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

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

Post by _Shulem »

Gee wrote:Abraham’s homeland was incorporated as part of the Egyptian empire under the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs Sesostris III and his son, Amenemhet III, but it was then lost to the subsequent pharaohs. This provides a historical date for the events of the first chapter of the Book of Abraham.

I'll hold your feet to the fire, you lying bastard. The first chapter claims the Book of Abraham started right after the flood : 2,400 BC

Just try and meld biblical chronology to Egyptian chronology using modern Egyptology backed with Smith's 6,000 years and you cannot justify what you say.
_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 »

GEE wrote:Since Abraham never met the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs, he may have assumed that all pharaohs were like the Fourteenth Dynasty ones he did meet.
IDIOT, Gee, is hereby on record for claiming that Abraham sat on the very throne of Smith's "King Pharaoh" (Facsimile No. 3) whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Behold, a 14th Dynasty king!

:lol:

Fancy Gee, attempting to marry Smith's Abraham with one of the most difficult (contested) dynasties in which to make sense of it all. The 14th Dynasty was indeed a mysterious overlapping time frame in the chronicles of ancient Egypt but it's FAR TOO LATE for biblical Abraham to make his appearance in Egypt while looking for bread. Gee heavily relies on his statement: "Biblical scholars have not agreed on the time and place that Abraham lived" in order to boot Abraham out of the 12th Dynasty because he damn well knows it's suicidal to even consider the idea that Abraham sat on a throne of a 12th Dynasty king which is where standard biblical chronology dates his Egyptian sojourn. So, Gee attempts to distract his readers into thinking that since there is some disagreement in the exact year(s) Abraham's ministry took place he can bounce him into another era, much more congenial, further down the line and hopefully nobody will notice the difference in how the time line explodes or implodes -- however you want to describe it -- it's impossible -- boom, it blows up! The problem for Gee is that in doing this the chronology of Smith's own time line (that he embraced) gets thrown under the bus. Smith endorsed the biblical time line from Noah to Abraham and all the biblical math from Genesis is fully calculated and reasoned in Lectures on Faith II in the early Doctrine and Covenants and other official early church sources. Much of this has been detailed earlier in this thread.

When did 14th Dynasty king's reign? 1705–1690 BC

See: Wikipedia Fourteenth Dynasty of Egypt

Biblical Abraham is placed much earlier in chronology than Egypt's 14th Dynasty. Then it gets even worse when you consider the time frame between Abraham and Moses and trying to find the Pharaoh of the Exodus. That problem is far worse and Gee knows that! Folks, the Exodus as recorded in the bible is MYTH! That stuff never happened.

I specialize in that little chronological problem.

:twisted:
Last edited by Guest on Tue Sep 15, 2020 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_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 »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:00 pm
Soooooo, if I am not mistaken, I think what you are trying to say here is that you have a testimony..... :biggrin:
I bear you my testimony that I know that John Gee is NEVER going to be able to devise any kind of coherent time frame in which to place Predynastic, Earlydynastic, and Old Kingdom Egypt between "Egyptus" settling into the Delta to establish the Egyptian nation and Abraham sitting on a 14th Dynasty king's throne.

:twisted:
_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:
Mon Sep 14, 2020 9:57 pm

Biblical Abraham is placed much earlier in chronology than Egypt's 14th Dynasty. Then it gets even worse when you consider the time frame between Abraham and Moses and trying to find the Pharaoh of the Exodus. That problem is far worse and Gee knows that! Folks, the Exodus as recorded in the bible is MYTH! That stuff never happened.

I specialize in that little chronological problem.

:twisted:
And don't think that the timeline for Abraham's great grandson Joseph hasn't been mapped out and fully taken into consideration because it has! Is John Gee writing about how JOSEPH was in Egypt and which Pharaoh's throne he was standing next to?

Good times are coming. Roasting Gee nuts on the open fire is going to become a habit. He's one Egyptologist NUT that is easy to crack!

You stink, Gee. You pasty looking SOB. And don't lecture me, Philo, about the highroad. That bastard deserves what he's got coming to him!
_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 »

This thread has effectively shown conclusively that there NEVER was a knife in the hands of Anubis depicted in Facsimile No. 1, as published by the Mormons, first in Nauvoo, and then by the Church headquartered in Salt Lake City -- by the POLYGAMOUS--M O R M O N branch under Woodruff's ignorant management.

There never was a knife! Smith made it up. The knife was first drawn on the paper backing and then was incorporated into the printing plate for publication but it was never drawn on the original vignette of Hor's papyrus. The Mormons have been perpetuating this filthy lie for 178 years and have done nothing to correct their original error and blasphemous representation, a libelous depiction of Egyptian art.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many Egyptologists back the KNIFE as shown in the Facsimile No. 1?

YES:
John Gee
Kerry Muhlestein

NO:
ALL NONMORMON EGYPTOLOGISTS WORLDWIDE

Need I say more?
_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 »

Book of Abraham according to John Gee, Mormon Egyptologist:

Historical narrative begins in Chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham

EARTH IS FLOODED AND EIGHT SOULS SURVIVE

> The Flood; Noah age 600
> Ark sails away from Jackson County Missouri
> Ark settles in the New World on mount Ararat
> Shem begat Arphaxad 2 years after the flood
> Arphaxad age 35 begat Salah
> Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus
> Salah age 30 begat Eber
> The first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus
> Eber age 34 begat Peleg
> Egyptian 1st Dynasty
> Peleg age 30 begat Reu
> Egyptian 2nd Dynasty
> Reu age 32 begat Serug
> Egyptian 3rd Dynasty -- Step Pyramid of Djoser is built
> Serug age 30 begat Nahor
> Egyptian 4th Dynasty -- Great Pyramids are built
> Nahor age 29 begat Terah
> Egyptian 5 & 6th Dynasties
> Terah age 70 begat Abram
> Egyptian 1st Intermediate Period
> Abram age 75 journey to Canaan
> Egyptian Middle Kingdom
> Abraham sits on Pharaoh's throne (according to John Gee) and teaches astronomy
> 14th Dynasty ends
> It gets worse from here, much worse.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Kiss my camel's ass, John Gee. You aren't fooling me!! You aren't fooling yourself either. I know what YOU know. I have been there and done it. I know the numbers, names, and the math. YOU, are lying! I know it and you know it!

What are you going to do about it?


Shulem

PS. Stop what you are doing. It's destroying you. I can see that in your countenance. Give it up. Walk away from it.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Unconventional historical theories

Post by _Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 2:26 am

Historical narrative begins in Chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham

EARTH IS FLOODED AND EIGHT SOULS SURVIVE

> The Flood; Noah age 600
> Ark sails away from Jackson County Missouri
> Ark settles in the New World on mount Ararat
> Shem begat Arphaxad 2 years after the flood
> Arphaxad age 35 begat Salah
> Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus
> Salah age 30 begat Eber
> The first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus
In case anyone may be wondering, I'll state for the record, I've even attempted an Immanuel Velikovsky in trying to make Smith's chronology work by attempting to fabricate my own version of an Ages in Chaos by dating the Old Kingdom before the Flood and asserting that the First Intermediate Period beginning with the so-called Egyptian 7th Dynasty, a chaotic anomaly of Egyptian history -- a clear and utter break that can't be properly explained by anyone but was merely a garbled account of First-Egypt coming to an end by Noah's flood when thereafter Second-Egypt sprang to life according to Smith's Book of Abraham account.

The idea of putting the Great Pyramids before the Flood in the days of Enoch and Adam makes for so many problems that it simply defies science and all reality -- you have to put the world in a dream state where the laws of science totally break down and become like a cartoon or a dream wherein reality and unreality are mixed into a a state of chaos. Entertaining that theory was an interesting exercise in abandoning all sense of reality in hopes of making Mormonism come true, all for the cause of defending Joseph Smith's historical Egyptian tale. When I think of how much time I've wasted in attempting to do those things I have to wonder what the hell was wrong with me? Maybe nothing was wrong with me. Maybe that is what I was meant to do so that I could be here today and present this thread?
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Smith's violence

Post by _Shulem »

The KNIFE displayed in the Mormon version of Facsimile No. 1 is for all intents and purposes an ACT OF VIOLENCE directly out of the mind of Joseph Smith. Smith had a fascination with violence and this is demonstrated in his Book of Abraham novel wherein countless acts of violence are portrayed in the Book of Mormon, everything from chopping off hands to destroying whole cities full of men, woman, and children.

Smith's introduction of the KNIFE into Facsimile No. 1 was simply more of the violence locked up in his own mind. Smith raped the Facsimile and polluted it with his own violent nature in making something conform to his own imagination. What Smith did to the Facsimile No. 1 could be likened or compared to describing a Christmas card with a manger scene of the Christ child as being a human sacrifice wherein Joseph is about to slit the poor child's throat on a bale of hay after first sacrificing the Virgin Mother to the local gods because she refused to worship them. Hey fair is fair! Live by the sword you die by the sword. If Smith can paint a knife into the hand of an Egyptian god (Anubis) and claim he's attempting to kill the most honorable man (Osiris) who ever lived then why not take the Christmas scene and turn it into a bloody horror story? What Smith did is just as bad!

But we know there was no knife in the papyrus of Facsimile No. 1. No knife means no sacrifice which means the Book of Abraham was an idea dreamed up by Smith's fascination with violence.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Muhlestein loves to exaggerate

Post by _Shulem »

Kerry Muhlestein wrote: At the same time there were several things which were not stated in the podcast. For example, the glue marks suggest that the part of the drawing in question, which is missing now, was not always missing. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that it was actually in place when Joseph Smith first had the papyri, and that the facsimile was based on what he had actually seen at one point. Further, we cannot tell the extent to which Reuben Hedlock, the artist, was acting on Joseph Smith’s instruction and how much was his own initiative.
Let's return to the asinine statement made earlier by Muhlestein which has already been commented on but deserves more commentary in light of how bad it is. First, we all know that Muhlestein is an EXAGGERATOR such as his "millions" of "mummies" at his Egyptian dig site. Muhlestein loves to exaggerate!

Now look at his statement above: "quite possible" that there could have been a chunk of papyrus in place where there is now lacuna. How about just say, "possible" and leave off the "quite"? Saying "quite" makes it sound like it's really, really, really possible or, "perhaps even probable", which was what came out of his next breath! Kerry want us to think that there is an excellent chance that Smith actually saw a man's head and a knife on the papyrus before it fell apart and Smith had faithfully recorded those details in his restoration. This is Muhlestein's little way (trick up his sleeve) of leading his readers down a garden path of deception.

We know there NEVER was a knife. That's not even possible because it defies all logic and common sense and what would Abubis need a knife for while Osiris is rising from the dead? So, no, it's not possible that there was a knife on the original. The remnants of the headdress wipe out Muhlestein's possibility for a man's head. Smith's restoration of the head and knife shown in the crude sketch drawn on the paper backing is WHAT was original to his mind and was the first attempt in making his restoration of what he never actually got to see in the first place because the lacuna was ever present when he opened the roll. Hence, Smith never saw a knife or a man's head!

Muhlestein has ZERO evidence to support the idea that a knife or man's head was original to the papyrus. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever! Funerary art and design won't hint of any evidence either. Muhlestein's faith in Smith's restoration is all he has to go on. That's all he has, hence his hands come up empty.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

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

Post by _Res Ipsa »

That's a pretty amazing attempt to make something out of absolutely nothing.
?“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

? Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Post Reply