Conflict of Justice: Apologist attacks CES Letter (Book of Abraham)

Content transferred from the former board.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Conflict of Justice: Apologist attacks CES Letter (Book of Abraham)

Post by Shulem »

Shulem » Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:58 pm wrote:
Calling Kerry, calling Kerry! Hello Kerry.

Have you seen this LDS apologetic website defending the Book of Abraham?

Did Joseph Smith Incorrectly Fill In Missing Parts Of Facsimile 1?

The dude has several sections regarding the Book of Abraham and viciously attacks the CES letter as if the devil himself wrote it. I ain't kidding. Put your atheist crap down and take a look at the vomit oozing out of the mouth of this Mormon fanatic.

:lol:
Philo Sofee » Tue Dec 12, 2017 8:51 pm wrote:
Oh Good! I have more fun to have........ thanks for the heads up.
Last edited by Shulem on Wed Nov 25, 2020 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Conflict of Justice: Apologist attacks CES Letter (Book of Abraham)

Post by Shulem »

Maksutov » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:07 pm wrote: Dude's a pretentious loon. See below.
............

When you look into Letter to a CES Director, you find disturbing propaganda tactics straight out of 19th century Communism.

Just about every paragraph in CES Letter is dedicated to finding a contradiction in Mormon belief. That’s basically what CES Letter is all about. In the very first sentence, we see that the Book of Mormon claims to be ancient scripture yet “1769 King James” errors are present. How could it be ancient scripture then?

Law of Identity

One assumption of science is that natural laws are universally the same wherever you go. If a principle is the same no matter what circumstances it is in, that is a universal truth. Karl Marx and Engels built the Communist ideology on the study of social motion through dialectic:

“Dialectical philosophers claim that contradictions exist in reality and that the most appropriate way to understand the movement of that reality is to study the development of those contradictions… they have to be expunged in order to arrive at the truth.”
...............

Any criticism of Mormonism is clearly Communism. What an incoherent putz. :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Conflict of Justice: Apologist attacks CES Letter (Book of Abraham)

Post by Shulem »

CES LETTER FAIL wrote:Big Lie Tactic – Most anti-Mormons say that the Book of Abraham is the 'smoking gun' that disproves Mormonism. But that is just because they assume that the recovered papyri fragments are the source for the Book of Abraham. It is a big lie that compounds as we delve into further investigation and leads to other lies. This is why CES Letter frames the discussion where the small fragment is definitely what Joseph Smith claimed to use–not a different scroll or different part of that scroll.
Critics of the Book of Abraham are liars?

:lol:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Conflict of Justice: Apologist attacks CES Letter (Book of Abraham)

Post by Shulem »

CESLetter Fail wrote:And maybe Joseph Smith was guessing himself. How was he supposed to know what missing parts looked like? He was only giving the scene’s meaning and the Abrahamic context. That doesn’t necessarily mean he knew how the missing parts should look like.

There is no "maybe" about it. Joseph Smith was guessing his guesses as he translated and interpreted all three of the Facsimiles, you dumb ass! How was he supposed to know what the missing parts looked like? What kind of question is that coming from someone who sustains Smith as a prophet, SEER, and revelator? Don't you know that seers are supposed to SEE and that's how he would know what the missing parts were supposed to look like? Hello! What do you mean he was "only giving" the scene's meaning? You imply that he wasn't really translating Egyptian but was just giving his meanings the meanings he wanted to give while he pretended to read Egyptian, as he did with his Explanations in Facsimile No. 1, 2, 3.

:lol:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Conflict of Justice: Apologist attacks CES Letter (Book of Abraham)

Post by Shulem »

CED Letter Fail wrote:What difference did it make if the priest on the side wore a jackal mask or not? Discrepancies would only matter if they were substantially different. In fact, as we shall see, Joseph Smith’s fill-ins turns out to be more accurate than CES Letter's 'modern Egyptology.'

Joseph Smith's fill-ins, accurate?

Due to the damaged Hypocephalus, Smith added upside down hieroglyphic characters, compliments of his craftsman, Reuben Hedlock in Facsimile No. 2.

Smith put a white man's head atop the body of a black man in Facsimile No. 1, and you call that accurate Egyptology? I call it lily-white nonsense. Smith was so stupid he couldn't tell the difference between a black man and a white man!

And we all know that white men from Utard can't jump!

:lol:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Conflict of Justice: Apologist attacks CES Letter (Book of Abraham)

Post by Shulem »

Symmachus » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:28 pm wrote:
Maksutov wrote: When you look into Letter to a CES Director, you find disturbing propaganda tactics straight out of 19th century Communism.

Just about every paragraph in CES Letter is dedicated to finding a contradiction in Mormon belief. That’s basically what CES Letter is all about. In the very first sentence, we see that the Book of Mormon claims to be ancient scripture yet “1769 King James” errors are present. How could it be ancient scripture then?

Law of Identity

One assumption of science is that natural laws are universally the same wherever you go. If a principle is the same no matter what circumstances it is in, that is a universal truth. Karl Marx and Engels built the Communist ideology on the study of social motion through dialectic:

“Dialectical philosophers claim that contradictions exist in reality and that the most appropriate way to understand the movement of that reality is to study the development of those contradictions… they have to be expunged in order to arrive at the truth.”
Oh my god this is hilarious. Are you sure this isn't satire?
Dr Exiled » Wed Dec 13, 2017 11:03 am wrote: Does anyone know if this is the same teancum that posts over at MD&D?
Stem » Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:01 pm wrote:
They [anti-Mormons]frame the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham as a “model” that has no evidence for it
and
I think it would be detrimental to Mormonism if undeniable evidence were found
That was a cute read. I like this part where he identifies himself as a "anti-Mormon". Perhaps with defenders like this...

Oh...and I guess I wanted to point out this too:
Most anti-Mormons say that the Book of Abraham is the “smoking gun” that disproves Mormonism. But that is just because they assume that the recovered papyri fragments are the source for the Book of Abraham. It is a big lie that compounds as we delve into further investigation and leads to other lies. This is why CES Letter frames the discussion where the small fragment is definitely what Joseph Smith claimed to use–not a different scroll or different part of that scroll.
"most" huh? Ok. They assume the recovered papyri fragments are the source? I'm pretty sure those who don't think the Book of Abraham is scripture or ancient don't really think the papyri are the source of the Book of Abraham at all. What he means to say is he think the source of the Book of Abraham is in the lost papyri and those who argue that Joseph and others seemed to think the source was found in the extant portions are wrong because he disagrees. Therefore they are liars.

I'm saying, cute stuff.
Mormon Think » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:35 pm wrote:
Shulem wrote:This fruitcake apologist advocates the missing papyrus theory. He's using deceptive tactics and methods to advance his ideas and yet totally disregards the historical evidences and claims of the founders of the Book of Abraham.

I'd love to shove the Facsimile down his throat just like I did to poor sorry zerinus who has since fled the board. That coward choked on the Facsimile No. 3 and his testimony days are numbered.

I keep saying it folks, Facsimile No. 3 is the silver bullet in which to build the case against Joseph Smith. Hang everything else on it. The apologists can't defend the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 and look you straight in the eyes with an honest face.

Just recently I have made things worse for Facsimile No. 3 in showing that there probably was a jackal head removed from the woodcut which shows that Joseph Smith was pulling a fast one.

I've been pondering the idea about creating a new presentation against the Book of Abraham using the formula and information that I know will utterly destroy the credibility of the Book of Abraham and force the apologists to retreat. I just don't know if I want to bother with it all. I know Mormon Think would publish such a work. But do I do it? The whole thing gets old after a while but from what I've seen no one has yet put out a winning presentation with a killer punch.
I think it's good you publish this so it can be on the web for a resource for anyone in the future. I agree that FAC 3 is a smoking gun and really hard for pro-church supporters to defend with any sort of credible argument. We're ready when you are.

Bill
Themis » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:18 pm wrote:
Shulem wrote:This fruitcake apologist advocates the missing papyrus theory.
Which is why you will never see this person defend it anywhere but friendly sites. The missing papyri has been dead for over a century. Egyptology has viewed the facsimiles before some of the papyri was rediscovered and have shown them to be from the book of breathing's. Facsimile 3 is a smoking gun because it has both imagery and text. But when the papyri was rediscovered they easily could translate the text around Facsimile 1, which is no doubt from the book of breathing's. The idea that the book of breathing's text surrounds facsimile 1 but is not connected to facsimile 1 it is beyond stupid. The idea that the Abraham story resides anywhere on the papyri is also beyond stupid. Some of us LDS members had no trouble recognizing this truth.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Conflict of Justice: Apologist attacks CES Letter (Book of Abraham)

Post by Shulem »

Shulem » Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:06 pm wrote: Calling Kerry, calling Kerry! Hello Kerry.

:lol:
Philo Sofee » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:44 pm wrote: At the link here where this guy is discussing Facsimile 1
http://www.conflictofjustice.com/joseph ... f-abraham/

He claims that Joseph Smith's interpretation of the "firmament of heaven" matches the Egyptian idea "the firmament of the sky." Ritner "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri" (2013), p. 118 absolutely disagrees. This is the water of the Nile, and there is no Egyptian word "Shaumau" meaning high or heavens. The Egyptian iconography for heavens was four pillars (p. 118). On p. 113 Ritner says this is about the resurrection of Osiris, not Abraham's sacrifice. The lion couch is not a sacrificial bed as the Mormon apologist claims. The apologist ignores Ritner entirely. Ritner on pg. 230 explicitly says the lion couch is not a sacrificial table.

Nowhere in his scholarly edition of the Hor Book of Breathings does LDS amateur Egyptologist Michael Dennis Rhodes ever call the lion couch a sacrificial altar either (discussion on pp. 18-20 - FARMS 2002)

The apologist's claim that Abraham is a substitute for the King in the ancient Egyptian Sed Festival. There is not a single Egyptologist who agrees with this anymore. It was a flawed interpretation which Nibley used, but now must be discarded. There is precious little here that is impressive or persuasive. I can't find it right now, but somewhere John Gee himself even said the Sed Festival is not a valid approach anymore. If anyone can find that I would appreciate it. I thought it was in his updated edition of "The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri" but it's not.
(NEW EDIT) - I found where Gee says Nibley's use of the Sed Festival was influenced by the Cambridge patternists, and it is dated, in other words, not valid or a useful metric with which to measure Joseph Smith. It is in his forward to Nibleys book "An Approach to the Book of Abraham" FARMS 2009: xxxiv-xxxv) The Mormon apologist not only ignores his own LDS Egyptologists, but the valid ones such as Ritner.

One of the main things that took me out of Book of Abraham apologetics was Ritner's book. It is literally ignored, but apologists have no choice anymore than Nibley did in the 1960's-70's with Baer. Ignoring Ritner instead of refuting him is a tacit admission apologists do not have the evidences in favor of Joseph Smith. Ritner made his case with stellar scholarship and utmost integrity of saying where the bear poops. Michael Marquardt is also one of the most honest, open, and well researched scholars on the papyri and its relationship to the Book of Abraham. His chapter in Ritner alone is worth the price of Ritner's magnificent dismantling of LDS Book of Abraham apologetics.
aussieguy55 » Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:52 am wrote: I think the missing penis and then the restoration of Min's penis is a funny part of the Book of Abraham problem.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Conflict of Justice: Apologist attacks CES Letter (Book of Abraham)

Post by Shulem »

Did Joseph Smith Correctly Translate Facsimile 3 In The Book Of Abraham?

The Conflict of Justice apologetic website is absolute nonsense and slams conventional Egyptology. John Gee is not going to endorse or adopt this apologetic garbage. If so, world authorities on Egyptology would combine and rebuke him, essentially strip him of his credentials and label him a heretic.

This is a sinister and notorious website! It throws anything and everything up in the air hoping something will stick. One might try this sort of thing with anything to make anything do what they want it to say. But this is not logic. It's not reasonable and it's not conventional Egyptology. This apologetic grossly misrepresents Egyptology and is a slam on the ancient Egyptians. Neither does it represent what Joseph Smith and his companions actually said and claimed. It's really nothing more than fantasy.

Conflict of Justice wrote:
Image

Joseph Smith:
“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.”

Pharaoh’s Horus Name – Pharaoh was the title for the king’s household, not the king’s name, until later in Egypt’s history. Joseph Smith correctly dissociates “King Pharaoh” with the person’s name. So what is the name given in the characters above the head?

The hieroglyphs to the right of the head associates goddess Isis. But Joseph Smith was talking about characters above the head, not to the right of it. Joseph Smith even located the number “2” right in the middle of the character he was referring to. Does this symbol above the head indicate Pharoah’s name? Yes. This is the Horus sun disk. Now, if Joseph Smith were guessing, wouldn’t he have said the hieroglyphic writing was a name rather than the figure’s crown? How is a crown a name? But he is actually correct.

Each king of Egypt had a special “Horus” name–actually two Horus names: one that “designated the pharaoh as the god Horus on earth” and one that linked “pharaoh to the sun, divinity, eternity, earthly gold, and perhaps to Horus’ victory over Seth.” Now, we already saw how Osiris in Figure 1 wore a his crown as a “sign of his earthly rulership.” But astronomy was not just about earthly judgement. This was about judgement in the afterlife as well. The second Horus name is called the the Golden Horus Name and “typically featured the image of a Horus falcon perched above or beside the hieroglyph for gold.” The hieroglyph for gold is the character nebu, which is a half-disk with rays between two hills.

Compare the nebu character with the sun disk atop Isis’s head in figure 2. Perfect match! Joseph Smith was right. There is no falcon in the name, but that’s alright because the falcon was not needed to identify the gold sign nebu with Pharaoh. “The gold sign, without the Horus falcon, appeared in conjunction with the royal names from the time of Djer onwards.” The falcon represents “the final victory of Horus over Seth” and that was already ritualized in Facsimile 1.

It’s not surprising that the king’s Horus name was snuck into Isis’ crown by the artist of Facsimile 3. Egyptians did this kind of thing all the time. Illustrations and shapes were often arranged or drawn to spell out names.

Isis Represents Pharaoh – As the mother of Horus, Isis was the personification of Pharaoh’s throne and seat of power, as Gail Corrington explains:

“Isis was the incarnation of the pharaoh’s ‘throne’. As the throne symbolically ‘created’ or ‘gave birth to’ the pharaoh, so Isis, the incarnate throne, was the mother of the pharaoh.” (Gail Corrington)

Notice that Joseph Smith placed the number 2 at Isis’ crown, not Isis herself. It is totally appropriate to associate her crown with the Horus name of Pharaoh. We see Isis aiding in Abraham’s assumption of justice and dominion “by the politeness of the king,” in a similar way she gives birth to Pharaoh’s position as king. This suggests Pharaoh allowed Abraham to study astronomy and be ordained through Egyptian religious rites to gain the divine governing powers that were meant for Egyptian rulers, a politeness which Pharaohs were known to do for esteemed foreign visitors.

The apologist is attempting to get us to take our eye off the ball and our eyes off what Joseph Smith was actually identifying -- hieroglyphic characters, words, not crowns! The apologist knows there is no king's name in the hieroglyphs "above his head" so he makes the attempt to change Smith's original intent. He points to the crown as if to imply it's the characters above the head that Smith was referring to. Then, he goes on to symbolically justify Smith's explanation by stating that crowns are worn by kings. So, there you have it, a king's name is in the symbolism of wearing crowns.

But this approach is not consistent at all. Smith earlier mentioned a crown above the head of Fig.1 (with a crown upon his head), and stated specifically what the crown represented. He didn't say "characters above his head", but a crown. There is a clear difference between characters and crowns, but here we see the apologist ignores it trying to find anyway to produce a king. You'll notice though, the apologist doesn't offer a name even though the need for a name is consistent with Smith's other claims: Shulem and Olimlah. Those are names. But we never get a king's name from the apologist because there isn't one.

The apologist feels justified in labeling the crown as the characters because the No. "2" (printing number), is directly above the crown, thinking it doesn't refer to the characters to the right of the crown, above the head. But it's obvious that the place where the No. "2" was located is for convenience and is aesthetically a good fit.

Joseph Smith was famous for pointing at hieroglyphs on papyrus and stating that they were the autograph of Abraham. He's on record for doing that. The apologist certainly doesn't want to bring that up or tie it together with what Smith was doing with Facsimile No. 3. I think the most important point to make in proving the apologist is wrong about identifying the crown as Smith's characters is that Smith said essentially the same thing about Fig. 5, but this time referring to the hand and not the head:

"represented by the characters above his hand"

Well folks, there is no crown above the characters above the hand. No crown at all! Just characters, Egyptian texts. And guess what? The name Shulem is not found therein. I think it's important to ram this down the throat of the apologist who is creating this ridiculous presentation in defense of Joseph Smith and his false translations.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Conflict of Justice: Apologist attacks CES Letter (Book of Abraham)

Post by Shulem »

Conflict of Justice wrote:Does this symbol above the head indicate Pharoah’s name? Yes.

No, it does not indicate Pharaoh's name, period. It is a crown, sacred regalia worn by Isis a GODDESS (not a king) -- nothing more. The crown does not represent or is indicative of the name of an Egyptian king. This apologetic assertion is pure smoke and mirrors and is totally flim-flam.

The apologist made a big deal about the placement of the No. "2" being directly above the crown as if that is what Smith was looking at considering the crown itself was the characters and not the hieroglyphic text to the right directly above the crown. The apologists is dead wrong and is trying to get others to take their eye off the ball.

Why is the No. "2" placed directly above the crown and not some other part of the printing block?

Image

Space is limited on the printing block, and as I said previously, it's obvious that the spot where the No. 2 was placed is convenient and is an aesthetically good fit. But more importantly, according to the Explanation, the No. 2 represents TWO things, not just one:

1. King Pharaoh
2. name is given in the characters above his head

The No. "2" is placed in the best spot in the printing block to present the person and the hieroglyphic script above. The person just so happens to be wearing a crown although Smith doesn't bother with those details as he did with the character in Fig. No. 1.

Bottom line: The No. "2" represents the PERSON below who is wearing a crown and the hieroglyphic text above the head.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 1943
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Conflict of Justice: Apologist attacks CES Letter (Book of Abraham)

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee » Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:16 pm wrote:
Shulem wrote:http://www.conflictofjustice.com/joseph-smith-translate-facsimile-3-book-of-abraham/
scroll to the bottom into the comments section

I've included some of my comments on the apologetic website that I cut and pasted from this thread. They have apparently been approved and are permanent.

Kerry, where the hell are you? Jesus.
I am blocked as a suspected bot it always says.... gee, my name must be blacklisted, I wonder why.... I have tried both my own response, and then tried replying to one of your posts. They won't let me post there. Teancum knows me from the old FAIR message boards when we first started them. I am quite sure he wants no tangle with me. Little does he know you are more devastating than I would ever be, so congrats on getting through!
Post Reply