mentalgymnast wrote:OK, here's the thing. Studies of the Book of Abraham have produced a treasure trove of research and information.
Reliable information about the Book of Abraham translation and so forth is obtained by Egyptologists who work within the established framework of acceptable international Egyptological academic scholarship. Anything else may be considered speculative and suspect like the works of Muhlestein published in religious journals controlled by BYU.
mentalgymnast wrote:The fact is, there is a lot we know and a lot we don't know in full.
The fact is we know everything there is to know about the hieroglyphs contained in Facsimile No. 3 and exactly how to translate them. We know the persons in the Facsimile and exactly how to identify them. All of this, however, is contrary to what Joseph Smith said about the hieroglyphs and the persons therein. The fact is there is no king's name therein and no royal cartouche to even suggest there is a name. Muhlestein knows that and there isn't a thing he can do to produce a king's name.
mentalgymnast wrote:The research is wonderfully complex with all kind of convoluted answers from both the critics and the apologists.
The hieroglyphs contained in Facsimile No. 3 are easily understood and commonly read in other literary text, such as in tombs, monuments, and funerary papyri. There is nothing complex in the text nor in recognizing the persons in Facsimile No. 3 for who they are. It's like the A,B.C's of the Egyptian religion which we have come to appreciate in modern times. In general, Egyptologists are not critics of Joseph Smith's translations. They generally ignore the matter because Smith's translations are blatant works of fraud and they don't want to waste their time talking about it. Egyptologists work within the framework of science.
mentalgymnast wrote: I know Kerry Muhlestein is an expert and an Egyptologist
No doubt he is an expert and his work is probably very good when it operates within the framework of credible Egyptology. Credible Egyptology is judged on an international level by a vast collective of scholarship, universities, and Egyptologists such as Ritner.
mentalgymnast wrote:How do I know, for a fact, that others here on this isolated board in the universe of boards/forums have actually given the time and effort to look at all the evidence, including those somewhat complex arguments for antiquity given by Muhlestein and Co.?
Muhlestein and Co. are crooked apologists who apply a biased slant in a vain attempt to make their client (The Book of Abraham Translation) appear innocent. Muhlestein and Co. don't publish their apologetic arguments in credible Egyptological peer reviewed journals. Their work does not represent credible Egyptology on an international level. Muhlestein and Co are rogue BYU operators who distort, twist, and create apologetic quips for the Book of Abraham. If they really had something valid and important to say about defending Smith's translations they would be publishing that in peer related journals and soak up the glory while they bask in the light.
