The main issue is that many people (myself included) rely on translations rather than the source material. Translation in general introduces scope for error and misinterpretation. Even Allen's translation despite his attempts to provide a modern, up to date translation has controversial elements in it. This is somewhat opaque as Allen does not offer full APA or Harvard style references and only provides a bibliography. This is a limitation that Allen also acknowledged if I recall correctly.

One example that I have identified in my reading of Allen's translation is that, Allen in the Glossary states the "Morning God" is equivalent to the planet Venus and the "Winding Canal" is the term for the ecliptic. The source for these claims is not clear but Allen does list the following paper in the bibliography:

Krauss, Rolf. 1997. Astronomische Konzepte und Jenseitsvorstellungen in den Pyramidentexten. Ägyptologische Abhandlungen 59. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Krauss is known to have made similar claims in this paper. I've not read the paper myself as I am not fluent in German. However, Hermione recently posted a link to an article on the planets in Ancient Egypt: [www.maatforum.com] if you read the source article, you will find that Joachim Quack with respect to the Venus/Morning God claim finds "This is a possibility, but the evidence is hardly cogent..." similarly, the claim around the ecliptic "should be looked at with serious circumspection, given that Krauss’s argumentation for understanding the word in question as ecliptic has been seriously doubted by other scholars"

Its a small example that highlights the difficulty in reaching a consensus on what specific phrases in the PT may mean.