“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.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3001
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

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

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 3:15 am
Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Apr 09, 2022 8:31 pm
Astounding, truly a-s-t-o-u-n-d-i-n-g!

I love to quote Joseph Smith into the ears of wretched apologists and while doing so remind them that the prophet was wrong. What can they say? They can’t refute the simple fact that the prophet was wrong. He was wrong! The mummies and papyrus were not 3,500 years old. I don’t care how many times Joseph Smith said so. Joseph Smith was wrong. There is nothing the apologists can do to salvage the solemn declaration Smith formerly published in the Times and Seasons. It’s as loud and forceful as anything he ever said in the Doctrine and Covenants and with it he states his authority and makes the declaration as if it came from God himself. Smith claimed to be speaking for and in behalf of God. He did that kind of thing all the time and published those so-called revelations, many of which are in the D&C.

Joseph Smith was wrong. It’s as simple as that.
Yes, ironic that Joseph Smith is our key, not the Mormon apologists, to make our arguments against his translations fundamentally sound and literally solid.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 3082
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 »

If the apologists for the Saints were to admit that Joseph Smith made up his translation of the Book of Abraham, what would happen?


Could they soften the blow with the point that his imaginative creation was not intended to bolster racism in the Church, but was something thrust upon him because his followers actually believed he could translate these papyri?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4531
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:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 8:08 am
If the apologists for the Saints were to admit that Joseph Smith made up his translation of the Book of Abraham, what would happen?

The translations for the chapters are one thing and the translations for the Explanations are another but both comprise the Book of Abraham although admittedly the chapters are the greater portion. With that said, the apologists are stuck with what to do about Smith’s interpretation that states there is a king’s name for Fig. 2 although the translation for that name was not tendered. Apologists are stuck with the infinite problem of what to do with “Shulem” & “Olimlah”, because those NAMES were translated directly from the text which is in front of us. There is no missing text in the registers of this Facsimile. It's there, we see it, and we can identify the characters. To all this I simply say, “CHECKMATE, YOU LOSE!” I took their Queen, carried off their rooks, slew their horses, imprisoned their bishops, and captured their king. I win! I beat John Gee at his own game. He loses and he knows it. All he can do is accept his loss and learn to do it graciously. It will likely be the greatest challenge of his life if I may be so bold to say.

John, I've captured the king. What are you going to do about it? What is your next move?

Image
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4531
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:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 8:08 am
Could they soften the blow with the point that his imaginative creation was not intended to bolster racism in the Church, but was something thrust upon him because his followers actually believed he could translate these papyri?

If you want my opinion, I’d say that the Book of Abraham is soon to become a moot point in proving Smith was a fraud. This is small potatoes. Once the Delmarva Theory starts to take hold and people begin to grasp the actuality of Smith’s imagined route from the Old World to the New, then the Church is going to have a real problem such as it never has before. The flood will simply be too much to withstand, I think.

All hands on deck. We go to war!

Image

Here comes Delmarva!
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3001
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

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

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 4:34 pm
Moksha wrote:
Sun Apr 10, 2022 8:08 am
If the apologists for the Saints were to admit that Joseph Smith made up his translation of the Book of Abraham, what would happen?

The translations for the chapters are one thing and the translations for the Explanations are another but both comprise the Book of Abraham although admittedly the chapters are the greater portion. With that said, the apologists are stuck with what to do about Smith’s interpretation that states there is a king’s name for Fig. 2 although the translation for that name was not tendered. Apologists are stuck with the infinite problem of what to do with “Shulem” & “Olimlah”, because those NAMES were translated directly from the text which is in front of us. There is no missing text in the registers of this Facsimile. It's there, we see it, and we can identify the characters. To all this I simply say, “CHECKMATE, YOU LOSE!” I took their Queen, carried off their rooks, slew their horses, imprisoned their bishops, and captured their king. I win! I beat John Gee at his own game. He loses and he knows it. All he can do is accept his loss and learn to do it graciously. It will likely be the greatest challenge of his life if I may be so bold to say.

John, I've captured the king. What are you going to do about it? What is your next move?

Image
You took his King you say... well, then, his next move is to give that King a name! Perhaps Daniel or Lou? Those are good names... :lol: He could even put those King names on a missing facsimile! :lol: :lol: :lol:
CarolineLloyd
Nursery
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:40 am

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

Post by CarolineLloyd »

Marcus wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 11:01 pm
Ed1 wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm
You do not comprehend my purpose here. My purpose is to make a record, online of what is actually happening, for true seekers of truth. What I do here is not to convince non-believers in what I do of any sort. It is to leave a record for those that it will ultimately help in the process of time to find truth.
You've been talking to Rosebud!?? :roll:
Ed1 wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm
You are not understanding one bit of what I'm saying, just like Shulem, because you think you can see into my head, and you think that I do not know what I'm doing, and you think that I somehow think that my methods are equivelent to science, and are able to be judged by secular methods.
No, I am not thinking I can see into your head, I am simply reading your work. You are mis-using vocabulary that has specific scientific meaning. If you want to apply a different meaning to these words, you will need to clearly indicate that.
Ed1 wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm

You are not understanding one bit of what I'm saying, just like Shulem, because you think you can see into my head, and you think that I do not know what I'm doing, and you think that I somehow think that my methods are equivelent to science, and are able to be judged by secular methods. My methods are application of secular things in a religious realm, or as some have put it, in a different magisterium, where the various magisteria, or realms of knowledge, do not overlap.
ok. Then don't mis-use words with specific and universally accepted scientific meaning without asterisking the terms and providing a glossary of your alternate definitions.
Or maybe, its better to say that the Egyptological or secular things can be used in the other realm of the religious, but it doesn't go the other way.
No, I disagree. If you use secular concepts, you can't pick and choose. All of a concept applies, or none of it.
When I blaze a new trail, it is to establish a new way of doing things in the realm of the relgious. It doesn't qualify as science, and can't, and doesn't qualify in any secular sense as anything that can or would be accepted by secularists, and I don't know that it was ever proposed that it ought to be (by me), at least not in recent times.
Your use of scientific vocabulary implies that, however.
Ed1 wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm
. My conclusions are driven by evidence, instead of trying to prove something. Because I can't get through to the apologists of today, perhaps I will get through to some of tomorrow. And they will need a record to find what I have done. I am not looking for your acceptance of my definition of evidence, either.
Then that is another word you will need to asterisk and provide your alternate definition for.
Ed1 wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm
Believers are not necessarily scientists when doing religion, and can't do anything scientifically when doing religion, or rather perhaps, cannot do it when they are not doing science.
Agreed.
Nevertheless, they can apply scientific principles to things of belief in a religious realm.

You just disagreed with your own statement above.
I don't need your permission to reverse-engineer something in a religious realm.
of course not, no one is talking about "permission." However, you will receive pushback if you mis-use the term and no one needs permission to do so.
the religous is beyond science, and therefore is beyond the ability of science to falsify. Assuming that because science doesn't uphold the religious constitutes the falsification of the religious is not honest.
That is not what is happening here.


These are my comments on your work, Ed1. This is Celestial, so I would appreciate it if you would remind yourself of the rules if you'd like to respond. Shulem has mentioned that several times as well.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 3082
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 »

I don't need your permission to reverse-engineer something in a religious realm.
Making up alternative speculations in the realm of religion is what apologetics is all about. It can be a hit-or-miss thing. I've never gotten anything out of my made-up speculations, but the very best apologists have become renowned and world travelers. Best wishes.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4531
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:
Mon Apr 11, 2022 10:20 am
I don't need your permission to reverse-engineer something in a religious realm.
Making up alternative speculations in the realm of religion is what apologetics is all about. It can be a hit-or-miss thing. I've never gotten anything out of my made-up speculations, but the very best apologists have become renowned and world travelers. Best wishes.

So far, to my knowledge, professor Gee has not made up a name for King Pharaoh to represent the hieroglyphs above his head. Professor Gee has yet to explain how such a name could be so crudely presented without the all-important Cartouche in which to encircle the name. How can that person really be King Pharaoh without a pharaonic name? How can that name be a pharaonic name without being encircled by the Cartouche which signifies a royal name?

It’s checkmate, John Gee. You are beaten. You have not only lost the battle but have lost the war. All you can do now is decide how to move forward in your loss. The critics have won. Nibley is gone and he has become totally irrelevant and apologetics is a waste. And, thus we see how the apologetics of John Gee has gone to waste and his career as an Egyptologist will be a sad memory in the future.

All of this is very sad. However, with that said, there is still time for him to come clean and make a 180 degree U-turn. Will he do it? That remains to be seen.
Last edited by Shulem on Mon Apr 11, 2022 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 4531
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

The Critics Win!

Post by Shulem »

Behold! A royal Army

Victory, victory, victory,

through the papyrus of Hôr!


Image
User avatar
bill4long
CTR A
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:56 am

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

Post by bill4long »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Apr 11, 2022 4:03 pm
It’s checkmate, John Gee. You are beaten.
He was beaten long ago. The stupid don't know it. The liars know it and don't care.

--Bill
Post Reply