Facsimile 1 Knife in Hand

[_Shulem]

I take it the part where the other arm should have been was missing from the original parchment, and that Joseph Smith used his imagination to fill in what he thought should have been there.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out.

Well, the papyrus drawing in itself is a lousy one consisting of poor Egyptian styled art and the lucuna makes it worse. I'm being pretty picky on wanting to see that second arm and even restored images from Egyptological sources don't fair much better. The second arm is however a standard convention -- but it seems this papyrus is lousy. It just seems that Joseph Smith did such a crappy job and giving a human head rather than a jackal head is totally unjustifiable.



Paul O

[_Shulem]

Anubis doesn't go around with a knife. Joe Smith made it up.









Paul O

[_Fence Sitter]

That's a very interesting observation. I've read the Book of Abraham maybe a dozen times, but I never noticed the figure on the alter was not bound.

Perhaps something else you've not noticed that you should be aware. Notice in the official LDS Facsimile the so-called priest has only one visible arm. That is totally unEgyptian and breaches the conventions of Egyptian art and form. To be true to Egyptian art conventions it would require both arms being visible but here we see the false Egyptologist Joe Smith taking Egyptian art into a realm which cannot be. A missing arm and a knife rather than a cup is sure proof that the false Egyptologist Joe Smith hadn't a clue what he was talking about or what he was reading. That pretty much sums up the validity of Mormonism -- a religion made up by Joe Smith, a liar.

I take it the part where the other arm should have been was missing from the original parchment, and that Joseph Smith used his imagination to fill in what he thought should have been there.

Lanny Bell did his own reconstruction of the scene here on page 14 and he only shows one arm for the priest. According to Bell the unusual location on Anubis at the foot of the bed explains why the "artist of P.JS1 apparently did not know how to show Anubis' missing right arm" (See page 11)

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Lanny Bell did his own reconstruction of the scene here on page 14 and he only shows one arm for the priest. According to Bell the unusual location on Anubis at the foot of the bed explains why the "artist of P.JS1 apparently did not know how to show Anubis' missing right arm" (See page 11)

Thanks for putting this out there. I can't say this changes my opinion of Joseph Smith in general, or of the Book of Abraham in particular, but this is still good to know. Lanny Bell's reconstruction looks very convincing, at least from the perspective of an uninformed amateur like me.

[_vessr]

Why on earth would we want to find a knife?

Here is a photo of the original picture overlaying the "restored" facsimile. As you can see, there is no knife on the original (the image is sourced from the FAIRwiki):

Spanner concludes that there was "no knife on the original". He appears to have reached his conclusion by studying the overlay that he provides. The overlay shows that there is no part of a hilt or hand under the arm that we would have expected to see if the "original" had included the entire scene. For this reason, I reach the same conclusion that Spanner reached. (The overlay is slightly off at the point where the knife and hand were supposed to have met; but there is enough space under the arm to reach the conclusion that at no time was part of a knife or hand in evidence.)

To me, this is a big deal ... perhaps the single most objective reason one could reject the Book of Abraham.

[_Themis]

To me, this is a big deal ... perhaps the single most objective reason one could reject the Book of Abraham.

It's a big one, but not even close to the biggest. We have source text that is much better then just images. Joseph gets this wrong, and this in my opinion, is the biggest piece of evidence against him.

[_Tobin]

Spanner concludes that there was "no knife on the original". He appears to have reached his conclusion by studying the overlay that he provides. The overlay shows that there is no part of a hilt or hand under the arm that we would have expected to see if the "original" had included the entire scene. For this reason, I reach the same conclusion that Spanner reached. (The overlay is slightly off at the point where the knife and hand were supposed to have met; but there is enough space under the arm to reach the conclusion that at no time was part of a knife or hand in evidence.)

To me, this is a big deal ... perhaps the single most objective reason one could reject the Book of Abraham.

Of course it is a big deal to you. It would seem you care more about a drawing than what God says. Here is a suggestion, why don't you speak with God about it instead and believe what God tells you.

[_Themis]

Of course it is a big deal to you. It would seem you care more about a drawing than what God says. Here is a suggestion, why don't you speak with God about it instead and believe what God tells you.

Here is a suggestion. Why don't you take your own advice and do the same. Do you really think people cannot see your hypocrisy here?

[_Shulem]

Lanny Bell did his own reconstruction of the scene here on page 14 and he only shows one arm for the priest. According to Bell the unusual location on Anubis at the foot of the bed explains why the "artist of P.JS1 apparently did not know how to show Anubis' missing right arm" (See page 11)

Yeah, I will have to concede that point. The original papyrus is a lousy rendition but Joe Smith's Facsimile is even worse and the human head just makes me shudder. Every time I look at Joe Smith's artwork it causes grief. Like the missing hieroglyphs in Facsimile No. 2 that he borrowed from another source and then penciled them in upside down. That was Joe Smith, writing stuff upside down, getting heads wrong, talking about hieroglyphs representing royal names when in fact they were not. The Explanations of the Facsimiles in themselves are enough to prove the Mormon religion a complete fraud because Joe Smith's revelations were all founded upon lies.

Here we see a pretended prophet and translator saying he saw God and Jesus in the woods and that the Facsimile No. 3 contained specific royal names to match his version of who the characters were yet it was completely wrong. Joe Smith did not see God and Jesus and neither are the names in Facsimile No. 3 what he claimed them to be. I stake my very life and soul on that.

Paul O

[_Bazooka]

Spanner concludes that there was "no knife on the original". He appears to have reached his conclusion by studying the overlay that he provides. The overlay shows that there is no part of a hilt or hand under the arm that we would have expected to see if the "original" had included the entire scene. For this reason, I reach the same conclusion that Spanner reached. (The overlay is slightly off at the point where the knife and hand were supposed to have met; but there is enough space under the arm to reach the conclusion that at no time was part of a knife or hand in evidence.)

To me, this is a big deal ... perhaps the single most objective reason one could reject the Book of Abraham.

Of course it is a big deal to you. It would seem you care more about a drawing than what God says. Here is a suggestion, why don't you speak with God about it instead and believe what God tells you.

I did. He said the drawing Joseph did is complete bollocks.