cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hans Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > No I didn't I was referring to what was then
> known
> > about the ancient Egyptian culture and religion
> as
> > noted by ancient Greek and Roman writers.
>
> Nothing about the ancient hieroglyphs or their
> writers were known in antiquity. Nothing was
> known by Champollion or Young about the ancient
> glyphs which weren't found until 1882.

Ah, Sam are you now trying to pretend Herodotus (c. 485-430 B.C.) didn't write the first comprehensive history of Egypt?

Sorry I cannot make you read the Greek and Roman authors and what they said about the Egyptians and their culture. However the translators of the language did read those materials and knew the basics of the Egyptian religion and culture. Its your loss and your not knowing that makes your poorly formed opinion imminently forgettable.
>
> > There is no evidence to conclude that the
> culture
> > of Egypt did completely change between the time
> > the PT were written and the Rosetta Stone.
>
> So?

It means your pretense that they were all super intelligence Spock like creatures who suddenly became human in 2000 BCE is complete BS.
>
> > No evidence exist that shows the hieroglyphs of
> > the great pyramid builder have not been solved
> > correctly.
>
> Of course it exists and it was in the very post
> you neglected to read and then ignored in your
> comments.

That was just your un-evidenced opinion and of no value. Words you speak aren't evidence.
>
> > As pointed out to numerous times they had
> > abstractions, and that the entire AE language
> IS
> > NOT included in the limited vocabulary of the
> PT.
> > You are just making the same tired, boring
> > unsupported claims you've made for 15 years and
> > endlessly repeated - without evidence.
>
> You maintain "neter" means "an imaginary
> consciousness that controls mans' destiny and I
> maintain it is mistranslated and means "natural
> phenomena".

That's nice but then you cannot speak the language nor have shown why your amateur opinion should be considered?

You are just making the same tired, boring unsupported claims you've made for 15 years and endlessly repeated - without evidence.

You'll have to do better to identify
> a real abstraction. Even if you ever find one
> you'll need to explain how most of our words have
> a the quality of being an abstraction and this
> does not apply to the glyphs which break Zipf's
> Law and Heap's Law and contains too few words to
> communicate even simple ideas. You'll need to
> explain why all the writing is "religious" and
> "magical".

We both know you don't even understand Zipf and Heap so why keep bringing them up?

Done by AE long ago - and as noted to you 'long ago' that you are trying to making conclusion using a tiny portion of the ancient language and not the full one- a fools errands.

We are still waiting for your opus on explaining why the AE religion, magic, and culture didn't exist in your bizarre version of ancient Egypt. Your opinions on this have been rejected for being amateurish prattle.

1039a. To say: Greetings to you, Waters, which were brought by Shu and lifted up by the two sources,

1039b. in which Geb bathed his limbs,

1039c. so that hearts were in the following of fear and hearts were in the following of terror.

[www.sacred-texts.com]

Fear and terror? What are those then?

Sure look at the above isn't 'hearts' an abstractions? Are you saying they were talking about blood pumping hearts there? LOL

> You'll now ignore each of these simple points as
> you have several times before and accuse me of
> being repetitious,.

Being boring and repeating yourself endless while screaming the same opinion over and over again has been really successful hasn't it Cladking?

>Why not reply on-topic?

There is nothing to reply too that hasn't been hundreds of times - you don't understand them.

> You'll ignore this last question too so I'll
> answer it. You're off-topic because you can't
> win.

You lost the argument the moment you posted. Cladking your opinions on the meanings of a words in a language you cannot read, are, at best laughable.

Modern beliefs are based on assumptions laid
> down by Champollion which put us on a very long
> detour.

In your amateur opinion un-backed by any evidence - no one cares what your opinions are they have no basis in reality.

You opinions are based on the assumption that you can translate a language in context you cannot read and don't understand the underlying culture and religion.

You cannot. We know that but it seems to have escaped you.

His assumption just happened to work
> because the language was reflective of the known
> culture of the "book of the dead" but they did not
> work for the PT and Young could have solved it
> mathematically.

In 1842 Karl Richard Lepsius published a translation of a manuscript dated to the Ptolemaic era and coined the name "Book of The Dead" (das Todtenbuch).
Jean-François Champollion the philologist, who deciphered the Egyptian hieroglyphic script fully in 1822–23, died in 1832. so I don't the he was influenced by 'the book of the dead'. Odd you don't know that.LOL

Could have but didn't. Now why don't YOU go solve it mathematically then post the vast amount of supporting evidence when you are finished?

Cladking for 15 years you've been declaring 2+2=5 - yet it still doesn't and never will.