Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

[_Shulem]

Because you people have heads on your shoulders and have the capacity to actually think about what I'm saying. This is the one place where I have a remote chance of actually getting through to someone. Apologists that are stuck on missing papyri are not honest seekers of truth. You people happen to actually care about truth. That is something that I have in common with you.

Divine inspiration and enlightenment has always been absent from the collective LDS authoritative leadership. Neither is it found in academic apologetic arms that want to save the authoritative dead-heads that pretend through their testimonies to be prophets, seers, and translators.

I can assure you that the dead-head apostles, prophets, and translators of the LDS church have been squarely in the camp of the missing papyrus theory. They do not seek truth. They seek to maintain power, perpetuate the faith-lies, and continue with their testimonies at all cost. They are no better than the apologists.

The whole thing is a lie. It started with Joseph Smith. He lied about everything. He had lots of help too. I can assure you that Joseph Smith would condemn your research and cast you out as an apostate. Of that I have no doubt.

[_Shulem]

Either there is a king's name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 or there is not. Either Joseph Smith said it or he did not. Either Joseph Smith claimed it or he did not. Either Joseph Smith believed it or he did not.

I don't give a damn what the LDS apologists say today. They are at odds with Joseph Smith and old Mormonism. New Mormonism headed by apologists does not Trump the original.

The buck stops with Joseph Smith, period. The apologists do not speak for Joseph Smith. He has already spoken and we know he lied. We have proven Joseph Smith's own words and beliefs to be lies and fabrications. Today's apologists are new cultist trying to maintain a dead cult.

[_grindael]

Hieratic script is NOT really "little pictures" of things.

Oh, but they most certainly are.

No, they are not. As Eric Gill has so perfectly stated: ‘Letters are things, not pictures of things’ You are simply a confused buffoon, who wants them to be what YOU want them to be.

They are cursive versions of the hieroglyphic uniliteral, biliteral, triliteral (single-consonantal, bi-consonantal, and tri-consonantal) and determinative signs.

No they are not "versions", they are representations of ideas. One using pictures and another using cursive symbols. In what universe are these "versions" of one another? (hint: not in this one) Your statement above is completely redundant. I'll leave it to you to figure out why.

Each and every one of these is a little picture of something.

No they are not. The heiroglyphics are PICTURES of things, the Hieratic is a cursive, a shorthand that developed at the same time.

You have no idea what you are talking about, and your statement is absolutely asinine. Go read the most basic book on Egyptian grammar.

I have, you have not with any kind of comprehension. You are an ignorant buffoon who wants them to be something they are not. Even wiki is smarter than you are:

In the Proto-Dynastic Period of Egypt, hieratic first appeared and developed alongside the more formal hieroglyphic script. It is an error to view hieratic as a derivative of hieroglyphic writing. Indeed, the earliest texts from Egypt are produced with ink and brush, with no indication their signs are descendants of hieroglyphs. True monumental hieroglyphs carved in stone did not appear until the 1st Dynasty, well after hieratic had been established as a scribal practice.

The two writing systems were invented parallel to each other:

letter = cursive symbol (hieratic)
letter = picture (hieroglyphic)

Do we have whole documents made using alternate concepts of words or letters?

That's not at all what the claim is. In the Psalms in the Hebrew Bible you have acrostics which are literary mappings of single Hebrew characters to paragraphs of text. This is akin to what is going on in the KEP, where you have mappings to characters for artistic purposes, for decorating text with characters for artistic, literal purposes.

This is simply your own invented fantasy. How does this acrostic work? Here is how a normal acrostic would work:

The result is always the same. It is MADE to be understood. In your invented fantasy, you come up with an arbitrary text that no one but you can fathom. You can't show ONE example of when this was ever done before, how it was done, or who invented it. You are just a loon who doesn't understand language development, or anything related to it.

Don't be a retard.

I'm not the one coming up with loony theories that have zero evidence to support them. You are doing that all by yourself.

I ask you to really think about what I just said in this paragraph. If you can't get what I just said, you are truly a retard.

It is gobbledygook. It literally means nothing. NO ONE ELSE can "get what you said" either. You don't have ONE PERSON who agrees with your wacky theory. NOT ONE.

I ask any of you who claim to be academics to think about what I just said, really carefully in contrast to Mr. Retard grinadel here that thinks he knows what I'm saying, who doesn't know the first thing about what he thinks he is criticizing. Where in this statement did I state that these characters "contained" anything, or had some "alternate" meaning to them?

Yeah, and you have just tons of academics lining up to support your wacky crap. You said it here, dipwad:

But the point of this letter puzzle composition was not about what the letters/characters spelled out. It was the creative way they were paired up with the assigned values that they were paired up with. And the ingenious connections that the characters have with these assigned values. The characters themselves, in this type of usage, are utterly abstract. They are empty pictographs, until a researcher chooses to see that there are meaningful relationships between the assigned values and these pictographs.

That means that the characters DO mean something. You are "assigning" a "value" to them. You are just assigning some abstract made up value that has nothing to do with anything that anyone ever did before. It is all made up BS. Wacky parallelomania. Why? Because NO OTHER RESEARCHER, EVER is going to come up with your idiotic formula. It like leaving a copy of "Mary had a Little Lamb" in a grave, which someone digs up a thousand years later, and then a buffoon comes along and says it isn't really about Mary and a lamb with fleece as white as snow, it is about a ninja penguiin in a snowstorm in Antarctica. That is the stupid BS you are peddling. It is beyond juvenile. White fleece is really snow! White fleece is really snow! White fleece is really snow! Mary is a ninja penguin! Why, because a moron came along and "assigned abstract values" to it. That's why.

Don't be an idiot.

Don't worry, you have the market cornered there.

The Hebrew Alphabet does not translate to the Psalms, and in like manner, the Sensen Papyrus characters do not translate to the Book of Abraham. They are used in an art-form manner in the same stinking kind of way that the Hebrew Alphabet is used in the Psalms. This is not a hard concept. But to Mr. Grinadel, it is lost on him, because he truly is a retard. Mr. Grinadel must think the Hebrew Alphabet can magically translate to the Psalms and this is what Biblical Scholars must be thinking when they suggest that there is an acrostic in the Psalms. Don't be an idiot.

Again, you have the market cornered in that department. The relationship of the Hebrew Alphabet to the Psalms has ZERO to do with your idiotic Abraham BS. This is a massive red herring.

We can actually SEE and study this evidence for ourselves, we don't have to take his word for it, we don't have to rely on someone claiming that ABSTRACT, ALTERNATE meanings for the heiratic somehow translates into the Book of Abraham and that Joseph KNEW this and that is what his GAEL is all about.

You really are stupid. It is as abstract usage of Sensen characters as the usage of the Hebrew Alphabet is abstract when used as an acrostic. You are a stupid idiot and have no stinking idea what you are criticizing. I have no problem calling you a retard. And if the rest of you can't get it, the rest of you are stupid idiots too. Listen to what I'm saying, and read it. If you can't comprehend, its because you are all true idiots. If you aren't, and you truly are academicians as you claim, then act like it and read what I just wrote here. Otherwise, I say you are all idiots. It is the most simple concept in the world to comprehend. Read it.

And you are the Mad Hatter, because NO ONE can understand any of your ABSTRACT gobbledygook. It is beyond stupid. Everyone on this thread has explained why, but you are the only person who will ever promote it because NO ONE else would ever be stupid enough to do so. Carry on dipwad. Gobble, gobble...

[_Choyo Chagas]

... something worthy to note ...

but nobody will read it all
please make a presentation or a podcast
that ways are for the average illiterates

[_Shulem]

Either there is a king's name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 or there is not. Either Joseph Smith said it or he did not. Either Joseph Smith claimed it or he did not. Either Joseph Smith believed it or he did not.

There is NOT a king's name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3. There is nothing Mormon apologia can do to produce a king's name. It's non-existent. Not only that, there is no king in Facsimile No. 3 as suggested by the false interpretations of Joseph Smith. The charlatan could not read Egyptian let alone decipher or identify basic pictorial images pertaining to the Egyptian religion. Joseph Smith took sacred Egyptian images and writing and desecrated them. The Mormon prophet is guilty of slander and falsely representing things he knew nothing about. Mormons today who continue to defend this are living a lie and continue to feed their false illusions that Joseph Smith was revealing Abraham through ancient Egyptian religious writings which never had anything to do with Abraham and Jehovah.

The Facsimile No. 3 is pure Egyptian religious material bearing absolutely no connection to an enemy god-Jehovah and his mythical prophet. These were never connected and never will be. They bear know relation to each other. That is a proven scientific FACT.

[_Shulem]

I don't give a damn what the LDS apologists say today. They are at odds with Joseph Smith and old Mormonism. New Mormonism headed by apologists does not Trump the original.

Modern Mormon apologetics of Facsimile No. 3 is apostasy and an outright rejection of Joseph Smith's claim to read and translate Egyptian by the power of his spooky ghost. Modern Mormons might as well go and start a new Mormon church (which has been done multiple times already) because they have thrown their founder under the bus and have rejected his word.

[_Shulem]

Not only could Joseph Smith NOT read Egyptian, he was clueless about the correct orientation of the hieroglyphic signs insomuch as he would pretend to read them whether they were upright or upside down. Regardless, Joseph Smith was always wrong because he could not read Egyptian, nor could his spooky ghost that was supposedly enlightening his darkened mind.

Joseph Smith in his arrogance claimed to read Egyptian and taunted the world to dare do the same with the writings of Facsimile No. 2.

I can smell his fraud a mile away. Liar.

[_grindael]

It can't produce the Book of Abraham from the JSP. That wasn't the claim. For example, if a hard drive is blank because it never contained data, then you can't copy data from it. My claim has to do with how the Sensen Papyrus and its symbols were used with the book of Abraham by people that did this stuff a long time after the Sensen Papyrus was first written. They decided to re-use it different from the way the author of the Sensen Papyrus intended for its use. That's called Iconotropy. I never said anything about it containing the text of the Book of Abraham. Therefore, you can't "extract" the book of Abraham from something that never contained it.

This is classic double-speak. Gobble claims that you can't get the Book of Abraham from the papyrus, yet he is claiming that somehow the papyrus was re-used "differently"? What does that even mean? For what did they use if for? Silence. What is Gobble's argument then? Here it is in his OWN WORDS:

And the common thread that can be observed in the work on this done by Egyptologists LDS and non-LDS alike is clear. Their common complaint, is that these characters [from the papyrus] that are being matched up with definitions never literally translate. They say it is an incorrect translation because the translation is not literally what Hugh Nibley said it was: An Egyptian Endowment. Indeed, the characters do spell out an Egyptian Endowment.

But the point of this letter puzzle composition was not about what the letters/characters spelled out. It was the creative way they were paired up with the assigned values that they were paired up with. And the ingenious connections that the characters have with these assigned values. The characters themselves, in this type of usage, are utterly abstract. They are empty pictographs, until a researcher chooses to see that there are meaningful relationships between the assigned values and these pictographs.

Where did Smith get the characters that were written in the GAEL? FROM THE PAPYRUS. They have been matched up OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Why is Gobble even referencing the Book of Breathings? Because that is where the Book of Abraham supposedly came from. If it is an "empty hard drive", then why even reference it? It would have NOHTING to do with ANYTHING. He says this:

What is on the papyrus? A whole bunch of pictures. These pictures are all nice illustrations for the Book of Abraham. There are things that link these pictures to concepts in the Book of Abraham.

But he also says,

They decided to re-use it different from the way the author of the Sensen Papyrus intended for its use.

So they ARE using it!!!!!!!!! So how do we arrive at the "re-used" finished product?

Joseph Smith sensed something "Abrahamic" about these symbols without that being literal. Because for these people, at one time, they used them this way. Therefore, from this standpoint, he understood their ancient usage, and didn't make that up, and that could have been why they may have been functional as a "catalyst" in receiving revelation on the Book of Abraham text.

What symbols/pictures? THE ONES ON THE PAPYRUS!!!!! Smith somehow "understood" their ancient usage? But where is the evidence that ANYONE was taking the Book of the Dead and doing this with it ANCIENTLY in Israel? NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. Instead, he goes about and gathers up where the Jews used an acrostic method of teaching the letters of their alphabet in the Psalms. Is this taking text from OLD foreign religious texts and repurposing them? NO. It is taking letters from their OWN alphabet and writing a poem or psalm using that letter. This is plainly apples and oranges. For this to be similar they would have had to use EGYPTIAN symbols (from a religious text) and then write the long HEBREW text which would be the secret message found in the Egyptian symbol. Then, someone would have to come along and "sense" that this is what they meant to do. (assign the arbitrary values to the symbols/pictures). What a wacky way to get out your message. There was NOTHING "Abrahamic" that Smith "sensed" in the papyri he found with the mummies. And then there is the problem of showing how he knows that Smith "sensed" anything. Where is the evidence for that? And notice that there is no rebuttal of all the evidence that links Smith with the actual papyri we have. That he was directly "translating" the Book of Abraham FROM the papyri. He is simply saying that isn't what he did, because I SAY SO.

Where is Gobble's evidence that ANYONE in ancient Israel "reused" old FOREIGN religious texts as messages from their God, or stories of their prophets? NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. This is just wacky parallelomania. Hugh Nibley would be proud.

[_Shulem]

Book of Abraham apologetics is nothing more than a circus freak show produced out of the brainwashed minds of people who refuse to face reality. Joseph Smith really got the show going with his Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 -- putting his carnival freak show in full motion. The only thing missing was tarot cards and palm reading but they did have mummies and in their religious drunkenness they thought they might actually be royal corpses of great nobility. Joe Smith was the ultimate clown! He put on his prophetic costume and told nothing but whoppers. He could have labeled any character in Facsimile No. 3 to be anyone in the world and his blind and bleating sheep would have ate it up. The Mormon carnival is truly a freak show and the spooky ghost will gladly give tickets for anyone to attend.

Boo!

[_Shulem]

They decided to re-use it different from the way the author of the Sensen Papyrus intended for its use. That's called Iconotropy.

To slander the gods of Egypt is nothing less than blasphemy and the misuse of sacred Egyptian texts and imagery would be outright sacrilege with a horrible punishment affixed thereto. Faithful Egyptian scribes did not use iconotropy in any form to belittle their gods.

However, Joseph Smith, the pretended translator used iconotropy in a deliberant fashion in order to deceive his followers. Had Joseph Smith brought his Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 before a king of Egypt he would surely have been cast into prison and perhaps put to death.

Mormon translations of the papyrus are blasphemy and an offense to the ancient Egyptians and is worthy of death. Those who defend the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are liars and shame the whole house of Egypt from beginning to end.