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

12 hours ago, Paul Hai said:

Yesterday I attempted to giveaway ten copies of Raising Stone 1 on this site ... it was rejected.

How many people here have taken the time to read Raising Stone 1 ?

How many have read my translation of Ezekiel Chapter 1 ?

It is time to move on ... to those few here who have studied ... inform and explain to others.

 

I like your theory quite a bit because it is simple, logical, and within the capabilities of primitive people.  Unlike orthodox construction theories it is not contradicted by lots of evidence.

I have one problem with it that you probably considered.  How could they stop from chewing up and consuming vast quantities of wood as these slipped  and rubbed on the edges of steps?   

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Piney said:

There are copies of Ezekiel in Latin, Koine, Aramaic and Hebrew so just what the Hell are you talking about????  

Do any two priests, rabbis, clergymen (etc) agree on the meaning and reason for its inclusion in the Bible?   Words strung together that have no sense are merely words.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cladking said:

 

I have one problem with it that you probably considered.  How could they stop from chewing up and consuming vast quantities of wood as these slipped  and rubbed on the edges of steps?   

Also, how did they apply force at the top of the pyramid since it was necessary to pull upward at a 52 degree angle?  Did they use a pulley or some simpler device?  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, cladking said:

This is very simple. "Translate" means to put author intent into a different language.  

What evidence do you have that Ezekial or the Pyramid Texts are actually translated?   What evidence do you have that any ancient text that refers to how the pyramids were built (I'm anxiously awaiting Kenemet's citation) is properly translated?  Careful how you answer because I can show you are basing your answer on texts that wouldn't exist for many centuries and interpretation that lies outside of what was actually written.   And things like this are usually considered off topic around here so I won't respond in this thread.  Everything Egyptology believes is always on topic but answers and challenges to these beliefs are not on topic.   

Big of you to lay down a challenge and then run away from it. Unlike the people I namechecked above -- and you, for that matter -- I don't have to lie about what languages I can and cannot speak. I don't know any Egyptian, and I don't know enough Hebrew to effectively translate.

But I'll bet solid money you don't speak anything other than English, and that means you cannot have worthwhile opinions on translating anything. But just in case I'm wrong -- if you do have working knowledge of any Romance language, let's go with that. We'll get a third party here to provide a source passage, and we'll both have at. 

Put your money where your mouth is, for a change, or will you back out of this, too

--Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

Big of you to lay down a challenge and then run away from it. Unlike the people I namechecked above -- and you, for that matter -- I don't have to lie about what languages I can and cannot speak. I don't know any Egyptian, and I don't know enough Hebrew to effectively translate.

But I'll bet solid money you don't speak anything other than English, and that means you cannot have worthwhile opinions on translating anything. But just in case I'm wrong -- if you do have working knowledge of any Romance language, let's go with that. We'll get a third party here to provide a source passage, and we'll both have at. 

Put your money where your mouth is, for a change, or will you back out of this, too

--Jaylemurph 

 

By current count there are just about 7,100,000,000 different languages in the world and I speak hundreds of them.  ;)

What I do or do not speak is irrelevant to understanding Ancient Language and it's irrelevant to the topic of this thread.  What is relevant is whether or not I can read an English translation of the Pyramid Texts or an English translation of the Bible.  I suggest that since neither of these has any discernable meaning in English it follows that neither are translated.  I'd look pretty silly claiming I can understand the Pyramid Texts if it's just incantation.  I'd look equally silly claiming to understand Ezekiel I when thousands of Bible scholars don't agree.   

Frankly I'm waiting for Kenemet to support the claim that we already know how the pyramids were built since the answer lies in ancient texts.  Of course there are NO CONCURRENT clues of any kind when the PT are taken to be, translated in terms of, and interpreted in terms of later writing like the "book of the dead".  Egyptology as it applies to great pyramids AND THEIR BUILDERS is merely an anachronism.   

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Tsk tsk.  You should be aware that Budge did not translate the "pyramid texts".  

I'm actually interested in ALL writing from the great pyramids building age. 

 


 

No your not. Not in the least. If that's true you have nearly 14 years to produce your 'translation' of the PT, Merer's, Abusir, Palermo etc - you haven't - and if you were honest you'd admit you never will.

Quote

I don't care what's in the "book of the dead" or anything Budge (et al) translated. 

Of course not why would you be interested in the culture and religion of a people who wrote in a language you SAY only YOU can understand. Unfortunately that was debunked so now you are only pretending to do so....

Quote

careful how you answer because I can show you are basing your answer on texts that wouldn't exist for many centuries and interpretation that lies outside of what was actually written.   And things like this are usually considered off topic around here so I won't respond in this thread.  Everything Egyptology believes is always on topic but answers and challenges to these beliefs are not on topic.   

Oh would our great and self proclaimed knowledgeable expert on the AE language like to explain why your idea about natural language doesn't actually WORK....or would you like to run away?

So is noting your natural language idea doesn't work - is that on topic and that all of your ideas based on your 'mastering' that language up for discussion? Like Shu and Upwards?

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

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Rather than claim the passage isn't relevant to construction why not prove or show it is not.  Egyptology does NO BETTER at establishing their hypotheses than most alts; they've merely been at it longer.  

We've been waiting nearly fourteen years for you to show the evidence of your ideas - you have refused to do so but recently you made a mistake and gave us a testable hypothesis - we tested it and your ancient language idea 

FAILED

Now you seem intent on trying to ignore that. Not very honest is it?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, cladking said:

I like your theory quite a bit because it is simple, logical, and within the capabilities of primitive people.  Unlike orthodox construction theories it is not contradicted by lots of evidence.

I have one problem with it that you probably considered.  How could they stop from chewing up and consuming vast quantities of wood as these slipped  and rubbed on the edges of steps?   

Oh my are you going to hijack this thread for yet another thrilling episode about magical invisible geysers and flying funiculars? Using as evidence your fake translations of AE?

I challenge you to show us that your translations are consistent and work for all mentions of the words in the PT and other inscriptions. Is your idea 100% accurate?

You've stated that SHU = UPWARDS in all cases----does it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

But I'll bet solid money you don't speak anything other than English, and that means you cannot have worthwhile opinions on translating anything. But just in case I'm wrong -- if you do have working knowledge of any Romance language, let's go with that. We'll get a third party here to provide a source passage, and we'll both have at. 

 

Hey Cladking can translate any ANCIENT language if he can get someone else to translate it into modern American English - he has a magical power to do this.....LOL

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

9 minutes ago, cladking said:

 

By current count there are just about 7,100,000,000 different languages in the world and I speak hundreds of them.  ;)

What I do or do not speak is irrelevant to understanding Ancient Language and it's irrelevant to the topic of this thread.  What is relevant is whether or not I can read an English translation of the Pyramid Texts or an English translation of the Bible.  I suggest that since neither of these has any discernable meaning in English it follows that neither are translated.  I'd look pretty silly claiming I can understand the Pyramid Texts if it's just incantation.  I'd look equally silly claiming to understand Ezekiel I when thousands of Bible scholars don't agree.   

Frankly I'm waiting for Kenemet to support the claim that we already know how the pyramids were built since the answer lies in ancient texts.  Of course there are NO CONCURRENT clues of any kind when the PT are taken to be, translated in terms of, and interpreted in terms of later writing like the "book of the dead".  Egyptology as it applies to great pyramids AND THEIR BUILDERS is merely an anachronism.   

 

As I said above, if you do not speak a language, you cannot comment on how it is translated. Suggesting otherwise is absurd: so stupid a point it doesn't warrant discussion.

Your flat refusal to engage, though, is proof you're a liar. Not that anyone here needed proof of that. If you're ever ready to prove you're not a liar, the process is there, but we all know you'll thankfully disappear for a few weeks or months rather than demostrate any competence in your alleged skills. 

--Jaylemurph 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, cladking said:

  I'd look pretty silly claiming I can understand the Pyramid Texts if it's just incantation.

YOU DO LOOK PRETTY SILLY

You cannot translate it. You are only pretending.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

As I said above, if you do not speak a language, you cannot comment on how it is translated. Suggesting otherwise is absurd: so stupid a point it doesn't warrant discussion.

 

Perhaps we should just wait and see what Kenemet has.  It;'s not wholly impossible that they dug up the tomb of the "Overseer of the Dragger of Stones up Khufu's Horizon" and there are drawings of stones and the overseer's subjects dragging them.  Who knows what has happened and misinterpreted in the past?  Maybe the Pyramid Texts has been reinterpreted again and something related to construction was found.  Obviously translations from so long ago remain in a state of flux and what was known only a few years ago is no longer true.   

The topic here is construction/ Hai's theory and I will not deviate from this.   Kenemet has suggested there is "text" that shows stones were not rolled straight up the sides.  While I tend to agree the simple fact is this idea looks far better than most alternatives.  It is a direct route from the quarry to the pyramid top.  It is efficient.  It is logical that there would be little or no evidence this was actually done.  It is within the capabilities of primitive people.   There is no real contradictory evidence as there is for something like say "ramps" which I also can't speak to even if someone else brings it up. There is also some evidence to support it such as later writings like the "book of the dead" and the Bible (etc).   I like the idea stones were pulled straight up the side and, of course, they mustta been because the pyramid is there, it was built when people were still superstitious, it gets narrower as it goes up, and there is a big hill under it.   

I like several construction theories because they are consistent with physical evidence and logic.  I will not be bated into going off-topic.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

Do any two priests, rabbis, clergymen (etc) agree on the meaning and reason for its inclusion in the Bible?   Words strung together that have no sense are merely words.  

:blink: ...ok....that can count as one of this week's stupid statements........

That's the whole idea of using a "council" of translators to agree on the translation. Many who studied the language for decades.

You don't speak anything but American English, do you? :rolleyes:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, cladking said:

Deleted

Then you have nothing to say then. Since your major 'source' was your own self-delusion of being able to find construction details in the PT by making up new meanings for words in a language you cannot speak - you have nothing to support your ideas as your ability to understand the PT has been tested and found to be....wanting....

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

:blink: ...ok....that can count as one of this week's stupid statements........

That's the whole idea of using a "council" of translators to agree on the translation. Many who studied the language for decades.

You don't speak anything but American English, do you? :rolleyes:

I have to admit he is rather good at putting out volumes of pseudo-metaphysical gibberish!

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

8 minutes ago, Piney said:

 

That's the whole idea of using a "council" of translators to agree on the translation. 

 

So you're saying that translators translate in terms of how they interpret the passage.  

I think I already said exactly that in other words  but still nobody has found a passage in ANY ancient writing that explains how the pyramid was built (unless, of course, Paul Hai) is correct).  

Of course many alternative theorists have different interpretations of words, logic, and evidence as well but they are usually shouted down.  

What do you have relevant to Ezekiel I?  What do translators anywhere and everywhere have that is relevant to pyramid construction.  Remember Herodotus?  He supported alternative ideas just like Paul Hai's and denied that orthodoxy might be correct.  Across the board more evidence supports pulling stones up from above  than supports any other theory.  

Why do people have a knee jerk reaction to discount even the most viable and logical hypotheses for construction?   

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cladking said:

I'm actually interested in ALL writing from the great pyramids building age. 

Haven't I seen you frequently claim that no other texts from the pyramid age exist?  I'm pretty sure I have.

Quote

I don't care what's in the "book of the dead" or anything Budge (et al) translated.  Egyptology bases their understanding of the Pyramid Texts on these later writings but this is improper methodology that has led to their belief that pyramids are tombs built by a 3000 civilization by primitive and barbaric means. 

And there we go.  "Later writings."

This suggests that you think they suddenly invented a highly symbolic language just for describing how to build pyramids (on a site that's not the most sacred site in Egypt) and that everyone loved it so much they wanted chapters and verses on "how to build pyramids" in their coffins... even though they weren't going to be buried in coffins and even though no pyramids exist in the afterlife.

Or why they'd combine texts on how to build a pyramid with later tracts on poetry, fictional stories, temple inventory lists, and other places.

Quote

My interest lies only in those things that come from the actual pyramid building age (2950 BC - 2700 BC) including ancient writing and physical evidence. 

Yet you don't seem familiar with these texts.  And I've read people pointing out to you that you're just reading a combined "pyramid text" and not one of the dozen or so actual pyramid texts (which vary in content.)

So I think my critique still stands.  You seem to think that the best way to study the Pyramid Texts (and Ezekiel) is to study parts of a whole long document and in translations that aren't even up to date.  I think that your ideas (like his) don't work when you look at the actual tools, the individual texts, and translate what they wrote directly and prove the translation by showing you can translate other documents from the same time period.

 

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

6 minutes ago, cladking said:

 

I think I already said exactly that in other words  but still nobody has found a passage in ANY ancient writing that explains how the pyramid was built (unless, of course, Paul Hai) is correct).  

 

So you are admitting that for 10 years of all your screaming about geysers and Bui's image was just you wasting everyone's time? Thanks for the confession - but a bit late - we figure that out about 2 days after you started talking about it in 2009.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, cladking said:

 Kenemet has suggested there is "text" that shows stones were not rolled straight up the sides. 

I didn't say that.

My point was that PHYSICS shows that the stones can't be moved like that.  The stones aren't regular and smooth (like the blocks he shows in his example) and they're certainly not square in cross section (they're lumpy) and they're not even the same size.  And they're sure not the same size as the regularly cut blocks that make up the temple (built a thousand years later) where they WERE found.

Attempting to move stones of the pyramid on those things (with all their irregular surfaces) means that they'd have to have a bunch of wood delivered every day and they'd have to have a lot of woodwrights working to constantly make these "rollers" because they'd be shattering and chipping to pieces as they were hauled up.  And that means they'd have to have huge wood workshops on site (which haven't been seen) and directors of wood workshops (no titles there.)

Edited by Kenemet
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cladking said:

So you're saying that translators translate in terms of how they interpret the passage.  

Translators who have either studied the language for decades or actually grew up speaking it and know what the passage means. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kenemet said:

I didn't say that.

One of his favorite method of 'debate' is to make up strawmen - making up stuff you didn't say - and demanding you 'prove it'. Lets see if he tries it here.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cladking said:

Do any two priests, rabbis, clergymen (etc) agree on the meaning and reason for its inclusion in the Bible?   Words strung together that have no sense are merely words.  

Truer words have never been typed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

Haven't I seen you frequently claim that no other texts from the pyramid age exist?  I'm pretty sure I have.

The fact that clad’s decade-long modus operandi is lying is well-established. 
 

—Jaylemurph 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

And I've read people pointing out to you that you're just reading a combined "pyramid text" and not one of the dozen or so actual pyramid texts (which vary in content.)

So I think my critique still stands.  You seem to think that the best way to study the Pyramid Texts (and Ezekiel) is to study parts of a whole long document and in translations that aren't even up to date.  I think that your ideas (like his) don't work when you look at the actual tools, the individual texts, and translate what they wrote directly and prove the translation by showing you can translate other documents from the same time period.

 

You apparently agree then that Ezekiel and other writing is continually changing and being reinterpreted.  

If any ancient writing didn't make sense in 1890 and doesn't make sense today then what possible reason do you have for believing it is getting any closer to the intent of the author?  Surely the intent of the author was exactly the same in 2800 BC, 600 AD, 1890, and today.   It's never going to change.  Peoples' lives depend on some of these interpretations and your belief is we can only continue to try to improve our understanding.   Curiously you dismiss the literal meaning of the PT as quickly as you dismiss the literal meaning of the Bible.  

I might agree that translating other documents from Hebrew or Aramaic might "prove" an ability to understand ancient writing but this certainly doesn't apply to Bible passages and incantation.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

 

My point was that PHYSICS shows that the stones can't be moved like that.  The stones aren't regular and smooth (like the blocks he shows in his example) and they're certainly not square in cross section (they're lumpy) and they're not even the same size. 

Attempting to move stones of the pyramid on those things (with all their irregular surfaces) means that they'd have to have a bunch of wood delivered every day and they'd have to have a lot of woodwrights working to constantly make these "rollers" because they'd be shattering and chipping to pieces as they were hauled up.  And that means they'd have to have huge wood workshops on site (which haven't been seen) and directors of wood workshops (no titles there.)

I'm willing to wait to see how Paul Hai answers the question.  I can imagine several means to reduce damage to the rollers and ropes.   For instance there can be several sizes of rollers and stones can be oriented to fit one or another size.   

 

  • Sad 1
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.