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 -

Why "osiris" Didn't Exist Before The 5th Dynasty.


cladking

Recommended Posts

I really don't want to "clutter up" the other thread about my beliefs but there is a very simple answer to exactly why "osiris" suddenly appeared.  

Osiris is a concept that means "dead atum".  If we had an earlier version of the Pyramid Texts instead of writing osiris Pepi it would say "atum Pepi".  It's just that simple and there is ample proof throughout all the ancient writing.  Osiris was born dead (a mummy) to represent the simple fact he was atum post death.  When the water source named "atum" dried up and they could no longer build pyramids they began writing atum out of the rituals read at all of the ascension ceremonies where the king was transmogrified into a pyramid.  These rituals exist as the "Pyramid Texts" and the "Coffin Texts" which as a confusion formed the "book of the dead".  

In every ritual that "osiris N" appears it originally said "atum N" and was replaced by "osiris N" at the end of G2 construction when atum "died".  Atum simply no longer existed so when the rituals were updated he was replaced by osiris. But curiously enough in every single instance that the word "atum" survives in the PT it's where his actual existence (weight, mass, wetness) are required that the lines still make perfect sense.  In every instance that atum's mass is not needed he is simply crossed out and replaced by the word "osiris".  These are simply vagaries of their language.  We can't translate the language because it is formatted differently and every attempt at translation looks like it's a book of magic rather than a book of the ritual it really is.  

There are countless hundreds of lines in the PT to support this and there are NO lines to contradict it.  

1989a. N. has inherited him who is not mourned any more, him who comes into being smiling.

1617a. Atum has given thee his heritage; he has given thee the whole Ennead;

1466b. N. was given birth by his father Atum,

167a. To say: Atum, this thy son is this one here, Osiris, whom thou hast made to endure and to live.

What few realize is that no consistency at all exists in Egyptological interpretations.  But everything is fully consistent with osiris being dead atum.  Everything is fully consistent with the king beimng the pyramuid and his body having been cremated.  Egyptologists simply translated and interpreted the Pyramid Texts in terms of the "book of the dead" which is wrong.  

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

The PT is NOT a book of incantation which is lucky or we'd never know anything at all about the ancient Egyptians.  It is a book of the rituals read to various groups, mostly the public, who came to Giza during the five epagomenal days in late June to turn the king from a dead body, a mummy, into a star and the pyramid on which he was cremated.  This can all be deduced from thew literal and consistent meaning of their words and rituals.  

We have done ancient people a grave injustice by making them look like they were obsessed by death by interpreting a book about life and actual eternal life as if it were the same thing as "the book of the dead".  The king didn't leave the earth to live in heaven.  He lived on earth as the pyramid and a star.  Incredibly the PT actually states "the king is a pyramid"  and the "king is a star" while saying over and over and over that the king is not buried in the earth and the pyramid is not a tomb.  All the literal meaning which is consistent is interpreted out by Egyptology. 

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

18 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

I'll give you credit for suggesting that Osiris is the dead Atum, but is he?

Thank you.  The evidence is exceedingly extensive because the entire Pyramid Texts makes perfect sense in these terms.

2024b. thou art an Atum; thou wilt not depart from his destiny.

301b. He has inherited Atum; he is upon the throne of Horus, the eldest.

 

2022a. O N., how beautiful is this, how great is this which thy father, Osiris, has, done for thee!

2022b. He gave thee his throne,

 

2065b. which come into being through Atum, which the phallus of Shu makes, which the vulva of Tefnut brings into being.

1803a. O N., the odour of the eye of Horus is upon thee;
1803b. the gods who follow Osiris delight in thee.
1804a. Thou hast borne off their white crown, while thou art endued with the form of Osiris,

2021a. Thou art on the throne of Osiris, in the place of the First of the Westerners.
2021b. Thou hast taken his śḫm-sceptre; thou hast carried off his great white crown.

 

My point has always been that the entire Pyramid Texts is internally consistent, makes perfect sense, and agrees with the laws of nature when it is taken literally.  It is ONLY on this basis that I believe the intent was literal.  

When taken literally the PT is obviously just the rituals that were read at the kings' ascension ceremonies when they were transformed from a mummy into a star and a pyramid.  The king was a specific star by night and a specific pyramid by day. He lived forever in the heavens and on the earth thereby.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't there a point in the Pyramid Texts where Osiris and Atum have a conversation?

Isn't Atum supposed to be Osiris, and Isis', dad? So how would that work?

Isis is his sister-daughter-wife?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another little tid bit that is simply ignored.  

 

"Osiris" was the father of horus senior.  Obviously "osiris" was inserted into the pantheon. 

 

1005d. they say to Osiris:

1007b. what thy son has done for thee, what Horus has done for thee.

 

No matter when osiris first appears he had to have been believed to exist EVEN BEFORE horus senior which was one of the oldest recorded "gods".  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Isn't there a point in the Pyramid Texts where Osiris and Atum have a conversation?

No.  In fact they only mentioned  together in a very few rituals.  This is caused by the fact that when osiris has weight atum remains, he was not written out.  

19 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Isn't Atum supposed to be Osiris, and Isis', dad? So how would that work?

This all makes perfect sense as well.  In one short ritual horus junior is said to have three different mothers.  This is because of the way Ancient Language was formatted.  It was based on perspective so the three mothers are really just three different perspectives of horus.  

741a. To say: A Great One slept on his mother, Nut.

741b. Thy mother Tȝi.t clothed thee;

741c. she carried thee to heaven, in her name of "Kite,"

741d. the fondling whom she found, her Horus.

741e. Thy Horus is this one, O Isis; mayest thou bring his certificate (lit. arm) to Rē‘, to the horizon.

Tayit (Tȝi.t) is the quarry from which horus jr arises isis is the means by which he arises, and nut was the sky which enfolded him after being removed from the quarry.  It all makes perfect sense just like everyone always has.

26 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Isis is his sister-daughter-wife?

Ancient language was always from the same perspective unless stated otherwise.  It was from the inside of the object.  There were no abstractions of any sort.  No taxonomies, just objects.  

"Atum" was the first god who created himself at zep tepi, the imaginary time of the first eruption.  He came into being smiling because this was considered a m********ory event.  As such atum was the father of every god eve though "nun" and "nunnet" preceded him.  This was not a contradiction to their way of thinking for several reasons.  When osiris replaced him osiris acquired all of his dead characteristics as well as some familial relationships.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, cladking said:

741e. Thy Horus is this one, O Isis; mayest thou bring his certificate (lit. arm) to Rē‘, to the horizon.

This reliance on perspective defines the meaning of every single sentence.  Here we see isis pulls horus (the stone) straight to the pyramid by his arm.  Arms were the ability to lift at a distance and horus essentially "lifted" seker in the henu boat on his trip to the pyramid top.  From most perspectives though horus has only hand (the ability to manipulate) on which he sits to weight the dndndr-boat.  These were the two boats tied together which went to and fro. They were overseen by the harmonious goddesses, isis and nephthys who worked in tandem to build the pyramid; isis as "stone seat" which set the stones and nephthys as "house basket" which lifted the stones.

In reference to horus isis said;

1964d. as Isis said to Nun:

1965a. "I have given birth to him for thee; I have deposited him for thee; I have certainly spit him out for thee."

1965b. He has no feet; he has no arms,

Stone can not walk nor move things at a distance from most perspectives.  This is simply how they communicated.  We must parse words but theirs were put together already parsed by a simple grammar.  One class of words defined the subject of the sentence, one defined the object, and another was the action.  Everything had three words and every word had only a single meaning.  This grammar defined the perspective.  

These are all difficult concepts for modern language speakers since we can't really imagine a metaphysical language that can't be parsed.  Language acquisition for us is by definition learning to parse words but if you parse Ancient Language there is no meaning at all.  

It might be easier for most people to just take every single sentence literally and then figure out what the words have to mean for it to make sense.  When they asked for the boat that flew up and alit every word was meant literally.  The boats flew just like the stones flew; they lo9oked l8ike the fledglings of swallows which skim right above the ground. 

1128a. To say: It is certainly not N. who asks to see thee

1128b. in the form which has become thine;

1128c. Osiris asks to see thee in the form which has become thine;

1129a. it is thy son who asks to see thee in the form which has become thine;

1129b. it is Horus who asks to see thee in the form which has become thine.

1130a. When thou sayest, "statues", in respect to these stones,

1130b. which are like fledglings of swallows under the river-bank;

1130c. when thou sayest, "his beloved son is coming," in the form which had become that of "his beloved son"

1131a. they (the "statues") transport Horus; they row Horus over,

1131b. as Horus ascends (lit. in. the ascent of Horus) in the Mḥt-wr.t-cow.

Stones and boats flew just like ancient reports that said the stones moved a bow shot at a time toward the pyramid.  Every ancient report is literally true and all the writing in the PT is literally true.  We parse the meaning from it the exact same way the authors of the "book of the dead" did.  The PT is about life, love, and eternal life.  It says so over and over in these words.  The "book of the dead" is about death dying, and fear.  

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

https://oxfordre.com/planetaryscience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.001.0001/acrefore-9780190647926-e-61

 

Quote

The Planets in Ancient Egypt - Joachim Friedrich Quack

The five visible planets are certainly attested to in Egyptian sources from about 2000 BCE. The three outer ones are religiously connected with the falcon-headed god Horus, Venus with his father Osiris, and Mercury with Seth, the brother and murderer of Osiris. Clear attestations of the planets are largely limited to decoration programs covering the whole night sky. There are a number of passages in religious texts where planets may be mentioned, but many of them are uncertain because the names given to the planets are for most of them not specific enough to exclude other interpretations. There may have been a few treatises giving a more detailed religious interpretation of the planets and their behavior, but they are badly preserved and hardly understandable in the details.

Plutarch in his book regarding Isis and Osiris relates Osiris with Dionysus. This is interesting because according to Hellenic tradition, Dionysus was born at Thebes. Thebes is called city of gods and heroes. Here the most important hero is Hercules. Thebes is the city that is the observation point of the encodings that relate to the 3 Giza pyramids to 3 mountains in Hellas. Therefore the fact that we start hearing about Osiris as a king in the V dynasty makes sense since it follows the completion of the IV dynasty pyramid construction. What Giza pyramid is more associated with Osiris? My guess is that although all can be in one way or another be associated with him it is Menkaure's pyramid that is less associated with Osiris. The reason is that Osiris as Venus is a planet close to Earth. Menkaure's pyramid is the farthest from Heliopolis and it is the one that relates to the equivalent mountain that is farthest from Thebes. If you look at Khafre's pyramid then you relate Osiris with Ra or Atum, in this case you use the Heliocentric idea. If you use the Khufu pyramid then you relate Osiris with the earth god Geb, this is the geocentric idea.   

Edited by Spiros
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Isn't there a point in the Pyramid Texts where Osiris and Atum have a conversation?

Isn't Atum supposed to be Osiris, and Isis', dad? So how would that work?

Isis is his sister-daughter-wife?

The "conversation" idea originates from the CT and it then transfers to BoD spell 175, this is the spell recounting how the universe will end, and it is a conversation between the deceased, an Osiris, with Atum via Thoth, where Atum tells how the universe will end and that he will take Osiris with him into the Nun, now the only matter in the universe.

To be honest, it's really not worth ever thinking too much about the familial relationships between any of these gods as the entire thing is a contradictory mess. For instance, when Ra was created within the Nun, he was born up on a lillypad escorted by the god Nefertum, who was the son of Sekhmet, or Bastet, depending on which myth you want to believe, with Sekhmet being the daughter of Ra, and so Nefertum gives us the first known grandfather paradox. What all these contradictory myths do though is to point to a possible belief by the AE in just one god, with all the other gods being a manifestation of this one god. Hornung demolished this idea more than 50 years ago, though it still lingers as both the Heliopolitan and Memphite theologies do clearly state that one god created everything, either Atum or Ptah, and this then goes beyond this reply I think.

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

8 hours ago, cladking said:

 As such atum was the father of every god eve though "nun" and "nunnet" preceded him.  This was not a contradiction to their way of thinking for several reasons.  When osiris replaced him osiris acquired all of his dead characteristics as well as some familial relationships.  

Nun and the female version Nunet are certainly portrayed as anthropomorphic deities, but this is only because the AE liked to show the universe in a physical and not abstract form. In the Helipolitan theology the Nun already existed, it was not a deity, but what in modern terms we would see as the raw fabric of the universe from which everything came, it's why various goddesses are said to give birth to this that and the other, they don't of course give birth as an animal, it's just metaphor, easy to understand and depict on a tomb wall or in a coffin.

However, Atum created himself within the pre-existing Nun, but it was Ptah who created the Nun by thinking the thoughts and saying the words, a theology clearly, in my opinion, directly copied by the Hebrews in Genesis.

Technically it should be Ptah who is the father of everything, but as the lineage of humans can be traced back to Atum, then yes, he is the father of all. Khnum, yes, he's here because all of these things are complicated, but no matter if he preceeds Ra, again another paradox as he is also Ra, sort of, and so is on the Atum "side" in this, not that of Ptah.

There is of course the issue of what a dead king becomes on death, and does he become two things, one at night and one during the day, or, one on earth and one in the heavens, and are these two things the same, or have the same origin as a deity, ie, as you suggest, are these two things Atum and Osiris, with Osiris being the dead version of Atum. I do not think so, but I'll get back to this later as a lot of texts, some quite lengthy, need to be condensed and presented to show that Atum and Osiris are two distinct gods and that Atum is anything but dead, in fact quite the opposite.

Edit: Just this question for clarity, do you state that from the creation of Osiris, no matter when this was, that Atum was then dead.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Edit: Just this question for clarity, do you state that from the creation of Osiris, no matter when this was, that Atum was then dead.

I won't have time to catch up for a while but for now...

 

I think the best way to understand this is that when atum (the water flow) quit that the word "atum" was "replaced" by the word "osiris" in all the ancient rituals.  This process required time and these rituals were used on a continuing basis because all of them weren't related to an ascension, merely most of them.  The first thing to stop was, of course, great pyramid construction. Once atum couldn't stand it was impossible to build such enormous structures and G3 was made instead.  But even in replacing atum with osiris in the old texts it was not a clean fit because when they were written atum was a workhorse so just inserting "osiris" which was dead in his stead would look funny.  

If we had the Rituals of Ascension from the time of Khufu when atum was still extent Masperro and later translators would be far more likely to have seen the meaning.  It would still have been exceedingly difficult because this language is so alien to us and nobody has the breadth of knowledge about nature that most Egyptians took for granted.  It may well have been impossible without google.  Atum and osiris were highly misleading.  Then compound this by calling these later kings 
"osiris N" and it's just another layer of obfuscation.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, cladking said:

Stones and boats flew just like ancient reports that said the stones moved a bow shot at a time toward the pyramid.  Every ancient report is literally true and all the writing in the PT is literally true.  We parse the meaning from it the exact same way the authors of the "book of the dead" did.  The PT is about life, love, and eternal life.  It says so over and over in these words.  The "book of the dead" is about death dying, and fear.  

 Ma’sudi, an Arab historian and geographer, based his info on Coptic traditions. He relates how the stones were moved from the quarries about 150 cubits (the length of a bowshot) a time, along a stone pavement built specially for the purpose, until they reached the construction sites of the three pyramids:

“He ordered pillars to be cut, and an extensive pavement to be formed. The lead employed in the work was procured from the West. The stone came from the neighbourhood of Es Souan. In this way were built the Three Pyramids at Dashoor,* the eastern, western, and the coloured one. In carrying out the work, leaves of papyrus, or paper, inscribed with certain characters, were placed under the stones prepared in the quarries; and upon being struck, the blocks were moved each time the distance of a bowshot (about one hundred and fifty cubits), and so by degrees arrived at the Pyramids. Rods of iron were inserted into the centres of the stones, that formed the pavement, and, passing through the blocks placed upon them, were fixed by melted lead.”

Not an ancient source 896–956 AD

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

 Ma’sudi, an Arab historian and geographer, based his info on Coptic traditions. He relates how the stones were moved from the quarries about 150 cubits (the length of a bowshot) a time, along a stone pavement built specially for the purpose, until they reached the construction sites of the three pyramids:

“He ordered pillars to be cut, and an extensive pavement to be formed. The lead employed in the work was procured from the West. The stone came from the neighbourhood of Es Souan. In this way were built the Three Pyramids at Dashoor,* the eastern, western, and the coloured one. In carrying out the work, leaves of papyrus, or paper, inscribed with certain characters, were placed under the stones prepared in the quarries; and upon being struck, the blocks were moved each time the distance of a bowshot (about one hundred and fifty cubits), and so by degrees arrived at the Pyramids. Rods of iron were inserted into the centres of the stones, that formed the pavement, and, passing through the blocks placed upon them, were fixed by melted lead.”

Not an ancient source 896–956 AD

The idea of flying stones and boats appear all through the PT including the passage quoted above.  

I consider 896-956 AD to be "ancient" and I believe this account to be literally true.  The paper attached to the stone didn't cause the stone to fly rather the stone wasn't cleared for movement until the "Weigher-Reckoner" OK'ed it by attaching a paper that delineated its dimensions, weight, and specific destination. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cladking said:

I consider 896-956 AD to be "ancient" and I believe this account to be literally true.  The paper attached to the stone didn't cause the stone to fly rather the stone wasn't cleared for movement until the "Weigher-Reckoner" OK'ed it by attaching a paper that delineated its dimensions, weight, and specific destination. 

I might add that in 900 AD it's likely Manetho's work survived and was the basis of Ma'sudi's claims.  But even if Manetho had already been lost there would have been other secondary sources and possibly some original sources survived. People always make sense and while we get things wrong frequently we don't just make things up out of thin air.  Ma'sudi had good reason to believe what he wrote.  Knowledge of the pyramids was lost in time and because some of it seemed incredible like an old wives tale.  people don't record things they don't believe.  People make sense today and made even more sense when the great pyramids were built.  Our job when parsing language and history is not to take things at face value or what we believe to be true but rather to deduce the premises and the conditions that must exist to leave that specific evidence.  I doubt anyone could solve how they were built and what "osiris" means without believing that people make sense and evidence leads straight back to what caused it to arise.  

Egyptology had little chance of getting it right in 1883 but went ahead and did the laborious and almost insurmountable work of translating without even knowing the meaning of what was being translated.  It was truly a hurculean task.  Virtually more work went into translating the PT then went into the construction of any great pyramid.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I consider 896-956 AD to be "ancient" and I believe this account to be literally true.  The paper attached to the stone didn't cause the stone to fly rather the stone wasn't cleared for movement until the "Weigher-Reckoner" OK'ed it by attaching a paper that delineated its dimensions, weight, and specific destination. 

Well of course you do, but it still isn't. Still waiting for you to publish all your data and research plus the results of many experiments - after 17 years of refusal - what are you trying to hide? Reality? Oh I consider your post to be Medieval.

Edited by Hanslune
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Well of course you do, but it still isn't. Still waiting for you to publish all your data and research plus the results of many experiments - after 17 years of refusal - what are you trying to hide? Reality? Oh I consider you post to be Medieval.

There's nothing "publishable" per se.  While I could write several books on the subject there's nothing I've done that warrants publication.  I have no new evidence of any sort and have built on the work of no one at all.  As should be obvious to all I am not a very good writer.  

I simply maintain that all the evidence and ancient writing are being utterly misinterpreted.  The PT apparently are rituals read to the crowds and imply the great pyramids were built with linear funiculars that the builders described as "two boats tied together which went to and fro".  It's just this simple.  We have misinterpreted our past and our very nature.  All the physical and cultural evidence can be interpreted within this paradigm which includes virtually all the evidence.  While the evidence is all very shallow itis extremely broad and it all agrees that we are mistaken.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, cladking said:

There's nothing "publishable" per se.  While I could write several books on the subject there's nothing I've done that warrants publication.  I have no new evidence of any sort and have built on the work of no one at all.  As should be obvious to all I am not a very good writer.  

I simply maintain that all the evidence and ancient writing are being utterly misinterpreted.  The PT apparently are rituals read to the crowds and imply the great pyramids were built with linear funiculars that the builders described as "two boats tied together which went to and fro".  It's just this simple.  We have misinterpreted our past and our very nature.  All the physical and cultural evidence can be interpreted within this paradigm which includes virtually all the evidence.  While the evidence is all very shallow itis extremely broad and it all agrees that we are mistaken.  

So in other words you just make stuff up on the fly? Yes, we knew that already. I will continue to demand you publish your data and research. You did do experiments, we all saw you do them why not publish them and their results?

Quote

I simply maintain that all the evidence and ancient writing are being utterly misinterpreted.  The PT apparently are rituals read to the crowds and imply the great pyramids were built with linear funiculars that the builders described as "two boats tied together which went to and fro".  It's just this simple.  We have misinterpreted our past and our very nature.  All the physical and cultural evidence can be interpreted within this paradigm which includes virtually all the evidence.  While the evidence is all very shallow itis extremely broad and it all agrees that we are mistaken.  

Yep and that is what you need to support with a detailed analyze and evidence in a detail research paper - which you refuse to do because you know its all nonsense supported only by your opinion. So, we just laugh at you.. You seem to have the ability to post long messages on this subject yet you cannot put it all into a coherent manuscript?

How about you just publish a one page summary of your internet eccentric career. "I made stuff up about things I didn't understand".

Quote

Every word (in Ancient Egyptian) had one meaning. Everything had three words; a scientific, a colloquial, and a vulgar. Date: June 29, 2016 05:49AM  https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1056391,1056608#msg-1056608 100%

So this is a claim that can readily be show to be true with evidence - so why not do that?

Manu said it perfectly:

Quote

Pertaining to your ongoing thesis, what this means is that no matter how much you want to believe that the Pyramid Texts are a pyramid making manual and the ancient Egyptians had the brains of non-humans, you will not be able to bring on board anyone who uses reason to acquire knowledge. I am giving you pragmatic feed-back really, not criticizing the content of what you believe. I grant you that you may be an under-appreciated genius who was able to grasp the truth in a non-logical way. You could be 100% correct. But this does not mean anyone will ever be able to share your insights because you are not communicating them in a way that someone else can recreate without you on their own. We shouldn't need you to get you. The evidence should get us there, not tautologies you made up based on what you believe to be the truth. https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1121458,1294416#msg-1294416

PUBLISH YOUR DATA AND RESEARCH CLADKING OR JUST ADMIT YOU MAKE STUFF UP.

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

So, i don’t want to be the bringer of bad news but Osiris was worshipped before the 5th dynasty…

“The first evidence of the worship of Osiris is from the middle of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (25th century BC), although it is likely that he was worshiped much earlier”

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

So in other words you just make stuff up on the fly? Yes, we knew that already. I will continue to demand you publish your data and research. You did do experiments, we all saw you do them why not publish them and their results?

Yep and that is what you need to support with a detailed analyze and evidence in a detail research paper - which you refuse to do because you know its all nonsense supported only by your opinion. So, we just laugh at you.. You seem to have the ability to post long messages on this subject yet you cannot put it all into a coherent manuscript?

How about you just publish a one page summary of your internet eccentric career. "I made stuff up about things I didn't understand".

So this is a claim that can readily be show to be true with evidence - so why not do that?

Manu said it perfectly:

PUBLISH YOUR DATA AND RESEARCH CLADKING OR JUST ADMIT YOU MAKE STUFF UP.

Those capital letters mean business! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

So, i don’t want to be the bringer of bad news but Osiris was worshipped before the 5th dynasty…

 

First you say this

 

Immediately followed by this

19 minutes ago, The Puzzler said:

“The first evidence of the worship of Osiris is from the middle of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (25th century BC)

Cladking’s become contagious.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

First you say this

So, i don’t want to be the bringer of bad news but Osiris was worshipped before the 5th dynasty…

Immediately followed by this

“The first evidence of the worship of Osiris is from the middle of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt (25th century BC)

It’s finally happened. Cladking’s become contagious.

Not to mention providing a link having nothing to do with Osiris. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

First you say this

 

Immediately followed by this

It’s finally happened. Cladking’s become contagious.

Did you miss this part…although it is likely that he was worshiped much earlier”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, carry on…

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.