“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.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, 1843 address about the AGE of the mummies and papyrus

Post by Marcus »

Ed1 wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:45 pm

When Egyptology has failed us to show what it was that was written, then something else is there. What is it? It is beyond Egyptology, and requires a new type of analysis to be elucidated. How? By reverse engineering it until you get results. And when you get results, it sheds light on how the rest ought to be reverse engineered. I have documented the process of Reverse Engineering in the book that I posted a link to, that you ignore, that builds upon the process that I have had to develop myself, because Egyptology has failed in a sense, to bring forth what I had to figure out how myself, to systematically bring forth. You think it isn't reproducible. Your wrong. It is.

This is fascinating. Let me see if I understand:

1. Start with a conclusion, based only on beliefs and religious requirements. Present said conclusion as non-negotiable.

2. When accepted methods don't reveal that conclusion, make up other "methods" (I use the word extremely loosely) until you find one that gives you the conclusion from part 1.

3. Define this new method as "Reverse Engineering," even though use of this new method to determine a conclusion in no way fits the accepted definition of reverse engineering, because engineering anything using this method fails as it relies on after the fact coincidences that don't explain a real underlying process, but only highlight random coincidence.

4. State that this "reverse engineering" method is reproducible, even though the method only finds a coincidental parallel in one area that is construed to imply the conclusion, and is literally, in no way, "reproducible" as a consistent method. (unless finding random coincidences is a "method.")
...I am a pioneer, a trail blazer, who has to do what it takes to get results when everyone else is blind and has either given up, or has lied about the fact that results can be produced.
Doing "what it takes" to find meaning that is not there is also defined as finding irrelevant coincidences to support one's predetermined requirements.
....This is for the people that need it, not for you, when they find such things, and actually think through the implications.
i understand this. Reaching for coincidences and parallels is a way to find meaning that for many may be a necessary anchor in a difficult world. It doesn't make it true, or logical, or even healthy.

This is Celestial, and Shulem is (appropriately) quite the bear :D at insisting that people behave commensurately, so I do want to reiterate, this is simply my opinion about the process you are describing, not a judgment on your person. I do feel strongly that promoting illogical and unscientific methods needs to be rebutted, but it is the method I am rebutting, not you as a person, ed1.

you may not see it as such, but the acceptance of you as a person here is a gift that many other places would not offer. Maybe that's why you continue to come back. I am pretty impressed at Shulem's efforts in your direction, in spite of your lashing out.

In any case, Shulem has been amazing up here:
Shulem wrote:
Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:18 pm
Ed1 wrote:
Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:55 pm
...At least I have continually tried to reach out to the likes of you to build bridges until you finally threw enough sand in my face that I realized that trying to be friends with you was stupid. You are not and never will be, and never really have been a friend. I credit you with being one of the last straws that finally drove me away from here.

It isn't foolish to do what I do, as I continually make progress, even when I'm wrong and have to concede to something that I am wrong about. Its only foolish to have anything to do with you....
I wish you well on your journey through life and hope you are enjoying a good measure of health and happiness in all you do.
He's cutting you a lot of slack, I assume because you're not a regular, and I join him in wishing you well.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5034
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

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

Post by Marcus »

What's your opinion on Ed's idea that if one doesn't find what is expected, creating a new method until one finds that result is acceptable? He calls it reverse engineering, which in my opinion is a misuse of the term. What he really seems to be doing is searching for coincidences. This isn't an example of reverse engineering.

Edited
Last edited by Marcus on Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:51 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 »

Marcus wrote:
Fri Jan 21, 2022 8:35 pm
Hello, mathygreen, and welcome. I take it you are quoting Ed? Select the words to be quoted, then click on the quotation symbol above the box you're writing in, and you'll get this:

Marcus,

Mathygreen is a spam robot that is pasting material for the sole purpose of adding a link at the bottom of their post to an advertisement.

I've asked the moderator to jump in and delete that account and get rid of the post. Once that is done, you can adjust your post accordingly.

;)
Ed1
High Priest
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:43 am

.

Post by Ed1 »

.
Last edited by Ed1 on Sun Apr 03, 2022 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.” ― Matsuo Basho
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 »

Ed made some statements that I find difficult to process.

Ed wrote:
  • You are not understanding one bit of what I'm saying, just like Shulem
  • you think that I somehow think that my methods are equivelent to science, and are able to be judged by secular methods
  • Or maybe, its better to say that the Egyptological or secular things can be used in the other realm
  • 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

Ed,

Your ideas are difficult to understand and impossible to accept. Look, the only reason you have tendered the name “Thutmose” as a candidate for the King’s name is because you are able to rely on science and Egyptologists who have already done all the work for you in identifying Thutmose and the dynasty in which he reigned. Without the secular learning and science, you could hardly tender a king’s name and talk about when he reigned. So you see Ed, you are borrowing your information from Egyptology to take over to Smith’s side in order to defend his erroneous claims. What right have you to take from Egyptology and pat Smith’s bread with rancid butter? Smith knew nothing about Thutmose or when he reigned. You wouldn’t either if it wasn’t for secular learning which you seem readily willing to accept when it works for you.

Ed, you also declared that you are acting as the prophet by saying, “When I blaze a new trail, it is to establish a new way of doing things in the realm of the religious”, which for all intents and purposes, seems like you claim to be at the head while the whole Church must follow you, including I dare say, President Nelson and all the apostles who say nothing about these things. But in reality, nobody is following you. You are not blazing anything!
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 »

Ed1 wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm
I'm not looking for your acceptance of my methods.

But you’ve declared yourself as the trailblazer so that means you want people to follow you.

Ed1 wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm
If I were, then I would use science as my standard of judgement against things of belief, and I would be a secularist, and a transhumanist instead of a religious restorationist.

You’ve already depended on science to tell you the name of Thutmose and when he reigned. You’ve depended on Egyptologists to tell you the meaning of the so-called bread loaf which you attribute as part of your claims. You seem to rely on Egyptologists for everything you assert about Egyptology in defending Smith. Smith couldn’t use Egyptology as you do and you use it in a manner that is inconsistent with the discipline in which it is made. Your use of Egyptology as far as I can see is malpractice. Placing Abraham in the dynasty in which you have done is a direct contradiction to statements Smith made in dating those times. Where are you going to put Moses? And then your problem gets worse trying to meld biblical chronology into dynastic Egypt. Have you thought of that?
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 »

Ed1 wrote:
Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:13 pm
Secularists don't care about religious truth. They only care about judging religious truth and religous investigation by secular methods and they say, AHA! See! Science proved this wrong!! I am unconcerned and unmoved and unfazed by this.

What’s true for you is not true for me.

There is no king’s name in Facsimile No. 3. Joseph Smith was wrong and didn’t know what he was talking about. His religious interpretations were false.

I am 100% sure. I know it absolutely. No faith needed, just SURE knowledge.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Cracked Pharaoh's Name in Facsimile #3

Post by Shulem »

Ed1 wrote:
Mon Jan 17, 2022 7:49 am
The names of the Pharoah's around that time period are:
Ahmose, Amenhotep, Thutmose

Ed,

Without getting into too much detail, I will simply say that your proposal is absolutely fatally flawed. Do you know what you’re suggesting by implicating Pharaoh Ahmose with Abraham? Ahmose and Thutmose would have hated Abraham and would have killed him -- Egypt was at war with Asiatics. Abraham was a vile Asiatic. It was 18th Dynasty Pharaoh Ahmose that finally expelled the vile Asiatic kings (Hyksos) by retaking Egypt through war and conquest and sending the Asiatic usurpers packing. King’s of the previous Egyptian dynasty (17th) started major campaigns against the Asiatics but were unable to expel them. Thus, your theory in linking these kings with Abraham is beyond absurd, it’s diametrically opposed to everything Egyptology knows about affairs in that era. I’m sorry, but you have taken your religious ideas into an Egyptian fantasyland. Nobody will accept your proposal, least of all, John Gee. The first kings of the 18th Dynasty detested the Asiatic and the last person any of them would ever grant to sit on a pharaoh’s throne is Abraham. That is the absolute worst time to grant vile Abraham preeminence in Egypt!

Google God wrote:What is Ahmose famous for?

Ahmose I, king of ancient Egypt (reigned c. 1539–14 bce) and founder of the 18th dynasty who completed the expulsion of the Hyksos (Asiatic rulers of Egypt), invaded Palestine, and re-exerted Egypt's hegemony over northern Nubia, to the south.
Ed1
High Priest
Posts: 384
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:43 am

.

Post by Ed1 »

.
Last edited by Ed1 on Sun Apr 03, 2022 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.” ― Matsuo Basho
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 »

Ed1 wrote:
Wed Jan 26, 2022 6:01 pm
Think hard Paul. Reason through what I said.
Don't be absurd. Nobody should follow me. Those that are able to take away something from what I have done and gain something spiritually or something intellectually from it will do so. That is not "following."

Fair enough...
Post Reply