Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

THIS THREAD HAS BEEN REFINED AND MOVED TO THE NEW DISCUSSION BOARD:

click the link:

Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene







Image

Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene
Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham visually depicts the narrative contained in Abraham 1:12–19. As interpreted by Joseph Smith, this scene depicts Abraham fastened upon an altar before some idolatrous gods. An idolatrous priest is about to sacrifice Abraham, who is protected by the Angel of the Lord.
Everyone can agree that Joseph Smith interpreted the scene in which he claimed the drawing shows Abraham being "fastened" upon an altar. What everyone can't agree with is that the person on the so-called "altar" is actually fastened to the said altar.

First, Egyptologist Robert Ritner, is on record for specifically stating that the furniture depicted in Facsimile No.1, is not an altar but is a lion bed with Osiris upon it. Only Mormon scholars and only Mormon Egypologists deviate and claim that the lion bed is an altar of sacrifice.

Second, the man on the lion bed is NOT fastened to the lion bed. There are no bonds, no shackles, no cords, nothing to fasten anyone. The idea that the man is fastened to an altar is pure imagination. There is nothing in the vignette or in the hieroglyphic writing that supports that idea or suggests the man is fastened for a sacrifice with Abraham upon it.

Lastly, the idea that the bird is a genuine depiction of an angel of Jehovah is beyond absurd. No nonMormon Egyptologist will support that notion. It is a Mormon-biased assertion based on Smith's erroneous interpretation and is completely wrong. If the vignette of Facsimile No. 1 were on display in any museum of the world the description of its content would be described in genuine terms agreeable with conventional Egyptology as portrayed in an authentic matter that conveys the truth about what the scene actually represents.

The Mormons aren't interested in the truth. They are only interested in what Joseph Smith said.
Last edited by Shulem on Sat Nov 14, 2020 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

Book of Abraham wrote:that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

Image
I've seen many of these beautiful funerary lion beds depicted on various papyri and tomb walls. The funerary bed is made for those who are ALREADY dead and await resurrection through Osiris. It is a bed whereon the mummy may lie in peace with the promise of receiving blessing and joy in the afterlife.

Book of Abraham wrote:the priests laid violence upon me
I see no violence in Facsimile No.1, none whatsoever. You must be exaggerating? I do see a lovely floral libation stand at the head of the bed -- finely balanced and fully furnished. What a peaceful scene. A lovely lotus flower and a pot wherein to quench one's thirst.

Book of Abraham wrote:It was made after the form of a bedstead,
A beautifully crafted lion bed having 7 knobs on the side -- finely gilded no doubt -- perhaps even gold leaf? I see the god Anubis is attending the sacred ceremony. You surely are blessed. (Sadly the Facsimile No.1 published in the Times and Seasons doesn't maintain the integrity of the side of the bed's motif and the 7 knobs are not defined. Thus, any symbolism in the number 7 intended by the original artist is lost in the poor Mormon reproduction.)

Book of Abraham wrote:And as they lifted up their hands upon me,
They? Who is they?

You must mean Anubis who extends his arm over you with the cup of blessing! Never fear, he will bless you. Your Canopic jars are carefully set under the bed. Please don't knock them over when you rise from the dead to greet your wife, Isis, in sacred bonds of love.

Book of Abraham wrote:that they might offer me up and take away my life,
O Osiris, wake up, you're having a nightmare. You are ALREADY dead. Nobody can kill you. You died at the hands of Set, your evil brother; don't you remember? But now you will rise again from the dead. Anubis blesses you!
Last edited by Shulem on Tue Sep 01, 2020 11:20 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

Elements of the Book of Abraham sacrifice scene are eerily familiar to that of Abraham sacrificing Isaac in the bible; a coincidence? Compare key biblical points with the Book of Abraham:

1. It happened by a hill

"In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen"
"upon the altar which stood by the hill called Potiphar’s Hill,"


2. Altar of sacrifice

"Abraham built an altar there"
"you may have a knowledge of this altar"


3. Tied up

"and bound Isaac his son"
"my bands"


4. Reach out to slay

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son"
"lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life"


5. Saved by the angel

"the angel of the Lord"
"The Angel of the Lord"


6. Twice called

"Abraham, Abraham"
"Abraham, Abraham"


7. Rare utterance of Jehovah's name is evoked

"And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh"
"my name is Jehovah, and I have heard thee"


8. Go forth and conquer

"and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies"
"and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou knowest not of"



In addition, Robert Ritner points out that the sacrifice in the Book of Abraham is "largely a carbon copy" of the one in the bible.

dial in at the 4:30 mark:
Radio Free Mormon: 189: Dr. Robert K. Ritner on the Book of Abraham part 2

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:In addition, Robert Ritner points out that the sacrifice in the Book of Abraham is "largely a carbon copy" of the one in the bible.
When you think about it it becomes increasingly evident that Smith borrowed ideas and incorporated them into his own story. The apologists will just laugh it off and claim the two stories don't compare, but they do, and the odds of these particular points I mentioned above coming together like they do is very striking.

Consider this: It happened near a hill. Well, there are lots of hills in the world -- hills everywhere, so can we really make a big deal about it? Yes, we can. Because it shows that Smith is trying to make his work look authentic and what better way than to have his sacrifice story have a hill too? I should also note that the name of the hill "Potiphar’s Hill" is an anachronism and Dr. Ritner explains that in his podcast. So, Smith picked a biblical name associated with Egyptian and put it in Abraham's story.

Then we have two things mentioned together that are comparable in both sacrifice stories. The altar and being tied up. It's one thing to mention an altar but it's another thing to detail the account of being bound up and tied to the altar. The Explanation in Facsimile No. 1 is very explicit about that: "Abraham fastened upon an altar." So, both accounts share two-points of interest. Add that with the hill and we now have THREE in counting.

Smith makes sure that his story in Abraham has action. Real action! He certainly wants to keep it on the same level as the biblical sacrifice so add the drama and make it look like a real slaying with a knife and a bad man willing to slash his victim and spill his blood all over that beautiful lion bed. Say nothing about staining the furnishings and the lovely lotus at the end of the bed with all that blood squirting out. I don't think Smith thought that through as he was writing his story. Smith was sloppy. So, we now have FOUR things in counting.

But what about the angel of the Lord? That's pretty common in the bible, isn't it? But how many times in the bible does the angel of the Lord come down to stop a human sacrifice? Once! To stop Abraham from slitting his boy's throat. And now we have Smith writing about an Egyptian priest about to slit Abraham's throat so why not pull out all the stops and have the angel of the Lord come down for the rescue! What better way to make the Book of Abraham comparable to the bible?

So far we have FIVE things to compare the story but the next one is more on an exponential level where the math takes it to a new level! What are the odds? So, when God rescues Isaac from his father's blade, the Lord comes down and says, "Abraham, Abraham!" Not once, but twice, it's like two exclamation marks. That's significant and it's unique to the biblical account. So, when Smith repeats that in his own Abraham story it's deja vu all over again as if to provide credibility to Smith's story. Add that with the other comparisons and we have a sure case of borrowing -- or rather more like, plagiarizing. He took something unique from the bible and put it in his own similar story in order to make it look authentic. This reminds me of when Smith took KJV material (warts and all) from the writings of the apostles or Isaiah and planted them in his Book of Mormon.

We now have another one to consider. How many times is the name "Jehovah" mentioned in the bible whether by itself or in conjunction with another word such as "Jehovahjireh?" The name "Jehovah" is mentioned a grand total of 7 times including the account in Abraham's attempt to murder his own son. That's only 7 times in the bible and it just so happens that the name "Jehovah" conveniently pops up in Abraham's sacrifice story of the Book of Abraham! Coincidence? I don't think so! Smith was following cues laid out in the Genesis story -- trying to make his story match in order to make it appear authentic. Interesting to note that the name is mentioned only twice in the Book of Mormon, one quotes Isaiah, and the other is Moroni rambling on about being judged. So, this means that Smith only introduced the name 1 time of his own accord in the Book of Mormon and twice in the Book of Abraham. So, the use of the name is rare but this comparison makes a clear point that a rare moment is evidence that Smith was copying idea and story from the bible.

That's pretty much what Smith loved to do. He wrote stories but got idea and content from other sources in order to make his crap up.

Thanks for listening! I hope you got something from this.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:Since the mid-1800s, when Egyptologists first began analyzing the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith’s interpretation of this scene (sometimes called a lion couch scene, due to the prominent lion couch at the center of the illustrations) has clashed with Egyptological interpretations. In 1860, the French Egyptologist Théodule Devéria interpreted Facsimile 1 as depicting the resurrection of the god Osiris. In 1912, Egyptologists interpreted Facsimile 1 as, variously, “the well known scene of Anubis preparing the body of the dead man,” “a resurrection scene” showing “Osiris rising from the dead,” “an embalmer preparing a body for burial,” “the body of the dead lying” on a funerary bier, and “a dead man . . . lying on a bier” and being prepared for mummification. Similar interpretations of Facsimile 1 have been given in more recent years.
Yes, this statement is correct in that conventional Egyptology most certainly disagrees with the interpretations and translations of Joseph Smith who had absolutely no training or proper understanding of Egyptology.
Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:From the weight of this Egyptological authority alone, it may seem absurd to associate Facsimile 1 with sacrifice as Joseph Smith did.
Just assuredly as the pope is Catholic he is most qualified to discuss Catholicism. Likewise, a worldwide body of (non-biased) Egyptolgists are qualified to discuss Egyptology and determine whether Smith was correct or not.
Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:However, more recent investigation has turned up evidence which suggests a connection between sacrifice or sacred violence and scenes of the embalming and resurrection of the deceased (or the god Osiris).
Be it as it may or interpret those findings how you may, BUT the Joseph Smith papyrus of Facsimile No.1 to include the writings have nothing to do with your supposed new evidence to support Smith's original claims which have been proven false by the very evidence at hand. We have Facsimile No. 1 and the writings which Smith interpreted. Egyptologists know what they mean and what they say. Period. End of story.
Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:In 2008 and 2010, Egyptologist John Gee published evidence linking scenes of Osiris’ mummification and resurrection “in the roof chapels of the Dendara Temple” with execration rituals that involved ritual violence.
This changes nothing for how modern Egyptologists interpret the papyrus of Facsimile No. 1. Nothing has changed. John Gee is making a desperate attempt to upset Egyptology and introduce chaos wherein anything can be applied to anything simply by finding examples that one wants to plug into another set of ideas for the sole purpose of defending Joseph Smith's false claims.
Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:Other Egyptologists have already drawn parallels between Facsimile 1 and the Dendara Temple lion couch scenes, but, as Gee has elaborated, there is a clear connection with sacrifice and ritual violence in these scenes. “In the Dendara texts, the word for the lion couch . . . is either homophonous or identical with the word . . . ‘abattoir, slaughterhouse,’ as well as a term for ‘offerings.’” This is reinforced in the inscriptions surrounding the lion couch scenes.
John Gee attempts to sow discord and chaos in Egyptology in order to defend Smith's false ideas that the scene of Facsimile No. 1 is a religious ritual of murder and human sacrifice. Nothing could be further from the truth! There is nothing violent about Facsimile No. 1. It cannot be compared to anything that results in violence or horror because the very scene itself is indicative of peace and blessing.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Pearl of Great Price Central dirty trick

Post by Shulem »

Here is a clear example of Pearl of Great Price Central using a dirty trick in an effort to deceive its readers and leave a desired lasting impression in their minds which really has nothing to do with Facsimile No. 1. It's a trick! They work the reader up with scenes of blood and horror of source material from the vast stores of the Egyptian corpus and do this in an attempt to marry it -- connect it -- make a parallel with Facsimile No.1 in order to vindicate Smith's interpretation of the vignette.
Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:“He will not exist nor will his name exist, since you will destroy his town, cast down the walls of his house, and everyone who is in it will be set on fire, you will demolish his district, you will stab his confederates, his flesh being ashes, the evil conspirator consigned to the lion couch/slaughterhouse, so that he will no longer exist.” . . . Furthermore, in the same chapel, we have depictions of Anubis and the sons of Horus (presumably the figures under the lion couch in Facsimile 1) holding knives. Anubis is here identified as the one “who smites the adversaries with his might, since the knife is in his hand, to expel the one who treads in transgression; I am the violent one who came forth from god, after having cut off the heads of the confederates of him whose name is evil.” The human-headed son of Horus is identified above his head as “the one who repulses enemies” and “who comes tearing out the enemies who butchers the sinners.” The baboonheaded son of Horus says: “I have slaughtered those who create injuries in the house of God in his presence; I take away the breath from his nostrils.” The jackal-headed son of Horus says: “I cause the hostile foreigners to retreat.” Finally, the falcon-headed son of Horus says: “I have removed rebellion.”
Then, to top it off, the apologists introduce an image scary enough to incite fear but for the sole purpose to connect Joseph Smith's imagined knife (of the lacuna) which was etched into the printing plate of Facsimile No. 1 for publication. But this knife was never, ever, on the original papyrus. But that thought immediately vanishes when confronted with the following image and subconsciously connecting it to Smith's knife produced in the Facsimile. Please, bear in mind that these sons of Horus are NOT representative of the sons of Horus in Facsimile No. 1. The purpose and functions are NOT the same. Contrary to the apologists intent, it's not a parallel to make it conform to Facsimile No. 1 in order to justify Smith's erroneous interpretation of violence and murder on the lion bed.

---CLICK FOR IMAGE--- The sons of Horus hold knives and proclaim their intent to destroy the enemies of Osiris in the god’s chapel at the Dendara Temple. Line drawing taken from Cauville (1997).

I find this apologetic trickery to be abhorrent and is downright evil. Repent, Pearl of Great Central! You are attempting to deceive.

Peace and blessings from the Four Sons of Horus. May you live forever.

Image

......................Image......................
Last edited by Shulem on Thu Aug 20, 2020 1:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

The knife

Post by Shulem »

Let's focus on the knife, shall we? The knife which is portrayed in Facsimile No.1, wherein the Egyptian priest is attempting to slay Abraham. ALL Egypotologists (who are not of the Mormon faith) will agree that there was no knife in the lacuna. The only Egyptologists that entertain the idea that the priest was holding a knife in order to slay the man on the lion bed are Mormon Egyptologists who pervert Egyptology in order to justify Smith as a translator.

Here is a trick, courtesy of Pearl of Great Price Central, wherein they attempt to fool their readers into thinking that Egyptologists are not in general agreement about whether the person in Facsimile No.1 is a priest wielding a knife against Abraham or Anubis blessing Osiris:
Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:This reinforces the likelihood that the knife was original to scene. Second, there is the question of whether Figure 3 originally had a bald human head as depicted in Facsimile 1 or a black jackal headdress, as proposed by a number of Egyptologists. That the figure originally had a jackal headdress seems likely, since traces of the headdress over the left shoulder of Figure 3 can be detected in the surviving papyrus fragment. With these considerations in mind, the question of identifying Figure 3 comes into play. Some Egyptologists have identified this figure as a priest, while others have insisted it is the god Anubis.
1. "as proposed by a number of Egyptologists" This "number" consists of ALL (huge number) of Egyptologists worldwide who do not ascribe to the Mormon faith.

2. "Some Egyptologists have identified this figure as a priest", this "some" are ONLY Egyptologists who belong to the Mormon Church and can be counted on one hand.

3. "while others have insisted it is the god Anubis", the "others" being ALL Egyptologists who are NOT Mormon!

As you can see, the Mormons are trying to skew the numbers and make themselves look like a viable option when in fact ALL the other Egyptologists in the world don't believe Smith's interpretation of Facsimile No.1 any more than they do the Book of Mormon! The Mormons are all alone when it comes to Egyptology in Facsimile No.1! Mormon Egyptologists are perverting the craft and misrepresenting Egyptian history in order to maintain faith and seek converts.

Anyway, we have an eyewitness of the original papyrus of Facsimile No.1, who can shine further light on what Joseph Smith was attempting to present. We have to go back to 1841 which is prior to the publication of the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons. We have to go back BEFORE the lead plate for Facsimile No.1 was made!

Shall we? This is going to be fun. Are you ready for a SURPRISE? Are you ready for a new DISCOVERY brought to you by Shulem, live, right here on Mormon Discussions?

(Thank you, Dr. Shades)

Take a seat. It's going to get interesting!

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

Before I discuss a very important eyewitness account of the original papyrus showing Abraham being sacrificed, I need to explain a few things. In fact, I seriously doubt top scholars (including Hauglid and Gee) have fully considered the ramifications of what I'm going to propose. I think it's gone over everyone's head, even mine.

Recall that *some* papyrus fragments pertaining to the Book of Abraham were kept safe in glazed glass as part of a conservation effort and a means to display important fragments cut from the rolls so vast numbers of people who were interested in seeing the Egyptian relics could see them without harming them. The papyrus was set in frames long BEFORE the Book of Abraham was published in March of 1842.
Quincy Whig newspaper in Quincy Illinois, Oct. 1840 wrote:
He [Joseph Smith] walked to a secretary on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted.

‘These ancient records,’ said he, ‘throw great light upon the subject of Christianity. They have been unrolled and preserved with great labor and care. My time has hitherto been too much taken up to translate the whole of them, but I will show you how I interpret certain parts. There,’ said he, pointing to a particular character, ‘that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham.’

It is indeed a most interesting autograph, I replied, and doubtless the only one extant. What an ornament it would be to have these ancient manuscripts handsomely set, in appropriate frames, and hung up around the walls of the temple which you are about to erect in this place.

‘Yes’, replied the prophet, ‘and the translation hung up with them’.
Having established that important fragments of the papyrus were set in glass frames, I assert that one of those fragments was the original vignette of Facsimile No.1. Can I prove it? I think so, and at the same time uncover a mystery of that particular fragment which was directly connected to the Book of Abraham and was even specifically mentioned in the Book of Abraham (chapter 1) as a representation wherein the reader was directed to take time to view the lion bed that was drawn at the beginning of the roll.

Now, I want to discuss a highly credible eyewitness that I believe saw the actual vignette of Facsimile No.1 *BEFORE* it was printed and that this person was made aware of at least the first part of the translation of the Book of Abraham that was later published in the Times and Seasons. The first chapter of the Book of Abraham was fully translated long before publication. There has been a sustained debate on what got translated and when but there can be no doubt that there was written text of chapter 1 that stands apart from the working Kirtland manuscripts. Along with that, I believe the papyrus vignette of the lion bed was contained in a glass frame in which the eyewitness account that I wish to discuss offered his own explanation in his personal journal dated at 5 May 1841 -- predating publication of the Times and Seasons.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

William Appleby journal

Post by Shulem »

William Appleby was a faithful Mormon missionary who visited Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. He received instructions from Joseph Smith about the papyrus and toured the Egyptian exhibit on display in May of 1841. He meticulously recorded details about the relics to include the mummy, papyrus, and Book of Abraham translations. On page 72 of of his ruler lined journal he wrote:
William Appleby wrote:The male mummy was one of the Ancient –
Pharaoh’s of Egypt, and a Priest, as he is embalmed with his tongue
extended, representing a speaker. The females were his wife and two
daughters, as part of the writing has been translated, and informs
us, who they were, also whose writing it is, and when those mummies
were embalmed, which is nearly four thousand years ago
Please note, Appleby must have kept his journal current in real time as the details of his journal are quite precise -- therefore, his firsthand information was recorded in Nauvoo during his short visit. It's obvious that Appleby was keeping a record of what happened when it happened. He saw the mummies, papyrus, and translation of the Book of Abraham -- there can be no doubt that he was eyewitness to those thing and recorded his experiences right away, without delay.
Appleyby wrote:Today I paid Br. Joseph a visit, received instruction concerning 'Baptism for Dead.' Read the revelation as given by the Lord last January concerning the same, and recorded in the 'Book of the Law of the Lord' viewed four mummies, one male and three females, brought from ancient Thebes in Egypt, saw the rolls of papyrus, and the writings thereon, taken from off the bosom of the male mummy, being some of the writing of ancient Abraham and of Joseph, that was sold into Egypt. The writings are chiefly in the Egyptian language, with the exception of a little Hebrew, I believe. They give a description of some of the scenes of ancient Egypt, of their worship, their idol gods, and cetera. The writings are beautiful and plain, composed of red, and black ink. There is a perceptible difference between the writings. Joseph appears to have been the best scribe.
Then, amazingly on the next page of his journal (73) there is a written transcription of several verses of the first chapter of the Book of Abraham. Keep in mind, this is prior to official publication 10 months later! Appleby records verses 5-9 almost exactly as it appears in the Times and Seasons. These clips are photographed here for download or you can view them here on Brian Hauglid A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions.

Now, Hauglid leaves a door open that the verses from the Book of Abraham could have been recorded at a later date as part of a backdating process. But I don't think so and when putting the pieces together and looking at the clues it's obvious to me that Appleby was recording his journal in real time.
Hauglid wrote:William Appleby journal, dated 5 May 1841, contains Abraham 1:15–31 (1-9 Times and Seasons). This pericope is internally numbered according to the Times and Seasons, but may predate it. Even though it is placed chronologically before the Times and Seasons, at present, it cannot be definitively determined whether WA predates the Times and Seasons or was backdated.
Hauglid wrote:Editorial Note WA, catalogued as MS 1401 in the Church History Library, contains Abraham 1:15–31; dated 5 May 1841 (but see below); handwriting of William I. Appleby; 3 lined pages in journal. WA contains the exact paragraph numbering as the first installment in the Times and Seasons, suggesting that Appleby inserted the Abraham text after its publication in 1842. This is quite possible, as Appleby used the word insert here and in other entries in his journal when he provides additional material. Many of the insertions in his journal, including the Abraham text, likely coincide with Appleby’s later efforts to produce his memoirs. Because the text exhibits some minor variation from the Times and Seasons and the Abraham manuscripts, it is included in this study. However, if Appleby backdated the entry and merely copied the text from the Times and Seasons, it would be of negligible significance to the textual history of the Book of Abraham. To give further context to the Abraham material in Appleby’s journal, more of the journal entry is included in appendix 4.
Hauglid details the textual variations but I would like to make a comparison to show that what Appleby recorded in May of 1841 had to have been a different transcript then the final one used for the 1842 publication in the Times and Seasons. In other words, Appleby didn't back date and copy from the Times and Seasons! Although the textual variations I cite are rather minor they do show a marked difference in what Appleby's eyes saw and wrote compared to what came later in the Times and Seasons whereby the final editing was by Smith & Taylor. Interesting to note that Applyby's citation of the Book of Abraham also has multiple examples of using quotation marks which are not used in the publication that came later. So, Appleby either used these quotes by copying them from a transcript he was copying from or he made them up out of thin air according to his own whims. I chose the first.

Appleyby journal compared to printed Times and Seasons:

1. Jehovah vs. JEHOVAH
2. and vs. &
3. and vs. &
4. Father vs. father
5. Altar vs. altar
6. Priest vs. priest
7. Eldest vs. eldest
8. Judged vs. judged
9. Justly vs. justly
10. Records vs. records
11. patriarchs vs. Patriarchs
12. Knowledge vs. knowledge
13. Kept vs. kept

Now, with that all said, I will soon introduce an entirely new description of what William Appleby actually saw in the Joseph Smith papyrus of Facsimile No.1.

Hold on to your seats, folks. It's going to get interesting. Damn the Mormon apologists!

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

William Appleby was fortunate enough to spend personal time with Joseph Smith and see first hand the Egyptian relics to include the papyrus and translations. Appleby's journal reveals interesting snippets about the Fascimiles which leads us to believe the Explanations for them may have already been produced to some degree and Appleby got a sneak preview of those Explanations.
Hauglid wrote:Appleby visited Joseph Smith on 5 May 1841 and then returned to the Eastern states a few days later where he remained until the exodus west; he may have written his account at a later time. From the above it appears the interpretations for all three facsimiles were known at the time of this visit. It also seems that the creation account Appleby referred to here contains more detail than the biblical account of the creation. This suggests that Abraham 4 and 5 may have been dictated by this time.
We do in fact learn that Appleby had the inside scoop! His time spent with Smith and the relics was quite personal and upfront! Appleby got what might be termed a front row seat. Here are some snips from Wikipedia to help create the setting for Appleby's visit:
Wikipedia wrote:By 1840 the mummies and papyri had made their way to Nauvoo, Illinois. On June 20, 1840, Joseph Smith asked to be relieved of temporal duties to "engage more particularly in the spiritual welfare of the saints and also, to the translation of the Egyptian Records"
Wikipedia wrote:The collection was first located on the second floor of Joseph Smith's log cabin. Elizabeth Clements Kimball was a young girl in Nauvoo, and described seeing them, "The mummies were kept in the attic where they wouldn't be destroyed and in those days there weren't any stairways in the houses such as we have now, and in order to get to the attic one had to climb a ladder which was straight up along the wall."
Up, up, up the ladder to see the mummies we go!

So, what did Applebe actually see when he described Abraham being sacrificed by an Egyptian priest? Now it get's interesting and I quote from Appleby's journal, courtesy of Hauglid's paper, and bold the parts that need emphasizing (I promise not to discuss Facsimile No. 3 in this thread or the bit below of Appleby mentioning the "black slave":
Appleby wrote:There are likewise representations of an Altar erected, with a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it. A Celestial globe, with the planet Kolob or first creation of the supreme Being —a planet of light, which planet—makes a revolution once in a thousand years,—Also the Lord revealing the Grand key words of the Holy Priesthood, to Adam in the garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the Priesthood was revealed. Abraham also in the Court of Pharaoh sitting upon the King’s throne reasoning upon Astronomy, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven, with the scepter of Justice and Judgment in his hand. And King Pharaoh, standing behind him, together with a Prince—a principal waiter, and a black slave of the King. . . . There is also a vivid description given on the Papyrus, of the creation, far more accurately and minutely, than the account given in the Bible. Likewise where the Idolatrous Priest “Elkenah” attempted to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice to their Idol gods, in Egypt (as represented by the Altar etc. before referred to). But was delivered by the interposition of Almighty power, representing the Dove over the Altar, where Abraham lies Bound, which broke the cords by which he was bound, tore down the Altar, and killed the Priest.
Brethren and sisters, you may now put on your thinking caps.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

The following image is exactly what Appleby was looking at when he copied and narrated Book of Abraham script into his journal. He identified the Priest attempting to sacrifice Abraham bound on the Altar. The fragment was undoubtedly protected behind a glass frame accompanied with Book of Abraham manuscripts to include the Explanations of the future printed Facsimiles.

This is what Appleby saw! This was the preFacsimile No.1, the lead plate was later crafted by Reuben Hedlock for press production at the Times and Seasons.

The actual papyrus and Smith's manuscript is what Appleby based his narrative on!

Image

It's going to get good. Stay tuned. You don't want to miss out on what's to come.
Last edited by Shulem on Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Abraham lies bound upon the altar

Post by Shulem »

1. "an Altar erected, with a man bound and laid thereon"
2. "Abraham lies Bound, which broke the cords by which he was bound"


Here is where Smith first gets his idea for making the Book of Abraham. See the parallel lines that run across the breeches. Notice Smith even penciled in more lines in the lacuna. Those lines are Smith's cords. See the cuffs at the end of the breeches. Those are Smith's bonds! Notice there are another set of bonds at the ankles. Both legs are wrapped about with cords and the legs are "fastened" to the altar just like it says in the Book of Abraham. Notice the motif or design of the side of the altar, those lines are cords and plenty of them to fasten anyone on the altar. They even have knots!

Abraham is bound. But look! He broke his bonds and the cords have given way. Abraham rises, leans forward, and escapes as the Angel of the Lord suddenly appears!

Hallelujah!

Image

Are you ready to go back to Church now? Not even Robert Ritner can explain this away!

:lol:

But there's more!
Last edited by Shulem on Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Idolatrous Priest with a knife in his hand

Post by Shulem »

1. "Priest with a knife in his hand"
2. "Idolatrous Priest 'Elkenah' attempted to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice"


Who can miss it? Look what Joseph Smith penciled in the lacuna. Take no thought for a headdress, or a jackal head, or the very idea that the man in black IS black!

This is what Applyby saw. The plain head of a man sketched in with a clean haircut and a nice smile. But look out because his arm is raised and he has a knife! It looks sharp too. But in spite of this first rendition that Smith drew while filled with the Holy Spirit of revelation, he later commissioned Hedlock to redesign the head, arm, and knife as shown in Facsimile No.1.

Appleby had no idea what was in the other hand which disappeared into the lacuna. The knife he referenced was the one that was raised at head level and ready to fall on his intended victim. That is what Joseph Smith represented at that time.

Image
Last edited by Shulem on Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
consiglieri
God
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by consiglieri »

You are right Shulem!

That is the knife! In his RIGHT hand!

Not the left hand. The way the knife is drawn currently looks like the idolatrous priest is going to spread butter on the father of the faithful.

Bravo!!!
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

consiglieri wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:00 pm
You are right Shulem!

That is the knife! In his RIGHT hand!

Not the left hand. The way the knife is drawn currently looks like the idolatrous priest is going to spread butter on the father of the faithful.

Bravo!!!
Thanks for that, consiglieri. It's important to remember that the pencil sketch is an important aspect of Smith's original revelation of what he claimed to see BY THE SPIRIT of enlightenment as he was telling everyone else what he was seeing BY THE SPIRIT. Let me just say that what's so damning about the face sketched in the lacuna -- which had to be Smith's original idea seeing he possessed the papyrus and was the owner. It's totally wrong. When I say "totally", I mean 100%. Aside from the fact that the head should be that of a jackal adorned with a headdress it should be in PROFILE. But here we see Smith in his moment of inspiration has sketched in a head in full FRONTAL position showing both eyes. That is absolutely wrong! It was totally ignorant to recreate the head in that fashion. And the smirk or smile is totally outrageous to say nothing for the haircut which reflects the kind of haircut of men in Smith's era. The sketch was just wrong in every way and in every thought of the imagination in which imagination was in Smith's uninspired head. But hey, that's how Smith operated just like when he rambled off his revelations for the Doctrine and Covenants -- words just spouted out of his mouth and his ideas flowed just like when he penciled in the sketches of the lacuna.

Now, on to the knife and there is plenty to say about that knife. But suffice it to say that they abandoned the upright knife because it was obvious that it was a bit ridiculous seeing Abraham's body was on the other end of the bed and the priest is at the foot. It just didn't work, so Hedlock later fashioned the butter knife in order to get the knife closer to Abraham. Nobody knew what was in the lacuna originally but according to Smith's revelation or vision it had to be a knife. And just look at the arms sketched in to represent Abraham warding off the knife! Ridiculous. The arms and shoulders look like they should be attached to an old man having no muscle and ailing joints. It's just pathetic.

The important point I wish to make and I will be illuminating that point further is that without the KNIFE you have no Sacrifice Scene and the original claim goes unanswered and is invalid.

My question for John Gee regarding the knife in Facsimile No.1 that hovers over the body of the man on the altar is a rather simple question, none of that "we don't know", but a simple yes or no will do:

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THE KNIFE PUBLISHED IN FACSIMILE NO. 1 OF THE TIMES AND SEASONS A CORRECT RESTORATION OF THE LACUNA SHOWING WHAT WAS ON THE ORIGINAL PAPYRUS?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

You see, consiglieri, if you take away the knife then you take away the whole Book of Abraham story that was supposed to be written by Abraham's own hand upon the very papyrus Smith was translating. Take away the knife and they have NOTHING!

Do you see where I'm going with this? It's the sure sign of the nail in the coffin to disprove the Book of Abraham as nothing more than a work of fiction invented by Smith's own imaginative mind. If there is no knife then there is no Sacrificial Scene. So, how is John Gee going to answer the above question? It pins him in a corner. It wrestles him to the ground. It puts him in a full nelson where he can't escape. Just waiting for John to say, "uncle"!

Can you see how John Gee wouldn't last 5 minutes with me in a debate? I would decimate and embarrass him so fast it would make his head spin just like the priest's head drawn by Smith went from frontal to profile in an Exorcist twist. Snap!

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

The facts of the matter are:

Post by Shulem »

Mormon apologists can't deny the fact that Smith abandoned the original knife and head that was penciled in on the paper backing of the lacuna for Facsimile No.1. Smith's original inspiration and illustration for the head and knife was completely abandoned. The Mormons gave themselves license to disregard the artist's original depth perception thus changing elements of original artistic composition. The Mormons add or rather invent a knife to support Smith's alleged sacrifice that was supposedly being depicted in the original scene.

These are the facts:

1. Anubis stands in FRONT of the lion bed in the original papyrus but in the Facsimile he stands BEHIND the lion bed! The Egyptian artist intended that ALL of Anubis be portrayed before the bed to indicate his importance and used that convention to convey that idea. Smith disregards the original intent of the artist showing Anubis featured as more prominent than the bed. The legs of Osiris are shown in front of Anubis to indicate his importance in being the central object of the intended funerary message. Although Smith may have been innocently trying to improve the visual composition of the depth and layers he ignorantly changes the original intent drawn by the Egyptian artist. It just goes to show that Smith didn't know what he was doing when he approved the Facsimile for publication. Smith was not able to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs and neither could he comprehend the significance and intricate conventions of Egyptian iconography.

2. The original head envisioned by Smith was changed from frontal to profile. Smith's original vision was just plain wrong. It went totally against standard Egyptian convention which mandates that figure be shown in complete profile. Whatever Smith was thinking while moved upon by the Spirit was wrong. Had his mind been enlightened with truth there would have been a jackal head in profile penciled in the lacuna. The all knowing God in whom Joseph claimed to represent knows at least that much and you'd think he would be able to convey those thoughts in his mind while feeling the Spirit. But not so. Smith was not having a moment of inspiration from God who knows what was on the original papyrus. Smith was just making stuff up out of thin air in order to support his story. The head penciled in the lucuna is proof.

3. The concept of the penciled in right arm, hand, and knife, in combination was abandoned in its entirety. The published version got rid of the right arm, hand, and knife. It's a classic case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing! Smith's confusion is clearly manifest in showing he didn't know what was right when he made his first inspired interpretation. So was his original inspiration RIGHT (pun intended); yes it was! lol

4. The knife was switched to the other hand compliments of the lucana. This was Smith's way of getting the knife closer to Abraham wherein he could slit his throat. Anyone who is familiar with Mormon temple SECRET rituals knows that the act of slitting the throat was something that was definitely on Smith's mind. How could the priest slit Abraham's throat while on the bed? It didn't make sense. So in order to make it seem like the priest was reaching out to slay Abraham he simply used the other arm and magically drew a knife in the hand knowing full well that nobody could prove otherwise as to what may have originally been in the hand.

5. The left arm and hand of the actual papyrus is now become the right arm and hand in Facsimile No.1. Once again, the Exorcist twist is at hand! It's utterly perverted! Smith has taken the left arm and made it into a right arm. Smith couldn't tell the right from the left. That is totally uninspired! It's impossible to defend. The papyrus shows one thing and the Facsimile shows another. They are opposites. It's wrong just like Smith's interpretation of the whole scene is wrong.

6. The original knife was changed by Smith from an upright vertical to a forward horizontal. To repeat, Smith changed his story because he realized his story was ridiculous and he needed to come up with something better to make it work.

Joseph Smith has not fooled me. I'm on to him. I have come to realize that everything he did was intended to deceive. He lived a life of deceiving others just like Donald Trump has lived a life of lying.

Stay tuned folks. This is NOT over.

:wink:

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

Hold the press!

We have another eyewitness who saw the original papyrus of Facsimile No.1 and described seeing the knife that must have been the penciled version on the paper backing of the papyrus mounted in a glass frame. This event took place just 1 month after the publication of the first installment of the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons. I refer to the eyewitness account meticulously recorded by Rev. Henry Caswall of his amazing visit to Nauvoo. Now, I'm not saying that Caswall didn't see a fresh copy of the newly published Facsimile No.1 featured in the Times and Seasons which he may have due to the fact he was admitted into President Smith's personal office where there may likely have been a copy and later visted the Times and Seasons press as detailed in his story, but I think his description of seeing the various fragments of papyrus from multiple scrolls proves he saw the original. Let's look at what he says specifically about the Sacrifice Scene as he examines the actual papyrus:
Rev. Henry Caswall wrote:The storekeeper now proceeded to redeem his promise of obtaining for me access to the curiosities. He led the way to a room behind his store, on the door of which was an inscription to the following effect: "Office of Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Latter Day Saints." Having introduced me, together with several Mormons, to this sanctum sanctorum, he locked the door behind him, and proceeded to what appeared to be a small chest of drawers. From this he drew forth a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics. These had been unrolled from four mummies, which the prophet had purchased at a cost of twenty-four hundred dollars. By some inexplicable mode, as the storekeeper informed me, Mr. Smith had discovered that these sheets contained the writings of Abraham, written with his own hand while in Egypt. Pointing to the figure of a man lying on a table, he said, "That is the picture of Abraham on the point of being sacrificed. That man standing by him with a drawn knife is an idolatrous priest of the Egyptians. Abraham prayed to God, who immediately unloosed his bands, and delivered him." Turning to another of the drawers, and pointing to a hieroglyphic representation, one of the Mormons said, "Mr. Smith informs us that this picture is an emblem of redemption. Do you see those four little figures? Well, those are the four quarters of the earth. And do you see that big dog looking at the four figures? That is the old Devil desiring to devour the four quarters of the earth. Look at this person keeping back the big dog. That is Christ keeping the devil from devouring the four quarters of the earth. Look down this way. This figure near the side is Jacob, and those are his two wives. Now do you see those steps?" "What," I replied, "do you mean those stripes across the dress of one of Jacob's wives?" "Yes," he said, "that is Jacob's ladder." "That," I remarked, "is indeed curious."
Here we see Caswall is instructed to examine the "picture" of various scenes ON THE VERY PAPYRUS fragments. The "drawn knife" described by Caswall has to be the one penciled in on the lacuna paper backing behind the glazed (glass) slide. This is very telling and confirms that Smith and his closest associates still endorsed the original knife that was drawn in the lacuna as a revelation but out of neccessity would have to shift to the other knife published in the Times and Seasons seeing that is the one that would be viewed by the masses or the world at large. The papyrus would ever remain locked up in Smith's office inside the chest of drawers.

My question for John Gee:

KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW NOW ABOUT MODERN EGYPTOLOGY, IF YOU WERE WITH CASWALL, WOULD YOU CONFIRM THAT THE DRAWN KNIFE SKETCHED ON THE PAPER BACKING IS A CORRECT RESTORATION OF THE MISSING PORTION OF THE VIGNETTE?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

Just answer the fricking question, John. Yes or no, it's as simple as that.

:twisted:

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Take away the knife!

Post by Shulem »

Suppose we surveyed every Egyptologist in the world today and asked this simple question:

IS THE KNIFE PORTRAYED IN FACSIMILE NO.1, A CORRECT OR LIKELY RESTORATION OF WHAT WAS ON THE ORIGINAL PAPYRUS?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

I would be willing to bet that every single Egyptologist not of the Mormon faith would answer the question with a resounding, "NO!" Frankly, I think it's high time that the world body of Egyptologists produce a statement about the lacunae of Facsimile No.1, to determine if the head and knife proposed by Joseph Smith's so-called revelation is an appropriate restoration. I think that Egyptologists have a responsibility to stand up and take issue regarding the false reconstruction of Facsimile No.1, and set the record straight. It's not so much a matter of criticizing Smith or a major religion but setting the record straight and standing up for what's right. Stand for the right! Who will stand for the right?

Take away the knife from Facsimile No.1 and you take away the very concept of the so-called Sacrifice Scene. Place the jackal head of Anubis on Anubis and you have a correct restoration of Anubis blessing the god Osiris and the vignette is in full harmony with the actual text written on the papyrus roll. The opening story of the Book of Abraham suddenly vanishes and the entire Book of Abraham falls!

No knife means no Abraham! I testify with everything I know about Egyptology that there was no knife in the lacuna and that Joseph Smith made it up. I defy John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein to prove to their Egyptological colleagues that Smith's restoration is correct.

Take away the knife and you take away Abraham!

Think about that.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

My discussion is NOT over yet. There is more to take into consideration regarding the logical reasoning of the lacunae of Facsimile No. 1.

Everyone can agree that Joseph Smith took liberty in filling in the lacunae. Whether you believe the Book of Abraham or not it's a fact that Smith licensed himself through his revelations to restore the Facsimile according to the Spirit of God. It matters not whether you know anything about Egypt or if you are a world class Egyptologist. Smith did what he did and published his results.

There are two matters to discuss:

1. The knife
2. The head

Let's discuss the head, first. Why? Because it's more conclusive to my case that Smith was wrong. Allow me to explain. We cannot say that the knife Smith restored is an impossibility. We must allow believing Mormons the opportunity to say that it's possible there really was a knife and that nobody (not even Egyptologists) can prove otherwise because of the lacuna. Just because there isn't any other known scene anywhere in Egypt doesn't make it impossible that Smith restored a truly unique representation of what was on the original papyrus. Hence, it IS possible there was knife. It's possible, although hardly plausible. We MUST grant the Church the possibility there was a knife although that possibility is extremely small.

So, let's turn to the head before settling the knife. Here is where we can make a positive determination that Smith was wrong. Doing this would be impossible if it were not for high quality photographs the Church has provided. This is where Egyptological forensics comes into play when it can be positively proven that Smith's reproduction was wrong. For reference here is the link at the Joseph Smith Papers:

Original papyrus high resolution

Now, take a peek at this cut-out photo from Pearl of Great Price Central that discussed the point of contention about the missing headdress worn by the jackal god Anubis:

The faint remaining traces of what appears to have been the jackal headdress of Figure 3 in Facsimile 1.

Now, I'm going to take the liberty to edit dishonest statements made by apologists regarding the headdress:
Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:Second, there is the question of whether Figure 3 originally had a bald human head as depicted in Facsimile 1 or a black jackal headdress, as proposed by a number of (ALL NONMORMON) Egyptologists. That the figure originally had a jackal headdress seems likely (CERTAIN), since traces of the headdress over the left shoulder of Figure 3 can be detected in the surviving papyrus fragment.
Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:With these considerations in mind, the question of identifying Figure 3 comes into play. Some (ONLY LDS) Egyptologists have identified this figure as a priest, while others (ALL NONMORMON EGYPTOLOGISTS) have insisted it is the god Anubis. That the figure is Anubis seems plausible (CERTAIN) on account of “the black coloring of the skin” and the faint remaining traces of the jackal headdress over the figure’s left shoulder. However, without a hieroglyphic caption for this figure (SUCH AS THE CAPTION IN FACSIMILE NO.3 THAT POSITIVELY IDENTIFIES ANUBIS DIRECTLY BELOW HIM), this identification should be accepted cautiously (WITHOUT QUESTION), as Anubis is not the only jackal-headed, black-skinned figure attested in Egyptian (FUNERARY) iconography.
Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:What’s more, the question as to whether the figure is a priest or the god Anubis (or another jackal-headed god), or whether it originally had a bald human head or a jackal head, appears to be (IS NOT) a false dichotomy. “The practice of masking for ritual and ceremonial purposes (FOR MORTAL EGYPTIANS BUT NOT THE GODS) seems to have been important in Egypt (FOR MORTALS) from the earliest times and continued to be an element of ritual practice into the Roman period,” and “priestly impersonators of Anubis regularly appear in funerary ceremonies, and are styled simply Inpw, ‘Anubis’ or rmt-Inpw, ‘Anubis-men’ . . . [or] ink Inpw, ‘I am Anubis.’” At the non-funerary Hathor temple of Deir el-Medineh is a depiction of a ritual taken from chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead which shows “the king offering incense, and a priest masked as Anubis beating a round frame drum.” (BUT THE VIGNETTE OF FACSIMILE NO.1 IS NOT A PRIESTLY REENACTMENT OF A MORTAL CEREMONY TO COMMEMORATE ANUBIS BUT IS THE ACTUAL GOD ANUBIS RAISING THE ACTUAL GOD OSIRIS FROM THE DEAD JUST AS THE GODS PORTRAYED IN FACSIMILE NO.3 ARE THE ACTUAL GODS IN HEAVEN, NOT AN EARTHLY SCENE AS SMITH CLAIMED)
Now to correct John Gee:
The potential significance of this for Facsimile 1 has been explained by Egyptologist John Gee wrote:
Assume for the sake of argument that the head on Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is correct (I CAN'T ASSUME THAT BECAUSE IT'S MISSING THE HEADDRESS). What are the implications of the figure being a bald man? (IT WOULD MAKE HIM A MORTAL MAN AND NOT THE JACKAL GOD ANUBIS) Shaving was a common feature of initiation into the priesthood from the Old Kingdom through the Roman period (FOR MORTAL MEN LIVING ON EARTH). Since “complete shaving of the head was another mark of the male Isiac votary and priest” the bald figure would then be a priest (IF HE WAS MORTAL). Assume on the other hand that the head on Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is that of a jackal (AS SHOULD BE FOR FIG 6 IN FACSIMILE NO. 3 BUT SMITH HACKED THE SNOUT OFF AND MUTILATED HIM). . . . We have representations of priests (EARTHLY MEN) wearing masks, one example of an actual mask, literary accounts from non-Egyptians about Egyptian priests wearing masks, and even a hitherto-unrecognized Egyptian account of when a priest would wear a mask. In the midst of the embalmment ritual (FOR AN EGYPTIAN DEAD MAN), a new section is introduced with the following passage: “Afterwards, Anubis, the stolites priest (A MORTAL MAN) wearing the head of this god, sits down and no lector-priest shall approach him to bind the stolites with any work.” Thus this text settles any questions about whether masks were actually used (FOR EARTHLY CEREMONIES FOR MORTAL EGYPTIANS). It furthermore identifies the individual wearing the mask as a priest (UNLIKE THE GOD ANUBIS WHO IS RESURRECTING OSIRIS IN THE PRESENCE OF ISIS IN FACSIMILE NO.1). Thus, however the restoration is made, the individual shown in Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is a priest (ANUBIS), and the entire question of which head should be on the figure is moot (SETTLED) so far as identifying the figure is concerned. The entire debate (BY APOLOGISTS) has been a waste of ink.
Shame on you John Gee for lying! You are a horrible Egyptologist and I have just kicked your lying ass! You should be stripped of your Ph. D credentials. You do not deserve to be called an Egyptologist. You are a liar. You are a cheat. You are a dishonest man.

For shame!


Damn Mormons!

:mad:
Last edited by Shulem on Tue Sep 01, 2020 12:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12073
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Not from John Gee. He's a liar.

Post by Shulem »

There is more to come. Bring John Gee before me.

Image

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22509
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by moksha »

consiglieri wrote:
Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:00 pm
The way the knife is drawn currently looks like the idolatrous priest is going to spread butter on the father of the faithful.
Yikes, without divine intervention Abraham will soon be toast!
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

Post Reply