Wiki is an OK source. I won’t poo poo it’s use here.
I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza no mention of hieroglyphs other the ones left by the construction crews in red paint. No mention of hieroglyphs describing the purpose.
I looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids No mention of hieroglyphs describing the purpose.
Maybe you can point me to the right one.
No, I keep having to repeat this but I’ll do it again. Without actual evidence beyond circumstantial we are engaging in conjecture, not science. Ignoring the evidence that when we do find the remains of Egyption rulers we find them in the Valley of the Kings seems non-scientific. Ignoring the evidence that rulers and people of high standing whose tombs have been found all contain similar inscriptions on the walls of their tombs yet none of them have been found in a pyramid seems to be irrational. Stating a position is true due to the word of experts is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority and does not constitute any proof.
And again, when I ask for proof or some evidence to back up the claims made here, the replies have all failed to provide anything at all of substance. And this isn’t me saying link or evidence X is not substantial, it is me saying not even a link or evidence X is being presented.
I am taking the position of a skeptic simply because the proof isn’t there.
I’m not sure how to respond to this. @alan_olsen created this thread to counter my claim of speculation to which I respond that the claim of “the builders left a description of what they were building and why” required some citation. I still think it does and responding that I need to do more research is simply another way of saying they believe their position but don’t have a real reason why other than what they have been told.