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 -

Progress In Egyptology


cladking

Recommended Posts

A lot of my friends refer to me as an "Egyptologist" though I'm not sure if it's intended as a back handed compliment or a back handed insult.  

I intend to use this thread to show the actual progress being made in Egyptology since I do make quite a lot of progress every single day and have nowhere I can talk about it (my friends have heard enough) or post it (they have too).  

I recently found the origin of the word "lord".  It began as a word that meant "that which causes to stand".  

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

4 minutes ago, cladking said:

A lot of my friends refer to me as an "Egyptologist" though I'm not sure if it's intended as a back handed compliment or a back handed insult.  

I intend to use this thread to show the actual progress being made in Egyptology since I do make quite a lot of progress every single day and have nowhere I can talk about it (my friends have heard enough) or post it (they have too).  

I recently found the origin of the word "lord".  It began as a word that meant "that which causes to stand".  

So when I exclaim "Good Lord!" am I telling people to stand up or should I expect them to?  

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

So when I exclaim "Good Lord!" am I telling people to stand up?  

Ancient Language didn't work this way.  If this exclamation appeared in AL it would more likely mean that "it is good to stand up" but it is important to note that AL didn't have such fragments to express meaning.  If they wanted to say "it is good stand up" they would say "the effect of a specific lord was good".  Of course they wouldn't say this either in this formatting because it is already axiomatic; being caused to stand is good.  It is also not proper grammar.   "Osiris dawns, pure, mighty; high, lord of truth".   This is a little confused in the translation because "truth" is actually "maat" which means "balance".   It's also confused because "osiris" was originally "atum" who was the "overseer of the geyser".  When the water dried up after construction of G2 they began writing atum out of all these rituals and replacing him with "osiris".  So  atum sees the water when it begins to spray.  He has caused it to stand.  He is the geyser.   He is pure because he is "cool effervescent water that is like wine" .  He is mighty because he contains "sekhmet" which is the power used to build the pyramid (the king's new body).  He is high because he stands 81' 3".  And he is "lord of the balance" because without atum it is impossible for the two boats tied together to be in the balance needed to lift the stone.  He gave rise to balance/ he causes balance to stand at Giza.  

Another thought that is likely true is the origin of the word "pyramid".  This word in Ancient Language meant "instrument of ascension" but our word "pyramid" is not directly derived from AL.  It is probably derived from yet another confusion; the Greeks didn't really understand what they were told by the Egyptian priests concerning the pyramids. Remember the Egyptian priests were confused as well so it's hardly surprising they couldn't explain it in another confused modern language.  All the Greeks got out of the answer to "what were these structures for" was that the dead kings were burned on them as they were being built.  "Pyre Amid"

 

It sounds incredible but the fact is that everything today including our very natures go back to before our species "homo omnisciencis" even existed!  Everything goes back to Ancient Language which was the natural, representational, digital, and metaphysical language which was used for 40,000 years by homo sapiens.  It was a highly scientific language but it was a different kind of science based on logic and observation instead of experiment and observation.  It worked because nature itself, reality itself, is completely logical and the brain of homo sapiens reflected this logic as did the language.  You can't parse metaphysical language because words weren't defined and rather had a single fixed meaning as seen in caves all over the world from 40,000 years ago.  There was a single language all humans spoke but it became too difficult for the average man until eventually it had to give way to the numerous pidgin languages that sprang up as a replacement.  

I am trying to deconstruct and reverse engineer this AL that can not be parsed or translated.  It's a job begging for smarter people than I and many of them.   There's a giant cheat sheet right beyond the thermal anomaly but Egyptology still thinks the pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by stinky footed bumpkins who had a "3000 year civilization".  They won't look, they won't speak, and they won't listen.  They have made no progress for 200 years because their assumptions are flawed.  

Yesu Garden: Gandhiji 's Three Monkeys

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

 

21 minutes ago, cladking said:

All the Greeks got out of the answer to "what were these structures for" was that the dead kings were burned on them as they were being built.  "Pyre Amid"

If you took the pyramid apart stone by stone very carefully you would find this "pyre" from which the pyramids got their name and that the builders called  "the 'iskn of heaven".   You would find it on the top of the middle of the east side at 80'.  (approximately 81' 3" - 17").  

If the king experienced regicide or any death before this level was achieved he'd just be burned at a lower altitude.  

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, cladking said:

Ancient Language didn't work this way.  If this exclamation appeared in AL it would more likely mean that "it is good to stand up" but it is important to note that AL didn't have such fragments to express meaning.  If they wanted to say "it is good stand up" they would say "the effect of a specific lord was good".  Of course they wouldn't say this either in this formatting because it is already axiomatic; being caused to stand is good.  It is also not proper grammar.   "Osiris dawns, pure, mighty; high, lord of truth".   This is a little confused in the translation because "truth" is actually "maat" which means "balance".   It's also confused because "osiris" was originally "atum" who was the "overseer of the geyser".  When the water dried up after construction of G2 they began writing atum out of all these rituals and replacing him with "osiris".  So  atum sees the water when it begins to spray.  He has caused it to stand.  He is the geyser.   He is pure because he is "cool effervescent water that is like wine" .  He is mighty because he contains "sekhmet" which is the power used to build the pyramid (the king's new body).  He is high because he stands 81' 3".  And he is "lord of the balance" because without atum it is impossible for the two boats tied together to be in the balance needed to lift the stone.  He gave rise to balance/ he causes balance to stand at Giza.  

Another thought that is likely true is the origin of the word "pyramid".  This word in Ancient Language meant "instrument of ascension" but our word "pyramid" is not directly derived from AL.  It is probably derived from yet another confusion; the Greeks didn't really understand what they were told by the Egyptian priests concerning the pyramids. Remember the Egyptian priests were confused as well so it's hardly surprising they couldn't explain it in another confused modern language.  All the Greeks got out of the answer to "what were these structures for" was that the dead kings were burned on them as they were being built.  "Pyre Amid"

 

It sounds incredible but the fact is that everything today including our very natures go back to before our species "homo omnisciencis" even existed!  Everything goes back to Ancient Language which was the natural, representational, digital, and metaphysical language which was used for 40,000 years by homo sapiens.  It was a highly scientific language but it was a different kind of science based on logic and observation instead of experiment and observation.  It worked because nature itself, reality itself, is completely logical and the brain of homo sapiens reflected this logic as did the language.  You can't parse metaphysical language because words weren't defined and rather had a single fixed meaning as seen in caves all over the world from 40,000 years ago.  There was a single language all humans spoke but it became too difficult for the average man until eventually it had to give way to the numerous pidgin languages that sprang up as a replacement.  

I am trying to deconstruct and reverse engineer this AL that can not be parsed or translated.  It's a job begging for smarter people than I and many of them.   There's a giant cheat sheet right beyond the thermal anomaly but Egyptology still thinks the pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by stinky footed bumpkins who had a "3000 year civilization".  They won't look, they won't speak, and they won't listen.  They have made no progress for 200 years because their assumptions are flawed.  

Yesu Garden: Gandhiji 's Three Monkeys

Thank you for this.  I think it is hard to translate any other language into English accurately because english lacks a lot of subtly that other languages have.   Learning English as a first language without learning other languages has crippled us in our thinking in my opinion.   It is a way to separate everyone, make survival of an individual more important than survival of any group.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, cladking said:

"osiris" was originally "atum"

As I set the ball in motion for the creation of this thread, I think it would be rude of me not to make a post.

The wording of BoD spell 17 can, in part, make it seem that Atum and Osiris are, or were, the same, and I'll quote Thoth speaking the words of Atum to the deceased Ani:
 

Quote

 

To me belongs yesterday, I know tomorrow,

What does it mean? As for yesterday, that is Osiris. As for tomorrow, that is Ra on that day in which the foes of the Lord of All were destroyed and his son Horus was made to rule.

 

So we have Atum, who is the Lord of All, seemingly also being Osiris as yesterday belongs to Atum and Osiris is yesterday. But this is not the case, neither is it in any of the PT. The texts explicitly state that Atum came into being alone, and that Osiris comes later as a son of Ra.

At the end of time, millions on millions of years in the future, Atum and Osiris are, as individuals, the last living beings left, until Atum is himself consumed by the Nun from which he created himself. All the texts are explicit that Atum and Osiris are two seperate gods, and as for the origins of Osiris, then they seem to lay with those gods prior to him that had the epithet "Foremost of Westeners", Khentiamentiu, primarily Anubis, and he is most certainly not Atum or derived from Atum, but by parentage, Ra, and Ra and Atum by their creation myths, are not the same god.

I think to state that Osiris has come from Atum would first need evidence of the origins of Osiris, which point primarily to Anubis, and then, despite two different creation myths, the exact nature of the Sungod as a whole, gestalt or monoblock, or as there are so many contradictions, both at the same time, and across time, as that is also a factor, not least because it leads to the end of time with Atum and Osiris being the last beings standing.

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

Just now, Desertrat56 said:

I think it is hard to translate any other language into English accurately because english lacks a lot of subtly that other languages have.

Of course I fully agree.  "English" does have some advantages over others but there are disadvantages as well.

The real problem is "translating" within a language.   Every individual will translate your sentence in terms he knows and with the models he has made to understand everything.  Every individual will take a different meaning from every single sentence dependent on how he parses it and his knowledge base.  My opinion about the meaning of your sentence means little compared to an individual who speaks several very divergent languages and can think in any of these languages.  

ALL perceived meaning is parsed within a framework of what the listener believes. Essentially we just tell people what we think and they try to understand it the best they can.

 

Ancient Language was completely and utterly different.  You either understood author intent or you only heard gobbledty gook.  This is why Allen et al translate the Pyramid Texts into gobbledty gook and then pronounce this gobbledty gook as the confused product of superstitious bumpkins who believe their ramblings will affect gods to be more favorable to them.  They believe it is incantation.  

The reality is that Ancient Language effectively just invited others to see your mind directly.  You framed an idea in terms that were consistent with grammar and all known physical laws using words that had a single fixed meaning.  If you made any error at all then you could not be understood.  Small errors such as might be made by infants might be interpretable.   I'm sure there were short cuts of language used by intimate and very close individuals.  But normal speech involved whole sentences and there were relatively few ways to frame even simple ideas.   Communication was perfect and there was no need for the written word.   

People simply don't notice that modern communication is always failing.   No one ever takes the exact meaning of the author and no two people take the same meaning.   For most practical purposes it's close enough but still Chinese Telephone exists and authors rush their books to print so someone will tell them what it means.  Every few years another paradigm shift occurs in the sciences.  We tend to not notice these things either.  

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

38 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

As I set the ball in motion for the creation of this thread, I think it would be rude of me not to make a post.

The wording of BoD spell 17 can, in part, make it seem that Atum and Osiris are, or were, the same, and I'll quote Thoth speaking the words of Atum to the deceased Ani:
 

So we have Atum, who is the Lord of All, seemingly also being Osiris as yesterday belongs to Atum and Osiris is yesterday. But this is not the case, neither is it in any of the PT. The texts explicitly state that Atum came into being alone, and that Osiris comes later as a son of Ra.

At the end of time, millions on millions of years in the future, Atum and Osiris are, as individuals, the last living beings left, until Atum is himself consumed by the Nun from which he created himself. All the texts are explicit that Atum and Osiris are two seperate gods, and as for the origins of Osiris, then they seem to lay with those gods prior to him that had the epithet "Foremost of Westeners", Khentiamentiu, primarily Anubis, and he is most certainly not Atum or derived from Atum, but by parentage, Ra, and Ra and Atum by their creation myths, are not the same god.

I think to state that Osiris has come from Atum would first need evidence of the origins of Osiris, which point primarily to Anubis, and then, despite two different creation myths, the exact nature of the Sungod as a whole, gestalt or monoblock, or as there are so many contradictions, both at the same time, and across time, as that is also a factor, not least because it leads to the end of time with Atum and Osiris being the last beings standing.

The BotD is written in a different type of language than the Pyramid Texts and is a confusion of the Coffin Texts which isa confusion of the Pyramid Texts.  The authors of the BotD couldn't even imagine a language that was digital, representational and set to the laws of nature.  They had no clue that laws of nature even existed. They did not understand the "words of the gods" but they knew these ancient writings were the source of the ancient knowledge and power  so they tried to emulate the writers.    This writing is just superstition and gobbledty gook that underlay their beliefs just as with our own beliefs.  The authors of the BotD used the same confused language we used And had the same confused way to think as we do.  It's hardly a wonder that Egyptology extrapolated the BotD to apply to the Pyramid Texts.  There was no other means to even translate the PT. It never occurred to anybody to solve the AL in terms of itself.  

A lot of stuff in the Coffin Texts derives from AL and a little bit is actually written in AL.  

Very little in the BofD derives from AL.  It's almost all confused but they did have numerous ancient documents including pictures like boats balanced on columns of water.  I avoid these later works altogether because they are mostly confounding for trying to understand the Pyramid Texts and the Ancient Language in which they were written.  Everything that exists today from language to ideas to human institutions and processes derive directly or indirectly from confusions of AL.  When the language was confused it stayed confused.  It is still confused.  Only experiment and deduction can allow us to see through the confusion and these allow only glimpses just as amun could be seen only in glimpses.  

It's really rather remarkable that readers of the Pyramid Texts haven't noted the origin of Osiris. This is explained numerous times throughout the entire work and anyone could have noticed it. Egyptology takes the work as nothing but magic and incantation which makes it hard to see but it's still not invisible.

Osiris was a "natural phenomenon" which was "born" dead to replace the living atum. Atum was the natural phenomenon which provided the water used as ballast to build pyramids but our earliest copy of the PT comes from a time a full century after this water failed.

 

There's a great deal that might be said about atum and the other natural phenomena related to this one but for the nonce we'll just pretend these are irrelevant and show that osiris was the same thing as dead atum. Osiris was also identical to the dead king (N) because after the king's body was burned on the (incomplete) pyramid top he became osiris or dead atum. The pyramid was built in the land of horus and composed of the stones that were horus. The pyramid was the life's work (ka) of the dead king and it was comprised of horus so the dead king was horus jusat as the living king was a representative of horus on earth. The king was responsible for everything in life and after he was killed and burned he was everything in death. This is what the PT actually says. It's not incantation and religious gobblety gook but neither is it a manual for pyramid building. What it is is a list of the various rituals and ceremonies that were read at the numerous ascension ceremonies. It is obviously this!

There are dozens of lines to support this and I'd love to arguer it but if history is any guide at all I'll get no argument because every single word the builders said supports my arguments. My arguments are derived solely from the physical evidence and what the builders said so people seem to hate to argue with the builders. But the fact remains that they said the following;

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

This could hardly be more specific. The dead king "inherits" atum.

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

Osiris N inherits atum's heritage.

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

160a. Rē‘-Atum, thy son comes to thee; N. comes to thee;

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

You can see clearly in the PT where atum is being written out in favor of Osiris. In some instances this isn't so seamless. This creates the inconsistencies like calling atum the father of horus (N).

1686b. (for) he has appointed thee, father Osiris N., (to be) upon the throne of Rē‘-Atum,

Mebbe if there were some pictures in the PT it would be more obvious. ;)

604a. To say: Nun has recommended N. to Atum.

The phenomenon of water has communicated the dead king to the creator phenomenon. Atum was the first phenomenon who created all the others even though the phenomenon of water came before atum!

1237d. Atum calls N. to heaven for life.
...1238b. Weighty is this word before thee, O Rē‘.

Here's a good example of a place where the phenomenon of a dead water source couldn't simply be written into the text. A dead water source has no weight in heaven.

The status quo simply doesn't work any longer because it doesn't explain a five step pyramid. It doesn't explain any of the facts and can't explain why there is a coherent meaning to the PT that says the stones (phenomenon of the material quarried in the land of horus) are the pyramid and the dead king which were lifted by the phenomenon of pressurized water in a counterweight (isis).

Most people have the choice of continuing to believe that the builders were stinky footed bumpkins who spoke gobblety gook or seeing that there's another way to read their work.

I rarely copy and paste but recommend this entire subthread to those who care about the nature of "osiris" and how it arose.  https://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,320116,320150#msg-320150

It is all old work and I've made significant progress since it was written.  It's a wonder what one man working alone can do but this is just the tip of the iceberg and there are probably many errors and problems with it.  -still.  

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cladking said:

My arguments are derived solely from the physical evidence and what the builders said so people seem to hate to argue with the builders.

Yet the builders of G1 say nothing at all. The authors of the PT are not the builders of G1. Here we go back to you condemning use of the BoD in relation to the PT, yet you yourself are using the PT to explain how a pyramid was built, and it's purpose, hundreds of years before the PT exist. At least with comparisons between the PT and BoD we actually have two connected bodies of work, but between the G1 and the PT, nothing at all, it's all, speculation, on your part.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Tom1200 said:

Why all this again?

I'm planning to use this thread primarily for "Progress in Egyptology".  There has been no progress for 200 years except what I have found like I just deduced "Pyre Amid".   

As I said I make progress every single day and have nowhere to post it because people only want to hear speculation about ramps, new interpretations of gobbledty gook, and more empty claims about pyramids being tombs.   These things are never off topic no matter the subject.   

I've already solved how, why, when, by what means, and who built the pyramids and provided extensive corroboration but I don't sit around twiddling my thumbs waiting for Egyptology to catch up or even get off the dime. I just keep working finding new things, new facts, and new consistencies.  

 

Thank you for noticing it's already been posted recently in the "why osiris didn't exist before the 5th dynasty" thread.  I did add the link that has a great deal more information so it's not a simple repost.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Yet the builders of G1 say nothing at all. The authors of the PT are not the builders of G1.

This is simple logic.  If the PT was old when it was recorded in the 5th dynasty then it follows that many of these so called incantations were written earlier.  Earlier and references to the pyramids logically means some of these were written by the actual pyramid builders themselves.  NONE o the BotD was written by pyramid builders.  Not one single word.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cladking said:

This is simple logic.  If the PT was old when it was recorded in the 5th dynasty then it follows that many of these so called incantations were written earlier.  Earlier and references to the pyramids logically means some of these were written by the actual pyramid builders themselves.  NONE o the BotD was written by pyramid builders.  Not one single word.  

I will agree that the PT was old before Unas, but due to a number of gods first appearing in the PT, or not long before, notably Osiris, It would be the case that the PT probably preserves only a basic framework of the ceremonies that were used in earlier times. Remove all reference to at least Osiris from the PT, and not much is left, not enough to extrapolate any earlier texts I would say.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cladking said:

A lot of my friends refer to me as an "Egyptologist" though I'm not sure if it's intended as a back handed compliment or a back handed insult.  

I intend to use this thread to show the actual progress being made in Egyptology since I do make quite a lot of progress every single day and have nowhere I can talk about it (my friends have heard enough) or post it (they have too).  

I recently found the origin of the word "lord".  It began as a word that meant "that which causes to stand".  

I do recall reading that too! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Here we go back to you condemning use of the BoD in relation to the PT, yet you yourself are using the PT to explain how a pyramid was built, and it's purpose, hundreds of years before the PT exist.

The PT imply exactly how the pyramids were built and why.   You can even identify specific great pyramids being referenced in these "Rituals of Ascension". Even other writing refers to G1 specifically in that all other pyramids can be excluded.   

Ancient Language was a remarkable tool.   It was the very foundation of ancient science and the means of human progress. As "science' it was a weak tool but as language it was very strong.  It united all of humanity on a common page and allowed every citizen of every state to be a scientist and a metaphysician.  The entire population created human progress and the most important were remembered in the stars and the architecture.  Everybody pulled together in the exact same direction and those who did not for any reason were eliminated by one means or another.  Justice required that most had a chance of redemption.  Kings were hardly immune and were sacrificed if they became weak or ineffective.   

Like a bee hive each individual had to pull his weight but far more importantly every individual had to cooperate to a common goal of assuring there was a new generation every spring.  It is consciousness that underlies all of life but homo omnisciencis doesn't even experience it.  We experience thought because modern language has reprogrammed our brains.   This language is highly confused and we can't even imagine another way to deal with reality even though house plants can do it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

At least with comparisons between the PT and BoD we actually have two connected bodies of work, but between the G1 and the PT, nothing at all, it's all, speculation, on your part.

No.  They are not "connected".   They are in two different languages displaying two different types of thinking and they share nothing except vocabulary.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, cladking said:

I might also remind you of this thread;

 

Well I kept posting that image because you mistakenly think that the "N" in the phrase "Osiris N" is something that it is not. For the record it can mean that a specific text is found only in the pyramid of queen Neith, and the "N" is used by translators to fill in a deliberate lacuna in the original as the text, though in a queen's pyramid, refers directly to a king, and so Neith cannot have her name after the name Osiris. The other instances of this "N" are the same, except not specifically for texts from Neith's pyramid.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wepwawet said:

Well I have to disagree with that of course, and btw, am I your "most persistant stalker and insulter", just for the record.

By no means.  Don't take this as a challenge but you always contribute something in your posts.  The stalkers just insult.   

The problem is it's simply impossible to show that the BotD is derived from the PT simply because the PT is gobbledty gook incantation.  The BotD is quite comprehensible as  sort of religion that applies to the dying and dead.  It is obviously about dying and being dead.  But the PT is obviously about life, living, loving, and living after death if you strip away Egyptological interpretations.  Even the Pyre Amid is called the "House of Life" because it's where Khufu lives forever so long as he is remembered.   

You can parse the BotD but you can't parse the PT without destroying the meaning.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wepwawet said:

Well I kept posting that image because you mistakenly think that the "N" in the phrase "Osiris N" is something that it is not. For the record it can mean that a specific text is found only in the pyramid of queen Neith, and the "N" is used by translators to fill in a deliberate lacuna in the original as the text, though in a queen's pyramid, refers directly to a king, and so Neith cannot have her name after the name Osiris. The other instances of this "N" are the same, except not specifically for texts from Neith's pyramid.

No.  For the twentieth time, NO!

"N" is used by Mercer et al as a placeholder for the dead king and I'm using it the same way.  N + 1 = 2 uses "N" as a placeholder for "1".   Just subtract 1 from each side.  These must use words to communicate and "N" just means "dead king (specific)"  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cladking said:

By no means.  Don't take this as a challenge but you always contribute something in your posts.  The stalkers just insult.   

The problem is it's simply impossible to show that the BotD is derived from the PT simply because the PT is gobbledty gook incantation.  The BotD is quite comprehensible as  sort of religion that applies to the dying and dead.  It is obviously about dying and being dead.  But the PT is obviously about life, living, loving, and living after death if you strip away Egyptological interpretations.  Even the Pyre Amid is called the "House of Life" because it's where Khufu lives forever so long as he is remembered.   

You can parse the BotD but you can't parse the PT without destroying the meaning.  

Thank you, I didn't think I was a habitual stalker and insulter. And here was me thinking that the purpose of this thread was to escape the vitriol, but it followed on, oh well....

However, without making a huge post going through the PT and BoD, and also the CT comparing them line for line, a tricky thing anyway, if not impossible, a progression in religious thought can be shown from the PT to the BoD and then to the Netherworld books, that Ra journey's through the Duat stands out, and there's also the origins of the "Book of the Heavenly Cow" to be found in the PT, and I quoted the texts in Creighton's thread.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be back later after I learn something new which will be progress in Egyptology. 

What do you think the chances are any Egyptologist will find how the pyramids were built and announce it before I get back with real progress?  What do you think the chances are for any progress in the next decade?  Maybe they'll find the blueprints for the ramps, eh?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cladking said:

No.  For the twentieth time, NO!

"N" is used by Mercer et al as a placeholder for the dead king and I'm using it the same way.  N + 1 = 2 uses "N" as a placeholder for "1".   Just subtract 1 from each side.  These must use words to communicate and "N" just means "dead king (specific)"  

What makes you so sure? You yourself think and have stated repeatedly the very translations that you use are themselves in error.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cladking said:

No.  For the twentieth time, NO!

"N" is used by Mercer et al as a placeholder for the dead king and I'm using it the same way.  N + 1 = 2 uses "N" as a placeholder for "1".   Just subtract 1 from each side.  These must use words to communicate and "N" just means "dead king (specific)"  

Well, you deny this about the "N", but I do distinctly remember scanning and posting the notes from Mercer's PT were he explains in black and white that the "N" is standing for Neith. I'll have to look through the thread and link to the post.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Wepwawet said:

However, without making a huge post going through the PT and BoD, and also the CT comparing them line for line, a tricky thing anyway, if not impossible, a progression in religious thought can be shown from the PT to the BoD and then to the Netherworld books, that Ra journey's through the Duat stands out, and there's also the origins of the "Book of the Heavenly Cow" to be found in the PT, and I quoted the texts in Creighton's thread.

I understand why you believe this.   If I had the same assumptions as you I would believe it as well.   

There really is a continuation here but this continuation is misinterpreted.   You are assuming that words were used the same way and meant the same thing.  You are assuming there was no speciation event.  You are assuming that only humans are conscious and house plants are not.  You are assuming that similarities in translation show an evolution of thought.   

Yet you ignore simple facts like that similarities in translation are caused principally by the beliefs of Egyptologists and their erroneous assumptions.  You are ignoring the simple fact that Egyptology used Champollion's beliefs about the nature of language and translation and these beliefs don't fit metaphysical language.  You are ignoring the fact that you can't parse computer code, a waggle dance, or Ancient Language without destroying the meaning and rendering it meaningless and unsuitable for every single purpose under the sun.  

 

When language changed humans changed and the way we think changed.   The vocabulary seemed to stay the same and this obscures the change in language.  We see the exact same words before and after the change in language and we assume they had the same meaning and could be parsed in the same way.  Words that had a fixed meaning and represented palpable things in a sentence became defined and symbolized things in a sentence.  Zipf's Law arose because of the way our brains operate to compose sentences  and meaning.   Our thinking became observable to us but how and why we think (consciousness) became invisible.  Creating meaning had to be assembled in sentences that had to be parsed by the listener.  Our thought became analog and we started using taxonomies for mnemonics.   Inductive reasoning was born because mnemonics reflect a reality that is logical as surely as mathematics is a quantification of the same logic.  

These concepts are difficult for most people but they become much more clear as you understand Ancient Language and ancient science.  Our words have no tie to reality.  Only experiment is tied to reality but bees and pyramid builders were tied to reality by the logic of their brains.  A microcosm of reality exists in the brains of bees and this same microcosm allows them to communicate and cooperate just like the pyramid builders once did.  

Nobody could make this stuff yup.  It far too complex and far too outside of mainstream thought to be fiction or delusion.  How did I predict thermal anomalies EXACTLY as they exist without an understanding of the ancient texts?  Why does all the physical and cultural evidence including the literal meaning of ancient words support the exact same interpretation?  Why do the PT make more sense if you discard the Egyptological notions that they are riddled with grammatical errors that were carved into stone?   

Egyptology is wrong across the board because their assumptions are wrong across the board.  

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.