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

Re: I believe John Gee is cracking...

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Wed May 17, 2023 5:39 pm
Recall the following post I provided back on page two of this thread and how this particular reference serves as strong evidence to show how Smith may have come up with the name “Egyptus” during his translation process for the name of the founder of Egypt:
If Smith employed a name taken from Greek mythology, what name should he have used if he based his origin story on the actual Egyptian language?
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

Kemet & Deshret

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Thu May 18, 2023 5:21 am
Shulem wrote:
Wed May 17, 2023 5:39 pm
Recall the following post I provided back on page two of this thread and how this particular reference serves as strong evidence to show how Smith may have come up with the name “Egyptus” during his translation process for the name of the founder of Egypt:
If Smith employed a name taken from Greek mythology, what name should he have used if he based his origin story on the actual Egyptian language?

For the soil of the Black Land of Upper Egypt:

Shulem wrote:
Wed Dec 22, 2021 4:11 am
Let’s talk about the *BC DATE* in which Smith gave for when Noah floated and Kemet was discovered by “EGYPTUS” and let’s discuss this as it relates to the long periods known as predynastic Egypt and the eventual Unification of both Upper and Lower Egypt. Tell me, Dr. Gee, do your colleagues find Abraham chapter one useful in better understanding Egypt’s making as they compare that with Smith’s chronology?
Alphus and Omegus wrote:
Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:57 pm
It doesn't matter what scroll theory you want to believe. The canonized English text of the Book of Abraham is littered with scores of anthropological and historical errors: Egyptus; a person named Pharaoh; a statement that the Noahic Flood covered Egypt; total ignorance of "Kemet," the actual ancient Egyptian word for Egypt; totally wrong timelines, made up divine beings and words, I could go on and on.
Shulem wrote:
Sun May 14, 2023 3:59 pm
It may feel ancient to Peterson who is a brainwashed fool, but the founder of ancient Egypt as named in the Book of Abraham is Egyptus, a name that had not been spoken or written during the time Joseph Smith incorrectly claimed the Black Land (Kemet) was founded in 2300 BC.

See also (Wikipedia) Deshret

“The word Deshret also referred to the desert Red Land on either side of Kemet (Black Land), the fertile Nile river basin.”
Alphus and Omegus
Area Authority
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 13, 2021 8:41 pm

Re: “Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood”

Post by Alphus and Omegus »

Shulem wrote:
Tue May 09, 2023 8:34 pm
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:





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:





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.

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?
These are great citations, Shulem. I had not seen the Adam Clarke reference before, it's very significant.

I think it is worth considering that by the time that Josephus was writing, it was the case that "pharaoh" was another word for king in Egyptian. It just was not when Abram supposedly existed.

But the presence of "pharaoh" in Genesis is an indicator that it also is an untrue later account. And it's clear that Clarke was similarly misled by the Hebrew legends about Israel which were not true. Smith was just following his blind guide.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood”

Post by Shulem »

Alphus and Omegus wrote:
Thu May 18, 2023 2:12 pm
These are great citations, Shulem. I had not seen the Adam Clarke reference before, it's very significant.

I’m glad you’re here to notice these things and contribute to the cause in demonstrating the false nature of the Book of Abraham and how Joseph was simply stealing from sources available to him to come up with material for his story. Also, I want to point out how the sacrificial death rites detailed in the story is Joseph Smith’s imagination run wild!

Abraham 1:10 wrote:Even the thank-offering of a child did the priest of Pharaoh offer upon the altar which stood by the hill called Potiphar’s Hill, at the head of the plain of Olishem.
Adam Clarke Commentary Ex 7:22 wrote:As it is well known that the Nile was a chief object of Egyptian idolatry, (See Clarke's note on Exodus 7:15;), and that annually they sacrificed a girl, or as others say, both a boy and a girl, to this river, in gratitude for the benefits received from it, (Universal Hist., vol. i., p. 178, fol. edit).

It’s a proven fact that Joseph Smith borrowed heavily upon Adam Clarke for his information about ancient Egypt. The so-called thank-offering of a child is proof that Smith was leaning on Clarke and automatically assumed that such nonsense must have also took place in Abraham’s day.

And, I suspect that is where he also learned about the crocodile (“Pharaoh was the crocodile”) being a representation or an emblem of the The idolatrous god of Pharaoh. (Facsimile No. 1, Fig. 9.).


Alphus and Omegus, again, thank you for being here. I wish my dear friend Philo would show up. :|

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

Re: “Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood”

Post by Shulem »

Alphus and Omegus wrote:
Thu May 18, 2023 2:12 pm
I think it is worth considering that by the time that Josephus was writing, it was the case that "pharaoh" was another word for king in Egyptian. It just was not when Abram supposedly existed.

But the presence of "pharaoh" in Genesis is an indicator that it also is an untrue later account. And it's clear that Clarke was similarly misled by the Hebrew legends about Israel which were not true. Smith was just following his blind guide.

Correct on all accounts, Alphus and Omegus. The word “Pharaoh” as a name or title for the Egyptian king does not apply in Abraham’s time. It *is* an anachronism in the Bible and the Book of Abraham. Josephus and Adam Clarke did not know better and neither did Joseph Smith who followed their lead while pretending to translate hieroglyphic writing on scrolls he claimed were as old as Abraham.

Professor Gee, I got you right where I want you -- backed up in a corner and you are not going to escape or come up with so-called plausible excuses to get Smith off the hook. I won’t let you. And I’m not the average dumb Book of Abraham critic that typically doesn’t know the intricacies of Egyptology and church history. I know how to maneuver through tricky Mormon apologetics! I am the greatest Book of Abraham critic to have ever lived and I OWN the Book of Abraham, not you, sir. Until you beat me at this game you got nothing!

Just come out and admit that the Book of Abraham is not a genuine authentic history and all will be well. We can even shake hands!

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

Re: Michael D. Rhodes

Post by Shulem »

This professor is another example of academic bamboozling in which Latter-day Saints are sold a bill of goods that are based on lies. Take for example Rhodes’ article entitled: Teaching the Book of Abraham Facsimiles, a rather poor and meager attempt twenty years ago to defend Smith’s false Egyptology. Although this thread is not about the Facsimiles, it’s interesting to tie those three debacles to the false Egyptian history given in the textual narrative of the Book of Abraham. Rhodes offers snake oil for his ignorant students who are in need of anything to get Smith off the hook and continue to pat their testimonies with, “I know the church is true.”

Rhodes wrote:One of the most difficult aspects of teaching the book of Abraham is dealing with the three facsimiles found there.

I would think it’s equally difficult to deal with *how* and *when* Smith said Egypt was founded. What have you to say of that, Mr. Rhodes?

Rhodes wrote:These Egyptian documents can be reliably dated to somewhere between 220 and 150 b.c. on the basis of the handwriting, the historical period in which the religious writings on these papyri were in use in Egypt, and the historical references to at least one of the original owners of the papyri.

I’m glad you have some solid dates to work with regarding the papyri. How about solid dates for events in ancient Egyptian history? What about the Narmer Palette (3000 BC) for example or the pyramids? How do those things correlate with Egyptus and Noah’s ark in 2300 BC?

Rhodes wrote:They cannot possibly date to the period of Abraham—around 2000 to 1800 b.c.

But Joseph Smith claimed the papyri did in fact date to that era just as he claimed that Egypt was discovered and founded by lady Egyptus in about 2300 BC. What have you to say about that, Mr. Rhodes?

Rhodes wrote:Modern Egyptologists maintain that the facsimiles do not at all represent what Joseph Smith said they do.

Modern Egyptologists also maintain the historical narrative of Egypt’s beginnings described in the text do not represent real Egyptian history.

Rhodes wrote:What about Joseph Smith’s interpretations of the three facsimiles? Are they valid? Do they make sense?

What about Joseph Smith’s explanations of *how* and *when* Egypt was founded by lady Egyptus which would have to take place after the unification of Egypt and the building of the pyramids?

Rhodes wrote:It is also important to remember that we do not have the original illustrations made by Abraham; rather, we have copies made nearly two thousand years later, with the consequent problems of changes and distortions.

Your sneaky conjecture is worthless. And guess what? We DO have the original Narmer Palette and the original pyramids sitting among the sands of Egypt. That is real history, not the make-believe garbage we read in the Book of Abraham!

Rhodes wrote:I have shown that Joseph Smith correctly interpreted items found on the three facsimiles of the book of Abraham and that ancient sources also associated Abraham with all of these illustrations.

You have shown nothing worthy of serious contemplation. Can you show how Joseph Smith correctly described *how* and *when* Egypt was founded? No amount of earnest prayer from a faith believing Mormon can change Egyptian history! I testify that Smith’s revelations were false.
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 »

ELDER JOSEPH E. ROBINSON. General conference, October 1914 wrote: Just now, almost within the confines of the City of the Angels, in California, is the greatest archaeological find known to modern times. Bones are being disinterred there that, in the mind of the scientist and paleontologist, have determined the fact that here on this western hemisphere life began, both that of the beast of the field, the fowl of the air and of human kind.

This is scientific nonsense! It is faith promoting Mormon dogma being taught over the pulpit of General Conference in the very presence of the entire leadership of the Church. It is proclaimed that all life first began in America whereby life forms of the field, the air, and humankind originated from the western hemisphere. But we know this is wrong. Human life first began and evolved in Africa, not from Joseph Smith’s lily-white Garden of Eden in Missouri. Egypt greatly predates the mythical date of the flood as recorded in the Bible and adopted into Joseph Smith’s “New Translation” of the Bible, beginning with Genesis.

ELDER JOSEPH E. ROBINSON. General conference, October 1914 wrote: But these things have gone to determine in the minds of men that America was the home of the human race, and the home where God first set His creatures free. From this land, Maya tradition tells us, as told by Le Plongeon, in his "Queen Moo" civilization was taken to Egypt. This was possibly by Egyptus — as recorded in the Pearl of Great Price, and the riddle is thus solved where Egypt and Egyptians obtained their civilization, and the wondrous knowledge of astronomy, of surveying, of agriculture, of medicine, etc., it came from America, the land from whence Noah sailed when he with his family embarked in the ark, when the waters of the great deep were broken up and the lands both of the old and the new world, so called, were inundated.

Here we are informed that all life began in America just as Joseph Smith taught. We are reminded how lady Egyptus left this land with Noah to begin life anew elsewhere. The Egyptian race beginning with Egyptus is said to have gained wonderous knowledge of astronomy and other important matters from Noah via the land of America in which they left. These teachings coupled with chapter one of the Book of Abraham is absolute nonsense! The Church should be ashamed for having said this. It is stupidity beyond measure. Sadly, the majority of the members of the church who heard this false testimony in 1914 probably believed it. But the same kind of false testimony is going on today as the apologists continue to hoodwink the members and fool them with all manner of silly arguments.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Catalyst Theory is DOA

Post by Shulem »

Wikipedia wrote:Other Latter-day Saints hold to the "catalyst theory," which hypothesizes that Smith's "study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham", allowing him to "translate" the Book of Abraham from the Breathing Permit of Hôr papyrus by inspiration without actually relying on the papyrus' textual meaning. This theory draws theological basis from Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible, wherein in the course of rereading the first few chapters of Genesis, he dictated as a revelatory translation the much longer Book of Moses.

I wish readers of this thread (Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative) would come to terms with the full implications of what this thread does to the Book of Abraham. It refutes Smith’s claims and denies the Book of Abraham as having any genuine historicity with ancient Egypt. This thread is my greatest contribution to critical studies of the Book of Abraham! It is powerful and the buck stops here! If the Church attempts to formerly place the Book of Abraham translation within the confines of the Catalyst Theory, there is simply no means by which it can move forward or backward. It is stuck in time and cannot go anywhere. There are no wheels on that cart! The Book of Abraham sits there, lifeless, dead, and completely unable to provide itself any credibility. It’s over for the Book of Abraham.

The Catalyst Theory is DOA when taking into consideration the timeline, chronology, and dating of ancient Egypt. There simply is no room for the Jewish Bible or Smith’s fraudulent translations to redate and reassign the historical beginnings of Egypt to 2300 BC in order to fit Egypt into the Mormon religion.

What part of that do you not understand?
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Catalyst Theory is DOA

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 7:16 pm
There simply is no room for the Jewish Bible or Smith’s fraudulent translations to redate and reassign the historical beginnings of Egypt to 2300 BC in order to fit Egypt into the Mormon religion.

What part of that do you not understand?
Donald Trump proved there is a clamoring market for an alternative reality to known facts. Why should devout believers be stuck with academic Egyptology when Mormonism offers a Q-alternative? Mormons are a peculiar people, so why should their education not be equally special?
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: Catalyst Theory is DOA

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 7:54 pm
Shulem wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 7:16 pm
There simply is no room for the Jewish Bible or Smith’s fraudulent translations to redate and reassign the historical beginnings of Egypt to 2300 BC in order to fit Egypt into the Mormon religion.

What part of that do you not understand?
Donald Trump proved there is a clamoring market for an alternative reality to known facts. Why should devout believers be stuck with academic Egyptology when Mormonism offers a Q-alternative? Mormons are a peculiar people, so why should their education not be equally special?

It’s perfectly fine for the Mormons to promote their “Book of Abraham” story based on faith and religious education that has no bearing on actual things that are historic and genuine -- as such from the sands of Egypt and tomb walls. The Book of Abraham is fantasy to promote religion and if it’s presented on those grounds as pseudepigraphal in nature, then who am I to complain? Have at it you Mormons! Read the Book of Abraham to your heart’s content just so long as you do it with a wink of an eye.

;)
Post Reply