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 -

The Great Pyramid's Greatest Secret (Hidden in Plain Sight)


Scott Creighton

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: Not at all. What I'm seeing is that you're simply not willing to have your Egyptology world turned upside-down.

Here's the full inscription:

“Harakhte, only god, king of the gods; he rises in the west, he sendeth his beauty."

Not precisely what Velikovsky writes but I think the end result is the same: Harakhte (Horus, the god of the rising sun on the Horizon) . . . rises in the west.

image.thumb.png.f7a6b1130b946932b4bf5d1596d06b2f.png

Ancient Egypt, David P. Silverman, p.171

Which is just the traditional interpretation which I disagree with. Horus of the Two Horizons is, imo, associated with sunrise on two opposite horizons, not sunrise-sunset. And that's what I think the Dream Stele depicts - it's not simple symmetry.  It's depciting, imo, the two horizons of sunrise (symmetry would be depicting just a single mirrored horizon). Two horizons is two horizons - not a single horizon mirrored.

SC

 

It seems more that while you like to create threads and make extremely dubious and unevidenced statements, you don't so much like questions being asked, hence your attempts to try to make it seem that it is incumbent on the questioner, instead of pressing their questions, to answer yours, a deliberate distraction.

Where is this text that states that Horakhty rises in the west, you wrote the words, again, and described as a full description, but the image from the book does not have them, and Windowpane has pointed out  the text on the east face of the pyramidion of Amenemhet III. You say that Velikovsky does not actually say that Horakhty rises in the west, so why quote him, and Silverman. Please provide clear evidence of this text.

If you want to believe that the two horizons of Horakhty are both sunrises, then fine, that's your business, but you are wrong, very wrong, unless you can present evidence that the experts in this field are all wrong.

 

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

4 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

How do you know that the Descending Passage was intended to align with the Imperishable Ones (the circumpolar region of the sky)? 

Good grief. This is common knowledge, my thread is not required-don't even tell me you do not know better and are going to argue against this somehow just because it contradicts your theory. Come on, man. At least make up some gobbledygook to save face like the DP is for the current pharaoh and the chamber shafts were made for the 27 kings which would explain why G1 is the only one that has them. Isn't that how it works?   

Quote

The Pyramid Texts tell us that to reach the Imperishable Ones, the king's soul had to embark upon the boat of Sah/Osiris and to then be ferried across the sky to the region of the circumpolar region. It seems that the journey was first via Sah/Osiris/Orion and then onwards to the circumpolar stars.

What is this "Sah"? It also says the king just climbs a ladder to reach this destination. And you don't really want to get into the weeds about the PT do you? But so what-it does not change the fact the descending passages point at the circumpolar stars. And also, the PT says nothing of pyramids being involved in this process: Pyramid Texts and the Function of Pyramids

Quote

That every pyramid has a passage 'pointing' to the circumpolar region, isn't proof that it was the circumpolar region that was being 'targeted'.

This is senseless. The DP points right at the spot where the pharaoh needs to go (circumpolar stars), and every 4th Dynasty pyramid has one, but this is "coincidence" or "could mean anything"...? But the chamber shafts, already described in detail as not being reasonable to support this "soul shaft" function always, which G1 is the only pyramid to have them, point at nothing other than that general quadrant of the sky (which two shafts don't even point there) so this is the one we choose instead anyways...? 

Quote

There could be other reasons. If, for example, the Earth was inverted and the pyramids were built at that time (as Krupp's analysis of Bauval's OCT implies), then it could simply be that the small shafts were associated with the star Al Nitak (yes, all four of them) and that the Descending Passage was directed towards the sun - the largest object in our sky (which would cross over the northern sky of an inverted Earth).

Other than exactly why any reasonable person thinks it would, there could be other reasons the DP points at the circumpolar region...? Like the shafts originally pointing at completely other specific things and then the earth flipping over and now they point at other specific things? So the DP used to point at the Sun (RA) in the northern sky, absolutely amazing in and of itself, and then the earth flips over somehow and now it points at the celestial pole-the exact place where the pharaoh resides in the afterlife...? And its now nearly perfectly aligned to the new true north...? F-me. How awesome is that. 

So only Khufu, and excuse me-a whopping 27 other previous kings re-buried in G1 (before the inversion I assume)-only they get to take their place with the Imperishable Ones because even though all the 4th Dynasty pyramids have DP's pointing right at it, only G1 has the magic "soul shafts" which don't point at them at all? Once again, it beggars belief. 

[snip]

No.

 

 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

It seems more that while you like to create threads and make extremely dubious and unevidenced statements, you don't so much like questions being asked, hence your attempts to try to make it seem that it is incumbent on the questioner, instead of pressing their questions, to answer yours, a deliberate distraction.

My point remains valid. Most critics here simply try to find the weakest link, the low hanging fruit, and kick up a fuss about it, completely and expediently ignoring all the other points presented. I can only imagine they do that because they cannot answer those other points. But when you do think you have an answer to something, you're in like a flash as if it debunks everything presented, which, of course, it doesn't. That's all I'm pointing out here.

Quote

Where is this text that states that Horakhty rises in the west, you wrote the words, again, but the image from the book does not have them, and Windowpane has pointed out  the text on the east face of the pyramidion of Amenemhet III. You say that Velikovsky does not actually say that Horakhty rises in the west, so why quote him, and the text on the photo does not state this either. Please provide clear evidence of this text.

You asked 2 questions: Where is the Velikovsky quote and why do I believe Harakhte was the western sun. I responded to both your questions - from two different sources. Velikovsky's Harakhte inscription has nothing to do with the tomb of Amenemhat III. You only want to know exactly where the quote can be found so that you can then look at the source and try to find a means of debunking it. Your mind is already made up.  So, if you want to know where the quote can be found, do your own research. But I assure you it's there - and it is precisely how I quoted it.

Quote

If you want to believe that the two horizons of Horakhty are both sunrises, then fine, that's your business, but you are wrong, very wrong, unless you can present evidence that the experts in this field are all wrong.

So-called "experts" have been wrong before. In fact, Egyptology is a graveyard of wrong theories and of various former "experts" being binned for the new expert's interpretation. Until such time as the new interpretation is binned. So yes - I'll stick with my own interpretation, thanks.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

My point remains valid. Most critics here simply try to find the weakest link, the low hanging fruit, and kick up a fuss about it, completely and expediently ignoring all the other points presented. I can only imagine they do that because they cannot answer those other points. But when you do think you have an answer to something, you're in like a flash as if it debunks everything presented, which, of course, it doesn't. That's all I'm pointing out here.

You asked 2 questions: Where is the Velikovsky quote and why do I believe Harakhte was the western sun. I responded to both your questions - from two different sources. Velikovsky's Harakhte inscription has nothing to do with the tomb of Amenemhat III. You only want to know exactly where the quote can be found so that you can then look at the source and try to find a means of debunking it. Your mind is already made up.  So, if you want to know where the quote can be found, do your own research. But I assure you it's there - and it is precisely how I quoted it.

So-called "experts" have been wrong before. In fact, Egyptology is a graveyard of wrong theories and of various former "experts" being binned for the new expert's interpretation. Until such time as the new interpretation is binned. So yes - I'll stick with my own interpretation, thanks.

SC

You have made claims, you have quoted various sources, one of them Velikovsky about the nature of Horakhty, yet you then say that Velikovsky did not say what you say he did, but something like it. Your other source, Silverman, says nothing at all about the pertinent point, that Horakhty "rises in the west".The text on the pyramidion of Amenemhet III goes against you, yet you brush that aside with a gnomic post.

At the moment it seems that you willingly made a false statement, and try to brush this aside as "low hanging fruit". So, can you in fact produce your evidence about the nature of Horakhty, then, when I see the text you say you are quoting from, preferably with a note about it's primary hieroglyphic source, I can make my mind up as to what this is actually all about. I make my own mind up, I don't need you to tell me that my mind is already made up, thank you, so, please show your evidence.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Harakhti

This name means 'Horus of the horizon', referring to the god rising in the east at dawn to bathe in the 'field of rushes.  The Pyramid Texts mention this aspect of the god linked to the sovereign: the king is said to be born on the eastern sky as Harakhti.

Hart, A dictionary of Egyptian gods and goddesses: 94

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

My point remains valid. Most critics here simply try to find the weakest link,

 

Dear Scott the weakest link is a complete lack of any way to cause the earth-moon to flip over - and YOU are not addressing that.

Until you can come out with a viable scientific method to do so - you've got nothing. Now in doing research for you one way this MIGHT happen would be to have a very large body pass very close to the earth and disrupt it with its gravity - we are talking another planet many times larger than earth - but the results of such a passage would also be to remove the Moon from our gravity hold and also to do severely damage to the Earth and moving it from our orbit. None of that is evidenced? Oddly the ancient didn't mention the moon being torn away and vast earthquakes, tsunamis etc. Did they?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

You have made claims, you have quoted various sources, one of them Velikovsky about the nature of Horakhty, yet you then say that Velikovsky did not say what you say he did, but something like it. Your other source, Silverman, says nothing at all about the pertinent point, that Horakhty "rises in the west".The text on the pyramidion of Amenemhet III goes against you, yet you brush that aside with a gnomic post.

Oh do quit the spin and the hyperbole. If you clutch those pearls any harder your hands will bleed.

Here are the pertinent facts.

Silverman tells us:

Quote

"It is inscribed on four sides with the deities Harakhte (god of the rising sun)..." (my emphasis)

So Harakhe is described as the "god of the rising sun."

So, where does this god of the rising sun actually rise?

Quote

“Harakhte, only god, king of the gods; he rises in the west, he sendeth his beauty."

Are you getting it yet?

Quote

At the moment it seems that you willingly made a false statement. . .

Ah - the "LIAR" card. I wondered how long it would be before this was played. Just another tactic  mainstream 'believers' resort to when they're losing the argument. "False statement" my ar5e.

Quote

and try to brush this aside as "low hanging fruit". So, can you in fact produce your evidence about the nature of Horakhty, then, when I see the text you say you are quoting from, preferably with a note about it's primary hieroglyphic source, I can make my mind up as to what this is actually all about. I make my own mind up, I don't need you to tell me that my mind is already made up, thank you, so, please show your evidence.

You're a reasonable researcher. I'm fairly confident you can find the original text yourself. And yes - I totally think you have already made your mind up about this and that you only wish to see the original quote in order to find ways to debunk it.  My presenting you with the source quote is not going to change your mind - and never will. That's how you operate. You might want to kid yourself on this - you don't kid me.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scott Creighton said:

Oh do quit the spin and the hyperbole. If you clutch those pearls any harder your hands will bleed.

Here are the pertinent facts.

Silverman tells us:

So Harakhe is described as the "god of the rising sun.

So, where does this god of the rising sun rise?

Are you getting it yet?

Ah - the "LIAR" card. I wondered how long it would be before this was played. Just another tactic  mainstream 'believers' resort to when they're losing the argument. "False statement" my ar5e.

You're a reasonable researcher. I'm fairly confident you can find the original text yourself. And yes - I totally think you have already made your mind up about this and that you only wish to see the original quote in order to find ways to debunk it.  My presenting you with the source quote is not going to change your mind - and never will. That's how you operate. You might want to kid yourself on this - you don't kid me.

SC

You quoted Velikovsky, then later said that he did not say exactl;y what you said he did, so you made that quote up, didn't you, and there's a word for that.

Silverman states nothing to back up your made up Velikovsky quote as he does not say that Horakhty "rises in the west".

Are you getting it yet, are you getting that you made up a quote and have been unable to back it up because you are trapped in a lie.

You are the thread starter, you "quoted" Velikovsky, you provide the real quote, if there is one.

You not providing a source for your quote because "it will not change my mind" is perhaps one of the most pathetic excuses for wriggling out of a corner I have ever heard, shameful behaviour and you should be censured for this clowning around and wasting all our time when you make posts you know to be wrong, or can you just not do the research and are now thrashing about in frustration.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Any naysayer here care to explain how this might be possible to observe (other than invoking an Earth inversion event, of course)? Shall I take a guess at your response?  "They were all just hallucinating." What if it wasn't hallucination and this really was observed - how do you explain it?

Again, any naysayer care to explain how this might be possible to observe (other than invoking an Earth inversion event, of course)? Shall I take another guess at your response? "They were all just hallucinating."  What if it wasn't hallucination and this really was observed - how do you explain it?

That it's a fable; a tale designed to inspire wonder.

Just like the Hopi tales are NOT evidence for ants sheltering humans during four separate earthly disasters, Tolkien is not evidence for the presence of ents, and the Thousand and One Arabian Nights is not evidence for the existence of djinn.  

Quote

Horakhty – Horus of the two Horizons. Knowing that the ancient Egyptians revered birth/rebirth and abhorred death, it seems odd to me that the term ‘Horus of the two horizons’ would refer to sunrise and sunset. My view is that it references only the sunrise. 

Yes, Horakhty (Horus of the two horizons) as understood by Egyptology, is the god of the rising sun (east) and the god of the setting sun (west).  But reading between the lines here - why is Horakhty “specifically the god of the east and the sunrise”? This implies Horakhty is more or mainly associated with sunrise than he is with the sunset, and that sunset was just some kind of add-on or after-thought.So why would sunset (the second horizon) have been an ‘add-on’?

Because you're treating Egyptian history as if it all happened in a single 200-300 year period.

Horus does not start out as Horakhty.  That comes far later.  In the Pyramid Texts he's described (in plain language) as the god of the eastern horizon (https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/horakhty/)  Much later he's adopted into the Ennead (around the time of the Middle Kingdom) and becomes Re-Horakhty and then is associated with the journeying sun (with Atum as sunset and Kephri as sunrise.)  

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

You quoted Velikovsky, then later said that he did not say exactl;y what you said he did, so you made that quote up, didn't you, and there's a word for that.

Silverman states nothing to back up your made up Velikovsky quote as he does not say that Horakhty "rises in the west".

Are you getting it yet, are you getting that you made up a quote and have been unable to back it up because you are trapped in a lie.

You are the thread starter, you "quoted" Velikovsky, you provide the real quote, if there is one.

You not providing a source for your quote because "it will not change my mind" is perhaps one of the most pathetic excuses for wriggling out of a corner I have ever heard, shameful behaviour and you should be censured for this clowning around and wasting all our time when you make posts you know to be wrong, or can you just not do the research and are now thrashing about in frustration.

Utterly risible.

What exactly is the material difference between:

Velikovsky: "Harakhte, he riseth in the west."

And:

Original Source: “Harakhte, only god, king of the gods; he rises in the west, he sendeth his beauty.

Do explain it to us. What, exactly, is the material difference in the two quotes?

Take your time.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Dear Scott the weakest link is a complete lack of any way to cause the earth-moon to flip over - and YOU are not addressing that.

Until you can come out with a viable scientific method to do so - you've got nothing. Now in doing research for you one way this MIGHT happen would be to have a very large body pass very close to the earth and disrupt it with its gravity - we are talking another planet many times larger than earth - but the results of such a passage would also be to remove the Moon from our gravity hold and also to do severely damage to the Earth and moving it from our orbit. None of that is evidenced? Oddly the ancient didn't mention the moon being torn away and vast earthquakes, tsunamis etc. Did they?

Clearly we are asking the "wrong" questions, oh dear.

Also, if the Earth flipped, would not the polar ice caps have melted at some point, and ice cores would not go back as far as they actually do, or did this flip take place in a day or so, and dammed the forces involved to do this.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Utterly risible.

What exactly is the material difference between:

Velikovsky: "Harakhte, he riseth in the west."

And the original source:

Original Source: “Harakhte, only god, king of the gods; he rises in the west, he sendeth his beauty.

Do explain it to us. What, exactly, is the material difference in the two quotes?

Take your time.

SC

Provide the original source, who wrote this and what was their hieroglyphic primary source. You've already said that Velikovsky did not write exactly these words, so who did. Even if Velikovsky did write this, what was his primary source, and why should I or anybody believe anything that charlatan said. Real quotes with real primary sources please.

One fringe author quoting another fringe author is simply not acceptable as proof of anything worth while at all

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Clearly we are asking the "wrong" questions, oh dear.

Also, if the Earth flipped, would not the polar ice caps have melted at some point, and ice cores would not go back as far as they actually do, or did this flip take place in a day or so, and dammed the forces involved to do this.

If you actually watch the video in the OP, it clearly explains and shows why the shift is 174 degrees. IOW - the polar regions are pretty much merely swapping places but for 6 degrees.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wepwawet said:

Provide the original source, who wrote this and what was their hieroglyphic primary source.

Not going to spoon feed you. Do your own research.

SC

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

13 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

...

Horus does not start out as Horakhty.  That comes far later.  In the Pyramid Texts he's described (in plain language) as the god of the eastern horizon (https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/horakhty/)  Much later he's adopted into the Ennead (around the time of the Middle Kingdom) and becomes Re-Horakhty and then is associated with the journeying sun (with Atum as sunset and Kephri as sunrise.)  

 

 

Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt (p. 11) has:

Quote

Harakhte, only god, king of the gods; he riseth in the west, he sendeth his beauty - -

But this is from the 19th Dynasty, not the Pyramid Texts: so perhaps this is what follows on from the Middle Kingdom adoption you mention.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt (p. 11) has:

But this is from the 19th Dynasty, not the Pyramid Texts: so perhaps this is what follows on from the Middle Kingdom adoption you mention.

Ah - you found it. Well done you. (See Wepawet - I wasn't lying to you. That's not what I do).

First question - where have I said that this quote was from the Pyramid Texts?

Second question - where did the the authors of the 19th Dynasty get such an idea?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2023 at 9:32 AM, Doc Socks Junior said:

There are now many scientific papers that have been published over the past 10 years or so that demonstrate (from a maths/physics analysis) that the Earth can indeed rapidly invert itself

Could you provide a few of these many papers?

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

Just now, Doc Socks Junior said:

Could you provide a few of these many papers?

Hi Doc,

One step at a time.  Keep watching.

SC

  • Haha 3
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Hi Doc,

One step at a time.  Keep watching.

SC

No, I want them now.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Clearly we are asking the "wrong" questions, oh dear.

Also, if the Earth flipped, would not the polar ice caps have melted at some point, and ice cores would not go back as far as they actually do, or did this flip take place in a day or so, and dammed the forces involved to do this.

Well in flip world circles there are several different sects, the 'snail flippers', 'flash flippers',  'Slackers' and 'random flippers'

Random flippers believe the Earth just flips on its own like a Mexican jumping bean, every couple of years and the government is hiding it from us

Flash flippers believe it happens in a few minutes but only on even centuries

Snail flippers that it takes thousands of years but people don't notice it until one day  'POP' the sun rises in the wrong direction

Slackers believe it flips whenever its needed for it to do so

 

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

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Not going to spoon feed you. Do your own research.

SC

 

2 hours ago, Trelane said:

I'm still waiting on the scientific papers that support the whole inverted Earth thing.

 

tom-cruise.gif.ecd77f450287c784d1e9916c25819e2f.gif

Those we aren't going to get - at best they will be random non-experts making odd statements. Rule 3 for Scott, he don't answer questions unless he 'feels' like it and he's really tries hard to avoid supporting his claims by demanding other 'prove him wrong', and then he adds in endless play acting to make it as boring and tedious as possible by constantly not providing the 'evidence'. He's absolutely desperate for attention since the failure of his last bid for fringe giuru-dom. He is going to try and stretch this out for weeks.

You can read his other replies at where he unloading this same 'stuff': https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1323488, fortunately the folks who know him pretty much ignored him.

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

\Which I think is why we find the sign for ‘rising sun’ (akhet) associated with the Sphinx (Horemakhet) facing two opposite directions (at the top section of the Dream Stele). This isn’t, imo, the Sphinx facing sunrise and sunset, as Egyptology would have us believe. It depicts, imo, the Sphinx facing the horizon that is specifically associated with sunrise - on two opposite horizons (east and west) i.e. pre and post inversion.

image.png.42f2a123460c11fda812c5fe1380a651.png

See above. 

SC

What's going on is that you don't know how to read hieroglyphs.

The two texts are mirror images; something that's very common in Egyptian art.  The rebus by which they constructed texts allows them to write the same thing in both directions (left and right) or even stacked in a certain order (and vertical text.)

This text can be read.  It's been translated.  There's nothing about a "western sun" there.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Ah - you found it. Well done you. (See Wepawet - I wasn't lying to you. That's not what I do).

First question - where have I said that this quote was from the Pyramid Texts?

Second question - where did the the authors of the 19th Dynasty get such an idea?

SC

Well, it's over 1000 years AFTER the Gizamids... and the Giza plateau monuments were of such little importance that the whole area was allowed to go to ruin.

Now, if the 19th Dynasty had been obsessed with the pyramids of Giza and had maintained the monuments and held big festivals there (as they did with Abydos) then you might have a point.

But they weren't.  And they didn't.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt (p. 11) has:

But this is from the 19th Dynasty, not the Pyramid Texts: so perhaps this is what follows on from the Middle Kingdom adoption you mention.

This is an example of the Egyptians use of what seem to us contradictions, but not to them. Let's look at one of the introductory passages to the Amduat from the 18th Dynasty, and taken from "The Cult of Ra" by Stephen Quirke, page 52.

"The writings of the Hidden Chamber. The positions of the Powers, Gods, Shades, Transfigured Dead, Created Forms. The beginning is the Opening of the West, door of the Eastern Horizon. The end is outer darkness, door of the Western Horizon."

The to us contradictions are obvious, how can the opening of the West also be the door to the Eastern horizon, and how can the beginning also be the end. This is not the place to discuss the Amduat, but I post this excerpt to show that we cannot use what they wrote in cryptic religious texts to make such bold statements about the Earth flipping upside down. AE religion is full of contradictions, for instance Nefertum assists in raising the young Ra from the waters of Chaos, yet Nefertum is also the grandson of Ra, an early version of the time travelling "grandfather paradox" perhaps.

However, Horemheb lived during the period when the Amduat was used, so to use one instance of Harakhty "Rising in the West" when we see they engaged in contradictions simply does not cut it. Also, this is just one obscure text referencing a Western rising, which it will not in fact do, balanced against a huge corpus of work that states that the Sun rises in the East, and always had done.

Another quote, again from Quirke, page 53, and  this from recitations inscribed in the tombs of New Kingdom kings.

"The King knows this secret speech, which the Easterners say when they chant the song for Ra at his rising, at his appearance on the horizon, when they open for him the double door in the gateway of the Eastern horizon."

"Easterners" is one of the terms used for the priests of Ra at Heliopolis, the other being "Forelocked ones". The entire recitation contains more references to the Sun rising in the East. It would seem very strange if before Horemheb, when these recitations were first used, and after Horemheb, when they were still used, only during his time did the Sun rise in the West. I wonder just how many flips the Earth did, and with what frequency, a hundred years or less.

So, we are being led to believe that due to the wording of the Horemheb inscription, the AE, after the world had flipped upside down, changed their term of reference from the Sun rising in the East to now rising in the West, on just this one obscure text, the precise meaning of which is unclear, but which most certainly cannot be taken at face value to mean that the horizons are now reversed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.