All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 

Which Book of the Dead looks the best in your opinion?
Total votes : 0

Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:39 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:04 am
Posts:705
Location: Valle d'Aosta- Italy
ciao Mary! :wink:

the fact that there are people who don't know, is the reason why others who say such foolishness make me so upset. Personally I'm not interested in the man who wrote those things on the web, I'm more interested in those who don't know anything about AE who can get distorted and wrong informations and ideas. I know that many of those are self able to look for further infos and build a more clear and correct knowledge, but others cannot....I'm also referring to young guys....not everybody is as smart as our Psusennes I is, and I do worry a lot about the others who are not so lucky....
This is such a delicate argument....there are people who can get easily involved in the wrong way(I'm talking in general), maybe just because they are passing through a difficult period of their lives. Even the strongest person can become very weak and in this situation it's easy to see things not in the right way. Against this behaviour, which is human and can happen to everybody, it is important to be aware that all kind of problems should be faced in the most objective manner.....so it's not only referred to AE!!!
I don't know if I well explained my thought....it's really difficult for me, using another language, please don't misunderstand me! :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 10:59 am 
peasant
Offline

Joined:Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:33 pm
Posts:50
Thank heavens Isis thought out side the box that Osiris/OsirUS had the chance of rebirth as Apis being Serapis being of Osiris as a living "MAN". Reason why he gave you both Ramsekh and Psus two heads! Because you are both too stupid on knowing how to use just one! And still not as smart as Woman/Isis on knowing how to use one or the other.

You both take it as offense if another has concluded their studies beyond your comprehension. You both appear that you haven't concluded your own studies to give such an opinionated statement as to say, because you haven't reached a conclusive to your own, doesn't mean another has to stay at a dead end to a subject. And to look to another culture for clues doesn't make it irrelevant because it elludes your own understanding. Your understanding being that the ideas that are presented are as alien to your self as aliens is as a subject that "MAN" doesn't understand.

And since you confess its your educated knowledge on the subject, clarifies your reason that would lead to invalidate another? I guess you forgot or don't get it when it comes down to Ancient Egypt! Consider Chemmie in meaning is a "evolving" (the key word here) science. Being the bases for your world to be ever evolving. And considering our world is based on Kemetic influences, who is to argue knowledge as of facts but you both. As Ankhesenpa-aten mention about fiction, science fiction being the hypotheis and general laws that are subject to verification with actual (Isis representing what has been manifested) and imaginary (Nemphthys domain which is of the unmanifested) scientific developments that eventually do become a reality. Its been proven!

So maybe the wording doesn't please you on anothers interpretation of something you consider not disribed well that needs further studing. That maybe so, but what if the author has as much studing as you and has come to an end and assume YOU KNEW?! Making an ass of you and me is to assume that I have you by the balls as if you were Set!


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 11:44 am 
Gods/Goddesses
Offline

Joined:Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:53 pm
Posts:746
You are talking out of your *** just as much as the author who wrote that site.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 1:37 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:00 am
Posts:912
Location: England
I've always wanted to have a go at trying to impersonate these ridiculous threads that make no sense that others are intent on writing (*cough* Bel. . .), but really I would find it quite difficult to do that. People who try to re-enact the Egyptian religion infuriate me- and I am not afraid to say that. I was just kicked off another Forum because I was getting the upper hand on an argument about this reconstructional Kemeticism.

Most of these modern 'living-faiths' just throw together random aspects of the Egyptians' fantastic religion in order to form a modern religion that would have horrified the priests of Egypt. I only hope that those Kemetics here follow their religion with the respect that it deserves (I do not follow reconstructional Kemetics).
For your information, SerqSekhet, I do have strong opinions. I use evidence to support my claims. I read the actual Egyptian text itself instead of relying on misleading translations. I do not know from where you obtained those faulty quotes from the Book of the Dead, but I presume (as you have given plate numbers) that they are from the Papyrus of Ani. Chapter XV is however on plates 1 and 2, and does not contain your quoted text in any form. As chapter XV is a hymn to Khepara (lord of the rolling sun) the references that exist to his mother's back (the sky) and the other celestial Gods are hardly surprising. The next quote from Plate XXV is not evidence for Alien forms, as it refers to the idea of Ani becoming the God Osiris. The final quote has been wildly altered- the only vaguely similar lines is "I am a shining being (with God determinative- i.e. a God) endowed as greatest of all shining beings". This makes perfect sense as it is describing how Ani shall be crowned as Osiris- king of the Underworld. He is described earlier as being clad in white sandals and white robes- and as he is a God it is unsurprising that he has a brilliant glowing aura.

We can go down this road if you like- you might as well start arguing that all references to Gods amongst all religions are in fact alien intervention, for all I care. This would 'explain' the divine rays of blinding light described in a great number of religious texts (the conversion of Saul, the story of Onishuyuma etc.), but I would like to do so in a civil manner. You said yourself that science cannot prove either of these two theories to be correct- but which is more likely? Besides- surely believing what you do counters your religious beliefs anyway. If a Christian started claiming that God was not all-powerful and omnibenevolent- but an Alien instead I am sure that that would not go down particularly well with the Church. You say that predictions always become reality (Isis proves it or something?)- But in this case we are predicting the past. And we cannot change the past.

I suggest that you re-check your sources before you start claiming that Ramsekh, Maatkara or myself are deluded. Please; I want to have a fun debate, because it's fun. If however you want to play properly then use sources that I can check (quote the correct chapters this time- or link to a website), and prepare to accept that others have different viewpoints that you might be able to change- if you put up a convincing argument. I don't want this topic to be blocked, and I certainly don't want to get you or myself banned. :wink:

Let us continue this debate- any valid additions or points are most welcome.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2004 4:49 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:04 am
Posts:705
Location: Valle d'Aosta- Italy
Yeah, Psusnnes I is right.
We are here to debat, we have no need to fight....others are already doing it somewhere else and it's not getting fine, nor leading to anything important, nor solving any problem....
BUT to do that, one has to be ready to accept that other points of view can be different from his ones.
If you are not able to accept this, you are not able to discuss and to confront with others, this can also underline the weakness of your theories....

If this discussion has to do with your personal beliefs, SerqSekhet, I wish to drop, but at least I wish you are well aware of the fact that one thing is what you personally believe and the other is what science proved and that these two have nothing to do with each other.

hugs


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 8:49 am 
peasant
Offline

Joined:Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:33 pm
Posts:50
If computer permitting... I'll ask you a few questions since your thinking lacks to surpass your limitations to attain a higher level of being. And since you give attemts to control things by logical reasoning alone. I doubt if any universal (sahu) or higher energy force can sway your mind (khu).

My source is from a BOOK! Not from the computer. The Egyptain text transliteration and translation from papyrus of Ani the Book of the Dead by E.A.Wallis Budge. Maybe you should read it :roll: I mean really read it :!:
As well whom is to say you are right other than maatkara. Whom either of you I doubt have seen or held fresh papyrus that came forth from the Nile. And if you have, I don't understand why you stay with stagnate ideals :? When its clearly shown that the fauna of all this is around is responsible for its existance. As simply as the papyrus when green to influence the shape of the pyramids to holding the words of the gods that were held within the pyramids. BUT YOU PROBABLY DON'T SEE THAT! So why should I really bother? :roll:

For I don't really care what "MAN" has created along the lines of theology. As far as I'm concerned; Man is tall like a tree, can fall like timber, be beaten in to a pulp to be made into paper to being called a book! And that is my truth.

I'm here for other reasons such as to seek and destroy the act/ritiual that is called FGM! I don't care about the trivial idealogy you wish to create.
Instead of being a thorn Psus, why not be some help to me? You profess you have well educated knowledge of hieroglyphs, answer me this; When a glyph is to translate, to specified to indicate its a woman the scribe is the glyph 't' the bread creast (that little domie dude) is always added to the woman's glyph. Why and what is the reason that this glyph is use to identify woman among heiroglphs when reading or writting (drawing) them?

If you have been an egyptian major for a long time you may understand this riddle:
If Dr. Hawass was a product of the Sphinx, what would he be?

Answer;
He be a fur ball with appendages!

To the DEAD its funny! If you have the knowledge you say Psus you possess, you would be able to understand it. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 10:32 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:04 am
Posts:705
Location: Valle d'Aosta- Italy
SerqSekhet,
sometimes I have difficulties in understanding what you write.....maybe it's because I'm not english native speaking, but I do have the feelings that your ideas are quite confused.
It still looks like if you don't want to have a normal discussion but just to impose your thought. If so, we are talking in two different levels and I am not here to state or to know which one is the best. I'm not interested in such a discussion.
The fact that you found only me and Ramsekh supporting Psusennes I is probably because we are actually the only two who want to have a change of opinions with you...I don't see anybody supporting you,indeed....
You act as if you are the only one who owns the secrets.....this underlines the fact that I have nothing to share with you, because you already know everything and also better than me. I only wonder how can you fight FGM with this strange behaviour.....you perfectly know that everybody here may agree with this aim, but I don't see a real interest in trying to see things in a clearer way: You have your own scheme and don't want to change it and if things don't fit in it, you simply state they are not telling the true....
To try to help solving the problem of the myth of FGM, you should face it using science, history, try to find the way to explain that this is unhuman. In few words, you should have a stronger base to work on, but it seems you don't have it even for your-self....how do you think to fight a use that lasts from centuries, so deeply radicated in their culture, which have strong religious base?
My impression is that you simply try to substitute other believes (right or wrong, it doesn't matter to you) with yours.

The "T", the bread you are referrig to, is not ALWAYS with the hieroglyph of a woman.The woman is used as a determinative for feminine gender. The "T" is just a "T" as a sound and is not forcely used only to indicate a feminine gender: the name of "Ptah" has that sound and so also that bread, but this doen't mean it's a female god....Honestly I don't understand your question.
And about your riddle...why don't you try to involve everybody, since you are writing on this community? I personally wish to join your party!!!


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:42 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:00 am
Posts:912
Location: England
SerqSekhet wrote:
My source is from a BOOK! Not from the computer. The Egyptian text transliteration and translation from papyrus of Ani the Book of the Dead by E.A.Wallis Budge

Unless you are an advanced scholar (which judging by you question to me your are not) you should not rely on a translation made in 1895 by a man who's techniques were ancient even then. I will not lie and pretend that I have a P.Hd in Egyptology, but I am able to notice at least a small portion of Budge's errors- at the very least compare them to Faulkner.

Secondly, I have exactly the same book by Budge, and your references are completely incorrect. Chapter XV is on the two very first plates (go on, look HERE), whilst plate XIX contains a duplicate. Plate XXV does not contain that text which you quote, the closest thing to it being " I am like unto you". A more incriminating quote from that chapter would have surely been, "I am one of those shining ones who live in rays of light"- but that stands for nothing. Plate XXIV does not contain Chapter LXXIX either (see HERE).

Also your quotes involving the 'sahu' and 'khu' are entirely out of place. The 'khu' or 'Akh' is the 'well equipped spirit'; The immortal part of a human, the 'shining being' that lived on in the Sahu, the intellect, will and intentions of the deceased that transfigured death and ascended to the heavens to live with the gods or the imperishable stars. Thus the reference to Sahu made no sense either. Akh is best left un-translated, as Budge's translation of Akh as 'shining being' now has modern connotations that would not have applied to the Egyptians.

Psusennes I


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:50 pm 
peasant
Offline

Joined:Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:33 pm
Posts:50
Listen up maatkara and Psus! I'm not here to argue,as you both are so willing to do. If the subject bothers you that much, seek the author themself to argue (debate as you think) if you have a point that needs to be declared.
I've done it once with an author named Decoz because I didn't agree with a conclusion of his.
It can be done people!
I didn't take liberties at the man without his knowledge where he was in no position to defend himself. I went straight to the source! I'd suggest you do the same and seek the author responsible for Psus tangible out burst of humdrum bickering being assisted by maatkara and now and then the light goes on in Ramsekh's head to say he is home.
By you being pretentious and petty over anothers precarious ideals or translation is no need to ramble on about it! And what a undesirable trait Psus has shown by belittling someone without their acknowledgement.

And how can I forget maatkara accusatory conduct towards me. Not only are you ignorant maatkara, but blind as well! Making Ankhesenpa-aten two cents look like nothing and his existance means nil.

Not to mention on how you profess that I know all!
Have I claimed to know all?
NO!
It would take me many life times to seek the knowledge I wish to know. And it would take you (maatkara) and Psus an eternity.

On to the subject of the bread glyph "T" "t" maarkara, I didn't ask you did I now! Anyhoot, as you wrote its determinative (a thing or factor that determines) of the female gender, but "why" is "t" represented? Considering there are other glyphs that could have been choosen instead. My question is "what is the reason" for the bread's significance? What is the meaning associated with woman? And please do not confuse "t" "te" (the sound) when in referance with the male gender. I'm asking why is the "t" put in the front or at the endings of the word/glyph,when glyphs or word is in referance to a woman or when a woman uses it?
Example; the word First = tepey/male and tepet/female. Do you see now? Do you have your eyes open?
Another example would be why do I have to put "t" in front of "jen" to say "your" as a woman? Why can't I as a woman use "jen tepey" (male version) instead of being issued to use "t" as in "tjen tepet" in referance its of woman and is a woman?
If it had nothing to do with being forceful, then why? You suggested it first maatkara,and you may have a point there...but only there.

Another thing maatkara, for someone who has admitted you do not know about FGM and wish to know;hasn't made an effort finding out for yourself about Pharaonic Circumcision. You think I haven't checked into the science and history of it, when I already have!
How silly you think girl!
Anyhow, Pharaonic circumcision is the most extreme form of FGM,consisting of the removal of the clitoris, the adjacent labia (majora and minora), and the joining of the scraped sides of the vulva across the vagina, where they are secured with "thorns" or sewn with catgut or thread. Besides that an infibulated woman must be cut open to allow intercourse on her wedding night and is closed again afterward to secure fidelity to the husband for your information maatkara.

Its practice in Egypt in all populations groups (Muslim and Copt) except for the educated, urban Upper and Upper middle class as of now! And since its mostly practice in Islamic countries, its NOT an Islamic practice. Mohammad praised it, but didn't invent it. And if you know your history maatkara, you know that in 641 A.D. Egypt was conquered by Umyyadds known today as Muslim?Islamics who are still in reign of the country today!

So what does it mean Pharaonic maatkara?! It means of Ancient Egypt, in the time of the pharaohs!

And I'll have to put you up to speed at a later date.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:48 pm 
Gods/Goddesses
Offline

Joined:Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:08 am
Posts:1262
Location: In the throne of Nephthys
Settle down, people! I'll be watching you...I seriously don't want to have to suspend anyone.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 4:06 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Oct 21, 2004 10:04 am
Posts:705
Location: Valle d'Aosta- Italy
Serqsekhet!
You have to change your attitude!
I'm not a girl, I'm not your sister, nor your daughter!..and honestly, not even your friend!
I've never hidden the fact that I might have something to learn from you too, but I don't like your behaviour. If you wish to have normal discussions, I am here. If you want to fight me, for some strange reasons that I cannot understand, do it via pm, 'cos I don't want to have this forum filled with stupid and personal arguing which does not interest anybody, nor me!

I am not gonna answer to you if I don't see a change!


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:14 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:00 am
Posts:912
Location: England
SekhSerqet- E.A Wallis Budge is dead, and it is commonly aknowledged that his books are inaccurate. Even the Museum of which he was curator advises its students not to use his books.

See: http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/aes/faqs/budge.html

And the t glyph is not a determinative. It is a noun ending, like the masculine plural ending is the 'w' glyph. Really I don't see what you're driving at. A small portion of knowledge that anyone could have looked up does not prove that you are correct. Some masculine adjectives end with a 'y'. So what. . . . . .


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:53 am 
peasant
Offline

Joined:Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:33 pm
Posts:50
Psusennes I wrote:
SekhSerqet- E.A Wallis Budge is dead, and it is commonly aknowledged that his books are inaccurate. Even the Museum of which he was curator advises its students not to use his books.

See: http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/aes/faqs/budge.html

And the t glyph is not a determinative. It is a noun ending, like the masculine plural ending is the 'w' glyph. Really I don't see what you're driving at. A small portion of knowledge that anyone could have looked up does not prove that you are correct. Some masculine adjectives end with a 'y'. So what. . . . . .


If its not a determinative! Then tell that to maatkara.
And while were on the subject of the "t" glyph, doesn't answer WHY I would have to write as a WOMAN "tjen tepet" and not "jen tepey". Either answer the question, or hold your breath!

Which reminds me, to the Greeks and to other surrounding cultures around Egypt called egyptians "Bread Eaters". Hmmm, known as Bread eaters as well being known for Female circumcision. What are the chances of the bread glyph is actually a representation of an infibulated woman and "t" is really a labia? Considering the labia resembles in shape of the bread glyph.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:11 am 
peasant
Offline

Joined:Tue Nov 23, 2004 1:33 pm
Posts:50
maatkara wrote:
Serqsekhet!
You have to change your attitude!
I'm not a girl, I'm not your sister, nor your daughter!..and honestly, not even your friend!
I've never hidden the fact that I might have something to learn from you too, but I don't like your behaviour. If you wish to have normal discussions, I am here. If you want to fight me, for some strange reasons that I cannot understand, do it via pm, 'cos I don't want to have this forum filled with stupid and personal arguing which does not interest anybody, nor me!

I am not gonna answer to you if I don't see a change!


Don't answer then! And don't expect me to show the same disposition as Isis or Hathor has shown upon the earth!
What kind of attitude did you expect from a name SerqSekhet? One of joy and happiness? Wrong, wrong, wrong.
The name pretains to my attitude and if you don't like it, too baddddd!
Gerrrrrrrrrrrr
Hmmm,"ger" means "silent!" in egyptian. Does that make Harpo a ger man as a german? To advance of a question to be asking you! So I don't expect you to answer.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:34 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:00 am
Posts:912
Location: England
I have gone into mega-pedant mode here so beware:

"ger" does not mean "silent!". It is a verb. It means "to be silent" or "to cease". As in G.E.G Lesson II question AII: "When the man speaks the woman is silent". Furthermore it should be written "gr". If you want to turn it into an imperative (i.e. Shut up!) then it should be "gr=y", as the imperative plural ending is the two reeds (y).

You clearly are only up to exercise II in Gardiner's so I shant tease you. The imperative is probably "To advance of a question" for you. It comes up in lesson XXIV. Do not patronise us. German comes from Latin, not Egyptian. Your name suggests that you only joined this forum to try to annoy others and provoke violent reactions.

Well go on. Make your point and then argue it, rather than just spewing nonsensical rubbish at us.


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


  Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Style by web designer custom , optymalizacja seo pozycjonowanie stron pozycjonowanie
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group