Aristotle Smith wrote:And it doesn't strike you at all interesting that the papyri vindicate exactly what the Egyptologists said? That the standing figure and the knife were out of place?
You are forgetting one important thing. Indeed there are many examples found of these scenes which represent the embalming of the deceased individual in preparation for burial, but the one in the Joseph Smith Papyrus is quite different for several reasons noted by the FAIR Wiki:
FAIR wrote:Although many similar lion couch scenes exist, this one has quite a few unique features:
1. No other lion couch scene shows the figure on the couch (Osiris) with both hands raised. (There is a dispute regarding whether or not two hands are represented. See below)
2. No other lion couch scenes show the figure lying on the couch clothed in the manner shown in Facsimile 1. In most other lion couch scenes, the reclining figure is either completely nude or fully wrapped like a mummy. There is one known scene in which the figure is wearing a loin cloth. None to date show the type of clothing being worn by the figure in Facsimile 1.
3. No other lion couch scenes to date have shown the reclining figure wearing anklets or foot coverings.
4. No other lion couch scenes show a crocodile beneath the couch.
5. The original of Facsimile 1 shows the couch behind the priest's legs, and the reclining figure's legs are shown in front of the priest's. When the figure was transferred on to the woodcut prior to publication in the Times and Seasons, this odd perspective was corrected.
6. No other such scenes have hatched lines such as those designated as "Expanse" or "Firmament" in Facsimile 1.
7. No other such scenes are known to have the twelve gates or pillars of heaven or anything like them.
8. No other such scenes show a lotus and an offering table. These items are common in other Egyptian scenes, but do not appear in the lion couch scene.
So, really, your claim that "the papyri vindicate exactly what the Egyptologists said" is not entirely true.
And how are we to determine what was there? How about talking to people who study this stuff for a living (Egyptologists)?
Oh, you can appeal to authority, but I cannot. I see the double standard blaring in your words.
SoHo wrote:Two thousand years from now when someone finds a picture of a duck in a sailor outfit and a character standing next to him with no head - chances will be that the original was a mouse.
And this is an example of how narrow-minded critics can be. Yes, it might be a mouse, and yes there might be a duck in a sailor costume... but it could be vastly different than what you imagine:
SoHo wrote:Two thousand years from now when someone finds a picture of a duck in a sailor outfit and a character standing next to him with no head - chances will be that the original was a mouse.
And this is an example of how narrow-minded critics can be. Yes, it might be a mouse, and yes there might be a duck in a sailor costume... but it could be vastly different than what you imagine:
"One of the surest ways to avoid even getting near false doctrine is to choose to be simple in our teaching." - Elder Henry B. Eyring, Ensign, May 1999, 74
Yes, I am aware that you inserted a get out of jail free card. Chances are, but it is also possible that those mousepads will take off and Disney will go out of business in the next 50 years.
If the Joseph Smith explanation wasn't such complete bullsh*t, the possibility of an alternate presentation might be more appealing. I often wonder why anyone bothers with Book of Abraham nonsense - why not go adventure in the arctic looking for Santa Claus instead.
"One of the surest ways to avoid even getting near false doctrine is to choose to be simple in our teaching." - Elder Henry B. Eyring, Ensign, May 1999, 74
Yes, I am aware that you inserted a get out of jail free card. Chances are, but it is also possible that those mousepads will take off and Disney will go out of business in the next 50 years.
It is also possible that Abraham will come back to life, travel to disneyland, get abducted by people dressed as disney characters and later record the whole thing in cartoons.
"One of the surest ways to avoid even getting near false doctrine is to choose to be simple in our teaching." - Elder Henry B. Eyring, Ensign, May 1999, 74
SoHo wrote:It is also possible that Abraham will come back to life, travel to disneyland, get abducted by people dressed as disney characters and later record the whole thing in cartoons.
It is indeed. Less likely than my scenario, but possible.
SoHo wrote:It is also possible that Abraham will come back to life, travel to disneyland, get abducted by people dressed as disney characters and later record the whole thing in cartoons.
It is indeed. Less likely than my scenario, but possible.
Prove it's less likely.
"One of the surest ways to avoid even getting near false doctrine is to choose to be simple in our teaching." - Elder Henry B. Eyring, Ensign, May 1999, 74
I am not advancing either position - I think they are both absurd. I don't see any evidence in the Book of Abraham story to suggest that it is any less absurd than my example.
"One of the surest ways to avoid even getting near false doctrine is to choose to be simple in our teaching." - Elder Henry B. Eyring, Ensign, May 1999, 74
