Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Content transferred from the former board.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

It's firmly established by modern Egyptology that the black figure standing at the side of the lion bed (not an altar) is in fact the god Anubis. It's unfortunate that there is a lacuna in the original papyrus and that Smith's restoration of the head is incorrect. It's time for Mormon people today to come to terms with this reality and to stop fighting. Give up the fight and realize, confess, and admit that they have lost the argument in trying to justify Smith's bald headed white man atop the figure of the black jackal god Anubis. The two apostate Egyptologists (Gee & his boy-toy, what's his name?) who work for BYU have led a campaign of perverted Egyptology. These renegade Egyptologists continue to deceive and sway an array of dedicated apologists to further their cause such as the garbage posted on Pearl of Great Price Central. This nonsense needs to stop. It's time that the Church step up to the plate and do the responsible thing; admit that Smith's interpretations of the iconic image of Anubis in Facsimile No. 1 and the iconic image labeled with an appropriate caption in Facsimile No. 3, is indeed the god Anubis.

To The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Please, choose the right! Humble yourself and confess your sins. Apologize to Anubis and set the record straight!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Robert Ritner

Post by Shulem »

Introducing an EXPERT witness -- one of the world's foremost scholars in making a statement about what the lion bed in Facsimile No.1 symbolizes using conventional standards established by modern Egyptology. I just thought that Ritner's statement was succinct and beautiful, so I want to quote him here:

Radio Free Mormon: Dr. Robert K. Ritner on the Book of Abraham part 1

Robert Ritner Part I; dial to 2:05 mark wrote:
That" altar" is a lion bed which is attested in Egyptian surviving monumental sculpture and even wooden sculpture from Dynasty 3, from the time of king Djoser, the Step Pyramid at Saqqara -- we even have an example of this from king Tutankhamen's burial with a lion bed, this is one of the funerary beds which is used to elevate symbolically the corpse into the sky.
The podcasts also take into consideration the so-called knife and the head of the priest. All of these things are expertly detailed by Ritner as he takes up each issue and every point that Smith claimed was happening in Facsimile No.1.

John Gee cannot refute Ritner's expert testimony which the world body of Egyptologists will stand by -- please consider what Ritner has expressed and detailed in the Mormon Stories podcasts. Mormon apologists don't have a leg to stand on. Apologists at Pearl of Great Price Central are making a mockery of Egyptology and must be confronted and put in their place.

There was no knife! It is not a Sacrifice Scene. The lion bed was an instrument used to bless the dead through resurrection and the blessings of the gods. The Book of Abraham (chapters) were never contained on any Egyptian papyrus. Smith made it all up out of thin air. He lied about everything and was playing with the hearts and minds of his people.

If you are a Mormon and believe the Book of Abraham -- You've been had. I guess, I have nothing further to say at this time on this subject. It really is an open and shut case. I am 100% sure that Joseph Smith lied. No doubt whatsoever. This is based on pure knowledge through an understanding of the evidence and facts pertaining to this subject.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

Kerry Muhlestein wrote:At the same time there were several things which were not stated in the podcast. For example, the glue marks suggest that the part of the drawing in question, which is missing now, was not always missing. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that it was actually in place when Joseph Smith first had the papyri, and that the facsimile was based on what he had actually seen at one point. Further, we cannot tell the extent to which Reuben Hedlock, the artist, was acting on Joseph Smith’s instruction and how much was his own initiative.
The "glue marks" are clearly bubbled either over or under the penciled sketching of the uppermost portion of the priest's hair. Regardless, the interpretation of a man's head in full frontal position and an upward drawn knife was imagined in spite of the possibility that there may have actually been an original head in the extant lacuna. I've ever entertained the idea in past postings that the original head may have survived and that Smith intentionally peeled it off in order to suit his own needs. We will never know. But the remains of the headdress are present and Anubis is always Anubis. The pencil sketch and the Facsimile that was published is not germane to the Anubis depicted in funerary art.

Original Papyrus

Kerry Muhlestein wrote:Additionally, whether originally the drawing depicted Anubis’s jackal head or the head of a human, it would have been understood that the role being performed would have been performed by a priest. Perhaps it was a priest representing Anubis, but a priest nonetheless. Thus, if that piece of papyrus were missing when Joseph Smith first acquired it, and if he said it should be reconstructed to depict a priest, such a reconstruction would be accurate to the meaning of the drawing, which would be remarkable in and of itself.
The penciled in version of the priest's head drawn in full frontal position and the upward drawn knife is the ORIGINAL and FIRST interpretation of Smith's restoration. No matter how you slice it, Smith was wrong. And you, Kerry, are a lousy Egyptologist with a third rate education. The Church should fire you and hire someone else more qualified.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Hello! Anyone here?

Is anybody clicking this link to peek and see what I'm yapping about?

Please, click the (Original Papyrus) link above and zoom into the glue. The swirl of glue on the paper backing. It may have been used to tack down missing fragments or it could have been spillage during the handling of the papyrus fragments upon the workman's table or, both.

What I am asking: Do you see the glue as OVER or UNDER the pencil marks consisting of the "priest's" head and breeches? I don't know if it can be positively determined without examining the papyrus/paper under higher magnification. But if it can be determined whether the glue is over or under this will provide another clue in determining the process in which the vignette was interpreted.

Please comment.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

moksha » Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:37 am wrote:
Shulem wrote: But, lo and behold, the hypocritical apologists can't use that argument for Facsimile No. 3 because there are captions (labels) above the figures to identify each character in the vignette. Therefore we can be certain they are who the captions say they are! Anubis is NOT a slave!
So there is no way Anubis can be both a breath mint and a candy mint? Well, that is a bummer for apologetics.

A running debate between yourself and Philo Sofee against Kerry Muhlestein and John Gee would be fun.

A breath mint and a candy mint could be classified as the same thing. No problem there. But a slave and a god are just the opposite. Here is where we have a problem. Come in Houston, we have a problem!

John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein are stuck with the Anubis anomaly of Facsimile No. 3. It's got to be very haunting for them. They know better. They know the deal. They know the drill. Both of them know something is up with the missing snout. The hacked off nose is readily apparent when looking at the plate. What to do? The person in the engraving was given what appears to be a full jackal eye. It's different than the eyes on the other persons. And there is no human ear! What could this mean? And what's that atop his head -- that spike looking thing? Why it must be the jackal ear!

A little reasoning in these things goes a long way, wouldn't you say? My recent discovery of the hacked out snout is a game changer. I takes the argument to whole new level. It's the smoking gun! It's a hole in one! It's an ace in my pocket.

Book of Abraham apologetics has no choice but to shift and transform into something else. The discovery of the missing snout uncovers something rather ominous and that discussion is only getting started. There are more clues out there and more facts to arrange.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/egyptian-papyri-circa-300-bc-ad-50/19

The photo above of another fragment seems crystal clear that dried glue (caramel color) and blobs of it are clearly OVER the preexisting ruled lines that were on the paper backing BEFORE the papyrus was mounted. This gives us a good comparison by which to better judge the glue smudges on the paper backing of the priest's head. It will help us determine if the glue was blobbed over the penciling or if the pencil was drawn over the glue.

Frankly, it appears that the glue is on top of ALL the penciling not just the preexisting ruled lines but the sketching as well. That was my first reaction but further examination seems in order. I wish I could get a little help around here, Jesus.

Where is Doctor CamNC4Me when you need him!?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

I've determined that the glue is indeed OVER all the penciling. More importantly, the glue is over the penciled sketch of the priest's hair and breaches. I don't see any traces of papyrus stuck to the glue swirl. So, my immediate conclusion is that the swirl is the result of an unintended accident wherein glue was dribbled over the work area and the excess may have been wiped away. Hence, the sketch precedes the glue and was indeed the only and original image in which Smith endorsed until Hedlock later fashioned the plate years later having a different head with a new knife.

This seems reasonable. This also downplays Muhlestein's apologetic argument for Smith's actually seeing a priest's head on the original papyrus:
Kerry Muhlestein wrote:the glue marks suggest that the part of the drawing in question, which is missing now, was not always missing. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that it was actually in place when Joseph Smith first had the papyri, and that the facsimile was based on what he had actually seen at one point
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

That's NOT Abraham!

Post by Shulem »

Joseph Smith wrote:Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.
Abraham wrote:And as they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life

I'm looking at Osiris on the lion bed. It's hard to imagine this is a Hebrew from Ur who managed to be arrested by Egyptians, confined, and taken to be sacrificed on the lion bed referenced in the Book of Abraham text.

First, that can't be Abraham. Second, it can't even be a drawing of a drawing of a drawing of Abraham or a redacted portrait of Abraham from some Jew. How so? There are two things I would like to point out that makes this person totally incompatible with Smith's claim that this papyrus features Abraham in vignette and in writing.

1. The person on the lion bed is wearing the skull cap which is typically worn by kings or by divine being's themselves such as Ptah. It's impossible that Abraham was granted the right to wear the scull cap on a fantasized altar of human sacrifice! The notion that a vile foreigner would don a sacred crown is utter sacrilege. Smith, may have thought that he could put Abraham "upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king" in Facsimile No. 3 and get away with it, but he had no concept about what was atop the head of the figure in Facsimile No.1!

2. The person on the lion bed is clean shaven. That's hardly the appearance of an Asiatic such as Abraham. It isn't biblical and no Jew would draw Abraham in that fashion! Being clean shaven, as John Gee will attest, is a function of purity performed by Egyptian priests. But here we see beardless Abraham lying on a royal or divine lion bed and donning a sacred skull cap. That doesn't make any sense at all! Oh snap!

I would like to ask John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein what's wrong with that picture? Can you imagine them being put on the spot live on a podcast? Ho ho ho !!! That would be funny. It would be one hell of a chess move. How would they respond?

I really hope you're taking notes, RFM. Get this all down. You the man.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

No, I'm not done. I have more to say.

The vignette of Facsimile No.1 gives us the location of the scene and you can rest assured that it isn't "Olishem" up in the northern Levant. No, the location is Egypt. I'll be very plain because I've run out of time. More can be said about this later as the vignette definitely locates the Osiris resurrection scene as taking place INSIDE Egypt.

John Gee, listen up, please:

1. Osiris is over the lion bed.

2. The lion bed is under Osiris.

3. The lion bed is over the Four Sons of Horus

4. Four Sons of Horus are under the lion bed

5. Four Sons of Horus are located by the Nile river

6. The Nile river is located by the Four Sons of Horus

7. The crocodile is in the Nile river

8. The Nile River hosts the crocodile.

9. The temple walls are near the Nile river

10. The Nile river is near the temple walls

That is the geographic message of the vignette of Facsimile No.1.

YOU GOT IT RIGHT HERE ON Mormon DISCUSSIONS!


And we have this from the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith:
From an Editorial in the “Times and Seasons,” by the Prophet) TPJS 260 wrote:
But if we believe in present revelation, as published in the “Times and Seasons” last spring, Abraham, the prophet of the Lord, was laid upon the iron bedstead for slaughter; and the book of Jasher, which has not been disproved as a bad author, says he was cast into the fire of the Chaldees.
Oh my. My, my, my. What do we have here? (Kerry Shirts, are you there?)

An "iron bedstead" in Facsimile No.1., and it's a "revelation", do you hear that John Gee? (Are you taking notes, RFM?!) It's a "REVELATION" that was printed in the Times and Seasons concerning the "iron bedstead" in Facsimile No.1! And that revelation led Smith to believe the iron bed was made of iron.

:lol:

Did you hear that, John Gee? Made of "iron"!

But the iron age had not yet begun! Not for well over a thousand years!

:lol:

Busted!

:lol:

Now, Joseph Smith was also ignorant in Old World geography and he mistakenly though Olishem was not far distant, very close to Egypt.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:And where is figure 10?

Figure 10 is right beside the lion bed which is over the Four Sons of Horus which is near the Nile River in which the crocodile is swimming nearby the temple walls.

AND, where are lotus flowers freely growing in their natural environment? The Plain of Olishem? :oops:

If you guessed, "Egypt" then you deserve a brownie button! :smile:

:lol:

Yes, my friends, lotus flowers grew on the Nile river close to the temple wall, nearby the crocodile that swims on the banks of the river where Osiris rose from the dead!

Praise be the gods of Egypt!

:smile:

Folks, this is Egyptology 101.

Yes, there is the issue of Fig. 10 in Facsimile No.1 being wrongfully applied to "Abraham in Egypt" through Smith's ignorance. The problem with Smith was that he just didn't know anything about Egypt, and didn't know what he was looking at or how to interpret it. His explanations were the furthest from the truth.

Fig. 10 consisting of the libation stand decorated with flowers has nothing whatsoever to do with biblical Abraham going down into Egypt. Flowers on the stand are there to honor and commemorate the rising of Osiris on the lion bed. It's inconceivable to think that beautiful flowers were used to decorate an execution scene where somebody is being brutally murdered because they refused to worship the gods of another religion.

Image

The only thing Smith got right about Facsimile No.1 Fig 10 was that it was "in Egypt". The whole scene depicted in the vignette was in Egypt.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

Oh, how clumsy of me. I should have provided the link to the Times and Seasons so you can read for yourself how Joseph Smith's revelations of the Book of Abraham reveal that the Egyptian lion bed was made of "iron" which is an anachronism and a false belief had by the early Latter-day Saints concerning the construction of the lion bed; to say nothing of who was actually on it. The Spirit of the Lord as revealed by Joseph Smith was a spirit of a liar! The lion bed was crafted of fine wood, not cast in iron as Smith taught. Perhaps apologists will adopt the Missing Iron Bed Theory?

:lol:
Times and Seasons, Smith was chief editor wrote: Times and Seasons, 1 September 1842

But if we believe in present revelation, as published in the Times and Seasons last spring, Abraham, the prophet of the Lord, was laid upon the iron bedstead for slaughter; and the book of Jasher, which has not been disproved as a bad author, says he was cast into the fire of the Chaldees.
1. Smith, the chief editor of the Times and Seasons claimed responsibility for its contents

2. Smith reveals that Abraham was laid upon an iron bedstead for slaughter

3. Smith was an avid reader of the book of Jasher and no doubt gleaned ideas therein for his own revelations as he was prone to plagiarize
Post Reply