DiscussMormonism.com

Ed1 wrote:The symbol for moon, similarly, does exist as an Egyptian hieroglyphic as well,

[Egyptian moon sign 3rd from top]
[Smith's moon sign is first]



and its Egyptological vocalization is pronounced pesed (PSD). In Gardiner’s sign list, there are two variants of this glyph, N9 and N10. Once again, the only difference here between the character produced by Joseph Smith and the common glyph for moon, is that it is cranked 90 degrees from Joseph Smith’s version, where the line in the middle is horizontal, in the case of the common Egyptological glyph. Again, this is not significant enough to consider it as a separate glyph.

Smith's moon sign Flo-ees can be seen clearly at the Joseph Smith Papers.

Yes, you're right in pointing out that Smith's moon sign has a vertical stroke and the Egyptian stroke is horizontal. Don't you think that Smith should have conformed with proper Egyptian if he knew what he was doing? You also know that Smith incorporated hieratic characters into the lacuna of the Hypocephalus for Facsimile No. 2, because he didn't know which side was right-side up, so characters were just tossed into the mix being upside down. Ha ha ha! I think that's absolutely hilarious in demonstrating that Smith couldn't read Egyptian and neither could he get an Egyptian moon right with the stroke across the circumference of the moon disk!

You notice that Gardiner's sign list provides different moon shapes used for different words, more especially the more common or universal crescent moon as well as the crescent in the disk, see N10, N11. With regards to N9 which is the Egyptian disk with the horizonal stroke across its center, Gardiner says it represents the "moon with its lower half OBSCURED".

What might that mean when Gardiner says the "lower" half is "obscured"? do you know, Ed? Well, let me tell you. It means that the lower half of the moon is dark and the upper half is bright and thus this requires a HORIZONTAL stroke to properly represent the Egyptian sign, not a vertical stroke as in Smith's corrupt sign. Gardiner also notes this particular sign as representing the New-moon festival.

The transliteration for this moon hieroglyph used for the word "New-moon and its festival" is psDntiiw and if you'll kindly refer to Faulkner's Middle Egyptian dictionary, you'll notice that the moon sign is properly shaded unlike that in Gardiner's Grammar book. In each variant in which the Egyptian moon sign (N9) is used the lower half is shaded -- it's dark because it's not visible to the eye while viewing the moon on earth. Only the upper half is visible because it's reflects the sun's light.

So, Smith got two things very wrong with his proposal of an Egyptian moon sign. The stroke is vertical when it should be horizontal and he failed to shade the DARK SIDE of the moon! (Pink Floyd, baby!)

But the final blow to Smith's silly Egyptian character is his spelling -- "Flo-ees" which is not an Egyptian expression of the word but simply Smith making stuff up just like he did with so many other words he pretended to translate during his career as a fake translator.

I do hope that helps you understand that Smith's moon is bogus. I'm afraid that your essay is off to a real bad start. Are you sure you want me to continue? I don't think it will go well for you. All I'm doing is destroying your work and hurting your feelings and that is making me feel somewhat bad. I'm not sure this is all worth it.

What to do?

Kishy? Philo?

.

.

Ed1 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 18, 2021 8:51 pm

Quibbles
More quibbles

How hardly. It's Egyptology! That's something YOU have a hard time accepting because you refuse to allow for the possibility that Smith was a liar and he has been proven false in all cases regarding his ability to translate and interpret Egyptian. It's not my fault that Smith couldn't pronounce the correct verbiage for earth and moon. His Egyptian grammar is just flat out wrong -- silly stuff that has no place in any university around the world. It's garbage.

Your attempt to find parallels and any kind of similarity between Smith's earth and moon with true Egyptology are utter failures. Nobody outside the crazy world of Mormonism will endorse it. I've given you some fine lessons right here on this board but you're too pig-headed to realize what you just got. You are an ungrateful little piece of shi*t.

I'm done with you. Take your project and shove it up Gee's ass. YOU are no better than he is. You and Gee deserve each other!

.

Ed1 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 18, 2021 9:48 pm

So upset and dumping me as a friend over this? Comeon my friend. that's not the way this is supposed to go

How about you get some advice from Kishy and Philo about your response: "quibbles", and isn't it so you're just trolling me along?

Where the hell are those two guys. Philo, Goddamn you! Get ur ass in here now!!!

.

Ed1 wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 18, 2021 10:19 pm

Its on the same stinking, colonoscopically rectal list as the one with the other glyphs that I have pointed out that you won't accept. Here it is. The same cotton picking bloody glyph in Gardiner's sign list, as the one in the astrological list, one of the most common Egyptian glyphs for the sun.

No, it's NOT the same glyph. Smith's astronomical sign for the sun is fatally flawed. I agree with Vogel that Smith relied on almanacs and other resources he had at his disposal to reference astronomical signs. But the sign he used to reference the Egyptian sun is not Egyptian and is utterly corrupt.

Smith's Egyptian Alphabet B Flos-isis (Sun)

Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

The sun in Egyptian is not called "Flos-isis" and more especially Smith's sun sign is not Egyptian! The Egyptian sign is a bright circle punctuated with a miniature circle. Smith's sun is totally BLACK, filled in or shaded -- no Egyptian would have done that! I'm not going to explain any of this to you because you deserve to remain ignorant. Your mind is darkened just as Smith's sun sign is darkened.

.

The conclusion in this paper is that the GAEL author (perhaps Joseph Smith), correctly
identified the Egyptological elements he was working with, treating them as pictographic,
running "stories," but at the same time, engaging in a form of divination known as
"Grammatomancy" by the Holy Ghost, to give prophetic context to the elements in the Hor
Breathing Permit. By this process, a strange hybrid between Egyptological Scholarship and
Divination, the GAEL Author created the text of the Book of Abraham.

When comparing this method with those who just make things up, I cannot tell the difference. Shulem has also shown many claims of Joseph getting things right about Egyptology are weak to flat out wrong. We know many of Joseph's specific prophetic claims which are very wrong. We have a lot of the papyri Joseph claimed was the Book of Abraham which we KNOW is not correct. We also have fantastic DNA evidence today which proves the Book of Mormon was not historical. We have so much proving Joseph was making it up as he went along, and yes he was talented at doing so. At the end of the day it was getting him some fame, money, and sex with multiple women. If that is what a true prophet does, I can't tell the difference from a false one.