bcspace wrote:[ ] yes [ ] No
Is the person in the Facsimile clip above a king of Egypt?
Why couldn't both (Isis and Pharaoh be true in context? After all, the orginal intepretation is not very friendly to the Egyptian religion, putting Pharaoh in a secondary position.
You answered my question with a question -- slippery, indeed.
The personage is Isis, and she is NOT a king of Egypt. She is a queen and a goddess, the wife of Osiris (the man seated before her) who was the greatest king of Egypt. So, to answer your question, she couldn't be both king & queen and she was married to the great king! The only context that is wrong is the context created by Joseph Smith which is totally unEgyptian and wholey lacking in scientific value.
"The original interpretation"? I think you mean the correct translation, as offered by Egyptologists. That's not so much an interpretation but a definition to the very words, a correct translation like reading French into English or German into Spanish. Egyptologists have it right -- no interpretation needed, just a correct translation. But we see it's Joseph Smith the pretended seer who comes along to offer an interpretation and calls it his Explanation which is 100% false -- totally proven wrong by scientific definition of the very language itself. So, bcspace, please don't lump the translations of Egyptologists with the interpretations of a religious nutcase. There is no king's name above Isis and neither is the name Shulem found in the writings. Joseph Smith interpreted wrong and he translated wrong.
I strongly encourage you to reject Joseph Smith and imbrace science. You need to walk out of the Mormon Dark Age. Enter into the light.
Paul O