"Facsimile 3 Figure 6 ????? Slave On The Path Of Ascension" -- Apologists strike back defending Book of Abraham Facsimile!

[_Shulem]

KUDOS, KUDOS, KUDOS with your Judo against the twit apologist imagining he is a scholar (trying to please Midgley perhaps who confuses the two as well?) Shulem slam dunk massacre against the apologetic clap trap.

Philo baby, thanks for that -- I know you understand as much as anyone about this stuff. I also know you often pick stuff up by following my lead and enjoy my quips and nuggets. You and I go back a looooong way with our Book of Abraham stuff. We have been there and done that! lol

Frankly, I feel a little guilty, like I'm beating someone up, mercilessly. I hope, that I don't come across as cruel. I'm passionate about this subject as you know. But I need to remember that the author of that site is human just like I am and is trying to defend what I used to defend myself. I feel somewhat humbled in this regard.

There is more to address in that article. AND, I haven't even addressed the apologetic response about the snout being scraped away from the printing plate. That is when I might really get upset. Will I flip out? I don't want to be cruel but I'm afraid that I might lash out in a cruel manner.

I don't want to do that.

Any advice you want to offer? I'm all ears.

:confused:

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think one of the better cudgels you've developed is how Mormons have disrespected the ancient Egyptian religion by taking Anubis and making him a slave. Not only do they prove themselves insanely disrespectful with their deicide, but you get a two-fer with the racism. It's absolutely brilliant what you've done with this.

- Doc

[_Shulem]

I think one of the better cudgels you've developed is how Mormons have disrespected the ancient Egyptian religion by taking Anubis and making him a slave. Not only do they prove themselves insanely disrespectful with their deicide, but you get a two-fer with the racism. It's absolutely brilliant what you've done with this.

- Doc

Yes, and thanks for that. Indeed, Facsimile No. 3 is really the best place to begin dismantling the whole of the Book of Abraham. We can talk about the thickness of the papyrus until the cows jump over the moon -- to no avail -- or all the silly parallels made up by modern apologists but in the end all that really matters is WHAT Joseph Smith said and claimed.

I'm here to throw Joseph Smith under the bus and run him over, again and again. I love to run the prophet over with the Facsimile No. 3 Bus. It's fun and very satisfying.

Hey, all you apologist out there, bite me!

:biggrin:

[_Philo Sofee]

KUDOS, KUDOS, KUDOS with your Judo against the twit apologist imagining he is a scholar (trying to please Midgley perhaps who confuses the two as well?) Shulem slam dunk massacre against the apologetic clap trap.

Philo baby, thanks for that -- I know you understand as much as anyone about this stuff. I also know you often pick stuff up by following my lead and enjoy my quips and nuggets. You and I go back a looooong way with our Book of Abraham stuff. We have been there and done that! lol

Frankly, I feel a little guilty, like I'm beating someone up, mercilessly. I hope, that I don't come across as cruel. I'm passionate about this subject as you know. But I need to remember that the author of that site is human just like I am and is trying to defend what I used to defend myself. I feel somewhat humbled in this regard.

There is more to address in that article. AND, I haven't even addressed the apologetic response about the snout being scraped away from the printing plate. That is when I might really get upset. Will I flip out? I don't want to be cruel but I'm afraid that I might lash out in a cruel manner.

I don't want to do that.

Any advice you want to offer? I'm all ears.

:confused:

Yes, I do have a piece of advice... absolutely totally without mercy decimate, slaughter, destroy, and annihilate the argument......yet be kind to the person making it. Show no mercy for the stupidity of the argument, using evidence to show its weaknesses, silliness, illogicalness, etc., but still remain humane to the person using the argument. They honestly may not know better.

[Guest]

Figure 4, Maat, whom Joseph Smith correctly associated with the Prince of Pharaoh holds the hand of Shulem as if attempting to lead him to Figure 2.

This is an outright LIE. The apologist is a liar. Smith INCORRECTLY associated and named the person as a Prince of Pharaoh. Truth be told, there is no Pharaoh in the scene! The personage of Hor is paying homage to Osiris and is not labeled as a prince of the royal house of Egypt. That is Joseph Smith's concoction and the apologist is lying when he says it's correct. Everything Smith said about Fig. 4 is completely INCORRECT:

"Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand."

No, she is not a prince. She is a goddess by the name of Isis as in the label above. She is not holding the hand of a person named "Shulem". That is a lie. She is female, not male. She has a vagina, not a penis! She is not the prince of any earthly king. Joseph Smith was dead wrong.

As previously discussed, Joseph Smith was correct to identify this Figure 4 as the Prince of Figure 2, but as far as Anubis is concerned this would more appropriately be associated with Nepthys, sister of Isis. The deceased Egyptian frequently is displayed between Isis and Nepthys, as they are the facilitators of the final rebirth of Osiris. The typical lion couch scene, Facsimile 1, frequently shows the recumbent Egyptian mummy laying between Isis and Nepthys–while our Facsimile 1 shows him between Horus (husband of Isis) and Anubis (son of Nepthys). The right side of Facsimile 1 is day, the left side night. Isis, Nepthys, and Anubis are strategically located in our Facsimile 3 diagram according to their roles of ascension and descension.

Hey, how about the apologist submit this statement to a credible academic journal of Egyptology. Let's see just how far it goes. Submit Joseph Smith's Explanations too. Let's see how far they go.

[Guest]

“Many Greco-Roman temples to Isis and Serapis also acknowledged Anubis, sometimes as a healing deity.. Plutarch, in discussing the division of the day and night between Isis and Nepthys, suggested that Anubis was considered to the horizon line running between day and night, touching both and partaking of their natures.” (The Mysteries of Isis: Her Worship and Magick, DeTraci Rehula)

The apologist is spouting a reference to real Egyptology in an effort to make their apologetic article seem credible and somehow make Smith's Facsimile Explanations correct. But the fact is that Smith NEVER said any of the above! Smith Knew nothing of the above! Smith said something entirely different.

Anubis is therefore the horizontal line running directly sideways though the Facsimile 2 circle, dividing upper registers from upside-down lower registers. The boat in the upper right is the ascent from night, the morning sun. Anubis here in Facsimile 3 corresponds with this ascent. Anubis the guide helps the deceased rise and become judge among the gods in the celestial world.

But why did Joseph Smith indicate the deceased is not ascending?

The apologist admits that the person in the Facsimile is ANUBIS. That is all that matters! Everything Joseph Smith said was garbage and doesn't matter. The question of descending or ascending is pointless. The question is designed to distract readers and lead them down a garden path of deception. The deception is: Anubis is a slave by the name of Olimlah!

[_Shulem]

The Christian Slaves Of Anubis

If Joseph Smith were making this all up, the names still couldn’t be considered random.

"IF"?

There is no ifs about it, buddy. Joseph Smith made it all up! The names Smith tendered in the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are fictitious and entirely made up. Why do I say that? Because they are NOT written in the hieroglyphic writing of the vignette as designated by Smith's Explanation and they aren't even Egyptian! So, we have nonEgyptian names written on a sacred religious document portraying gods of Egypt presiding in heaven.

So, what was that you were saying about "IF" Smith was making this all up?

He made it all up! How so?



Whether Smith's false "revelation" was random or unrandom makes no difference. That is all beside the point. The point is that Smith's revelation was WRONG. I can prove that by what is written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 as it fails to correspond to what Smith said it said.

[_Shulem]

Joseph Smith had recently studied Hebrew when he started to get into the Book of Abraham and translated the Facsimiles. He knew basic ancient Hebrew.

How is studying Hebrew going to help someone be able to "translate" Egyptian hieroglyphics? I've studied the Egyptian language myself very carefully and can't for the life of me figure how an understanding of Hebrew aids in translating Egyptian.

Who the “F” cares that Joseph studied Hebrew!

I don't care!

Egyptologists don't care!

So shut the hell up you liar!

[_Shulem]

“Shulem” obviously is related to the popular Hebrew word Shalom.

Yep, probably so. Joseph studied Hebrew. But Joseph knew jack-crap about Egyptian!

“Omilah” likewise can be assumed to purposely be related to Hebrew. He must have been well aware of the meaning–not ascending. Perhaps that explains why he said this Figure was a “slave.” Slave is a pretty strong word.

The apologist is in a dream state making ASSumptions. It doesn't matter to me what Smith assumed! He was wrong. His attempt to mingle the Hebrew language with Egyptian hieroglyphs was an abomination and utterly false. The Egyptian language bares no relation to Hebrew. The Hebrew is NOT written anywhere in the writing of the sacred text of Facsimile No. 3.

Yes, the word "SLAVE" is a pretty strong word. I agree! Anubis is anything but a slave. Anubis is the OPPOSITE of a slave. Joseph Smith was dead wrong. His revelation and his Hebrew terminology being applied to Egyptian pagan spells is utterly 100% false.

He said Figure 5 was a “principal waiter” which meant servant. So we already know the deceased was destined to servitude. Now we get a slave? A slave does not ascend–they are stuck in a low position, damned. Perhaps Joseph Smith was describing the state of the deceased as he related to Anubis.

The apologist is spitting and sputtering in a vain attempt to justify Smith's false Explanations of Hor and Anubis. It's very sad to see such intellectual dishonestly at play.

[Guest]

Slaves As Anubis – If Facsimile 3 indeed relates to some kind of ritual which Abraham experienced in his lifetime, a slave may have served the role of Anubis in the Egyptian ceremony. A slave contract found in the Temple of Anubis describes a “monthly rent for divine protection”:

“I am your servant from this day onwards, and I shall give you 2 1/2 kite [copper pieces] every month for my rent of service before Anubis the great god.” (Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion)

According to H.S. Versnel, this contract “makes a slave free by ‘consecrating’ him to a god or goddess.” Researchers have found “slaves were freed by religious dedication to” gods including “Isis and Anubis.” It could be a slave served this role in order to “ascend” to freedom. This was especially happening later in Hellenistic times, around when the Hor scroll which likely gave us Facsimile 3 dates to.

"IF"

There are no ifs about it. Anubis is NOT a "slave"!

:rolleyes:

Edited to be more kind as per Philo's suggestion:

The apologetic attempt to connect Egyptology with Smith's assertion that Fig. 6 is a "slave" is a desperate attempt in defending the indefensible. It's extremely disrespectful to equate the Egyptian god with that of a "slave".

Here is a taste of their own medicine:

1. Christ is a SLAVE.
2. God the Father, is a SLAVE, a negro!

Mormons are negros!