Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 5:31 pmFrom page 9 - “... not too tricky.”
Gmafb. It’s still “tricky.” You have to literally make that mental gymnastics leap to switch up the genders and then ascribe ‘Queen of the Throne’ to ‘throne’ and then make the description meant for the Queen of the Throne fit for ‘pharaoh’.
These guys. Would it be so hard to simply say, “It doesn’t fit. It’s not correct.”?
- Doc
What’s even trickier (impossible) is the mental gymnastics required to solve for Figures 4 & 5 which present the same kind of problem. The apologists offer no solution to solve for Figures 4 & 5!
Facsimile No. 3 wrote:Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
Facsimile No. 3 wrote:Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
So, how do you get a “Prince” from the characters written above the hand? And how do you get the name “Shulem” from the characters above his hand? You see, the apologists don’t have an intelligent answer or a means to solve those riddles by using Egyptian mental gymnastics.
You can see how I’ve beaten the apologists at their own game. There is nothing they can say, so in that regard they keep their mouths shut. Silence is golden! If I were having a conversation with John Gee, I would be twisting his arms and repeating myself over and over and over (nonstop) until he answered something, anything, to try and justify Smith’s erroneous explanations. I would stay on point and hold his feet to the fire. I would frustrate him to no end and use my own dirty tricks to rile him up and get him angry. He would be sorry to have ever engaged me!
PS. I do hope the BYP is paying attention.