Which is more damning, Fascimile 2 or 3?
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:37 am
Paul knows much, much more than I about the Book of Abraham than I do.
From my perspective though, more compelling than 'Can you tell me the name of the king written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3?' is all the problems with Facsimile No. 2.
Sure, No. 3 is insulting to the Egyptian religion. No. 2, however, was 'restored' by the Mormon prophet by inserting hieratic characters everywhere the hypocephalus had been torn away. Everywhere the hypocephalus was yet intact, it bears no hieratic characters, only hieroglyphic characters and pictographs.
At that, JSJr 'restored' some of the hieratic characters upside down in relation to the direction that the preserved hieroglyphic characters appear.
JSJr lifted the hieratic characters used to restore No. 2 from the sensen papyrus.
There is also a strange coincidence about which segments (keyed by numbers JSJr added) he provide.d and which he did not.
Of course, as with No. 3, current Egyptology and Ancient Egyptian language shows too that No. 2 was not what JSJr touted it to be.
So, Paul, could you explain why you find No. 3 more telling than No. 2?
From my perspective though, more compelling than 'Can you tell me the name of the king written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3?' is all the problems with Facsimile No. 2.
Sure, No. 3 is insulting to the Egyptian religion. No. 2, however, was 'restored' by the Mormon prophet by inserting hieratic characters everywhere the hypocephalus had been torn away. Everywhere the hypocephalus was yet intact, it bears no hieratic characters, only hieroglyphic characters and pictographs.
At that, JSJr 'restored' some of the hieratic characters upside down in relation to the direction that the preserved hieroglyphic characters appear.
JSJr lifted the hieratic characters used to restore No. 2 from the sensen papyrus.
There is also a strange coincidence about which segments (keyed by numbers JSJr added) he provide.d and which he did not.
Of course, as with No. 3, current Egyptology and Ancient Egyptian language shows too that No. 2 was not what JSJr touted it to be.
So, Paul, could you explain why you find No. 3 more telling than No. 2?