The Book of Abraham

[Elijah the Tishbite]

Did you say something...?

Oh, that's right... you're just here to sabotage the discussion.

But no... that's not what Moses 1:6 states.

Have you read Moses 1:6? ​

Moses 1:
6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine only begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

 

[Gordon]

Have you read Moses 1:6?

Have you?

It says there is none "beside" Him.

Beside: at the side of, next to

This does not mean 'none else in existence'.

 

[Richard7]

So your position is, so far:

1. By the gift and power God
2. There is a long and missing Scroll that actually reflects and compliments what is in the pages of the BoA
3. That Joseph could not read Egyptain
4. That Joseph never claimed he could read Egyptian
5. That the papyri are ancient Egyptain funerary texts on either side of facsimile 1

So Markk, when was the text identified as funeral text and by who, did not The Church identify thr text two months after receiving the facsimile.... please answer with who and the date when? The improvements Era ran an article two months after the discovery and stated some of it was funeral text....why are the critic accusing the church of a cover up... oh my!

Are we good so far. If 5 is true what is facsimile 1, 2, and 3....if not funerary texts?

All except papyrus 1 could be comparable to funeral text...

Do you believe Abraham is mentioned anywhere in the papyri or facsimiles? I did not comment on this in my OP, but I believes name is nowhere to be found on the papyri or facsimiles.

Thanks

His name is not mentioned I believe..

 

[Richard7]

So he took a totally unrelated egyptian funerary text scroll, wrote down some other text, and claimed that was the translation from God.

This is out of your wheelhouse...unrelated text? Chuckle... your lost somewhere in make no sense land... oh my!

Did he really believe he was getting a revelation from God? Or did he think no one else would know what it meant, so he could get away with it.

And if that’s what God had meant it to say, why wasn’t it written that way in the first place?

Because it was just a funerary text. That’s why.

Joseph Smith was a con man. Like Mark Hoffman. Smith just got away with it a little longer.

Research the long scroll and learn some history before speculating with such a limited amount of knowledge... chucking

 

[Richard7]

Well, that is just false. We can discuss it with great accuracy and understanding if you want to. In Joseph Smith's time your statement would be valid in that Egyptain could not be read or understood yet, but know it can, and a very basic understanding can be understood with not too much effort.

You assertion that "most" Egyptologists do not know as much as they claim is ridiculous....they language and script can now be spoken and read, and their are universities, museums, and institutes around the world dedicated to the study, not to mention all the books, journals and peer reviewed papers available with simple searches.

Why is it ridiculous, only maybe one nonmember Egyptologist really did any real research, if you have other names then it should be a proble to name them and their research materials, we shall wait for your reply, good buddy

What she wrote is 1000% true, and can be easily shown which I intend to do, and the reason for this thread. As in my OP, JS bought several mummies, and along with the mummies were Papyri, with were instructions; basically a passport with instructions and magical incantations and spells to help the person/mummy navigate through the underworld or "Duat" in order the be in the end judge by what is called the weighing of the heart. Where their heart is literally weighed on a scale against a feather of goddess. If the heart is lighter that the feather they will basically be declared righteous, if not they will be devoured by an evil god and lose their soul. And by all means don't believe me, do a simple search and do a simple read. I'll paste a good place to start below.

What facsimilie are you speaking of..

The scale depicts a heart and a feather, it's being balanced against truth and justice...

.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2003-Michael-Rhodes.pdf

I plan to get into this in more detail and show just how true Magdalena's statement is.

You posted from a website that is just comically inaccurate and wrong at so many levels, and really rather embarrassing, and I will show you why as we get going. I went to the website and commented and the owner edited my comments and banned me from further comments, at least so far. I pointed out the erect phallus in the line drawing that is most likely a line drawing from a temple or tomb wall scene that depicts Osiris coming to life, and she said it was distasteful, LOL, when she pasted a line drawing with Osiris with the erect phallus. But, I will explain the importance of this as we move forward. It is an important part of Egyptain mythology and a similar depiction of another god on facsimile 2 will show it.

But moving forward, you sated that Facsimile 1 is not a funerary scene (vignette), which is fine, that is your opinion that we can discuss it through, so also in your opinion are the other two vignettes funerary texts or not? Answer this question and hopefully Ralf will answer the last questions I asked him, and Gordon said he will post this weekend his position, then we can get started.

You're way in over your head again, so be prepared for another takedown Markk

 

[Gordon]

The person in figure 1 in clearly a woman

"Clearly", eh? Did you ask them their personal pronouns?

We have Akhenaten, a male pharaoh, historically depicted as a female, and Hatshepsut, a female, depicted as a male. Go figure

Isis, the sister/wife of Osiris.

Isis was called the "Pharaohess of Egypt" by JS's time, and was known as the "ruler of Egypt" (ḥḳꜣt mnḫt ḥr nst ỉt=s).

The words above her head

Are not actually legible.

While Ritner did not provide a hieroglyphic transcription, Rhodes did...yet it doesn't even come close to what was reproduced by Hedlock. William Flinders Petrie, the well-known British Egyptologist, stated "the inscriptions are far too badly copied to be able to read them".

 

[Richard7]

"Clearly", eh? Did you ask them their personal pronouns?

We have Akhenaten, a male pharaoh, historically depicted as a female, and Hatshepsut, a female, depicted as a male. Go figure

I had already posted this same information, he (Markk) wishes not to deal in facts... oh my!

Isis was called the "Pharaohess of Egypt" by JS's time, and was known as the "ruler of Egypt" (ḥḳꜣt mnḫt ḥr nst ỉt=s).
Are not actually legible.

While Ritner did not provide a hieroglyphic transcription, Rhodes did...yet it doesn't even come close to what was reproduced by Hedlock. William Flinders Petrie, the well-known British Egyptologist, stated "the inscriptions are far too badly copied to be able to read them".

Good post....

 

[Gordon]

I had already posted this same information

Nice

 

[Markk]

We have Akhenaten, a male pharaoh, historically depicted as a female, and Hatshepsut, a female, depicted as a male.

These were real his historical figures. The former was deformed, and shown as who he was, a man with big hips. The later asked to be depicted for respect, because she was one of the first female Pharaohs and wanted the respect. This is just apples and oranges.

If you look at facsimile 3, as most always Isis is depicted with Osiris with his distinctive crown, and her sun disk representing deity in the mythical Egyptian pantheon of gods. There are countless such depictions, and Dr. Ritner goes into detail why Here . The words above her head here do not read King Pharaoh, but “Isis the great, the god’s mother.” I will discuss "King Pharoh" and what that implies in Egyptain later.





Dr. Ritner read it, as did Rhodes, and he is not even an Egyptologist. Their conclusions are common with this scene.

How does your assertion above, erase all the evidence of the countless depictions of Isis?

I'll paste a few more in my next post, randomly with a simple search...."Isis, Osiris, Book of breathing" (images)

 

[Markk]

 

[Magdalena]

Have you?

It says there is none "beside" Him.

Beside: at the side of, next to

This does not mean 'none else in existence'.

Beside: other than, apart from, in addition to.

 

[Magdalena]

This is out of your wheelhouse...unrelated text? Chuckle... your lost somewhere in make no sense land... oh my!



Research the long scroll and learn some history before speculating with such a limited amount of knowledge... chucking

I’ve probably read more than you have about it over the years. So I gave you the abbreviated explanation. Markk will be generous enough to cover the facts for you again. Prepare to apologize.

 

[Markk]

Isis was called the "Pharaohess of Egypt" by JS's time, and was known as the "ruler of Egypt" (ḥḳꜣt mnḫt ḥr nst ỉt=s).

The Papyri if indeed written by Abraham, was written in around 2000 BCE, I am not sure what you point is. How did she rule Egypt being a mythical Goddess? In JS's time Mohamad Ali was the ruler and father of modern Egypt from what I read. Again what is your point?

Thanks

 

[The Prophet]

Have you?

It says there is none "beside" Him.

Beside: at the side of, next to

This does not mean 'none else in existence'.

If there is no God besides him, yes no other God in existence ​

 

[Theo1689]

Have you?

It says there is none "beside" Him.

Back in the 17th century, when the KJV was translated, the word, "beside" was a synonym for "besides":

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

BESI'DE, preposition [be and side, by the side.]​

1. At the side of a person or thing; near; as, sit down beside me, or beside the stream.​

2. Over and above; distinct from.​

Beside all this, between us and you, there is a great gulf fixed. Luke 16:26.​

You cite Moses, which was quite obviously influenced by the KJV.
But this (worthless) argument is used by some Mormons to discount all the "only one God" passages in the OT and NT.

As an example, if we look at:

Deut. 32:39 ... and there is no god beside me; ... (ESV)​

As far as I can figure, the Hebrew is literally, "no God with me".
There is no meaning of physical "along side".
In fact, the KJV actually translates it, "There is no god with me".

Beside: at the side of, next to
This does not mean 'none else in existence'.

Except that is NOT what the Hebrew means.
And since you can't show us the underlying "Reformed Egyptian"...

 

[Markk]

Are not actually legible.

While Ritner did not provide a hieroglyphic transcription, Rhodes did...yet it doesn't even come close to what was reproduced by Hedlock. William Flinders Petrie, the well-known British Egyptologist, stated "the inscriptions are far too badly copied to be able to read them".

Here is some context....

While Hedlock appears to have donea fairly commendable job accurately reproducing the facsimiles (at leastbased on a comparison of Facsimile 1 with the extant original papyrus),he also made some noticeable mistakes.1

So what were these mistakes?

In regard to "Flinders Petrie" this is what he wrote in context of Fax.3....Here

​

"Number 3 is the very common scene of the dead person before the judgment seat of Osiris, which occurs in most copies of the funeral papyri:

1. Is Osiris in the usual form.

2. Is Isis behind him.

3. Is the stand of offerings with lotus flowers.

4. Is the Goddess Nebat or Maat (too badly drawn to know which).

5. Is the dead person.

6. Is the God Anubis, the conductor of the souls of the dead.

The inscriptions are far too badly copied to be able to read them.

To any one with knowledge of the large class of funeral documents to which these belong, the attempts to guess a meaning for them, in the professed explanations, are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations.

If any one wishes to verify the matter, they have only to ask any of the curators of Egyptian museums. Prof. Breasted of Chicago, Dr. Lythgoe of New York, or any one else who knows the subject. None but the ignorant could possibly be imposed on by such ludicrous blunders.

Pray make any use you like of this letters."
Dr. W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE.
London University.

I would think that in any responsible paper, that uses Petrie that way the LDS apologists did would note the context in full. I can't help but believe that they either did not follow this through to the source, or that they were just pacifying members that need an answer knowing they will not check it out. I'll let you decide, I know what I believe.

 

[Markk]

Good post....

You might want to read what Petrie actually said, read post #56

Thanks

 

[Markk]

Why is it ridiculous, only maybe one nonmember Egyptologist really did any real research, if you have other names then it should be a proble to name them and their research materials, we shall wait for your reply, good buddy

Ralf, you honestly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Be careful what you ask for. I am not sure you are emotionally ready for this.

Your reply to this post will determine what I paste in regard to you question. I'll give you the research material now, The Book of Abraham as written and the papyri.

 

[Markk]

What facsimilie are you speaking of..

The scale depicts a heart and a feather, it's being balanced against truth and justice...

.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2003-Michael-Rhodes.pdf

#3

This is what Rhodes wrote....

...." I'll show you that in a moment. Facsimile three portrays, simply, the next step in that process, after the weighing of the soul, or the heart in the case of Egyptians, you are brought into the presence of Osiris. '..." Who in fax 3 was sitting on the throne with Isis his wife, behind him.

That is 100% true, which also means JS's description is false. Note that most of Rhodes paper is false, but he got this correct, it is the end chapel in the Book of Breathings.

 

[Markk]

So Markk, when was the text identified as funeral text and by who, did not The Church identify thr text two months after receiving the facsimile.... please answer with who and the date when? The improvements Era ran an article two months after the discovery and stated some of it was funeral text....why are the critic accusing the church of a cover up... oh my!

If I remember correctly around 1860 is. There was also a NY Times article around 1912 or so. I have told you this more than once


Here is one in very famous an respected Egyptologists stating it well before the church did, he died in 1942.

To any one with knowledge of the large class of funeral documents to which these belong, the attempts to guess a meaning for them, in the professed explanations, are too absurd to be noticed. It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations.

If any one wishes to verify the matter, they have only to ask any of the curators of Egyptian museums. Prof. Breasted of Chicago, Dr. Lythgoe of New York, or any one else who knows the subject. None but the ignorant could possibly be imposed on by such ludicrous blunders.

Pray make any use you like of this letters."
Dr. W. M. FLINDERS PETRIE.
London University.

And another in 1863

The explanation (?) is from the pen of Joseph Smith. In 1863 Theodul Deveris, a French scholar, gave the following explanation:

Figure 1. The soul of Osiris under the firm of a hawk. 2. Osiris coming to life on his funeral couch which is in the shape of a Lion. 3. The god Anubis effecting the resurrection of Osiris. 4. The funeral bed of Osiris under which are placed the four sepulchral vessels called cunopes, each of them surmounted by the head of the four geni. 5. Kebh-son-iw, with a hawk's head. 6. Tiomantew, with a jackal's head. 7. Hopi with a dog's head. 8. Amset with a human head. 9. The sacred crocodile, symbolic of the god Sabet. 10. Altar laden with offerings. 11. An ornament peculiar to Egyptian art. 12. Customary representation of ground in Egyptian paintings. (The word Shauman is not Egyptian.)

If you want more there are more, just ask.