Muhlestein wrote:Researching the Book of Abraham is hard to do.
What's hard is to make the Book of Abraham fit into an ancient Egyptian mold. Take for example, how Egypt was first founded according to the information given in chapter one. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ancient Egypt was not founded in that manner or in that time period. Smith was wrong on all counts!
Muhlestein wrote:It is also important to do.
It's only important to LDS Egyptologists. The world body of Egyptologists could care less about the Book of Abraham. They know in universal terms that the origin story of Egypt's making as told in chapter one is a complete farce.
Muhlestein wrote:As part of canonized Latter-day Saint scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Abraham teaches many doctrines and reveals truths not found elsewhere.
Likewise, the revealing of
how and
when Egypt came into existence as given in chapter one is certainly not found elsewhere in any Egyptological publication.
Muhlestein wrote:But because of the book’s unusual origins, it tends to raise questions among earnest truth-seekers about when, where, and why it was written; how it was translated; how the text relates to the original papyrus and facsimiles; and—perhaps most importantly—what it can tell us about Joseph Smith as a prophet and translator.
Is that so? The thought never crossed my mind. I can't imagine.
Muhlestein wrote:These are questions worth answering, and the people asking them deserve to have someone put in the time and effort to try to find answers.
So, Kerry-baby; what's the King's name in Facsimile No. 3? Why did Smith hack off Anubis's nose in Facsimile No. 3?
Well, I'm waiting for you to give an answer you lying piece of ________!