“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.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
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 »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Thu Apr 13, 2023 5:31 pm
From 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.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
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 »

I am
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
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 »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Thu Apr 13, 2023 11:21 pm
I am

OK, okay. Sometimes I just need a little assurance due to my insecurities.

;)
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
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 »

Yep, I am on yer coat tails!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
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 »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Thu Apr 13, 2023 11:46 pm
Yep, I am on yer coat tails!

Yes you are! You’ll be a Jedi once your training is complete. There will be no stopping us!

:lol:

Image
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
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 »

I passed Jedi decades ago, I am the Force.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
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 »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Apr 15, 2023 2:42 pm
I passed Jedi decades ago, I am the Force.

I look forward to seeing this powerful manifestation in your up-and-coming videos!

;)
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Josephus & Adam Clarke translate “King Pharaoh”

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Dec 28, 2022 5:38 pm
Informed readers know the name-title of “Pharaoh” (Great House) is misused in Joseph Smith’s translations and is an anachronism in the Book of Abraham. The very word “Pharaoh” does not belong in Abraham’s time and Smith’s definition of what it signifies is incorrect:

Abraham 1:20 wrote:Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood

And now, without further ado, I’m going to cite what I believe is the exact reference in which Smith borrowed to define “Pharaoh” in the Egyptian tongue. We need look no further than Josephus in whom Smith used to enhance his understanding of the Bible:

Josephus 6:2 wrote:Pharaoh, in the Egyptian tongue, signifies a king

Thus, Joseph Smith never properly translated anything pertaining to the Egyptian language. He simply dumped his own ideas into the mix and borrowed from others to produce his own work. He was a creative thief.
Shulem wrote:
Tue May 09, 2023 8:34 pm
Joseph Smith was very informed -- he knew the works of Josephus and moreover the Adam Clarke Commentary was certainly the most choice guide in which he depended heavily in understanding archaic matters pertaining to the Old Testament. Smith spent a great deal of time combing through the Book of Genesis and wouldn’t have done that without consulting Adam Clarke:

Genesis 12:15 wrote:The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.
Adam Clarke Commentary, Genesis 12:15 wrote:The woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.Pharaoh appears to have been the common appellative of the Cuthite shepherd kings of Egypt, who had conquered this land, as is conjectured, about seventy-two years before this time. The word is supposed to signify king in the ancient Egyptian language.

Thus, we see that Joseph Smith depended on Josephus & Adam Clarke for his definition of the word/name “Pharoah” and in doing so he adopted their error into his phony-baloney Book of Abraham!

Isn’t that right, Dr. Gee?


Adam Clarke explained how the word Pharaoh appears to have been the common appellative for kings and how “The word is supposed to signify king in the ancient Egyptian language.” What is the appellative that defines this example?

Websters Dictionary 1828 wrote:APPEL'LATIVE, noun A common name in distinction from a proper name. A common name or appelative stands for a whole class, genus or species of beings, or for universal ideas. Thus man is the name of the whole human race, and fowl of all winged animals. Tree is the name of all plants of a particular class; plant and vegetable are names of things that grow out of the earth. A proper name, on the other hand, stands for a single thing, as, London, Philadelphia, Washington, Boston.

Joseph Smith may have argued that his Explanation for the nine characters above the head:

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

. . . . is a literal translation for the words “King Pharaoh” and contains characters therein to that effect. But we know and are sure that the very characters in question do not formulate the words Great House or Pharaoh.

Josephus, Adam Clarke, and Joseph Smith did NOT understand the true meaning of the word Pharaoh and nor could they recognize and define the Egyptian characters that spell it.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Dan Peterson understands how to translate

Post by Shulem »

Dan Peterson, 5/14/2023, Mormonism and the Murph wrote:Video clip

I do a lot of translating and when I was teaching at BYU I did a lot of supervising of translating that is, I gave students translation exercises and I supervised a translation project that published multiple volumes of mostly Arabic stuff and the fact is translations, when I translate, translations can be very literal or they can be fairly loose and I will vary my approach not only from one sentence to another one passage but sometimes within the same sentence. If it’s something like “shut the door,” that’s real easy, no expansion necessary but in other cases you might even work in an idiom that isn’t actually there in the original. You say it’s the apple of someone’s eye, the original may be totally different but have a similar meaning. If you translate it literally, they’d think, “what?”, this doesn’t make any sense, but they understand that it’s the apple of somebody’s eye.

So you are able to translate Arabic into English and vice versa. Good for you!

I trust you can recognize basic signs of the Egyptian language, such as the ankh which symbolizes life. I’m sure you recognize a royal Cartouche when you see one and are able to make the connection between the writing in that enclosure and how it correlates to the image of a king, whether on papyri or stone. You know a king’s name when you see one! Right, Dan?

So, tell me about Joseph Smith’s explanations for the characters of the royal persons he named in Facsimile No. 3 and how the hieroglyphic writing or characters formulate those names. Tell me about King Pharaoh and the Prince and how the characters above them signify their names.

Can you do that, Dan?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Michael D. Rhodes tries to fool his readers

Post by Shulem »

Here is a Mormon flop that needs to be mentioned in this thread:
Michael D. Rhodes wrote:I have shown that Joseph Smith correctly interpreted items found on the three facsimiles
Shall we start with the king’s name? Where is the royal Cartouche? Which king of Egypt does Joseph Smith claim this to be and what’s his name? Can you read the hieroglyphs above the head, Mr. Rhodes?

Let me say this as nicely as possible and in keeping with the spirit of the Celestial forum; Mr. Rhodes is not telling the truth! Or in other words, he is lying. Don’t tell me that Joseph Smith got something right in Facsimile No. 3. The only thing he properly alluded to was the astronomy in association with stars that are drawn in the upper frieze -- that is not rocket-science. A child could do it! Joseph Smith got everything wrong about Facsimile No. 3 and the name Shulem is NOT in the writing, anywhere!

Apologetics tendered by Rhodes is a ruse -- shameful and blanketed in deception wholly intended to take the eye off the ball and deny specific things Joseph Smith said about the antiquity of the papyri and mummies. Rhodes cannot be trusted!
Post Reply