Dear Noel, I have been watching your comments with interest, trying to figure out where you are trying to go with this. For the record, I have not done anything at all with any of your comments, and no one else can, so if something disappeared I don't know how it did. I am very much a novice at using YouTube, so there are any number of things about comments, etc., that could happen in ways that are mysterious to me.
In any case, I am trying to figure out if you are someone who is honestly seeking answers to questions, which I would warmly welcome, or someone who is looking for a platform to air grievances. It appears to be the latter, though I apologize if I am wrong.
I am happy to dialogue with you if it seems like there is a constructive conversation to be had, and if you are honestly seeking answers. I would rather not waste the time of either of us if you are just determined to hold your point of view and want someone to argue with about it. In either case, this is not the platform for either of those discussions. Other viewers have not come to this platform to be assaulted or to be argumentative. There are platforms for such things, but this is not one of them. If you would prefer to have an honest and polite conversation with me, please contact me via email and I will talk with you. Thank you!
My Comment:
@noelhausler2911
2 years ago
@TheScripturesAreReal You seem to indicate that your videos are messages to the faithful and those members who have doubts. You have said elsewhere that you see testimony as trumping any controversal arguments. I have Tamas Mekis' book on the hypocephalus kindly provided by the author all the way from Hungary. Anyway you have stated the purpose of you page. I was just curious how you handled the restoraitions in fac 2 and the treatment of the "slaves" nose in fac 3. Feel free to delete this.
His response:
@TheScripturesAreReal
2 years ago
@noelhausler2911 Thank you for your message. I really am happy to talk with anyone who is interested in real inquiry. I am familiar with the book. I am happy to respond to your question. Please explain exactly what you mean by handling the restorations in fac 2. There certainly were restorations since it seems like the hypocephalus was damaged, but I am not sure what exactly you are asking, and I don't want to spend a lot of time answering what I think maybe you are asking and then find I was wrong. The same applies to the treatment of fac 3. Would you email me at egyptdig@byu.edu with a bit more specifics about your question? I prefer trying to do more full conversations via email rather than in comments on a channel. Thanks, and looking forward to hearing from you.
John Gee has reviewed Tamas Mekis's book and Dr. Cooney says he has had his review published in a journal in Europe where readers might not be aware of the LDS defence of the Book of Abraham. In other words Gee has an agenda: Cast doubts on the work of an Egyptologist.
Last edited by hauslern on Mon Apr 22, 2024 1:54 am, edited 2 times in total.
I looked again and it looked like it was restored.
KerryM has published on executions in Egypt. If one looks at the damaged facsimile 1, an average person would think the standing figure was holding a knife.
The body of the standing figure is black while the missing head has in the published version just copied the head of the figure on the couch. I shared this with a scholar at the University of Exeter who sent me a similar picture, but in this one the standing figure is holding a jar. The canopic jars below are for the internal organs of the deceased. Would someone being executed be entitled to be mummified? "The ancient Egyptians had an elaborate set of funerary practices that they believed were necessary to ensure their immortality after death. These rituals included mummifying the body, casting magic spells, and burials with specific grave goods thought to be needed in the afterlife."
I love Muhlestein's assumption that if YOU are looking for honest answers, he has 'em. You, of course, do not have the facts or truth, only he does. If you come up with something that disagrees with his worldview or paradigm or evidences, YOU are the problem, not his being mistaken, or just naïve or ignorant. It's why I don't care to talk to apologists much these days.
Makes for interesting reading. She states on page 208 that Hugh Nibley mastered Egyptian. I understand he had some tutoring by Egyptologist Klaus Baer. Robert Ritner has checked his translations and found errors.
Back in the days before the internet, one would have to rely on published colour plates of the hypocephalus. Now one can just google "British Museum hypocephalus" to view all their holdings, most of which are similar to facsimile 2. Smith was not aware of that.
Robert Ritner has checked his translations and found errors.
Nibley mastered Egyptian just like Joseph Smith mastered Hebrew.
Ritner just didn't find the errors in Nibley's Egyptian translation of the Hor scroll, he also described Nibley's Egyptian translations as "gibberish".
Ritner wrote: While intended to highlight his quibbles over the nature of translations (to defend Joseph Smith's use of the term) Nibley's interlinear methods of literal translation would necessarily produce gibberish from any language.
He's familiar with Youtube. He posted videos in the past about the Book of Abraham.
“one of the important things for anybody in power is to distinguish between what you have the right to do and what is right to do." Potter Stewart, associate justice of the Supreme Court - 1958 to 1981.
It's why I don't care to talk to apologists much these days.
