Jammer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cladking wrote (About the Osirus myth)
>
> >"This was intended as something like a myth
> and strictly literal meaning would be out of
> place."
>
> I believe your argument "it needs to be literal
> where I need it literal, and it's only mystical
> and magical where it doesn't fit my hypothesis" is
> a blatant case of special pleading...

This is what I said;

"
The Egytian version is more literal than the Greek.

This was intended as something like a myth and strictly literal meaning would be out of place."



The Greeks didn't come to Egypt for two thousand years after the Pyramid Texts were written and the great pyramids were built. Nothing they could have done would have any affect on how the pyramids were built or what the PT originally meant. What the Greeks did was to inadvertantly further obfuscate the original intent by trying to understand the myths. Even the PT were lost by this time but the understanding of the later works further removed the the likelyhood of a literal understanding of the PT when they were eventually found another couple thousand years later.

Things that happened after G1 was built could have no effect on how it was built. Things that happened after the 4th dynasty might have no bearing whatsoever on what happened during the 4th dynasty. There can be no direct causal relationship and later events might not even be indicative in any way. You can't understand the 4th dynasty simply by knowing anything about later eras. Things really can change and it would appear that the change in the size of the pyramids just might indicate the mother of all changes. Perhaps it wasn't some insignificant political change or even a huge political change. Perhaps the ancients were brought back down to earth by their Gods.





____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.