“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.
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 »

It’s cynical deployment of post-modernism run amok. If Egyptologists cannot reliably interpret what Egyptians meant in their writings, then M has no basis for claiming what they potentially meant.
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:
Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:29 am
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.

The main content of the article has 2,573 words and the material in the footnotes consists of 1,303 words which accounts for more than 1/2 of the entire presentation. Most of the cited references are LDS scholars backing themselves up. But I would think that the nonLDS scholars referenced in his footnotes would not be happy at all.

Perhaps they should be contacted and informed?
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 »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Thu Jul 14, 2022 12:04 am
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.

If Muhlestein counters or finds fault with Robert Ritner then he faces the world body of Egyptologists whereby the entire discipline of Egyptology will be forced to pay BYU a little visit. And it won’t be pleasant for the Church! Imagine that, there would be repercussions and the Church will be on the hook.

I would like to see him specifically address these issues:
  • King Pharaoh’s name
  • 3,500 years
  • Anubis on lead printing plate

Then, you can be sure that his point of view can be easily dismissed and any argument he makes will be easily destroyed by critical analysis. Muhlestein is over his head. He is a complete dodo. I will run him over myself if need be.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 3510
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

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

Post by Moksha »

In Skyrim, the Nords take note that the Redguard have curved swords. "Curved swords!", they sometimes repeat. Is this related to the multiple instances of the Nephites having "Cimiters"? Scimitars first appeared for the Mongol-Turks around 700 AD, so would that mean the Nephites took the reference from the Hammerfell culture of Tamriel?

Image

This would make for an excellent Muhlestein and Gee article for the Interpreter.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

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

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Fri Jul 15, 2022 11:40 am
This would make for an excellent Muhlestein and Gee article for the Interpreter.

Here is a clip from Wikipedia:

"Cimeters" are mentioned in eight instances in the Book of Mormon stretching from approximately 500 BC to 51 BC. Critics argue this existed hundreds of years before the term "scimitar" was coined. The word "cimiter" is considered an anachronism since the word was never used by the Hebrews (from which some of the Book of Mormon peoples came) or any other civilization prior to 450 AD and because metal swords are not found in the Americas in the Book of Mormon timeframe. The word 'cimeterre' is found in the 1661 English dictionary Glossographia and is defined as "a crooked sword" and was part of the English language at the time that the Book of Mormon was translated.

In this same vein of thought, in finding words which Smith used that should NOT be *in* the Book of Mormon, I poke fun at RFM and pointed out my discovery of how Smith stumbled in using a German word that has no place in the Book of Mormon. Gotcha! Other variants should have been used to better express what was implied and I clearly demonstrate that in a sensible way. Readers should read this link (in the Terrestrial forum) and see how the translator Joseph Smith was not only sloppy in using this word but uninspired by a not so all knowing Holy Ghost, thus a Spirit with limited intelligence! Oh the frailties of man when claiming inspiration! Here is an interesting anachronism in the Book of Mormon which apologists will be hard pressed to justify:

Shulem challenges RFM’s magical powers
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 »

Shulem wrote:
Fri Jul 15, 2022 1:27 pm
Moksha wrote:
Fri Jul 15, 2022 11:40 am
This would make for an excellent Muhlestein and Gee article for the Interpreter.

Here is a clip from Wikipedia:

"Cimeters" are mentioned in eight instances in the Book of Mormon stretching from approximately 500 BC to 51 BC. Critics argue this existed hundreds of years before the term "scimitar" was coined. The word "cimiter" is considered an anachronism since the word was never used by the Hebrews (from which some of the Book of Mormon peoples came) or any other civilization prior to 450 AD and because metal swords are not found in the Americas in the Book of Mormon timeframe. The word 'cimeterre' is found in the 1661 English dictionary Glossographia and is defined as "a crooked sword" and was part of the English language at the time that the Book of Mormon was translated.

In this same vein of thought, in finding words which Smith used that should NOT be *in* the Book of Mormon, I poke fun at RFM and pointed out my discovery of how Smith stumbled in using a German word that has no place in the Book of Mormon. Gotcha! Other variants should have been used to better express what was implied and I clearly demonstrate that in a sensible way. Readers should read this link (in the Terrestrial forum) and see how the translator Joseph Smith was not only sloppy in using this word but uninspired by a not so all knowing Holy Ghost, thus a Spirit with limited intelligence! Oh the frailties of man when claiming inspiration! Here is an interesting anachronism in the Book of Mormon which apologists will be hard pressed to justify:

Shulem challenges RFM’s magical powers
i was reading the wiki you quoted where it argues Smith meant "cimeterre," using the definition "a crooked sword." They use this to explain that Smith was not referring to metal swords, right?

i have two problems with this,

1) only part of the definition from the 1661 Glossographia is given, the full definition is:
Cimeterre (Fr.) a crooked sword. See Scymitar.

https://ota.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repositor ... sAllowed=y
and the word italicized in the definition, also found in the same 1661 reference, is this:
Scymitar or Scimitar (Italian Scimitara) a crooked flat back'd short sword used by the Turks and Persians.

https://ota.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repositor ... sAllowed=y
I'm not a linguist, so maybe someone else can weigh in, but arguing that Smith used the definition from this book and showing only part of the definition, without noting that the full definition actually does refer to curved metal swords, doesn't seem intellectually honest.

and

2) In reading a couple of B of M uses of "cimeter," i noticed "sword" was used with cimeter. I looked on BYU's site on and found this:
Notes on the Cimeter(Scimitar) in the Book of Mormon

William J. Hamblin,
A. Brent Merrill

To what Mesoamerican weapon could the Book of Mormon authors have been referring with the word cimeter?

Since evidence on this matteris sparse and ambiguous, the following discussion should be viewed as preliminary
speculations.

All references except Enos 1:20 mention [cimeter] in conjunction with the sword, although many passages mention the sword without mentioning the scimitar.

Note also that the earliest reference (fth century B.C., Enos 1:20) is the
single case where the cimeteris listed without the sword.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/vie ... additional
Again. not a linguist, but how does the argument hold up that Smith wasn't referring to metal swords because "cimeter" means curved (non-metal?) sword, when Smith used BOTH sword and cimeter together almost exclusively?

If they argue Smith used "cimeter" to mean the non-metal curved swords, then what did "sword," used in the same sentence, mean??
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

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

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Jul 15, 2022 3:33 pm
If they argue Smith used "cimeter" to mean the non-metal curved swords, then what did "sword," used in the same sentence, mean??

Apologists love to make up ideas on how to defend against metal swords and other lethal weapons in the Book of Mormon which Smith envisioned as strong enough to cut both limb and joint -- severing the limbs and bones off a human body with a swift blow. Recall the story of Ammon and how his enemies first tried to kill him by slinging stones. That didn’t work. Then they charged Ammon with lifted CLUBS (undoubtedly wooden), but what did Ammon do? “He smote off their arms with his sword; for he did withstand their blows by smiting their arms with the edge of his sword.” So, we have these guys charging Ammon with clubs and he’s smiting their arms off one by one with the swift blow of his sword! That requires metal and a sharp blade as “he smote off as many of their arms as were lifted against him.” But that’s not all, because Ammon who swung his metal sword fast and furious also picked up the severed arms and “went in unto the king, bearing the arms which had been smitten off by the sword.”

The bottom line is that swords in the Book of Mormon were metal. All of them. That is what Joseph Smith envisioned. So why are there no swords found on the hill Cumorah in New York which *is* the place where the final battles took place according to Smith & Cowdery?

Likewise, where is the king’s name in the hieroglyphic writing of Facsimile No. 3? Where is the royal Cartouche to signify that such a name exist in the very label? There is none! And there are no swords on the hill Cumorah because the whole thing is a lie.

I so testify.

Amen.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 5086
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Check the boxes that apply, John

Post by Shulem »

QUESTIONS FOR GEE

Which of the following are true?

[ ] Smith translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus that is now missing
[ ] Gee could translate the Book of Abraham if he had *the* missing papyrus

[ ] Smith published a statement affirming there is a king’s name in Facsimile No. 3
[ ] Gee believes a king’s name is contained in the label of Facsimile No. 3

[ ] Smith arranged and published Facsimile No. 2 with hieratic characters upside-down
[ ] Gee could read Egyptian script on a tomb wall while doing a handstand
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 »

thought you would appreciate this, Shulem. not sure if it's a misspelling or autocorrect, but someone posted on reddit about "Facsilime 2", and all i could see was:

"Facsilime" == "Facts? Silly Me!!"

:lol:
hauslern
Deacon
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

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

Post by hauslern »

It seems nonlds Egyptologists are puzzled at some of the work of LDS scholars. They are ok to work unrelated to the Book of abraham .THat is what Hungarian Egyptologist Tamas Mekic told me. Tamas cites some work of Gee's in his massive book on the hypocephalus.

Dear Noel,

Yes, this looks like Dr. Muhlestein claiming that the Egyptian language and/or imagery say something that they do not say.

I didn’t have time to watch the whole thing, but it’s dispiriting to see a UCLA PhD, gotten in bad faith, used to proselytize.

All my best,

Kara Cooney

Kathlyn M. Cooney
Professor of Ancient Egyptian Art & Architecture
Chair of the Department of Near Eastern Languages & Cultures
University of California Los Angeles

Hi Noel,

I was just at this conference. I didn’t see Gee or Muhlestein’s papers. I was approached by both, but I have no time for such gaslighting.

Have you read Robert Ritner’s book or watched any of his YouTube’s? I assume so, but if you haven’t, please check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H70IdpLHhZE

Unfortunately Ritner has succumbed to kidney failure and can no longer fight. But he devastated Gee and Muhlestein so that they no longer deserve any attention.

Kara

Kathlyn M. Cooney
Professor of Ancient Egyptian Art & Architecture
Chair of the Department of Near Eastern Languages & Cultures
University of California Los Angeles
Post Reply