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

> No, it really isn't. You see it that way because
> you have superimposed your preconceived conclusion
> onto whatever evidence fits, and you demonstrably
> ignore anything to the contrary. It's called
> "bias confirmation". It's not a bad thing, so
> long as you grow out of it.

No. There is evidence for water and there is evidence for counterweight operation. This evidence is inconsistent with ramps and you should try to keep it in mind.

> Into their work, not yours. You've barely begun
> to do any research on the subject, and you've
> actively avoided anything that might prove you
> wrong. That's pretty sad when you think about it.
> It means you are, in all likelihood, completely
> wasting your time.

Of course I meant their work and not mine.

But I've read most everything that's known related to the era. Since almost nothing exists this was a pretty easy job. I try never to waste my time but it won't be the end of the world if I'm wrong. It might be pretty important if I'm right.

> I am right. You are. And it's not just that I am
> right, it's that every Egyptologist who has
> studied this for the last century says you're
> wrong.

And every single surgeon up until the 1870's was wrong that washing their hands was a mere waste of time.

> Those are pretty steep odds. And the fact that you
> won't even try to understand WHY they say you're
> wrong means you're really not serious about
> studying the subject. You're only interested in
> confirming your personal beliefs, and that's
> really none of our business.

You can't win an argument with me even using the most learned opinion. Opinion is irrelevent.

> You're presenting something new. It is incumbent
> upon YOU to prove why the current paradigm is
> WRONG. It is NOT incumbent upon those who have
> taken the time to study the thousands and
> thousands of pages of work that has gone into this
> subject to explain to every neophyte why their
> abject silliness is abjectly silly.

I generally disagree with the sentiment. All argument prevails or falls based on its merits. In my opinion I've done an adequate job of showing orthodox opinion is wrong and why. The case for water and counterweights is stronger than the case for ramps ever was. ...And ramps haven't had a good year.

> Yup. And you've been told where to find it.

Dictionary.

> It also makes it YOUR responsibility to humbly do
> your own damned research and stop asking everybody
> to read to you like a four year old begging for
> another bedtime story.

There are myriad ways to attack nearly any problem. But this case is different. My hands are tied by myriad forces. There are few angles of attack.

> And it has. You have failed to look, and failed
> to see, how and why.

Dictionary

> When you look for evidence of
> geysers anywhere in Egyptian history, you will
> find nothing.

...And you won't find anything else either. There's almost no evidence other than the PT.

Of course there's also the Palermo Stone which mentions a measurement for each year. This measurement must have been of extreme importance to even bother to list amounts as low as one inch. I've not heard a reasonable explanation for what this represented. But there is one implied when taken in conjunction with the PT and guess what; it implies water pressure.

> No, you've labeled anything that disproved your
> bogus ideas as "opinion" and then blatantly
> ignored it.
>
> That's not the same thing.

Conclusions drawn from evidence is substantial only if all underlying assumptions and premises are correct. If these premises are not correct, as I believe, then conclusions based on them is highly suspect as to its accuracy. If I shared the assumptions then I'd value the opinion.

> No, but if you erase your idea from your database
> and then look to see if there's any reason to put
> it back in, you'll rapidly discover you've done
> nothing but mislead yourself into wasting,
> apparently, four years of your life running down a
> blind alley.

I try to do this on a continuing basis. So long as new evidence cxontinues to support water and not ramps it's improbable I'll decide I'm on the wrong tack.

> You've now admitted it was a false statement. Now
> you must retract it.

Man, your world must be a simple place.

> You don't even know enough about the subject to
> know what is opinion and what is fact.

I've read all the source material. It takes a couple hours but everyone should do it.

> You haven't answered one single request for
> grounds on which you state somebody is wrong in
> their interpretation of a text. I suggest this is
> because you can't. Your entire foundation is that
> you have a preconceived conclusion that fits, and
> the current paradigm doesn't fit, and so therefore
> THEY must be wrong.

My primary intent here was to see what orthodox opinion is regarding literal and figurative meanings in the PT. I had no intention of the thread proceding in this manner and hoped to keep it mostly logic based. Over the yearts I have picked up quite a bit of orthodox thinking on this subject here since I do read all the posts. But I'm not seeking orthodox opinion so much as other perspectives for understanding the work. There are several very interesting perspectives around here. I'm interested in what others take literally and where and why they draw a line. Obviously I have ulterior motives but I've tried pretty hard to avoid citation of chapter and verse.

Basically where I feel others go wrong is directly related to the very point of this thread; they don't, can't, and haven't taken the text literally as I believe it was meant. This is almost always the case though there are a handfull of people, including professionals, who seem to miss the point entirely. Most people do a good job of following the text and arriving at quite reasonable conclusions except for the fact that they don't accept the literal meanings.

> You don't even know why Shu is associated with
> those elements. How dare you say it's wrong?

I can read. I can look at all the clues about what and who Shu is and keep them in mind at the same time. Of course a literal interpretation has to come progressively and you can't figure out who Shu is until you've figured out most of the others. Try it. Just start with the premise that they meant what they said and I'll wager you end up in the exact same place I did.




____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.