Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Giza Pyramid construction


Paul Hai
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, cladking said:

 I have far more respect for Egyptology and all experts than people seem to think.  I know expertise doesn't come easy in ANY subject at all.   I know that experts have huge amounts of knowledge in their field and many have extensive knowledge in related and even unrelated fields as well. 

You may write these words, but virtually every single thing you’ve posted for almost fifteen years shows how much of a lie this is. 
 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

You may write these words, but virtually every single thing you’ve posted for almost fifteen years shows how much of a lie this is. 
 

—Jaylemurph 

Actually it wasn't until about lat 2010-11 when his ideas - geysers primarily that got absolutely savaged and people kept asking him for evidence. From 2006-2009 he was smart, pleasant, didn't lie and asked questions. quirky but fine. Then as a reaction to the constant rejection of his ideas and demands for evidence he started up his hatred for "Egyptologist' which actually means anyone who disagreed with him, that ramps didn't exist and his determination never to publish anything - just to vex the 'Egyptologist' while making up the weirdest stuff imaginable - so just 9 years of being an Egyptologist & 'science' hate monger.

 

 

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

You may write these words, but virtually every single thing you’ve posted for almost fifteen years shows how much of a lie this is. 
 

 

I shouldn't let you take me off topic but here goes anyway...

You are not parsing my words as I intend.   Being an expert never made ANYONE correct.  Egyptologists are experts but they are wrong.  They couldn't be more wrong about everything than they already are.   They have cornered the market on being wrong.  

If we had always listened to "experts" we would still be living in caves and eating raw meat.   Change in every field is one funeral at a time.  When a generation of experts dies out there is change.   

 

We've merely gotten in the habit of assuming only experts can generate a change but this has never been true and still isn't.   Nobody has ever needed to be an expert to be right and this is why Paul Hai just might be right.  As I said I greatly prefer his theory to anything ever dreamed up by Egyptology.   

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cladking said:

I shouldn't let you take me off topic but here goes anyway...

You are not parsing my words as I intend.   Being an expert never made ANYONE correct.  Egyptologists are experts but they are wrong.  They couldn't be more wrong about everything than they already are.   They have cornered the market on being wrong.  

If we had always listened to "experts" we would still be living in caves and eating raw meat.   Change in every field is one funeral at a time.  When a generation of experts dies out there is change.   

 

We've merely gotten in the habit of assuming only experts can generate a change but this has never been true and still isn't.   Nobody has ever needed to be an expert to be right and this is why Paul Hai just might be right.  As I said I greatly prefer his theory to anything ever dreamed up by Egyptology.   

Your actions speak more loudly than these words. Your neurotic, pathological hatred of “experts” — and what you clearly mean is “anyone smarter than me” — as expressed here is totally incompatible with your views above. Either you’re a fool for insisting anything different, or you think everyone who reads this is a fool and will believe you. 
 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, cladking said:

I shouldn't let you take me off topic but here goes anyway...

 Egyptologists are experts but they are wrong.  They couldn't be more wrong about everything than they already are.  

YAWN

You've been saying this for a decade and to date you've not provide a single piece of evidence to support it.

WE KNOW WHAT YOUR CLAIM IS YOU'VE MADE IT HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF TIMES.

Now you're suppose to provide evidence to support it - but you never do.

Now part of your failed idea is that Upwards should replace Shu

 

“upwards”, and the (grand)mother of Pepi Neferkare, Tefnut, will take Pepi Neferkare to the sky, to the sky on the smoke of incense. N 514

Shu, and the (grand)mother of Pepi Neferkare, Tefnut, will take Pepi Neferkare to the sky, to the sky on the smoke of incense. N 514

When you go forth you shall go forth to Atum’s broadhall, go to the Marsh of Reeds, and course the great god’s places, for you have been given the sky, you have been given the earth, you have been given the Marsh of Reeds [by] the two great gods who row you: “upwards” and Tefnut, the two great gods in Heliopolis. N 349

When you go forth you shall go forth to Atum’s broadhall, go to the Marsh of Reeds, and course the great god’s places, for you have been given the sky, you have been given the earth, you have been given the Marsh of Reeds [by] the two great gods who row you: Shu and Tefnut, the two great gods in Heliopolis. N 349

 

Doesn't work does it Cladking?

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Your actions speak more loudly than these words. Your neurotic, pathological hatred of “experts” — and what you clearly mean is “anyone smarter than me” — as expressed here is totally incompatible with your views above. Either you’re a fool for insisting anything different, or you think everyone who reads this is a fool and will believe you. 
 

 

You're obviously smarter than I am so why not find one of those posts  where I say something bad about an Egyptologist or Egyptology.  

You just think being wrong is terrible so I'm demeaning them when I say I believe they couldn't possibly be more wrong about everything.   

You believe using your imagination like Paul Hai has is foolish but a blind acceptance of the status quo is cool.   You think saying Egyptology is wrong is mean but if I say anything else then I get pelted with the truth of Egyptology and I'm still called names because you can't come up with a cogent argument to address my points.   All you can do is continually repeat what Egyptology believes and until you address my points all I can do is show where, how and why Egyptology went wrong and how the pyramids might really have been built based on actual evidence, logic, and the cultural context which was nothing like "the book of the dead".  

Did I ever mention I think Egyptology is wrong?   

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Your actions speak more loudly than these words. Your neurotic, pathological hatred of “experts” — and what you clearly mean is “anyone smarter than me” — as expressed here is totally incompatible with your views above. Either you’re a fool for insisting anything different, or you think everyone who reads this is a fool and will believe you. 
 

—Jaylemurph

I checked he's said "Egyptologists are wrong 644" times at Graham Hancock.

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cladking said:

You're obviously smarter than I am so why not find one of those posts  where I say something bad about an Egyptologist or Egyptology.

 

 

You've said that Egyptologists and Egyptology is wrong well over two thousand times on the internet and not once have you provided evidence that they are or that you are correct about the language. Libeling professions on their profession without showing proof shows your utter contempt for those that both ignore your prattle and have debunked you repeatedly.

We have evidence YOU are wrong - do you have the same for Egyptology?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many years ago there was another guy who believed that steps were built to aid in lifting stone and he posted extensively on websites.  He believed these steps were a specially prepared path with a set distance between risers and the stones were essentially rolled up them.  At the time I didn't like the idea that much but it might fit Paul Hai's concept quite well.   If these were pulled up from above then it would be pretty easy to design the system with a bare minimum of rubbing and abrasion allowing the wood to be reused over and over many times.   The steps would simply be disassembled and possibly used for cladding as the job wrapped up.   

Of course the cladding would complicate the project but at least they wouldn't have to build and rebuild ramps over and over again.   

People don't seem to be thinking this out at all.  The fact is steps as proposed would allow the pyramid to be built straight and would account for the evidence.   I don't understand why people dicount possible and evidenced means of construction and prefer to stick with unevidenced, contraindicated, and illogical ones.  Whatever method they used mustta left evidence and no evidence exists for orthodox beliefs.  

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I checked he's said "Egyptologists are wrong 644 times at Graham Hancock

 

As I said before, cladking’s MO is lying. 
 

As I said before, either he’s a fool for thinking we believe those lies or he thinks everyone else is a fool who would believe those lies. 
 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

As I said before, cladking’s MO is lying. 
 

As I said before, either he’s a fool for thinking we believe those lies or he thinks everyone else is a fool who would believe those lies. 
 

—Jaylemurph 

This seems to be a pattern he developed recently constantly stating the opposite of what he recently said. I call it Cladkingology gibberish, he says ramps exists, then they don't, he hates Zahi who is a liar and worse, then he admires him etc., its all a game, trolling really to get people to respond to him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I checked he's said "Egyptologists are wrong 644 times at Graham Hancock

Jaylemurph;

And tens of thousands of times people tell me right after I say this what Egyptologists believe with no evidence and no logical basis.

I don't care what anyone believes.  Tell me what you know.   

Tell me why Paul Hai's theory won't work or contradicts the physical evidence or logic.  

 

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cladking said:

Jaylemurph;

And tens of thousands of times people tell me right after I say this what Egyptologists believe with no evidence and no logical basis.

I don't care what anyone believes.  Tell me what you know.   

Tell me why Paul Hai's theory won't work or contradicts the physical evidence or logic. 

WHY?

Cladking we've gone over this hundreds of times. Why would anyone want to discuss a scientific subject with you? You run from questions, you don't actually know anything, you lie incessantly, you make up strawmen, you refuse to provide your evidence, research or data, you believe your opinions are facts and you cannot seem to understand how you are viewed.

Sorry you've become a troll not someone to actually talk to.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cladking said:

deleted

Yeah we know you keep telling us that - but guess what Paul wrote a book which details his research, data and evidence.

Congrats to Paul he did it the right way - you haven't

 

Whatja got besides bluster, lies, strawmen and no evidence?

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cladking said:

As Egyptologists believe they are getting closer and closer to author intent they feel justified in using later material for translations.

Give me some text sources that show this is correct, please.

The original PT that you are quoting from uses material from the Coffin Texts of the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom and later to derive understanding.   Now we have different courses and books that divide the Egyptian language into time periods (Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom)  The Middle Kingdom is the one they teach to students because it's convenient.

But now you're saying that this (where they have a good understanding and specialty in the different phases of the language) is wrong?  And now that they've got MORE material from the Old Kingdom that they've translated, it's all WRONG?

If that's your contention, please show me some of the words and phrases (in Egyptian) that they got wrong and how they should correct it.  

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Give me some text sources that show this is correct, please.

The original PT that you are quoting from uses material from the Coffin Texts of the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom and later to derive understanding.   Now we have different courses and books that divide the Egyptian language into time periods (Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom)  The Middle Kingdom is the one they teach to students because it's convenient.

But now you're saying that this (where they have a good understanding and specialty in the different phases of the language) is wrong?  And now that they've got MORE material from the Old Kingdom that they've translated, it's all WRONG?

If that's your contention, please show me some of the words and phrases (in Egyptian) that they got wrong and how they should correct it.  

 

I've quoted from no PT here because it is off topic.  I can't talk about anything at all that is off topic and my threads get closed because of all the insults directed at me.  

I can barely address the question at all without going off topic.  But the fact that Egyptology uses later sources to translate the Pyramid Texts is relevant I believe.  That they use the book of the dead to translate the PT is proven by the translation of several words with the best example being what you call the "goddess" "Renenutet" I interpret as "rennenutet; the feminine principle that is the natural phenomenon of the intentional channeling of a gas".   Egyptology has "Her" as the "Goddess of the Harvest".   The fact that this "goddess" appears only once by name in the PT with no context shows they used later translations of the word.   There are plenty of words that fall in this same category; nothing to solve the meaning but they still translated and interpreted it in concordance with later ideas.   

It's not the "translation" of the words in Ancient Language or of Ezekiel I that are bad.  It is the interpretation.   The words are mostly correct or correct enough but the meaning is lost because the formatting is different.   We don't see that the literal meaning was author intent and that Ezekiel I is a literal transcription by someone who didn't understand author intent in the source material.   

Egyptology got everything wrong in the PT.  Where Egyptology translates something as "bring me the boat that flies up and alights" they believe this is a metaphorical boat that is symbolic and par\t of the ancient religion and magic.  But the reality is the ancients didn't even have words for "thought", "belief", nor taxonomic and reductionistic words but the words we translate as "gods": and "magic" are mistranslated.  It's impossible to have a belief in "gods" without having the word "belief" in your language.  You can't have beliefs without thinking and you can't have science without taxonomies and reductionistic words.   You can't build a 6 1/2 million ton pyramid without using the word "ramp" unless you didn't use them.   

 

Our interpretation of Ancient Language is derived from our beliefs and our inability to read the written word without parsing it.     Ancient Language loses its meaning when it is parsed and if transcribed by a modern language speaker it looks a lot like Ezekiel I.   You can't parse computer code without wrecking the program.   You can't parse AL without destroying its meaning.   I don't think we can pursue this much further in this thread.   

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I've quoted from no PT here because it is off topic.  I can't talk about anything at all that is off topic and my threads get closed because of all the insults directed at me.  

You mean all the truth thrown at you which you refuse to believe

Quote

I can barely address the question at all without going off topic.  But the fact that Egyptology uses later sources to translate the Pyramid Texts is relevant I believe.  That they use the book of the dead to translate the PT is proven by the translation of several words with the best example being what you call the "goddess" "Renenutet" I interpret as "rennenutet; the feminine principle that is the natural phenomenon of the intentional channeling of a gas".   Egyptology has "Her" as the "Goddess of the Harvest".   The fact that this "goddess" appears only once by name in the PT with no context shows they used later translations of the word.   There are plenty of words that fall in this same category; nothing to solve the meaning but they still translated and interpreted it in concordance with later ideas. 

Poor dear. You don't have to 'prove' that they use the Book of the dead.

 

You know how they got that name? I bet they cheated and looked at the glyph in the PT and found the same one in the BotD and said must be the same word---really really evil of them, eh? You see CLadking they can actually READ the language.

 

Quote

It's not the "translation" of the words in Ancient Language or of Ezekiel I that are bad.  It is the interpretation.   The words are mostly correct or correct enough but the meaning is lost because the formatting is different.   We don't see that the literal meaning was author intent and that Ezekiel I is a literal transcription by someone who didn't understand author intent in the source material. 

How do you know that 6th century BCE probable date for the Ezekiel text is your made up 'ancient language'?

 

Quote

Egyptology got everything wrong in the PT. 

You've said that literally a thousand plus times - got any proof or do you concede you are just making stuff up?

Deleted stuff you've stated hundreds and hundreds of times and have yet to provide any evidence to support it other than 'I say so', most of what you are saying is just Cladkingology gibberish.

 

Quote

I don't think we can pursue this much further in this thread. 

What Zahi Hawass and 700 Egyptologist preventing you from starting a thread?

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cladking said:

That they use the book of the dead to translate the PT is proven by the translation of several words with the best example being what you call the "goddess" "Renenutet" I interpret as "rennenutet; the feminine principle that is the natural phenomenon of the intentional channeling of a gas".   Egyptology has "Her" as the "Goddess of the Harvest".

If your concept is true, then why do they always (and I do mean always) associate her name with the hieroglyph determinative "goddess" instead of the one for "idea"?

And I think they translated (transliterated, actually) the name first and later learned what she was as more texts were found and translated.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

If your concept is true, then why do they always (and I do mean always) associate her name with the hieroglyph determinative "goddess" instead of the one for "idea"?

And I think they translated (transliterated, actually) the name first and later learned what she was as more texts were found and translated.

A determinative? Really Kenemet Cladking doesn't need no stinking determinatives....he uses industrial strength PSFD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Kenemet said:

If your concept is true, then why do they always (and I do mean always) associate her name with the hieroglyph determinative "goddess" instead of the one for "idea"?

 

"Rennennutet" was always a "goddess" but the meaning of "goddess" changed.  To later people and to us a "Goddess" is an imaginary consciousness who has control over the fates of men.  We acquired this meaning by trying to understand ancient writing which seemed to assign magical properties to the "neters'.  Since "neters" were powerful and controlled all things the authors of the "book of the dead" believed they mustta been conscious entities.  These "neters" which would be better translated as "natures" or "theories" were the source of the power of the great pyramid builders.  More accurately understanding theory was the source of their power.  They "worshiped" their "gods".  They understood (studied) the "natures".  To the pyramid builders "gods" were just "natural phenomena" but this changed when the language changed.  "neters" simply belonged to a class of words that identified the subject of a sentence.  Every sentence must contain a word of this class so many sentences contain what we mistake as a reference to a god.  Every sentence in Ancient Language formatted its meaning so it can not be parsed.  Every sentence was consistent with all human knowledge so it can not be translated.   We can say anything but their language required that sentences were formatted and consistent with reality.  It's very difficult to see this because we automatically parse language and few people realize they are doing it.  It's also difficult because so much writing that was preserved was attempts at translating Ancient Language.  Any attempt to translate Ancient Language without understanding AND science is doomed to failure and the science that created the ancient world was lost inside this language.  So now we read things like Ezekiel I and we don't see its nature.  We can't begin to unravel its meaning without understanding that it was simply someone copying a language he didn't understand.  

And I think they translated (transliterated, actually) the name first and later learned what she was as more texts were found and translated.

Yes, of course.  But in doing it this way they can't see that the original author used the word to represent the channeling of gas rather than symbolizing the imaginary consciousness of the harvest. Even if they knew the difference it would be no help in understanding the utterance because the meaning was in a formatting that is inconsistent with our language and the way WE think.  Ancient people didn't think like us, had no word for "think", and didn't even think in a way we would think of as thinking at all.  Think about that.  They perceived and they acted because they had no beliefs and no models to understand their world. We see what we believe, they saw what they knew.  

The concept that a language can be unparseable is anathema to linguists and most people but this is exactly the nature of mathematics and computer code.  Ancient Language has similarities to both because it is logical, structured, and digital.  It is a natural language like all animal languages and reflects the wiring of the digital brain.  Just as we look at ancient people and see superstition and unsophisticated thought we look at their work and pyramids and see primitive technology and primitive tools.  We can't see how they built pyramids because we can't even see the evidence!  But we can't see that we can't see because we believe science has solved all these questions and we see the models created by Egyptology instead or we believe some crackpot who believes the pyramids were built a million years ago as landing pads for alien spaceships.  Ezekiel saw wheels, Paul Hai sees pinion pulleys, I see counterweights, and Egyptology sees ramps.   For the main part it's almost impossible for anyone to see anything he doesn't already know is there.  This is the nature of a digital brain using an analog language.  Our ONLY recourse is reason and "worshiping" the subject by studying it in EVERY POSSIBLE DETAIL.   Instead we have turned our backs on the great pyramids and focused instead on what we believe is the culture which is being determined not by what they said but what the authors of the "book of the dead" said.  

I know you won't believe this but you most probably have a better chance of parsing my meaning than almost anyone.   We are not like the great pyramid builders but rather we are like Ezekiel and the authors of the "book of the dead".  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

  Every sentence in Ancient Language formatted its meaning so it can not be parsed.  Every sentence was consistent with all human knowledge so it can not be translated. 

No! None of this is evidence. All you have are words. ...Semantics. 

So why do YOUR translations of the words not work? - its pretty simple Cladking you say x means y - then that meaning should be established in the entirety of the PT? Yet they don't work.

Why are babbling on and on about this dead idea? Its easy to test - but you refuse to do so - so we did and yep it doesn't work.

Shu as Upwards doesn't work no more than Tefnut equals Downwards.

How long will you continue to ignore the evidence?

 

 

 

 

.  

  • Like 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, cladking said:

"Rennennutet" was always a "goddess" but the meaning of "goddess" changed. 

So every single time they mentioned a goddess, you're saying that they don't mean goddesses but something else?

And that suddenly the ancient Egyptians changed the concept of goddess to be "female deity"?

That seems very unlikely given that the oldest goddesses were worshiped in predynastic times (Hathor, Bastet, for two - along with the male gods).  Furthermore, I'm not sure how you can reconcile it with the very ancient tomb offering formula where someone gives an offering to a deity so that they will given the deceased "beer, bread, oxen, wine, and all the good and pure things that a god lives on" in the afterlife.

Quote

To later people and to us a "Goddess" is an imaginary consciousness who has control over the fates of men.  We acquired this meaning by trying to understand ancient writing which seemed to assign magical properties to the "neters'.  Since "neters" were powerful and controlled all things the authors of the "book of the dead" believed they mustta been conscious entities.  These "neters" which would be better translated as "natures" or "theories" were the source of the power of the great pyramid builders.  More accurately understanding theory was the source of their power.  They "worshiped" their "gods".  They understood (studied) the "natures".  To the pyramid builders "gods" were just "natural phenomena" but this changed when the language changed.  "neters" simply belonged to a class of words that identified the subject of a sentence.  Every sentence must contain a word of this class so many sentences contain what we mistake as a reference to a god. 

Then why do they give offerings to these gods (predynastic) and why didn't they use them (combine them) to better their science?

And why don't we find machines with the names of these gods?  Why are they just statues and paintings that always look the same, even when the powers of the deities change or when they merge with another deity?

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kenemet said:

So every single time they mentioned a goddess, you're saying that they don't mean goddesses but something else?

And that suddenly the ancient Egyptians changed the concept of goddess to be "female deity"?

That seems very unlikely given that the oldest goddesses were worshiped in predynastic times (Hathor, Bastet, for two - along with the male gods).  Furthermore, I'm not sure how you can reconcile it with the very ancient tomb offering formula where someone gives an offering to a deity so that they will given the deceased "beer, bread, oxen, wine, and all the good and pure things that a god lives on" in the afterlife.

Then why do they give offerings to these gods (predynastic) and why didn't they use them (combine them) to better their science?

And why don't we find machines with the names of these gods?  Why are they just statues and paintings that always look the same, even when the powers of the deities change or when they merge with another deity?

 

 

They didn't "worship" "gods" at all.  They studied them in order to understand their natures.  They didn't give food to gods, they had rituals which supplied food (probably to the dead). 

"Min" was a machine or more accurately the scientific perspective of the machine that sat in the large pit just east of G1. 

 

Perhaps I'll try another thread to explain my understanding of this.   I'd rather not respond further here until Paul Hai returns.   

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, cladking said:

They didn't "worship" "gods" at all.  They studied them in order to understand their natures. 

"Min" was a machine or more accurately the scientific perspective of the machine that sat in the large pit just east of G1. 

 

Perhaps I'll try another thread to explain my understanding of this.   I'd rather not respond further here until Paul Hai returns.   

Yeah gonna run off huh - getting a bit to hot for ya? Yeah especially when dealing with one of those Egyptologist whom you always say are wrong about everything.

Quote

They didn't give food to gods, they had rituals which supplied food (probably to the dead). 

See I told you multiple times to go read the Abusir fragments - guess what its about?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abusir_Papyri

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/abughurab/abusirtranslation1.html

 

Quote

"Min" was a machine or more accurately the scientific perspective of the machine that sat in the large pit just east of G1. 

Unfortunately you just made that up but I'm game tell us how you know about this machine?

ZES7yEY.jpg

Yeah here is a drawing of Lord Sabu tomb - and oddly for folks you said didn't believe in religion or an afterlife he has all he needs to 'live' comfortably in the afterlife and to do his journey there. What does a dead guy need with tools, equipment and food?

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

 They didn't give food to gods, they had rituals which supplied food (probably to the dead). 

There's a bunch of pictures showing gods in front of offering tables full of food (and texts saying that food is being offered to that god.)

Like this one (to Horus, the caption says)
abu-simbel-bas-relief-of-an-offering-to-

 

They gave all sorts of different offerings to the gods.  And gods were fed each day with the food offerings. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/religion/dailycult.html

Quote

Min" was a machine or more accurately the scientific perspective of the machine that sat in the large pit just east of G1. 

Min... the one with the permanent erection?  That one?  "scientific perspective of the machine that sat in the large pit just east of G1"?

The phrase, "you're scr**ed" comes to mind.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.