“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Marcus
God
Posts: 1895
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Muhlestein lies again

Post by Marcus »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Jul 13, 2022 1:21 am
Kerry Muhlestein · March 16, 2022 wrote: Image

Maybe we shouldn’t be looking at what Egyptians thought Facsimiles meant at all, but rather at how ancient Jews would have interpreted them.

Answers About the Book of Abraham: The Facsimiles and Egyptological Interpretations
this argument is simply bizarre:
Muhlestein wrote: ...Typically when people have asked what the Egyptians would say these drawings meant, and how this compares with what Joseph Smith said they meant, they actually end up comparing it to what modern Egyptologists say it means. This is, of course, understandable because we do not have access to any ancient Egyptians, and we assume that we modern Egyptologists are reliable replacements.

But we know that we Egyptologists are often wrong regarding what Egyptians would have said on the subject. One study demonstrated that in the few instances where we have found Egyptian labels about various figures in hypocephali (the type of drawing that Facsimile Two is), they most often do not match with what Egyptologists have said they represented.[vi]

Thus it is problematic to look to modern Egyptologists for what ancient Egyptians would have said various drawings represented. As a result, any conclusions reached by making such comparisons must be tentative at best, and should not be the basis for any conclusions regarding larger issues.
:roll:
Egyptology,,, is the study of ancient Egyptian history, language, literature, religion, architecture and art from the 5th millennium BC until the end of its native religious practices in the 4th century AD. A practitioner of the discipline is an "Egyptologist".

wikipedia
"modern egyptologists" study "ancient Egyptians," but Muhlestein argues it is "problematic to look to modern Egyptologists for what ancient Egyptians would have said..."

unbelievable. How naive does he think his LDS readership is?
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 6094
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Res Ipsa »

Rhetorical question, right? :lol:
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Muhlestein lies again

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:59 pm
unbelievable. How naive does he think his LDS readership is?

The bottom line is Kerry Muhlestein is a liar and is doing a terrible disservice to the discipline in which he has supposedly been educated to understand and teach. But even that is in question! He should NOT be a professional Egyptologist teaching in any university. He’s gone rogue in his modern Mormon apologetics. Further, his lying makes him unworthy to attend the temple and nobody should want to stand in a prayer circle with a liar like him.

Kerry is attempting to cloud the issue into making readers think that nobody really understands Egyptian anyway and that Smith’s Book of Abraham was received by catalyst revelation rather than literal means. He is attempting to shift things away from Gee and usurp dominance while Gee is down. It’s really rather stunning to witness this kind of behavior among the Mormon Egyptologists.
Marcus
God
Posts: 1895
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Marcus »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Jul 13, 2022 5:26 pm
Rhetorical question, right? :lol:
:D Yes, but i may have been influenced by my recent reading about the fraudulent activities of Ballard and his Operation Underground Railroad project. The concerns started several years ago, but he still manages to fleece (mostly, and gullible) Utahns out of millions and millions of dollars.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Muhlestein lies again

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:59 pm
this argument is simply bizarre:
Muhlestein wrote: ...Typically when people have asked what the Egyptians would say these drawings meant, and how this compares with what Joseph Smith said they meant, they actually end up comparing it to what modern Egyptologists say it means. This is, of course, understandable because we do not have access to any ancient Egyptians, and we assume that we modern Egyptologists are reliable replacements.

1. “Typically when people have asked what the Egyptians would say these drawings meant, and how this compares with what Joseph Smith said they meant, they actually end up comparing it to what modern Egyptologists say it means.”

False! Kerry is making a wild statement that is absolutely abhorrent.


2. “we do not have access to any ancient Egyptians”

Guess what? Nor do we have access to:
  • ancient Jews
  • ancient Greeks
  • ancient Romans
BUT we do have ancient records left behind and we can understand their languages from known sources available to linguists and scholars and we can understand the EGYPTIAN because of the Rosetta Stone and other means in which Egyptologists have cracked the language.


3. “and we assume that we modern Egyptologists are reliable replacements.”

YOU, Kerry, are one of the worst replacements for any ancient Egyptian and you do not represent ancient Egypt to any university other than the most corrupt one of all, Brigham Young University. Your credibility is shot.
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 6094
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Res Ipsa »

Marcus wrote:
Wed Jul 13, 2022 5:59 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Jul 13, 2022 5:26 pm
Rhetorical question, right? :lol:
:D Yes, but i may have been influenced by my recent reading about the fraudulent activities of Ballard and his Operation Underground Railroad project. The concerns started several years ago, but he still manages to fleece (mostly, and gullible) Utahns out of millions and millions of dollars.
Yikes, another rabbit hole appears. https://americancrimejournal.com/acj-in ... oad-o-u-r/ The imagination of fraudsters knows no bounds.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Muhlestein lies again

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:59 pm
this argument is simply bizarre:
Muhlestein wrote: But we know that we Egyptologists are often wrong regarding what Egyptians would have said on the subject. One study demonstrated that in the few instances where we have found Egyptian labels about various figures in hypocephali (the type of drawing that Facsimile Two is), they most often do not match with what Egyptologists have said they represented.[vi]

Thus it is problematic to look to modern Egyptologists for what ancient Egyptians would have said various drawings represented. As a result, any conclusions reached by making such comparisons must be tentative at best, and should not be the basis for any conclusions regarding larger issues.

Muhlestein is being ridiculous. We can draw definitive conclusions on who the persons are in Facsimile No. 3 including the lovely queen Isis whom Smith WRONGLY said was the king of Egypt.

Shulem wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 3:15 pm
Figure 2 depicts the lovely goddess ISIS as she stands proudly behind the throne of her husband, Osiris, who is seated on his divine chair in heaven. Isis is adorned in a lovely robe and atop her headdress is a goddess crown consisting of the solar disc flanked by cow horns which symbolize the eternal power and strength of a goddess, such as Hathor, who also wears this female regalia. In one hand she holds the sacred emblem that symbolizes life, the ankh is the hieroglyphic sign for life. The other hand is raised in acclamation of praise in honoring the sacred nature of the funerary procession at hand.

All hail Isis, royal wife of the heavenly king Osiris and mother of Horus the falcon, a son of the Egyptian god Osiris who sits firmly and everlastingly upon the throne depicted in Fig. 1!

We know the personage of Fig. 2 is as follows:

[X] Isis
[X] Goddess
[X] Immortal
[X] Queen
[X] Woman
[X] Wife
[X] Mother

EXPLANATION:

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
Fig. 2. Queen Isis, whose name is given in the characters above her head.
Shulem wrote:
Sat Oct 02, 2021 7:41 pm
There is no reason to “cautiously” recognize Isis for who she really is in the funerary vignette of Facsimile No. 3 or any other funerary vignette for that matter. It’s really a rather simple and easy process to come to a natural conclusion. All one need do is open their eyes and ask the question, “who is this lovely lady” and who is the other lovely lady designated as Fig. 4? They are Isis & Maat, two of the most prominent goddesses of Egyptian mythology! Nothing could be more logical than to recognize her for who she really is.

It is by that which Fig. 2 is NOT that defines her!

She is NOT a man.
She is NOT a king.
She is NOT mortal.

She IS a woman.
She IS a queen.
She IS immortal.


Image

Isis & Maat of Facsimile No. 3 (Fig. 2 & 4)

EXPLANATION

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.
Backyard Professor wrote:Image

Yeah baby!
Marcus
God
Posts: 1895
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Marcus »

:D i knew you would explain the faultiness of his argument. like philo said, "yeah, baby!!"
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3340
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Muhlestein lies again

Post by Philo Sofee »

Marcus wrote:
Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:59 pm
Shulem wrote:
Wed Jul 13, 2022 1:21 am
this argument is simply bizarre:
Muhlestein wrote: ...Typically when people have asked what the Egyptians would say these drawings meant, and how this compares with what Joseph Smith said they meant, they actually end up comparing it to what modern Egyptologists say it means. This is, of course, understandable because we do not have access to any ancient Egyptians, and we assume that we modern Egyptologists are reliable replacements.

But we know that we Egyptologists are often wrong regarding what Egyptians would have said on the subject. One study demonstrated that in the few instances where we have found Egyptian labels about various figures in hypocephali (the type of drawing that Facsimile Two is), they most often do not match with what Egyptologists have said they represented.[vi]

Thus it is problematic to look to modern Egyptologists for what ancient Egyptians would have said various drawings represented. As a result, any conclusions reached by making such comparisons must be tentative at best, and should not be the basis for any conclusions regarding larger issues.
:roll:
Egyptology,,, is the study of ancient Egyptian history, language, literature, religion, architecture and art from the 5th millennium BC until the end of its native religious practices in the 4th century AD. A practitioner of the discipline is an "Egyptologist".

wikipedia
"modern egyptologists" study "ancient Egyptians," but Muhlestein argues it is "problematic to look to modern Egyptologists for what ancient Egyptians would have said..."

unbelievable. How naive does he think his LDS readership is?
This argument by Muhlestein is palpably ludicrous! He is desperate because, and his statements here are a tacit admission that he CANNOT defend Joseph Smith using Egyptology, so why did he become an Egyptologist?! No, I stand FIRMLY with Shulem that the Jews and Greeks have absolutely NOTHING to do with the papyri and the Egyptian points of view, if and ONLY IF, Joseph Smith's claims are correct. Muhlestein tacitly admits he cannot defend Joseph Smith on Egyptological grounds, and Smith said he was translating the hieroglyphs. This is crystal clear. I stand with Shulem FIRMLY in saying Muhlestein your argument here is inane. You insult the intelligence of Mormons everywhere looking into this issue. It is a strawman and red herring. To even go this direction is admitting pure bankruptcy on Mormon apologetics part. We have NOTHING TO FEAR WITH IDIOT ARGUMENTS LIKE THIS.
I too, with Shulem call on Kerry Muhlestein to stop the lying. This is insane on Muhlestein's part, and notice too here, Muhlestein still has not addressed anything Robert Ritner has written in any kind of systematic detail. Like we (Shulem and I) say, and say loudly and clearly, Kerry Muhlestein stop this kind of goofy thinking which you know, and we KNOW you KNOW, is flat out wrong. It is grossly wrong.
Marcus
God
Posts: 1895
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Muhlestein lies again

Post by Marcus »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:04 am
Marcus wrote:
Wed Jul 13, 2022 4:59 pm


this argument is simply bizarre:


:roll:


"modern egyptologists" study "ancient Egyptians," but Muhlestein argues it is "problematic to look to modern Egyptologists for what ancient Egyptians would have said..."

unbelievable. How naive does he think his LDS readership is?
This argument by Muhlestein is palpably ludicrous! He is desperate because, and his statements here are a tacit admission that he CANNOT defend Joseph Smith using Egyptology, so why did he become an Egyptologist?! No, I stand FIRMLY with Shulem that the Jews and Greeks have absolutely NOTHING to do with the papyri and the Egyptian points of view, if and ONLY IF, Joseph Smith's claims are correct. Muhlestein tacitly admits he cannot defend Joseph Smith on Egyptological grounds, and Smith said he was translating the hieroglyphs. This is crystal clear. I stand with Shulem FIRMLY in saying Muhlestein your argument here is inane. You insult the intelligence of Mormons everywhere looking into this issue. It is a strawman and red herring. To even go this direction is admitting pure bankruptcy on Mormon apologetics part. We have NOTHING TO FEAR WITH IDIOT ARGUMENTS LIKE THIS.
I too, with Shulem call on Kerry Muhlestein to stop the lying. This is insane on Muhlestein's part, and notice too here, Muhlestein still has not addressed anything Robert Ritner has written in any kind of systematic detail. Like we (Shulem and I) say, and say loudly and clearly, Kerry Muhlestein stop this kind of goofy thinking which you know, and we KNOW you KNOW, is flat out wrong. It is grossly wrong.
absolutely, philo. i have seen arguments against historical data presented as "we weren't there, how do we know how to interpret what happened?" But to extend that to Egyptologists, as though no modern (i,e, "living") Egyptologist could possibly be trusted to interpret Egyptological history--even though that is the definition of their discipline-- is a ludicrous extension of that (already feeble) argument.

And for an actual egyptologist to make that argument? that is just nonsensical. I would love to see what his academic (non-lds) peers think of his assessment of their discipline.
Post Reply