cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LOL.
>
> Exactly what I expected.
>
> You have become remarkably predictable.

Yep it's really bizarre that someone like me would DARE to ask you for evidence - Cladking the reason you're ideas fell flat years ago was that you knew back then you had no basis to make them. No scientist is going to accept a unsupported idea if you provide no evidence - you refuse to support your ideas and predictably they are rejected....the funny bit it you don't seem to understand that.

>
> Hans Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>

>
> The word is "heka".

No link or research just you opinion - rejected

Of course as I've said many
> times there is no correspondence in meanings of
> ancient and modern words because they are used
> differently.

Yeah but you just made that up.

We define symbolic words in terms of
> other words and their words were named and
> representative.

Sounds all 'sciency' but then you aren't doing science. Do you really think science is done by stating un-evidenced opinion?


If "heka" could be defined it
> would be closer to "proper scientific observation"
> because they didn't understand their metaphysics
> as explained in the recent post (thot has no
> mother).

lol - I love it when you make stuff up.....and how did you determine that? Got any exhaustive research?

When a person who cannot read a language makes up a new meaning for a word in that language - one concept comes to mind - silliness.


"Proper" contains the concept of logic
> as well as the theory derived from logic. Their
> metaphysics was observation > logic with
> reality being axiomatic as was cause precedes
> effect and all things have causes and all things
> are unique. This is entirely different than our
> metaphysics and they couldn't see the logic
> because the logic was the same natural logic that
> underlies mathematics and was a product of the
> animal brain. The logic was the basis of their
> language and the thought derived from it and was
> invisible to them for this reason.

More unscientific babble - no evidence to support
>
> But for our purposes it is entirely legitimate to
> say "heka meant metaphysics".

So you say but as you support it with nothing but your opinion I reject it with my opinion.
>
> I know you won't understand any of this but I
> didn't write it for you.

I understand it fully - its you making stuff up and saying basically - I don't do research I just make stuff up and my opinion is equal to fact.

lol

Here is the key part you ran from:

Link to your research that shows all uses of the word in an up to date translations of the PT and then up to 2,000 BC. If what you said was real you would have done it.

...and here is what you ran away from you did not respond to the following:

Yep just your useless opinion with no supporting evidence - Cladking you might want to read up on the scientific method - it ain't what you're doing.

Since you showed no evidence that you did that I rejected it based on a long history of you making stuff.

So you claim - lets see your detailed research notes that support this? I suspect you made it up.

Lovely made up stuff - got any research to support that?

So you say but then that is your opinion can you prove it? Oh you can't huh well rejected then.

Show your research that backs this up your opinion on this is worthless.

Only you believe that - yet another strawman.

See note above your opinion is worthless - why don't you have research to support this? What are you hiding?

So it looks like your firmly attached to refusing to provide evidence and still believe that your opinion has some sort of scientific value.

Since you are providing opinions only I reject all of your opinions as my opinions are better than yours because I am both taller, and much better looking than you.