrote, and we can read it.

What of the other scripts used by the Egyptians, such as hieratic and demotic? What of scripts used by neighboring peoples, such as cuneiform? Are these supposed to be an unknowable mystery, too? I guess the only relevant question for you is, how much education and training have you taken in ancient scripts and what is your linguistic background to make such conclusions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe the rosetta stone to be a blatant fake. Napoleon was not a character of good repute and neither was his frency army. He was a christian, therefore i believe he was biased.

Napoleon had nothing to do with the translation of the Rosetta Stone, nor did anyone in his army. His own scholars and scientists who accompanied his Egyptian campaign didn't even have time to study the monument before the English attacked and claimed it for themselves.

The men in the British museum who studied the Rosetta Stone had very little success with it, aside from proving hieroglyphs could be used to write foreign names. It was Jean Francois Champollion, in France, who succeeded in translating the hieroglyphs, and his successes were due largely to epigraphy work of friends who had been to Egypt and supplied him with copies of inscriptions. Champollion did not use the Rosetta Stone as much as people tend to think, which is borne out by the fact that the first Egyptian word Champollion successfully translated was actually a name—ra-mss (Ramesses)—which doesn't even appear on the Rosetta Stone.

And before you use the usual excuse that Champollion was a Christian and therefore bias, bear in mind that Champollion was not a religious person and was much more concerned with his academic pursuits. In fact, he was frequently at odds with the Roman Catholic Church because of how his research demonstrated that the world certainly was not created in 4004 BCE, a misconception to which the Church was still clinging at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why on earth would it matter what "script" was being used?

It matters, because scripts can come from different cultures, latin script comes from a different culture to the culture that used the hieroglpyhics. Therefore their cultures are very different.

Scripts are merely symbols meant to represent the sounds of a language. It's how writing works.

NOT ALL!, not everything is as simple as that, you must realise that humans communicate not only by sounds but also by symbols.

The symbols and pictures may contain elements of a esoteric nature that tell a whole message and a story.

Such symbols and pictures can also activate the subconcious mind, people are subconciously drawn to them, even if they might not be able to fully comprehend the meanings, their subconcious mind is attracted to it.

The story and messages that such symbols contain can not merely be brushed aside as only being letters with a simple primitive phonetic sound.

Look at modern culture and how they communicate. A lot of it is used by symbols, because not everyone speaks the same language, symbols send a clear message not by sound, but by visually appealing to the sight of the target who views it, the symbol is then translated in the mind, i.e. they get the message, no sounds or phoenetics used at all.

The signs and symbols below, are not a language that uses sounds to communicate, instead they use pictures to communicate the message as best as its designers can make it. The people initiated into the culture will learn it more quickly, than lets say a wandering caveman who sees them and walks into the middle of the road into traffic.

major-north-american-road-signs_3.jpg

no.png

As you can see, visual symbols don't necessarily have to contain a simple basic phonetic. They simply just try to tell a message. Sometimes they contain both a simple phonetic and a visual message, of which i'm going to describe below.

Take for instance the letter "S" i was talking about earlier, yes it contains a phoenetic element, but also important esoteric meanings.

Pronounce the letter "S" you will get a type of sound of "hish" sssssss, almost identical to the sound of a snake, the same creature that the letter "S" is representing. To merely just right it off as a simple phonetic letter is incredibly ignorant. People must look at what the snake represents and why its such an important part of ancient cultures and why it looks similar to double helix DNA. Its not a simple phonetic, oh no, it runs much deeper than that, it contains hidden meanings.

You're trying to present a mystery that does not exist.

I think the mystery of the great pyramids and the hieroglyphs is far deeper than what you want it to be.

[/background][/size]

And before you use the usual excuse that Champollion was a Christian and therefore bias, bear in mind that Champollion was not a religious person and was much more concerned with his academic pursuits. In fact, he was frequently at odds with the Roman Catholic Church because of how his research demonstrated that the world certainly was not created in 4004 BCE, a misconception to which the Church was still clinging at the time.

He was from France, that society and its colleges are christendom. Champollion was a jesuit in my opinion, or at least one of their coadjutors.

Also, its interesting that you brought him up, the academia world says this about him.

Champollion published the first translation of the Rosetta Stone hieroglyphs in 1822, showing that the Egyptian writing system was a combination of phonetic and ideographicsigns.

Not that i believe he actually translated anything with accuracy though. However its interesting how the academia world from christendom, has said that his so called translations of the hieroglyphs showed that they contain ideographic signs.

Ideographics = a graphic symbol that represents an idea or concept, not merely a simple primitive short phonetic sound.

Since Champollion was not immersed into the culture that knew about the true meanings of those ideographics, then i don't believe he could have translated the concepts behind the graphic symbols with any great deal of accuracy.

Edited by LRW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It matters, because scripts can come from different cultures, latin script comes from a different culture to the culture that used the heroglpyhics. Therefore their cultures are very different.

As I said, no idea but a strong opinion.

All letter alphabets have evolved from pictograms and that can be traced perfectly by archeological findings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of the ancient scripts from the ancient world, were not letter alphabets, To compare them to the latin script is the height of ignorance.

Definition of letter: A character representing one or more of the sounds used in speech: any of the symbols of an alphabet..

Not all symbols in the ancient scripts contained a simple phonetic sound, instead they contained a whole concept.

To deny it is even in conflict with the mainstream academia world who realise that the hieroglyphs are ideographic in nature.

Edited by LRW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, no idea but a strong opinion.

All letter alphabets have evolved from pictograms and that can be traced perfectly by archeological findings.

Well... ...let's not forget that the people who do it for a living say they can only "circumscribe" (one day I'm gonna have a typo right here) the meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I have already answered the question, i said one that does not have a relation to a calendar based around the anno domini one, a calendar that has no relation to the christendom one describing a fictitious character as a lord.

Christendom has indoctrinated billions of people unfortunately and a new "non christian calendar" for the masses would probably never happen.

No, you said what you WOULD NOT use. You haven't identified which you WOULD use.

I suspect you won't provide an answer, because any answer is necessarily wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be an epoch chronological system that is constantly open to new ideas and interpretations, not closed to them. One that caters to the opinions of what the mainstream academic world brands as fringe. Such a system should be opened and varied, multiple views catered for and nothing to be considered truly definitive, because the ancient world is only interpreted through modern eyes looking in. To brand everything as definitive undeniable proof of what really happened in ancient times is incredibly ignorant.

Christendom should not have the monopoly of such a chronological system, given their history with suppressing ancient religons and cultures.

The christian calendars is incredibly biased and jealous towards other potential ancient epochs that bring their whole religon and chronological sytem into disrepute.

CE/COMMON ERA my ass, if there was other highly advanced cultures way before the so called common era, (of which there probably was) then what really should be regarded as a common era? the christian era is only one era in earths history, the chronological system should not be based around that era.

But unfortunately it is, because they basically indoctrinated billions into christianity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current year is 51AG, not rocket science to work this out, or perhaps it is...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So any date system is arbitrary. This is Earth shattering.

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

Jesus christ has always been a personification of the sun, he is a sun deity, his birth is celebrated during winter solstice, a time that is generally celebrated as the return of the sun or rebirth of it.

...

Christmas is celebrated in the summer. :P

You clearly have a bias against those who believe the world is round. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It matters, because scripts can come from different cultures, latin script comes from a different culture to the culture that used the hieroglpyhics. Therefore their cultures are very different.

NOT ALL!, not everything is as simple as that, you must realise that humans communicate not only by sounds but also by symbols.

The symbols and pictures may contain elements of a esoteric nature that tell a whole message and a story.

Such symbols and pictures can also activate the subconcious mind, people are subconciously drawn to them, even if they might not be able to fully comprehend the meanings, their subconcious mind is attracted to it.

The story and messages that such symbols contain can not merely be brushed aside as only being letters with a simple primitive phonetic sound.

Look at modern culture and how they communicate. A lot of it is used by symbols, because not everyone speaks the same language, symbols send a clear message not by sound, but by visually appealing to the sight of the target who views it, the symbol is then translated in the mind, i.e. they get the message, no sounds or phoenetics used at all.

The signs and symbols below, are not a language that uses sounds to communicate, instead they use pictures to communicate the message as best as its designers can make it. The people initiated into the culture will learn it more quickly, than lets say a wandering caveman who sees them and walks into the middle of the road into traffic.

<<Image Snips>>

As you can see, visual symbols don't necessarily have to contain a simple basic phonetic. They simply just try to tell a message. Sometimes they contain both a simple phonetic and a visual message, of which i'm going to describe below.

Take for instance the letter "S" i was talking about earlier, yes it contains a phoenetic element, but also important esoteric meanings.

Pronounce the letter "S" you will get a type of sound of "hish" sssssss, almost identical to the sound of a snake, the same creature that the letter "S" is representing. To merely just right it off as a simple phonetic letter is incredibly ignorant. People must look at what the snake represents and why its such an important part of ancient cultures and why it looks similar to double helix DNA. Its not a simple phonetic, oh no, it runs much deeper than that, it contains hidden meanings.

I think the mystery of the great pyramids and the hieroglyphs is far deeper than what you want it to be.

He was from France, that society and its colleges are christendom. Champollion was a jesuit in my opinion, or at least one of their coadjutors.

Also, its interesting that you brought him up, the academia world says this about him.

Champollion published the first translation of the Rosetta Stone hieroglyphs in 1822, showing that the Egyptian writing system was a combination of phonetic and ideographicsigns.

Not that i believe he actually translated anything with accuracy though. However its interesting how the academia world from christendom, has said that his so called translations of the hieroglyphs showed that they contain ideographic signs.

Ideographics = a graphic symbol that represents an idea or concept, not merely a simple primitive short phonetic sound.

Since Champollion was not immersed into the culture that knew about the true meanings of those ideographics, then i don't believe he could have translated the concepts behind the graphic symbols with any great deal of accuracy.

The use of the word "script" implies something more sophisticated than something akin to pictographs or picture writing. Egyptian hieroglyphs were not picture writing. You supplied some good examples of ideograms, and I agree with you that hieroglyphs could also employ ideograms. Not exclusively, however. Not even in the norm, for that matter. The important consideration was the availability and economy of space the ancient craftsman had at his disposal. So while a glyph like a djed or an ankh could appear by itself and the reader would've known what it meant and represented by its single appearance, on larger and more formal inscriptions such glyphs were often written with phonetic components.

This alone tells us of the phonetic underpinning of Egyptian hieroglyphs. They represented units of sound. Glyphs are divided into monoliterals, biliterals, and triliterals depending on how many sounds they represented. Some glyphs even represent four sounds. They are composed of consonants and weak consonants, so the absence of vowels is and always will be a serious hinderance to our understanding of exactly how the language sounded, but the meaning of its glyphs is well understood and is solidly attested in professional research.

I am not sure of the benefit of carrying on this aspect of the debate with you. It seems clear to me you don't understand Egyptian hieroglyphs and how one translates them. In most cases that's fine, because most people do not possess this skill and indeed it's of no relevance or interest to most people. But where I must draw the line is when someone unfamiliar with linguistic pursuits deems to dismiss them as incorrect. An argument from lack of knowledge cannot stand. The only way you will understand the truth behind this, I believe, is for you yourself to learn hieroglyphs. Once you can repeatedly translate inscriptions (whatever they might be or say) and consistently arrive at coherent and relevant results, you cannot dismiss them.

I am not sure where you got the idea that Champollion was a Jesuit. It's a well-known fact that Champollion had no formal education most of his life and was in fact taught to read by his older brother Jacques. It's also a well-known fact that Champollion was a linguistic genius. He could read and write numerous languages fluently by the time he was an adolescent. Whether or not he was religious to any degree is actually immaterial, because when you think about it, how on earth would a belief in Jesus affect or influence a hieroglyphic translation of an offering formula or titulary or set of names or an account of some distant historical event?

I do not have the time to go back and cover all of the posts written in the last day or so, but I will end this one on our debate about BCE and CE. You brought this up in an earlier post. Nowhere did I say the system of dating for BCE and CE is inherently different from BC and AD. Yes, they are more or less based on the same system. I never doubted that. What I stressed is that BCE and CE have been adapted as a means to depart from religious considerations. BCE represents everything before the year zero; CE, everything from zero on. That's it. Nothing more. Religious considerations are not involved, despite what some Wiki article might try to say. Turn to a proper text on archaeology, not someone's Wiki article. Like I've said numerous times now, we don't know and never will known exactly in what year the historical Jesus was born, so BCE and CE presents a more reliable and neutral system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Yes, i can give you an example of one of the hidden esoteric meanings seen in the latin script. That most people don't seem to be familiar with.

Take for instance the letter "S" in latin script, look at it more closer, you will see the depiction of a serpent i.e. a snake. Then ask yourself why is the letter "S" used in the word "sex", "snake" and "serpent" is it a coincidence? no it is not, it was done on purpose, and also remember that english is the lingua fraca of christendom.

They "S" i.e. serpent signifies DNA, the double helix. What happens during sex? people procreate, the double helix DNA is used in creating a new being. Thats why you will see the first letter in the word "sex" being represented by the serpent...

I had meant to come back to this before calling it a night. Yes, the letter "S" does resemble a winding snake. But let's ask ourselves if Christianity played any part in the development of this letter. Let's also ask ourselves if the letter "S" is associated somehow with DNA. The answer to both questions is of course no. I'll expound on the first question presently, but I think all of us know, in regard to the second question, that an understanding of genetics is a modern phenomenon and not something ancient people understood.

Now, back to the first question. What does a proper historical treatment of the Western letter "S" tell us? It tells us this letter can be traced back to proto-Sinaitic (a script developed in Canaan as early as the Middle Bronze Age). Much of proto-Sinaitic was adapted from Egyptian hieroglyphs, although not in all cases. The origin of "S" in this script might have come from hieroglyphs but there is no universal consensus on this.

What is understood is that the letter "S" derives from the proto-Sinaitic symbol for shin. This word means "tooth" in ancient Western Semitic dialects. It was originally drawn almost in the shape a curvy "W," and vaguely resembled the curving features of a tooth. This shape became more angular when it entered the ancient Hebrew alphabet, and underwent further changes in Aramaic. The Greeks adapted it from Phoenician and turned it sideways, and in the original Greek alphabet it looked like an angular capital "E." This is the Greek letter sigma and it was drawn differently depending on the dialect of Greek employed. It entered the Etruscan alphabet in a more curved form but it was in the Siculian that it truly began to resemble something akin to our "S," before entering Latin under the form with which we are familiar.

This is how the letter "S" actually came to be. No snakes were involved in the production of the letter. As another poster commented, many written scripts began with characters resembling physical objects, and this is true of nearly all ancient Near Eastern scripts. But one must look a lot deeper than the modern appearance of a letter to understand how it really came to be, because in many if not most cases how a letter looks in the modern Western alphabet is a hell of a lot different from how it originally appeared in ancient scripts.

I used Marc-Alain Ouaknin's Mysteries of the Alphabet: The Origins of Writing (Abbeville Press Publishers, 1999, pages 308-313) for background information in this post. It's a terrific book. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Great Pyramid massive enough to crush any "caves" close underneath?

Perhaps not, or were constructed later after pyramid "settling"

In any event, I am a big supporter of the idea of hidden caves and such. They certainly were very much into that.

Wish the Egyptian government would relax some of their rules for archeaology. But I guess it IS their country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what each of the four langauges you translate mean. You aren't calling any

of these languages a "dead language" and saying you can only "circumscibe" the meaning.

You aren't calling everything you see written in one of the languages "incantations and magic"

and then CORRECTING THE GRAMMAR AS IT APPEARS ETCHED IN STONE!!!!!!!

If you were doing any of these things anyone would be wholly justified in retranslating or re-

interpreting the original work or your translation.

We all derive meaning from context all the time. It is the nature of modern languages. It's not

just the difference between "I met a real fox last night" and "I shot a real fox last night" but it's

also the fact that we see and hear words all time and don't know their meaning or are not fam-

iliar whih the usage. How many of the 75,000 words you know have you actually looked up in dic-

tionary and can utilize? Egyptologists read these translations and they don't even know the En-

glish word but still feel confident to make pronouncements about meaning. Some translators use

bad English so are translating what they think is gobblety gook into actual gobblty gook. If you

don't know the translator then you don't know the translation.

I'll put this as simply as possible. Words in modern languages all take meaning from context. All

translators of the PT write in modern language. If the PT wasn't written in this way then it can't be

understood in this way and since it is not understood there is a possibility it was meant in another

way. In any language word meaning can be deduced from context given a sufficient amount of in-

formation. Simply stated the PT appears to provide ample information for this purpose. It appears

to have been written in a totally different format than are taken by modern languages.

And your answer is completly besides the point as usual. I should know not to discuss with you, as you have a regretable tendencie to hear and understand whatever you want. However I'll repeat myself anyways....sigh.......I have no problem using context to translate, what I do question is your knowledge of said context in this case. EVERYTHING you claim it says, is based on your interpretation alone. Your knowledge of exact cultural and sociological context is lacking, by your own admittance even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Great Pyramid massive enough to crush any "caves" close underneath?

Perhaps not, or were constructed later after pyramid "settling"

In any event, I am a big supporter of the idea of hidden caves and such. They certainly were very much into that.

Wish the Egyptian government would relax some of their rules for archeaology. But I guess it IS their country.

Don't forget that the great pyramid is build on a rock outcropping and has a very broad base, the weight distribution is different then one would expect. If caves there are, which is still just an idea and not proven, then the architects that designed the pyramids would have accounted for them in the build itself.

As to the egyptian government, what would you do if 3/4 of your national antiquities had already been taken by different other countries over the centuries or is stolen on regular bases by criminals? Hell, I'm amazed they let anybody not from Egypt near anything at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Great Pyramid massive enough to crush any "caves" close underneath?

Perhaps not, or were constructed later after pyramid "settling"

In any event, I am a big supporter of the idea of hidden caves and such. They certainly were very much into that.

Wish the Egyptian government would relax some of their rules for archeaology. But I guess it IS their country.

It depends what you define as cave, given that Giza is sitting on a big block of limestone and sandstone there should be a lot of caves, but none much bigger than a few cubic feet as the GPR explorations have shown, certainly none big enough for a human to walk more than a few feet in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hel is Norse goddess of underworld, our word Hell is from the Norse. Europeans did not have a hell as a place of eternal punishment. In Norse you went to Valhalla if a brave warrior, or the underworld for everybody else. Certainly there was punishment for some, usually in Greek mythology, but it did not take place in what we call Hell. This misuse of Hel is a proof of how early Christians warped and twisted the old religions in order to impose the new religion and make everything in the old religions seem evil. I thought this would be common knowledge.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i believe the rosetta stone to be a blatant fake. Napoleon was not a character of good repute and neither was his frency army. He was a christian, therefore i believe he was biased.

You are crediting Napoleon with inventing the rosetta stone? Can you explain, then, how the use of the translations on the stone result in intelligible statements on other Egyptian writings? Just dumb luck, then?

You are more than halfway down the path to Doctor Drool's Loony Bin.

Harte

EDIT: I don't know why.

Edited by Harte
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol sure.

You gave yourself away with your manner of speech. I know how to spot a christian easily especially by the scent they leave off, as in your case, the way you talk.

I love how indoctrinated you are into their culture, so much so that you even propogate their teachings, in particular Margaret Murray who is of christendom and educated by christian society.

Well I however know who I am and I'm indeed not a Christian and never was and that I'm not even baptized. Because to be honest if someone sounds indoctrinated here, ignores facts and avoids any useful discussion, it's you not me. You sound like someone who was a full blown believer that has lost whatever faith he had and is now the diametrical opposite. You anti christian posts speak for themselves, you put waaaay to much effort in your hate speeches.

Seen that English isn't even my mother tongue, I fail to see how you could read anything into it, really. But hey what do I know, right? Also, once again you take out of context, misinterpret at leisure, and don't answer the questions. If that is your way of dealing with things, than that's fine, but don't be surprised if people ignore you.

For the record, I didn't propagate Margaret Murray's teachings, I used her to show how the horned god theory is not as old as you claim and stems from her book. Not sure how that can be seen as "propagating their teachings". As my companion just told me, after reading what you said, "good joke, made me laugh quite a bit that, you a christian...." Well she actually knows me.

At least have the balls to quote the entire thing and not just the bits taken out of context.

but it's all a moot point, since like questionmark, I'm going to do the smart thing and ignore you. Welcome to my ignore list, you're the second one on there.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@harte

I never said that napoleon invented the rosetta stone. Napoleon and his french were promoted as having found it, a convenient find, i might add, i.e. a fake.

The stone comes from christendom and most probably jesuits created it, they promoted it. Champollion had links to jesuits, his best friend was educated by a priest, a linguistic specialist.

Seems like you have not read some of my previous posts on the thread.

A common trait of jesuits is their linguistic abilities, they are experts with languages.

What can be learnt from all that? The rosetta stone is a fake and jesuits had a hand in promoting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I however know who I am and I'm indeed not a Christian and never was and that I'm not even baptized. Because to be honest if someone sounds indoctrinated here, ignores facts and avoids any useful discussion, it's you not me. You sound like someone who was a full blown believer that has lost whatever faith he had and is now the diametrical opposite. You anti christian posts speak for themselves, you put waaaay to much effort in your hate speeches.

Seen that English isn't even my mother tongue, I fail to see how you could read anything into it, really. But hey what do I know, right? Also, once again you take out of context, misinterpret at leisure, and don't answer the questions. If that is your way of dealing with things, than that's fine, but don't be surprised if people ignore you.

For the record, I didn't propagate Margaret Murray's teachings, I used her to show how the horned god theory is not as old as you claim and stems from her book. Not sure how that can be seen as "propagating their teachings". As my companion just told me, after reading what you said, "good joke, made me laugh quite a bit that, you a christian...." Well she actually knows me.

At least have the balls to quote the entire thing and not just the bits taken out of context.

but it's all a moot point, since like questionmark, I'm going to do the smart thing and ignore you. Welcome to my ignore list, you're the second one on there.

Good to see you back Searcher. :tu:

cormac

1 person likes this

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 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.