Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

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

Long live Osiris and the memory of ancient Egypt

Post by Shulem »

PEOPLE,

IT’S OVER FOR THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM. THE APOLOGISTS HAVE LOST THE WAR.

GEE & MUHLESTEIN, STEP ASIDE. DO IT NOW!

IT’S OVER.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

Post by Moksha »

Wonder if BYU archeologists will ever issue a worldwide archeological statement to forget about the Rift Valley and look to Adam-ondi-Ahman in Missouri as the cradle of civilization.
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: Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Tue Dec 27, 2022 2:21 am
Wonder if BYU archeologists will ever issue a worldwide archeological statement to forget about the Rift Valley and look to Adam-ondi-Ahman in Missouri as the cradle of civilization.

It’s a fact that Smith and Cowdery were aware of the legend of Enoch’s pillars (stone & brick) and inventions of the early Patriarchs as recorded by Josephus:

Josephus, 2:3 wrote:And that their inventions might not be lost before they were sufficiently known, upon Adam's prediction that the world was to be destroyed at one time by the force of fire, and at another time by the violence and quantity of water, they made two pillars, the one of brick, the other of stone: they inscribed their discoveries on them both, that in case the pillar of brick should be destroyed by the flood, the pillar of stone might remain, and exhibit those discoveries to mankind.

Cowdery specifically mentioned via publication in the Messenger and Advocate that Enoch’s pillar was depicted in a vignette on the papyri which has been identified as the Book of Joseph. Cowdery indicated that according to Josephus a monument of stone was meant to survive as a testimonial of Adam and the Patriarchs. And if Enoch built a pillar of stone in the land of Adam (America), where is that stone today or any remnants or ruins of a civilization that preceded the flood for some 1,500 years? Surely, Smith assumed there would have been some ancient remains at Spring Hill which according to revelation was Adam-ondi-Ahman, the very place where Adam visited his people (D&C 116).

But it never fails, Mormon truth claims always come up empty:

1. No Adamic ruins in Missouri
2. No king’s name in Facsimile No. 3
3. Jackal god with a nose chopped off does not make him a slave

But to make matters worse, according to Josephus, Enoch’s pillar ended up being manifest in the Old World “land of Siriad” of all places. But according to Joseph Smith, the New World (America) was the land of the early Patriarchs. Therefore, according to subsequent revelations, Smith & Cowdery had no business entertaining revelations about Enoch’s pillar being anywhere other than in America. Thus, Joseph of Egypt would not have drawn such an image because he would have known that it was on the other side of the world before the earth was flooded!

Everything about the Book of Abraham and the papyri is a train wreck for Mormonism!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “MOUNT ARARAT, AND THE EARLY ABODE OF NOAH AND HIS DESCENDANTS.”

Post by Shulem »

Several months after Smith assumed full responsibility as chief editor for the Times and Seasons, in the same year in which the Book of Abraham was published, an article about Noah’s landing was published and presented to the church regarding geography, migration, and early civilization to everyone seeking authoritative instruction from the prophet who finalized the piece by saying, “we may safely conclude”.

Times and Seasons, 15 October 1842 wrote:MOUNT ARARAT, AND THE EARLY ABODE OF NOAH AND HIS DESCENDANTS.

In the opinion of the most learned among the moderns, Mount Ararat, where the ark of Noah rested, after the deluge, was in Armenia, or Thibet, and between 90° and 100° E. long. and between 30° and 35° north lat. north of Hindostan and Persia, west of the river Indus and of central Asia, and east of Mesopotamia and of the Caspian Sea. This is a temperate clime, and favorable to health and long life, as well as to the pursuits of the shepherd and agriculturist. The Ararat, the Caucasus, and the Taurus are connected, and form almost one group or range, extending a great distance from what is usually called Asia Minor, to India.

The Indian and Hindoo traditions of the earliest times point to Noah and the Deluge; and they claim to be the descendants of that patriarch. Noah and his sons would not long remain on the mountain where the ark rested, on the subsiding of the waters. They advanded no doubt, to the south, to a milder climate and a more champaign country. In the fourth generation, or one hundred and fifty years from the deluge, they removed westward, to the plains of Shinar, where they began to construct a building which should reach to heaven. Dispersed from this place about one hundred and fifty or one hundred and sixty years after the deluge, they went forth, in different companies, east, west, north and south; but most to the south and to the east, as both the face of the country and the climate would invite. Noah lived two hundred years after this event, and probably journeyed east, where traditions relating to the flood, and the safety of a few from that catastrophe have much prevailed.— From Noah and his sons would be communicated to their posterity whatever was known by them of antedeluvian discoveries and inventions in the arts of life. These could not have been very small during seventeen hundred years, the duration of the old world, according to the common computation; but at this distance of time, and in the want of early records, no very accurate opinion can be formed as to how great, or what those inventions were. But we may safely conclude, that they were not very great; otherwise the early generations after the deluge would have been more civilized than there is now evidence or reason to believe.

The article highlights several points already made in this thread and ties them together rather nicely. We learn how the sons of Noah migrated in all directions but most to the south and east. Smith relates how Noah lived for “two hundred years” (350) after the deluge and recalls how antediluvian civilization endured “seventeen hundred years” (1,656). Smith relates how the sons of Noah did not remain long in the mountain but soon migrated into the plains of Shinar. The tower of Babel is recalled as having been built in Shinar in the fourth generation (Noah, Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Eber, Peleg) or “one hundred and fifty years” after the flood. This is important because the Book of Abraham tells us that the daughter of Ham and her sons migrated south and discovered a land under water which pays direct reference to Egypt’s Delta -- Lower Egypt.

But notice how the geography takes on proportions that don’t meet with how the story should play out in real time and conditions because distance now becomes nearly astronomical for these families. Egypt’s Delta is a THOUSAND miles from Ararat and Shinar! Even if Egyptus and her sons managed to migrate that far south and discover the land of Egypt, the sheer distance between them and Noah’s homeland with Japheth and Shem would be too far to maintain correspondence. This is a huge hole in the script for Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham!

It makes no sense that Ham’s daughter loads up her belongings, presumably on a cart, and then hauls her family away for a thousand miles to some distant imaginary land for her to discover. The logistics for such an adventure is simply beyond reason. Smith created the biggest hole in the script imaginable! The distance and separation between the Nile Delta and Noah’s homeland established in Shinar turns Smith’s narrative for the discovery of Egypt into a fantasy of biblical proportion. The whole thing is just stupid. It makes no sense that a mother is going to wander off the beaten path for a thousand miles looking for a better place to live.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

Post by Shulem »

Abraham 1:23 wrote:The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus

So, as postulated earlier, the daughter of Ham journeyed on an expedition and departed ways with the sons of Noah and their families in what must have been an adventure to find another home. The Book of Abraham makes it clear that this woman was the first person to have discovered Egypt. Coincidently, the land was named in honor of her mother, Egyptus. That name however is an anachronism.

Abraham 1:25 wrote:Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham

We may assume that Joseph Smith figured the first government of Egypt was originally established at Memphis (Men-nefer). This ancient city was located on the Nile, deep within the lower region of the Delta near the Great Pyramids. Memphis is dated to the time of the uniting of the governments of Upper and Lower Egypt (3000 BC) and thus predates the chronology of the biblical flood by 700 years. But, to make matters worse for Joseph Smith’s so-called “first government” is that other ancient cities further south including Nubia are considerably older than Memphis -- on the order of a thousand years! The biblical chronology kept by the Jews becomes worthless because the most ancient regions of Egypt are older than Adam himself. Go figure.

Thus, we know the historical telling of the Book of Abraham is a sham.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

“Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood”

Post by Shulem »

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

“discovered the land it was under water”

Post by Shulem »

Abraham 1:24 wrote:When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

It’s important to realize this reference to a land discovered under water has no allusion of the previous deluge wherein the earth was flooded. This water has everything to do with fresh water and the natural ecological system that allowed Egypt to flourish for millennia. Joseph Smith was aware of the Egyptian seasonal inundation wherein the rains in Africa would flood the Nile in Upper Egypt and make its way down into the Delta and flood the land with minerals and enrich the soil. This was an annual occurrence and it’s the only reason Egypt had fertile land. Smith was a farmer and knew this and it was common knowledge of his day. The GAEL reveals that the inundation was the very reason the land was discovered under water:
  • Egypt was discovered while it was under water, who was the daughter of Ham
  • The land of Egypt which was first discovered by a woman while underwater, and afterwards settled by her Sons she being a daughter of Ham— any land over flown with water— a land seen when overflown by water:— land overflown by the seasons, land enriched by being overflown low marshy ground.
So, we may infer from the narrative in the Book of Abraham that the traveling party or family of Ham made their way through the land of Canaan which would later become Israel and crossed the Sinai Peninsula where they set up a permanent camp on the edge of the wet Delta until such time, they felt they could cross and settle therein. I find it somewhat curious that Smith neglected to mention the significance of Canaan and how that land would one day become the birthplace of Christ. Seems like Smith missed a golden opportunity to add some Messianic prophecies to the story. I get the impression that Smith elected to keep the discovery of Egypt to a minimum because he didn’t know much about it. Thus, after the inundation receded, they moved right on in and became the EGYPTIANS, if you can believe it.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

The Flood

Post by Shulem »

The story of Noah’s flood in the book of Genesis is a myth having come down from civilization as a story to incite the mind in considering how great the planet is compared to man who is subject to the ravaging forces of mother nature. The flood is just a story and Noah is just a religious character of that story. Joseph Smith took the story of the flood as literal history. For him, it actually happened in the date set within biblical chronology, 2300 BC. Joseph Smith considered the Jewish records having been passed down from the Hebrews as true and correct as any science known to man. Smith truly believed in a universal flood that submerged the entire earth in a baptism of water preparatory to being baptized by fire in the last days at Christ’s coming. He believed the waters of the flood were elevated thousands of feet and covered the mountains. Smith believed the ark actually rested atop Mount Ararat. The world was baptized and fully submerged in a dome of water encircling the planet in which all life outside the ark was extinguished. His own revelation states, “The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth.” (Moses 8:30)

We know through the marvelous means of science that mountains are millions of years old including the volcano of Mount Ararat. We know the mountains are older than human life and were standing tall in their majestic form prior to the existence of man. But in spite of science and a knowledge of the sun, a giant ball of burning gas shining brilliantly in outer space, religion in all its forms entices man and induces him to believe things for the sole purpose of establishing order and encouraging obedience to that order. Such is religion. Such is Mormonism!

We know there never was a global flood that blanketed the earth and covered the mountains. Eight people floating on an ark made of gofer wood never rested atop Mount Ararat and the dove which returned with an olive leaf is nothing more than a story and all of it is religious symbolism.


Mount Ararat

Image
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: The Flood

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Dec 29, 2022 1:41 pm
Such is religion. Such is Mormonism!
So what you are saying means that Louis Midgley was never actually visited by the ghost of Hugh Nibley and did not learn about the ponderous chain he had forged for himself during his life as an apologist. Pity, that cautionary tale seemed so real. Well, I'm still pulling for tiny Tim and wish him a speedy recovery.
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

Professor Gee

Post by Shulem »

This man has excelled in his understanding of Egyptology and the disciplines needed to understand that science. But I do not believe Gee accepts all the historical claims made in the text of the Book of Abraham regarding dynastic Egypt and its place in world history. I strongly suspect that Gee has serious reservations and difficulty in understanding why and how Smith formulated a story based on mythical Jewish tradition and roots that have come down from the Hebrew Bible. Gee knows that Egyptology and science trump false traditions. He knows the unification of Egypt occurred in 3000 BC.

With that said, I also believe that Gee has a testimony of the restored gospel having come through the instrumentality of Joseph Smith and has evolved into what Mormonism is today. I suspect that what is important to Gee in the Book of Abraham can be summed up by the spiritual teachings of preexistence, God in heaven, and priesthood power. But historical claims of Egypt’s making therein and biblical chronology are of little consequence to him. I don’t think he believes that garbage. And if he does, then maybe he should begin to speak out about how 2300 BC was prehistoric Egypt and demonstrate how Egyptology today has gotten everything wrong.

But he will not do that.

Image
Post Reply