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

[Antigonos]

28 minutes ago, cladking said:

deleted

 

It is against my policy to respond at all to personal attacks. So post suggesting that I was misquoted has been deleted.  

It’s not a personal attack. It’s an observation and a warning for you to seek therapy. Delusions of grandeur on the level of yours are a symptom of mental illness. My wife suffers from it. I know from personal experience.

Seek help or you’re going to get worse.

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by Antigonos

[Wepwawet]

46 minutes ago, cladking said:

"Osiris" as I already showed was being written into the PT with our copy that dates to only the 5th dynasty.  If we had earlier copies it would always say "atum N".  

Atum was always the creator God whom created himself.  He will always be.  He built the great  pyramids.  

I said "I've begun to translate the language".  I'm way ahead of everyone else but I'm not very good at it yet.  Just because I know far more than any Egyptologist in the world doesn't mean I can translate an untranslatable language.  I'm, one man, not a miracle worker.  

What you have said is that if we have the texts that existed before the PT appeared inscribed in stone with Unas, then they would say what you want them to say, yet we do not have these texts, these papyrus rolls, so you have zero basis for saying that they would see the dead king as Atum in the way that they equate him with Osiris in the actual texts. Do you see the massive flaw in your argument. Besides, it is very clear that Atum is alive and a separate god to Osiris, and I'll quote recitation 219. "Atum, this Osiris here is your son, whom you have made revive and live..." This formula is repeated through this lengthy recitation where the dead king is presented to all the gods of the Ennead. In other recitations we have the formula "Ra-Atum, this Unas has come to you", but nowhere do we find the formula which you present of "Atum N" or even remotely alluding to this ever having been a possibility. The dead king cannot be both Atum and Osiris, and in fact he is neither, only associated with them, and the association with Atum is that of his continuing life as the phrase "He does not die, this Unas does not die" appears often. If Atum were dead these phrases would not make any sense, in fact by what you contend, Atum could not even appear in the texts, but there he is, alive and kicking.

If you are "way ahead of everyone else" in translating what you say is the untranslatable, why can you not at least tell me which language each of the two texts is written in. Clearly I've presented a text from the PT and a later text. There is no doubt that the later text can be translated, but if, according to you, the PT cannot be translated, then it should be easy to tell which text is from the PT and which is later, in fact from the Amduat, so which text is which, which one "cannot be translated".

[Trelane]

I honestly don't know how you guys do it. Sheesh.

In the interest of me not being disrespectful, I'll fade back into read-only mode here. 

[Piney]

27 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I honestly don't know how you guys do it. Sheesh.

In the interest of me not being disrespectful, I'll fade back into read-only mode here. 

Right now I'm suffering Bill Shatner and Bible "experts".....

But my wife enjoys listening to me tear his show to shreds.

[cormac mac airt]

52 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

What you have said is that if we have the texts that existed before the PT appeared inscribed in stone with Unas, then they would say what you want them to say, yet we do not have these texts, these papyrus rolls, so you have zero basis for saying that they would see the dead king as Atum in the way that they equate him with Osiris in the actual texts. Do you see the massive flaw in your argument. Besides, it is very clear that Atum is alive and a separate god to Osiris, and I'll quote recitation 219. "Atum, this Osiris here is your son, whom you have made revive and live..." This formula is repeated through this lengthy recitation where the dead king is presented to all the gods of the Ennead. In other recitations we have the formula "Ra-Atum, this Unas has come to you", but nowhere do we find the formula which you present of "Atum N" or even remotely alluding to this ever having been a possibility. The dead king cannot be both Atum and Osiris, and in fact he is neither, only associated with them, and the association with Atum is that of his continuing life as the phrase "He does not die, this Unas does not die" appears often. If Atum were dead these phrases would not make any sense, in fact by what you contend, Atum could not even appear in the texts, but there he is, alive and kicking.

If you are "way ahead of everyone else" in translating what you say is the untranslatable, why can you not at least tell me which language each of the two texts is written in. Clearly I've presented a text from the PT and a later text. There is no doubt that the later text can be translated, but if, according to you, the PT cannot be translated, then it should be easy to tell which text is from the PT and which is later, in fact from the Amduat, so which text is which, which one "cannot be translated".

What also works against CK is that while while not about the gods nor the GP specifically the Diary of Merrer predates his fantasy 2000 BC claim by centuries yet Egyptologists have little difficulty reading and it’s in THE SAME LANGUAGE. 
 

cormac

[cormac mac airt]

1 minute ago, Piney said:

Right now I'm suffering Bill Shatner and Bible "experts".....

But my wife enjoys listening to me tear his show to shreds.

What’s Bill up to now? 
 

cormac

[cladking]

41 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

What you have said is that if we have the texts that existed before the PT appeared inscribed in stone with Unas, then they would say what you want them to say, yet we do not have these texts, these papyrus rolls, so you have zero basis for saying that they would see the dead king as Atum in the way that they equate him with Osiris in the actual texts.

No.  What I am actually saying is that the evidence and logic support the contention that before "osiris N" was a thing there was "atum N".  This is exactly what thety meant when they kept saying that osiris inherited atum.  This is what the meant when osiris appeared over and over where the word "atum" would have fit better iff atum had been a water source that built the pyramids.  

Egyptology simply ignores everything within the PT and instead translate it and interpret it in terms of the "book of the dead".  I haven't done this.  At every point I ask what does this sentence have to mean in order to be true and fit with every other sentence.  I ask why would this physical evidence exist and fit with the other physical evidence.  I ask what must be true for them to have done AND said exactly what they did and said.  Egyptology asked what does this word mean to the authors of the "book of the dead", what is this structure on the east side of every tiny little pile of rubble only an Egyptologist calls a "pyramid".  Egyptology used a very bad methodology.  My methodology is sound and it makes predictions.  

What amazes me is that no Egyptologist ever actually considered the literal meaning of anything in the Pyramid Texts!  How could they ignore what they translated?  Why even translate incantation?   Why didn't they notice how few words were used, that there were no abstractions, and that it broke Zipf's Law.  I've answered these questions many times  but people choose to not see even things like "osiris N" and choose to interpret it to mean all sorts of arcane and nonsensible things.  

I've known since I was very young that all people make sense all the time in terms of their premises. So why did Egyptology never look for ancient premises?  Why didn't they look for logic and sense.  Even if the PT really were a book of incantation the authors STILL would have used words consistent with the way they thought.  They'd have used words like "ramps", "believe". "imagine", and "drag".  It is this use of words with which you think that causes Zipf's Law.  It is patterns of thought that give rise to all the linguistic laws.  Why didn't they notice the triangles at the base of G1?  Why didn't they notice the hot stones?  Why didn't they notice the lack of direct evidence pyramids were tombs.  Why didn't they notice that the PT says over and over and over again that the pyramid was literally the king himself and was literally NOT a tomb?  

People are just making excuses for them as Egyptologists brag about studying the pyramids with their backs turned to them and putting padlocks on every new discovery in the last 15 years that proves they are wrong.  And make no mistake about it; they are wrong in biblical proportions.  Nobody in history has apparently ever been so wholly wrong. 

And still there are no infrared results!!!!!   They are still waiting for Egyptologists to explain engineering with their backs turned to the pyramid!!!!   

 

 

[Piney]

5 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

What’s Bill up to now? 
 

cormac

Noah's Ark, Sodom and the Exodus.....and we have Bob Cargill ICOC ass,  that Jones Ark fruitloop and Kennett the liar's Tel El Hammam stupid. 

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Besides, it is very clear that Atum is alive and a separate god to Osiris,...

Yes!!!  Atum is still alive today just as much as any scientific law or theory is alive.  "Atum" meant "Natural phenomenon of a specific source of water" but just because the water stopped at Giza doesn't mean that CO2 rich water doesn't effervesce at ground level.  

[Wepwawet]

3 minutes ago, cladking said:

Yes!!!  Atum is still alive today just as much as any scientific law or theory is alive.  "Atum" meant "Natural phenomenon of a specific source of water" but just because the water stopped at Giza doesn't mean that CO2 rich water doesn't effervesce at ground level.  

And this is where I'll take the advice of @Trelane and back out of this loony bin.

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

"He does not die, this Unas does not die"

They said nephthys will build osiris N a new body.  They said the king is the pyramid.  They said the king will live forever as the pyramid and a star.  If a builder were around today he would think it worked.  He look at the pyramid or the king's star and remember Khufu Just like we do.  The pyramid, at least, still functions exactly as it was designed to function.  

[cladking]

22 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

What also works against CK is that while while not about the gods nor the GP specifically the Diary of Merrer predates his fantasy 2000 BC claim by centuries yet Egyptologists have little difficulty reading and it’s in THE SAME LANGUAGE. 

Merrer apparently couldn't even speak AL.  He used mostly one word sentences which was the only way AL and pidgin language speakers could communicate.  Did I mention these languages can't be translated one to another?  

[cladking]

 

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

If you are "way ahead of everyone else" in translating what you say is the untranslatable, why can you not at least tell me which language each of the two texts is written in. Clearly I've presented a text from the PT and a later text. There is no doubt that the later text can be translated, but if, according to you, the PT cannot be translated, then it should be easy to tell which text is from the PT and which is later, in fact from the Amduat, so which text is which, which one "cannot be translated".

 

I only have the framework for translation.  I know how to do it because I know that it has to be translated to a logic chart and I know what almost all of the glyph are.  There's a lot of work to do.  An expert in glyphs could do this far faster than I if they could also understand the meaning.  

[cormac mac airt]

3 minutes ago, cladking said:

Merrer apparently couldn't even speak AL.  He used mostly one word sentences which was the only way AL and pidgin language speakers could communicate.  Did I mention these languages can't be translated one to another?  

Your non-existent knowledge of AE language is tiring. I’ll also bow out so someone else can listen to your idiocy. 
 

cormac

[cladking]

26 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

And this is where I'll take the advice of @Trelane and back out of this loony bin.

Good.  I'd like to get back to discussing "osiris" anyway.  While I don't have much more to prove osiris is atum there is plenty more to show he has he exact same function as atum.  

There is also good reason to believe that they dug up word "osiris" from far ancient times and he might have been the individual scientist who invented agriculture by means of theory.  

786a. To say: I am Nut, "the Granary."

If the search engines still worked I could show the line where osiris N plows the earth.  Of course no one cares anyway or they'd have seen it all the other times I posted it.  

 

My error;

1454a. by ploughing the earth. The hands of N. support Nut, like Shu,   

 

Osiris N plows the earth.  As seed burrows into the earth to germinate the ground is hoed to improve its odds.  

 

 

Edited October 31, 2023 by cladking

[Windowpane]

56 minutes ago, cladking said:

Merrer apparently couldn't even speak AL.  He used mostly one word sentences ...

Not quite.  His use of language in these documents is described as fairly plain, but that was seemingly standard practice in report-writing:

Quote

 ...  the language used is relatively simple, a narrative style based mostly on the use of verbs in the infinitive – a practice found throughout pharaonic history, especially in military reports.

(Mark Lehner. The Red Sea Scrolls, Ch. 7: Translating the Papyri.)

 

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Windowpane said:

Not quite.  His use of language in these documents is described as fairly plain, but that was seemingly standard practice in report-writing:

Again,  I'm not sure he couldn't speak Ancient Language, it merely looks a little more like pidgin than AL.     Ships' logs are naturally one or two word entries like flight logs and the such so it's very hard to be sure.   Most people who need information from them can get it from one or two words.  

Remember that translators render everything into something akin to English, anyway.    

[cladking]

Oh... ...here's another one showing dead atum;

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

 

2111. [O] Osiris, the overflow comes, the inundation hastens, Geb groans.

2113. O N., [the inundation comes 1, [the overflow hastens], Geb [groans].

1520a. To say: Osiris dawns, pure, mighty; high, lord of truth

1520b. on the first of the year; lord of the year.

Osiris just like atum dawns on the first of the year about June 20th.  He is very high (81') and pure.  

1525. "Come, my child," says Atum, "come to us," say they, say the gods to thee, Osiris.

Osiris is the child of atum.  

22a. This is thy cool water, Osiris; this is thy cool water, O N., which went forth from thy son, which went forth from Horus.

37a. Osiris N., take to thyself the liquid going forth from thee. Beer; one black mnw-stone ḥnw.t-bowl.

39c. N., take to thyself the liquid which went forth from Osiris.

117b. To say: Father N., take to thyself the liquid (?) which comes from Osiris.

I could go on like this all day because the Pyramid Texts consistently says the exact same thing; osiris is dead atum.  This is why osiris arose so suddenly, when atum dried up then dead dried up mummified osiris came to be.  Speaking of dead dried up imaginary gods here's a little tidbit invented by Egyptology;

722d. thou shalt not tread upon the (corpse)-secretion of Osiris.

Egyptologists believe that people have to be told to squish their toes in the secretions of a mummy!!!!!!   Astounding that any people ever needed to be told to walk in corpse drippings but especially to squish their toes in it.

723a. Thou shalt tiptoe heaven ...

 

The PT consistently says the same thing; the pyramids are not tombs and they along with stars are the means by which kings live eternally as a memory.  Let not their name be forgotten.  "Khufu" lives.  We are stinky footed bumpkins and our beliefs are the very source of our omniscience.  The PT doesn't have any abstractions or taxonomies and even lack words that mean "belief" or "thought".  There are no words of superstition, not even so much as a "probably" or a "maybe".  Their thinking and language were digital.   They didn't experience thought so had no word for it.  Egyptologists didn't notice anything.  

[cormac mac airt]

15 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Not quite.  His use of language in these documents is described as fairly plain, but that was seemingly standard practice in report-writing.

When discussing the origin of language this is what George Poulos, Professor Emeritus, University of South Africa had to say: 

Quote

Research carried out for this study indicates that the first speech sounds were uttered about 70,000 years ago, and not hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago, as is sometimes claimed in the literature.

(and)

This study demonstrates that the production of all the other human speech sounds (the other consonants, as well as all the vowels) began to take place from approximately 50,000 years ago. This was dependent on the gradual development of a well-proportioned vocal tract which included the mouth, the area behind the mouth (the pharynx), the nasal passages, and the all-important larynx with its vocal cords. Three airstream mechanisms evolved for the production of all speech sounds, and they evolved gradually in successive stages.

(and)

The indication is that human language was a fairly late acquisition of Homo sapiens. It is argued in this study that language, as we know it today, probably began to emerge about 20,000 years ago.

So again the claimed 2000 BC origin of language is a bust. 
 

cormac

Edited November 1, 2023 by cormac mac airt
Cleanup

[cladking]

1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

So again the claimed 2000 BC origin of language is a bust. 

No.  For the one millionth time.  NO!

Language exists in every species but in every species except homo sapiens who went extinct in 2000 BC and our species homo omnisciencis language is very simple and can't not create progress in those species.  It is complex language that lies at the heart of human progress and this applies to homo sapiens as well.  But homo sapien language was metaphysical, representative and digital just like the languages  of every other species on earth.  It was like the bee's waggle dance but many thousands of times more complex.  

As the progress that resulted for this language increased the difficulty of using the language increased even faster until idiots couldn't understand it and by 2000 BC nobody could understand it so it was abandoned.  You are continually creating straw armies because you have no facts and no logic to counter any of my arguments.  You simply cite irrelevancies and what other people believe.  

New languages arose at the tower of babel.  These languages were the existing pidgin languages that had been used by most people all over the world and were each unique.  But all of them were symbolic, analog, and abstract.  They all had to be parsed to have meaning.  "Analog" is the way the world looks to people using abstract language.  Reality itself is digital: Everything either exists or it does not.  Rivers don't fade out of existence when they dry up in dry season.  They still exist.  You can't step into the same river twice because it is always changing.  It is we who are confused by the "confusion of languages".  

How does Dr Poulos suggest prairie dogs have a language so complex they can describe threats in detail but the first "humans" lacked a language at all!! While there's no thing as "intelligence" there is certainly such a thing as stupidity.  I know because we all do it.  

Edited November 1, 2023 by cladking

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, cladking said:

No.  For the one millionth time.  NO!

Language exists in every species but in every species except homo sapiens who went extinct in 2000 BC and our species homo omnisciencis language is very simple and can't not create progress in those species.  It is complex language that lies at the heart of human progress and this applies to homo sapiens as well.  But homo sapien language was metaphysical, representative and digital just like the languages  of every other species on earth.  It was like the bee's waggle dance but many thousands of times more complex.  

You’re an incompetent hack. There’s no such thing as homo omnisciencis. You or someone as addled as you made that up. We, all 8+ billion of us, are scientifically designated as Homo sapiens sapiens which is a subspecies of Homo sapiens (in the same way Homo sapiens idaltu was a subspecies of Homo sapiens). Everything you’ve said about human origins as well as the origin of human language is an outright lie. Take your incompetence elsewhere. 
 

cormac

[cladking]

46 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

You’re an incompetent hack. There’s no such thing as homo omnisciencis. You or someone as addled as you made that up. We, all 8+ billion of us, are scientifically designated as Homo sapiens sapiens which is a subspecies of Homo sapiens (in the same way Homo sapiens idaltu was a subspecies of Homo sapiens). Everything you’ve said about human origins as well as the origin of human language is an outright lie. Take your incompetence elsewhere. 

So why did they say Osiris inherited atum?  Why did they have a compound word "osiris N".  All you can do is speculate.

I bet not one reader can understand and respond to, that ancient people were familiar with the hydraulic cycle even after I show it to them;

1140c. (he is dried) by the wind of the great Isis, together with (which) the great Isis dried (him) like Horus.
...
1146a. N. is the pouring down of rain; he came forth as the coming into being of water;
1146b. for he is the Nḥb-kȝ.w-serpent with the many coils;

Water evaporates through a process call "Nḥb-kȝ.w", nehebkau.

Nehebkau was represented by a serpent whose coils were the cloud.  

Egyptologist don't know this but it's there in simple language.  Yet you know as simple fact no human even made an utterance until 70,000 BC.  How you know this can not be communicated and why you believe Poulos is quite apparent.  

I am showing what I believe in tautologies, facts, logic, experiment and human knowledge.  You have speculation such as the tower of babel could not exist and no speciation even could have occurred without it being written down some place.  You believe every answer lies in anthropology, Egyptology, or any other ology called soft "science".  I am showing Egyptology is wrong about osiris and the most logical reason they went so wrong: Our language is still confused and we have inherited beliefs along with our confused language.  

[Kenemet]

19 hours ago, cladking said:

Merrer apparently couldn't even speak AL.  He used mostly one word sentences which was the only way AL and pidgin language speakers could communicate.  Did I mention these languages can't be translated one to another?  

Again, this is very racist - the trope of the "poor little brown man" who can't speak a language and only can point and grunt like an animal.  Although most in that time period were illiterate, there is no evidence that they were incompetent or stupid or mentally deficient.

In Merere's defense, he was keeping track of items on a balance sheet.  You don't open up an accounting book and start writing about the weather and the nosy office mail person and that horrid secretary that Bob has and the behavior of that sassy politician from that other district.  You enter just what Merere did - what you picked up, names of people involved, origin and destination.

Not poetry or history or a news report.

 

And then there's the huge glaring problem with your "aliens did it" concept:  If THEY (increasing numbers of ancient people) couldn't learn the language, then either you're trying to present yourself as an alien OR you can't read it either.

[cormac mac airt]

11 minutes ago, cladking said:

I am showing what I believe in tautologies, facts, logic, experiment and human knowledge. 

You have speculation such as the tower of babel could not exist and no speciation even could have occurred without it being written down some place.

You’re showing BS, that’s all you’ve got and all you’ve ever had. 
 

No speculation involved, there’s ZERO evidence that language started or changed circa 2000 BC. In fact the AE were corresponding with other cultures before, during and after that with no evident problems of being understood either by them or the recipients of their correspondences. 
 

Your mutation would necessarily occur on the genetic level, yet no such mutation is in evidence. You failed. 
 

The rest of your post is just more meaningless drivel. 
 

cormac
 

Edited November 1, 2023 by cormac mac airt

[cladking]

13 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Again, this is very racist - the trope of the "poor little brown man" who can't speak a language and only can point and grunt like an animal.  Although most in that time period were illiterate, there is no evidence that they were incompetent or stupid or mentally deficient.

Every single person was homo sapien in 3200 BC and every single person was homo omnisciencis after 2000 BC.  In between it is likely that race, sex, and ethnicity had equal chances of not understanding Ancient Language.  You are reading things into this that simply don't exist. 

The only difference would be women would be slightly more likely to be able to speak Ancient Language because women are by nature metaphysicians.   Men are by nature more methodical so might not have been as adept at AL.  But like everything I don't know.  I am proposing that these subjects should be studied.  We can start by applying technology that is more than a century old to the great pyramids and then publishing the results. It's a shame that so much money and effort has gone into the Scanspyramid project and only Zahi Hawass can see the results.  

How do people not have a problem with Egyptology that won't study the pyramids and won't publish results when it is done?????????????????????????????

How do people not care that the literal meaning of "osiris" and every other word in the PT is simply ignored?