cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The PT is obviously a list of the rituals read to
> the crowds and the work gangs at the kings;'
> ascension ceremonies.

No, it isn't nor is it 'obvious', your statements continue to be your personal opinion not backed up by anything substantial.

We've been through this
> multiple times before so you can once again ignore
> this post except to say I'm repeating myself.

Most claims you make - you've made hundreds of times before and have never gotten around to providing evidence to support them.

Your endlessly repeated claims are useless.

> wouldn't need to repeat myself if you read the
> posts in the first place and then responded to
> what I actually wrote.

Rule of Cladking: Make claim provide no evidence, get response, ignore response, make claim again with no evidence, repeat hundreds of times
>
> I say it's obvious because it is.

I say it isn't

The "spells" or
> "utterances" start out with the words that "mean"
> "read aloud".

Yes, I believe they were chants said by priests over the mummy of the Pharaoh, to other priests and those involved in the burial and they were religious and had (in their minds) magical powers.

I say it "means" it because the
> language was not like ours.

No, there language was just like every other language in the world - yes Cladking we know about your goofy idea of ancient language because you've mentioned it over a thousand times - but never provided any evidence that what you claim is true.

It was representative
> rather than symbolic and it respected theory and
> logic so it can not be translated.

Ah, dude that PT you are reading and quoting from - are you saying its not translated? Then how are you reading it? LOL

The clues are
> everywhere in this and one doesn't really need to
> understand author intent to see all these clues.

You have failed to substantiate or demonstrate that these 'clues' exist. Claiming they do isn't evidence.

>In many places it gives directions to the speaker.

> One of the more dramatic instances is #618; 1746a.
> "To say: Now be still, men, hear
> --------------------". Obviously the men (work
> crew, no doubt in this case) usually get emotional
> at this point and the so-called priest must
> admonish them to listen up.

You're making assumption again

The full quote is:

1746a. To say: Now be still, men, hear --------------------

1746b. --------------------------------------------

1746c. --------------------------------------------

1746d. --------- with the First of the Westerners.

[www.sacred-texts.com]

Context, context, context Cladking

Deleted often repeated claims without evidence

>Ancient Language simply can't be parsed.

Yet you claim to be able to read it and change the meaning of the words.....you've had 15 years to work out that conflict of claims - try again

Cladking you are doing what you always do make claims without evidence. There is no point to what you are doing.

Oh, going back to your earlier claim that you didn't use to claim that it was a construction manual

Here is the first time you did so:

[www.hallofmaat.com]

February 27, 2008

""The Pyramid Texts cwertainly appear to imply that boats were used to build the pyramid. One is left to picture miles long ropes to the Nile or much shorter ropes draped over the top with a boat tied to each side. It would make a great deal of the material in the PT obviously literally true.""

This your first use (that I am aware of) that you used the PT to provide technical information on how the pyramids were made - you did this several hundred times - we call this, 'your use of the PT to prove how the pyramids were made' ie a construction manual. Oh, and on this forum you never once denied or said it it wasn't a construction manual.