Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I found there to be sufficient information to
> establish and reinforce a spiritual worldview.
> Why are you relying on 40 year old books when
> there are ones published in the last five that
> have much of the latest discoveries?

I have access to these.

There have been no revolutionary changes in Egyptology in some time so
it would seem older references should still be mostly accurate. They
said there was almost nothing as recently as 1982. Surely I'm not to
believe that we've gone from "almost nothing" to conclusive proof of all
these theories in so brief a time?

> If there are only two, then you are definitely
> reading outdated material. Again, like Mercer,
> you see why these old sources are simply
> unreliable for the foundation of any worthwhile
> theorizing.

There isn't a great deal of source material. This was true in 1969 and
I seriously doubt it has changed much since.

> If you think that, then you are once again
> proceeding from a false assumption. The spell
> texts were part of large libraries of magical
> spells. The texts found in the pyramids to help
> the soul of the king traverse the underworld are a
> fraction of these spells and incantations.
>
> Proceeding from a false assumption will never get
> you close to the ultimate truth of the matter.

This is interesting. I suppose you're just talking about the similar
things found inscribed in the tombs. While this material is interesting
I believe, it is mostly just derived from the PT or from the same source.

> Your preconceived conclusion, combined with this
> artificial limitation of the evidence, precludes
> your conclusion from being even close to right.

My conclusion is hardly preconcieved.

The fact is even a wild guess can be correct where detailed study is wrong.

> > I intend to go ahead and read The Complete
> > Pyramids anyway though
> > I don't expect to find much usable
> information.
>
>
> Is that your way of saying, "Don't confuse me with
> facts"?

No. It's my way of saying I expect to see mostly opinion and a very thin
soup of facts that are mostly irrelevant to the issue and/ or I already know.

> It contains real Egyptology. If you want chemical
> breakdowns, go argue with Davidovits. He'll prove
> you are wrong using your own methodology. How can
> you argue with that?

All he can give me are the limestone data and some of it is suspect because
of his collection techniques.




____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2009 04:24PM by cladking.