Re: I believe John Gee is cracking...
Posted: Thu May 18, 2023 5:21 am
If Smith employed a name taken from Greek mythology, what name should he have used if he based his origin story on the actual Egyptian language?
Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Critics, Apologists, and Never-Mo's all welcome!
https://discussmormonism.com/
If Smith employed a name taken from Greek mythology, what name should he have used if he based his origin story on the actual Egyptian language?
Shulem wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 4:11 amLet’s talk about the *BC DATE* in which Smith gave for when Noah floated and Kemet was discovered by “EGYPTUS” and let’s discuss this as it relates to the long periods known as predynastic Egypt and the eventual Unification of both Upper and Lower Egypt. Tell me, Dr. Gee, do your colleagues find Abraham chapter one useful in better understanding Egypt’s making as they compare that with Smith’s chronology?
Alphus and Omegus wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 8:57 pmIt doesn't matter what scroll theory you want to believe. The canonized English text of the Book of Abraham is littered with scores of anthropological and historical errors: Egyptus; a person named Pharaoh; a statement that the Noahic Flood covered Egypt; total ignorance of "Kemet," the actual ancient Egyptian word for Egypt; totally wrong timelines, made up divine beings and words, I could go on and on.
Shulem wrote: ↑Sun May 14, 2023 3:59 pmIt may feel ancient to Peterson who is a brainwashed fool, but the founder of ancient Egypt as named in the Book of Abraham is Egyptus, a name that had not been spoken or written during the time Joseph Smith incorrectly claimed the Black Land (Kemet) was founded in 2300 BC.
These are great citations, Shulem. I had not seen the Adam Clarke reference before, it's very significant.Shulem wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 8:34 pmShulem wrote: ↑Wed Dec 28, 2022 5:38 pmInformed readers know the name-title of “Pharaoh” (Great House) is misused in Joseph Smith’s translations and is an anachronism in the Book of Abraham. The very word “Pharaoh” does not belong in Abraham’s time and Smith’s definition of what it signifies is incorrect:
And now, without further ado, I’m going to cite what I believe is the exact reference in which Smith borrowed to define “Pharaoh” in the Egyptian tongue. We need look no further than Josephus in whom Smith used to enhance his understanding of the Bible:
Thus, Joseph Smith never properly translated anything pertaining to the Egyptian language. He simply dumped his own ideas into the mix and borrowed from others to produce his own work. He was a creative thief.
Joseph Smith was very informed -- he knew the works of Josephus and moreover the Adam Clarke Commentary was certainly the most choice guide in which he depended heavily in understanding archaic matters pertaining to the Old Testament. Smith spent a great deal of time combing through the Book of Genesis and wouldn’t have done that without consulting Adam Clarke:
Genesis 12:15 wrote:The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.Adam Clarke Commentary, Genesis 12:15 wrote:The woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house. — Pharaoh appears to have been the common appellative of the Cuthite shepherd kings of Egypt, who had conquered this land, as is conjectured, about seventy-two years before this time. The word is supposed to signify king in the ancient Egyptian language.
Thus, we see that Joseph Smith depended on Josephus & Adam Clarke for his definition of the word/name “Pharoah” and in doing so he adopted their error into his phony-baloney Book of Abraham!
Isn’t that right, Dr. Gee?
Alphus and Omegus wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:12 pmThese are great citations, Shulem. I had not seen the Adam Clarke reference before, it's very significant.
Abraham 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 Hill, at the head of the plain of Olishem.
Adam Clarke Commentary Ex 7:22 wrote:As it is well known that the Nile was a chief object of Egyptian idolatry, (See Clarke's note on Exodus 7:15;), and that annually they sacrificed a girl, or as others say, both a boy and a girl, to this river, in gratitude for the benefits received from it, (Universal Hist., vol. i., p. 178, fol. edit).
Alphus and Omegus wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 2:12 pmI think it is worth considering that by the time that Josephus was writing, it was the case that "pharaoh" was another word for king in Egyptian. It just was not when Abram supposedly existed.
But the presence of "pharaoh" in Genesis is an indicator that it also is an untrue later account. And it's clear that Clarke was similarly misled by the Hebrew legends about Israel which were not true. Smith was just following his blind guide.
Rhodes wrote:One of the most difficult aspects of teaching the book of Abraham is dealing with the three facsimiles found there.
Rhodes wrote:These Egyptian documents can be reliably dated to somewhere between 220 and 150 b.c. on the basis of the handwriting, the historical period in which the religious writings on these papyri were in use in Egypt, and the historical references to at least one of the original owners of the papyri.
Rhodes wrote:They cannot possibly date to the period of Abraham—around 2000 to 1800 b.c.
Rhodes wrote:Modern Egyptologists maintain that the facsimiles do not at all represent what Joseph Smith said they do.
Rhodes wrote:What about Joseph Smith’s interpretations of the three facsimiles? Are they valid? Do they make sense?
Rhodes wrote:It is also important to remember that we do not have the original illustrations made by Abraham; rather, we have copies made nearly two thousand years later, with the consequent problems of changes and distortions.
Rhodes wrote:I have shown that Joseph Smith correctly interpreted items found on the three facsimiles of the book of Abraham and that ancient sources also associated Abraham with all of these illustrations.
ELDER JOSEPH E. ROBINSON. General conference, October 1914 wrote: Just now, almost within the confines of the City of the Angels, in California, is the greatest archaeological find known to modern times. Bones are being disinterred there that, in the mind of the scientist and paleontologist, have determined the fact that here on this western hemisphere life began, both that of the beast of the field, the fowl of the air and of human kind.
ELDER JOSEPH E. ROBINSON. General conference, October 1914 wrote: But these things have gone to determine in the minds of men that America was the home of the human race, and the home where God first set His creatures free. From this land, Maya tradition tells us, as told by Le Plongeon, in his "Queen Moo" civilization was taken to Egypt. This was possibly by Egyptus — as recorded in the Pearl of Great Price, and the riddle is thus solved where Egypt and Egyptians obtained their civilization, and the wondrous knowledge of astronomy, of surveying, of agriculture, of medicine, etc., it came from America, the land from whence Noah sailed when he with his family embarked in the ark, when the waters of the great deep were broken up and the lands both of the old and the new world, so called, were inundated.
Wikipedia wrote:Other Latter-day Saints hold to the "catalyst theory," which hypothesizes that Smith's "study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham", allowing him to "translate" the Book of Abraham from the Breathing Permit of Hôr papyrus by inspiration without actually relying on the papyrus' textual meaning. This theory draws theological basis from Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible, wherein in the course of rereading the first few chapters of Genesis, he dictated as a revelatory translation the much longer Book of Moses.
Donald Trump proved there is a clamoring market for an alternative reality to known facts. Why should devout believers be stuck with academic Egyptology when Mormonism offers a Q-alternative? Mormons are a peculiar people, so why should their education not be equally special?
Moksha wrote: ↑Tue May 23, 2023 7:54 pmDonald Trump proved there is a clamoring market for an alternative reality to known facts. Why should devout believers be stuck with academic Egyptology when Mormonism offers a Q-alternative? Mormons are a peculiar people, so why should their education not be equally special?