Ancient beliefs and evolution.

[Sayonara]

But you have already shown that your understanding is woefully inadequate. Or, to be generous, highly selective.

 

Oi! False dichotomy!

 

It can totally be both

 

I'm unaware of such research. I know from experience that just a few generations of insects are sufficient to cause changes in their behavior through selection. But none of these behaviors I've observed can be considered really complex like dam building. Just a few generations of swatting flies on tables will create a generation that will land on the bottoms of objects rather than the tops.

 

It's the same thing, only more of it. The emergence of complex behaviours through natural selection is no more difficult than the emergence of highly exotic phenotypes through natural selection.

 

Nature is not beholden to us to act in accordance with our intuition and expectations.

[cladking]

I believe a lot of the difficulty here is my own tentativeness and lack of certainty. I'm only 75% certain that the basis of all these beliefs is real but if it is real then it is a virtual certainty that there was an ancient science that progressed uninterrupted for 40,000 years and language was its metaphysics.

 

Most of my research has gone toward trying to get inside the minds of the writers of the Pyramid Texts since this is the only thing that survives but I've spent significant effort in trying to figure out the precedents for later works. This means a lot of thinking about the Bible, Koran, holy books, and the various early Christian writings and hermetic texts. Much of this contains extensive fragments of ancient concepts. I believe the great 19th century scientists were closing in on making the some deductions that would lead them in this same direction but something went horribly wrong. Budge, GRS Mead, and several others appear to have had a more accurate understanding than later scholars.

 

For instance there's a device that was used to signal the workers to report to work in the morning. It was colloquially known as the "fire-pan" and its scientific name was "mks-sceptre". It was a floating oil lamp that burned willow tree oil that was in a thin film on top of the water. It held 1.1 gallons of air under it to keep afloat but had a device called a "rennenutet" that funneled CO2 from the nearby upper eye of horus to replace the small amount of air that escaped up the wick with the oil. This lamp was shaped so that it could only be refueled by violent rocking caused by the water falling on top of the pyramid.

 

 

This lamp just happens to be the origin of the word "God" in most modern languages!

 

GRS Mead had this to say about some later writing that obviously came from this concept;

 

I cannot but think, however, that these texts might be submitted to a more searching analysis than has yet been accorded them. They seem to present somewhat similar phenomena to the recensions of the Book of the Dead; that is to say, fragments of material from the tradition of a greater past have been adapted and overworked for the needs of a lesser age. Indeed, the whole effort of the Trismegistic schools seems to have been to restore the memory of that greater past; it had been forgotten, and its dim record had become a superstition instead of a living faith, a degenerate magic instead of a potent theurgy. The theurgy of our prayers is that of dwarfs; the theurgy of the past was believed to have been that of giants.

 

 

Here's a translation that follows;

 

 

invocation to the light

1. I invoke thee, O God, the living one, 2 who dost show forth thy splendour in the fire, thou unseen Father of the Light! Pour forth thy strength; awake thy daimon, and come down into this fire; inspire it with [thy] holy spirit; show me thy might, and let the house of the almighty God, which is within this light, be opened for me! Let there be light,—

 

[thy] breadth-depth-length-height-ray; and let the Lord, the [God] within, shine forth!

 

Simply stated the evidence that there was an ancient science is very very very broad. It just happens to be everywhere and the reason it's not seen is not so much that the light has gone out but that the language has changed.

 

 

 

The conventional wisdom today is that ancient people were superstitious and sun addled.

 

The conventional wisdom is wrong.

Edited September 25, 2013 by cladking

[ACG52]

As far as I can see, this is just being made up as you go along.

[Strange]

I believe a lot of the difficulty here is my own tentativeness and lack of certainty.

...

The conventional wisdom is wrong.

I don't see much lack of certainty in your posts.

 

I do see a total lack of evidence, rational thinking and knowledge of the subjects your are talking about.

[cladking]

As far as I can see, this is just being made up as you go along.

 

Of course I've made it all up just as Alexander Graham Bell made up the telephone, Sir Isaac Newton made up the calculus, or Imhotep made up shorter ropes so he could stack mastabas. The biggest difference is where they invented new things I've merely rediscovered what once existed. It was the result of reverse engineering the pyramids and not deconstructing the words of the builders. When you try to analyze the words of the builders they all come off as gobblety gook and nonsense obviously written by stinky footed bumpkins but when you take the words at face value and solve them by context they are internally consistent and consistent with the physical evidence.

 

I know far more about the fire-pan than I've let on as history virtually revolves around it in a sense. It was only important to building the mastabas and great pyramids but it became increasingly famous and important as time went by. Much of the reason is that its nature was confused but, for now, let's just look at some more of the evidence.

 

Sekhmet was the phenomenon of the power of water at altitude. Sekhmet manifested as the water spraying through the upper eye of horus where the fire-pan sat. Here are a few of her names;

 

Empowerer

Sparkling One (remember the floating willow tree oil)

Lady Of The Magic Lamp

Lady Of The Waters Of Life

Ruler Of The Chamber Of Flames

Sekhmet, Who Rouseth The People

Flaming One

Awakener (remember those with ready hands stand to make an offering to the dead king)

Inspirer of Men

 

She was the "Lady of the Magic Lamp" who rouseth the people;

 

558a. To say: Bdš.t comes; the fire-pan burns.

558b. Those with (ready) hands stand to give an offering to N.

 

If the fire-pan didn't burn right before sunrise there was no water and the men went back to bed. The fire-pan would go out if it weren't swamped! (Coffin Texts)

 

#1094 I have swamped the fire, I have lightened the darkness among those who come

with offerings when ma'at is brought to him who crosses the waterway.

 

#283 ...there is a flame for N when he goes up from the horizon.

 

#294 The shape of the swallow is given to me by the flaming one, mistress of

the isles who ascends in the flame which is on the battlements of the sky.

 

The shape of the swallow can't be seen except by the auspices of the "Mistress of the Swimming Flame":

 

1779b. his neck is like that of the mistress of the nbi-flame;

 

Without the swimming flame you can't even see the person next to you;

 

26. O Sekhmet, at whose setting the darkness appears, in such a way that if

someone nods his head (lit., makes a nod of the head) to his neighbor, they

will not see one another!

 

The nbht-sceptre sits near the fire-pan in the mn-canal and signals water flow by day by shaking brightly painted boards, while the "mks-sceptre" signals by night;

 

134c. (thy) mkś-sceptre and thy nḥb.t-sceptre in thy hand, commanding those of secret places.

 

The fire-pan sat in Anubis' chest. Anubis was the phenomenon of direction of pyramid building operations from the pyramid top. His daughter was the phenomenon of water pressure over the weir that retained the willow tree-oil. The height of the water over 81' 3" was directly proportiuonal to water pressure. There was a ceremony to get out the fire-pan at the beginning of pyramid building season;

 

1961b. he has seen the preparation of the feast, and the preparation of the fire-pan,

 

This device was extremely fragile and it's impossibler to have used it as a bowl. It required careful packing away at the end of the season;

 

2118b. at the (feast of the) month, at the (feast of the) half month, at the (feast of) covering the fire-pan, at the (feast of) Thot, at the wȝg-feast,

 

It just keeps going because this is the nature of real science. Real science makes predictions but saying they mustta used ramps because they mussta been superstitious and changeless is just words. These particular words have no predictive value whatsoever so we have no answers and only questions. They won't do the basic science that could prove they are right because they know they're wrong.

 

I could go on for hours about the fire-pan and this is just a tiny piece ofall the proof that our ancestors did know paleontology and many other things. They would have written (and did write) numerous books about numerous such subjects but by mere quirk of fate all that actually survives is what they would consider a silly little book of ritual which we misinterpret as magic and incantation. They had an important scientific work that would have been something like the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics but it's lost. It was called the "Book of Thot" which means the the book of the phenomenon of human progress. The PT hints that a surviving copy might exist and there is some physical evidence to support this but instead they are destroying the artefacts and still looking for treasure.

 

People really should mind.

I don't see much lack of certainty in your posts.

 

I do see a total lack of evidence, rational thinking and knowledge of the subjects your are talking about.

 

Good!!!

 

I must be doing something right.

[ACG52]

Eighty posts of made up nonsense.

[cladking]

Eighty posts of made up nonsense.

 

Did you read the post? Better yet, did you read what the ancient people actually said?

 

Did you read, "I have swamped the fire, I have lightened the darkness among those who come with offerings when ma'at is brought to him who crosses the waterway."?

 

Do you believe that ancient people were so stupid that they thought swamping a fire would lighten the darkness?

 

When you solve "Ma'at" by context you find that it is the "phenomenon of balance" (fem). Osiris tows the earth by means of maat.

 

 

If you want to hear "made up" ask an Egyptologist what these words mean. I wager you can't find two of them who agree with one another. Ask him how he knows the ancients were superstitious if they don't understand any of their words. All you'll get is references to Egyptologists and not one fact. What you see above is fact gathered by original research and deduction. What the builders said they meant. It is we who are the superstitious bumpkins and not our distant ancestors.

#294 The shape of the swallow is given to me by the flaming one, mistress of

the isles who ascends in the flame which is on the battlements of the sky.

 

I'm sure you missed this too.

 

"Battlement" is the exact same word that Herodotus used to describe how they built the pyramids; in steps, and lifting stones one step at a time. There was actually another usage of the term with the fire-pan but I deleted it because people don't like more than one line at a time;

 

1778a. N: is the great falcon, who is upon the battlements (or, cornice blocks) of the house of "him of the hidden name,"

...

1779b. his neck is like that of the mistress of the nbi-flame;

 

There were no ramps and the concept is an absurdity.

Edited September 26, 2013 by cladking

[ACG52]

[Greg H.]

Good!!!

 

I must be doing something right.

No. You're really not.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

This thread seems to have run its course. Can we either introduce a new debate or the staff will consider closing it?

 

This is not a blog nor is it a place to soapbox - there seems little desire for debate.

 

Can we also forbear from comments that merely state that other posts are rubbish or nonsense - they add nothing to the debate and merely serve to antagonize.

 

 

[Ophiolite]

Cladking, I think, if I set aside your preference for absolute statements and your apparent dismissal of orthodox interpretations that you may have something of interest here. So work with me, if you will, to convince me. You can begin here.

 

Did you read the post? Better yet, did you read what the ancient people actually said?

 

If you want to hear "made up" ask an Egyptologist what these words mean. I wager you can't find two of them who agree with one another.

This should be a very easy thing for you to demonstrate. Please provide citatitions from published work by recognised Egyptologists that reflect a fundamental disagreement on the interpretation of at least one 'sentence'.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Ophiolite

[cladking]

Cladking, I think, if I set aside your preference for absolute statements and your apparent dismissal of orthodox interpretations that you may have something of interest here. So work with me, if you will, to convince me. You can begin here.

This should be a very easy thing for you to demonstrate. Please provide citatitions from published work by recognised Egyptologists that reflect a fundamental disagreement on the interpretation of at least one 'sentence'.

 

Before launching into this I need to make a few things clear. First and foremost I know very little orthodox Egyptology. There are several reasons for this but chief among them is that virtually no evidence exists from the era of great pyramid building. Yes, there are known familial relationships and pot shards. There are orientations of the dead and a great deal of information about mummies. If it was in a tomb or a grave then a lot is known but otherwise the relevent and important information simply doesn't exist. Another reason and this one may be primary, is that I intentionally avoided learing any of Egyptological interpretation until only two years ago because I was aware from the very beginning that ALL of their interpretation is wrong. Some of it is as seductive as a pod from Invasion of the Body Snathchers so I avoided it altogether. I have studied it for the last two years and find their work to often be correct in a left handed sort of way. I believe I can exclude all of their opinion which is the only reason I'm consulting it now. It has been helpful in solving some of the more arcane and esoteric concepts. It's apparent that there is some writing that must exist of which I am unaware or that some concepts from later eras are relevant to the great pyramid building age or both. This has not been a significant source for the solution of the language however: it is simply welcome help.

 

The PT is not comprehensible in its current form. The first time I read it I scratched my head a lot. Phrases and sentences make perfect sense but they simply don't tie together. Even the sentences as they stand are generally contradicted elsewhere. There is simpy no coherent meaning in modern language. Egyptologists express this by saying the book is mere incantation and magic. They say that these are spellsand prayers that were necessary to get the kinfg into heaven but they can't tell you what prayer was needed in what place or how an incantation worked or what any individualsceptre was for. There are 27 sceptres in the PT and the function nor origin of even a single one is known. There are countless icons and these are unknown as well. Even the most basic concepts like the eye of horus is wholly opaque to Egyptological understanding. They don't appreciate how opaque it is because they don't mind havinfg the meaning change from one usage to the next. The ancients wrote an incomprehensible book of incantation so why shouldn't the meaning of even the most basic terms change from instance to instance. They simply accept these dancing meanings as par for the course;

 

http://www.academia.edu/3071019/The_symbolism_of_the_Eye_of_Horus_in_the_Pyramid_Texts

 

Like most Egyptological work, this one is probably good quality but it confirms that they expect nothing to make sense without analysis and then they expect that thing to be contradicted and not partr of a coherent whole.

 

""Although we can approach its grammar in an orderly fashion (...) we are often puzzled and even frustrated by the continual appearance of exceptions to the rules."

 

This was written by Allen who is generally assumed to be the best translator alive. I have little reason to doubt this other than his work has simply revolutionized the older standards like Sethe or Mercer. It's impossible that the new translations are right if the old ones are. This change is a continuing process;

 

 

http://eegyptology.blogspot.com/2012/02/shmakov-critical-analysis-of-allens.html

 

Van Den Dungen http://maat.sofiatopia.org/wenis.htm

Furthermore, despite major grammatical discoveries, Egyptian writing is ambiguous qua grammatical form. Some of its defects can not be overcome and so a "consensus omnium" among all sign-interpreters is unlikely. The notion of "semantic circumscription" was derived from this quote by Gardiner :

"If the uncertainty involved in such tenuous distinctions awake despondency in the minds of some students, to them I would reply that our translations, though very liable to error in detail, nevertheless at the worst give a roughly adequate idea of what the ancient author intended ; we may not grasp his exact thought, indeed at times we may go seriously astray, but at least we shall have circumscribed the area within which his meaning lay, and with that achievement we must rest content."

 

I believe the difficulty would be to find two Egytologists who agree about much of anything except that the pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by superstitious people who never changed. This is why the PT are only understood in terms of a book of magic that wouldn't exist for 1250 years.

 

I believe that the fact a coherent meaning exists almost proves that this meaning was the intended meaning. If so then there was a change in the language and we are misapprehending the ancient people. The PT is no book of magic but it is a book of ritual;

 

Utterance 618.

1746a. To say: Now be still, men, hear --------------------

Indeed. it is so obviously a book of ritual that this has been one of the few areas that I seem to be making some inroads. These were rituals read to the crowds at the various ascension ceremonies for the dead king (N). As such a coherent meaning begins to appear that answers all the basic questions and many specific questions such as the nature of the sceptres and icons. But it also suggests that the Egyptians had a distinct way of speaking where meaning existed in context. It suggests a different mode of consciousness and a very sophisticated science.

This actually all makes perfect sense once you can accept it since no primitive bumpkin could ever have dragged stones up ramps to make a tomb for a king who lived eternally. The very nature of the great pyramids argue against the concept that they were built without science or through trial and error. We simply don't see it because we never looked where we needed to look.

[arc]

 

Before launching into this I need to make a few things clear. First and foremost I know very little orthodox Egyptology.

 

That is a remarkable place to begin a journey of discovery. The prior body of knowledge would give you the greatest amount of resource information. You obviously rely heavily on your own interpretation of evidence, why not subject all of the prior up to the most current research to this simple but often fruitful process.

. . . . . I intentionally avoided learing any of Egyptological interpretation until only two years ago because I was aware from the very beginning that ALL of their interpretation is wrong.

 

So you knew, rather than even assumed or suspected that it was wrong before you started. You make a definitive evaluation without reviewing the current body of accumulated study. That shows a bias of undeniable proportions.

I have studied it for the last two years and find their work to often be correct in a left handed sort of way.

 

A poor study of the prior work in any subject would produce the same results, why is your's any different? You would have to exhibit extraordinary evidence to disregard prior conclusions, do you sense you have satisfied that requirement?

 

I believe I can exclude all of their opinion which is the only reason I'm consulting it now. It has been helpful in solving some of the more arcane and esoteric concepts.

 

Sounds like what you are saying is that you can pick and choose the evidence that you find helpful to your interpretation of the evidence. Am I correct?

 

The PT is not comprehensible in its current form. The first time I read it I scratched my head a lot. Phrases and sentences make perfect sense but they simply don't tie together. Even the sentences as they stand are generally contradicted elsewhere. . . . . . . . I believe the difficulty would be to find two Egytologists who agree about much of anything . . . . .

 

Using your criteria of evaluation to make this opinion, it appears to me you have made a lateral move at best in your studies.

 

 

 

This actually all makes perfect sense once you can accept it since no primitive bumpkin could ever have dragged stones up ramps to make a tomb for a king who lived eternally.

 

I do not know of or ever read of any Egyptologist, that is any archaeologist, historian, linguist, or art historian that believes the Egyptians were any such thing.

 

I have enjoyed reading over the years the continuing discoveries about this ancient culture, beginning with the discovery as a young child in my parents attic of an original copy of the National Geographic that chronicled the 1922 discovery of Tut's tomb by Howard Carter and George Herbert. It was magnificent!

Edited September 28, 2013 by arc

[cladking]

 

That is a remarkable place to begin a journey of discovery. The prior body of knowledge would give you the greatest amount of resource information. You obviously rely heavily on your own interpretation of evidence, why not subject all of the prior up to the most current research to this simple but often fruitful process.

 

So you knew, rather than even assumed or suspected that it was wrong before you started. You make a definitive evaluation without reviewing the current body of accumulated study. That shows a bias of undeniable proportions.

 

The "current body of accumulated study" contains no evidence whatsoever related to how the pyramids were built or what they were for. Essentially "the current body of accumulated study" is an analysis of the scant evidence with the assumptions that the pyramids were tombs dragged up ramps by superstiutious and changeless people. The accumiulated study has no meaning outside of these assumptions. Don't get me wrong there is extensive expertise in the analysisof pot shards and in how bodies are arranged in their graves. This is real expertise and I don't pretend to have any of it. While I'd love to share it the fact is that it is not in any way relevent to how the pyramids were built nor is it relevent in any way to what I believe the authors' intent was in writing the PT. The assumptions are merely a framework to which they attach their knowledge and expertise but each of these assumptions is wrong.

 

The actual evidence is there for anyone to look at. There's not much but it is what I've built my theory on. There simply is no hard evidence on which to base a theory. It's ironic but looking at the evidence from the perspective of the builders meaning what they said can be a sort of "hard evidence" and it agrees with the physical evidence. I think if/ when the geysers are proven people will say it was obvious all along. Everything ties in and constitutes a sort of hard evidence. If you think about it, why shouldn't the only work that survives from the great pyramid building age that was actually found in the area of the great pyramids have hints about what the people thought and how they built pyramids? The PT simply says that to build the king you need a cool effervescent column of water and to tie the boiats together. You need to build a ladder to heaven. This ladder is visible in the gravimetric scan.

 

The only thing I find surprising is that people can't seem to consider the words of the builders might be meant literally.

 

 

 

A poor study of the prior work in any subject would produce the same results, why is your's any different? You would have to exhibit extraordinary evidence to disregard prior conclusions, do you sense you have satisfied that requirement?

 

 

Yes, it's true that my misunderstanding could lead me to believe that the correct understanding is only correct in a left handed sort of way. We are both using the exact same evidence and the exact same words to make our "conclusions". But I pointed this out largely to show that we are using the exact same evidence. It's not that Efgyptology is necessarily wrong but that they are necessarily wrong if each of their assumptions are not correct. The pyramid must be a tomb dragged up ramps by superstitious and changeless people for them to be correct. But I've debunked ramps and can show beyond doubt that the assumption they are changeless is an absurdity. I can't prove the great pyramids weren't tombs but I can show where the builders said repeatedly and coherently that they were not tombs. I can point out that there is no good quality evidence that they were tombs. An empty stone box is the best piece they have and it was reported empty by the first person known to be inside. It's impossible to show the builders were superstitious if their words are not understood. Without the assumptions they can't show they were superstitious.

 

Where Egyptologists need all the assumptions to be correct the fact is one is absurd, a second is debunked and the other two are dependent on interpretation. It's dependent on an interpretation that has failed to make any accurate predictions for 150 years.

 

Meanwhile a slightly different interpretation that must be correct in at least a left handed sort of way answers all the questions and successfully makes numerous accurate predictions. It is consistent with the literal meaning of the builders' words because the theoiry is built largely around the builders' words.

 

These are all strong implications that the new interpretation is the correct one and that the new interpretation makes accurate predictions is virtual proof.

 

 

 

Sounds like what you are saying is that you can pick and choose the evidence that you find helpful to your interpretation of the evidence. Am I correct?

 

 

 

No!!! Absolutely not.

 

I do not use any orthodox opinion to try to determine the meaning of the words. I use the orthodox opinion as a sort of roadsign for whgere to look. I've not lost sight of the fact that the experts are the ones with the real expertise. My sole expertise is the literal meaning of the PT which pales in significance to the amount of knowledge wrapped up in translation and interpretation as held by the real experts. But it should be remembered that their opinions are still wrong. Most of their knowledge is still correct but their opinions are simply wrong.

 

 

I do not know of or ever read of any Egyptologist, that is any archaeologist, historian, linguist, or art historian that believes the Egyptians were any such thing.

 

 

 

If I take your meaning, then yes, it seems like I've merely been able to interpret the PT into another form that no one else understands. But there's a huge difference here because understanding this work has allowed me to determine how they built the pyramid and given me a great deal of insight into how they thought. Much of the problem here is that the work is sorely in need of retranslation. I could publish it in a form that would be more recognizable by simple reinterpretation but the words are translated in terms of author intent. The very definition of "translation" is to put something in another language in terms of author intend so any reinterpretation I did would be putting the cart before the horse. It's seems apparent that there is a little fundamental problem even with the translation of words.

 

I've barely scratched the surface and it will take decades of intensive study by many people to make much sense of all this. It has profound implications across the board. It deserves a lot more effort to reconstruct human history than one person working with google. Meanwhile Egyptology simply won't do even the most basic science and there seems no clamor to get them to do so. Thje status quo is so deeply entrenched that no change is even possible. They won't do science because they are apparently afraid of the results and meanwhile they hold these sites hostage and won't let anyone do any science.

[Moontanman]

I feel the same way about UFOs...

[cladking]

 

 

 

I do not know of or ever read of any Egyptologist, that is any archaeologist, historian, linguist, or art historian that believes the Egyptians were any such thing.

 

 

 

 

Of course Egyptologists think the ancients were superstitious. They won't say they think they were stinky footed bumpkins but they interpret teir words in ways that only stinky footed bumpkins would have expressed them. They won't say the ancients were superstitious and moribound with religious beliefs but they will say everything they said andf did was related to incantation and religion. Everything at Giza is said to have religious significance. Essentially they describe a duck in exquisite detail and then pronounce it a beautiful swan.

 

The ancient people were exactly like us except they spoke and thought differently. Egyptologists project their own beliefs and their own thoughts onto the builders.

[Ringer]

Of course Egyptologists think the ancients were superstitious.

This statement

 

The ancient people were exactly like us except they spoke and thought differently.

Leads to this exact same conclusion.

[cladking]

 

This statement

 

 

Leads to this exact same conclusion.

 

I believe you're assuming that modern people and modern beliefs constitute the pinnacle of human existence. We are hardly infalible and omniscient while most men lead lives of quiet desperation. We waste more resources than we use and seek ever more ways to destroy ourselves. But this is really beside the point since the point is much more that there are probably many ways to deal with nature and form societies. That we believe the ancients were superstitious doesn't affect them. These people lived and died long before we formed an opinion of them and their work.

 

To show just how wrong our opinion of these people really is let me show some more evidence that the only work that survives is actually a book of ritual rather than magic and incantation as Egyptologists imagine.

 

This is "spell #29" which is actually the Coffin Texts which is a "part" of the PT;

 

"Be silent, be silent O men! Hearken, Hearken O men! Hear it, this great word..."

 

Sometimes I'm just astounded trhat words such as these can be misinterpreted. But it doesn't end here. There are also numerous instructions to the "priest/ scientist" that are read to the crowds. Literally hundreds of these exist but I'll just show a few to make the point;

 

23b. To say four times, when thou goest forth justified: Libation; two pellets of natron.

 

51b. Osiris N., take to thyself the eye of Horus, which is united with him. Nhnm-oil.

 

87d. To say four times: For N., a lifting up of the offering, four times. Two baskets of npȝ.t.

 

These all read as rituals once they are actually understood. There are no spells and no magic. There is no religion except in the minds of those who try to read these as prose. The ancients said exactly what they believed in;

 

1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris.

 

The w3g-festival was held in the specific uplands called Giza (Rosteau). The inundation came at the beginning of pyramid building season and it tossed on the Giza Plateau;

 

1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses;

1554a. (but) the marshes laugh; the shores are become green;

1554b. the divine offerings descend; the face of men brightens; the heart of the gods rejoices.

 

The inundation is violently tossed into the air and then descends. This stuff just isn't that complicated.

 

That the ancient people studied nature shows exactly how they managed to invent agriculture and cities. People just aren't that smart and wouldn't have stumbled into such complexity. The nature of the language shows how the meaning was lost and still eludes Egyptologists even when you tie it up with a bow (or sky arc if you prefer) and give it to them. Everything we think we know about ancient times is probably mostly all wrong.

[EdEarl]

Poems and songs helped to reduce the number of errors in historic stories, because the rhyme and rhythm make changes difficult and aid memory.

[Ringer]

I believe you're assuming that modern people and modern beliefs constitute the pinnacle of human existence. We are hardly infalible and omniscient while most men lead lives of quiet desperation. We waste more resources than we use and seek ever more ways to destroy ourselves. But this is really beside the point since the point is much more that there are probably many ways to deal with nature and form societies. That we believe the ancients were superstitious doesn't affect them. These people lived and died long before we formed an opinion of them and their work.

Actually I'm not assuming that at all. What I am saying is that throughout history and continuing into modern times the vast majority of people are superstitious.

 

To show just how wrong our opinion of these people really is let me show some more evidence that the only work that survives is actually a book of ritual rather than magic and incantation as Egyptologists imagine.

Two things, first you don't know what my opinion is. Second, almost all religious texts can be considered books of rituals, so saying that doesn't make the book not about magic and incantations.

[cladking]

Actually I'm not assuming that at all. What I am saying is that throughout history and continuing into modern times the vast majority of people are superstitious.

 

 

Well, I could more readily agree if you said "all" people are superstitious but we're in close agreement.

Two things, first you don't know what my opinion is. Second, almost all religious texts can be considered books of rituals, so saying that doesn't make the book not about magic and incantations.

 

 

Apparently I don't.

 

I don't see the connection between religious books and ritual. Certainly vocabulary, ritual, and icons are associated with religion but this doesn't make the Bible or any of its books "ritual".

 

Meanwhile every single word in the PT appear to plainly be ritual and not one single incantation or prayer is involved. Egyptologists have totally misapprehended the only writing that survives from ancient times. This means they have most probably misunderstood the people who wrote them and their beliefs. It is apparent these people were scientific and used science to accomplish their feats rather than magic or religion.

 

Shouldn't this be considered the logical viewpoint? If they said they added natron to geysers to make them erupt then why should we assume they are casting spells or praying rather than using simple observation?

 

1024a. His name lives on account of natron-offerings and he is divine.

 

765a. To say: O Osiris N., take to thyself this thy libation, which is offered to thee by Horus,

765b. in thy name of "He who is come from the cataract"; take to thyself thy natron that thou mayest be divine.

 

"Cataract" is a poor translation and should be "cool watery region".

 

765c. Thy mother Nut has made thee to be as a god to thine enemy (or, in spite of thee), in thy name of "God."

766a. Take to thyself the efflux which goes forth from thee.

 

The "efflux" is "I3.t-wt.t" which is CO2 (risings begetter)

 

...

 

767a. Ḥr-rnp.wi recognizes thee, for thou art made young again, ill this thy name of "Fresh water."

 

This is "fresh water" that arises with CO2 when natron (sodium decahydrate) is added to it.

 

The evidence is simply overwhelming in light of the fact that the Pyramid Texts in internally consistent and makes accurate predictions about things that exist at Giza and have existed in the past. Egyptology has simply been inventing ever more ways to say "they mustta used ramps" for over a century now. This is an absurdity and is counterevidenced. Ramps are debunked and Egyptology has buried their heads in the sand. There are several ways the pyramids could have been built and the PT is in agreement with one of them. Until there is pressure on them to do real science they will continue to stonewall and hold the sites hostage.

 

On one hand we have "they mustta used ramps" and on the other is the evidence. The evidence says our ancestors were highly sophisticated and were not very superstitious. It suggests that it is we who are superstitious.

[arc]

 

 

This is "spell #29" which is actually the Coffin Texts which is a "part" of the PT;

 

"Be silent, be silent O men! Hearken, Hearken O men! Hear it, this great word..."

 

Sometimes I'm just astounded trhat words such as these can be misinterpreted. But it doesn't end here. There are also numerous instructions to the "priest/ scientist" that are read to the crowds. Literally hundreds of these exist but I'll just show a few to make the point;

 

23b. To say four times, when thou goest forth justified: Libation; two pellets of natron.

 

51b. Osiris N., take to thyself the eye of Horus, which is united with him. Nhnm-oil.

 

87d. To say four times: For N., a lifting up of the offering, four times. Two baskets of npȝ.t.

 

These all read as rituals once they are actually understood. There are no spells and no magic. There is no religion except in the minds of those who try to read these as prose. The ancients said exactly what they believed in;

 

1944a. + 2 (Nt. 777). The time of inundation comes, the wȝg-festival comes, to the uplands, it comes as Osiris.

 

The w3g-festival was held in the specific uplands called Giza (Rosteau). The inundation came at the beginning of pyramid building season and it tossed on the Giza Plateau;

 

1553b. They tremble who see the inundation (when) it tosses;

1554a. (but) the marshes laugh; the shores are become green;

1554b. the divine offerings descend; the face of men brightens; the heart of the gods rejoices.

 

The inundation is violently tossed into the air and then descends. This stuff just isn't that complicated.

 

That the ancient people studied nature shows exactly how they managed to invent agriculture and cities. People just aren't that smart and wouldn't have stumbled into such complexity. The nature of the language shows how the meaning was lost and still eludes Egyptologists even when you tie it up with a bow (or sky arc if you prefer) and give it to them. Everything we think we know about ancient times is probably mostly all wrong.

 

 

 

Well, I could more readily agree if you said "all" people are superstitious but we're in close agreement.

 

Apparently I don't.

 

I don't see the connection between religious books and ritual. Certainly vocabulary, ritual, and icons are associated with religion but this doesn't make the Bible or any of its books "ritual".

 

Meanwhile every single word in the PT appear to plainly be ritual and not one single incantation or prayer is involved. Egyptologists have totally misapprehended the only writing that survives from ancient times. This means they have most probably misunderstood the people who wrote them and their beliefs. It is apparent these people were scientific and used science to accomplish their feats rather than magic or religion.

 

Shouldn't this be considered the logical viewpoint? If they said they added natron to geysers to make them erupt then why should we assume they are casting spells or praying rather than using simple observation?

 

1024a. His name lives on account of natron-offerings and he is divine.

 

765a. To say: O Osiris N., take to thyself this thy libation, which is offered to thee by Horus,

765b. in thy name of "He who is come from the cataract"; take to thyself thy natron that thou mayest be divine.

 

"Cataract" is a poor translation and should be "cool watery region".

 

765c. Thy mother Nut has made thee to be as a god to thine enemy (or, in spite of thee), in thy name of "God."

766a. Take to thyself the efflux which goes forth from thee.

 

The "efflux" is "I3.t-wt.t" which is CO2 (risings begetter)

 

...

 

767a. Ḥr-rnp.wi recognizes thee, for thou art made young again, ill this thy name of "Fresh water."

 

This is "fresh water" that arises with CO2 when natron (sodium decahydrate) is added to it.

 

The evidence is simply overwhelming in light of the fact that the Pyramid Texts in internally consistent and makes accurate predictions about things that exist at Giza and have existed in the past. Egyptology has simply been inventing ever more ways to say "they mustta used ramps" for over a century now. This is an absurdity and is counterevidenced. Ramps are debunked and Egyptology has buried their heads in the sand. There are several ways the pyramids could have been built and the PT is in agreement with one of them. Until there is pressure on them to do real science they will continue to stonewall and hold the sites hostage.

 

On one hand we have "they mustta used ramps" and on the other is the evidence. The evidence says our ancestors were highly sophisticated and were not very superstitious. It suggests that it is we who are superstitious.

 

Your references to the seasonal use of the Nile floods for construction seems vague, it instead seems to reference the already well understood celebrations that occurred to mark the floods arrival. The current research has a good grasp of the canals and the heavy transport capabilities that the ancients possessed.

 

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071024-ancient-egypt.html

 

Ancient artwork shows Egyptians using boats or barges to move large monuments like obelisks and statues, and canals have also been discovered at the Giza pyramids and the Luxor Temple. (Related: "Ancient Flowers Found in Egypt Coffin" [June 29, 2006].)

 

And a well-known unfinished obelisk at the quarry is thought to weigh more than 1,100 tons. It was the largest such monument ever attempted but was abandoned after latent cracks emerged, revealing a rare glimpse of ancient construction practices.

 

"If they had just been using rollers and dragging things each time, everything would have been much more time-consuming and far slower."

 

Experts said the canal likely filled in with water during the one of the Nile's annual floods. Workers would have dragged the large stone monuments onto rafts at a point below the floodwater level, allowing the artifacts to float when the water level rose.

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

The Great Pyramid consists of an estimated 2.3 million limestone blocks with most believed to have been transported from nearby quarries. The Tura limestone used for the casing was quarried across the river. The largest granite stones in the pyramid, found in the "King's" chamber, weigh 25 to 80 tonnes and were transported from Aswan, more than 800 km (497 mi) away. Traditionally, ancient Egyptians cut stone blocks by hammering wooden wedges into the stone which were then soaked with water. As the water was absorbed, the wedges expanded, causing the rock to crack. Once they were cut, they were carried by boat either up or down the Nile River to the pyramid.^[15] It is estimated that 5.5 million tonnes of limestone, 8,000 tonnes of granite (imported from Aswan), and 500,000 tonnes of mortar were used in the construction of the Great Pyramid.^[16]

You need to show in technical detail how these 25 to 80 ton stones were raise to their position using your thesis' explanation.

Diagram of great pyramid by Jeff Dahl who has no connection to me or this post.

 

The use of water to lift a specified load, such as in the common practice of shipping through locks, requires the locks capacity to allow the displacement of a volume of water equal in weight the same or more than the weight of the ship and cargo. If the sides of the locks are not high enough the water will just spill over as the ship displaces the water.

 

The ship or barge must also be capable of displacing slightly more than its own gross weight, ship + cargo, of water to be able to float. Granite is very dense compared to an equal weight in water, the barge must mitigate this difference by increased dry volume that displaces in water what is equal to or more than the granite and barge's gross weight.

 

If this is similar to what you have devised, the engineering complexity of constructing this for lifting the massive blocks far surpasses that of the pyramids. I believe the amount of time,work and technology involved would far exceed the benefits.

[cladking]

Building great pyramids was simplicity itself. Of course they invented this process and improved on it over a 750 year period from about 3500 BC to 2750 BC. By the time the last great pyramids were built many bells and whistles had been invented to increase their efficiency and lifting capabilities. The basic concept was completed by Imhotep in the construction of the so-called "Djoser's Pyramid". Essentially they simply caught water spraying up from a geyser near the top of its trajectory and channeled it onto the pyramid top. Here it was funneled into a counterweight hanging over the side. This counterweight was attached to asled full of stones (on the ground) by a rope draped all the way over the pyramid. The counterweight filled and became heavy enough to lift the sled of stones.

 

Over the centuries they invented many things to improve the efficiency and improve the reliability of the equipment. They built all these pyramids in five steps because they had to lift stones one step at a time. With G1 they built a high platform on the south side because the work involved in rigging and rerigging the huge numbers of stones still needed at the higher levels was onerous. With a platform at 81' 3" they could lift many of the stones 162' 6" at a time and greatly reduce rigging. They invented a handy device for loading the stones from a single point onto to the sled. This device worked by submerging floats in the water to push up on the sled. Each time they added a stone to the sled it would sink the height of a stone so they could easily just put another stone on top until it was loaded. They had various automatic signalling devices to let the workers know the water conditions. It appears that some water was lifted manually between 70' and 140' and even to 162.5'

 

Lifting the heavier stones was not a particular ordeal simply because the counterweights could be used in tandem. I should add that the estimate of the amount of granite in G1 is probably grossly understated. It is apparent that they preferred granite for their canals and these would have been left where they lay inside the structure. The device that caught the water was dismantled and granite was likely used for the so-called king's chamber but most of it was turah limestone that was used for cladding. Once they lifted something it stayed lifted. Much of the infrastructure needed to build this was turah limestone so they could keep the quarry busy for 20 years instead of suddenly ramping production to astronomical levels. As the project wound down these structures were canibalized for stone. There were no "religious structures" and nothing was built for "religious reasons". This project was done "industrially" and very efficiently. This is what all the evidence suggests.

 

Egyptologists append the facts to a failed paradigm. They present the tiny amount of real data available in terms consistent with their own beliefs that the ancients were stinky footed bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps and never changed. These assumptions are simply wrong. It's absurd to believe they never ckhanged but without this assumption they can't even read the language. Ramps are utterly debunked as a means to have raised these stones. There's no evidence that the people were religious or believed in magic other than interpretation basesd on the belief the people never changed. The writing isn't understood so it is not legitimate to make conclusions about its authors. There is some physical evidence to suggest these were tombs but it's weak evidence and the builders distinctly, repeatedly, and coherently said they were not tombs. There is no solid evidence to contradict the builders. When any of these foundational assumptions is removed the entire paradigm collapses. So far they seem to want to deal with this by ignoring it.

 

If the builders really meant what they said then there are profound implications. It will certainly change our opinion of the ancient Egyptians and their predecessors since this knowledge would have required a very long time to accrue. The Egyptians could not possibly have started from square one and there must have been many millinea of human progress.

[cladking]

 

Your references to the seasonal use of the Nile floods for construction seems vague, it instead seems to reference the already well understood celebrations that occurred to mark the floods arrival. The current research has a good grasp of the canals and the heavy transport capabilities that the ancients possessed.

 

 

 

Most people don't realize just how thin the evidence is or how much of it has to be ignored to make the current paradigm seem reasonable. Many of the arguments against the paradigm are poorly made or based on nearly no evidence at all so there is a knee-jerk reaction to merely deal with any idea that doesn't fit the assumptions. One of the more dramatic pieces of evidence is that each of the great pyramids was built on top of a flat area surrounded by a dam which was waterproof. This is called a "religious device" by Egyptologists who claim it was necessary to religious expression. It appears to have been called "Ssmt.t" by the builders and is erroneously translated as "sacred apron". This concept doesn't apply to the device surrounding the pyramids and built even before the pyramid but is something else in Egyptology. At least one theory is that the sacred apron was worn by the gods.

 

But the facts tell a different story. Not only is this "apron" necessary and "integral" to the operation of the pyramid and the ability to build it but there is physical evidence that it was actually used.

 

"From this remarkable forking, it [p. 50] is evident that the trench cannot have been made with any ideas of sighting along it, or of its marking out a direction or azimuth; and, starting as it does, from the basalt pavement (or from any building which stood there), and running with a steady fall to the nearest point of the cliff edge, it seems exactly as if intended for a drain; the more so as there is plainly a good deal of water-weanng at a point where it falls sharply, at its enlargement."

 

http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c6.html

 

This is the kind of thing you have to deal with when studying these structures.

 

]http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4118/65616424.80/0_8e7fb_27e063ee_XXL.jpeg

[cladking]

 

This should be a very easy thing for you to demonstrate. Please provide citatitions from published work by recognised Egyptologists that reflect a fundamental disagreement on the interpretation of at least one 'sentence'.

 

At the risk of belaboring a point, here is something I just found written by E A Wallis Budge in 1911 in an introduction to one of his translations;

 

"The Egyptian texts, whether the originals be written in hieroglyphic or hieratic characters, are here printed in hieroglyphic type, and are arranged with English translations, page for page. They are printed as they are written in the original documents, i.e., the words are not divided. The beginner will find the practice of dividing the words for himself most useful in acquiring facility of reading and understanding the language. The translations are as literal as can reasonably be expected, and, as a whole, I believe that they mean what the original writers intended to say. In the case of passages where the text is corrupt, and readings are mixed, or where very rare words occur, or where words are omitted, the renderings given claim to be nothing more than suggestions as to their meanings. It must be remembered that the exact meanings of many Egyptian words have still to be

p. vii

ascertained, and that the ancient Egyptian scribes were as much puzzled as we are by some of the texts which they copied, and that owing to carelessness, ignorance, or weariness, or all three, they made blunders which the modern student is unable to correct."

 

I believe that he's translating material that was translated by older translators after 2000 BC. If the original source material were still available it would be just as incomprehensible and enigmatic as the Pyramid Texts which is essentially the only surviving writing from before 2000 BC (with the previously mentioned exceptions). The ancient translators simply would have made the same errors as we do today. This material is basically understandable in terms of a literal understanding. For instance they describe the cow that channeled the celestial waters from the perspective of the pyramid top.

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/leg/index.htm

 

Egyptologists write entire books about their interpretations of the PT so comparing their various ideas is extremely difficult. Suffice to say even the translation of the PT has evolved so much in the last sixty years that it's literally unrecognizable in many areas. That is English translations from today don't even appear to translate the same thing as English translations from 1952. There just isn't a lot of agreement on much of anything and the general understanding of the "religion" continues to evolve. Budge, himself, who was once considered among the best Egyptologists is now excommunicated and never cited. This has happened to a lesser degree to other great Egyptologists. All of the historians are discounted.