cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hans_lune Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Cladking we all noticed that you never provided
> a
> > full 'translation' of the PT instead you take
> > individual sentences out of context and try to
> > pretend its important.
>
> Again, this is almost ALL your own doing.
> Whenever I interpret longer utterances you say I'm
> off topic. I already told you that IMO this
> utterance concerns laying out a new pyramid,
> beginning construction of a new pyramid; ie it is
> a ritual read to the crowds at the beginning of
> the initial construction. If I interpret each
> line to show this and to show why they LITERALLY
> said the king is a pyramid you balk. It is not so
> others, it is you.
>
Nope you are being disingenuous you never answer because you have no answer. You refuse to translate it because you cannot make it into coherent document - I will keep asking you to translate it that the entire PT since you claim to be the only person on earth who can - why are you with holding the critical information from the world? LOL. Again you demonstrate your claims have no support.

> > Great and what evidence do you have that it is
> not
> > religious?
>
> I've said this many times and it is ignored. the
> evidence is very simple.

Except you never show us this evidence you just gurgle nonsense
>>
> The language is mathematical in nature.

No it isn't - you've been asked for 10+ years to show evidence you have none.

> Say what you will but if shu is upward and tefnut
> is downward then it is essentially a universal
> "truth" that what goes shu must come tefnut'.
> Saying this is consistent and is consistent with
> the "laws" of nature.

Yep and guess what when subsituted it doesn't make sense in 100% as you predicted, your idea has been falsified.
>
> If it is not meant literally then why does the
> evidence always support a literal interpretation?

It doesn't pretty simple because there is no evidence just your opinion

> And this is exactly where Champollion went wrong.
> This is where Egyptology went wrong.

No Cladking your stating so doesn't make it true - you have been named an internet eccentric for good reason - mainly based on no evidence to support your ideas.

Literally the only thing left
> of the king are the mnemonics by which he is
> remembered; a pyramid and a star. Ancient people
> didn't think like us and the FACT they had no word
> for "think" shows they didn't even experience
> "thought".

They did think like us - your opinion is not evidence

Besides his mummy, mortuary temple and tomb....

Then translate this

[i.imgur.com]

And explain why you ignored your Shu experiment that showed you were wrong?