Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

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

Re: “Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood”

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Dec 28, 2022 5:38 pm
Informed readers know the name-title of “Pharaoh” (Great House) is misused in Joseph Smith’s translations and is an anachronism in the Book of Abraham. The very word “Pharaoh” does not belong in Abraham’s time and Smith’s definition of what it signifies is incorrect:

Abraham 1:20 wrote:Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood

And now, without further ado, I’m going to cite what I believe is the exact reference in which Smith borrowed to define “Pharaoh” in the Egyptian tongue. We need look no further than Josephus in whom Smith used to enhance his understanding of the Bible:

Josephus 6:2 wrote:Pharaoh, in the Egyptian tongue, signifies a king

Thus, Joseph Smith never properly translated anything pertaining to the Egyptian language. He simply dumped his own ideas into the mix and borrowed from others to produce his own work. He was a creative thief.

Joseph Smith was very informed -- he knew the works of Josephus and moreover the Adam Clarke Commentary was certainly the most choice guide in which he depended heavily in understanding archaic matters pertaining to the Old Testament. Smith spent a great deal of time combing through the Book of Genesis and wouldn’t have done that without consulting Adam Clarke:

Genesis 12:15 wrote:The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.
Adam Clarke Commentary, Genesis 12:15 wrote:The woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.Pharaoh appears to have been the common appellative of the Cuthite shepherd kings of Egypt, who had conquered this land, as is conjectured, about seventy-two years before this time. The word is supposed to signify king in the ancient Egyptian language.

Thus, we see that Joseph Smith depended on Josephus & Adam Clarke for his definition of the word/name “Pharoah” and in doing so he adopted their error into his phony-baloney Book of Abraham!

Isn’t that right, Dr. Gee?
Last edited by Shulem on Wed May 10, 2023 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: “Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood”

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Tue May 09, 2023 8:34 pm
Joseph Smith was very informed -- he knew the works of Josephus and moreover the Adam Clarke Commentary was certainly the most choice guide in which he depended heavily in understanding archaic matters pertaining to the Old Testament. Smith spent a great deal of time combing through the Book of Genesis and wouldn’t have done that without consulting Adam Clarke:
Obviously, the LDS portrayal of Joseph as a mentally challenged boy sitting on his porch and playing one-half of the dueling banjos was inaccurate.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood”

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Tue May 09, 2023 11:44 pm
Shulem wrote:
Tue May 09, 2023 8:34 pm
Joseph Smith was very informed -- he knew the works of Josephus and moreover the Adam Clarke Commentary was certainly the most choice guide in which he depended heavily in understanding archaic matters pertaining to the Old Testament. Smith spent a great deal of time combing through the Book of Genesis and wouldn’t have done that without consulting Adam Clarke:
Obviously, the LDS portrayal of Joseph as a mentally challenged boy sitting on his porch and playing one-half of the dueling banjos was inaccurate.

LDS Egyptologists and apologetic scholars have made an absolute mockery in trying to support the Book of Abraham with its accompanying Explanations of the Facsimiles as having anything to do with Egyptology. Shame on them! I’ve called them out for it and have called them on the carpet for their horrible scholarship. The lying stops NOW and I have OUTED them on this board! They are no match for me! Believe me.

I SHULEM have set the bar. They have lost. There is nothing they can do to defend their lost cause. This board will be visited by countless thousands who are searching for answers including General Authorities who are forbidden to speak on the subject.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

Post by Shulem »

QUESTION for Gee & Muhlestein:

When Egyptus went down and discovered the land of Egypt under water and afterward settled her sons therein, what do you think went through her mind when she saw the splendor and magnificence of the pyramids towering over Giza?

[ ] I wonder who built them?
[ ] Adam and his sons must have built them before the flood!
[ ] I wonder if anyone is guarding them today?


Folks, this is the kind of question that destroys the Book of Abraham and stymies any reasonable apologetic response given by LDS Egyptologists about Egyptus discovering Egypt as recorded in the Book of Abraham. Mormon scholarship loves to quote both 2300 and 3000 BC dates when talking about Egypt but in doing so they think they can have their cake and eat it too. The Mormons are lying and refuse to own up to the truth. The web of deception woven by Mormon scholarship is verily corrupt.

PS. The above question is not just rhetorical but is asked in a very serious way. Mormon scholarship has not addressed this issue! The church has been hoodwinking its members and LDS Egyptologists have maintained the coverup as they talk out of both sides of their lying mouths.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

Post by Shulem »

Questions for Dr. Gee:

Perhaps Dr. John Gee would like to postulate the possible existence and location of the ancient burial tombs of lady Egyptus and her sons (the Pharaohs) who became the founding kings of ancient Egypt.

Where are they buried, Dr. Gee, and what records of antiquity tell of their existence and whereabout?

Answer the questions, please!

I am waiting for your answers. The crickets are chirping, sir.



chirp

chirp

chirp
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

Post by Shulem »

Daniel C. Peterson explains how the Book of Mormon sounds too much like ancient history so he just can’t explain it away on grounds that it doesn’t seem historical. But can he say the same for chapter one of the Book of Abraham, an origin story and timeline that completely defies what science proves about ancient Egypt?

Can Peterson do that?

Daniel C. Peterson wrote: video clip

The book (of Mormon) to me reads too much like ancient history, I just can’t imagine a yokel like Joseph Smith making it up, it reads plausible to me…

How about the Book of Abraham, Dan? Does it read like ancient history -- is it plausible? Can you provide evidence and scientific proofs to confirm its origin story?

Checkmate, professor!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

I believe John Gee is cracking...

Post by Shulem »

So, what to make of professor John Gee who has run the course and has nowhere else to turn while pinned into a corner here at Discuss Mormonism? What advice might I offer this poor man?

Time to wake up, John. Time to give in, surrender, and drop the fantasy and embrace reality which stares you in the face. You know Egypt was not founded by lady Egyptus in 2300 BC. You know the narrative and origin story produced by Joseph Smith came from a catalyst of ideas and resources available to him, most particularly the Bible, but also Adam Clarke, and other sources in which he gleaned from to formulate through religious means, how ancient Egypt was founded. It is all based on folklore, religious tradition, and racism. Joseph Smith did not use science or restore Egyptology to come up with his Book of Abraham, not at all. He drew upon the awful stories of a God of vengeance who drowned everyone on this planet except for eight souls who set out to begin the world anew in 2400 BC according to biblical myth. The God of the Jewish Bible is a racist monster!

John, you know the Book of Abraham is not true. You know that! You know the origin story told therein is false. You know that Egyptus (Aegyptus) is not the founder of Kemet but the people of the Nile can be traced back thousands of years before the era in which the Jewish Bible falsely constructs the chronology of the human family. The Bible is wrong. Joseph Smith was wrong. The Church today is wrong. You cannot embrace the Catalyst Theory because you know that’s an endless rabbit hole leading into nowhere and the only answer it ever can produce is, “It hasn’t been revealed, yet.” That is how one maintains the brainwash by lying to themselves and believing in thoughts that come from a hypnotic trance of self-deception.

Wake up!
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8979
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: I believe John Gee is cracking...

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Shulem wrote:
Wed May 17, 2023 10:14 am
So, what to make of professor John Gee who has run the course and has nowhere else to turn while pinned into a corner here at Discuss Mormonism? What advice might I offer this poor man?

Time to wake up, John. Time to give in, surrender, and drop the fantasy and embrace reality which stares you in the face. You know Egypt was not founded by lady Egyptus in 2300 BC. You know the narrative and origin story produced by Joseph Smith came from a catalyst of ideas and resources available to him, most particularly the Bible, but also Adam Clarke, and other sources in which he gleaned from to formulate through religious means, how ancient Egypt was founded. It is all based on folklore, religious tradition, and racism. Joseph Smith did not use science or restore Egyptology to come up with his Book of Abraham, not at all. He drew upon the awful stories of a God of vengeance who drowned everyone on this planet except for eight souls who set out to begin the world anew in 2400 BC according to biblical myth. The God of the Jewish Bible is a racist monster!

John, you know the Book of Abraham is not true. You know that! You know the origin story told therein is false. You know that Egyptus (Aegyptus) is not the founder of Kemet but the people of the Nile can be traced back thousands of years before the era in which the Jewish Bible falsely constructs the chronology of the human family. The Bible is wrong. Joseph Smith was wrong. The Church today is wrong. You cannot embrace the Catalyst Theory because you know that’s an endless rabbit hole leading into nowhere and the only answer it ever can produce is, “It hasn’t been revealed, yet.” That is how one maintains the brainwash by lying to themselves and believing in thoughts that come from a hypnotic trance of self-deception.

Wake up!
Looking at this list of dynastic rulers I don’t see … Egyptus on the list. Hrm …

Has Gee ever offered up an apologetic for her absence in the historical and archaeological record? It almost pains me to ask because I’d hate to see a Nahom or tapir reasoning for their apologetic with regard to to Egyptus.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: I believe John Gee is cracking...

Post by Shulem »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Wed May 17, 2023 4:14 pm
Shulem wrote:
Wed May 17, 2023 10:14 am
John, you know the Book of Abraham is not true. You know that! You know the origin story told therein is false. You know that Egyptus (Aegyptus) is not the founder of Kemet but the people of the Nile can be traced back thousands of years before the era in which the Jewish Bible falsely constructs the chronology of the human family.
Looking at this list of dynastic rulers I don’t see … Egyptus on the list. Hrm …

Has Gee ever offered up an apologetic for her absence in the historical and archaeological record? It almost pains me to ask because I’d hate to see a Nahom or tapir reasoning for their apologetic with regard to to Egyptus.

- Doc

Recall the following post I provided back on page two of this thread and how this particular reference serves as strong evidence to show how Smith may have come up with the name “Egyptus” during his translation process for the name of the founder of Egypt:

Shulem wrote:
Fri Dec 23, 2022 12:32 am

Encyclopedia Britannica, 1823

(Dr. Shades, please allow me to use a little red ink in this very important textual example because it makes the point that needs to be made. Thank you!)

Encyclopedia Britannica, 1823, digital page 638 wrote:As a nation, the Egyptians may with justice lay claim to as high antiquity as any in the world. The country was most probably peopled by Mizraim the son of Ham and grandson of Noah. By its ancient inhabitants it was called Chemia, and is still called Chemi in the language of the Copts or native Egyptians; and this name it is supposed to have received from Ham the son of Noah. In scripture, we find it most generally named Misraim ; though in the Psalms it is styled the land of Ham.—To us it is best known by the name Egypt, the etymology of which is more uncertain.—Some derive it from AEgyptus, a supposed king of the country ; others say it signifies no more than “the land of the Copts,” Aia in Greek signifying a country, and AEcoptos being easily softened into AEgyptus.

Now, take into consideration the following information from Wikipedia that discusses the origin and definition of Egyptus (Aegyptus) in popular Greek mythology, a word condensed into Egypt of the Copts which is the English version of that name:

Aegyptus wrote:In Greek mythology, Aegyptus or Ægyptus (/ɪˈdʒɪptəs/; Ancient Greek: Αἴγυπτος) was a legendary king of ancient Egypt.[1] He was a descendant of the princess Io through his father Belus, and of the river-god Nilus as both the father of Achiroe, his mother and as a great, great-grandfather on his father's side.

Family
Aegyptos was the son of King Belus[2] of Egypt and Achiroe, a naiad daughter of Nile, or of Sida, eponym of Sidon. He was the twin brother of Danaus, king of Libya while Euripides adds two others, Cepheus, king of Ethiopia and Phineus, betrothed of Andromeda. He may be the same or different from another Aegyptus who was called the son of Zeus and Thebe

Mythology
Aegyptus ruled Arabia and conquered nearby country ruled by people called Melampodes and called it by his name, Egypt. Aegyptus fathered fifty sons, who were all but one murdered by forty nine of the fifty daughters of Aegyptus' twin brother, Danaus, eponym of the Danaïdes.


[1] Egypt took its name from his, according to folk etymology (see the article Copt); thus for Euripides, in his tragedy Helen, Aegyptus has become Egypt itself: "Proteus, while he lived, was King here, ruling the whole of Aigyptos from his palace on the island of Pharos."
[2] "Belos", "lord", is simply a Hellenized rendition of Baal, a Semitic term, not an Egyptian one.

I hardly think John Gee has ever offered any kind of credible evidence to support the theory of how Egypt came to be as explained in Book of Abraham chapter one. Really, what can he say? Absolutely nothing!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Daniel C. Peterson testifies...

Post by Shulem »

Daniel C. Peterson, 5/15/2023, Mormonism with the Murph wrote:
***video clip***

I’m inclined to think that there is a lot of papyrus, maybe as much as 87% of what Joseph Smith had that we’re missing today. We know we are missing some papyri because we have descriptions of them, descriptions that are plausible based on what we know about Egyptian papyri that we just don’t have anymore and they probably burned up in the Chicago fire in the late 1800’s, they’re gone. That said, I see lately some critics even say, “Hey look scholars of the Book of Abraham and defenders of the Book of Abraham are moving towards the view that Joseph received it by revelation,” well I think we always believed that, I never believed he sat down with an Egyptian grammar book and worked his way through. I believe he received it by revelation beyond his capacity to read Egyptian at that time. So that’s sort of like the Catalyst Theory. Could Joseph Smith have told you whether he was getting it from the papyrus or not, I’m not sure that he could’ve because he was getting it by revelation and he couldn’t go independently to the papyrus and say, “see this is where it’s from, it’s from this hieroglyphic phrase, here,” he wasn’t able to do that, so he couldn’t have told you exactly where it was coming from except that as you looked at the papyrus this is what came to him by revelation, so I’m open to the Catalyst Theory. I’m also open to the theory that he had papyri we don’t have now that might have been translated in a conventional way, give us the Book of Abraham but we can’t prove that and I don’t think we will ever be able to because I think those papyri are gone.

Let’s unpack some of this just for fun, shall we?

...maybe as much as 87%

Peterson thinks we are missing up to 87% of the papyrus in which Joseph Smith purchased from Chandler. I strongly disagree. The argument against that kind of percentage is overwhelming in demonstrating that we do have most of the original papyrus. I’ve researched this issue myself and have come to a logical conclusion by comparing everything said about the papyrus to what the content of the extant fragments represents to what the original whole represented to the priests who wrote them. Egyptologist Robert K. Ritner gave his professional opinion on this matter in which I fully agree.

I never believed he sat down with an Egyptian grammar book and worked his way through.

You may not believe, but Joseph did because he said so in his journal on more than one occasion. President Smith and his right-hand man (Cowdery) spent a lot of valuable time deciphering characters from the Book of Breathing as transcribed into the Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language which has been shown to be the very source of the Book of Abraham. Smith said, “The remainder of the month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”

We can agree that Smith’s Alphabet & Grammar is not a conventional translation by any means. Nevertheless, it is said that he deciphered Egyptian characters using a seer stone coupled with revelation. The manuscripts for this sacred work were kept in the President’s office under lock and key and were taken west under the authority of Brigham Young. I see no reason to think Smith, with the aid of his scribes, attempted any translation outside the bounds of revelation.

The prophet himself said, “This after noon labored on the Egyptian alphabet, in company with bro. O. Cowdery and W.W. Phelps: the System of astronomy was unfolded” (HC Vol. 2:286)

Dan, it makes no sense to suppose a prophet would experiment on his own and produce a false translation -- you will recall that the Lord made an example out of Hiram Page and chastened him for his false revelations: “And again, thou shalt take thy brother Hirum Page, between him and thee alone, and tell him that those things which he hath written from that stone are not of me and that Satan deceiveth him. For behold, these things have not been appointed unto him, neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants.” (D&C 28:11,12)

Rest assured that Smith believed the Spirit was helping him produce the Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language as the principles of astronomy unfolded to their understanding:, “and during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding, the particulars of which will appear hereafter.” (HC: Vol.1 2:286)

Smith’s scribes knew they could not decipher hieroglyphics apart from inspiration of the Lord given directly through the prophet. The arm of flesh compared to revelation from God is futile! “But, behold, verily, verily, I say unto thee, no one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., for he receiveth them even as Moses.” (D&C 28:2)

It’s contrary to the laws of the church that prophet & scribe be deceived in a vain effort to translate and produce phony works: “And this I give unto you that ye may not be deceived, that ye may know that they are not of me.” (D&C 43:6)

Dan, if the Grammar & Alphabet was a false translation then the Spirit must intervene and correct the brethren in repairing the errors prior to preserving the sacred manuscripts in the President’s office. “And insomuch as they erred it might be made known; And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed.” (D&C 1:25,26)

It is futile to argue that Smith would have entertained the idea that he was translating the Grammar & Alphabet outside the bounds of revelation! Everything we know about that occurrence and work leads us to believe that Joseph Smith claimed it was his inspired work that he was performing under the direction of the Spirit:

“And again, let all the records be had in order, that they may be put in the archives of my holy temple, to be held in remembrance from generation to generation, saith the Lord of Hosts.” (D&C 127:9)

I believe he received it by revelation beyond his capacity to read Egyptian at that time. So that’s sort of like the Catalyst Theory.

Everyone should agree that Joseph Smith *claimed* to have translated and produced the Book of Abraham as published in Times and Seasons by revelation given him from God. The translation process was acclaimed as revelation:

  • “We were further assured that the prophet was the only mortal who could translate these mysterious writings, and that his power was given by direct revelation.” (Josiah Quincy)
  • “I have sat by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration.” (Warren Parrish)
  • “The Lord is Blessing Joseph with Power to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of God; to translate through the urim & Thummim Ancient records & Hyeroglyphics” (Oliver Cowdery)

Could Joseph Smith have told you whether he was getting it from the papyrus or not, I’m not sure that he could’ve because he was getting it by revelation

Was it not by revelation that Smith identified the rolls of Abraham & Joseph? Cowdery soon after described vignettes therein as biblical in nature. Where did Oliver get those ideas other than from Joseph who identified the scrolls? Smith even pointed his finger at a particular character and said “that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham.”

he couldn’t go independently to the papyrus and say, “see this is where it’s from, it’s from this hieroglyphic phrase, here,” he wasn’t able to do that,

You’re wrong, Dan. See here:

  • Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
  • Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
  • Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

so he couldn’t have told you exactly where it was coming from except that as you looked at the papyrus this is what came to him by revelation

I’m looking at Facsimile No. 3 which is supposed to be a mirror image or at least a rough copy of the very images and hieroglyphic writing in which Joseph Smith looked at.

1. What is the king’s name, Dan?
2. Who is the Egyptian Prince, Dan?
3. How do you spell Shulem in Egyptian, Dan?

I’m open to the Catalyst Theory. I’m also open to the theory that he had papyri we don’t have now that might have been translated in a conventional way, give us the Book of Abraham

We have the hieroglyphic writing in Facsimile No. 3, preserved right there in front of our eyes. We are seeing the very characters which Joseph Smith saw. They are not missing. They are not lost. They did not burn in the Chicago fire but are right there in the very vignette which Joseph Smith the chief editor of the Times and Seasons published to the whole world as a revelation.

So, Dan, you haven’t a leg to stand on.
Last edited by Shulem on Fri Jun 30, 2023 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply