Ancient sources
JTEM
Horapollo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horapollo
Anyway, he was supposed to be a priest, one
of the last of Egypt's Pagan priesthood, who
wrote "Hieroglyphica," a book explaining
Hieroglyphs which pretty much excluded any
possibility of anyone ever deciphering them.
It wasn't until the book was thrown away, and
the Rosetta Stone took it's place, when the
world finally cracked the Hieroglyphic code.
It's funny, but once confronted with unmistakable
proof that this guy was a total Larry Swain, the
scholarly world had absolutely no difficulties in
finding latter day flourishments.
Ironically, if the people reading his book weren't
just as Larry Swain they would have come to
the exact same conclusion the very first time they
tried to make sense of Hieroglyphs, and failed,
using the book.
Matt Giwer
> Horapollo:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horapollo
Even with all of this I find it fascinating that people appear to
assume the wriitng system was static throughout its existence save for the
introduction of some phonetic components which, once introduced, likewise
remained unchanged.
If usage did change then believers have millenia of meanings to call
upon to find the meaning they want.
The admixture of a phonetic component similarly allows believers to
pick either pictorial or phonetic and to mix and match to obtain a desired
meaning. As I have noted both pictorial and phonetic have been used by
believers and they remarkably have the same meaning leading to the
conclusion the Egyptians were the first to adopt a method later to be used
by OT creators for the many bible codes.
If one then takes into account the state of the art of knowledge of
Egyptian at the time magic Israel was discovered other possibilities are
available.
--
Government is a necessary evil. Religion is an unnecessary evil.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4187
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Mon Nov 2 19:37:49 EST 2009
jerry warner
JTEM wrote:
writer sayz: "this guy was a total Larry Swain"
who and what are Larry Swain? Is this some Amerikanzer
coloquialism and a Rushite Amerikanzer would understand?
Must be a LarrySwain-ism?
But the writer complains about Larrty Swain, whoever, whatever, that is
. . .
One can only conclude: writer's whole post is "fucxkewd up"? .... like
Larry Swain was fucked up?
whoever, whatever Larry Swain and writer are!
Weland
> Horapollo:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horapollo
>
> Anyway, he was supposed to be a priest, one
> of the last of Egypt's Pagan priesthood, who
> wrote "Hieroglyphica," a book explaining
> Hieroglyphs which pretty much excluded any
> possibility of anyone ever deciphering them.
>
> It wasn't until the book was thrown away, and
> the Rosetta Stone took it's place, when the
> world finally cracked the Hieroglyphic code.
>
> It's funny, but once confronted with unmistakable
> proof that this guy was a total Larry Swain, the
> scholarly world had absolutely no difficulties in
> finding latter day flourishments.
Notice how whenever JStupid is really on the ropes he throws my name
around and stoops to cheap ad hominem rhetoric? Predictable, laughable,
and typical Jstupidity. Dealt with his nonsense elsewhere.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Notice how whenever JStupid is really on the ropes
Because of the way you cleverly miscounted the
number of Hieroglyphs on the Merneptah stele, or
was it because of the way you defended your rather
obvious error for days?
Which of your oh so impressive moves put me 'on
the ropes', as you say?
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Notice how whenever JStupid is really on the ropes
>
>
>
> the ropes', as you say?
>
All of them. Each one individually, you keep avoiding them and throwing
up smoke screen after smoke screen. Its really funny to watch; your
tantrums are ineffective.
Now how about a single valid reason why it doesn't refer to Israel. No
spouting nonsense about crap no one has claimed, now, we want valid
reasons, not more fallacy.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> >Because of the way you cleverly miscounted the
> >number of Hieroglyphs on the Merneptah stele, or
> >was it because of the way you defended your rather
> >obvious error for days?
> All of them. Each one individually, you keep avoiding them
By the way I keep responding to them directly.
I;m laughing at you, again.
Weland
Your "directly" is to everyone else a dodge. You're welcome.
>
> I;m laughing at you, again.
Oh, of course, mad men always laugh at the sane and their
caretakers...why should you be any different?
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Your "directly" is to everyone else a dodge.
Let's see, I point out that your "reading" of the
text is so worthless than you weren't even aware
of the number of signs depicted, much less what
they mean, and instead of responding you raised
some lame-ass fallacious argument...
....and now you're so desperate that you're
trying to SPIN the fact that I called you on your
fallacious argument as evasion.
Damn. You have to be the biggest, most ignorant
pussy to ever pollute usenet...
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Your "directly" is to everyone else a dodge.
>
>
> Let's see, I point out that your "reading" of the
> text is so worthless than you weren't even aware
> of the number of signs depicted,
The transliteration to which you objected isn't dependent on the number
of signs but on the phonological values of those signs. If you can't
offer your own analysis, then don't whine so much.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> The transliteration to which you objected isn't
> dependent on the number of signs but on
You. Did. Not. Know. How. Many. Signs. Were.
Used. In. The. Word.
You're not an expert. I don't even believe your CLAIM
that you transliterated the word yourself. I can't see
how such a feat could be accomplished while still
remaining absolutely clueless regarding the number
of signs.
Given all your lies, I have no choice to conclude that
this is yet another example in the already extensive
list of lies you've told...
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The transliteration to which you objected isn't
>>dependent on the number of signs but on
>
>
> You
are totally awsome, thanks JTard.
> You Did
make an utter fool of you. But that isn't true, *YOU* made an utter
fool of you.
> You Did Not
treat you s badly as you know you deserve....all too true there.
> You Did Not Know
how close you've been to going postal on someone...well, we do have an
idea how close you are to losing what tiny shred of grasp on things you
do have.
> You Did Not Know How
much you cheated, obfuscated, and plainly don't have a clue about the
subject....well, yes, I actually do know that.
> You Did Not Know How Many
times you've simply wished you were me, but you now realize that the
best you can do is follow me around thread to thread and spit crap at
me. Yes, I did know that too.
> You Did Not Know How Many Signs
you've given about how desperate you are to score cheap points. Yep,
that's been pretty obvious.
> You Did Not Know How Many Signs Were
posted in your neighborhood warning people about you? True, fortunately
I don't live in your neighborhood...hey, how's that ankle bracelet
working for you?
> You Did Not Know How Many Signs Were Used
by you to try and have a thrill, any thrill in your poor miserable life.
True there too and let me just say Jtard, that's way too much information.
>You Did Not Know How Many Signs Were Used In
pointing out how wrong you are on almost every issue you broach here.
True there too, there are far too many to follow.
> You Did Not Know How Many Signs Were Used In The
concerted effort to keep you off the streets when your neighborhood
rioted. It was on the news.
> You Did Not Know How Many Signs Were Used In The Word
that you don't know how to read, so there's no reason for you to pretend
that you do.
>
> You're not an expert.
Never said I was. But then, neither are you. I, however, have
summarized what the experts say, Tiglath has pointed you to experts'
works and publications on the issue. On the other hand, given both your
lack of expertise and your lack of "cites", there isn't any reason to
entertain your claim.
> I don't even believe your CLAIM
> that you transliterated the word yourself.
So? Can you substantiate it? No? Then it is simply another baseless
claim. More importantly, if I'm right, then you're wrong. But even
better, if I'm wrong and I copied it from some expert, you're still
wrong. Since it's not about me, that leaves you being wrong standing
all alone.