“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
hauslern
CTR A
Posts: 129
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2020 2:36 am

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

Post by hauslern »

Some time ago Tamas Mekis an Egyptologist from Hungary kindly responded with his thoughts about the "slave" in facsimile 3.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hy4 ... OJ5qM/edit
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Egyptologist Tamas Mekis

Post by Shulem »

hauslern wrote:
Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:58 pm
Some time ago Tamas Mekis an Egyptologist from Hungary kindly responded with his thoughts about the "slave" in facsimile 3.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hy4 ... OJ5qM/edit

hauslern,

Thank you for sharing this information from a competent Egyptologist who has open correspondence with other Egyptologists and offers an honest professional opinion of Facsimile No. 3 and the Joseph Smith papyri. What we tend to get from Latter-day Saint Egyptologists is a lot obscuration and obfuscation filled with all manner of irrelevant material.

In time, I will open a thread here in the Celestial Forum about Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 in which I will challenge the Egyptologists at BYU and turn everything on its head. The days of Facsimile No. 3 are coming to an end. Those days are numbered but who can say how long?

I hope that readers are appreciating the magnitude of this thread because it has come a long way and is by no means over. But when my Anubis thread starts, look out! That’s when the fireworks begin.
Don Bradley
Nursery
Posts: 27
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 2:41 am

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

Post by Don Bradley »

Aw thanks, Shulem.

I'll look forward to that dialogue.

Just so you know, the conclusion to the Kinderhook plates paper bends in the direction of showing the implications for apologetics, which could have been left off. But the discoveries in the body of the paper are the really important part of it. Johnny and I, bless him, started out as antagonists on the subject and then came to have a really good dialogue on it, each swayed to accept each others' discoveries, and became good friends. He had additional ideas on the Kinderhook plates that I believe are fruitful, and that I wish he was here to carry to their conclusion.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3323
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 »

Don Bradley wrote:
Thu Nov 18, 2021 5:19 am
Aw thanks, Shulem.

I'll look forward to that dialogue.

Don,

I get what you’re saying and look forward to digesting your paper and reflecting more fully on the Kinderhook experience -- ah, that has a nice ring to it, makes me think of the Jimmy Hendrix Experience. I will definitely want to pick this topic up next year, hopefully early on. Admittedly, my studies on this particular subject are shallow and I’ll need to reacquaint or even discover source material that I’ve not covered before. I hope to learn new stuff!

I think we can have a wonderful conversation here in the Celestial Forum. It’s a safe place for anyone to participate and enjoy a friendly and peaceful discussion, even when we disagree and have had conflict in the past in the board below. As you know, I don’t have the best track record and am as guilty as anyone for causing a stir. But this is the Celestial Forum, like being in the temple, and this place provides a wonderful opportunity to transform and have a better experience while maintaining the highest standards.

And yes, Johnny was quite a contributor here on this board and his company is sorely missed by many. With regard to my constant Book of Abraham contributions, Johnny once told me to keep them coming and that is what I enjoy doing most. I keep them coming! Rest in peace, Johnny!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Putting it all together straight from the Book of Abraham

Post by Shulem »

Book of Abraham 1:12,13 wrote: And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.[whose name is given in the characters above his head in Facsimile No. 3]

The Book of Abraham is consistently shown to be incorrect in its presentation of ancient Egypt.

  • There is no altar to perform executions in Facsimile No. 1
  • There is no knife in the hand of Anubis on the original papyrus
  • There is no priest in the original papyrus
  • There is no king’s name in the writing of Facsimile No. 3
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3323
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 »

Book of Abraham 1:27 wrote:Now, Pharaoh [whose name is given in the characters above his head in Facsimile No. 3] being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

The Explanations of the Facsimiles and the chapters from the story go hand in hand. Both accounts are what make the Book of Abraham. It is a matter of fact that Facsimile No. 3 cannot be shown to depict King Pharaoh with his name inscribed above him. Since this is the case, how can anyone trust the text of the story to be a historical account of *that* king who is nonexistent in his representation of Facsimile No. 3? It’s reasonable to conclude that if the king does not exist in the vignette, then he also does not exist in the story contained in the chapter. Both go hand in hand and are interdependent of each other to prove their historicity.

Hence, it’s a fatal flaw and absolute proof that the Book of Abraham is fiction in which Joseph Smith made up out of his own head.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Names and more names

Post by Shulem »

Apologists for the Church have spent a great deal of time discussing many of the proper names mentioned in the story of the Book of Abraham as well as those found in the Explanations of the Facsimiles. There are a great many names found in this work, many of which have Hebrew roots and connections. But the apologists have a daunting time with some of those names which are specifically identified to be EGYPTIAN words that are native to that language. Some words in the Facsimiles are said to be “called in Egyptian” or “called by the Egyptians” and a definition of those words is then explained. It is plainly demonstrated that Smith was presenting words that he claimed were wholly Egyptian in nature and native to their country.

Apologists struggle to convince nonbelievers that those words are credible. Take for example Shulem and Olimlah in Facsimile No. 3. Those are NOT Egyptian names! Chapter one gives us Shagreel but more importantly what is specifically classed as a royal Egyptian name is “Onitah” and this too is missing from Egyptian kings lists. Other names associated with the gods under the bedstead are: Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, and Korash. Apologists have spent a lot of time trying to find connections and associations with these names in order to relate or associate them with things that are Egyptian.

In spite of all this, what have the apologists offered for the missing king’s name in Facsimile No. 3 other than double-talk about how the throne glyph somehow provides the proper “name” of King Pharaoh? It’s easy to see how Smith came up with “Onitah” because that was likely derived from the biblical account of how “Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnath-paaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Poti-pherah priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt.” Adding “tah” to priest of “On” and we instantly have Onitah.

But what about the missing king’s name in Facsimile No. 3? What is it?

The truth is there is no king’s name in Facsimile No. 3 and all names Smith borrowed or made up in the Book of Abraham are proof that Joseph Smith didn’t know what he was talking about
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Missing Roll theory comes to an end

Post by Shulem »

Dear Readers,

Thank you for following along and taking interest in this thread here in the Celestial Forum of Discuss Mormonism. I now would like to set an important precedent in establishing what I think will become a milestone whereby Latter-day Saint faith and apologetics will now shift and establish a unified direction on how the Book of Abraham is embraced from an academic point of view. My point being is that there are two general theories held by believers of the Book of Abraham and faithful members of the Church who esteem it as scripture, namely, 1) Missing Roll, 2) Catalyst.

I’m confident that everyone here is familiar with the basic understanding of how both of these theories work in providing an answer on how Joseph Smith translated and how the hieroglyphic script relates to that translation. I don’t need to explain the theories in this post because this thread provides enough information about that and it’s become pretty much self-explanatory. So, as of right now, TODAY, I am formerly and in the most solemn manner putting an end to the MISSING ROLL THEORY. I do this in a manner that nobody will be able to dispute or continue in vain to try and keep the theory alive.

The Missing Roll theory is based on the principle that Joseph Smith translated actual hieroglyphic text that contained the story of the Book of Abraham written by a competent scribe who knew how to write Egyptian to the fullest extent and recorded that story on papyrus in which Joseph Smith translated into the Book of Abraham. The theory allows or grants the idea that if the same hieroglyphic text in which Smith translated were placed before competent modern Egyptologists today, then they too could translate or produce their version of the Book of Abraham that would pretty much provide the same information, message, and story. In other words, the hieroglyphic text would match the Book of Abraham with reasonable results that everyone would appreciate.

The time has come to pull the legs out from under the Missing Roll theory and let the chips fall where they will. What are those legs? Namely, the legs of the Missing Roll theory are all the evidence we have about HOW the Book of Abraham was translated. That is a lot of information. Joseph Smith said a lot as did those who reported on the subject. We also have the Kirtland Egyptian Papers that take into account hundreds of hieroglyphic characters copied from the papyri that contain Egyptian spells. Characters and whole lines of text have been copied into the Kirtland Egyptian Papers where they were broken down, dissected, and interpreted in a manner which is outside the understanding of Egyptology. Whole sentences were copied and a general description given in English gave an idea of what that text was supposed to represent. All of this is the FIRST LEG.

Now for the SECOND LEG. We have before us Egyptian text written in the registers of Facsimiles 2 & 3. Sadly, the original vignettes of both facsimiles are missing or no longer extant but the reproductions printed in the Times and Seasons via the cuts made by Reuben Hedlock are decent reproductions from a competent artist and serve to provide near copies of what should have been on the originals. In addition, we do have the original papyrus for the vignette of Facsimile No. 1 and thankfully there are accompanying texts that flank the vignette. The writing which is read prior to Facsimile No. 1 (on the right) is discerned as well as the writing that follows Facsimile No. 1 (on the left) which continues with more funerary literature. In other words, the scene of Facsimile No. 1 is surrounded by funerary spells.

Now to pull the legs or knock them out from under the Missing Roll theory. These legs are examples of what the Book of Abraham is made of. Regardless of what your opinion might be of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and how that translation compares to another translation whereby the Book of Abraham was ultimately produced, that work serves as evidence. But what can’t be denied is the very text in the Facsimiles. It’s right before our eyes and serves as the very text in which Smith claimed to translate via the Explanations. The king’s name for one. The names Shulem and Olimlah as well. Hence, the second leg is the text of the Facsimiles! There is no missing texts in which Smith translated. It’s before our eyes! Egyptologists can read and translate it just fine.

So, without further ado, I am pulling the legs out from underneath the Missing Roll theory. Now, as of today, both legs have been knocked out from underneath this defunct theory which no longer has validity in Mormon apologetics. It’s over. There is nothing more to discuss in trying to defend that theory or in disproving it. Both legs have been knocked out from underneath it and there it lies on the ground, a useless means in defending the Book of Abraham translation.

It’s over. Now, the Church and faithful members alike who wish to continue their belief that Smith translated the papyrus into the Book of Abraham must fully embrace the Catalyst theory which is the only remaining explanation for how the book was produced.

Are you on board with this, John Gee? You do realize you haven’t a leg to stand on when it comes to defending the Missing Roll theory. It’s over. It’s a done deal and it’s time to move on to the next level and go from there.

Thank you.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

LATTER-DAY SAINT FAITH

Post by Shulem »

We believe in

1. God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost
2. A seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ
3. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head



All of the above are matters of faith taken into consideration by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

No. 1 involves imaginary characters who do not live in our world but are believed to be living in a place called heaven. Belief in these Persons are based on thoughts in the mind and feelings of the heart and is strictly a matter of faith. The reality of these Persons cannot be substantiated scientifically outside the realm of faith which is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

No. 2 involves a man who lived in the 19th century who claimed to be a prophet who testified of the existence of the characters of No. 1. Physical evidence of his life and ministry is substantiated but belief in him being prophet is strictly a matter of faith.

No. 3 is a revelation given by the prophet who claimed to identify the person and interpret the writing of the Egyptian vignette. The explanation given therein has been scientifically proven false and therefore the revelation is invalid. This in turn questions the legitimacy of the entire Book of Abraham.
Last edited by Shulem on Sat Nov 20, 2021 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Names and more names

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Fri Nov 19, 2021 5:17 pm
Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, and Korash.
Ancient Egyptians would probably find it peculiar that people from the future would mistake the canopic jars housing the deceased's organs as Gods.

What if some future religious diviner were to proclaim that cans of Coke, Pepsi, Sprite, and Mountain Dew were ancient Gods of America? Shouldn't we support the right of his followers to be fooled no matter the soft drink involved?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Post Reply