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

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

Post by Shulem »

QUESTION for John Gee:

Aside from the fact that the head is all wrong, and in view of the fact that the original papyrus shows Anubis with his left shoulder and left leg forward in standard pose, why does Smith's reconstruction show the right shoulder and right leg forward and standing on the wrong side of the lion bed?
John Gee wrote:
Image

Take note, RFM, that's a killer question and has follow-ups just as deadly.

:twisted:

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 »

QUESTION for John Gee:

Will you agree that the elongated back and rear shoulder blade for Smith's priest has an angle that doesn't match the conventional Egyptian pose shown on the papyrus and that the contour of the angular line of the rear shoulder blade inadvertently replaced the flowing outline of a headdress?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Don't know
John Gee wrote:
Image

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

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

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

For anyone paying attention check out this scene with Anubis:

https://ancientneareastdotorg.files.wor ... -mummy.jpg

Now go back and look at the ‘Joseph Smith papyrus’, and you can see a corner of the headdress.

Fascinating stuff, Shulem! Without your diligence this whole Book of Abraham affair would’ve been a foggy mystery to someone like myself. You’ve really done us a huge service by bringing into sharp focus the changes made to the Church’s papyri and, really, just how disrespectful the Church has been to Egyptian history by pushing their false narrative.

- doc

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

Thank you

Post by Shulem »

Thank you Doctor CamNC4Me for your kind regards and for appreciating my contribution to the cause in addressing the Book of Abraham controversies. I'm sure there are others who feel as you do and I thank them for putting up with my antics. There is a great deal more I wish to express and will happily continue to support the cause. I am proud of consiglieri who has stepped up to the plate and is taking the bull by the horns. Philo also is probably working feverishly in putting his own production together and I'm sure it will not disappoint. I have to believe that our collective efforts will help in finally putting an end to the publication of the Facsimiles in Mormon canon.

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 »

Facsimile No.1 Fig. 11. wrote:Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.
This is just so wrong in so many ways. Nothing could be further from the truth. Smith was dead wrong. He was guessing. He was fantasizing. He was making stuff up and creating his own world view of what he thought it should be.

"Pillars of heaven" is not what the series of interconnected rectangles represent. Smith was wrong. He knew nothing of Egyptian architectural motif anymore than he knew the Egyptian language. Smith's claim of so-called "pillars of heaven" is just the opposite of what the symbols represent. This is getting to be quite a habit for Smith in getting everything diametrically opposed to the truth and interpreting Egyptian iconography in opposite to what is factually true. The rectangles aren't pillars in heaven but are bricks (or stone) on earth! Other examples of Smith's blunders are shown in Facsimile No. 3, women are men and a god is a slave -- a vile Asiatic (Abraham) sitting on a god's throne in heaven! Smith's interpretations were almost always the opposite of the truth! It's really rather bizarre. It's a freak show!!!

But I digress. Back to Fig. 11, which is the baseline of the drawing and the foundation upon which the site is geographically located seeing the temple walls or palace façade in which it represents is ever adjacent to the Nile river and the Egyptian crocodile. The scene is in Egypt, period. You can forget about the so-called plain of Olishem. The Egyptian artist was mindful of proximity and convention using art to show the importance and placement of each particular layer or concept. The building is near the Nile, the Nile hosts the crocodile, the crocodile is near the lion bed where Osiris is rising. Proximity and geographic design is part of the message of the papyrus!

Robert Ritner gives an excellent sumnation of fig. 11, in Part I, advance forward to the 1:46:00 mark.

Ritner tells us that the series of rectangular shapes represent a niched bricking motif, a standard feature of Egyptian design that goes back to early Egypt and has interconnections between Egypt and Sumer brick archetecture and is used as a baseline in design for Egyptian art.

Everything Smith said about Facsimile No.1, from top to bottom, was essentially false -- it's just wrong, all of it. The text of the Book of Abraham attempts to take the scene out of Egypt to some fantasized place in Chaldea. That too is wrong. The Facsimile Explanations and the site or location as told in the story of the Book of Abraham is wrong. John Gee can search for the plain of Olishem until the day he dies but he will never find it not even after he dies!

Sorry John, but you're wrong and you can blame Joseph Smith for that.
Last edited by Shulem on Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:14 am, edited 2 times 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 have been busy being brilliant, my good friend!

Among other salient points, why indeed does Joseph Smith locate facsimile 1 in Egypt when the text places him in Olishem?

Brilliant!!!
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:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 1:25 pm
You have been busy being brilliant, my good friend!

Among other salient points, why indeed does Joseph Smith locate facsimile 1 in Egypt when the text places him in Olishem?

Brilliant!!!
Thank you, kind sir.

Image

The anomaly of Smith's geographic contradiction for his story narrative seems to be a rare careless error on Smith's part. He had plenty of practice in writing and arranging the Book of Mormon which has lots of geographic reference for locations and how they are directionally interrelated.

I could speculate why this might have occurred but speculation in this regard is only conjecture; for example: The story was written in stages over the course of years with the first chapter written years before publication and kept only in manuscript form. Details about geography may not have been as fresh on Smith's mind when he was busily working with the press arranging the Facsimile and Explanations for publication.

Here is page 2a which consists SOLELY of the Explanations for Facsimile No.1:

A Fac-Similee from the Book of Abraham—
Explanation of the <​above​> cut.


Now, let me share with you something interesting about the printer's manuscript of the first installment of the Book of Abraham (note page 4 is missing) consisting of 26 pages all in the writing of Willard Richards. Note the format for page numbering and content as follows:

1 Text

1a Blank

2 Text

2a Explanations of Facsimile No.1

3 Text

3a Blank

Etc.

Notice how text is only on one side of the page (accept for the case of the Explanations!) This keeps the ink from bleeding through the other side of the page. But notice (click link above) that the Explanations of Facsimile No.1 were included on page 2a which is the only time ink is placed on the backside of a page! This can only mean that the Explanations were ADDED LAST after the manuscript was fully completed by Willard Richards. So it was in effect AFTERTHOUGHT material provided for publication at the last minute. (But evidence does show information for the Explanations was known previously as shown in Appleby's testimony but it's curious that they are in this manuscript in the order shown above.)

So, Smith may have felt rushed -- working on the side putting his Explanations together and handing them off to Willard Richards to insert in the manuscript where he wanted them put (they could have been put on p 14a at the end but 2a was near the beginning which is where it was finally published). Smith forgot that the sacrifice setting was way out yonder in Chaldea on his stupid plain of Olishem and inadvertently assigned fig. 10 as representing Abraham in Egypt. But, I've been able to show that it's impossible for the libation stand dressed with a lotus, flowers, and pots, to be anywhere other than Egypt RIGHT NEXT TO THE LION BED which was on the Nile river!

John Gee, you lose -- you're beaten!
Last edited by Shulem on Tue Sep 01, 2020 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

The text is a fable and fictitious tale

Post by Shulem »

The Book of Abraham is an insult to intelligence. It insults my intelligence too! It offends me and discredits what I know about Egyptology in an attempt to bamboozle me. Smith's little novel of pretended history is an insult to modern Egyptology and a disgrace in representing the ancient Egyptians. The text of the Book of Abraham is simply awful. The book has no redeeming value and should be discarded by anyone who loves truth. Sadly, the book is embraced by those who choose to continue the fantasy in thinking that Smith wrote a genuine historical account. But nothing could be further from the truth! Smith's story is not genuine and neither is it historical. Anachronisms in the story are sure telltale signs that Smith was ignorantly making things up. Some of these anachronisms are explained at Mormon Think The Book of Abraham and Robert Ritner discussed them in the podcasts. Some of the most common or well known anachronisms in Book of Abraham text include the following names:

1. Egyptus
2. Pharaoh
3. Chaldea
4. Potiphar

Smith peppered his story with a number of fictitious names and made things up as he went along. If the Book of Abraham was truly a genuine historic piece of work it would have included genuine and historic Egyptian terms. It does not! In Smith's writings we plainly see in full view that his story is counterfeit -- a forgery produced by a 19th century conman pretending to translate ancient Egyptian.

Many Mormons today will freely admit that Smith couldn't translate Egyptian but that he nonetheless through revelation restored the story of Abraham. I can only imagine how upset Smith would be if he were alive today to see his fraud uncovered and exposed to the entire world. It would surely be an embarrassment to him and perhaps he'd lose his false testimony and the will to continue to deceive anyone and everyone which was his nature.

Bottom line, there is nothing in Facsimile No.1 to show that Smith's interpretations were genuine and historic. Not a single thing! The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah and Korash under the lion bed? Don't make me laugh! Don't insult my intelligence! I know better than that!

Get behind me Satan! Get behind me you Mormons!

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:
Mon Aug 31, 2020 1:25 pm
Among other salient points, why indeed does Joseph Smith locate facsimile 1 in Egypt when the text places him in Olishem?
Recall Appleby's journal after witnessing the papyrus first hand:
Appleby wrote: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.
Appleby positively confirms that the attempted sacrifice happened "IN" Egypt, not up north where John Gee's has pitched his tent in search of Olishem! Time to come home, John. There is no such thing as Olishem! Smith made it up and got caught in his own geographical snare.

Appleby was a key eyewitness who met with Smith and took meticulous notes for his personal journal. This is definitely a discrepancy for the record book, one that I had not previously comprehended. I need to congratulate myself. I need to keep talking, because the more I talk the more I dig up!

:lol:

Philo, where the hell are you? You working on your Book of Abraham stuff? I certainly hope so. It's so much more fun doing it from this angle.

:biggrin:
Last edited by Shulem on Tue Sep 01, 2020 2:57 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 »

In the spirit of "Fig. 10. Abraham in Egypt", it's time to correct Joseph Smith's mistakes:
1:8 wrote:Now, at this time it was the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to offer up upon the altar which was built in the land of Chaldea Egypt, for the offering unto these strange gods, men, women, and children.
1:10 wrote:Even the thank-offering of a child did the priest of Pharaoh offer upon the altar which stood by the hill called Potiphar’s Kemet Hill, at the head of the plain of Olishem Nile river.

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

Take away the knife!

Post by Shulem »

I promised earlier not to discuss Facsmile No. 3 in this thread but will have to renege somewhat because it's necessary to make some comparisons when discussing Smith's Explanations for Facsimile No. 1 and his entire case for the Book of Abraham. Mormon apologists are kicking and screaming and try to find any kind of parallel or likeness in order to keep Smith's interpretations alive on their apologetic operating table. But the body on the table is already dead. It was dead when they first got it!

Take the knife for example; I've shown that when we take the knife away there is no human sacrifice for Facsimile No. 1 and the whole thing is Smith's imaginative thinking of creating a story about the Egyptians. It's not based on real history and it's a not a genuine interpretation of that vignette that is flanked by funerary spells that honor the true meaning of the vignette and the gods therein.

So, let's take away the knife; shall we? There is no knife. There never was! The only knife that exists for Facsimile No. 1 is the knife that Smith invented. It's the product of his own mind. The vignette for Facsimile No. 1 was near the beginning of the so-called Abrahamic roll and even the text of the Book of Abraham will verify this in that it asks the readers to refer to the illustration of the so-called sacrifice scene represented at the commencement of the record. The vignette on this roll of Abraham was followed by a long stretch of funerary writings until finally arriving at the vignette for Facsimile No. 3. This *IS* the Book of Abraham by which Smith translated and he processed his work through these illustrations and hieroglyphic characters. We know that Smith glued whole portions of them to special paper backing, some of which includes the Plan of the House of the Lord in Kirtland ; we can examine both sides fully at the Joseph Smith Papers.

So let's get rid of the knife once and for all, shall we?

A) There was no knife on the original vignette of Facsmile No. 1 and neither is there a king's name in Facsmile No. 3. Period! That's final!

B) There was no knife on the original vignette of Facsmile No. 1 and neither is there a Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand in Facsimile No. 3. Period. That's final!

C) There was no knife on the original vignette of Facsmile No. 1 and neither does the writing above Hor in Facsimile No. 3 spell the name Shulem. Period! That's final!

There was no human sacrifice scene on Smith's papyrus, period.

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

Get rid of the priest!

Post by Shulem »

Next up, let's get rid of the head of the priest, shall we?

First and foremost: You don't put a white man's head on top of a black man's body, period. That's a big no-no. It's a gaffe of colossal proportion that makes a complete mess of the whole thing. What was Smith thinking? That's supposed to be inspiration of the Holy Spirit? Please spare me the rhetoric of Smith's so-called revelations. Don't insult my intelligence! He would have been better off copying the head of Fig. 6 Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 and duplicating that for the missing head that was restored to Facsimile No. 1, signifying he *IS* a black person. There's just no excuse for what they did. None!

Second, you don't put a human head atop Anubis! That would be like putting a goat's head atop the figure of Christ hanging on the cross. It doesn't match. It's wrong. So, get rid of the priest's head! Lop it off and put the right head in place.

Third, the headdress was not restored and the remnants that remained were completely ignored in restoring the lost head. Hence, it's not a restoration but a fanciful forgery from the mind of Smith.

Now that we got rid of the knife and the head of the priest the Sacrifice Scene disappears into oblivion. It's time to get rid of other elements of Smith's fantasized story . . . .

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 1:20 wrote:in the court of Pharaoh; which Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood.
Blood, what blood? There's no blood in the title of Pharaoh. There isn't a single nonMormon Egyptologist that will back that statement as a genuine interpretation of Egyptian terms. Only the Mormons and their Apostate-Egyptologists defend Smith's bogus translation of Pharaoh.

The title of Pharaoh wasn't used in Abraham's time but is an anachronism. When were the mighty kings of the 11th or 12th Dynasty ever called "Pharoah"? Where on the Abydos and Turin king's lists is the title Pharaoh mentioned for kings who lived in Abraham's time? You won't find that anymore than you will a king's name in Facsimile No. 3!

I'm afraid that Smith had been reading a little too much in the bible and ever perusing the Adam Clarke Commentary when he was caught red-handed naming the king of Egypt in Abraham's time as a bloody Pharaoh.

Nobody believes this nonsense except for the Mormons. Smith was wrong about Pharaoh just as he was wrong about the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3 and and in identifying the goddess Isis as a man. Nothing could be further from the truth. But the Mormons don't care about truth. They care about their fantasy derived from their testimony which they claim comes from the Holy Ghost which is THAT SAME SPIRIT that fooled Smith with his bogus translations of the so-called Book of Abraham.

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

Wrong beginnings

Post by Shulem »

Book of Abraham 1:23 wrote:The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham
Smith's chronology is inconsistent with actual world history proven by king's lists and other forms of dating. Smith's so-called 7,000 years of the earths economy (see D&C 77) does not match the historical record. Smith's Adam would be about 4,000 BC and Noah and Abraham long after that. But we know that according to Egyptology and science that early Dynastic Egypt (1st & 2nd Dynasties) occurred long before NOAH AND THE FLOOD! Egypt was not founded or established by descendants of Ham. Dynastic Egypt was thriving and existing long before the so-called flood had occurred according to the Hebrew calendar and Smith's D&C revelations about the age of human life on earth. Predynastic Egypt is ancient compared to Noah and the flood! The Egyptian civilization was thriving on the Nile long before the myth of Noah was invented. So much for the Book of Abraham and Ham's daughter because she did not discover Egypt. That is simply one of Smith's tales. A whale of a tale!

QUESTIONS FOR JOHN GEE:

1. Which Middle Kingdom king do you think would have been most likely to have granted an Asiatic such as Abraham to sit on his throne and teach his court principles of astronomy garnered from shepherds who kept records up north?

2. How do you explain Egypt's founding by a daughter of biblical Ham when both Predynastic and Dynastic Egypt preceded the biblical record for hundreds and thousands of years?
Last edited by Shulem on Thu Sep 03, 2020 8:11 am, 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 Abraham1:25 wrote:Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
What kind of nonsense is Smith making up? This is the most asinine thing I've ever read about Egyptian chronology and the Making of Egypt. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! That statement in the Book of Abraham is utterly false and can be dismissed outright as an ignorant 19th century ouija board reading. It makes me angry that professionals such as John Gee can stand by this nonsense and tell others that the Book of Abraham is historic and genuine. It makes me angry that John Gee is such a traitor and a deceiver. I simply want to yell at him and call him a liar to his face. But what good would that do? The poor man must be drowning in his own misery because he knows better.

John Gee, do you really believe that the first ruler of Egypt was the grandson of Ham? Are you willing to dismiss Smith's D&C 77 and the biblical chronology of when Noah supposedly lived so that Ham's kid can rule Predynastic Egypt? How about you write a paper on that and submit it to your colleagues? Better yet, let me review it first!

Folks, it's not possible that Smith's statement above bears any truth to Egyptian history and is a total fabrication. DO NOT believe it. There are so many problems and contradictions in trying to justify it that it simply boggles the mind.

I know that the story of the Book of Abraham is not true. I know it with every fiber of my being and with all my heart and mind. I so testify that what Joseph Smith wrote about ancient Egypt are complete fabrications and is total fiction. I invite John Gee to prove otherwise.

Kerry Muhlestein?? He probably doesn't know the first thing about the intricacies of Predynastic Egypt and very little about the first Dynasty. Muhlestein is a joke. He should not be an Egyptologist and should never be allowed to dig there again. Ever!

:mad:

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 1:26 wrote:Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days
Smith acts like he understood the Making of Egypt and its historical beginnings. But Smith is selling snake oil and fantasizing. Little doubt had the conman continued to live he would have written the Book of Joseph and more Book of Abraham installments for the Times and Seasons. Smith had more material in his possession ready to use but his work was cut short. Let's review some of this historical material that came from the mind of Joseph Smith which was kept by the presiding brethren and taken west and secured in the First Presidency vault for protection.


Valuable Discovery of
hiden reccords that have
been obtained from the ancient
buring place of the Egyptians
Joseph Smith Jr.

Valuable Discovery wrote:Katamin, Princess, daughter of On-i-tas -[Pharaoh King]-
of Egypt, ✦✦✦ who <​began to​> reigned in the year of the
world 2962.

Katumin was born in the 30th year of the reign of her
father, and died when she was 28 years old, which was
the year 3020.
Please note that so-called Pharaoh Onitas above is also categorized in the Grammar and Alphabet "coming down in lineage by royal descent, in a line by onitas one of the royal families of the Kings of Egypt".

Directly after that, the Grammar contains a bit from the Book of Abraham and tells how "The land of Egypt which was first discovered by a woman while underwater, and afterwards settled by her Sons she being a daughter of Ham".

All of this, of course, is Smith's fiction of what he wants his followers to believe concerning the origins of ancient Egypt. Smith gets to decide what happened and who was involved. Smith is clearly on the hook for writing pure fiction concerning Egypt's making. Historic details provided by Smith cannot be substantiated by Egyptology. It's NOT in the dirt! It it's not in the sand! It's all bogus:

1. King Onitas reigns in year 2962
2. Princess Katumin died at age 28 in year 3020

The above is utter nonsense concocted out of the creative head of Joseph Smith. It is NOT true. What a pity that Smith didn't publish it and later Woodruff would have canonized it. Regardless, it's still Smith's sacred work and was kept preserved for that purpose! It was not discarded as a thing of nought although apologists today trample on it like antiMormons trample on the Book of Mormon. How ironic!

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 »

It's interesting to note that the bit about king Onitis and princess Katumin mentioned above was simply more of the same kind of stuff (plenty of it) that we see in the making of the Book of Mormon. Lots of royal names, ages, and dates. Frankly, I don't believe the Book of Mormon anymore than I do the bit about Onitas and Katumin! It's pure fiction!

It seems Mormons today are grappling on what do with historical content such as the garden of Eden and how long man has been on the earth compared to the chronological data and the calendar of the bible. Even the Mormon temple ceremony states that those things about Adam and Eve are figurative so many Mormons can leave it at that and don't have to take it literal. But Joseph Smith took Adam and Eve and bible stories quite literally. Smith was a literalist unless he said otherwise and then he would point out the symbolism or what it represented. Smith definitely believed in the bible calendar of 4,000 years from Adam to Christ and D&C 77 punctuates that belief.

Now, for a matter of pure entertainment, let's confirm that Smith took the bible literally, the 4,000 years between Adam and Christ, the long lifespan of Adam, and MOST IMPORTANTLY the Making of Egypt outright dismisses what modern Egyptology has positively confirmed about Predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt. In other words, Mormonsism is an enemy to Egyptology just as John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein have become APOSTATE Egyptologists! They must recant or be defrocked!

Now consider the following REVELATIONS, straight from the loony head of Joseph Smith who confirms the 1,656 years of the early patriarchs prior to the flood and the ridiculous long life spans of the early patriarchs:

Adam age 130 begat Seth (Moses 6:10)
Seth age 69 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:42)
Seth age 105 begat Enos (Moses 6:13)
Enos age 90 begat Cainan (Moses 6:17)
Cainan age 40 called by God in the wilderness (D&C 107:45)
Enos age 134 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:44)
Cainan age 70 begat Mahalaleel (Moses 6:19)
Cainan age 87 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:45)
Mahalaleel age 65 begat Jared (Moses 6:20)
Jared age 162 begat Enoch (Moses 6:21)
Enoch age 25 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:48)
Jared age 200 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:47)
Enoch age 65 begat Methuselah (Moses 6:25)
Enoch age 65 was blessed by Adam (D&C 107:48)
Methuselah age 100 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:50)
Methuselah age 187 begat Lamech (Moses 8:5)
Mahalaleel age 496 was ordained by Adam (D&C 107:46)
Lamech age 32 was ordained by Seth (D&C 107:51)
Adam died at age 930 (Moses 6:12)
Seth died at age 912 (Moses 6:14,16)
Enoch age 430 was translated (D&C 107:49)
Lamech age 182 begat Noah (Moses 8:8)
Noah age 10 was ordained by Methuselah (D&C 107:52)
Enos died at age 905 (Moses 6:18)
Cainan died at age 910 (Moses 6:19)
Mahalaleel died at age 895 (Moses 6:20)
Jared died at age 962 (Moses 6:21)
Noah age 450 begat Japheth (Moses 8:12)
Noah age 492 begat Shem (Moses 8:12)
Lamech died at age 777 (Moses 8:11)
Noah age 500 begat Ham (Moses 8:12)
Methuselah died at age 969 (Moses 8:7)

1. Noah & wife
2. Ham & Egyptus
3. Grandson of Noah discovers the land of Egypt underwater and becomes the first king.


:lol:

What do you say about that, John Gee?
Last edited by Shulem on Sat Sep 05, 2020 8:48 am, 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 1:26 wrote:Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
"imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations"

If this were true we would find geological evidence of it in the DIRT and SAND of ancient Egypt. The Egyptians did not record the myth of Adam's long reign or Noah floating away on an ark. The Egyptians have no myth of a worldwide flood in which all animals were taken on Noah's ark in a two by two fashion in order to be saved from a flood. These historical myths are not found anywhere in the sand of Egypt. It's not a matter of Egyptian record. Nor is it a matter of imitating a priesthood order of a man who was cast out of a garden and lived over 900 years! The Egyptian priesthood is not based on a theme imagined by Joseph Smith. Not at all. The Egyptian priesthood comes from Egypt's gods. It comes from Re, the Sungod, and the primordial gods who brought all things into existence and caused the Nile to flow.

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

Pharaohs

Post by Shulem »

Book of Abraham 1:27 wrote:27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
:exclaim:

Smith makes a mistake of colossal proportion, so large and so vast, that no Egyptologist or historian could possibly endorse it or even consider the implications that there is a shred of truth to it. Not even John Gee can make it work.

My apprentice, RFM, are you there? Pull up a chair and listen up. This is major and I'm going to arm you with force lightening! Wipe them out, all of them! :twisted:

Note that Smith says "Pharaoh being of that lineage" is what barred him from receiving the same priesthood in which Abraham sought (see verse 4). That lineage supposedly goes back to Ham -- one of Noah's sons who rode the ark some 350 years prior. Abraham explains that Pharaoh had no right to the priesthood and then in his next breath reveals something so large and so important that the jaws of every Egyptologist should drop:

"Pharaohs would fain claim it"

I'm afraid my apprentice, RFM, fails to see what I'm talking about so I'll help you see more clearly:

"Pharaohs would fain claim it"

Abraham is not just talking about the idolatrous Pharaoh of his own day fain claiming the priesthood but ALL the Pharaohs (PLURAL) since the days of Ham!! And with that said, how may Pharaohs ruled Egypt over the course of 350 years? This implies a sure knowledge that the kings of Egypt would have known of HAM and details of this information would have been contained in Egyptian chronicles and in the records not just from the days of Ham but all the way to Abraham and THEREAFTER!!!

Sadly, for the Book of Abraham, there is no historical evidence of any kind to suggest that Pharaohs from the days of Ham all the way to Abraham and thereafter, fain claimed any kind of priesthood from the likeness of Noah who is nothing more than a myth.

Egyptology as explained in the Book of Abraham is a total joke and should be dismissed out of hand by any reasonable thinker.
Last edited by Shulem on Thu Sep 03, 2020 4:44 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 »

You will be destroyed!

Image

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 1:11 wrote:Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time, who were the daughters of Onitah, one of the royal descent directly from the loins of Ham. These virgins were offered up because of their virtue; they would not bow down to worship gods of wood or of stone, therefore they were killed upon this altar, and it was done after the manner of the Egyptians.
This story tells of three daughters who were princesses of king Onitah of the "royal" family, a line that can trace its "royal descent" from kings who presumably reigned in succession since the days of Ham who sought to establish an orderly system of patriarchal government (see verses 25,26).

QUESTIONS:

1. Why would three daughters of the royal house refuse to accept the state religion and honor the system of beliefs they were accustomed to?

2. What kind of father commits his daughters to be brutally sacrificed because they don't share certain religious views and prefer to not participate in those customs?

3. How many men do you know are capable of murdering their own children?

For me, Smith's story as told in the Book of Abraham doesn't ring true or make any sense -- it does not resonate with me. It feels wrong on so many levels. I know it's not true.

Post Reply