Jupiter and the Eye of Horus

[Klaynos]

You are avoiding the questions.

 

You are cherry picking your translation.

 

You are ignoring the contradictory arguments put forward.

 

You are not discussing you are trying to soap box.

 

This is a discussion forum you should be here for discussion.

[gentleman-farmer]

you are dodging the other points raised by johnB.

 

gf) JohnB is quoting Internet material - it does not correspond to published work

 

And his statement about the accuracy of Sethe's work is in stark contrast to published material -

[swansont]

gf) JohnB is quoting Internet material - it does not correspond to published work

 

 

And there's some distinction to be made about published in a book and published on the internet? Publishing on paper doesn't magically make the content correct. Anybody can publish a book.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

JohnB's online reference is merely the text of a published book, anyway. One that has fallen out of copyright.

[Klaynos]

He cited a library source.

 

And nice cherry picking.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Specifically, the online book JohnB references is available in printed form, from 1952:

 

http://catalog.lib.utexas.edu/search~S29/?searchtype=X&searcharg=mercer+pyramid+texts&searchscope=29&sortdropdown=-&SORT=DZ&extended=0&SUBMIT=Search&searchlimits=&searchorigarg=Xpyramid+texts%26SORT%3DD

 

I suppose if I were curious I could wander down to PCL the next time I'm at school and have a look, but it's definitely not my area of expertise.

[gentleman-farmer]

Another point JohnB places Sothis (a.k.a. Sirius) in close association with the phrase morning star

 

JohnB

In both cases it will be noted the differences between the glyphs preceeding the glyph for Sothis and the glyph meaning "Morning Star".

 

gf) We'd hope JohnB was not suggesting thereby that Sothis (a.k.a. Sirius) is the morning star

 

Sothis is associated with Orion and heliacal rising and setting - and is not the morning star

 

I hope also we can agree that the point of difference between Internet and Published material is in peer exposure

 

The Pyramid Texts are very clear on Orion, Sothis and heliacal rising and setting -

 

gf

[Klaynos]

These days, peer exposure is often higher for internet published sources.

[gentleman-farmer]

gf) We'd hope JohnB was not suggesting thereby that Sothis (a.k.a. Sirius) is the morning star

 

Sothis is associated with Orion and heliacal rising and setting - and is not the morning star

 

The Pyramid Texts are very clear on Orion, Sothis and heliacal rising and setting -

 

Let's see if JohnB agrees or denies that Sothis is associated with Orion and heliacal rising and setting - and is not the morning star

 

Let's hope too that any quotes are not from the Book of the Dead

 

 

gf

[Klaynos]

I'm just hoping for some direct answers from you.

[gentleman-farmer]

Klaynos

I'm just hoping for some direct answers from you.

 

gf) I've answered every question - multiple times

 

Let's see if JohnB agrees or denies that Sothis is associated with Orion and heliacal rising and setting - and is not the morning star

 

After all it was in the proper identification of the morning star per the Pyramid Texts that tested the validity of Internet sources

 

JohnB was not able to do that - hence we must conclude that the Internet source is not valid

 

Here is another chance - heliacal rising and setting (and the laying down of a celestial grid) is the very essence of ancient Egyptian Cosmology

 

Let's hope quotes are not from the Book of the Dead

 

gf

/

[swansont]

Klaynos

 

gf) I've answered every question - multiple times

 

 

?

 

Still waiting on that reference about earthquakes on earth causing the moon to recede, and the mechanism that causes it.

[Ophiolite]

I've answered every question - multiple times

You have still failed completely to define what you mean by occult in this context. In supposedly answering my first request you simply stated that one of JohnB's quotes was occult. you did not say whay you mean by occult. Would you do so now please?

 

I am constrained to echo my earlier remarks. In this exchange JohnB is coming across as a sober, knowledgeable, patient, informed, reasonable person. Your posts have en edge of hysteria and agenda pushing. I presume you wish to promote your hypothesis, convincing others it has substance. If so, you are going the wrong way about it. If not, then you are merely a troll and I suspect your time here will be short. You alone have the power to change how you are perceived.

[JohnB]

Where to start?

 

Firstly, I think by clearing up a misunderstanding. The rather large opus of Sethe's work can be quickly divided into two distinct phases. The first phase was the transcription of the pyramid texts from the walls of the tombs. This was his seminal work that others have built on and is the standard work used today. His second phase, that of actually translating the inscriptions was never finished due to his death. It is the translation, not the transcription that is referred to in g-fs quote;

But the published acccount is quite different In these circumstances it might well be asked why a fresh translation should be foisted on the public when several versions using Sethe's text already exist. The answer is that in the last half-century great advances have been made in our knowledge of Ancient Egyptian, thanks largely to the labours of Gunn, Gardiner, and Edel; a second reason is the bulk and cost of the more recent publications. Sethe s tiberseizung und Kommeritar is not only very bulky, consisting of six (undated) volumes, but is also exceedingly costly and is still incomplete; his original manuscript as available to his posthumous editors stopped short at Un. 582 and did not include Utt. 1212, which consist largely of ritual formulae. Further, Sethe s copy as handed over dates back something like forty years, and its editors themselves remark that if the author had lived to complete his work and revise it, undoubtedly he would have made many alterations, though even in its imperfect state Sethe s translation is an indispensable tool for all future students of these texts.

 

I have no doubt that had he the time he would have finished the work and probably modified some of his translated passages. None of this however effects the accuracy of his transcriptions from the tomb walls. G-f, you are aware that there is a very real difference between a transcription and a translation, aren't you? Frankly I starting to wonder.

 

It's easy to make claims - but unless you're working from a published version - little can be verified

Sethe's work was published in 1908, the link I gave is to the scanned copy in the Library of the University of Chicago. You can go to the library if you wish and see the book for yourself. Under any definition you care to try, it is a "published" work.

 

You keep talking about "Occult". So a direct question and let's see if I can get a direct answer. Exactly how is the Library of the University of Chicago considered "Occult"?

 

For some reason you are taking exception to linking to "Sacred Texts". Strangely enough, I would think that the Pyramid Texts classify as "Sacred Texts". I can't see why you disagree. I note the site actually has a wide range of sacred texts, including a King James version of the Bible. Does this now make the Bible an "Occult" text?

 

gf) On the matter of the Occult I would ask this forum to read JohnB's response very very carefully and note his reference to a multiplicity of legends (see his quote following my response) - What we refer to as The Pyramid Texts are those 4000 lines of hieroglyphic inscriptions that are written on stone - the form of which was deciphered by means of the Rosetta stone by Jean Francois Champollion c1821 - 22. They were published in English by the late Dr. R. O. Faulkner under the title, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts (They are not legends)

 

I have to ask, if not legends or funery texts, what do you think the "Pyramid Texts" are? Those texts translated by Faulkner and other under that title are a small group of the collected Egyptian texts. They are not the only ones, nor are they the earliest, nor are they in any way definitive. Another text disagreeing with the Pyramid Texts doesn't make either text or translation wrong. It simply means that they differ. I'm at a loss as to why you can't seem to understand this concept. You simply cannot look at any text in isolation, it must be considered with respect to the other texts from the time.

 

You will not find "N," in the Pyramid Texts - but it is used 173 times in the Book of the Dead. So what is the Book of Dead? It is a compilation of spells, prayers, vignettes, and incantations written on various papyri and collected from other sources. The authors are those who tended to the burial processes.

 

The Book of the Dead and its reference to "N" has no relationship to the Pyramid Texts

Actually you do find it in the Pyramid Texts, in fact you find it in just about any transcription of heiroglyphics. It might be "N", or "P", or in the case I showed above "W". The letter is inserted at the transcription stage so that the poor sucker drawing all the glyphs doesn't have to do the same one (the Cartouche) over and over again. It means "Insert name of Pharoah here". This was explained before and I suggest youu go back and actually read what I have written. You have apparently either failed to read or failed to comprehend my statements.

 

You do realise that some of the spells and incantations included in the "Book of the Dead" are the same ones as are found in the "Pyramid Texts", don't you? As in, the same passage can be found in both texts?

 

While on this topic, why do you complain about a multiplicity of texts? Of course there are more than just the "Pyramid Texts" as repositories for knowledge about ancient Egypt. You seem to be giving the Texts the same prominance in Egypt as the Bible has for Christianity. A better idea is to consider the Pyramid Texts as equivalent to a Gospel in the New Testament. It is one story out of many, and in a number of ways the stories contradict each other. This is not unexpected when dealing with religious texts that have evolved over nearly 3,000 years.

 

gf) Not true - Notice you are looking at a wall the text thereon you cannot read

Your lack of ability to even recognise the correct heiroglyphs is not my problem. I have a news flash for you g-f, Faulkners "Pyramid Texts" are translations of what is carved into the walls of pyramids. The picture I posted is the actual wall inside the Pyramid of Unas that passage 341 comes from. I did this so that you could see the progression from wall to transcription to the two (slightly) different translations. You just can't get more "original" than that.

 

However, if you feel that I'm intentionally misrepresenting things, feel free to post a picture of the original heiroglyphs of 341 and we can take it from there.

 

As to who was the mother of Horus, it varies depending on the source. This has been known for years and again I cannot understand why you can't accept this. The Pyramid Texts say one thing and other texts say another, why is this so hard to comprehend? Even going right back to an early Budge translation, (warning 33 meg pdf file) we see starting on Page 308 two separate and distinct versions of the Creation story. They are even labelled Versions "A" and "B".

 

Another point JohnB places Sothis (a.k.a. Sirius) in close association with the phrase morning star

Go back and read it again. At no time did I in any way equate or confuse Sothis with the Morning Star. I pointed out that in translations of a certain passage in the Pyramid Texts it says of Unas that his sister is Sothis and his Mother the Duat. How you make Sister=Mother I fail to understand. And why should I deny something I never said?

 

After all it was in the proper identification of the morning star per the Pyramid Texts that tested the validity of Internet sources

 

JohnB was not able to do that - hence we must conclude that the Internet source is not valid

Firstly it was "Morning Light" in your quote.

 

Secondly I gave you two different translations of the "Pyramid Texts" by different authors to show that the translation you are using is wrong.

 

Thirdly I gave you the original transcription that the translation came from. and

 

Lastly I posted a picture of the bloody wall that is the Pyramid Text. Not a translation, interpretation or transcription, but the original heiroglyphs carved into the stone in the Pyramid of Unas. What more do you want? Should I fly to Egypt and take a picture myself and post that?

 

The problem here is that you are assuming that your translation contains a "proper identification" of the morning star. I've shown you that it does not. In your world, the book you read is correct and all others are wrong. This attitude is invalid. You aren't judging things on their worth or accuracy, but simply on whether they agree with your particular translation of the "Pyramid Texts".

 

It doesn't work that way. On the basis of proof, since your translation disagrees with other translations, the original transcriptions and what is actually written on the walls themselves, the only valid conclusion is that your translation is not valid.

 

As a final point, and I did ask this earlier. Can you elaborate on these "missing" riddles? Where are they missing from? Which translations have them and which ones do not? Or are you just blowing smoke?

Edited July 22, 2010 by JohnB

[gentleman-farmer]

Ophiolite

You have still failed completely to define what you mean by occult in this context. In supposedly answering my first request you simply stated that one of JohnB's quotes was occult. you did not say what you mean by occult. Would you do so now please?

 

gf) The Egyptian civilization that flourished for thousands of years was based on the content of the Pyramid Texts. Than cults (that based their interests on limited interpretations, removal of key elements, and focused on specific deities began to develop. These removal efforts were geared to focus on the Cults objectives

 

A good example can be made by comparing the Mercer Pyramid Texts to those of Dr. R. O. Faulkner - The late Dr R. O. Faulkner was the leading modern British authority on the progressive stages of funerary texts developed in antiquity His 1969 translation of Utterance 572 follows.

 

Notice the continuity and faithfulness to word and intent

 

How lovely to see, how pleasing to behold! says Isis, when you ascend to § 1472 the sky, your power upon you, your terror about you, your magic at your feet; you are helped by Atum just as he used to do, the gods who are in the § 1473 sky are brought to you, the gods who are on earth assemble for you, they § 1474 place their hands under you, they make a ladder for you that you may ascend on it to the sky,

 

Following in contrast is Mercer's 1952 Pyramid Texts that JohnB has said to be the better interpretation - But it is so obtuse that little sense can be made of it (this renders it near impossible to comprehend. It has a parallel in the reluctance to change the Constitution of the United States.

 

 

Utterance 572.

1472a. To say: "How beautiful indeed is the sight, how pleasant indeed is the view," says Isis,

1472b. "that this god ascends to heaven, his renown over him,

1472c. his terror on both sides of him, his magic before him!"

1473a. It was done for him, for N., by Atum, like that which one did for him (Atum).

1473b. He brought to N. the gods belonging to heaven;

1473c. he assembled to him the gods belonging to the earth.

1474a. They put their arms under him.

1474b. They made a ladder for N., that he might ascend to heaven on it.

1474c. The double doors of heaven are open for N.; the double doors of s?d.w are open for him.

 

The test will be in JohnB's ability to focus in on heliacal rising and setting (and the laying down of a celestial grid) as the very essence of ancient Egyptian Cosmology. And to answer whether he agrees or denies that Sothis is associated with Orion and heliacal rising and setting - and is not the morning star - Occult leanings remove the ability to focus on details

 

gf

/

[Klaynos]

You again failed to answer the question.

[gentleman-farmer]

Ophiolite When portions of Text are removed (or never present from the start) it becomes impossible to follow extended story lines. By example in post 62 I mentioned there are 14 riddles in the Pyramid Texts (meaning Faulkner's as I do not quote others) all starting with the phrase Recite four times - this text has been changed (or never included) in JohnB's (Pyramid Texts) so the riddles are not recognizable

 

That a person can follow these riddles and solved them in Faulkner's translation - stands in proof that his translation is accurate and complete

 

JohnB's response to my mention of the riddles was Can you elaborate on these "missing" riddles? Where are they missing from?

 

gf) You'll note that I answered Where are they missing from? in my original statement

 

Riddles and Puzzles have characteristic preludes - so when I saw Recite four times repeated 14 times I suspected they were a prelude. That proved correct - but it took almost a year to solve them because they take you on a merry chase though the Pyramid Texts

 

BTW many ancient cultures loved riddles so it is not surprising to find them in the Pyramid Texts

[Klaynos]

So if we look glyphs we should see the same one repeated 4 times. Show the photos to prove it.

 

You still have not answered the question of what do you mean by "occult" and addressing the points made about earthquakes et al...

[gentleman-farmer]

Klaynos

You still have not answered the question of what do you mean by "occult"

 

Ophiolite

what you mean by Occult in this context.

 

gf) let me repeat myself (paraphrasing from post # 90 cults .. base their interests on limited interpretations, removal of key elements, and focused on specific deities ... These efforts were geared to focus on the Cult's objectives

Edited July 22, 2010 by gentleman-farmer

[Klaynos]

I don't see the difference between that and the earlier texts, they also wrote things for their own advantage, it's what organised religions do.

[gentleman-farmer]

Klaynos You still have not answered the question of what do you mean about earthquakes et al...

 

gf) Paraphrasing from citation below

the slowing down of the rotation rate of Earth and in gradual increase of the radius of Moon's orbit

The conservation of angular momentum in Earth–Moon system results in the transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

 

 

Here is proof from NASA that earthquake changes earth's rate of rotation from my post number 32

 

Please study it carefully - NASA presented the material to dozens of Universities and the National Science Foundation - they are not prone to error under those circumstances

/

/

 

/

[Klaynos]

Klaynos You still have not answered the question of what do you mean about earthquakes et al...

 

gf) Paraphrasing from citation below

 

 

Here is proof from NASA that earthquake changes earth's rate of rotation from my post number 32

 

Please study it carefully - NASA presented the material to dozens of Universities and the National Science Foundation - they are not prone to error under those circumstances

/

/

 

/

 

Have a re-read of the posts made on this previously, you will see that your idea of what is going on is in error. Simply ignoring them and restating your starting position does not make you correct.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

It's also worth noting that the day length listed in that chart is in milliseconds. There is nothing to support gentleman-farmer's claim of several-second shifts. And nothing to suggest this has any relation to the moon.

[gentleman-farmer]

Klaynos

you will see that your idea of what is going on is in error.

 

gf) What is so hard to understand about

the slowing down of the rotation rate of Earth and in gradual increase of the radius of Moon's orbit The conservation of angular momentum in EarthMoon system results in the transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon

 

Earthquake slows earth's rate of rotation - The conservation of angular momentum in EarthMoon system results in the transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon

 

Take milliseconds and multiply by the million earthquakes per year and you have a second - then extrapolate (while acknowledging that one or two 8.8 - 9.0 earthquakes cannot relate to a continuous increase of the radius of Moon's orbit (at ~4.5 cm/year rate). And you have to accept that it is more than just two 8.8 - 9.0 earthquakes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum

Edited July 22, 2010 by gentleman-farmer

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Earthquake slows earth's rate of rotation - The conservation of angular momentum in Earth–Moon system results in the transfer of angular momentum from Earth to Moon

Nope. There's no mechanism to transfer momentum between the Earth and the Moon this way. How do you propose it works? A giant steel girder?

 

No, here's what happens (and this was explained in the NASA link I gave earlier): Earthquakes shift mass around on the earth. A change in mass distribution causes the Earth's moment of inertia to change. Since angular momentum is the moment of inertia times the angular velocity ([math]I\mathbf{\omega}[/math]), the angular velocity of the Earth must change to compensate. So the Earth rotates faster or slower, changing the length of the day.

 

This does not require the Moon.

 

Take milliseconds and multiply by the million earthquakes per year and you have a second - then extrapolate (while acknowledging that one or two 8.8 - 9.0 earthquakes cannot relate to a continuous increase of the radius of Moon's orbit (at ~4.5 cm/year rate). And you have to accept that it is more than just two 8.8 - 9.0 earthquakes

http://en.wikipedia....ngular_momentum

 

The chart you show in post #32 shows that the annual variation in day length is on the order of milliseconds. It is not a graph of day length change for each earthquake -- it is a continuous plot of variations in day length. Those variations are at no point greater than perhaps a third of a millisecond.

 

NASA has also published the day length change per century, and of course they are not prone to error under these circumstances.

 

http://eclipse.gsfc....p/rotation.html

 

In comparison, the secular change in the rotation rate of Earth currently increases the length of day by 2.3 milliseconds per century.