Facsimile 3

[_Shulem]

But you really have to hand it to the apologists, because they've managed to take control and frame the debate so everyone is ignoring these kinds of slam dunks. Instead, they've had the critics jumping through their hoops for the past decade over irrelevant issues such as forensic textual arguments (which no one is going to be able to prove anyway) regarding the KEP. Will's idiotic cipher theory and Gee's latest sequence argument are perfect examples as well. Most of the heated debating between apologists and critics on these forums has been about whether this "t" crosses over that letter or what was written first, etc. It is all a game of diversion, and for the most part it has worked beautifully for them because it has made the issue too boring for most people to even bother reading.

Folks like Schryver are constantly avoiding these slam dunks and have instead moved the debate into areas where Joseph Smith has a better chance (though still very poor) of getting something right, or at the very least, allow enough room for the apologetic mind to come up with "reasonable doubt" on an issue.

This is why I have decided to go ahead with my book. To stop letting them drive the agenda and start pounding on those slam dunk points that the apologists never address.

You hit the nail on the head! Also, make sure that you make Facsimile No. 3 your showpiece because it's a sure thing and will drive the apologists nuts. Use it for your book cover! Facsimile No. 3 is a testimony killer. Not even John Gee can do a damn thing about it and should he try to spew BS there is an army of Egyptologists that will cut him off so fast it will make his head spin.

Paul O

[_zeezrom]

Listen to yourself. Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God. That means he literally could not read Egyptian Hieroglyphics. How could he have annotated anything if he couldn't read it and didn't know the language? The whole argument is stupid. His annotations are purely him speculating about what the facsimiles were based on his poor assumptions about the papyri (THAT HE COULDN'T READ).

The gift and power of God was to make Joseph an instrument to translate ancient texts.

[_Tobin]

Yes, and my sister got in a car wreck about a month ago and she tells me a different story each time too. What our mind brings to the foreground and considers important in each tellings is simply a result of us being human and imperfect.

Did your sister report that she hit one car, and then two, and then a multitude of cars?

No, she tells me stories about a car wreck she was in. Joseph Smith tells stories about seeing God.

[_Themis]

Yes, and my sister got in a car wreck about a month ago and she tells me a different story each time too. What our mind brings to the foreground and considers important in each telling is simply a result of us being human and imperfect.

The problem with the FV is not only the differences in each telling, but the evolution as you brought up earlier in his thinking about the nature of God. Double wammy.

[_zeezrom]

Tobin,

Since Joseph was using a gift and power of God, we should expect his writings not coincide with the ancient text. Is that what you are saying?

[_Themis]

Listen to yourself. Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God. That means he literally could not read Egyptian Hieroglyphics. How could he have annotated anything if he couldn't read it and didn't know the language? The whole argument is stupid. His annotations are purely him speculating about what the facsimiles were based on his poor assumptions about the papyri (THAT HE COULDN'T READ).

The gift and power of God was to make Joseph an instrument to translate ancient texts.

It brings up the question of why Joseph included the explanations of the facsimiles if they were just his musings, yet the rest is a translation of some document long lost. Crazy thinking going on here.

[_Tobin]

Tobin, Since Joseph was using a gift and power of God, we should expect his writings not coincide with the ancient text. Is that what you are saying?

No, I'm saying the papyri weren't the source. They were merely the impetus. The original writings of Abraham do not exist nor should we expect to find them. The Egyptians would have no reason to maintain a story about Abraham (or his myths). They'd write about their own myths and depictions (as you'd expect).

[_Bob Loblaw]

It brings up the question of why Joseph included the explanations of the facsimiles if they were just his musings, yet the rest is a translation of some document long lost. Crazy thinking going on here.

If I had to contort myself like this to maintain belief, I would seriously re-examine my beliefs and my spiritual experiences.

[Guest]

I THOUGHT IT APPROPRIATE TO CLIP SOME MATERIAL FROM MY OLD PRO-LDS BOOK OF ABRAHAM APOLOGETIC WEBSITE FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN FACSIMILE NO 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Isis or Pharaoh?

An Egyptian goddess adorned in the garb of Isis (far figure to the left)

The Joseph Smith explanation says that this is, "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

How can this be? Although the hieroglyphs may be undeterminable for the layman, this is not the case for Egyptologists who are able to read them. The signs above the hand are not a king's name, neither are they contained in a royal cartouche. Therefore; what was Joseph Smith talking about?

The negative facts are:

1. The female goddess was NOT the king of Egypt in Abraham's day.
2. The papyrus was NOT a production of Abraham's day, but long after.
3. The garbled hieroglyphs do NOT represent any known king.

The answer to this puzzling dilemma stems back to the process by which the revelation was founded— REPRESENTATIONALISM!

The image of the goddess was made to represent the Egyptian king of Abraham's day. The Lord gave the prophet Joseph Smith inspiration through Egyptian iconography in order to open his mind up to the story of Abraham. In a sense, the Facsimile may simply be referred to as a prop or visual aid to idealize an ancient setting after the manner of the Egyptians. Therefore, to Joseph Smith the goddess was nothing more and nothing less than the king of Egypt.

Paul O

[Guest]

Goddess or Prince?

The Egyptian goddess of Truth and Right (middle figure)

The Joseph Smith explanation says that this is, "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand."

The garbled hieroglyphs above the hand don't have any of the necessary emblems to denote a prince of Egypt. There is no question that this elegant woman is none other than the Egyptian goddess called Ma'at.

This beautiful simulacrum given by the Lord reminds us of fantastic imagery found within the covers of the Bible. For instance: the vision of both a golden head and a lion (Dan 2:32; 7:4) being likened to the king of Babylon. Still yet— we advance further in God's symbolism who likened the church of God as a bride who is "a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars" (Rev 12:1). There is nothing amiss to the revelation of transposing a female representation into what could also be a male interpretation.

Paul O