BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3?? WEBSITE

[_aussieguy55]

I think something like the work of Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein can kick the Book of Abraham story to the curb. If Van Peters and Thompson are right there was no Abraham using domesticated camels. The work of Biblical scholars who Nibley like to cite like Albright has been superseded by scholars like Finkelstein who use both marco archaeology and micro archaeology to test sites for dating etc

[_Shulem]

Based on what you see in the enlarged woodcut plate, do you sense that there was a jackal nose originally carved and afterward removed? Which way do you tend to lean knowing what you know right now? On a scale of 1-10: 1 being there is no way there was a nose and 10 being there was most certainly a nose.

[ ] 1 (definitely no)
[ ] 2
[ ] 3
[ ] 4
[ ] 5
[ ] 6
[ ] 7
[ ] 8
[ ] 9
[ ] 10 (definitely yes)

Thanks to all those who expressed their opinion in the other thread:

Facsimile No. 3 printing plate reveals jackal head Anubis

8-9 Fence Sitter
8-9 Themis
8.9 deacon blues
8-9 Philo Sofee
8-9 Sanctorian
3 abinadi_fire
9 Symmachus
3 The Dude
10 Jesse Pinkman
10 DonBradley

I would love to hear from more of you. What's your number?

1-10

Thanks

[_Dantana]

Shulem, Really good work! I love the clever, original way you show the difference in the J. Smith babble and the correct interpretation.

About half way through you have a panel showing the actors conversing with some silly sex talk. What is the point in that? Is there a point that I am missing, or is it just simply your attempt at comedic relief?

Just bringing it up because, well, if it bothers me a little, there will be others it bothers a lot. It seems like you've put together a great tool for proselyting morms, why sabotage it.

[_Shulem]

Shulem, Really good work! I love the clever, original way you show the difference in the J. Smith babble and the correct interpretation.

About half way through you have a panel showing the actors conversing with some silly sex talk. What is the point in that? Is there a point that I am missing, or is it just simply your attempt at comedic relief?

Just bringing it up because, well, if it bothers me a little, there will be others it bothers a lot. It seems like you've put together a great tool for proselyting morms, why sabotage it.

Thanks!

The point of the sexy translation is to remind everyone that the persons Joseph Smith labeled as male (Fig. 2 & 4) are in fact female. The colorization and sleezy humor is supposed to drive that home.

The point is: They are girls, not boys. Joseph Smith wasn't keen enough to zero in on their true sex, perhaps he needed glasses due to poor eyesight.

The point of the cartoon is to finalize their sex with a little fun and establish forever that they are girls and Joseph Smith was dead wrong. Mormon apologists can choke on it.

Tana, 1-10?

[_Dantana]

Shulem, Really good work! I love the clever, original way you show the difference in the J. Smith babble and the correct interpretation.

About half way through you have a panel showing the actors conversing with some silly sex talk. What is the point in that? Is there a point that I am missing, or is it just simply your attempt at comedic relief?

Just bringing it up because, well, if it bothers me a little, there will be others it bothers a lot. It seems like you've put together a great tool for proselyting morms, why sabotage it.

Thanks!

The point of the sexy translation is to remind everyone that the persons Joseph Smith labeled as male (Fig. 2 & 4) are in fact female. The colorization and sleezy humor is supposed to drive that home.

The point is: They are girls, not boys. Joseph Smith wasn't keen enough to zero in on their true sex, perhaps he needed glasses due to poor eyesight.

The point of the cartoon is to finalize their sex with a little fun and establish forever that they are girls and Joseph Smith was dead wrong. Mormon apologists can choke on it.

Tana, 1-10?

Very good then. Carry on.

Based on woodcut only. There certainly seems to be a difference in the tool-marks in the background general, and the background at the snout. So, 8 - 9 then.

I'm a contractor, carpenter, house builder. You need to locate a woodcarving forensics-ist.

[Guest]

I don't have a crystal ball so it's hard to say exactly what's going to happen but eventually this matter will be studied and reviewed by church apologists and professional analysts. It will happen. No question about that. Once the apologists get wind of this they are going to want to get to the bottom of it and come up with some kind of response.

The question is what will be the response but more importantly what will result from professional analysis regarding the treatment of Anubis in the lead plate. There is going to be chatter and discussion and finally a slew of opinions. The opinion that will count the most will be from those who know and understand metallurgy.

Then there is the question of HOW the apologists will spin their response should it be conclusively shown that there was indeed a snout in the original space. Just how will the apologists respond to that and what excuses will they come up with? Blame Hedlock while Smith was out to lunch? Hedlock accidently broke the snout while making a final cut so elected to get rid of all of it to make it look more humane?

Oh the web the apologists weave! LDS apologists are like spiders spinning webs to trap themselves and anyone else who dare enter.

[_Shulem]

let's also take into consideration the responsibility the LDS church today bears should it be determined that an original jackal snout was first carved on the woodcut mirroring the image in the original papyrus. Suppose that it's determined this was the case and LDS scholars admit it. What then?

Doesn't the LDS church have a responsibility to clear the air (so-to speak) and address this issue? The LDS church is responsible for taking the image of a major god from another religion and defacing it and publishing it in Nauvoo and in their worldwide canon for 138 years. If it can be shown that the church is guilty of defacing the TRUE image of Anubis and hid this from the world then this needs to be addressed.

The church is responsible for defacing the god from a different religion and would need to make amends -- to include an apology. What the LDS church has done to Anubis is shameful and warrants an apology. They have mutilated and misrepresented Anubis and have done so without bearing any shame or responsibility.

[_I have a question]

If there is anybody left in the Church that has a shred of intellectual honesty left within them, but who continues to believe the Book Of Abraham is what it claims to be, they should discuss the reasons for their belief in it with Shulem.

It’s a demonstrably flat out lie.
And there’s nobody better to demonstrate that than Shulem.

[_aussieguy55]

An excellent youtube is on dealing with the Book of Abraham BYU Professor defends the book of Abraham

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KLa8HYsfpM

[_Shulem]

An excellent youtube is on dealing with the Book of Abraham BYU Professor defends the book of Abraham

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KLa8HYsfpM

He's a twit and a liar.

LDS Egyptologist Muhlestein on Facsimile 3
Brother Kerry Muhlestein: most will never understand Book of Abraham
Kerry Muhlestein's latest crap
Mormon egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein: Book of Abraham was TRANSLATED
Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

etc