Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Math is math

Post by _Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 1:55 am
Math is math! This is where the Book of Abraham is fatally flawed and proven false.

Smith understood the absolute principle that math is math and that it's based on cold calculated truths that are ever constant. Unfortunately for Smith, the foundation in which he depended was wrong so the formula he used to solve and reach his conclusion was riddled with error -- fatally flawed!
TIMES AND SEASONS CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. November 1, 1843. wrote: Now for the question. How much are one and one? Two. How much is one from two? One. Very well, one question, or problem is solved by figures. Now let me ask one for facts: was there ever such a place on the earth as Egypt? Geography says yes; ancient history says yes; and the Bible says yes. So three witnesses have solved that question.
Smith relied on his chronology for ancient Egyptian history by using the bible and in doing so he believed it solved the problem. But we know Smith's answer is wrong which the Church to this day continues to believe and is still wrong.

Then in the next paragraph, Smith used his bad math, unreliable information, and so-called revelation in falsely dating his mummies:
TIMES AND SEASONS CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. November 1, 1843. wrote:Besides these tangible facts, so easily proven and demonstrated by simple rules of testimony unimpeached, the art (now lost) of embalming human bodies, and preserving them in the catacombs of Egypt, whereby men, women and children as mummies, after a lapse of near three thousand five hundred years, come forth among the living, and although dead, the papyrus which has lived in their bosoms, unharmed, speaks for them, in language like the sound of an earthquake: Ecce veritas! Ecce cadaveros. Behold the truth! Behold the mummies! .... The spirit of prophesy is the testimony of Jesus.
No, no, and no! Smith's mummies were not 3,500 years old and neither did he have the spirit of prophecy to say such nonsense! He was a false prophet.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by _Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:41 pm
Now take into consideration the Facsimile No. 1. The rising of Osiris took place on earth where his wife received him in order to conceive Horus. There is no motif of stars because it's not a heavenly scene. The motif is that of the Nile and the niched bricking or carved stones signifies the temple walls adjacent to the Nile where the river crocodiles are ever present.

All glory to Osiris my lord!
And now, to demonstrate that Smith and his comrades were not entirely ignorant about some of the finer matters that were known to educated people of his day. And in doing this it shows that Smith was WRONG in his Facsimile interpretations when he should have known better, especially if revelation was really coming from God. Apologists make a big deal that Smith got the crocodile correct in Facsimile No. 1, which is no big deal seeing it was his only bullseye, per se. But had he not got that right it would have simply meant he was stupid and surrounded by totally ignorant people but neither was the case. Smith was highly intelligent and he had some pretty smart guys to consult with in regards to the vignettes.

Now, with that said, here is a clip from the Times and Seasons which might suggest that Smith should have properly labeled Osiris and Isis in Facsimile No. 3. But as it was, the only thing Smith got right in Facsimile No. 1 was the crocodile and that's a no-brainer! The following is from John Greenhow a faithful member from England who sent a letter to the Times and Seasons editor for publishing in the Church periodical. At least someone in the Church knew who Osiris and Isis were! But Smith had already published the Book of Abraham so it was too late to recant.
TIMES AND SEASONS. CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. FEB. l , 1844. wrote:
For the Time Seasons.

The Egyptians had a number of ideal Gods, to whom they erected temples of prodigious size and architectural splendor. The principal of these deities were Osiris and Isis, which are thought to be typical of the sun and moon. But they also offered worship to various creatures, as the ox or bull, with divers animals, birds, &c. They likewise paid adoration to the Nile, personifying it in the crocodile, to which temples were erected, and priests set apart for its service.

<snip>

We as a church have nothing to boast of, for it is God that has made the difference in raising up a prophet to instruct his people, for of ourselves we know nothing, and should we be left without a man of God to direct us, we should soon become weak as other men; therefore to him be the glory, for now we can sing with the poet:

<snip>

I remain as ever, your affectionate brother in the new covenant, JOHN GREENHOW.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Just for fun a little side tracked

Post by _Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:45 pm

Now, with that said, here is a clip from the Times and Seasons which might suggest that Smith should have properly labeled Osiris and Isis in Facsimile No. 3. But as it was, the only thing Smith got right in Facsimile No. 1 was the crocodile and that's a no-brainer! The following is from John Greenhow a faithful member from England who sent a letter to the Times and Seasons editor for publishing in the Church periodical. At least someone in the Church knew who Osiris and Isis were! But Smith had already published the Book of Abraham so it was too late to recant.
TIMES AND SEASONS. CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. FEB. l , 1844. wrote:
For the Time Seasons.

The Egyptians had a number of ideal Gods, to whom they erected temples of prodigious size and architectural splendor. The principal of these deities were Osiris and Isis, which are thought to be typical of the sun and moon.
No, I'm not going to get off on a tangent about Facsimile No. 3 because that's not germane to this thread and I promised not to. But, as a matter of reference and to fortify the above quote made by a learned man (John Greenhow) who tendered a written submission to the Church periodical in which he mentions the goddess "ISIS", I think it's important that we assume the brethren of Kirtland/Nauvoo knew about the myth of the Egyptian goddess Isis, although it would have been a basic or crude knowledge that was commonly known in their time.

It's seems clear to me that Joseph Smith did preserve the name "ISIS" in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language and associated the different levels or degrees of understanding of the name Isis with astronomy. This is proof that Smith was trying to maintain some semblance of authentic Egyptian into his mixed bag of revelatory treats.

NOTE also that the name OSIRIS is also incorporated into the wordings.
See also the these manuscripts:
Egyptian Alphabet, circa Early July–circa November 1835–A wrote:Flos-isis.
Kli-flos-isis
Kli-flos-isis
Egyptian Alphabet, circa Early July–circa November 1835–B wrote:Flos-isis (Sun)
Kli-flos-isis.
Veh-Kli-flos-isis
Egyptian Alphabet, circa Early July–circa November 1835–C: wrote:Flos=isis
Kli-flos isis
Veh kli flos-isis
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Anubis Back in Black (ACDC) to get back on track -- no more masks (KISS)!

Post by _Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Aug 23, 2020 4:42 am

Now, I'm going to take the liberty to edit dishonest statements made by apologists regarding the headdress:
Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:What’s more, the question as to whether the figure is a priest or the god Anubis (or another jackal-headed god), or whether it originally had a bald human head or a jackal head, appears to be (IS NOT) a false dichotomy. “The practice of masking for ritual and ceremonial purposes (FOR MORTAL EGYPTIANS BUT NOT THE GODS) seems to have been important in Egypt (FOR MORTALS) from the earliest times and continued to be an element of ritual practice into the Roman period,” and “priestly impersonators of Anubis regularly appear in funerary ceremonies, and are styled simply Inpw, ‘Anubis’ or rmt-Inpw, ‘Anubis-men’ . . . [or] ink Inpw, ‘I am Anubis.’” At the non-funerary Hathor temple of Deir el-Medineh is a depiction of a ritual taken from chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead which shows “the king offering incense, and a priest masked as Anubis beating a round frame drum.” (BUT THE VIGNETTE OF FACSIMILE NO.1 IS NOT A PRIESTLY REENACTMENT OF A MORTAL CEREMONY TO COMMEMORATE ANUBIS BUT IS THE ACTUAL GOD ANUBIS RAISING THE ACTUAL GOD OSIRIS FROM THE DEAD JUST AS THE GODS PORTRAYED IN FACSIMILE NO.3 ARE THE ACTUAL GODS IN HEAVEN, NOT AN EARTHLY SCENE AS SMITH CLAIMED)
Now to correct John Gee:
The potential significance of this for Facsimile 1 has been explained by Egyptologist John Gee wrote:
Assume for the sake of argument that the head on Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is correct (I CAN'T ASSUME THAT BECAUSE IT'S MISSING THE HEADDRESS). What are the implications of the figure being a bald man? (IT WOULD MAKE HIM A MORTAL MAN AND NOT THE JACKAL GOD ANUBIS) Shaving was a common feature of initiation into the priesthood from the Old Kingdom through the Roman period (FOR MORTAL MEN LIVING ON EARTH). Since “complete shaving of the head was another mark of the male Isiac votary and priest” the bald figure would then be a priest (IF HE WAS MORTAL). Assume on the other hand that the head on Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is that of a jackal (AS SHOULD BE FOR FIG 6 IN FACSIMILE NO. 3 BUT SMITH HACKED THE SNOUT OFF AND MUTILATED HIM). . . . We have representations of priests (EARTHLY MEN) wearing masks, one example of an actual mask, literary accounts from non-Egyptians about Egyptian priests wearing masks, and even a hitherto-unrecognized Egyptian account of when a priest would wear a mask. In the midst of the embalmment ritual (FOR AN EGYPTIAN DEAD MAN), a new section is introduced with the following passage: “Afterwards, Anubis, the stolites priest (A MORTAL MAN) wearing the head of this god, sits down and no lector-priest shall approach him to bind the stolites with any work.” Thus this text settles any questions about whether masks were actually used (FOR EARTHLY CEREMONIES FOR MORTAL EGYPTIANS). It furthermore identifies the individual wearing the mask as a priest (UNLIKE THE GOD ANUBIS WHO IS RESURRECTING OSIRIS IN THE PRESENCE OF ISIS IN FACSIMILE NO.1). Thus, however the restoration is made, the individual shown in Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is a priest (ANUBIS), and the entire question of which head should be on the figure is moot (SETTLED) so far as identifying the figure is concerned. The entire debate (BY APOLOGISTS) has been a waste of ink.

Mask, mask, masks and more masks! I'm sick of the damn mask excuse! Stop this nonsense NOW!

Gee and Muhlestein cite references of mortal priests in Egyptian funerary rituals who wore masks to simulate the god Anubis. It's all well and good that priests wore masks during certain ritualistic rites. But the Facsimile No. 1 is not such a rite. It's the actual depiction of ANUBIS assisting the actual god OSIRIS in rising from the dead and Isis is ever present ready to receive her husband. Gee and Muhlestein's pitiful attempt to marry the masks worn by mortal men with the immortal Egyptian god Abubis as portrayed in Facsimile No. 1 is a pitiful and DISHONEST attempt to justify Smith's false interpretation of the Egyptian vignette.

It's should be readily understandable why I get so upset with these two Egyptologists who continue to make a mockery of the ancient Egyptian religion for the sole purpose of justifying Smith who didn't know what he was talking about and was caught red-handed in falsely interpreting and translating Egyptian.

Yes, I confess, I'm bloody angry with Gee and Muhlestein! They are two peas in a pod -- liars and deceivers. Neither of them are honest in their dealings as they continue to shell out volumes of reprehensible apologetic nonsense that's utterly abhorrent. It's more stain upon stain of the lying ways in which Mormons defend their religion.

I call upon Ritner and 100 Egyptologists worldwide to denounce the apologetic use of the "mask" to defend Smith's wrong interpretation of Facsimile No. 1 and the priest's head.
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Soooooo, if I am not mistaken, I think what you are trying to say here is that you have a testimony..... :biggrin:
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by _consiglieri »

So how does Joseph Smith come up with two absolutely correct Egyptian theophoric suffixes for his ladies?

Ze-PTAH and Katu-MIN?

Were both Ptah and Min known as Egyptian deities by the 1840s?

Asking for a friend.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by _consiglieri »

Dup
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Names and more names

Post by _Shulem »

consiglieri wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:52 pm
So how does Joseph Smith come up with two absolutely correct Egyptian theophoric suffixes for his ladies?

Ze-PTAH and Katu-MIN?

Were both Ptah and Min known as Egyptian deities by the 1840s?

Asking for a friend.
Consiglieri,

There really isn't anything overly remarkable with the assorted words Smith used in his Egyptian Grammar which is a hodgepodge he put together with the help of his friends -- it was a collective effort and project of several minds coming together to create what they thought would be a Grammar to help produce and translate the Book of Abraham. Ancient Egyptian words for gods and kings have come down through the ages in various tongues -- namely Greek. Prior to the cracking of the code by Champollion, others took a crack at it. One of the more famous linguists who was a forerunner and contributor was Athanasius Kircher a scholar during the Renaissance who produced the Oedipus Aegyptiacus which was wacky and wild ride through Egyptian symbolism and translation:
Wikipedia wrote:His renditions of hieroglyphic texts tended to be wordy and portentous; for example, he translated a frequently occurring phrase in Egyptian, dd Wsr, "Osiris says," as "The treachery of Typhon ends at the throne of Isis, the moisture of nature is guarded by the vigilance of Anubis."
Later, just prior to Champollion cracking the Rosetta Stone another linguist by the name of Thomas Young a British decipher was hard at work and made some genuine contributions to Egyptology -- very correct and precise connections between actual hieroglyphs and their meaning -- to include gods, kings, and important terms.

Here is a letter written by Thomas Young in 1818 and I want you to take a look at the translations below and you can plainly see that these things become widely known even in Smith's neck of the woods. But I'm not sure about Ptah and Min and how general those names were known in Smith's time. Thoth, Osiris, Isis, and others are listed below:

Image

you're welcome
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by _consiglieri »

Thank you for sharing some of your prodigious knowledge with me, Shulem.

These are things that do make me wonder from time to time.

Sort of like the startling name of "Aha" thrown off as a secondary character in the Book of Mormon.

I know that coincidences do happen, and it doesn't make up for the hugely anachronistic Timothy jumping off the pages of Third Nephi, but still it is unusual.

Do these kinds of thoughts ever run through your head?

P.S. There is an annoying guy named Joe posting at my RFM web page and also my RFM Facebook page about the Book of Abraham who could use a Shulem-sized paddling if you have the notion.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Aha moment!

Post by _Shulem »

consiglieri wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:05 pm
These are things that do make me wonder from time to time.

Sort of like the startling name of "Aha" thrown off as a secondary character in the Book of Mormon.

I know that coincidences do happen, and it doesn't make up for the hugely anachronistic Timothy jumping off the pages of Third Nephi, but still it is unusual.

Do these kinds of thoughts ever run through your head?

consiglieri,

I've been through all these things that made me wonder quite a long time ago. Smith loved to employ words and lots of them. Lots of words are found in his novels. Smith loved to play with words!

Aha? Oh, the old Egyptian word to "fight" which by chance is found in the Book of Mormon. Bullseye? My ass. It's just another name concocted by Smith who was well read and quite able to mix words to name his characters. Smith didn't know Egyptian anymore than he knew auto mechanics.

Yes, Aha is found in the Book of Mormon in various form:

AHA

AbrAHAm

RAHAb

AHAz

AHAh

MAHAh

:wink:

It doesn't make it Egyptian. It's no big deal except for apologists who are searching for any kind of bullseye.

Aha!

:lol:
Post Reply