Nibley and the Book of Abraham

[hauslern]

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Editor_Introduction%20(4).pdf

[Shulem]

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Editor_Introduction%20(4).pdf

You will recall that you can't post links to the C drive of your own computer. We can't access your PC!

You'll need to post an actual URL. Otherwise, it will forever remain a mystery for us.

[hauslern]

I was trying to download Gee paper Editor’s Introduction.

Hugh Nibley and the Joseph Smith Papyri. So much has happened since that I wanted to summarize the debate Nibley Gee Ritner Cooney Thompson etc. There are letters from Klaus Baer to Wes Walters Nibley to myself, Marquardt on Nibley and Baer. What Karen Cooney thinks of the dabate.

What I find about my communicatons with some Egyptologists that that they are puzzled on the work of Gee and Muhlestein but to quote one did not want to gaslight them. Nibley before the internet would have not had the advantage we have today to access examples of the hypocephalus . Tamas Mekis has done us a service in locating all hypocephalus in museums etc in his beautiful illustrated book.

One wondes if the catalyst view is accepted it makes the work of apologists worthless.

Shulem your work on Fac 3 is simply beautiful showing the damage to the printing plate and your comment that we look at the figures see them bringing towards Osiris the figure (Hor) to be judged and no discussion "on the principles of astronomy".

[Shulem]

One wondes if the catalyst view is accepted it makes the work of apologists worthless.

Shulem your work on Fac 3 is simply beautiful showing the damage to the printing plate and your comment that we look at the figures see them bringing towards Osiris the figure (Hor) to be judged and no discussion "on the principles of astronomy".

What other choice does Gee have for Facsimile No. 3 other than to embrace the Catalyst theory? The general concept of a missing roll theory cannot be adopted into the Facsimile No. 3 because we have the hieroglyphic writing right before our eyes and Smith "translated" it just as he did the chapters for the Book of Abraham. It's an open and shut case. The missing roll theory is dead. It's a stinking carcass that lies rotten under Hugh Nibley's old desk. The body needs to be removed and the carpet replaced.

Isn't that right, John Gee? You're no longer needed. Your services are not required. There's the door, man. Don't let it hit you on the way out.

And hauslern, thanks for your compliments on my work for Facsimile No. 3. I think it's readily apparent that I've led that charge in taking down the apologists when it comes to Facsimile No. 3 and other aspects of the Book of Abraham. I'm proud to be serving on the right side of history. I hope there is a favorable remark about me in the footnotes of future history books on Mormon apologetics. I feel that I deserve at least that much.

[Shulem]

What I find about my communicatons with some Egyptologists that that they are puzzled on the work of Gee and Muhlestein but to quote one did not want to gaslight them.

The entire world body of nonMormon Egyptologists as a whole know that the Book of Abraham translations are fraudulent. Not a single nonMormon Egyptologist will ever join the Church. It won't happen. They know better than to check their brains into a cult and surrender their consciences to idiotic Mormonism invented by a conman of the 19th century.

Isn't that right, John? You will not convert a single colleague. Not now, not ever.

[hauslern]

British Museum: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectio ... t/Y_EA8445

See how close it is to Facsimile 2.

We know facsimile 2 was damaged: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f7Y ... 4Sbbg/edit

In the British Museum example there are two registers in the right hand corner.

Smith inserted something from another piece of the papyri. See bottom right:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-87 ... Dge0E/edit

In almost all examples in Dr. Mekis colour plates there is a figure in a boat with a scarab (insect).

No wonder Skousen and Givens admit Smith's interpretations are not supported by real Egyptologsts.

[Shulem]

No wonder Skousen and Givens admit Smith's interpretations are not supported by real Egyptologsts.

Indeed. We can also reference these matters on Wikipedia for handy reference. Please click the link for a full explanation of how Joseph Smith screwed up Facsimile No. 2.

Smith was no Egyptologist and it's a proven fact he couldn't read a single word of Egyptian.

Joseph Smith Hypocephalus

See below how Joseph got the heads wrong:

[hauslern]

Have you listened to this?

https://interpreterfoundation.org/nible ... lesson-12/

He goes on about Sheshonq, a name Smith did not interpret.