It is currently Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:39 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 12:14 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraha ... acsimile_3
FAIRMORMON wrote:
Book of Abraham/Joseph Smith Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile 3


I’ll make brief comments in response to the deceptive article postulated on the notorious FAIRMORMON website regarding the Facsimile No. 3.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
The following are common criticisms associated with Facsimile 3:
• The scene depicted is a known Egyptian vignette which Egyptologists state has nothing to do with Abraham.
• Joseph indicated that specific characters in the facsimile confirmed the identities that he assigned to specific figures.
• Joseph identified two obviously female figures as "King Pharaoh" and "Prince of Pharaoh."
Critics consider these items to be conclusive evidence that Joseph Smith was not a prophet.

FAIR is correct about Egyptologists confirming that this vignette has nothing to do with Abraham and correctly admitted that Mormon translator Joseph Smith made claims about the hieroglyphic writing and personages in the vignette. Critics do in fact conclude that this is positive proof that exposes Joseph Smith as a false Egyptian translator.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
The matter is not as simple as critics would like to have us believe. Like almost all of us, the majority of critics are not experts on Egyptian writing or art.

Actually, it is quite simple. It’s black or white, yes or no, true or false. Critics don’t need to be experts to be able to determine the truth with a little help from modern Egyptology.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
So, this presents an interesting problem--if we are going to take an "academic" or "intellectual" approach to the problem, both believers and critics must all decide to trust an expert. The problem that we immediately encounter is that there are multiple "experts," and these experts do not all agree. Therefore, we are left to decide which "expert" we will trust. There are LDS experts who believe the Book of Abraham is a genuine artifact, and that it testifies to Joseph Smith' status as a prophet. Non-LDS experts obviously do not agree with that.

Yes, I will agree that an academic and intellectual approach is the only sound course to pursue -- an appeal to authority, that of modern Egyptology and the stewards that guide it. The argument of being not in agreement over the results is a ploy in rejecting the final outcome from a professional conclusion offered by Egyptologists the world over. A couple of LDS Egyptologists may believe in the validity of the Book of Abraham but they cannot defend the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 using science so this is why the appeal to experts is more or less rejected by the LDS apologists who refuse to face the natural conclusion. They know they have lost the argument from a scientific point of view.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
Latter-day Saints, as believers unequipped to deal with Egyptology, are not able to really assess that information for ourselves. We would need 15-20 years of schooling to do it. So, we can either trust our spiritual future to the experts of our choice, or we can rely ultimately upon revelation.

This is not true! A student of Egyptology can obtain good books on Egyptian grammar, history, art, religion, etc., and within a few years develop a basic sense of identity and purpose for basic Egyptian messages and imagery. One does not need a degree in Egyptology to learn how to read the language on a basic level and identify with Egyptian art and culture. There are lots of books and material on the market that can assist anyone in achieving knowledge on the subject.

The dishonest apologist makes an either or statement that is utterly dishonest and untrue: “So, we can either trust our spiritual future to the experts of our choice, or we can rely ultimately upon revelation”.

Wow! How about just trusting the collective experts who are the guardians of modern Egyptology and listen to what they have to say about Egyptology while also getting a little knowledge ourselves about the language and culture? Is that really so hard? I think not. But here we see the LDS apologist wants us to scrap the appeal to authority and lay everything at the feet of Joseph Smith and his professed revelations. The LDS apologists don’t want to trust/appeal to science and modern Egyptology but keep to Joseph Smith’s revelations for the sake of faith and a spiritual future Mormon future.


FAIRMORMON wrote:
Critics' claim that Facsimile #3 alone is enough to settle the question of whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet. This is very convenient for them, because it allows one to focus only on one (very complex) issue that only a few people have the tools to understand. It is, in a sense, to put the critic in an "unassailable position." The critics has made his or her choice, and does not want to debate it or be told he or she is wrong, or return to the question.
And, what the critic might consider a "slam dunk" or "vital point," might (from a believer's or some Egyptologist's point of view) really not be so conclusive OR so vital.


How about we look at this way: Critics' claim that Facsimile No.3 alone is enough to settle the question of whether or not Joseph Smith was translating Egyptian correctly. THIS WOULD BE A VERY CONVIENENT TEST, WOULD IT NOT? Yes, it focuses on a single item presented by Joseph Smith to the whole church, showcases his wonderful ability to translate Egyptian documents. What a marvelous opportunity to test the prophet’s work and see if he really knew what he was talking about. Facsimile No. 3 is a splendid sample and lovers of Egyptology and professional Egyptologists around the world can make a fair judgment under the basic rule of modern Egyptology. There really isn’t anything complicated about it! Either the Explanations offered by Joseph Smith are correct or they are not. Modern Egyptology can settle that within a heartbeat. It really isn’t rocket science and even those with some basics skills in Egyptology having studied many good books will be able to make a reasonable judgment whether Joseph Smith was correctly translating and interpreting Egyptian imagery.

Critics have already appealed to modern Egyptology and have come to a conclusion that the LDS apologists do not like because they want to hang on to their faith and testimony of Joseph Smith no matter what the evidence shows. So, the apologists reject the appeal to authority and make it all seem as if it's too complicated to settle and that there are just things we don’t understand. It’s their way of not facing up to the truth when truth stares them in the face. It really is a slam dunk against Joseph Smith’s revelations.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:03 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
Furthermore:

FAIRMORMON wrote:
The problem that we immediately encounter is that there are multiple "experts," and these experts do not all agree.


Wait, hold on there! ALL Egyptologists (including LDS Egyptologists) will admit that there is no king’s name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 and neither is the name Shulem. Joseph Smith by revelation declared it but ALL Egyptologists the world over have proven this to be untrue. Joseph Smith was wrong. Again, ALL Egyptologists agree that there is no king’s name and the name Shulem is not contained in the writing of the vignette.


FAIRMORMON wrote:
There are LDS experts who believe the Book of Abraham is a genuine artifact, and that it testifies to Joseph Smith' status as a prophet. Non-LDS experts obviously do not agree with that


Critics recognize that the LDS position is purely faith based having nothing to do with proof or science. We grant you that! We know that it is the belief in the BofA for belief sake that offers validity to the Joseph Smith’s claim to be a prophet. But, science and modern Egyptology have shown otherwise and don’t base their outcomes on faith or feelings from a supposed spirit source.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:10 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm
Posts: 12745
This kind of dishonesty may work on those who need to believe but want to feel good about a troubling issue that they stumble into. It doesn't work on those who are smarter and don't just want a substance-less feel good answer. It's why fair and farms are good places for members to go to.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:49 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
FAIRMORMON wrote:
The interpretation of Facsimile 3
According to Michael D. Rhodes in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism,
Facsimile 3 presents a constantly recurring scene in Egyptian literature, best known from the 125th chapter of the Book of the Dead. It represents the judgment of the dead before the throne of Osiris. It is likely that it came at the end of the Book of Breathings text, of which Facsimile 1 formed the beginning, since other examples contain vignettes similar to this. Moreover, the name of Hor, owner of the papyrus, appears in the hieroglyphs at the bottom of this facsimile.


That’s nice, thank you. The point being, the name associated with the papyrus is Hor, not Abraham. This is not evidence in favor of Joseph Smith.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
Joseph Smith explained that Facsimile 3 represents Abraham sitting on the pharaoh's throne teaching principles of astronomy to the Egyptian court. Critics have pointed out that the second figure, which Joseph Smith says is the king, is the goddess Hathor (or Isis). There are, however, examples in other papyri, not in the possession of Joseph Smith, in which the pharaoh is portrayed as Hathor. In fact, the whole scene is typical of Egyptian ritual drama in which costumed actors played the parts of various gods and goddesses.


We agree that Joseph Smith pointed out that the person sitting on the throne is Abraham. But then the apologist starts talking about what CRITICS have to say. Stop, hold on there! Never mind the critics. How about we base our information on what Egyptologists say since they are the real experts? So, let’s reword FAIRMORMON to say:

EGYPTOLOGISTS have pointed out that the second figure, which Joseph Smith says is the king, is the goddess Hathor (or Isis) and the critics agree.

Then the apologist goes on to talk about other papyrus that draw parallel with Joseph Smith’s interpretation as if to justify and change the meaning of Facsimile No. 3. I’ve researched those and found that Hugh Nibley exaggerated his claim. Regardless of what another vignette might represent or say, we need only go off what the Facsimile No. 3 represents and says. The apologists wants us to think about another source and forget about the one at hand. But we will not do that. Let’s focus purely on what the Facsimile No. 3 really says and what Joseph Smith said it said. That’s the key and the one the apologists want to throw away.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:05 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Castle Anthrax
FAIRMORMON wrote:
The matter is not as simple as critics would like to have us believe...blah...blah...blah...
FAIRMORMON wrote:
The problem that we immediately encounter is that there are multiple "experts," and these experts do not all agree...blah...blah...blah...
FAIRMORMON wrote:
Latter-day Saints, as believers unequipped to deal with Egyptology...blah...blah...blah...
FAIRMORMON wrote:
Critics' claim that Facsimile #3 alone is enough to settle the question of whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet. This is very convenient for them, because it allows one to focus only on one (very complex) issue...blah...blah...blah...

These "appeals to complexity" (or whatever you want to call them) were doubtless very effective before the internet. But now, after nearly two decades of ubiquitous internet access, this strategy just doesn't work anymore. In fact it's quickly becoming counterproductive. Personally, I find it all rather patronizing and insulting.

In all fairness though, I find myself reacting in much the same way when Chripologists (Christian apologists) tell me I'm "going down an epidemiological rabbit hole" when I ask for clear, convincing proof that A) a god exists, and B) that it's the god of the Bible. I guess what this means is that both Mopologists and Chripologists are ultimately motivated by the same tribal jealousies and insecurities.

_________________
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately.
--Yahoo Bot

I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess.
--Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:15 am 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
The Erotic Apologist wrote:
These "appeals to complexity" (or whatever you want to call them) were doubtless very effective before the internet. But now, after nearly two decades of ubiquitous internet access, this strategy just doesn't work anymore. In fact it's quickly becoming counterproductive. Personally, I find it all rather patronizing and insulting.



The "appeal to complexity" is the method used by apologists to succor enquiring minds without offering real answers. LDS people who question the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are simply given a pat on the back and told that it's just too hard to explain and to not worry about it. This is certainly a form of lying. I have to believe that Mormon apologists have perfected the art of lying. They are good at it and able to fool a great many ignorant LDS people.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:35 am 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
FAIRMORMON wrote:
In summary, Facsimile 1 formed the beginning, and Facsimile 3 the end of a document known as the Book of Breathings, an Egyptian religious text dated paleographically to the time of Jesus. Facsimile 2, the hypocephalus, is also a late Egyptian religious text. The association of these facsimiles with the book of Abraham might be explained as Joseph Smith's attempt to find illustrations from the papyri he owned that most closely matched what he had received in revelation when translating the Book of Abraham. Moreover, the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices.


Notice how the apologist says that the “association of these facsimiles with the book of Abraham MIGHT be explained as Joseph Smith's ATTEMP” (emphasis added). The apologist reveals his weak argument in trying to defend Joseph Smith’s Egyptology by employing the words might and attempt. You see, they don’t have an argument based on fact and science. All they can do is pretty much say things such as: What if, maybe, could be, perhaps, no one really knows, etc.

But then the apologist blatantly lies when stating that Joseph Smith’s explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices. This is a lie. The Explanations of the Facsimiles mock the Egyptian religion and insult their system of beliefs. For example, the Egyptians would never have called one of their chief gods a slave. The Explanations of the Facsimiles are a solid mockery of Egyptology and ancient Egypt. The Mormon apologist is a shameful liar.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Last edited by Shulem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 6:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 11:52 am 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
FAIRMORMON wrote:
However, BYU Egyptologist John Gee challenges the notion that Facsimile 3 is associated with Book of the Dead 125,
[B]oth Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 3 are assumed to belong to the Book of Breathings Made by Isis because they accompanied the text in the Joseph Smith Papyri. Yet the contemporary parallel texts of the Book of Breathings Made by Isis belonging to members of the same family have different vignettes associated with them. Instead of a scene like Facsimile 3, most Books of Breathings Made by Isis show a man with his hands raised in adoration to a cow. This indicates that the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham do not belong to the Book of Breathings.


John Gee and the apologist are blowing smoke and using mirrors to deflect away from the basic truth. And what is the basic truth? THE FACSIMILE NO. 3 IS EGYPTIAN PAGAN FUNERARY MATERIAL, PERIOD! Regardless of what chapter or genre you care to classify it in the fact remains the same, it’s pagan funerary material from a religion that has nothing to do with Jehovah or Christ.

The apologist will try any trick in the book to downplay their losing side of the argument and divert the attention away to things that are irrelevant. It’s a weak attempt to try and bolter their argument by gaining some kind of credibility but the facts remain the same, Joseph Smith falsely translated and interpreted the pagan Egyptian literature. There is nothing John Gee can say to change that.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:21 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
FAIRMORMON wrote:
Responses to Joseph's interpretations of Facsimile 3
Robert K. Ritner, Professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, states that "Smith’s hopeless translation also turns the goddess Maat into a male prince, the papyrus owner into a waiter, and the black jackal Anubis into a Negro slave."


That was an accurate statement made by a respectable Egyptologist who knows what he is talking about and is reporting the truth:

1. Joseph Smith’s translations are hopelessly unEgyptian
2. Maat is a goddess, not a man
3. The papyrus owner is not a waiter
4. Anubis is not a negro slave

FAIRMORMON wrote:
Larry E. Morris notes the following in response to criticism leveled by Professor Ritner at the Book of Abraham,
Furthermore, Ritner does not inform his readers that certain elements of the Book of Abraham also appear in ancient or medieval texts. Take, for example, Facsimile 3, which depicts, as Ritner puts it, "enthroned Abraham lecturing the male Pharaoh (actually enthroned Osiris with the female Isis)" (JNES, p. 162). In what Ritner describes as nonsense, Joseph Smith claimed that Abraham is "sitting upon Pharoah's throne . . . reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy" (Facsimile 3, explanation).


Apologists love to take the argument away from the argument. Do we need concern ourselves about some medieval text that has nothing to do with the pagan funerary document that Joseph Smith translated? The apologist is trying to remove or excuse the argument and present other evidence to win their case. The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are unEgyptian and no matter what the apologist do or say they cannot turn Anubis into a slave or produce the name Shulem out of the hieroglyphic text contained in the vignette. The man sitting on the throne is no more Abraham than there is a king’s name in the writing as Joseph Smith claimed by revelation. Egyptologists can correctly translate and interpret Facsimile No. 3, not Joseph Smith.

The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are all wrong. Egyptologists have already proven that.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 4:27 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
FAIRMORMON wrote:
Clearly, Joseph Smith's interpretation did not come from Genesis (where there is no discussion of Abraham doing such a thing). From Ritner's point of view, therefore, this must qualify as one of Joseph's "uninspired fantasies." But going a layer deeper reveals interesting complexities. A number of ancient texts, for example, state that Abraham taught astronomy to the Egyptians. Citing the Jewish writer Artapanus (who lived prior to the first century BC), a fourth-century bishop of Caesarea, Eusebius, states: "They were called Hebrews after Abraham. [Artapanus] says that the latter came to Egypt with all his household to the Egyptian king Pharethothes, and taught him astrology, that he remained there twenty years and then departed again for the regions of Syria."22


The apologist seems to think it’s a big deal that the Book of Abraham along with other sources of antiquity mentions Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians as if this lends credit to Joseph Smith’s inspiration. This was not a secret to anyone who had access to the works of Josephus which surely Joseph Smith did. According to Josephus, a biased Jewish historian, Abram reasoned with the Egyptians concerning religious doctrine and discussed the science of arithmetic and astronomy. Supposedly, the Egyptians were ignorant of astronomy which was a science had by the Chaldeans and delivered to Egypt by Abram. (See Josephus Book 1; 8:2)

Whether Joseph Smith had access to Artapanus/Eusebius, I cannot say, but it is almost certain that Joseph Smith was versed in the works of Josephus and there is evidence that he borrowed and altered some Egyptian terminology from Josephus and planted it in his Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar for his own.

So, this business of Abraham teaching astronomy is nothing new in the days of Joseph Smith. Josephus already covered that long before Joseph Smith came around to offer his own version .

Color me not impressed. The apologetic offering that the Book of Abraham talks about Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians does nothing to defend Jospeph Smith's false translations of Facsimile No. 3. It's just a red herring tactic, a trick to try and get us to take our eyes off the ball.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:20 am 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
FAIRMORMON wrote:
As for Abraham sitting on a king's throne—another detail not mentioned in Genesis—note this example from Qisas al-Anbiya' (Stories of the Prophets), an Islamic text compiled in AD 1310: "The chamberlain brought Abraham to the king. The king looked at Abraham; he was good looking and handsome. The king honoured Abraham and seated him at his side."23


Well it just so happens that Abraham was a great folk hero in different cultures – so what. The Explanations of the Facsimile are still wrong even though Islam and the BofA talk about Abraham being honored. It changes nothing.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
Morris concludes,
Ritner may counter that such parallels do not establish the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. That is true, but certainly they deserve some mention. At the very least, these parallels show that "all of this nonsense" is not really an appropriate description of Joseph Smith's interpretation. Fairness demands that Ritner, in his dismissal of the content of the Book of Abraham, at least mention similarities between it and other texts about Abraham and point readers to other sources of information.


Just when you think the apologist is beginning to be reasonable he completely falls apart at the seams. The apologist should confess that parallels from other cultures are not going to make Joseph Smith’s translations correct. What is nonsense? This is nonsense:

1. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head
2. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
3. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
4. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

Either the above is true or it is not. Either Joseph Smith saw God or he did not. Either the above is nonsense or it is not. Either the above was translated correctly or it was not.

It's really that simple.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 8:37 am 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
FAIRMORMON wrote:
Criticism regarding Joseph's interpretation of specific textual elements of Facsimile 3
Critics focus on three specific interpretations which reference an interpretation of characters in the facsimile. Joseph Smith provides the following identifications for three of the figures in the facsimile:
• Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
• Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
• Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
What is notable in these particular identifications is that Joseph isn't simply assigning an identify to each figure, but is indicating that characters located near each figure confirm the assignments. Egyptologists note that the characters have an entirely different meaning.

Alas, it appears the apologist is beginning to appeal to reason and summarizes succinctly that Joseph Smith’s interpretations are not in agreement with conventional Egyptology. I appreciate that the apologist is pointing out that persons drawn in the vignette are directly linked to the hieroglyphic writing – like a family portrait would bear the name of the family at the header/footer or a photo of a US President would include his real name and title.

All of this, of course, does not paint a pretty picture for the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 which Joseph Smith published to the world in declaring his divine ability to translate Egyptian. The apologist has a serious problem on his hands.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:41 am 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
FAIRMORMON wrote:
Shulem
We do not know why Joseph assigned the name "Shulem" to figure #5.


Well, you really don’t need to know why. You just need to know that he did and the assigning/translating of the name is bogus.
FAIRMORMON wrote:
Hugh Nibley notes,
But where does Abraham come in? What gives a "family-night" aspect to our Facsimile 3 is figure 5, who commands the center of the stage. Instead of his being Abraham or Pharaoh, as we might expect, he is simply "Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters." To the eye of common sense, all of Joseph Smith's interpretations are enigmatic;


“Enigmatic” is an understatement, Mr. Nibley. This is not simply a matter that is difficult to interpret or understand. It’s a matter of a false translation, period. It is completely unEgyptian and has no common sense whatsoever to those who read, write, and speak Egyptian.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
Hugh Nibley notes,

to illustrate his story best, the man on the throne should be Pharaoh, of course, and the man standing before him with upraised hand would obviously be Abraham teaching him about the stars, while figure 6 would necessarily be Abraham's servant (Eliezer was, according to tradition, a black man).252


No sir. The man on the throne is Osiris, a god of Egypt being depicted in a standard convention known to all of ancient Egypt. Joseph Smith unwittingly offered a wrong explanation.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
Hugh Nibley notes,

But if we consult the Egyptian parallels to this scene instead of our own wit and experience, we learn that the person normally standing in the position of 5 is the owner of the stele and is almost always some important servant in the palace, boasting in the biographical inscription of his glorious proximity to the king. Hall's collection of biographical stelae includes a Chief of Bowmen, Singer of Amon, Chief Builder, Scribe of the Temple, Chief Workman of Amon, Fan Bearer, King's Messenger, Guardian of the Treasury, Director of Works, King's Chief Charioteer, Standard Bearer, Pharaoh's Chief Boatman, Intendant of Pharaoh's Boat-crew, Warden of the Harim, the Queen's Chief Cook, Chief of Palace Security, etc.253 All these men, by no means of royal blood, but familiars of the palace, have the honor of serving the king in intimate family situations and are seen coming before him to pay their respects at family gatherings.


Hugh Nibley liked to talk technical in order to get our minds to wonder away from the main point which is Joseph Smith was wrong. It was part of his dishonest apologetic tactic. What he said above changes nothing regarding the Explanations which are still 100% false.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
Hugh Nibley notes,

Some of them, like the King's Chief Charioteer, have good Syrian and Canaanite names, like our "Shulem"—how naturally he fits into the picture as "one of the King's principal waiters!" The fact that high serving posts that brought one into close personal contact with Pharaoh—the greatest blessing that life had to offer to an Egyptian—were held by men of alien (Canaanite) blood shows that the doors of opportunity at the court were open even to foreigners like Abraham and his descendants.


The name Shulem is not contained in the writing as Joseph Smith said and neither does anyone by that so-called unEgyptian name “naturally” fit into the picture as a waiter. What Joseph Smith did was unnatural, inappropriate, unEgyptian, incorrect, and utterly dishonest. We see how Hugh Nibley blatantly shares in Joseph Smith’s dishonesty. The man had no shame.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 1:57 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
FAIRMORMON wrote:
But why "Shulem"? He plays no part in the story.


You’re right about that, he plays no part in the story, whatsoever.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
His name never appears elsewhere; he simply pops up and then disappears.


His name doesn’t exist in the hieroglyphic writing as Joseph Smith said. It’s all in the mind

FAIRMORMON wrote:
And yet he is the center of attention in Facsimile 3!


The person in the center of Facsimile No. 3 is an Egyptian by the name of Hor who is standing before the gods of Egypt. The center of attention as far as Shulem is concerned is only in the mind of Joseph Smith which is not grounded in fact or reality.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
That is just the point:

The point being that Joseph Smith is academically 100% wrong and falsified Egyptian iconography and lied about his ability to read the writing.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
These palace servants would in their biographical stelae glorify the moment of their greatest splendor for the edification of their posterity forever after. This would be one sure means of guaranteeing a preservation of Abraham's story in Egypt. We are told in the book of Jubilees that Joseph in Egypt remembered how his father Jacob used to read the words of Abraham to the family circle.254 We also know that the Egyptians in their histories made fullest use of all sources available—especially the material on the autobiographical stelae served to enlighten and instruct posterity.255


Blah, blah, blah.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
Facsimile 3 may well be a copy on papyrus of the funeral stele of one Shulem who memorialized an occasion when he was introduced to an illustrious fellow Canaanite in the palace.


Dream on. The apologist throws out this giant “WHAT IF” in a desperate attempt to save Joseph Smith’s explanation by simply saying that the explanation just hasn’t been discovered yet. But this does nothing to save his argument. The figures in the Facsimile are properly identified by Egyptologists not by Joseph Smith. Egyptologists can read the writing, not Joseph Smith.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
A "principal waiter" (wdpw) could be a very high official indeed, something like an Intendant of the Palace. Shulem is the useful transmitter and timely witness who confirms for us the story of Abraham at court.


“Confirms the story”? You’ve got to be kidding me! Has the apologist gone mad and lost all sense of reality? Nothing is confirmed to support Joseph Smith’s false claims. There is no Shulem, period. The person is Hor. Joseph Smith was wrong and Egyptologists have confirmed that. It’s incredible how the apologists state things as if they have won the argument. Who do they think they are really fooling other than themselves and gullible Mormons.

The apologist wants us to think it’s reasonable to turn a waiter into a nobleman. But they can never turn a god into a slave. That is what they will have to do to Anubis to convert him to Olimlah.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 4:49 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
FAIRMORMON wrote:
Criticism regarding Joseph's interpretation of specific visual elements of Facsimile 3
Figure 2, identified by Joseph as "King Pharaoh" and figure 4, identified by Joseph as "Prince of Pharaoh" are obviously drawn as female figures.


It’s obvious to me that the persons are female seeing that I have good eyesight and a good understanding of ancient Egypt for a layperson of the 21 century who appreciates Egyptology. But I can’t speak for others, more especially for Americans of the 19th century looking at the same figures. I would however assume that most people would identify the persons in question as being female.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
The fact that they are drawn as females is so obvious, in fact, that critics take this as evidence of Joseph's lack of ability to interpret the facsimiles in any fashion whatsoever.


First, let us thank the apologist for admitting that it is a “FACT” that the persons in question were drawn as females by the ancient artists. It’s reasonable to expect that the apologist admit that the hieroglyphic labels vouch they are female. Egyptologists and critics of the BofA take that as proof that the interpretations offered by Joseph Smith’s Explanations are completely wrong. And since it is proven that his Explanations are wrong it goes to follow that he lacks the ability to interpret the Facsimile because of his ignorance of modern Egyptology and his inability to read and decipher the ancient language.

FAIRMORMON wrote:
Since the figures would obviously have appeared as females even to Joseph's eye, why then are they interpreted as two of the primary male figures?


The apologist assumes that the figures would appear female to Joseph’s eye but we cannot be sure what Joseph Smith thought other than what he actually said or wrote. Anything else is pure speculation. Regardless of why Joseph Smith identified them as male, he was dead wrong. They are female, goddesses of ancient Egypt having a function completely different than what Joseph described in his Explanations.

Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Wed Nov 06, 2013 5:02 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7754
FAIRMORMON wrote:
Regarding the identification of these figures, John Gee notes,
Facsimile 3 has received the least attention. The principal complaint raised by the critics has been regarding the female attire worn by figures 2 and 4, who are identified as male royalty. It has been documented, however, that on certain occasions, for certain ritual purposes, some Egyptian men dressed up as women.


Let the apologists feel free to post the vignettes of those men dressing up as women and let’s look at the evidence. I’ve researched one such example that Hugh Nibley used in his footnotes for this same argument and discovered that he greatly exaggerated this claim. I’ve also discussed this with an Egyptologist and we can safely dismiss John Gee and Hugh Nibley’s apologetic as a ruse.

This business about men dressing up as woman in order to save Facsimile No. 3, from Gee’s standpoint is ridiculous. How many people does Gee think are going to fall for that excuse? Nibley tried the same thing and I actually bothered to look up one of his chief references through the interlibrary loan system. I then passed off his reference to an Egyptologist for his opinion and was informed that Nibley's position "does not justify his ideas".

Any mention of kings dressing up as women is extremely rare in literature form, but using such cases to justify an eccentric interpretation of a fairly common scene is preposterous. The thought of pharaoh being visited by a foreign visitor while he himself dresses up as a woman is complete disregard for the truth and for the historical iconographic evidence that makes such an idea ridiculous.

Quote:
Egyptologist Juan Castillos said:

“Wildung's statement does not justify Nibley's ideas since what it says is that the Pharaoh UNDER VERY SPECIFIC AND UNIQUE circumstances could be described as adopting a god or goddess as his divine manifestation but from there to assume that a Pharaoh will appear dressed up as a goddess while receiving a foreign visitor (as FARMS people say) not only is an undue extension of an obscure and infrequent religious conception but also not supported by the extant iconography where the king always appears as a man and as a king... I think it's another example of FARMS people splitting hairs and distorting facts in order to defend their unlikely views.”

J.J. Castillos


Paul O

_________________
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3

Includes a startling new discovery!

An original and authentic look at Facsimile No. 3 as never seen before.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:27 am 
2nd Quorum of Seventy
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:14 am
Posts: 688
Location: Sweden
Shulem wrote:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_3

FAIRMORMON wrote:
Latter-day Saints, as believers unequipped to deal with Egyptology, are not able to really assess that information for ourselves. We would need 15-20 years of schooling to do it. So, we can either trust our spiritual future to the experts of our choice, or we can rely ultimately upon revelation.


This is not true! A student of Egyptology can obtain good books on Egyptian grammar, history, art, religion, etc., and within a few years develop a basic sense of identity and purpose for basic Egyptian messages and imagery. One does not need a degree in Egyptology to learn how to read the language on a basic level and identify with Egyptian art and culture. There are lots of books and material on the market that can assist anyone in achieving knowledge on the subject.

The dishonest apologist makes an either or statement that is utterly dishonest and untrue: “So, we can either trust our spiritual future to the experts of our choice, or we can rely ultimately upon revelation”.



You make an excellent point. The crap from FairMormon about needing 15-20 years of schooling to gain basic information from Egyptian texts is exactly that, crap. I am one such "student of Egyptology". After retiring from my chosen career, earlier this year, I decided to go back to university to study a subject I have had an immense interest in for many years. I'm now into the third month of my studies in Egyptology at the University of Uppsala, that has a respected college of Ancient History and Egyptian Studies.

Granted, I have to read approx. 1000 pages a month and study a minimum of 6 hours a day to maintain good grades, but, hey, us pensioners have lots of time on our hands. I can now read some basic hieroglyphic texts and by the end of my second year I will be able to read both Hieroglyphic, Hieratic and probably demotic texts, although my major is history and not languages. All the basic texts can be bought on-line and delivered in a few days and are readily available to anyone willing to spend the time and money.

FairMormon is blowing smoke and it's not out of their mouths

_________________
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 11:57 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Castle Anthrax
bcuzbcuz wrote:
Granted, I have to read approx. 1000 pages a month and study a minimum of 6 hours a day to maintain good grades, but, hey, us pensioners have lots of time on our hands. I can now read some basic hieroglyphic texts and by the end of my second year I will be able to read both Hieroglyphic, Hieratic and probably demotic texts, although my major is history and not languages. All the basic texts can be bought on-line and delivered in a few days and are readily available to anyone willing to spend the time and money.

How many Hieroglyphics must one commit to memory in order to read ancient Egyptian inscriptions? I'm guessing you have a huge pile of flash cards.

_________________
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately.
--Yahoo Bot

I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess.
--Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 12:17 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm
Posts: 7594
Location: On walkabout
I guess I have to agree with FAIRMORMON -- it does put critics in a unassailable position. ;-)

_________________
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:05 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:07 pm
Posts: 3050
Location: Castle Anthrax
Shulem wrote:
The Erotic Apologist wrote:
These "appeals to complexity" (or whatever you want to call them) were doubtless very effective before the internet. But now, after nearly two decades of ubiquitous internet access, this strategy just doesn't work anymore. In fact it's quickly becoming counterproductive. Personally, I find it all rather patronizing and insulting.


The "appeal to complexity" is the method used by apologists to succor enquiring minds without offering real answers. LDS people who question the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are simply given a pat on the back and told that it's just too hard to explain and to not worry about it. This is certainly a form of lying. I have to believe that Mormon apologists have perfected the art of lying. They are good at it and able to fool a great many ignorant LDS people.

Paul O

"They are good at it and able to fool a great many ignorant LDS people."

Yes, they certainly are good at it, but it really only works when the knowledge needed to turn complexity into comprehension is unavailable. But now that much of this knowledge is so readily accessible, these "appeals to complexity" no longer work. So then why do these old fossils continue with this losing strategy? Can't they see the rules of the game have changed? Can't they see that mounting a cavalry charge against advancing tanks is a suicidal proposition?

_________________
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately.
--Yahoo Bot

I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess.
--Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: FAIRMORMON -- Facsimile No. 3 -- my comments
PostPosted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 2:59 pm 
Bell Ringer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 11712
Location: Notre-Dame de Paris (bell tower)
The Erotic Apologist wrote:


Yes, they certainly are good at it, but it really only works when the knowledge needed to turn complexity into comprehension is unavailable. But now that much of this knowledge is so readily accessible, these "appeals to complexity" no longer work. So then why do these old fossils continue with this losing strategy? Can't they see the rules of the game have changed? Can't they see that mounting a cavalry charge against advancing tanks is a losing proposition?


What options do they have, other than admitting that the whole thing is just a boondoggle?

Maybe all the Egyptologists are wrong?

Maybe all the Archeologists are wrong?

Maybe all the Geneticists are wrong?

Maybe all the Linguists are wrong?

Maybe all the Geologists are wrong?

Maybe all the Paleontologists are wrong?

Lot's of maybes and no facts.

_________________
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 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

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group