Update on Scan Pyramid project Oct 2016

[mstower 881]

On 11/20/2017 at 10:50 AM, Scott Creighton said:

Kmt_Sesh: I conceded in an earlier post that the wording on the Inventory Stela makes it sound as though Khufu found the Sphinx already there.

SC: "Makes it sound"? It clearly states that Khufu went to visit the Sphinx and that he made plans to have it repaired. I rather doubt Khufu could visit something that wasn't actually there.

Really?  Then you will find it easy to specify the text clearly stating this.  Otherwise false dilemma: clearly stating x and making it sound like x are not mutually exclusive.

On 11/20/2017 at 10:50 AM, Scott Creighton said:

Kmt_Sesh: But at the same time I have to stress, in no uncertain terms, that the stela is not a copy from a ,much older source.

SC: Prove it.

How old are you exactly?  Petrie presented strong arguments on the point way back when.  Either you are aware of them (and your posturing is disingenuous), or you are not (and your competence is in question).

M.

[kmt_sesh 36,256]

Good to see you again, mstower.

[kmt_sesh 36,256]

12 hours ago, mstower said:

. . . and “god” spelt backwards is “dog”.  It makes you think.

Comedy linguistics.  I dare say someone familiar with the relevant phonology (Arabic and ancient Egyptian) could point out that the sounds (phones) in الأفق and Ḫwfw are quite different—but really, isn’t it better to just laugh?

M.

I was just playing around with an online translater, which works well for Arabic. For others to remember, الأفق means "horizon." It turns out, not surprisingly, that you can use Arabic to spell "Khufu." In Arabic script it's خوفو. Very different characters. I don't get the linguistic logic in a very old language to use a loan word and then spell it backwards to produce a word that's common to most languages in the first place. Loan words are common in all languages, but they're not Rubik's Cubes.

[kmt_sesh 36,256]

6 hours ago, Jarocal said:

I was referring to a statement made earlier in the thread by KmT Sesh. 

Possessing little interest in the crude scribblings of a nescient feline demon worshipping culture, I simply referenced back to an assertion made by someone who has the patience, and incredulously, an actual desire to study the inane babbling left us by the ancient Egyptians. 

I really see no reason why Khufu's inner woman makes any less sense than Khufu's horizon given the highly spiritual nature of many AE writings.

 

Inane babbling, you say? Inane babbling? Heresy! Fabricator! The Egyptians were eloquent and articulate. I, sir, am the inane babbler!

Long live our fuzzy Benevolent Feline Overlords!

[Lord Harry 1,634]

9 hours ago, Jarocal said:

I was referring to a statement made earlier in the thread by KmT Sesh. 

Possessing little interest in the crude scribblings of a nescient feline demon worshipping culture, I simply referenced back to an assertion made by someone who has the patience, and incredulously, an actual desire to study the inane babbling left us by the ancient Egyptians. 

I really see no reason why Khufu's inner woman makes any less sense than Khufu's horizon given the highly spiritual nature of many AE writings.

 

You mean as opposed to the Mayans who sacrificed children to their gods from the tops of their "pyramids" by cutting their hearts from their chests?

Edited November 27, 2017 by Lord Harry

[Scott Creighton 109]

On 11/26/2017 at 0:10 AM, kmt_sesh said:

Thanks for that. I really don't mind discussing your theory (and I have been involved). I'm just really interested in the void, as are you (LOL Probably for different reasons). But for the moment there might not be a lot more to say about it. I just wanted to share that video, which I enjoyed. If the video generates some discussion, all the better.

Here's a new revision of my article. Your favourite sources, the Arabic writers, talk about statues having been found in the Grand Gallery (as per Pochan). So, if the actual bodies of Surid's ancestors were placed in the 'Void' then the statues reported to have been found (in antiquity) in the Grand Gallery, I propose would have been placed there to serve as 'Ka Doubles' for the actual bodies I propose will be found in the 'Void'.

SC

[Scott Creighton 109]

On 11/25/2017 at 7:11 PM, Kenemet said:

You still haven't proven that the mapped pyramid arrangements are anything but coincidence or that anyone other than you "recognized" them as forming the shape of Osiris.

As I said to you previously - I will not be held to higher standards of proof than Egyptology is held. They are happy to decide that these structures were conceived and built as tombs without the original burial of a single king having been found in these 16 pyramids; without a single contemporary AE text ever stating these structures were conceived and built as tombs. You are happy to accept that proposition in the absence of such primary evidence and yet you expect higher standards of evidence from others. 

Go figure.

Anyway--I do not need to present anything that proves this arrangement is "anything but coincidence". The PTs tell us very clearly (and I've lost count now the number of times I have stated this), that the pyramids are Osiris, to wit:

"Oh Horus, these departed kings are Osiris, these pyramids of theirs are Osiris, these constructions of theirs are Osiris..."

- PT 1657.

Plutarch & Diodorus tell us the 'body of Osiris' was cut into 14/16 pieces:

"...Seth rediscovered the body of Osiris... and dismembered it, scattering the fragments... there may be an obscure reference to the dismemberment of Osiris in the Pyramid Texts (1981): "A libation for you is poured out by Isis, [Nephys has cleansed you , even your two] great and mighty sisters who gathered your flesh together, who raised up your members..."

- Diodorus Siculus, Book 1: A Commentary, Anne burton, p.61 

Those texts are the premise for my contention that the first 16 complete pyramids came, in later dynasties, to represent the 'body of Osiris'. That the arrangement of these first pyramids can also be shown to form an outline of the classic Osiris figurine may well be purely coincidental - or it may not be. But this correlation is not what I rely on to make my proposition. For that I use the PTs and the Myth of Isis and Osiris (see above).

SC

 

[stereologist 17,402]

The only thing I have seen Scott do is make errors and attempt to cover up these shenanigans with cherry picked quotes.

Here we have the claims of a recovery vault being a structure built in a low lying area.

Then we have a contrived set of dots chosen on an image based on the distribution of a cherry picked set of pyramids.

No amount of conjecture, misrepresentations, and quotes fix these errors.

Here is the sort of statement that appears to me what Scott is all about.

Quote

They are happy to decide that these structures were conceived and built as tombs without the original burial of a single king having been found in these 16 pyramids;

Yet I can find that mummies were found in pyramids.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090114-mummy-egypt-queen.html

Quote

Fortunately, Seshseshet's mummy was inside a granite sarcophagus with a six-ton lid, so the thieves left the body and its decorations of gold jewelry untouched.

There is a pyramid with a sarcophagus and a mummy inside of the sarcophagus. It is not on Scott's cherry picked list.It is not part of the forced dot layout Scott placed over an image.

I expect Scott to whine about the details, but that's ok. It is just another mistake just like the orientation of bodies.

[mstower 881]

12 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

I was just playing around with an online translater, which works well for Arabic. For others to remember, الأفق means "horizon." It turns out, not surprisingly, that you can use Arabic to spell "Khufu." In Arabic script it's خوفو. Very different characters. I don't get the linguistic logic in a very old language to use a loan word and then spell it backwards to produce a word that's common to most languages in the first place. Loan words are common in all languages, but they're not Rubik's Cubes.

Only one character in common, the one giving the /f/ sound.

M.

[Saru 6,877]

Could we avoid ad hominems please - attack the views being presented, not the person who holds those views.

Thank you. 

[Hanslune 9,706]

3 hours ago, stereologist said:

The only thing I have seen Scott do is make errors and attempt to cover up these shenanigans with cherry picked quotes.

Here we have the claims of a recovery vault being a structure built in a low lying area.

Then we have a contrived set of dots chosen on an image based on the distribution of a cherry picked set of pyramids.

No amount of conjecture, misrepresentations, and quotes fix these errors.

Here is the sort of statement that appears to me what Scott is all about.

Yet I can find that mummies were found in pyramids.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/01/090114-mummy-egypt-queen.html

There is a pyramid with a sarcophagus and a mummy inside of the sarcophagus. It is not on Scott's cherry picked list.It is not part of the forced dot layout Scott placed over an image.

I expect Scott to whine about the details, but that's ok. It is just another mistake just like the orientation of bodies.

Howdy Stereologist

I believe that the standard response to that is that it is an 'outside' burial, 'intrusive', done after its primary purpose - stargate, vectron ray initiator, starship guidepoint, power plant, galactic pump, seed vault or whatever. Scott is an ICT engineer and  he is, I must admit an expert on AE ICT installations. While his knowledge of culture and religion 'in context' is demonstratively very shaky as you have noted. His view on how they ran their computer networks cannot and can never be questioned.

[mstower 881]

6 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

As I said to you previously - I will not be held to higher standards of proof than Egyptology is held. They are happy to decide that these structures were conceived and built as tombs without the original burial of a single king having been found in these 16 pyramids; without a single contemporary AE text ever stating these structures were conceived and built as tombs. You are happy to accept that proposition in the absence of such primary evidence and yet you expect higher standards of evidence from others. 

Go figure.

As if you had an inkling of standards of proof in general or Egyptology in particular.

So tell us, Creighton, what you imagine such a contemporary text would be like.  What words might it contain?  Which determinatives might we see?  What criteria are operative in the linguistic case which are exempt from your carping otherwise?

M.

Edited November 27, 2017 by mstower
Pedantry.

[Hanslune 9,706]

38 minutes ago, mstower said:

As if you had an inkling of standards of proof in general or Egyptology in particular.

 

Classic and true!

[Kenemet 9,196]

8 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

As I said to you previously - I will not be held to higher standards of proof than Egyptology is held. They are happy to decide that these structures were conceived and built as tombs without the original burial of a single king having been found in these 16 pyramids; without a single contemporary AE text ever stating these structures were conceived and built as tombs. You are happy to accept that proposition in the absence of such primary evidence and yet you expect higher standards of evidence from others. 

Yes, since what we find (remains) are parts of mummies that bandaging and other tests indicate date from that period.  And since there are mortuary temples nearby and the temples where bodies are placed during the mummification process... and since they're in graveyards.  Their names, too, indicate that they are the property of a king. (etc)

 

Quote

Anyway--I do not need to present anything that proves this arrangement is "anything but coincidence". The PTs tell us very clearly (and I've lost count now the number of times I have stated this), that the pyramids are Osiris, to wit:

But you said you wanted to be held to a "higher standard than Egyptologists."  I'm actually just holding you to the standard.(not based on what websites say about Egyptologists but based on having studied under one very prominent Egyptologist and having taken courses from two others.)

And your choice to use the compiled Pyramid Texts (rather than look at the individual ones) fails you - and you didn't give the second part of the quote.  This particular line is only found in the Pyramid of Merenre and the whole quote actually reads:

• "Atum, put your arms around Nemtiemzaf Merenre, around this work, around this pyramid, as ka-arms. This Nemtiemzaf Merenre is Osiris, this work is Osiris, this pyramid is Osiris and acquire his remainder through it "

And this is the only PT where the Pyramid is Osiris.  Amusingly enough, this is not on your list of "Osiris points."

This same text goes on to say that "this pyramid shall be firm" and lists 12 other gods and attributes that the pyramid will be as firm as.  Only one of the 12 deities is Osiris::

• As the name of Osiris as Foremost of Westerners is firm, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the course of eternity. As Seth’s name is firm in Ombos, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the course of eternity.  (etc)

There are 24 (if I counted right) mentions of the word "pyramid" in the Pyramid Text of Merenre and it talks of Atum acquiring the remains through the pyramid.  

The pyramid text of Pepi I does not speak of the pyramid as Osiris.  It does mention the pyramid as a structure that is considered part of the complex and is intended for the king and his spirit alone:

• I have come as Parter. A Geb-offering that Atum has given: the installation of this pyramid and this god’s enclosure for Pepi and for his ka, and that this pyramid and this god’s enclosure be restricted to Pepi and to his ka. This eye of Horus is clean: may it endure for them. He who shall give his finger against this pyramid and this god’s enclosure of Pepi and of his ka, he has given his finger against Horus’s Enclosure in the Cool Waters,

So your point that the "Pyramid Texts" say the pyramids are Osiris is not correct. 

And of course there are no texts in the unfinished pyramids.

 

Quote

Plutarch & Diodorus tell us the 'body of Osiris' was cut into 14/16 pieces:

Those texts are the premise for my contention that the first 16 complete pyramids came, in later dynasties, to represent the 'body of Osiris'. That the arrangement of these first pyramids can also be shown to form an outline of the classic Osiris figurine may well be purely coincidental - or it may not be. But this correlation is not what I rely on to make my proposition. For that I use the PTs and the Myth of Isis and Osiris (see above).

Again, the Pyramid Texts do not support your statement. 

Plutarch and Diodorus do not mention where the cities that have parts of Osiris are.  These authors are at best secondary or tertiary sources that are only relating what they had been told at the time.  They are not Egyptians.  They did not worship Osiris.  You have not provided a primary source to support your statements (Egyptians writing at the time when you say this takes place)

You have not shown that any of these sites was ever considered part of Osiris.  The largest Osiris temple in the land -and center for the cult of Osiris- is Abydos... yet it's somehow left off your "diagram."  (Convenient Web Reference: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/Otherabydostemples.htm)   Your "diagram" also completely misses Thebes, another important center of Osiris worship while trying to identify places that do not have Osiris temples as "part of Osiris." 

Unless you can come up with evidence that counters this, your "osiris" is merely pareidolia.

"It's this because I think it is" is not proof sufficient for Egyptologists.  You have to show documents and names from Egyptians of that time period (not foreigners who lived a thousand or more years later.)  So far, you're holding yourself to the standards of "armchair investigators from Godlike Productions" and not the standards that any professional in any industry or science would use. 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by Kenemet

[Hanslune 9,706]

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

Yes, since what we find (remains) are parts of mummies that bandaging and other tests indicate date from that period.  And since there are mortuary temples nearby and the temples where bodies are placed during the mummification process... and since they're in graveyards.  Their names, too, indicate that they are the property of a king. (etc)

 

But you said you wanted to be held to a "higher standard than Egyptologists."  I'm actually just holding you to the standard.(not based on what websites say about Egyptologists but based on having studied under one very prominent Egyptologist and having taken courses from two others.)

And your choice to use the compiled Pyramid Texts (rather than look at the individual ones) fails you - and you didn't give the second part of the quote.  This particular line is only found in the Pyramid of Merenre and the whole quote actually reads:

• "Atum, put your arms around Nemtiemzaf Merenre, around this work, around this pyramid, as ka-arms. This Nemtiemzaf Merenre is Osiris, this work is Osiris, this pyramid is Osiris and acquire his remainder through it "

And this is the only PT where the Pyramid is Osiris.  Amusingly enough, this is not on your list of "Osiris points."

This same text goes on to say that "this pyramid shall be firm" and lists 12 other gods and attributes that the pyramid will be as firm as.  Only one of the 12 deities is Osiris::

• As the name of Osiris as Foremost of Westerners is firm, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the course of eternity. As Seth’s name is firm in Ombos, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the course of eternity.  (etc)

There are 24 (if I counted right) mentions of the word "pyramid" in the Pyramid Text of Merenre and it talks of Atum acquiring the remains through the pyramid.  

The pyramid text of Pepi I does not speak of the pyramid as Osiris.  It does mention the pyramid as a structure that is considered part of the complex and is intended for the king and his spirit alone:

• I have come as Parter. A Geb-offering that Atum has given: the installation of this pyramid and this god’s enclosure for Pepi and for his ka, and that this pyramid and this god’s enclosure be restricted to Pepi and to his ka. This eye of Horus is clean: may it endure for them. He who shall give his finger against this pyramid and this god’s enclosure of Pepi and of his ka, he has given his finger against Horus’s Enclosure in the Cool Waters,

So your point that the "Pyramid Texts" say the pyramids are Osiris is not correct. 

And of course there are no texts in the unfinished pyramids.

 

Again, the Pyramid Texts do not support your statement. 

Plutarch and Diodorus do not mention where the cities that have parts of Osiris are.  These authors are at best secondary or tertiary sources that are only relating what they had been told at the time.  They are not Egyptians.  They did not worship Osiris.  You have not provided a primary source to support your statements (Egyptians writing at the time when you say this takes place)

You have not shown that any of these sites was ever considered part of Osiris.  The largest Osiris temple in the land -and center for the cult of Osiris- is Abydos... yet it's somehow left off your "diagram."  (Convenient Web Reference: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/Otherabydostemples.htm)   Your "diagram" also completely misses Thebes, another important center of Osiris worship while trying to identify places that do not have Osiris temples as "part of Osiris." 

Unless you can come up with evidence that counters this, your "osiris" is merely pareidolia.

"It's this because I think it is" is not proof sufficient for Egyptologists.  You have to show documents and names from Egyptians of that time period (not foreigners who lived a thousand or more years later.)  So far, you're holding yourself to the standards of "armchair investigators from Godlike Productions" and not the standards that any professional in any industry or science would use. 

 

 

Well written and may I say, 'OUCH'!

[ChrLzs 17,409]

Scott, I think it's time for a .. er .. new, new re-revision of your article...

 

Or maybe a complete rewrite/withdrawal?

[mstower 881]

22 hours ago, stereologist said:

Here is the sort of statement that appears to me what Scott is all about.

Quote

They are happy to decide that these structures were conceived and built as tombs without the original burial of a single king having been found in these 16 pyramids;

 

The trick is to use the passive to gloss over the implicit claim to comprehensive knowledge of who has been in these pyramids and what they found there.  In no case do we have this.

M.

[mstower 881]

“. . . this pyramid is Osiris . . .”

It does not say, “These pyramids (collectively) are Osiris.”  Fallacy of composition.

M.

[Scott Creighton 109]

18 hours ago, Kenemet said:

 

SC: As I said to you previously - I will not be held to higher standards of proof than Egyptology is held. They are happy to decide that these structures were conceived and built as tombs without the original burial of a single king having been found in these 16 pyramids; without a single contemporary AE text ever stating these structures were conceived and built as tombs. You are happy to accept that proposition in the absence of such primary evidence and yet you expect higher standards of evidence from others. 

Kenemet: Yes, since what we find (remains) are parts of mummies that bandaging and other tests indicate date from that period. 

SC: We’re talking about the first 16/19 pyramids which I contend lay the basis of the Osiris myth whereby his body is cut into 16 pieces and scattered throughout the land. No original burial of any king has ever been recovered from any of these pyramids. And parts of mummies and bandaging do not date a pyramid - they might date the mummy and the bandage. And these mummy parts and bandages  may well come from intrusive burials:

”The tomb of King Djoser, founder of Dynasty 3 which initiated the Old Kingdom, had been plundered in antiquity when it was opened in 1900. No complete body was present but scattered bones and body parts betrayed the presence of ancient looters. One of these was an isolated foot wrapped in linen bandages. Removal of the outer layer demonstrated that the foot was enveloped by a resin-impregnated linen cast. The superficial layer of the cast was covered with a resin layer thick enough to permit its creative artist to sculpt the tendons and other normal, superficial anatomical structures of the foot. However, recent radiocarbon dating suggests that the alleged remains of Djoser are actually at least a millennium more recent than Dynasty 4.” (Strouhal et al, 1995). -Arthur C. Aufderheide, The Scientific Study of Mummies p.225

Perhaps this is why Hawass has such a problem accepting the science of radiocarbon dating?

Kenemet: And since there are mortuary temples nearby and the temples where bodies are placed during the mummification process...

SC: In terms of these first 16/19 pyramids, there’s not much left of the temples. And just because today we call them “Mortuary Temples” doesn’t mean this was the purpose these temples original held. The AEs had temples to chart the course of the sun in which hymns and spells would be uttered throughout the day and night; all to praise the sun god and pray for his return each day to give new life. The temples you speak of may well have originally hosted a rebirth ritual for the Kingdom, to ensure that it would be reborn again after the anticipated Great Inundation. Naturally, as time moves on and religious ideas form and evolve, the pyramid would have become associated with the King himself and, naturally, the associated temples. Just because we name them today “Mortuary Temples” doesn’t mean they always performed a mortuary function. Temples of Rebirth is probably more apt.

Kenemet…and since they're in graveyards. 

SC: Yes—they’re graveyards NOW. Doesn’t mean that was ALWAYS the case. Over time, as the perfunctory pyramid Recovery Vault evolved into a religious icon (having completed its original intended function), as the personified ‘body of Osiris’, people would, naturally, wish to have themselves buried alongside the god that ensured an Afterlife / Rebirth. Thus it then became a graveyard as the Osirian doctrine grew in importance and influence with each passing dynasty:

Quote

… there was something different in the Osirian conception of immortality. First, it was a corporeal conception. Whereas the other religious systems involved the ascent of the deceased to heaven or his temporary transformation into another form, the Osirian system is clearly concerned with the body of the dead king and desiderates continued life for his body. Death indeed is not usually admitted. As Osiris, the tired god, was able to revive from his sleep, so the king will awake and stand… Death is really only a sleep, then, a phase of tiredness; and the firm denial of it in other references shows that it is denied both as a state and as an occurrence.”

"O king, thou hast not gone away dead; though hast gone away alive. Sit on the throne of Osiris." (Pyr. 134a)

Here then is a doctrine of continued life rather than of resurrection or resuscitation after death. In view of the pretence or euphemism involved one should possibly not object to the common use of the term resurrection as a description of the doctrine, although it is not precisely correct; it is the non-Osirian doctrine, in various forms, which amounts to a belief in resurrection [i.e. a spiritual life after a corporeal death].

J. G. Griffiths , The Origins of Osiris and His Cult, p.66-67

‘… when the dead king came to be regarded as Osiris the ceremony of washing his corpse was retained as an episode in the Rite of Embalmment, being performed when the corpse was taken out of the salt-bath.’ He goes on: ‘But the view now held was, not that the dead king was reborn as a result of this lustration, but that his body, like that of Osiris, was revivified.’ These remarks involve a recognition that embalming was essentially an Osirian rite.

Ibid, p.74

Here we see the Osirian doctrine of the Afterlife supplanting the original AE beliefs in the hereafter which was more akin to a resurrection after death. The Osirian doctrine was a corporeal concept that promoted the idea of “…continued life rather than of resurrection or resuscitation after death.” Where would such a concept of death being more akin to ‘sleeping’ have come from? From the idea that the Kingdom was ‘washed clean’ and made barren by the Great Inundation and only when the ‘doors’ of the pyramid Recovery Vaults were opened, was the kingdom able to be reawakened; the kingdom given continued life through the agency of Osiris; through the 16-pyramid ‘body of Osiris’.

Kenemet: Their names, too, indicate that they are the property of a king. (etc)

 SC: This plan to build all of these 16/19 pyramid Recovery Vaults (this ‘Project Osiris’ for want of a better title) would, by necessity, have been a multi-generation plan, each pyramid built by different kings.  So why wouldn’t their names be associated with the particular pyramid structures they built? And, of course, with a plan to built 16/19 Recovery Vaults, each king would have been duty-bound to build as many in his reign as he could. Which better explains why a number of AE kings built many puramids.

SC: Anyway--I do not need to present anything that proves this arrangement is "anything but coincidence". The PTs tell us very clearly (and I've lost count now the number of times I have stated this), that the pyramids are Osiris, to wit:

Kenemet: But you said you wanted to be held to a "higher standard than Egyptologists." 

SC: Umm – no, I did not say that. I said I will NOT be held to a standard that is higher than Egyptology is held.

Kenemet: I'm actually just holding you to the standard.(not based on what websites say about Egyptologists but based on having studied under one very prominent Egyptologist and having taken courses from two others.)

SC: You’re doing no such thing. You are asking of me more evidence to support my contention than Egyptologists present to support theirs. I can present a number of Coptic-Egyptian texts (passed down to us from Arab scholars) that tell us the purpose of these pyramids. Those Coptic-Egyptian sources tell us they were built as ‘Recovery Vaults’. They tell us also that within the Great Pyramid there is to be found a ‘chamber’ within which the bodies of the ancestors were placed. I can point to texts from Plutarch and Diodorus which relate to us the story of Isis and Osiris. I can point to the Shabaka Stela which relates a similar story. I can point to Pyramid Texts which also gives hints to the dismemberment of Osiris. All this documentary evidence supports my contention. And I haven’t even started yet on the physical evidence that supports the Recovery Vault contention.

Kenemet: And your choice to use the compiled Pyramid Texts (rather than look at the individual ones) fails you

SC: Nonsense. My daughter doesn’t have to read the whole Bible if she wants to learn about the birth of Christ for her School Nativity Play.  Be realistic.

Kenemet: - and you didn't give the second part of the quote.  This particular line is only found in the Pyramid of Merenre and the whole quote actually reads:

"Atum, put your arms around Nemtiemzaf Merenre, around this work, around this pyramid, as ka-arms. This Nemtiemzaf Merenre is Osiris, this work is Osiris, this pyramid is Osiris and acquire his remainder through it "

SC: I think we get the idea with the FIRST part of the text. THIS WORK IS OSIRIS. THIS PYRAMID IS OSIRIS. This pyramid is but ONE PART of the greater pyramid-body that is Osiris. With this pyramid as a part of the greater body, he will “acquire his remainder through it”  i.e. the king (in death and through his pyramid) will acquire all other parts of the ‘Osiris body’; he will be ‘assimilated’ into the full body of Osiris (i.e. all the other pyramid ‘body-parts’ of Osiris.). Think of it in terms of the Christian Church. Each individual church, wherever it is located around the world, is part of the ‘body of Christ’. Similar thing.

Kenemet: And this is the only PT where the Pyramid is Osiris.

SC: No, it’s not:

Quote

"This Pepi Neferkare is Osiris, this pyramid of Pepi Nefer-kare and this his work are Osiris. Betake yourself to him and don’t be far from him in his identity of the pyramid" - J.P. Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, p.269

 And -

 "...Atum, put your arms around Nemtiemzaf Merenre, around this work,around this pyramid, as ka-arms; This Nemtiemzaf Merenre is Osiris, this work is Osiris, this pyramid is Osiris..." - J.P. Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, p.348

Kenemet: Amusingly enough, this is not on your list of "Osiris points."

SC: Why should it?  ‘Project Osiris’ was limited to the first 16/19 pyramids i.e. the giant pyramids the AEs built. But, as stated above, as the religious ideas around these first pyramids evolved, each new pyramid in later dynasties would also become ‘incorporated’ within the ‘pyramid-body of Osiris’. This is why later historians report the number of Osiris ‘body parts’ as 26 and then as 42. As 6^th dynasty constructions, I am sure these pyramids would easily make the 42 body-part count. Personally, I can’t see what’s so amusing about being cut into 2 pieces let alone 42 !!

Kenemet: This same text goes on to say that "this pyramid shall be firm" and lists 12 other gods and attributes that the pyramid will be as firm as.  Only one of the 12 deities is Osiris::

SC: So. Different gods had different roles. Osiris was the god of rebirth, regeneration, the Afterlife. You’d have a valid point if Osiris hadn’t been mentioned – but he is. And his influence slowly grew as he gradually usurped various other deities.

Kenemet:

Quote

As the name of Osiris as Foremost of Westerners is firm, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the course of eternity. As Seth’s name is firm in Ombos, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the course of eternity.  (etc)

Kenemet: There are 24 (if I counted right) mentions of the word "pyramid" in the Pyramid Text of Merenre and it talks of Atum acquiring the remains through the pyramid. 

SC: We’re talking about what it says about Osiris. “this pyramid is Osiris… this construction of his is Osiris”. How much clearer does it have to be for you to understand that the pyramid IS Osiris? Why do you think the pyramid is Osiris and, at the same time, the “Ka of the king”? Think about it. (Hint: think 'Ka Double').

Kenemet: The pyramid text of Pepi I does not speak of the pyramid as Osiris. 

SC:  It does, see J.P. Allen quote above.

Kenemet: So your point that the "Pyramid Texts" say the pyramids are Osiris is not correct. 

SC: No, I’m not wrong. See J.P. Allen quote above.

Kenemet: And of course there are no texts in the unfinished pyramids.

SC: There are no texts in ANY of the first 16/19 pyramids. Why would there be? These are not ‘religious edifices’ that are being built although there would have been a ritualistic element relating to the rebirth of the kingdom (hence why Belzoni found a granite Neb-Ankh filled with earth and bull bones). They would, in time, become religious edifices, the means for the king to be ‘reborn’. The PTs didn’t start appearing until the 5^th dynasty so you’re hardly likely to find them in pyramids built long before that period.

Quote

SC: Plutarch & Diodorus tell us the 'body of Osiris' was cut into 14/16 pieces:

Those texts are the premise for my contention that the first 16 complete pyramids came, in later dynasties, to represent the 'body of Osiris'. That the arrangement of these first pyramids can also be shown to form an outline of the classic Osiris figurine may well be purely coincidental - or it may not be. But this correlation is not what I rely on to make my proposition. For that I use the PTs and the Myth of Isis and Osiris (see above).

Kenemet: Again, the Pyramid Texts do not support your statement. 

SC: Yes they do. See J.P. Allen quote above.

Kenemet: Plutarch and Diodorus do not mention where the cities that have parts of Osiris are.  These authors are at best secondary or tertiary sources that are only relating what they had been told at the time. 

SC: And they probably used sources that are long lost to us now. But we have their texts relating these stories. We have what we have.

Kenemet: They are not Egyptians.  They did not worship Osiris. 

SC: Okay – so let’s chuck out every historical document that wasn’t actually written by an ancient Egyptian. In fact, why stop there? Why not chuck out Lehner’s work, Petrie’s work and any other non-Egyptian researcher/writer of all things ancient Egyptian. A bonfire of the antiquities! Be realistic.

Kenemet: You have not provided a primary source to support your statements (Egyptians writing at the time when you say this takes place)

SC: There are two clear PTs that tells us the pyramid is Osiris, the construction is Osiris. We have one PT that hints at the dismemberment of Osiris. We have the Shabaka Stone that also relates this and also the drowning of Osiris. That’s a few sources right there to back up my contention and that’s before I even get onto Plutarch and Diodorus.

Now—show one reference, just ONE PRIMARY SOURCE, where we are told in clear and unequivocal terms that the pyramid was conceived and built as a tomb?

Let’s see it?

Kenemet: You have not shown that any of these sites was ever considered part of Osiris.  

SC: If it’s a pyramid then they are ALL considered part of Osiris. Beginning with the first 16.

Kenemet: The largest Osiris temple in the land -and center for the cult of Osiris- is Abydos... yet it's somehow left off your "diagram."  (Convenient Web Reference: http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/Otherabydostemples.htm)   Your "diagram" also completely misses Thebes, another important center of Osiris worship while trying to identify places that do not have Osiris temples as "part of Osiris." 

SC: “This PYRAMID is Osiris”., NOT “This cult center is Osiris”.

Kenemet: Unless you can come up with evidence that counters this, your "osiris" is merely pareidolia.

SC: This is not actually a discussion about my Osiris-Pyramid correlation drawing. That may well be entirely coincidental and I have already conceded that elsewhere. The POINT and the FACT here is that the PTs tell us clearly and unequivocally that the “Pyramid is Osiris”. They hint also that the body was cut into several parts. Plutarch puts a number to those parts – 14. Diodorus says 16.  THAT is my contention right there – in those TEXTS. NOT in my Osiris-pyramid correlation. That the pyramids are Osiris are precisely that entirely without my correlation.

Kenemet: "It's this because I think it is" is not proof sufficient for Egyptologists.  You have to show documents and names from Egyptians of that time period (not foreigners who lived a thousand or more years later.)  So far, you're holding yourself to the standards of "armchair investigators from Godlike Productions" and not the standards that any professional in any industry or science would use. 

SC: No. So far I have presented more documentary and physical evidence to back up my contention than Egyptology ever has to back up theirs. Show me where there is a single AE primary source that unequivocally states these pyramids were conceived and built as tombs – let’s see it? Let’s see the in-situ original burials that are contemporary with the pyramid’s construction? Don’t worry – I won’t be holding my breath.

SC

[mstower 881]

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: As I said to you previously - I will not be held to higher standards of proof than Egyptology is held. They are happy to decide that these structures were conceived and built as tombs without the original burial of a single king having been found in these 16 pyramids; without a single contemporary AE text ever stating these structures were conceived and built as tombs. . . .

See what I mean?  Same old rhetoric, same old fallacies, same old self-exemption from standards.  The weasel passive and as we’ve seen he’s chosen not to tell us what he imagines such a text would look like.

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: Nonsense. My daughter doesn’t have to read the whole Bible if she wants to learn about the birth of Christ for her School Nativity Play.  Be realistic.

Thank you for making clear to us the level of understanding to which your ambitions stretch.

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kenemet: And this is the only PT where the Pyramid is Osiris.

SC: No, it’s not:

Quote

"This Pepi Neferkare is Osiris, this pyramid of Pepi Nefer-kare and this his work are Osiris [my emphasis, M. Stower]. Betake yourself to him and don’t be far from him in his identity of the pyramid" - J.P. Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, p.269

 And -

 "...Atum, put your arms around Nemtiemzaf Merenre, around this work,around this pyramid, as ka-arms; This Nemtiemzaf Merenre is Osiris, this work is Osiris, this pyramid is Osiris..." - J.P. Allen, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, p.348

 

Well done Creighton.  You’ve managed to perpetrate the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of division both—and you can forget the Merenre case, as it is not on your list of cherry-picked pyramids.  (Did you imagine no one would notice your ignoring this?)

Holding you to the standard you presume to hold others to, I await with interest your citation of a text contemporary with any of these 16 pyramids which states clearly and unequivocally that they are (collectively) Osiris.

For serious students, a search on the phrases “in his identity of” and “in his name of” is suggested.

M.

Edited November 28, 2017 by mstower
Satire.

[mstower 881]

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: No. So far I have presented more documentary and physical evidence to back up my contention than Egyptology ever has to back up theirs. Show me where there is a single AE primary source that unequivocally states these pyramids were conceived and built as tombs – let’s see it? Let’s see the in-situ original burials that are contemporary with the pyramid’s construction? Don’t worry – I won’t be holding my breath.

Needless to say for the majority, but someone who posts something like this is not engaged in serious discussion, but rather in disingenuous and deceptive rhetoric.

His careless employment of the word “unequivocally” suggests something other than linguistic erudition—and these many years on he’s yet to grasp that piling up junk results in a pile of junk.

I will not hold my breath while waiting for an improvement.

M.

[Hanslune 9,706]

2 hours ago, mstower said:

Needless to say for the majority, but someone who posts something like this is not engaged in serious discussion, but rather in disingenuous and deceptive rhetoric.

His careless employment of the word “unequivocally” suggests something other than linguistic erudition—and these many years on he’s yet to grasp that piling up junk results in a pile of junk.

I will not hold my breath while waiting for an improvement.

M.

Yes the piling up of quantity versus quality. Kinda like a believing that lots and lots of poor non evidence becomes fact.

Example lots and lots of words that cannot over come the fact that the AE, in SC world, built three seed vaults next to each other and within sight of other 'seed vaults'.....

He also does the classic fringe tactic; when you have weak or non-existent evidence complain about the mainstream because we all know if we do that my own lack of evidence will suddenly be forgotten! lol Sciolist in action!

'trying to understand the "scatter shot" way many a fringe believers minds work is like trying to sit down to a meal of puppy head's in aspic.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Hanslune

[mstower 881]

One thing (and quite a big thing) he fails to grasp is that if the pyramids were tombs, it would be redundant (merely tautological) to say that they were.

He certainly fails to grasp that the relevant words belong to families of words of related meaning—that the language (like any language) embodies a cosmology or metaphysics.  Die Grenzen meiner Sprache bedeuten die Grenzen meiner Welt.  This while inconsistently to the point of hypocrisy making up his own semantics for it (Fantasy Egyptology).

Dictionaries assure us that 3ḫt (in various writings) means horizon or tomb, specifically the tomb of a king.  If correct, naming one pyramid 3ḫt Ḫwfw is massively suggestive of a funerary function.

M.

[Hanslune 9,706]

24 minutes ago, mstower said:

One thing (and quite a big thing) he fails to grasp is that if the pyramids were tombs, it would be redundant (merely tautological) to say that they were.

He certainly fails to grasp that the relevant words belong to families of words of related meaning—that the language (like any language) embodies a cosmology or metaphysics.  Die Grenzen meiner Sprache bedeuten die Grenzen meiner Welt.  This while inconsistently to the point of hypocrisy making up his own semantics for it (Fantasy Egyptology).

Dictionaries assure us that 3ḫt (in various writings) means horizon or tomb, specifically the tomb of a king.  If correct, naming one pyramid 3ḫt Ḫwfw is massively suggestive of a funerary function.

M.

Not to mention the context of location and what else is built there. Oh question, I haven't been following SC much after he disappeared off here a year or so ago. Did he ever state when he thinks they Giza pyramids were built. Years ago he seemed to imply they were built about 20,000 years ago?

[mstower 881]

3 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Not to mention the context of location and what else is built there. Oh question, I haven't been following SC much after he disappeared off here a year or so ago. Did he ever state when he thinks they Giza pyramids were built. Years ago he seemed to imply they were built about 20,000 years ago?

Not sure exactly where he is on this.  Not sure it matters.  Still the “recovery vault” tomfoolery and he put out a whole book bashing Vyse (with promises of more to come), so in his own mind he is free to say whatever he likes on the question, with all of his usual cogency.

M.