Chris Tedder Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> AS: "Please document the AE sources that say the
> sun was recognized as the equivalent of a star."
>
>
> The Sun was the brightest star in their sky - that
> is a fact and is not up for discussion.



I asked you for a cited source... not a profession of dogmatic belief.

Facts are the one thing we can discuss here at Ma'at. If you take that off the table, what's left?



>
>
> I do not claim the AE thought the Sun was the
> brightest star in their sky, so there is no need
> for me to document AE sources.


You just said it was a fact and there was no further discussion. Perhaps I can refresh your memory by providing your original statement that you made here: [www.hallofmaat.com]

Quote

the daytime sky was dominated by the brightest star in their sky - the Sun (ra).

I'm not quite sure how you can reconcile those two comments. Either they thought it or they did not. If they did, you have to provide evidence. If they did not, then you cannot compare the sun to a star.

We are, after all, talking about what the Egyptians saw in their sky... not what we see.






>
> However, I have given this issue some thought, and
> it turns out its an interesting field of study.
> Some texts concerning Horus, and some depictions,
> seem to suggest the AE did indeed think of the Sun
> as the brightest star in their sky, but a lot more
> research needs to done on this before I reach any
> conclusions.


Then perhaps you shouldn't have stated it as a fact and that there was no more need for discussion on the topic?





>
>
> AS: "The AE sources said they were swallowed by
> Nut... not "still there but overwhelmed by Re". If
> you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see
> it."
>
>
>
> You are getting yourself into an unneccessary
> muddle - unnecessary because I explained this very
> carefully in my initial post - here it is again:
>
>
> "Three aspects of the disappearance of stars
> should be noted:
>
> 1. stars disappear when they set below the western
> horizon - this phenomena necessitated an
> explanation that was incorporated into AE funerary
> rituals.
>
> 2. stars had to 'travel' from the western horizon
> back to the eastern horizon - this phenomena
> necessitated explanations that were incorporated
> into AE afterlife beliefs.
>
> 3. stars gradually faded from sight as the Sun
> rose."
>
>
>
> You are confusing 1 with 3.

I'm not confused at all. I am not the one suggesting the AEs saw things they never documented in their texts.







>
>
>
> But my question does not concern setting stars,
> but stars that filled the whole sky when the Sun
> rose and whose lights were gradually overwhelmed
> by the glare of the Sun.
>
>
> "The glare of the Sun's light gradually
> overwhelmed the light of the other stars so they
> were not visible, but the stars were still in the
> sky - if not - where were they?"
>
>
> Are you able to answer the question?
>


It is not my answer that matters, but theirs. If they did not provide one, you are not then free to make one up because it suits a defunct correlationist theory.


>
>
> >btw Unis 'sent off' the hour-stars.
>
> AS: "Yes. That does not mean they are still
> there, though. It means they were sent off. The
> meaning seems quite understandable."
>
>
>
> Well if its so understandable why don't you
> explain what you think it means?


They were dispatched to the Duat. That's all. There doesn't have to be a logic in a belief. In fact, they are quite contradictory in nature. Researching the beliefs and creating an argument regarding those beliefs needs logic, but the beliefs themselves do not have to address our ideas of a logical universe in order for the ancient Egyptians to have accepted them. That is where logic does not apply (despite people constantly trying to tell me I am forcing modern logic onto Egyptian beliefs, they all seem to miss this very important point and are obviously wrong in their assertions).



>
>
> Here is a one scholar's explanation:
>
> Faulkner's translation: "the King has dispatched
> the hours;" Faulkners note: "i.e. has brought
> the time-marking stars into view in a clear sky;
> for this sense of Dsr compare Dsr pt xaa Axtyw
> 'the sky is cleared and the horizon dwellers
> rejoice', CT i, 223a; similarly in the sense of
> 'clearing a road, ibid. 223e........"


Absolutely. That doesn't mean they were there... it means they were specifically BROUGHT there from somewhere else.

Thank you for providing the "scholarly" rebuttal of your assertion.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.