Good post.

I'm probably not going to do it justice but I might come back later and elaborate a little.


sansahansan Wrote:
---------------------------------------------

> I do not understand how you can claim a literal
> reading when you assign metaphorical meanings to
> terms in the text.

Much of the problem here is terminology. I do often say that therte's no metaphor in the PT and this isn't literally true. Suffice to say that the overall meaning is literal if I'm wright.

> I do not understand how you can claim yours is the
> only interpretation (metaphorical meaning
> assignments) that fits when a different set of
> metaphorical meanings can be assigned.

I don't believe there are any other "(metaphorical meaning assignments)" that can make this work literal. I have worked on this question more than a little and have found nothing.

> Your claim is that your metaphorical meanings fit
> the context of the text, and you cannot think of
> others that do. This concept is the realm of
> speculation for two reasons: One, you have no
> 'quantifiable' method of determining how well a
> set of meanings might fit, and 2) you have no way
> of proving that there is no other set of meanings
> that can fit. Not sure on the former, but the
> latter is certainly attempting to prove a
> negative, so you can never prove that.

This is something of a mathematic question. Of course I don't have the tools to solve for N and no one else does at this time either but the nature and simplicity of this work leave it just over the horizon. The entire thing looks something like a very simple but very elaborate (extensive) geometry question; like a massive substitution problem.

> Your 'physical' evidence is the remains, after
> several thousand years, around the base of a
> pyramid that are subject to interpretations by
> whoever is looking at them. Given the number of
> years between then and now, is there any
> quantifiable method of interpreting those
> remains?

I understand your point do believe that "filling in the gaps" in physical evidence is prefectly justifiable. This certainly doesn't include extending ramps from the base of the pyramid to the top or projecting them back from centuries later but connecting two ends of a ditch should be at least a tentative solution. By the same token there must be water to collect so an apron at the base seems a given. Large pieces of it survive.

> Your claim that the Egyptians hid the secret of
> these construction helping geysers from enemies is
> also specious. In such a time, sending 1-5 men
> through a country was relatively easy and
> unpreventable. These scouts would have seen these
> geysers - in use, in preparation, etc. In
> addition, captives in war or raids are often
> drilled for intelligence on the enemy -- and a
> means of bringing water up from the ground to the
> desert would have been of extreme interest.
> Again, btw, I would point out that 'wells' fit all
> of this except the lack of physical evidence.
> Perhaps even a well on higher ground could fit
> your theory better than geysers.

As I said, the "state secret" explanation was a relatively minor part if it was real. But keep in mind that most of the geyser was in the "hidden place" and behind the "walls of Shu". The builders would see water coming out ogf the Mehet Weret cow and just take it for granted. If they were tortured they couldn't say much about geysers or how to disrupt them. I think this was mostly an open secret and it was heavily couched in religion.

I do not know exactly what evidence would survive from these and there is no evidence anyone has ever looked for it. People rarely find things when they aren't looking for it.

>... as several have mentioned.
> There is no reservoir of water underground, as
> required for geysers.

There is fresh flowing water at the bottom of the Osiris shaft.

> ...There is no evidence of
> volcanic activity in the region for several
> *million* years back.

There are volcanos in the northern Sudan straddling the Nile which have both erupted in the last 10,000 years.

> Other evidence exists which you dismiss entirely.
> Ramps and evidence of their use *is* documented
> for other pyramids, as has been pointed out
> previously. Such evidence is truly scanty, but
> there are images of people dragging things, which
> is also circumstantial evidence on top of the
> scanty physical evidence.

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any stones were lifted up on to any of the great pyramids using ramps. Where one would expect a great deal of evidence there is a vacuum.

> To claim such a theory as science turns it into a
> belief, or dogma, thus resulting in faith and
> believing. Once it has turned into faith, no
> amount of science or evidence to the contrary, can
> dissuade the faithful from their beliefs.

I shouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole but what the heck.

I don't really think of anything I do as science and never have. I'm trained in science but what I've always done is intuition. At a very young age I made a decision to abandon pure logic as too weak a tool for the real world for which I craved answers. There's no certainty an intuitive generalist might get the answer right where thousands of scientist are wrong but it seems your job to shoot me down and it's foreign to me to sit back and see if anyone ever arrives at the same answers.

> I have striven within this post to be as literal
> as possible in my writings and my observations.

Indeed. I don't see this often and it's a pleasent change to not have to translate.






____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.