This is still opinion based on no evidence. Sure it's not hard to see that Joseph didn't understand Egyptian. He was making it up. What we don't see is any evidence that Joseph claimed he didn't know Egyptian, and the numbers thing in the facsimile is not Joseph stating he doesn't understand them. It also doesn't show Joseph thought at any time the papyri was not the source of the Book of Abraham which is something you did state.
Again, an opinion shared by Ashment and Nibley.
Ashment states, "...the prophet cannot be held responsible for establishing a relationship between the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham when he may not have been sure about it himself." (p. 44)
All you are doing is dismissing my view because it reflects Ashments and Nibleys view of Joseph Smith's subsequent statements and actions. You state it is just their opinion. Well guess what, so is your position. It is just your opinion. The strawman you have often setup here is that Joseph Smith could read Egyptian Hierography, was aiming at scholaist accuracy, and was emphatic that the papyri being the source to the BofA. Clearly that something that neither Ashment or Nibley concluded more than 20 years ago when reviewing the whole of the matter.
I'll just quote Ashment's summary
"Moreover, it seems that scholastic accuracy was not one of the prophet's goals, while one of his overriding concerns was an 'urgency' to disseminate important ideas, even before the obvious grammar and spelling errors had been corrected. Indeed, to him the processes of translation had very limited relationships to manuscripts and dictionary meanings. They [had] much to do with the basic ideas and doctrinal relevance to a modern world. Those who are trying to destroy his reputation by criticizing him about details concerning which he was not especially anxious are in effect erecting a straw man and then knocking it down. It is his message, not his method which concerned the prophet. If he is to be judged, therefore, it should not be for his methodology; it is the value if his work which should be determined." (p. 44)
Your view is that because Joseph Smith was initially mistaken about the papyri, so he couldn't have been a prophet. Even if his view changed over time. You believe that Mormons must maintain the position that Joseph Smith could read Egyptian Hierogrpahy even when Ashment and Nibley disputed this view over 20 years ago. You believe that subsequent statements and actions by Joseph Smith are inconsequential to his overall understanding of the papyri. All of your forced positions are erroneous and disingenuous. It simply ignores Joseph Smith's human nature, that he would learn things over time, and could be mistaken and corrected over time by the Lord. I believe he was because of his subsequent statements and actions. You disagree. I don't care. That is JUST YOUR OPINION.