“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 »

I mentioned in a previous post how Joseph Smith identified the name “Mormon” on the gold plates and claimed that the etched characters on gold leaf were a literal translation of the word Mormon given in the reformed-Egyptian hieroglyphic language. Smith said the title-page of the Book of Mormon was given in those hieroglyphs or in other words “taken from the very last leaf, on the left side” of the writing was representative of the “title-page of the Book of Mormon.” Smith tells us exactly what those characters said and translated them.

Contrary to Joseph Smith and the Church in his day, there are apologists in our time who deny that Smith actually translated the writing in Facsimile No. 3. They admit that there is no king’s name given in the characters of the register above the head. But Smith told his followers and the world at large that a king’s name was given in the characters and that the writing on Facsimile No. 3 also represent the name of a Prince. We are also informed that the writing above the hand of Fig. 5 is the hieroglyphic name for “Shulem”.

Smith gave no indication that these readings were merely symbolic in nature but were literal translations from Egyptian into English. The word “literal” constantly pops up in the many testimonies given about how Smith translated. It is not a reinterpretation or a symbolic idea but a literal translation from Egyptian into English just as the word Mormon was literally taken from that last leaf and shown to represent the title-page of the book.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Joseph Smith’s definition of an Egyptian king

Post by Shulem »

The text of the Book of Abraham provides us with the definition of an Egyptian king so far as Joseph Smith was concerned. The narrative clearly states that Egypt’s making began after the flood when Ham’s daughter Egyptus founded the land of Egypt and established a new race and government through a line of kings beginning with her eldest son.

Abraham 1:25 wrote:Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

The first king of Egypt according to the narrative was the son of Egyptus. The narrative then informs us that the kingdom of Egypt was established by this blood line which was the royal line coming from Egyptus through Ham and that the king living during Abraham’s day was a direct descendant of that line. Abraham gives us the definition of a king saying, “Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood”. The point I wish to make is that this royal line had nothing to do with the mythical goddess Isis who lived BEFORE the flood and was married to the first legendary king of Egypt, Osiris.

Joseph Smith’s declaration that Fig. 2 (Isis) is a representation of the king of Egypt during Abraham’s day is impossible because Isis was NOT a descendant of Ham via Egyptus! According to the Book of Abraham the kings of Egypt were all descended from the royal line “King by royal blood” and this does not include Isis seeing she preceded that line (outside of time) and was never a king of Egypt. Her role was mother goddess to Horus who became the second king of Egypt having taken the throne of his father, Osiris.

I think it’s important to make all these distinctions because it goes to show that Joseph Smith didn’t know what he was talking about nor did he know anything about the mythology of ancient Egypt or how the government of Egypt was actually founded in predynastic times by competing forces who sought control of the land and people both in the north and in the south.

The bottom line: Isis is NOT a king. Isis is NOT a “Pharaoh” which according to Smith is a king by royal blood having descended from Ham.
Last edited by Shulem on Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Some apologists make a big deal out of the word “represented” used in the Explanation for Fig. 5, which states that the name Shulem is given “as represented by the characters above his hand” and therefore insist that the hieroglyphic characters are only a representation of the figure in concept rather than a literal reading of a name. They ask us to believe that the writing is not to be read or taken literally but is only a symbol or a representation of what Joseph Smith was revealing, a kind of catalyst. Apologists also transfer this ridiculous idea to Fig. 2, in an attempt to convince readers that the hieroglyphs above Isis’s head are only a representation of who she is but not a literal reading or that the hieroglyphical signs are not meant to be read literally. They want you to believe that the writing does not explain who the person is but that they are mere symbols or a means to an end to justify Smith’s erroneous interpretation. Apologists do this because they are trapped and are unable to justify Smith’s false translations. The apologists take things to a level of dishonestly that is truly astounding. Honesty is thrown right out the window!

Let’s take a moment to look at examples of what Smith meant when he actually employed the word “represent” when interpreting figures in Facsimile interpretations -- we get those prime examples in the Explanations of Facsimile No. 2. These are examples of images and figures as representations, NOT the writing.

Fig. 3. wrote:Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne
Here a person sits on a throne. The person is what represents God. The few surrounding hieroglyphs could be construed as the “Key-words” in which the person on the throne is speaking.


Fig. 5. wrote:Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23
Numbers 22 & 23 are apes. According to Smith, they represent stars. Note that this representation does not involve hieroglyphic writing.


Fig. 6. wrote:Represents this earth in its four quarters.
The word “represents” is directly applied to the four persons standing in the register. There is no writing. There are no hieroglyphic characters. It’s the image and pictures that are used to represent a concept!


Fig. 7. wrote:Represents God sitting upon his throne
Again, someone sitting on a throne. There is no hieroglyphic writing. The word “represents” is used to describe the person. In Facsimile No. 3, when Smith says the hieroglyphic characters represent a name he means that the name is literally READ in the same way you would ready any name in any language.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Appeal to Authority

Post by Shulem »

Dr. Robert K. Ritner wrote:
Ph.D. (with honors) in Egyptology from the University of Chicago in 1987

Image

No amount of special pleading can change the female “Isis the great, the god’s mother” (Facsimile 3, Fig. 2) into the male “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his hand,” as even the LDS author Michael D. Rhodes accepts. Here Smith also misunderstands “Pharaoh” as a personal name rather than a title meaning “king,” so he reads “king king” for a goddess’s name that he claims to have understood on the papyrus!

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 »

Jeff Lindsay wrote:Image

Another apparent horrific blunder in Facsimile 3 involves Figures 2 and 4, which Joseph identifies as Pharaoh and the prince, respectively, but which are obviously female. In fact, the characters above those figures state that they are Isis and Maat, two female deities, but Joseph said that Figure 2 (Isis) is "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head" and that Figure 4 (Maat) is "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand." As the critics say, here we have a simple test of his ability to read Egyptian, and it would have been easy here for God to simply prove to the world that his prophet could read Egyptian by inspiring him to write something like "The goddess Isis" and "The goddess Maat" for these figures. Instead, we have a "translation" that not only misreads the literal text, but also totally misses the obvious gender of the drawings. Any ordinary farmboy could at least have gotten the gender right, but not Joseph. End of story?

Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Yes, indeed, it is the “End of story”!

This is a prime example in proving Smith’s professed ability to have “literally” translated Egyptian writing from the Book of Abraham in which science has positively proven the prophet was providing anything other than what was actually written on the papyrus. Not only did Smith get gender wrong (poor eyesight may have been a factor) but he failed to render the true names of Isis and Maat that are written in the very hieroglyphs he claimed to decipher. The divine ladies in the vignette were not men dressing up as goddesses for some undisclosed ritual in which apologists would love to project in order to justify the obvious blunder. No, they are the goddesses manifested in person in the court of Osiris in heaven. It is a heavenly scene taking place among immortals. The scene is not occurring on planet earth as we know it. It’s heaven and Isis is standing behind her beloved husband, Osiris, Judge of the dead.

Having a so-called “testimony” of the Book of Mormon changes nothing and the truth of Facsimile No. 3, remains as it is -- truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come. Apologists and critics alike can freely recognize and state for the record that the human error of Joseph Smith in providing his Church revelation through his professed ability to translate and interpret ancient Egyptian through the power of the Holy Ghost is WRONG.

All of the testimonies, and there are many, state for the record that Joseph Smith professed to provide literal translations and interpretations of the Egyptian figures and writing. A literal meaning from the hieroglyphic characters of the papyrus carried the same weight and claim as that of the reformed hieroglyphics contained on the golden plates. Smith claimed to translate BOTH records, literally. There are many eyewitness testimonies from faithful members and reliable people who witnessed these events and the things Smith relayed specifically.

Apologists looking to justify Smith’s blunders are left with trying to fantasize ridiculous illusions and in doing so they pervert and misrepresent the ancient Egypt religion and mischaracterize their gods in a manner that is most disrespectful. Apologists must stop trying to find silly examples through wild parallels in trying to connect and associate Smith’s conclusions with conventional Egyptology. It’s a dead end street.
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 »

Jeff Lindsay wrote:Image

Perhaps I'm grasping at straws here, but I find it interesting that…

Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Yes, you are grasping at straws, Jeff. All of these attempts to find parallels and explain the different characteristics of the gods and goddesses of Egypt in order to justify Smith’s erroneous interpretations are the acts of a desperate apologist grasping for air. The search to find and create any kind of interesting parallel to justify Smith’s translations began pretty much with Hugh Nibley and it continues today with Egyptologists who are employed at BYU. It needs to stop! These psychedelic explanations come from a convoluted point of view and do nothing to validate the true conventional meaning of what is actually occurring in Facsimile No. 3.

You see Jeff, all that really matters about Facsimile No. 3, is what is really happening in Facsimile No. 3. The Mormons have misrepresented what is really happening in the vignette and continue to show disregard for the Egyptian religion in order to defend Joseph Smith who misrepresented that religion in a blatant manner. There must be accountability! Surely, you agree with that.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Book of Abraham Manifesto?

Post by Shulem »

THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS wrote: Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.

The Church today formerly breaks with declarations and statements (many of which are official and solemn) given by the prophet Joseph Smith, early Church leaders, and eyewitnesses who testified that the translations and interpretations were literal. The many testimonies of the early Church combine together like a single chorus and unanimously assert that Smith translated the hieroglyphics from the papyrus as he did the hieroglyphics of the gold plates -- converting the Egyptian into English, literally. It was proclaimed as a literal translation!

This matter is more fully explained in my website:

Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part I, II, III
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Translating Chinese

Post by Shulem »

Google Translation wrote:
约瑟夫·斯密

Image

President JOSEPH SMITH, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Joseph Smith’s definition of an Egyptian king

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:14 am
The narrative clearly states that Egypt’s making began after the flood when Ham’s daughter Egyptus founded the land of Egypt and established a new race and government through a line of kings beginning with her eldest son.
If you peddled that story at the Egyptian Museum of Antiquities, instead of laughing, they would say "Oh, you must be one of those Mormons".
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Joseph Smith’s definition of an Egyptian king

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:47 pm
Shulem wrote:
Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:14 am
The narrative clearly states that Egypt’s making began after the flood when Ham’s daughter Egyptus founded the land of Egypt and established a new race and government through a line of kings beginning with her eldest son.
If you peddled that story at the Egyptian Museum of Antiquities, instead of laughing, they would say "Oh, you must be one of those Mormons".

Authorities of the Egyptian Antiquities are undoubtedly familiar with the Mormons and their Book of Abraham Facsimiles. Dr. Muhlestein made his presence known and with many an opportunity, I’m sure, to present Joseph Smith’s translations of the Book of Abraham to the Egyptian Museum as well as any other world class museum around the world who might have interest in Smith’s translations. But so far, I believe, the only organization that bothers to publish those things is the Church. Nobody else cares. Also, I don’t believe there are any credible universities that publish the Explanations of the Facsimiles in their curriculum. With that said, I don’t consider BYU credible. That may sound harsh but those are the facts as I see them.
Post Reply