Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick Baudé Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If they were written over a period of
> "centuries"
> > wouldn't we have at least fragments of
> various
> > prayers from here and there from the
> previous
> > centuries?
>
>
> Not if they were only on papyrus in heavily
> secured places within the temples. They probably
> would have been the first things looted... and
> later destroyed.
>

At the risk of detonating the "fallacy bomb". You're "arguing from silence" on this one. How do we know the temples were "heavily secured". What were they armed with? Spears? AK-47's? No the first things that would have been looted would have been the gold statues, then the copper statues, then any gemstones, then any tools hammers, chisels, next the crowds would have stolen the fine china and any furniture they could carry away, but a bunch of illegible texts would have been last. AFAIK we have a variety of papyrus fragments, inscribed mastabas, lots of seals with various one line messages on them. But no PT texts outside of the pyramids. And we have four dyansties of pyramids before them and not a SINGLE line of any kind of inscription on them. Maybe because the PT's hadn't been written yet. Food for thought as Don Barone says.
>
> AFAIK we don't have a thing. The PT's
> > show up "All-at-once" in Una's tomb. I know
> about
> > changes in grammar and the texts themselves
> are
> > subtly transformed from one tomb to the next
> which
> > would be normal considering the fact that
> they
> > were probably working in the dark and didn't
> have
> > any word processors to copy texts with. So
> IMO it
> > doesn't flatly rule out the single author
> > conjecture. Consider the Book of Mormon,
> the
> > Koran, the Five Books of Moses, etc. all
> > supposedly the work of a single person.
>
>
> No, it's not that the grammar changes from tomb to
> tomb, but some of the grammar is very old by the
> time it first appears, matching grammar used in
> other contexts that is much older. Some of the
> texts, however, us grammar that is relatively
> new.

True, but this could have been an inserted text such as "to be or not to be" would be an inserted phrase from an older text into this message. I know that the AE's were good at archaizing texts when they wanted too.
>
> The problem lies in deciding how they might have
> altered older documents to serve newer purposes.
> The inclusion of sAH, for example, in the Cannibal
> Hymn, may not be an original element. That's the
> tough part.
>
>
I don't doubt that once the texts were written that they were instantly altered, but I still can't help but wonder if the were the result of a single author or editor.
I agree.
>
>
>
> Anthony
>
>
> [www.GizaBuildingProject.com]
>
Quote:"Men are apt to mistake the strength of
> their feeling for the strength of their argument.
> The heated mind resents the chill touch and
> relentless scrutiny of logic." -- William E.
> Gladstone
>
> For magic is so mixed up with the world's history
> that, if the latter is ever to be written at all
> in its completeness, giving the truth and nothing
> but the truth, there seems to be no help for it.
> If Archaeology counts still upon discoveries and
> reports upon hieratic writings that will be free
> from the hateful subject, then HISTORY will never
> be written, we fear.-- H.P. Blavatsky
>