Path: typhoon.sonic.net!feed.news.sonic.net!sjc72.webusenet.com!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: tarotica@jktarot.com (jk) Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.tarot Subject: Re: Eyes on Egypt and the Book of the Law Date: 10 Jun 2003 16:29:10 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 196 Message-ID: References: <3EBF0AD4.BA70B8A4@luckymojo.com> <10cff505.0306021244.7fe8dd6b@posting.google.com> <10cff505.0306042316.792e1540@posting.google.com> <10cff505.0306090439.3bdb5a74@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.141.25.168 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1055287750 9970 127.0.0.1 (10 Jun 2003 23:29:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Jun 2003 23:29:10 GMT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:40034 alt.magick:348767 alt.tarot:117084 eyeofhoor@yahoo.com (Prophet 718) threw himself from the battlements, while yelling "victory" all the way down: > tarotica@jktarot.com (jk) wrote in message news:... > > Prophet 718 added more verses concerning the destruction > > of the Thelemic Tower: > Universal laws cannot be destroyed. Certainly they can not be created by popular (or kookist) affirmation either. > > You didn't provide your source for this myth. > > And you skipped something, didn't you, the part where your version > > of history regarding the association of 666 with the stele was > > questioned? > I skipped the part about you discovering the misplaced information > in the museum catalogue which confirms the stele of Ankh-f-n-khonsu > was numbered 666 as reported by Crowley. Not quite "as reported by Crowley". As with his followers, he also tended to filter facts. Now, when you blundered into this thread you began by claiming I was ranting about something, and that you were a fan of facts. It's curious, isn't it, that if indeed I am merely the "Crowley critic", factlessly ranting about evil Aleister and his swindles, I would be the person who in FACT demonstrated that the stele Crowley saw was in FACT numbered 666 after all. Of course, in addition I was the person who demonstrated that the stele was in FACT residing in the Cairo (not Bulaq) Museum on the day(s) Crowley saw it. All of these facts tend not to support your characterization of me and my work. So, again, why did you leave them out of your version of history? > On behalf of Thelemites throughout the galaxy--- When did they appoint you as their representative? > , allow me to express our deepest gratitude for > the two-ton magic brick you have added to the Tower. That particular brick is actually made out of cardboard, like the rest of the Thelemic Tower. > > You're using circular reasoning---claiming your proof for there > > having been a French assistant is that there was a French > > assistant. > > So, again, how do you know that part of the myth is true? Why didn't you answer that question? > > > The common spelling at the time (and still) is > > > *Nut*. > > What do you mean by "common spelling"? "Nuit" was and is > > certainly a variation of the spelling of "Nut" That word itself > > doesn't prove a French assistant (or French anything) did > > the translation. > In 1904, the spelling for the name of the Egyptian sky-goddess was > determined by exposure to the available writings of the day--- Budge lists "Nuit" as an alternative spelling for "Nut" in his hieroglyphic dictionary. > The French used the spelling *Nouit*--- Which is NOT Nuit. > Translating the Egyptian name *nw.t* into English as *Nuit*--- Do you actually know what the word "English" means? It is not apparent that you do. Nor do you seem to understand what the word "translation" means. It is not the same word as "transliteration". > requires thinking like a French speaker. Obviously not. You have not demonstrated why the "French assistant" portion of the myth should be accepted as true. > > > Aiwass did not generate very many translated Egyptian words or > > > names. > > Which ones did he "generate"? Why did you not answer that question? > > > The majority were created by Crowley--- > > "created"? He claims to have simply been taking dictation. > According the account provided in the Equinox of the Gods, That is not the only account, not even the only account written by Crowley. In fact Crowley, for some reason, was vague and contradictory about what happened, when it happened, who did what, and what it might have meant. > Crowley had the stele inscriptions translated by the museum > staff--- How do you know that is in fact what happened? Be specific. > Based on his statements--- Again, he made more than one set of statements about this. > Crowley wrote the paraphrases before the book was dictated. You mean before he wrote the book. > My original point is that Crowley was familiar with (or even inspired > to produce) these spellings before the book was dictated. In other words, no matter how poorly Crowley actually understood the ancient Egyptian on the stele, Aiwass wasn't going to correct him. > > > as names taken from the translation of the stele--- > > Why wouldn't Aiwass have corrected Crowley's misunderstanding > > concerning "Hadit"? > > Be specific. > In order to determine whether Hadit could be an Egyptian word--- Hadit is not an Egyptian word. And more importantly, Hadit does not appear anywhere on the Stele of Revealing. You yourself have admitted that. So, Aiwass should have corrected Crowley. But he didn't. > it must be reduced to consonants first due to Egyptian words being > written without vowels. I asked you to explain how this would work with respect to the hieroglyphs which were rendered "Hadit". You did not do this. Why not? > I've shown the vowels H-d-t are a word in the Egyptian language. h-d-t are not vowels, nor are they Egyptian letters. Again, what were you trying to say? > A check of Budge's second volume on the Egyptian gods shows > that he links the god Hdd.t with the solar disk. But he doesn't call that "Hadit". > I've provided enough evidence--- As I pointed out to Catherine somewhere else in this thread, no evidence (the amount you've supplied) is an insufficient amount. > to create a reasonable doubt about--- Any claim you might make to understanding what the hell you're talking about. > Hadit being a mistranslation of the name of the winged sun. Hadit is a mistranslation of the Egyptian word transliterated as "Behdet". There is no question that this is the case. > If you wish to maintain credibility, you should delete the reference > to Hadit on your website. Fortunately, my credibility is not measured by my willingness or failure to follow your instructions. Seriously though, doesn't the Tower have any more interesting playthings than you to offer up for sacrifice? (jk) ************************************ Read jk's Tarot FAQ: http://jktarot.com/faq.html Tarot News: http://www.jktarot.com/news.html ************************************