Vogel Schools Jacob Hansen on Book of Abraham

[MG 2.0]

delete

[Shulem]

delete

Which is exactly what the church needs to do with the Book of Abraham.

It can't be saved. It's crap.

[Rivendale]

delete

Which is exactly what the church needs to do with the Book of Abraham.

It can't be saved. It's crap.

I enjoy your posts. I always had a theory that there are pockets of society that can't let go of their childhood. Mormonism is full of it. Secret codes for houses? Secret codes for towns? Fast forward almost 200 years and the childhood antics are everywhere. Excommunication? Spying on sacrament meetings? If it weren't such a pain in the ass it would be hilarious.

[Shulem]

I enjoy your posts. I always had a theory that there are pockets of society that can't let go of their childhood. Mormonism is full of it. Secret codes for houses? Secret codes for towns? Fast forward almost 200 years and the childhood antics are everywhere. Excommunication? Spying on sacrament meetings? If it weren't such a pain in the ass it would be hilarious.

Thank you.

The Book of Abraham was a childish prank that Smith invented to boost his own ego while feeding his ignorant flock.

I bear testimony, I KNOW the Book of Abraham is utter garbage. I know this absolutely as sure as I know anything -- with every fiber of my being! Pure knowledge. Absolutely!

[Shulem]

The ancient Egyptian word š(ỉ)-n-ḫꜣ (Shinehah) is attested to as a term linked to the sun or solar concepts.

As the article you linked to concluded, š(ỉ)-n-ḫꜣ did not mean 'the sun' per se. Since my question was whether you still stand by the characterization of 'Shinehah' as a bullseye, it appears that you do not: unless additional evidence comes to light, it falls short of a bullseye. Fair enough?

There are no Book of Abraham bullseyes; only tricky and false apologetics to support such ideas. Shinehah apologetics of not being 'the sun' per se is just another example across the board in showing that defending Smith's translations of Egyptian words doesn't work. For example:

• The characters above his head does not mean the king's 'name' per se.
• As written above the hand does not mean it signifies an Egyptian 'Prince' per se.
• The characters above his hand do not actually spell or represent the name 'Shulem' per se.

This may be applied to all of Smith's uninspired interpretations and translations in which he had no right to translate because he didn't know Egyptian and he possessed a lying spirit. It's all slight of hand. Abracadabra!

[Shulem]

I'll be responding to what Hansen said in his interview with O'Connor.

I enjoyed the podcast and you did a great job. The apologists are pretty much being forced into the Catalyst theory and yet the Church dares not take a position on which theory is right any more than it does for Book of Mormon geography -- so church members remain divided and disagree and contradict each other. That is today's world of Mormonism which is nothing like the Mormonism Smith served up. So modern Mormons are left to wonder which theory to join. Which theory is true or are they all wrong? Sound familiar?

Bear in mind that the story of Egypt being founded by a woman after the flood in 2400 BC is the ultimate contradiction in proving the work is a fraud because everyone knows dynastic Egypt predates that alleged event by many hundreds of years and pre-dynastic Egypt by thousands of years. Apologists admit that the First Dynasty began at around 3000 BC and yet they have said nothing about why Smith's Bible timeline won't allow for that.

It's quite the conundrum. Numbers don't lie, but Mormons do.

[Bret Ripley]

• The characters above his head does not mean the king's 'name' per say.
• As written above the hand does not mean it signifies an Egyptian 'Prince' per se.
• The characters above his hand do not actually spell or represent the name 'Shulem' per say.

Well, shucks. We already knew a horse ain't necessarily a horse, per se, so why should we expect anything to mean what we think it means? Just draw your bullseyes and it's high fives all around, Tex.

(By the way, I have a "horse" for sale. If you pay full sticker price, I'll throw in a coupon for your own "planet.")

[Shulem]

How about lunar & star concepts for Olea & Kokob? Are they gay boys?

Dance for me, MG. I want to see what u got. Show me!

I'll be the judge! Drop ur Book of Abraham drawers and show us what u got!

I think I'm done for now. No thanks.

Yes, buddy-boy, you're done for now. How you sleep at night under the moon and stars is anyone's guess. Are you an Egyptian?

Do you suppose Mormon apologists will figure out how to spin Olea into an Egyptian word or term to represent the moon doing its thing? Or how about Kokob being an Egyptian word or term to show how stars do their thing? Surely there is consistency to back apologetic theories of Smith's Egyptian Shinehah being the sun in action.

You have nothing left to contribute to this thread, so get lost. You lose, sucker.



Regards,
Shulem

[I Have Questions]

I suppose you might respond to the following with something other than "No, it cannot" or "there is no"...without providing any backup for what you're saying.

I don't need to. You made an assertion with nothing to back it up.

You say, "I have unicorns in my basement!"

I reply, "No, you don't."

Your rejoinder is, "You didn't offer an evidence that I don't have unicorns in my basement."

https://www.arisefromthedust.com/trying ... -shinehah/

https://pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/shinehah-the-sun/

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/byusq/vol61/iss4/24/

https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/shinehah-the-sun

Four links. All apologetic. No commentary or summary from you. This is blatant link and run.

I agree. I’ve reported several examples across numerous threads of MG 2.0 continuing to link and run despite being explicitly wanted on several occasions by Shades. I’ve not received a response to those reports indicating why they are not link and runs, but the reports have been closed, so I’m unconvinced Shades has done anything about any of them. So I guess linking and running is now okay for everyone. What say you Dr. Shades?

[Dr. Shades]

What say you Dr. Shades?

I say that I was going to split it off, but everyone jumped in, quoted him repeatedly, explained what was at those links on his behalf, then continued talking about them. Excising his link-and-run would've required me to excise an entire section of the conversation, so I had little choice but to let it stand.

This happened to some extent or other in all your previous reported instances, too.

HELPFUL HINT: If you want something split off, just report it and ignore it. Don't respond to it and further add to the discussion about it.