Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Content transferred from the former board.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1592
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:
Book of Abraham wrote:that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

Image
I've seen many of these beautiful funerary lion beds depicted on various papyri and tomb walls. The funerary bed is made for those who are ALREADY dead and await resurrection through Osiris. It is a bed whereon the mummy may lie in peace with the promise of receiving blessing and joy in the afterlife.

FOR FURTHER READING AND REFERENCE -- (This is something I need to digest. Looks like a real winner!)

Egyptologist Winifred Needler
Former Egyptologist of Museum of Ontario Archaeology
Keeper & Curator and Instructor University of Toronto

link:

An Egyptian funerary bed of the Roman period in the Royal Ontario Museum, University of Toronto, 1963

IMAGES for Funerary bed of Herty -- Royal Onario Museum

This certainly appears to be an extensive and authoritative examination of the meaning of the lion bed such as shown in the funerary rite of Facsimile No. 1. Get the facts from a real Egyptologist rather than Apostate Egyptologists who are paid by BYU to print garbage for the Mormon faithful.
Needler wrote:
Contents

1 Provenance and General Description
2 History of the Egyptian Lion-bed
3 The Inscriptions: General Comments and the Personal Names
4 Detailed Description of the Pictorial Decoration
5 The Problem of Dating the Bed: General Considerations
6 Iconographic Considerations
7 Stylistic Considerations
8 Two Related Types of Late Roman Burials at Thebes
9 Summary
notes

LIST OF WORKS CITED, Ifi

ALSO:
The Mummy in Ancient Egypt Equipping the Dead for Eternity, p. 107; Salima Ikram, Aidan Dodson wrote:Another piece of furniture, frequently confused with the embalming table, is the funerary bed. These are often pictured on coffins of Third Intermediate Period or later date, as well as in tomb-paintings which show Anubis bending over the mummy lying on such a couch. Made of wood and elaborate finials featuring the fore and end parts of lions or semi-mythical beasts, these beds were used either for the lying in state of the mummy, or for the final wrapping ritual, which was a clean procedure and could therefore be performed on such elaborate beds.
The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt, p. 162; Ian Shaw and Paul Nicholson in association with the British Museum wrote:The lion-god AKER guarded the gateway to the underworld through which the sun came and went each day. Since the sun was born each morning and died each evening on the horizons, so the lion was also connected with death and rebirth and was thus portrayed on funerary couches or biers, as well as embalming tables. The beds and chairs of the living were sometimes decorated with lions' paws or heads, perhaps in order that the occupant too would rise renewed after sleep or rest.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1592
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 »

JOHN GEE
AN APOSTATE EGYPTOLOGIST LIAR!


An Introduction to the Book of Abraham
GEE wrote:The Book of Abraham was produced by Abraham, an ancient, historical person who lived in a particular time and in particular places. The events it narrates took place in a particular historical context.

This is a total lie in which NO NONMORMON Egyptologist will agree -- NOT one! The Book of Abraham and the Facsimile Explanations are not historical by any means. It's all rubbish made up out the mind of Smith. This is purely a faith promoting statement made by an Apostate Egyptologist in order to keep members from losing faith in the Book of Abraham.
GEE wrote:Abraham’s homeland was incorporated as part of the Egyptian empire under the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs Sesostris III and his son, Amenemhet III, but it was then lost to the subsequent pharaohs. This provides an historical date for the events of the first chapter of the Book of Abraham.

At that time Egypt practiced human sacrifice, as historical and archaeological evidence both attest. It was a ritual (Abraham 1:7–11, 15) directed against religious offenders (Abraham 1:5–6) that could take place either in Egypt or in areas Egypt influenced (Abraham 1:1, 10, 20)..

Smith's revelation of the lion bed of Facsimile No. 1 being a cruel instrument of death is an utter fabrication and this LIE is perpetuated by the likes of APOSTATE John Gee. The lion bed of Facsimile No. 1 had nothing to do with human sacrifice, Abraham, or Chaldean executions. These are all lies made up by Smith and the Mormons who seek to deceive. John Gee trashes the kings of the 12th Dynasty all for the purpose of defending Smith's lies. How utterly outrageous! You have no shame, John Gee. You have no honor, none, whatsoever. I utterly despise you.
GEE wrote:When famine set in, the closest steady supply of grain was the land of Egypt, the northern part of which was now under the management of the Fourteenth Dynasty. These pharaohs were “partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth” (Abraham 1:21) and bore Canaanite names. Abraham seems to classify all pharaohs as Canaanite, though the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs whose servants tried to kill him were not. Since Abraham never met the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs, he may have assumed that all pharaohs were like the Fourteenth Dynasty ones he did meet.

Abraham NEVER, EVER, sat on the throne of a 14th Dynasty king as postulated out of the lying lips of Joseph Smith (Facsimile No. 3) and John Gee who jointly sponsor PSEUDO Egyptology paid for by BYU. It's ABSOLUTELY outrageous that Gee takes Abraham and spreads him about throughout the 12th to 14th dynasties and thinks to keep Egyptian chronology and biblical chronology intact? And all this using the so-called Book of Abraham (19th century novel) as the source for historic and genuine information for these occurrences when the dirt, sand, and historical record in Egypt does not support such nonsense. It's outrageous!

John Gee should be fired from BYU. He is lying, repeatedly and deceiving his readers with his garbage.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1592
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 »

Gee wrote:Abraham’s homeland was incorporated as part of the Egyptian empire under the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs Sesostris III and his son, Amenemhet III, but it was then lost to the subsequent pharaohs. This provides a historical date for the events of the first chapter of the Book of Abraham.

I'll hold your feet to the fire, you lying bastard. The first chapter claims the Book of Abraham started right after the flood : 2,400 BC

Just try and meld biblical chronology to Egyptian chronology using modern Egyptology backed with Smith's 6,000 years and you cannot justify what you say.
GEE wrote:Since Abraham never met the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs, he may have assumed that all pharaohs were like the Fourteenth Dynasty ones he did meet.
IDIOT, Gee, is hereby on record for claiming that Abraham sat on the very throne of Smith's "King Pharaoh" (Facsimile No. 3) whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Behold, a 14th Dynasty king!

:lol:

Fancy Gee, attempting to marry Smith's Abraham with one of the most difficult (contested) dynasties in which to make sense of it all. The 14th Dynasty was indeed a mysterious overlapping time frame in the chronicles of ancient Egypt but it's FAR TOO LATE for biblical Abraham to make his appearance in Egypt while looking for bread. Gee heavily relies on his statement: "Biblical scholars have not agreed on the time and place that Abraham lived" in order to boot Abraham out of the 12th Dynasty because he damn well knows it's suicidal to even consider the idea that Abraham sat on a throne of a 12th Dynasty king which is where standard biblical chronology dates his Egyptian sojourn. So, Gee attempts to distract his readers into thinking that since there is some disagreement in the exact year(s) Abraham's ministry took place he can bounce him into another era, much more congenial, further down the line and hopefully nobody will notice the difference in how the time line explodes or implodes -- however you want to describe it -- it's impossible -- boom, it blows up! The problem for Gee is that in doing this the chronology of Smith's own time line (that he embraced) gets thrown under the bus. Smith endorsed the biblical time line from Noah to Abraham and all the biblical math from Genesis is fully calculated and reasoned in Lectures on Faith II in the early Doctrine and Covenants and other official early church sources. Much of this has been detailed earlier in this thread.

When did 14th Dynasty king's reign? 1705–1690 BC

See: Wikipedia Fourteenth Dynasty of Egypt

Biblical Abraham is placed much earlier in chronology than Egypt's 14th Dynasty. Then it gets even worse when you consider the time frame between Abraham and Moses and trying to find the Pharaoh of the Exodus. That problem is far worse and Gee knows that! Folks, the Exodus as recorded in the bible is MYTH! That stuff never happened.

I specialize in that little chronological problem.

:twisted:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1592
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:
Philo Sofee wrote: Soooooo, if I am not mistaken, I think what you are trying to say here is that you have a testimony..... :biggrin:
I bear you my testimony that I know that John Gee is NEVER going to be able to devise any kind of coherent time frame in which to place Predynastic, Earlydynastic, and Old Kingdom Egypt between "Egyptus" settling into the Delta to establish the Egyptian nation and Abraham sitting on a 14th Dynasty king's throne.

:twisted:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1592
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:
Biblical Abraham is placed much earlier in chronology than Egypt's 14th Dynasty. Then it gets even worse when you consider the time frame between Abraham and Moses and trying to find the Pharaoh of the Exodus. That problem is far worse and Gee knows that! Folks, the Exodus as recorded in the bible is MYTH! That stuff never happened.

I specialize in that little chronological problem.

:twisted:

And don't think that the timeline for Abraham's great grandson Joseph hasn't been mapped out and fully taken into consideration because it has! Is John Gee writing about how JOSEPH was in Egypt and which Pharaoh's throne he was standing next to?

Good times are coming. Roasting Gee nuts on the open fire is going to become a habit. He's one Egyptologist NUT that is easy to crack!

This thread has effectively shown conclusively that there NEVER was a knife in the hands of Anubis depicted in Facsimile No. 1, as published by the Mormons, first in Nauvoo, and then by the Church headquartered in Salt Lake City -- by the POLYGAMOUS--M O R M O N branch under Woodruff's ignorant management.

There never was a knife! Smith made it up. The knife was first drawn on the paper backing and then was incorporated into the printing plate for publication but it was never drawn on the original vignette of Hor's papyrus. The Mormons have been perpetuating this filthy lie for 178 years and have done nothing to correct their original error and blasphemous representation, a libelous depiction of Egyptian art.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many Egyptologists back the KNIFE as shown in the Facsimile No. 1?

YES:
John Gee
Kerry Muhlestein

NO:
ALL NONMORMON EGYPTOLOGISTS WORLDWIDE

Need I say more?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1592
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 »

Book of Abraham according to John Gee, Mormon Egyptologist:

Historical narrative begins in Chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham

EARTH IS FLOODED AND EIGHT SOULS SURVIVE

> The Flood; Noah age 600
> Ark sails away from Jackson County Missouri
> Ark settles in the New World on mount Ararat
> Shem begat Arphaxad 2 years after the flood
> Arphaxad age 35 begat Salah
> Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus
> Salah age 30 begat Eber
> The first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus
> Eber age 34 begat Peleg
> Egyptian 1st Dynasty
> Peleg age 30 begat Reu
> Egyptian 2nd Dynasty
> Reu age 32 begat Serug
> Egyptian 3rd Dynasty -- Step Pyramid of Djoser is built
> Serug age 30 begat Nahor
> Egyptian 4th Dynasty -- Great Pyramids are built
> Nahor age 29 begat Terah
> Egyptian 5 & 6th Dynasties
> Terah age 70 begat Abram
> Egyptian 1st Intermediate Period
> Abram age 75 journey to Canaan
> Egyptian Middle Kingdom
> Abraham sits on Pharaoh's throne (according to John Gee) and teaches astronomy
> 14th Dynasty ends
> It gets worse from here, much worse.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Kiss my camel's ass, John Gee. You aren't fooling me!! You aren't fooling yourself either. I know what YOU know. I have been there and done it. I know the numbers, names, and the math. YOU, are lying! I know it and you know it!

What are you going to do about it?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1592
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Unconventional historical theories

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Historical narrative begins in Chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham

EARTH IS FLOODED AND EIGHT SOULS SURVIVE

> The Flood; Noah age 600
> Ark sails away from Jackson County Missouri
> Ark settles in the New World on mount Ararat
> Shem begat Arphaxad 2 years after the flood
> Arphaxad age 35 begat Salah
> Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus
> Salah age 30 begat Eber
> The first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus

In case anyone may be wondering, I'll state for the record, I've even attempted an Immanuel Velikovsky in trying to make Smith's chronology work by attempting to fabricate my own version of an Ages in Chaos by dating the Old Kingdom before the Flood and asserting that the First Intermediate Period beginning with the so-called Egyptian 7th Dynasty, a chaotic anomaly of Egyptian history -- a clear and utter break that can't be properly explained by anyone but was merely a garbled account of First-Egypt coming to an end by Noah's flood when thereafter Second-Egypt sprang to life according to Smith's Book of Abraham account.

The idea of putting the Great Pyramids before the Flood in the days of Enoch and Adam makes for so many problems that it simply defies science and all reality -- you have to put the world in a dream state where the laws of science totally break down and become like a cartoon or a dream wherein reality and unreality are mixed into a a state of chaos. Entertaining that theory was an interesting exercise in abandoning all sense of reality in hopes of making Mormonism come true, all for the cause of defending Joseph Smith's historical Egyptian tale. When I think of how much time I've wasted in attempting to do those things I have to wonder what the hell was wrong with me? Maybe nothing was wrong with me. Maybe that is what I was meant to do so that I could be here today and present this thread?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1592
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Smith's violence

Post by Shulem »

The KNIFE displayed in the Mormon version of Facsimile No. 1 is for all intents and purposes an ACT OF VIOLENCE directly out of the mind of Joseph Smith. Smith had a fascination with violence and this is demonstrated in his Book of Abraham novel wherein countless acts of violence are portrayed in the Book of Mormon, everything from chopping off hands to destroying whole cities full of men, woman, and children.

Smith's introduction of the KNIFE into Facsimile No. 1 was simply more of the violence locked up in his own mind. Smith raped the Facsimile and polluted it with his own violent nature in making something conform to his own imagination. What Smith did to the Facsimile No. 1 could be likened or compared to describing a Christmas card with a manger scene of the Christ child as being a human sacrifice wherein Joseph is about to slit the poor child's throat on a bale of hay after first sacrificing the Virgin Mother to the local gods because she refused to worship them. Hey fair is fair! Live by the sword you die by the sword. If Smith can paint a knife into the hand of an Egyptian god (Anubis) and claim he's attempting to kill the most honorable man (Osiris) who ever lived then why not take the Christmas scene and turn it into a bloody horror story? What Smith did is just as bad!

But we know there was no knife in the papyrus of Facsimile No. 1. No knife means no sacrifice which means the Book of Abraham was an idea dreamed up by Smith's fascination with violence.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1592
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Muhlestein loves to exaggerate

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.

Let's return to the asinine statement made earlier by Muhlestein which has already been commented on but deserves more commentary in light of how bad it is. First, we all know that Muhlestein is an EXAGGERATOR such as his "millions" of "mummies" at his Egyptian dig site. Muhlestein loves to exaggerate!

Now look at his statement above: "quite possible" that there could have been a chunk of papyrus in place where there is now lacuna. How about just say, "possible" and leave off the "quite"? Saying "quite" makes it sound like it's really, really, really possible or, "perhaps even probable", which was what came out of his next breath! Kerry want us to think that there is an excellent chance that Smith actually saw a man's head and a knife on the papyrus before it fell apart and Smith had faithfully recorded those details in his restoration. This is Muhlestein's little way (trick up his sleeve) of leading his readers down a garden path of deception.

We know there NEVER was a knife. That's not even possible because it defies all logic and common sense and what would Abubis need a knife for while Osiris is rising from the dead? So, no, it's not possible that there was a knife on the original. The remnants of the headdress wipe out Muhlestein's possibility for a man's head. Smith's restoration of the head and knife shown in the crude sketch drawn on the paper backing is WHAT was original to his mind and was the first attempt in making his restoration of what he never actually got to see in the first place because the lacuna was ever present when he opened the roll. Hence, Smith never saw a knife or a man's head!

Muhlestein has ZERO evidence to support the idea that a knife or man's head was original to the papyrus. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever! Funerary art and design won't hint of any evidence either. Muhlestein's faith in Smith's restoration is all he has to go on. That's all he has, hence his hands come up empty.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1592
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 »

Res Ipsa » Tue Sep 15, 2020 11:51 am wrote: That's a pretty amazing attempt to make something out of absolutely nothing.

Which is what apologists do sometimes to make it look like they really do have something to show for. Let's look again at the closing statement Muhlestein made and it becomes obvious he's not overly familiar with what Smith actually said and did.
Muhlestein wrote: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.
What? The big day of finally getting to publish the first installment of the Book of Abraham including Facsimile No. 1 which features Hedlock's reproduction of the Sacrifice Scene and Muhlestein isn't sure to what extent Smith was involved? Come on, Muhlestein, this was the big day and you can be sure Smith (Editor in Chief) was breathing over the shoulders of everyone working at the press and would have supervised and approved Hedlock's design of the plate. Wilford Woodruff was very excited and recorded the events in his journal.
Woodruff wrote:Joseph has had these records in his possession for several years but has never presented them before the world in the English language until now, but he is now about to publish it to the world, or parts of it, by publishing it in the Times and Seasons for Joseph the Seer is now the Editor of that paper and Elder Taylor assists him in writing while it has fallen to my lot to take charge of the business part of the establishment. I have had the privilege this day of assisting in the setting the type for printing the first piece of the Book of Abraham that is to be presented to the inhabitants of the earth in the last days.
Woodruff wrote:We prepared a plate for making a cut at the commencement of the Book of Abraham which is to be published in the 9 No. of the 3 Vol. of the Times and Seasons.
Smith makes it perfectly clear, there can be no mistake about it, unbeknownst to Muhlestein, Smith was EXTENSIVELY involved in the production of the Facsimile plate of the Sacrifice Scene:
Joseph Smith wrote:During the afternoon I was at my office and the printing office, correcting the first plate or cut of the records of Father Abraham, prepared by Reuben Hedlock, for the Times and Seasons, and in council in my office, in the afternoon; and in the evening with the Twelve and their wives at Elder Woodruff's, at which time I explained many important principles in relation to progressive improvement in the scale of intelligent existence.
How much more clear can it be that Smith supervised and approved the plate which Hedlock crafted for publication?
Post Reply