(1) Great House vs. (2) Royal Blood
Posted: Mon May 13, 2024 4:48 pm
Smith’s inspiration about how and when Egypt came into existence is utter nonsense. We may safely dismiss the Book of Abraham and the documents that comprise the Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language as a 19th century con that was ignorantly conceived and produced prior to Champollion’s cracking the code. Joseph Smith cracked nothing and his inspiration is a lie! Everything about chapter one in the Book of Abraham is absolute fiction and proves that Smith was a liar and a conman. The story told in chapter one about Egypt’s birth as a nation state is false.
This thread provides exact references in showing how Smith borrowed from contemporary sources that ignorantly provide definition to the name-title PHARAOH, king of Egypt. This is proof that Joseph Smith’s inspiration was flat and his knowledge of the true definition of the the royal name was an ignorant guess on his part. The two Egyptian words that comprise the name-title “PHARAOH” do NOT mean king by royal blood. Joseph Smith was wrong to say that. The word Pharaoh is Greek for the Egyptian words per-aa and signifies the structural containment of the (1) Great (2) House of the king and therefore represents the royal palace in which he/she resides. It has nothing to do with blood or lineage. It had everything to do with the physical structure consisting of the royal palace in which the king resided.
Beware of false apologetics from scholars employed by Brigham Young University! They will lie to you as well as the General Authorities of the Mormon church who are guilty of the great Book of Abraham coverup. Everything about the Book of Abraham including the translations, interpretations, and explanations are a modern 19th century con-job.
The deceptive apologetic practices of Brigham Young University scholars paid for by the Church are hereby rebuked. Stop the lying! Just stop! Repent of your crooked and evil ways. The Book of Abraham is fiction and does not represent historical ancient Egypt. Period!
This thread provides exact references in showing how Smith borrowed from contemporary sources that ignorantly provide definition to the name-title PHARAOH, king of Egypt. This is proof that Joseph Smith’s inspiration was flat and his knowledge of the true definition of the the royal name was an ignorant guess on his part. The two Egyptian words that comprise the name-title “PHARAOH” do NOT mean king by royal blood. Joseph Smith was wrong to say that. The word Pharaoh is Greek for the Egyptian words per-aa and signifies the structural containment of the (1) Great (2) House of the king and therefore represents the royal palace in which he/she resides. It has nothing to do with blood or lineage. It had everything to do with the physical structure consisting of the royal palace in which the king resided.
Shulem wrote:Joseph Smith (Abraham 1:20) wrote:Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood.Josephus 6:2 wrote:Pharaoh, in the Egyptian tongue, signifies a kingAdam Clarke Commentary, Genesis 12:15 wrote:The word is supposed to signify king in the ancient Egyptian language.
Beware of false apologetics from scholars employed by Brigham Young University! They will lie to you as well as the General Authorities of the Mormon church who are guilty of the great Book of Abraham coverup. Everything about the Book of Abraham including the translations, interpretations, and explanations are a modern 19th century con-job.
The deceptive apologetic practices of Brigham Young University scholars paid for by the Church are hereby rebuked. Stop the lying! Just stop! Repent of your crooked and evil ways. The Book of Abraham is fiction and does not represent historical ancient Egypt. Period!