Jeff, we agree that the name is not on the Facsimile but what we don’t agree on is why it’s not on the Facsimile. I believe Joseph Smith was lying. You don’t believe he was lying, yet you can’t explain why the name is not on the Facsimile. Doesn’t that indicate that the translator (Smith) might be lying?
What do you mean, “perhaps”? It’s either mistaken or it’s not. Which is it, Jeff? It can’t be both. It’s either right or wrong. I say it’s WRONG! Will you agree with me on that point?
You mean the ole switcheroo? Something got switched? Revelation gone wrong, perhaps? Do recall that Smith had two rolls that he garnered from the mummies, namely, the rolls of Abraham & Joseph, written by their very hands. Recall the commentary by those who described the rolls, one of which was written rather poorly in black ink only and the other much finer in black and red rubrics. I don’t think anything got switched! They carefully cut the papyri in pieces and placed the fragments in frames. Smith planned on hanging them up in the Nauvoo temple. Everything was carefully and meticulously accounted for and nothing got
switched.
The name “Shulem” is not found in the characters above the hand of Fig. 5. The registers are full of characters. Nothing is missing. They’re all there. Same goes for the 9 characters above the head of Isis. All the characters are in that single register. Nothing is missing. Nothing got switched. That’s just wishful thinking on your part, Jeff, because you know Joseph Smith got it wrong and you can’t explain why to your readers.
Is that what you really think, Jeff? Seriously? Smith was just dozing while getting revelation? And did he do that for the Explanations of Facsimiles 1 & 2 as well? Did Smith doze while dictating Sections of the D&C and get things wrong there too? I can find things that are wrong in the D&C just as I can in the Facsimiles. There is a clear pattern of error in Smith’s revelations.
Like the name “Shulem” actually written in the writing? The answer is categorically, “No”. There are no aspects of what Smith said about Fig. 5 that are correct. The Egyptian writing does not correspond with what Smith said about Fig. 5. It’s really that simple. It’s an open and shut case. Nonetheless, you’re welcome to open the case and explain it if you can.
Jeff Lindsay wrote:
Joseph's comment regarding Figure 5 is "Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand." What does "represented" mean? Is a symbolic representation of the waiter sufficient, or does it need to literally spell out Shulem? I don't know.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility
I think what Smith meant by “represented” was that the hieroglyphic characters above the hand was a combination of characters used by the Egyptians to formulate the name “Shulem”. The same definition would apply to English letters forming a name such as “JEFF LINDSAY” and being placed atop your photo to designate your image with your name. I think that’s what Smith meant. I also think that is what everyone else thought he meant when he published it.
Jeff Lindsay wrote:
I lean toward the possibility that Joseph understood the scene that was meant to be conveyed by the editors of the Book of Abraham with their adaptation of an Egyptian drawing, but that Joseph made a mistake in assuming that Shulem's name was written on the facsimile by his hand.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility
You’re making stuff up out of thin air. This is an apologetic magician’s trick to introduce something that does not exist in order to take our eyes off the ball and forget about the original problem at hand. This business about “editors” and “adaptation” is smoke and mirrors in an effort to alleviate the discomfort in knowing Joseph Smith got it wrong. It matters not how much or less Smith may have “assumed” Shulem’s name was written in the writing -- the fact is he DECLARED it by revelation and it has been canonized.
Subsequent information to prove that Joseph Smith was correct will never come to light. Why? Because Joseph Smith was wrong. You said so yourself. But you’re vacillating on whether to just give up and admit it without trying to justify his error. Jeff, two wrongs don’t make a right. Smith was wrong, period. Nothing is ever going to come along and justify those characters to form or represent the name “Shulem”. The Egyptian scribe who wrote those characters would never agree with Joseph Smith but would deny it and accuse the Mormon prophet of misrepresenting his words. Nobody likes to be misrepresented, not in ancient or modern times!
Jeff Lindsay wrote:
For now, in light of abundant evidences that Joseph understood some broad and counterintuitive Egyptian concepts associated with the facsimilies, I'm not going to dump the Book of Abraham or Joseph Smith because of an apparent minor error. But if you're looking for a reason to abandon both, this is as good as any--and yet I think you'd be making a mistake far more serious than Joseph's.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility
A “minor error”? What would be a MAJOR error? How big does that error have to be in order for you to dump Smith’s revelation? The bottom line, Jeff, the Explanations tendered by Smith are not true. Who believes them? You? I don’t think you do. What you believe is that Joseph Smith was somehow still a prophet getting revelation even though some of that revelation was wrong and therefore not true.