Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

[_moksha]

The way the knife is drawn currently looks like the idolatrous priest is going to spread butter on the father of the faithful.

Yikes, without divine intervention Abraham will soon be toast!

[_Shulem]

The way the knife is drawn currently looks like the idolatrous priest is going to spread butter on the father of the faithful.

Yikes, without divine intervention Abraham will soon be toast!

Abraham was toasted the moment Smith started dreaming up stories when he was suckered by Chandler and local newspaper reports of Egyptian papyrus from Egypt bearing witness of Bible patriarchs. Smith fell for it: hook, line, and sinker. He made stuff up out of thin air just like he did the Book of Moses but in this case he pretended to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs as he did via gold plates with his head in a hat.

Catch the part in my above post about how the apologists at Pearl of Great Price Central discount the idea that Anubis in Facsimile No.1 can't decidedly be identified by Egyptologists as Anubis because they say, "without a hieroglyphic caption for this figure, this identification should be accepted cautiously". But, lo and behold, the hypocritical apologists can't use that argument for Facsimile No. 3 because there are captions (labels) above the figures to identify each character in the vignette. Therefore we can be certain they are who the captions say they are! Anubis is NOT a slave!

Oh the tangled web spun by the apologists as they are led by a criminal minded professor, Dr. John Gee, a traitor and an Egyptologist APOSTATE. Yes, John Gee has betrayed his craft and has apostatized from Egyptology. What a horrible situation he has put himself in. History will not be kind to him!

[_Philo Sofee]

Shulem
Dr. John Gee, a traitor and an Egyptologist APOSTATE. Yes, John Gee has betrayed his craft and has apostatized from Egyptology. What a horrible situation he has put himself in. History will not be kind to him!

Reality right now is not being very kind to him. But he made his bed, he gets to sleep on those nails.....What a waste of a life of apologetics he has been through. Ritner has shown conclusively how Gee has chosen wrong over and over and over and over and over again..........sad for Gee. But Like Ritner has said, and properly so, this is a great lesson for students in Egyptology now, for how NOT to do Egyptology. Someone has to be the dunce, and that honor goes to Dr. John Gee.

[_Shulem]

Shulem
Dr. John Gee, a traitor and an Egyptologist APOSTATE. Yes, John Gee has betrayed his craft and has apostatized from Egyptology. What a horrible situation he has put himself in. History will not be kind to him!

Reality right now is not being very kind to him. But he made his bed, he gets to sleep on those nails.....What a waste of a life of apologetics he has been through. Ritner has shown conclusively how Gee has chosen wrong over and over and over and over and over again..........sad for Gee. But Like Ritner has said, and properly so, this is a great lesson for students in Egyptology now, for how NOT to do Egyptology. Someone has to be the dunce, and that honor goes to Dr. John Gee.

Oh my God, we are on the same wavelink. I just got out of the shower and was listening to RFM's podcast on my cellphone speaker phone in the shower John Gee Comes Clean! (no pun intended) and was thinking that Gee is lying (pun intended) in the bed he made!

PS. Hey, RFM, don't get any funny ideas about me taking your podcast in the shower while I'm naked!!! It's simply a matter of time management and I really wanted to hear your podcast again. Poor Gee, I think he may be seeing the writing on the wall. He has set himself up to be taken down rather brutally.

[_Philo Sofee]

Yes Gee deserves to go down very brutally, especially after his kindergarten antics of cheaply reviewing Ritner's outstanding book in the journal Gee was hosting that did NOT have peer review, because Gee says he doesn't like peer review, so he reviewed Ritner without anyone else knowing it, AND published it causing the board of the journal to literally retract it whole cloth!!!!!! What a slap in the face to his childish antics!!! Total arrogant moron right there. The entire Egyptological world saw what kind of idiots Mormon Egyptologists are, and they en mass eviscerated and excoriated the Dodo's twin brother, Dodo, Jr. WOW what a revelation from Ritner about the miserable and worthless value of any kind of contribution Gee has made or ever will make outside the world of Mormon make believe world of imagined "scholarship."

[_Shulem]

Yes Gee deserves to go down very brutally

... absolutely totally without mercy decimate, slaughter, destroy, and annihilate the argument......yet be kind to the person making it. Show no mercy for the stupidity of the argument, using evidence to show its weaknesses, silliness, illogicalness, etc.

Sic 'em, Kerry!



The world body of Egyptologists is on our side. They will back us up if John Gee attempts to use his perverted Egyptology to discredit our logical and correct arguments of Joseph Smith's translations and interpretations of Egyptian language and iconography.

John Gee better watch his step and take care on how he reacts to Radio Free Mormon and Kerry's future podcasts.

Gee is walking on eggshells right now. If he knows what's good for him. The best thing he can do is simply come clean and begin to walk things back and stop perverting Egyptology. Otherwise, well, we shall cross that bridge if and when the time comes. The Bridge over River Gee! (hint, hint, RFM)

[_Shulem]

It's firmly established by modern Egyptology that the black figure standing at the side of the lion bed (not an altar) is in fact the god Anubis. It's unfortunate that there is a lacuna in the original papyrus and that Smith's restoration of the head is incorrect. It's time for Mormon people today to come to terms with this reality and to stop fighting. Give up the fight and realize, confess, and admit that they have lost the argument in trying to justify Smith's bald headed white man atop the figure of the black jackal god Anubis. The two apostate Egyptologists (Gee & his boy-toy, what's his name?) who work for BYU have led a campaign of perverted Egyptology. These renegade Egyptologists continue to deceive and sway an array of dedicated apologists to further their cause such as the garbage posted on Pearl of Great Price Central. This nonsense needs to stop. It's time that the Church step up to the plate and do the responsible thing; admit that Smith's interpretations of the iconic image of Anubis in Facsimile No. 1 and the iconic image labeled with an appropriate caption in Facsimile No. 3, is indeed the god Anubis.

To The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Please, choose the right! Humble yourself and confess your sins. Apologize to Anubis and set the record straight!

[_Shulem]

Introducing an EXPERT witness -- one of the world's foremost scholars in making a statement about what the lion bed in Facsimile No.1 symbolizes using conventional standards established by modern Egyptology. I just thought that Ritner's statement was succinct and beautiful, so I want to quote him here:

Radio Free Mormon: Dr. Robert K. Ritner on the Book of Abraham part 1

That" altar" is a lion bed which is attested in Egyptian surviving monumental sculpture and even wooden sculpture from Dynasty 3, from the time of king Djoser, the Step Pyramid at Saqqara -- we even have an example of this from king Tutankhamen's burial with a lion bed, this is one of the funerary beds which is used to elevate symbolically the corpse into the sky.

The podcasts also take into consideration the so-called knife and the head of the priest. All of these things are expertly detailed by Ritner as he takes up each issue and every point that Smith claimed was happening in Facsimile No.1.

John Gee cannot refute Ritner's expert testimony which the world body of Egyptologists will stand by -- please consider what Ritner has expressed and detailed in the Mormon Stories podcasts. Mormon apologists don't have a leg to stand on. Apologists at Pearl of Great Price Central are making a mockery of Egyptology and must be confronted and put in their place.

There was no knife! It is not a Sacrifice Scene. The lion bed was an instrument used to bless the dead through resurrection and the blessings of the gods. The Book of Abraham (chapters) were never contained on any Egyptian papyrus. Smith made it all up out of thin air. He lied about everything and was playing with the hearts and minds of his people.

If you are a Mormon and believe the Book of Abraham -- You've been had. I guess, I have nothing further to say at this time on this subject. It really is an open and shut case. I am 100% sure that Joseph Smith lied. No doubt whatsoever. This is based on pure knowledge through an understanding of the evidence and facts pertaining to this subject.

[_Shulem]

At the same time there were several things which were not stated in the podcast. For example, the glue marks suggest that the part of the drawing in question, which is missing now, was not always missing. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that it was actually in place when Joseph Smith first had the papyri, and that the facsimile was based on what he had actually seen at one point. Further, we cannot tell the extent to which Reuben Hedlock, the artist, was acting on Joseph Smith’s instruction and how much was his own initiative.

The "glue marks" are clearly bubbled either over or under the penciled sketching of the uppermost portion of the priest's hair. Regardless, the interpretation of a man's head in full frontal position and an upward drawn knife was imagined in spite of the possibility that there may have actually been an original head in the extant lacuna. I've ever entertained the idea in past postings that the original head may have survived and that Smith intentionally peeled it off in order to suit his own needs. We will never know. But the remains of the headdress are present and Anubis is always Anubis. The pencil sketch and the Facsimile that was published is not germane to the Anubis depicted in funerary art.

Original Papyrus

Additionally, whether originally the drawing depicted Anubis’s jackal head or the head of a human, it would have been understood that the role being performed would have been performed by a priest. Perhaps it was a priest representing Anubis, but a priest nonetheless. Thus, if that piece of papyrus were missing when Joseph Smith first acquired it, and if he said it should be reconstructed to depict a priest, such a reconstruction would be accurate to the meaning of the drawing, which would be remarkable in and of itself.

The penciled in version of the priest's head drawn in full frontal position and the upward drawn knife is the ORIGINAL and FIRST interpretation of Smith's restoration. No matter how you slice it, Smith was wrong. And you, Kerry, are a lousy Egyptologist with a third rate education. The Church should fire you and hire someone else more qualified.

My God.

[_Shulem]

The "glue marks" are clearly bubbled either over or under the penciled sketching of the uppermost portion of the priest's hair. Regardless, the interpretation of a man's head in full frontal position and an upward drawn knife was imagined in spite of the possibility that there may have actually been an original head in the extant lacuna. I've ever entertained the idea in past postings that the original head may have survived and that Smith intentionally peeled it off in order to suit his own needs. We will never know. But the remains of the headdress are present and Anubis is always Anubis. The pencil sketch and the Facsimile that was published is not germane to the Anubis depicted in funerary art.

Original Papyrus

Hello! Anyone here? Is anybody clicking this link to peek and see what I'm yapping about?

Please, click the (Original Papyrus) link above and zoom into the glue. The swirl of glue on the paper backing. It may have been used to tack down missing fragments or it could have been spillage during the handling of the papyrus fragments upon the workman's table or, both.

What I am asking: Do you see the glue as OVER or UNDER the pencil marks consisting of the "priest's" head and breeches? I don't know if it can be positively determined without examining the papyrus/paper under higher magnification. But if it can be determined whether the glue is over or under this will provide another clue in determining the process in which the vignette was interpreted.

Please comment.