Last round, then I have work to do.
MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, once again, you are saying the King’s
> mummified body was not absolutely necessary.
> In which case, if there was no mummified body of
> the King to bury, the pyramid would have served as
> a symbolic burial place and not an actual burial
> place.
If there was a body, then there were very specific rules for taking care of it. If, in the unfortunate event, a body was not available, then the tomb would suffice on its own. Under no circumstances were the structures built with the intent to NOT put a body in them.
>
>
> You write, ‘It's a constant battle with the gods
> who have their own designs on our fate.’
>
> ‘Our fate’? Don’t you mean the AEs fate?
I was wondering if you'd catch that....
>
>
> I wrote, ‘I am referring specifically to the
> pharaonic pyramids of the 1st to 3rd Dyns.
> Are you?’
>
> You reply, ‘Absolutely not.
> First, there were no pharaohs in Dynasty 1 through
> 3.
> Secondly, there were no pyramids in Dynasty 1
> through 2.
> Would you like to rephrase the question?’
>
> Certainly.
> I am referring specifically to the Kings’ pyramids
> of the 3rd Dyns.
> Are you?
>
> Happy now…?
LOL
What were you asking about them again?
>
>
> You write, 'You're welcome to hunt down those who
> disagree. I'd be interested in seeing their
> perspectives on it.'
>
> Do you know of any Egyptologists who disagree?
Nope. Doesn't mean they aren't out there, though.
>
>
> You write, ‘It is the only logical conclusion that
> includes ALL the data we currently possess. Again,
> I welcome a better idea, but that's a pretty tall
> order.’
>
> Being a ‘logical conclusion’ does not make it
> right.
But being the logical conclusion that includes the most data makes it the MOST right, and in science, that's the best you can hope for.
> And does ‘ALL the data’ include studies of how the
> pyramids’ interiors were designed?
> If not, why not?
It includes a lot more than that. It includes all the cultural "rules" for design that are known from the era. What it does NOT include is mathematical superimpositions from OTHER eras... and other cultures.
>
>
>
> But as you pointed out recently, this pre-Unas
> text evidence is fragmentary and difficult to make
> sense of.
> Have you anything better?
It's no more "difficult" or "broken up" than the Pyramid Texts.
>
>
> You write, ‘They're not books. They're peer
> reviewed articles.’
>
> Well, they must be right, then.
No, it's just that you were wrong thinking they were books. I was correcting your mistake.
>
>
> In response to my, ‘What complete and utter
> nonsense!’, you write, ‘Agreed! Just like "a
> pyramid's sarcophagus wasn't meant to hold a
> body!’
>
> Yet here you are suggesting that it was not
> actually necessary for the mummified body of the
> King to be interred in the sarcophagus inside his
> pyramid.
It was absolutely necessary if the body was available. You're getting into semantics and wasting my time.
> Now, if it was not absolutely necessary, it is
> only a short step to: the pyramid was a symbolic
> burial place.
No, that's a huge jump, and one that is as absurd as Captain Kirk beaming the bodies out.
> I find it mildly interesting that folks such as
> yourself and Kat (among others) are happy to
> accept that the AEs were happy to wallow up to
> their necks in symbolism (a.k.a. mythology and
> religion), yet baulk at the idea of a pyramid
> being a symbolic tomb.
Yawn.
Where's the REAL tomb, then?
>
>
> You write, ‘Until you provide MORE cultural
> information, and then assemble it in a better
> manner, you've got nothing to add.’
>
> I let your comment speak for itself, Anthony.
Thank you.
>
>
> You write, ‘3. They don't know they understand it
> correctly. They only know that as of this moment
> they aren't committing any heinous errors of
> methodology in accepting what they do.’
>
> Well, there you go. The methodology is okay; and
> that is all that really matters.
The methodology and the facts are okay. Most alternative histories fail in either or both of these areas.
> Are you saying that whether their theories are
> right or not is of secondary concern.
>
Semantics. Please be respectful of my time.
>
> I wasn’t aware I was raising any arguments.
> I am questioning the perceived wisdoms.
> Always question, question, question…
Suggesting that the pyramids were not built to hold the bodies of the kings is an alternative history, and you are presenting it here as an argument.
>
> You argue that it was not essential for a King’s
> mummified body to be buried in a sarcophagus in
> his pyramid; and you obviously do not see this as
> an “alternatives” theory.
Nope. It's a rational conclusion for what happens when the body is lost.
> So, a pyramid could have been sealed up with an
> empty sarcophagus inside it.
Obviously. They were found that way, weren't they?
> If an empty sarcophagus inside a sealed pyramid is
> not a symbolic burial, perhaps you can explain
> what it is.
>
It's a burial of the other elements of the king that were available. You're talking about ultimate use versus initial intent. Two different subjects. Not interchangeable.
>
>
> You assert that tomb robbers broke open Khufu’s
> coffer.
> You have no evidence to support this assertion.
Please. There is ample evidence so long as you are open minded enough to see it for what it is.
> The worst of the damage we see in this coffer (the
> SE corner at the top) was inflicted in the 1800s.
Evidence?
> Much of what some see as damage to the coffer is
> actually the result of poor workmanship.
I don't think so.
> And it is mostly by comparing this coffer to
> others that this is known.
How many others do we have from the sons of Sneferu?
Do you know how new sarcophagi were at that time in Egyptian history?
>
> Again, the worst of the damage we see in this
> coffer (the SE corner at the top) was inflicted in
> the 1800s.
> If the source of the info is not in the books by
> Piazzi Smyth or the Edgar brothers (of which I
> have copies to hand and will search through
> later), then I must ask you to look through your
> copies of The Great Pyramid. Its Divine Message by
> D. Davidson and H. Aldersmith, and Pyramidology
> Vols I to IV by A. Rutherford.
> I have yet to read mention of this damage in more
> recent books, etc., on the GP.
Sorry. I have Smythe, but those works are not on my shelf. Let me know what books really have it, and I'll take a look. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to post your argument here.
> You write, 'They are recorded histories of entry
> into the pyramid. Of course they must be taken
> with a sceptical grain of salt, but they are
> recorded history of the structures in question,
> nonetheless.'
>
> So, are they or are they not valid evidence for
> the GP having contained Khufu's mummified remains?
Excellent question. I personal assessment is "no"... but I have my own reasons that will stay with me for now. Sorry 'bout that.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.