Facsimile 1 Knife in Hand

[_Bazooka]

Have another go.
Take a look at the figure who is standing and is clearly black, upon which Joseph has drawn a white head.
Now shift your gaze a little lower down and see if you can tell us the colour of his black legs....

Now i know you are kidding...why would the heads of each figure be different...your answer - to match their pant suit....got it!

Hmm...you seem to be suggesting the standing figure is wearing a black onesie...you're not saying that, are you?

Please explain why the standing figure (upon which Joseph drew a white head) has a black body. I will assist you by giving some options:
1. The standing figure was wearing a black onesie.
2. The standing figure should have had a black head but Joseph got it wrong.
3. Black beings with white heads were common place images on Egyptian papyri even though we don't know why.
4. The black figure should have had the head of a Jackal but Joseph got it wrong.
5. The standing figure (that you claimed had white legs) actually has a white body even though the image gives the impression it's black.

Or feel free to offer another explanation for the white head on a black body or indeed, why you claimed the black legs were, in fact, white?

[_Tobin]

I don't have to move any goals posts. You've already done it. When do you see circumcision done in any "BOOK of the DEAD"? Unless, of course, it's a circumcision gone horribly wrong.

Actually, subgenius nailed you to the wall and your statement here is definitely moving the goal posts. subgenius has answered your challenge so now you've changed it to be only the "BOOK of the DEAD". However, your challenge was ridiculous in the first place (as are most statements by Mormon critics). Is there some unwritten magical rule out there that states that the ancient Egyptians could not portray someone holding a knife?

[_Bazooka]

...(snip)... I'd even like to see any picture that from a pryamid text or a coffin text that shows anyone, god(s) or priest(s), holding a knife that is not defined in the text as defending the dead or protecting the dead from named or un-named dangers. ...(snip)...

So up to proof. Find all the papyri, texts, pyramid texts or coffin texts where a knife, sword, or blade, is held with the purpose of cutting someone. Good luck.

(circumcision) from the Tomb of Ank-Mahor at Saqqara, Sixth Dynasty, Teti, c. 2340 BC.



p.s. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...jus sayin
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/knife.htm

^This, according to Mormon doctrine, has to be a fake.

Adam and Eve and the Fall (approximately 4000 B.C.), Enoch (approximately 3000 B.C.), Noah and the Flood (approximately 2400 B.C.)

http://www.LDS.org/manual/the-pearl-of- ... m?lang=eng

Nobody was alive in Egypt in 2,340 BC because they had all perished in the flood.

[_Res Ipsa]

p.s. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...jus sayin

You show your ignorance again. In many cases it is evidence of absence. Think about it for a while and maybe you might just figure it out. I won't hold my breath.

This saying is horribly misused in apologetics. First off, it is only true when we would reasonably expect to find evidence if whatever we are talking about is present. If a raccoon had been trapped in my refrigerator, I would have expected to find chewed up food, knocked over containers, feces and urine, and hair. I just looked at my refrigerator, and saw none of these things, so the absence of that evidence is evidence that a raccoon was absent. (You can do the same exercise for a whale, Ceeboo.)

But even worse, this situation has nothing to do with the absence of evidence. We have plenty of evidence in the form of similar drawings that accompany similar funerary texts. It's not the absence of the knife that is damning -- it is the fact that Smith got significant portions of the drawings wrong. The same conclusion would have followed if Smith had not included a knife and all the other drawings showed a knife. The presence or absence of the knife, in and of itself, is not relevant -- it's that Smith's drawing is different. Even more damning, when the original manuscript was found, the parts Smith got wrong were missing from the manuscript and so were drawn in by him.

So, Subby shows some Egyptian drawing that includes a knife and thinks he's somehow made a point in defense of Smith's mangling of the drawing. Given his expertise in logical fallacies, I suspect he knew he was committing the red herring fallacy.

Every time I read someone trying to defend the Book of Abraham I just shake my head in amazement at the power of rationalization.

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...So, Subby shows some Egyptian drawing that includes a knife and thinks he's somehow made a point in defense of Smith's mangling of the drawing. ...(snip)...

oh the irony. Once again we see the armchair critic assuming, predisposing, and just regular making stuff up.
I never claimed nor stated i was making any point of defense, contradiction, nor affirmation...beyond actually meeting the challenge of the OP
which clearly stated 3 challenges...as follows...in order:

1. Can anyone, anywhere, show me a single papyrus that shows a priest standing over anyone, dead or alive, holding a knife in his hand?

quickly followed by:

2. I'd even like to see any picture that from a pryamid text or a coffin text that shows anyone, god(s) or priest(s), holding a knife that is not defined in the text as defending the dead or protecting the dead from named or un-named dangers.

concluding with:

3. So up to proof. Find all the papyri, texts, pyramid texts or coffin texts where a knife, sword, or blade, is held with the purpose of cutting someone.

to which i posted a picture which had been requested at the height of this poster's arrogance on the subject.

Now, Themis, clumsily, and Brad Hudson, awkwardly, have tried to dissect a common phrase (championed by Sagan among others) to simply state that a third option is available...this third option conveniently not being expressed by or inferred by the OP....this option being that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.....
now granted the poster of the OP has admittedly studied "papyri from a variety of museums throughout Europe" - which i assume we are all to take as meaning some exhaustive investigations, or perhaps browsing some mausoleum pamphlets.....or maybe just a drunken evening Googling a few things before hunkering down and proclaiming that this thesis must surely be the silver bullet that kills this hairy and howling church once and for all!

But thanks to Brad for providing a rebuttal for an argument that was never offered.

[_subgenius]

Nobody was alive in Egypt in 2,340 BC because they had all perished in the flood.

Please, provide evidence that Egypt was never re-populated after the flood.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Hey Subby, please provide evidence there was a Great Flood.

[_Themis]

Now, Themis, clumsily, and Brad Hudson, awkwardly, have tried to dissect a common phrase (championed by Sagan among others) to simply state that a third option is available...this third option conveniently not being expressed by or inferred by the OP....this option being that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.....
now granted the poster of the OP has admittedly studied "papyri from a variety of museums throughout Europe" - which i assume we are all to take as meaning some exhaustive investigations, or perhaps browsing some mausoleum pamphlets.....or maybe just a drunken evening Googling a few things before hunkering down and proclaiming that this thesis must surely be the silver bullet that kills this hairy and howling church once and for all!

But thanks to Brad for providing a rebuttal for an argument that was never offered.

And we see more of Subby's dishonesty. I only commented on you incorrectly trying to suggest absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You clearly to not comprehend this issue. This is why most of us don't bother much to address you.

[_Themis]

It's not the absence of the knife that is damning -- it is the fact that Smith got significant portions of the drawings wrong. The same conclusion would have followed if Smith had not included a knife and all the other drawings showed a knife. The presence or absence of the knife, in and of itself, is not relevant -- it's that Smith's drawing is different. Even more damning, when the original manuscript was found, the parts Smith got wrong were missing from the manuscript and so were drawn in by him.

This is a huge indicator. He made up a scene to fit what he wanted. We have source text which shows conclusively he did not translate them correctly, or even remotely close to the real translation experts have given, including some LDS ones.

So, Subby shows some Egyptian drawing that includes a knife and thinks he's somehow made a point in defense of Smith's mangling of the drawing. Given his expertise in logical fallacies, I suspect he knew he was committing the red herring fallacy.

Subby is just being dishonest as is usual for him.

Every time I read someone trying to defend the Book of Abraham I just shake my head in amazement at the power of rationalization.

It's why so many avoid it. Many who have tried to deal with it no longer believe.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

And we see more of Subby's dishonesty. I only commented on you incorrectly trying to suggest absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You clearly to not comprehend this issue. This is why most of us don't bother much to address you.

I think there's a reason for his dishonesty. I think it has something to do with the fact that there are certain questions he not only refuses to answer, but altogether refuses to acknowledge. One of these questions is this: Where did you serve your mission? His behavior is possibly an attempt to assuage his embarrassment over never having served a mission, or having been sent home early from his mission.