“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Museum of Egyptian Antiquities

Post by Shulem »

Image

Folks, here comes the bottom line.

Should the time ever come when a full scale formal representation of FACSIMILE NO. 3 should grace the walls of the Cairo Museum in Egypt, there is an important choice that the authorities of Egyptology will have in displaying a copy of the vignette that was possessed by the Mormons in the United States. The choice is which TRANSLATION will accompany the vignette as the official explanations to the hieroglyphic writing in the registers and labels. Whose translations will prevail and be displayed in the greatest Egyptian museum on earth?

I hereby call upon John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein to nominate their person of choice and place a checkmark in the box to the person who provided the best translation.


[ ] Joseph Smith the Mormon Translator, Kirtland & Nauvoo, USA
[ ] Professor Robert K. Ritner, Ph.D., University of Chicago, USA
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Membership Survey

Post by Shulem »

A Survey for Members of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints



I have read the Explanations of the Facsimiles in their entirety at least once.
[ ] YES
[ ] NO


I believe the Explanations of the Facsimiles are important elements to the Book of Abraham and should continue to remain in future editions of the Pearl of Great Price.
[ ] YES
[ ] NO


The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 benefit me in understanding God’s plan of salvation in Abraham’s time.
[ ] YES
[ ] NO


I believe the Egyptian artist who drew the black man in the vignette for Facsimile No. 3 was representing an African slave in the Egyptian king’s court.
[ ] YES
[ ] NO


I believe that Joseph Smith’s publication of the Explanations for Facsimile No. 3 are true and correct.
[ ] YES
[ ] NO


I believe that someday Egyptologists will discover the real meaning and the genuine name for the king whose name is written above the head of Fig. 2 of Facsimile No. 3.
[ ] YES
[ ] NO


I believe that the Church should continue to stand by the Explanations of the Facsimiles as true revelations published by Joseph Smith in understanding the Egyptians.
[ ] YES
[ ] NO
Alphus and Omegus
Area Authority
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 13, 2021 8:41 pm

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Alphus and Omegus »

I'm sure you've probably mentioned this but the thread has so many pages that I haven't read them all (sorry!), but the king's name error is really part of a larger picture of Joseph Smith getting Egyptian history totally wrong.

It doesn't matter what scroll theory you want to believe. The canonized English text of the Book of Abraham is littered with scores of anthropological and historical errors: Egyptus; a person named Pharaoh; a statement that the Noahic Flood covered Egypt; total ignorance of "Kemet," the actual ancient Egyptian word for Egypt; totally wrong timelines, made up divine beings and words, I could go on and on.

In my opinion, the scroll obsessions are actually a red herring to get people to focus on debates about documents rather than the numerous inexcusable errors Smith made in his pronouncements about Egyptian culture, history, and language.

My own username is another example of this tendency on Smith's part. The D&C was supposedly a collection of direct pronouncements of Jesus. And yet, D&C 95:17 has the words "Alphus" and "Omegus," neither of which ever existed in Greek. They, instead, are backwoods renditions of Alpha and Omega, but Smith and his scribes screwed it up and the Church stupidly canonized the error.

That same verse also uses another epithet for Christ, found elsewhere in the D&C, referring to him as "Son Ahman." Supposedly this is the "Adamic" rendition of Jesus's name. But it is literally an English word in front of a made-up "Adamic" word. Obviously, Adamic would not be borrowing words from English.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

Alphus and Omegus wrote:
Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:57 pm
I'm sure you've probably mentioned this but the thread has so many pages that I haven't read them all (sorry!), but the king's name error is really part of a larger picture of Joseph Smith getting Egyptian history totally wrong.

Thank you for posting! I agree with you.

I recently posted in a thread down in the Terrestrial Forum RATED PG about John Gee’s recent podcast with Scott Gordon of FAIR. It was a little combative in nature because I have so much passion in defending ancient Egypt from false Mormon claims, so please forgive me if it’s a little offensive; I tend to get colorful. Therefore, I will edit and post it here -- may readers please understand that my passions often bubble up and get intense, but I really am a kind person at heart and ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt.

Shulem in Terrestrial Forum wrote:Gee's video presentation points out that the critic's biggest problem is mainly with "TRANSLATION". But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

JOHN GEE, can you hear me? Come here so I can whisper in your ears and tell you what's worse than the translation problem. I SHULEM am the ultimate critic of the Book of Abraham and I'm talking to you.

It's the history of Book of Abraham chapter ONE that is the biggest problem. It's Egypt's making as explained in the Book of Abraham in concert with Smith's chronology taken from the Bible & D&C that is the biggest problem. Chapter one of the Book of Abraham is the biggest bunch of (edited) anyone could ever imagine or read about how Egypt came to be.

Do you get my drift John Gee? You know full well in what I'm talking about. The connections between predynastic and dynastic Egypt find no place whatsoever in Smith's silly story.

Gee, don't even try to take me on. I'm not afraid of you or your credentials. An army of Egyptologists will back me up. (edited for Celestial Forum) I want peace! So, back off and find a way to have the Church pull back and realize that the Book of Abraham should not be taken literally in any way whatsoever. I don't want conflict but I will fight to the death to defend ancient Egypt if I have to and I have the scholars of the world to stand behind me.

Am I not being reasonable? You do understand, don't you?
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Moksha »

Alphus and Omegus wrote:
Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:57 pm
But it is literally an English word in front of a made-up "Adamic" word. Obviously, Adamic would not be borrowing words from English.
Just be glad Joseph did not include Pig-Latin. Can you imagine closing all LDS prayers with the word Men-aye?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Alphus and Omegus
Area Authority
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 13, 2021 8:41 pm

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Alphus and Omegus »

Moksha wrote:
Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:00 am
Just be glad Joseph did not include Pig-Latin. Can you imagine closing all LDS prayers with the word Men-aye?
At least he managed to get people praying to beer in the true order of prayer.
Alphus and Omegus
Area Authority
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 13, 2021 8:41 pm

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Alphus and Omegus »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Dec 09, 2021 2:27 am
Thank you for posting! I agree with you.
You also noted another instance of Smith making patently absurd etymologies in this post which quotes the famous Wentworth letter:
Shulem wrote:
Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:05 pm
Joseph Smith, History, May 20, 1843 wrote:We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, God; the Goth, goda; the German gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word Mormon; which means literally more good.

Yours.

Joseph Smith.
The canonized text of the Book of Abraham is the best argument that it's fiction. The science is 19th century astronomy; the history is 19th century interpretation of Genesis; the supposed Egyptian transliterations are bizarre farragoes of Hebrew, English, and jabberwocky; the theology is vintage Confederate preaching; and the translations of the Facsimiles are laughably wrong, as you have well discussed here.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

Alphus and Omegus wrote:
Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:57 pm
It doesn't matter what scroll theory you want to believe. The canonized English text of the Book of Abraham is littered with scores of anthropological and historical errors: Egyptus; a person named Pharaoh; a statement that the Noahic Flood covered Egypt; total ignorance of "Kemet," the actual ancient Egyptian word for Egypt; totally wrong timelines, made up divine beings and words, I could go on and on.

Professor Gee listed the three general theories in his latest podcast with Scott Gordon of FAIR:

1) Smith translated the Book of Abraham by using the existing fragments
2) Smith translated the Book of Abraham by using the missing roll
3) Smith translated the Book of Abraham by using papyrus as a catalyst

And guess what? You’re absolutely right in stating that it doesn’t matter which theory one ascribes to because it doesn’t make a lick of difference for the Book of Abraham which will ever remain a work of fiction, a nonhistorical narrative of ancient Egypt. Most critics (including me) tend to focus on the Facsimiles and translation issues but the heart of the matter is just how bad the chapters of the Book of Abraham are and the FALSE representation of the origins of Egypt and how the civilization rose. The narrative of chapter one is a farce and will never be published in a professional journal or book that explains the authentic history of Egypt’s making.

Alphus and Omegus wrote:
Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:57 pm
In my opinion, the scroll obsessions are actually a red herring to get people to focus on debates about documents rather than the numerous inexcusable errors Smith made in his pronouncements about Egyptian culture, history, and language.

Yes, there is some truth to that. Both the critics and the apologists have focused a great deal of energy on the Facsimiles. This is completely understandable considering the nature of the claims, the magnitude of the arguments, and the stakes are very high on both sides of the argument. Clearly, the apologists have lost the war with the Facsimiles and the King’s name showcases this on a level everyone can easily relate with and understand. It’s as simple as ABC. Everything begins with a name! Everyone has a name! That is why this particular example is so powerful and brings everything home.

But the core and foundation of the Book of Abraham is the opening chapter that gives an erroneous and false description of how Egypt was founded. Nothing could be further from the truth than chapter one! The narrative that was fabricated out of Joseph Smith’s head will not help anyone understand the historical beginnings of ancient Egypt. Predynastic Egypt (long before Noah’s time) thrived and continued until the Unification was finally forged under Menes and Egypt became a powerful and combined nation state under a single banner.

Isn’t that right, professor Gee?
Alphus and Omegus
Area Authority
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 13, 2021 8:41 pm

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Alphus and Omegus »

Shulem wrote:
Thu Dec 09, 2021 3:48 pm
And guess what? You’re absolutely right in stating that it doesn’t matter which theory one ascribes to because it doesn’t make a lick of difference for the Book of Abraham which will ever remain a work of fiction, a nonhistorical narrative of ancient Egypt. Most critics (including me) tend to focus on the Facsimiles and translation issues but the heart of the matter is just how bad the chapters of the Book of Abraham are and the FALSE representation of the origins of Egypt and how the civilization rose. The narrative of chapter one is a farce and will never be published in a professional journal or book that explains the authentic history of Egypt’s making.
I had always been interested in the Book of Abraham, in part because it's the only Book of Mormon scripture with pictures as every bored child soon discovers. But as an adult, I took an undergraduate history course about Ancient Egypt and was shocked when it didn't mention the Book of Abraham at all. At first, I thought about approaching the professor about it but then I figured that he would reject it.

I wanted to believe that this was just simply a "worldly" professor not knowing the things of God, but I couldn't completely reject the idea that nothing that I had learned in the course was in the Book of Abraham. I had figured that maybe the Mormon theology stuff might not be publicly known, but at the very least, Joseph Smith would be right about Egyptian society. It was a very disappointing realization and I eventually succeeded at banishing it from my mind.
User avatar
bill4long
2nd Counselor
Posts: 410
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2021 3:56 am

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by bill4long »

Alphus and Omegus,

I appreciate your comments, but I have a minor quibble:

Joe didn't actually write out "Alphus and Omegus" in D&C 95. What he actually wrote was:

"Son Ahman; or, in other words, Alphus; or, in other words, Omegus; even Jesus Christ your Lord."

I would appeciate it if you are going to go by "Alphus and Omegus" you would use the full moniker, and at least put the "in other words" in your identifier.

Thank you in advance.

What say? ;)

(Just kidding)
The views and opinions expressed by Bill4Long could be wrong and are subject to change at any time. Viewer discretion is advised.
Post Reply