webbles Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 3 hours ago, aussieguy55 said: When one looks at the examples of these scenes such on figures 5, 6 & 7 on Fac 2 they are similar to Turin cat 2321 Museo Antichita Egizie Torino. In fac 1 Smith wrote " Representss God sitting upon his throne revealing through the heavens the grand key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham in the form of a dove" the figure on the throne as the same. You look at the "dove" however in the example In Turin cat. it is a snake with legs. The same occurs in Hypocephalus Louvre N 32 Musee du Louvre /Decamp. If you look at what is found in No. 7 you could think it was a dove.Everything else found in 5, 6 & 7in the BOA fac 2 is the same in both the above mentioned examples. The standing figure with what looks like a multiprong stick followed by a cow and four standing figures with heads of the four sons of Horus "In front of them the cow-goddess stands followed by an anthropomorphic deity whose head is depicted as a wedjat-eye within a circle" I found Michael Rhodes translation of the Hypocephalus from 1977. You can see it at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4125&context=byusq. The translations for figures 5, 6, and 7 can be found on the 15th and 16th page (page numbers 272 and 273). It mentions basically the same thing you have above. 1 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 (edited) What if there was a non oral debate of some sort. A statement debate, made that up, but each party do a bullet point statement of their belief about the BoA. And let the rest of us decide which one sounds like it could be true. Edited August 13, 2020 by Tacenda Link to comment
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted August 13, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 13, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: What if there was a non oral debate of some sort. A statement debate, made that up, but each party do a bullet point statement of their belief about the BoA. And let the rest of us decide which one sounds like it could be true. There is ongoing debate and discussion, and has been ever since Joseph Smith started reporting experiences and publishing. LDS scholars will continue to research and publish on the topic, and so will the critics, in the venues that they choose. Anyone who is interested can sample whatever wares they choose. So it's not like giving John Dehlin more product for his business (he draws a significant income from Mormon Stories, see the first essay here, https://dearjohndehlin.wordpress.com/2018/11/03/john-dehlin-dinosaurs-ndas-and-compensation/) means that the discussion will not occur. It has already, and will continue regardless. The issue is, how much business can Dehlin drum up for his non-profit so as to pay his "revenue to podcasters from podcasts will be 75% of donations to that podcast and will be capped at $200,000". For instance, I quoted Rhodes in my response to the CES Letter. Dehlin says people deserve to have everything on the table before they make a decision. Can you find this sort of thing on his table? Quote But is there any evidence that, even in distorted form, these illustrations were associated with Abraham anciently? There is indeed. I will discuss each facsimile in turn. Facsimile 1. In an ancient Egyptian papyrus dating to roughly the first or second century ad, there is a lion-couch scene similar to the one shown in facsimile 1. Underneath the illustration, the text reads “Abraham, who upon .…” There is a break in the text here, so we do not know what word followed. The key point, however, is that an ancient Egyptian document, from approximately the same time period as the papyri Joseph Smith had in his possession, associated Abraham with a lion-couch scene. Facsimile 2. Egyptologists call documents like facsimile 2 a hypocephalus, Greek for “under the head,” since the document was placed under the head of the deceased in the coffin. Over a hundred examples of them are located in museums around the world. On an Egyptian papyrus of the early Christian period is the phrase “Abraham, the pupil of the eye of the Wedjat.” In the 162d chapter of the Book of the Dead, which tells how to make a hypocephalus, the Wedjat eye is described, and the hypocephalus itself is called an “eye.” The Apocalypse of Abraham, a pseudepigraphical text dating from the early Christian era, describes a vision Abraham saw while making a sacrifice to God. In this vision, he is shown the plan of the universe, “what is in the heavens, on the earth, in the sea, in the abyss, and in the lower depths.” This language is very close to the phrase found in facsimile 2 (figures 9, 10, and 11), which reads, “O Mighty God, Lord of heaven and earth, of the hereafter, and of his great waters.” In this same text, Abraham sees “the fullness of the universe and its circles in all” and a “picture of creation” with two sides. The similarity with the hypocephalus, which for the Egyptians represents the whole of the world in a circular format, is striking. There is even a description of what are clearly the four figures labeled number 6 in the Joseph Smith hypocephalus. It also tells how Abraham is promised the priesthood, which will continue in his posterity—a promise associated with the temple. He is shown the “host of stars, and the orders they were commanded to carry out, and the elements of the earth obeying them.” This language shows a remarkable parallel to the wording in the book of Abraham. Facsimile 3. In the Testament of Abraham, another pseudepigraphical text of the early Christian era, Abraham sees a vision of the Last Judgment that is unquestionably related to the judgment scene pictured in the 125th chapter of the Book of the Dead, thus clearly associating Abraham with this ancient Egyptian work. One of the Joseph Smith papyri is, in fact, a drawing of this judgment scene from the 125th chapter of the Book of the Dead, and facsimile 3 is a scene closely related to this. The important point here is that we find ancient Near Eastern documents that are roughly contemporary with the hypocephalus and the other Egyptian papyri purchased by Joseph Smith that relate the scenes portrayed in facsimiles 1, 2, and 3 with Abraham, just as Joseph Smith said. Significantly, none of these documents had even been discovered at Joseph Smith’s time.80 https://rsc-legacy.byu.edu/sites/default/files/pubs/pdf/TRE4_2.pdf toward the end. And there is much more on the Facsimile 2 and other hypocephali in One Eternal Round. Very much worth a read, and difficult to convey via podcast. Warren Parish, a scribe involved with Joseph in the translation in 1835 stated "I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian Heiroglyphicks as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven." (Gee, quoting Parish to Painesville Republican, 15 February, 1838, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, 6). Testing whether Joseph Smith ever received "direct inspiration from heaven" is different than testing whether Joseph Smith always received direct inspiration from heaven. And one of the most dubious ways to conduct the test comes in the form, "It's not the way I would have arranged things if I were God," since it is always obvious that those making the claim fall substantially short of the Divine. Me, I'm tasting this delicious fruit, and don't find the prospect of being pointed at and mocked from those perched in the Great and Spacious particularly bothersome in comparison. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited August 13, 2020 by Kevin Christensen 8 Link to comment
CA Steve Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: For instance, I quoted Rhodes in my response to the CES Letter 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: But is there any evidence that, even in distorted form, these illustrations were associated with Abraham anciently? There is indeed. I will discuss each facsimile in turn. Facsimile 1. In an ancient Egyptian papyrus dating to roughly the first or second century ad, there is a lion-couch scene similar to the one shown in facsimile 1. Underneath the illustration, the text reads “Abraham, who upon .…” There is a break in the text here, so we do not know what word followed. The key point, however, is that an ancient Egyptian document, from approximately the same time period as the papyri Joseph Smith had in his possession, associated Abraham with a lion-couch scene. Are all references in any Egyptian artifacts to "Abraham" referring to the Biblical Abraham? Link to comment
aussieguy55 Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 Tamas Mekis author of Some Reflections on the Funerary Equipment of Paiuhor in and email " Thank you for your message on the Academia.edu. Today I managed to see the interview with Prof. Ritner. He is really a great name in Egyptology today, he is an expert of magical practices of Ancient Egyptians. As for your question, in general, I agree with his explications, though he doesn't explain different figures as a coherent whole. He is completely right about that Joseph Smith's translations are completely false, it has nothing to do with the Egyptian Language. Prof. Ritner's translations are correct. In my articles written on the topic I tried to harmonize figures illustrated on the discs to explain the motor of the horizontal registers of the hypocephalus. As Prof. Ritner told, the main purpose of this amulet was to create protective warmth and light under the head of the deceased as the disc emulates the sundisc. I base my explications on this fact, so behind most of the figures there is a form of the sun god (Amon-Re). As in the case of most of Egyptian amulets, behind each one there is a Book of the Death Spell, which prescribes its usage. In the case of the hypocephalus it is spell 162, which is about the heavenly cow (mother of Amon-Re), who created this amulet for his son at his death to protect him during his journey through the underworld. The texts and figures of the hypocephalus are all with this protective magical purpose. So symbolically, the death of Amon-Re (the Sun) means the death of the god (Sunset), since the underworld of the Egyptians was a dangerous place they equipped the deceased with magical, protective devices (amulets, magical spells, richly decorated coffin(s), etc.) to safe journey through the underworld as to come up (rise) every morning as or with the sun god. So the deceased assimilated to the sun god who died each day and went down to the underworld on the West but next morning rose from the underworld on the East. As the hypocephalus was basically a sun symbol its figures explain the way of the journey of the sun through the day sky (upper hemisphere) and through the night sky (opposite hemisphere). I send you through "wetransfer" a synoptic study, which is about the funerary equipment of a priest called Paiuhor. He may have been contemporary of Sheshonq (owner of the hypocephalus - Facsimile no. 2). So you will have an idea how the Egyptians equipped the mummy to the afterlife in the early Ptolemaic Period. In the study (pp. 268-277) I analyse the hypocephalus of this priest, thus you will see my point (which basically rhymes with Prof. Ritner's explications). If you will have further questions, do not hesitate to write me. If you will still be interested in further details, I can send you my book on hypocephali in a digital form. Best wishes, Tamás 1 Link to comment
aussieguy55 Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 Thanks for your reply. The paper you are interested in is the result of our research with Malcolm Mosher Jr. As you know Antonio Lebolo worked in the service of the French consul Bernardino Drovetti in Thebes, what he found in the tombs he transmitted to his chief and later in his career he kept some objects for his own collection which he transported to Italy when he retired and retuned to Piedmont. Finally this collection landed in America and some pieces ended up in the hands of Joseph Smith. Naturally Lobolo sold pieces to other customers too in Thebes. Together with my colleague we managed to identify the second part of the papyrus Joseph Smith 2 and 3. While the first part of the papyri was in the possession of Joseph Smith the second part was sold by Lebolo to Mr. Cimba, doctor of the English consul, Henry Salt. Dr. Cimba's collection ended up in Leiden. A third small piece from this papyrus was transmitted to Drovetti by Lebolo which ended up in the Louvre with the rest of Drovetti's collection. I send you this article too through "wetransfer". To tell you the truth I read also many articles from Smith's story with the Egyptian antiquities, but in my opinion H. Donl Peterson's The Story of the Book of Abraham. Mummies, Manuscripts, and Mormonism book is the best. Do you have this book? I can send you a digitized version of this one if you are interested in. I send you also the catalogue section of my book, where facsimile 2 appears. I have an idea about that Smith may have seen another hypocephalus in Kirtland but he didn't purchase it, that is why he knew that on the missing upper section there should have stood another both, that is why he reconstructed one there in the publication at Times and Season. Though it is just a hypothesis, but why not? The closest analogy to the Mormon example is cat. no. 61 (an example of Vienna). With my best wishes, Tamás Link to comment
aussieguy55 Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 Dear Of course, you may share my opinion in favour of Prof. Ritner. He is completely right about the erroneous translation and interpretations of Joseph Smith. (I must state that faithful Mormons will never admit the errors of Joseph Smith and will always criticize those who reveal the errors of their "prophet". It's an endless debate.) Best wishes, Tamas 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 Aussie, who were these sent to? I am okay with an alias, just want to know the context. I haven’t been reading that closely, so may have missed it if you mentioned it before. Link to comment
webbles Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 (edited) I'm working on transcribing the podcast. I'm using an automated speech-to-text system. It isn't perfect but it looks like it gets a good portion of it. Here's an example of the first minute of the podcast: Quote all i think you to ristoro making today's episode possible however you want to welcome to another edition of warminster's boast i her host john dale it is july thirtieth twenty twenty i apologize for the hyperbole but i do believe that we have one of the most important episodes it will ever have a more mysteries by cast this will stand shoulder to shoulder with the micco interview with the tom villainie with the bateman interview and with our top interviews will be an immediate top five i'm guessing i am here to day with doctor robert writer who is a world famous he's apologist that's what all call him ill will have him tell you as official title and just a second we have covered book It looks like the phrase "mormon stories podcast" gets really messed up ("warminster's boast" and "more mysteries by cast"). Egyptian terms from later on also look to be really messed up. It won't label who is speaking and can only convert 1 minute sections so words at the boundary might be messed up. But would it be useful? Edited August 13, 2020 by webbles Link to comment
aussieguy55 Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 They were sent to me... Link to comment
aussieguy55 Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 The paper by Tamas Mekis was included in The Book of the Dead Saite through Ptolemaic Periods:Essays on Books of the Dead and Related Topics. Edited Malcolm Mosher Jr 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 7 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said: They were sent to me... Thank you. Link to comment
Fair Dinkum Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 (edited) I'm 2 episodes into this podcast. I want to be fair, but at least to me, it is becoming very obvious that the Book of Abraham, as I had been taught to believe, is not what the church has claimed it is. It is not a translation, in any known understanding of that word, of an ancient Egyptian papyri written by the hand of Abraham. Joseph could not translate the Egyptian language and from what he did produced from his so called translations of facsimiles 1,2 & 3 it is beyond doubt that he was just making stuff up and calling it a translation. None of the facsimile translations are what Smith claimed they were...it's just complete fiction, entirely made up gibberish. One does not have to even go to the verses in the Book of Abraham to see beyond doubt that Joseph was just making things up and passing it off as revelation. I'm sorry for venting, but this is hard and difficult to accept. How are we as a people to accept that Smith was who he claimed to be and then reconcile that with his claimed translation of those 3 facsimiles? Dr Rittner did give Smith some credit for a few (if you tilt your head sideways and look crossed eyed) hits, but other than those, it's compelte made up gibberish with zero connection to what is on the papyri. So what options are there? The Catalyst Theory or a cleaver attempt by Smith to fool his followers into believing that he was what he claimed to be. I think the later is what one would call a fraud. Are there other options? If there is I would personally like to know what they are. If we ignore what Smith claimed he was doing and ignore what his scribes claimed he was doing and try to explain away the troubling realities that have surrounded the Book of Abraham what other options have I missed? I'm more than willing to consider other logical options for what the Book of Abraham is, but I must also be true to myself and accept what it is not. Anyone? PS: Before I make any dire decisions I will wait to see what others here might suggest. How do believing members of the church explain away the translations of the facsimiles? I am also going to read Robert Smith's essay on the Book of Abraham. I'll return and report. Edited August 13, 2020 by Fair Dinkum 2 Link to comment
aussieguy55 Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 You have discovered what I found out years ago. The LDS church had been good for me in my late teens and young adulthood and I found my wife there. I have many positive memories.It kind of jolts ones psyche when you are confronted with the facts. I associated with a Christian church for some years but reading the likes of Bart Ehrman and Israel Finkelstein produced further problems. 1 Link to comment
Fair Dinkum Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 14 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said: You have discovered what I found out years ago. The LDS church had been good for me in my late teens and young adulthood and I found my wife there. I have many positive memories.It kind of jolts ones psyche when you are confronted with the facts. I associated with a Christian church for some years but reading the likes of Bart Ehrman and Israel Finkelstein produced further problems. I've known for a long time that the Book of Abraham was problematic and that the actual book was not found on the extant papyri. But what I hadn't fully wrapped my head around was just how strong the argument against Smith is by merely looking at what we do have, the Facsimiles and what Smith claimed they were. It's complete nonsense and gibberish. 1 Link to comment
aussieguy55 Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 I know how you feel. Are you Australian? You use the term fair dinkum Link to comment
Fair Dinkum Posted August 13, 2020 Share Posted August 13, 2020 (edited) 46 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said: I know how you feel. Are you Australian? You use the term fair dinkum True Blue and Dinkie Die and beetroot on my burger mate. Sydneysider You? Edited August 13, 2020 by Fair Dinkum Link to comment
webbles Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 9 hours ago, webbles said: I'm working on transcribing the podcast. I'm using an automated speech-to-text system. It isn't perfect but it looks like it gets a good portion of it. Here's an example of the first minute of the podcast: It looks like the phrase "mormon stories podcast" gets really messed up ("warminster's boast" and "more mysteries by cast"). Egyptian terms from later on also look to be really messed up. It won't label who is speaking and can only convert 1 minute sections so words at the boundary might be messed up. But would it be useful? Here's the finished transcription. The three files are for each of the podcast parts. Each file has one line for each minute of the podcast and is labeled with "Xm:" where X is the minute in the podcast (though it might be a minute off because in some of the parts, the first minute was just music that had no speech that the system could detect). This should help in finding the speech in the actual podcast. Edited to add: This is an automated transcript. It is not 100% correct. So if something doesn't seem right in the transcript, double check the podcast to find out what was really said. part1.txt part2.txt part3.txt Edited August 14, 2020 by webbles 3 Link to comment
Rivers Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: I've known for a long time that the Book of Abraham was problematic and that the actual book was not found on the extant papyri. But what I hadn't fully wrapped my head around was just how strong the argument against Smith is by merely looking at what we do have, the Facsimiles and what Smith claimed they were. It's complete nonsense and gibberish. Terryl Givens has actually pointed out this sentiment. He has recently discussed the fact that long before the rediscovery of the Joseph Smith papyri in the 60's, there were critics pointing out the problems with what we already had. Church leaders were also responding to the criticisms. This whole Book of Abraham controversy has been going on for a long time. I remember reading the Book of Abraham as a kid and finding it very odd that we had symbols from an ancient pagan religion in one of our standard works. I never understood why all these Egyptian symbols had Jewish/Christian meanings rather than the Egyptian religious beliefs I was learning about in school. But now I find the idea of symbols being repurposed to be rather intriguing. The Book of Abraham is weird book. I don't know what to think about it. And trying to follow these threads on the subject always hurts my head. Its all so complicating. Edited August 14, 2020 by Rivers 3 Link to comment
Rivers Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 I went and listened to some of Ritner's Mormon Stories interview. I also re-watched Terryl Givens' interview with Kerry Muhlstein. I like how Givens points out that Egyptologists were ripping the Book of Abraham to shreds over a hundred years ago. And here we have Robert Ritner ripping the Book of Abraham to shreds now in the year 2020. Maybe we should take the same approach that Latter-day Saint scholars took all the way back in 1913: Joseph Smith obviously couldn't translate Egyptian but the product we ended up with is somehow inspired. Maybe Gee's approach isn't the right way to go about this ordeal. As I listen to Kerry Muhlstein talk to Terryl Givens and read his Interpreter article, I get the sense that he is very open-minded towards a broad variety possibilities and approaches. I think he deserves some slack. 4 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 On 8/11/2020 at 11:27 PM, sunstoned said: As Calm has said, nothing will happen. I seriously doubt that Gee and Muhlestein would be part of an open public debate. That is too bad, because if handled right, this could be an enlightening event. I agree that nothing will happen, but John Dehlin already knew that. His open letter is just for show, and his rank dishonesty is the most important feature of his anti-Mormon efforts. His allies should be deeply embarrassed. 3 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, webbles said: Here's the finished transcription. The three files are for each of the podcast parts. Each file has one line for each minute of the podcast and is labeled with "Xm:" where X is the minute in the podcast (though it might be a minute off because in some of the parts, the first minute was just music that had no speech that the system could detect). This should help in finding the speech in the actual podcast. Edited to add: This is an automated transcript. It is not 100% correct. So if something doesn't seem right in the transcript, double check the podcast to find out what was really said. part1.txt 143.43 kB · 4 downloads part2.txt 166.25 kB · 3 downloads part3.txt 239.81 kB · 2 downloads I took a look at your part 2 text, and was able to glean the following from the first few sentences: Quote Dr. Rider’s facing kidney failure and is in need of a living donor to secure his life and continued research. If you can help, please contact Danaan at 312695 .... for making today's episode possible. However, welcome back to another ........ and it’s August 3, 2020, and we are back with another epic historic interview with Dr Robert Ritner, accompanied by my co-host on Radio Free Mormon. Hello, Art. ... I'm so happy to be here for part two, John. And Dr. Ritner and Dr. Rider, so glad you could join us again; my pleasure; so let's begin really quickly Dr Rider before we jump in, so what we've already talked about your background Dr Rider in episode one. We talked about the historical context and the history of the Book of Abraham is related to Joseph and Kirtland and..... The automated system is vastly inferior to a live transcriber who types fast. Then a good editor can clean it up. That is the method we used at FARMS years ago. Edited August 14, 2020 by Robert F. Smith Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted August 14, 2020 Share Posted August 14, 2020 13 hours ago, aussieguy55 said: You have discovered what I found out years ago. The LDS church had been good for me in my late teens and young adulthood and I found my wife there. I have many positive memories.It kind of jolts ones psyche when you are confronted with the facts. I associated with a Christian church for some years but reading the likes of Bart Ehrman and Israel Finkelstein produced further problems. A very difficult lesson for some is the fact that the LDS Scriptures are subject to the same critique as the Bible. Always have been. Most of those finding themselves in a state of shock don't really understand that faith and reason are two very separate modes of thought, which don't mesh. The average person has a choice: Listen to and believe everything professors Ritner, Ehrman, and Finkelstein tell you, without question, or keep the faith. In order to properly evaluate the claims of Ritner, Ehrman, and Finkelstein, you must know nearly as much as they do about the ancient world. Since you do not, you are exercising blind faith in their claims. Guess where that leaves you? 4 Link to comment
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted August 14, 2020 Popular Post Share Posted August 14, 2020 14 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: ..................... I want to be fair, but at least to me, it is becoming very obvious that the Book of Abraham, as I had been taught to believe, is not what the church has claimed it is. It is not a translation, in any known understanding of that word, of an ancient Egyptian papyri written by the hand of Abraham. Joseph could not translate the Egyptian language and from what he did produced from his so called translations of facsimiles 1,2 & 3 it is beyond doubt that he was just making stuff up and calling it a translation. None of the facsimile translations are what Smith claimed they were...it's just complete fiction, entirely made up gibberish. One does not have to even go to the verses in the Book of Abraham to see beyond doubt that Joseph was just making things up and passing it off as revelation. I'm sorry for venting, but this is hard and difficult to accept. How are we as a people to accept that Smith was who he claimed to be and then reconcile that with his claimed translation of those 3 facsimiles? Dr Rittner did give Smith some credit for a few (if you tilt your head sideways and look crossed eyed) hits, but other than those, it's compelte made up gibberish with zero connection to what is on the papyri. So what options are there? The Catalyst Theory or a cleaver attempt by Smith to fool his followers into believing that he was what he claimed to be. I think the later is what one would call a fraud. Are there other options? If there is I would personally like to know what they are. If we ignore what Smith claimed he was doing and ignore what his scribes claimed he was doing and try to explain away the troubling realities that have surrounded the Book of Abraham what other options have I missed? I'm more than willing to consider other logical options for what the Book of Abraham is, but I must also be true to myself and accept what it is not...................... PS: Before I make any dire decisions I will wait to see what others here might suggest. How do believing members of the church explain away the translations of the facsimiles? I am also going to read Robert Smith's essay on the Book of Abraham. I'll return and report. 13 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said: I've known for a long time that the Book of Abraham was problematic and that the actual book was not found on the extant papyri. But what I hadn't fully wrapped my head around was just how strong the argument against Smith is by merely looking at what we do have, the Facsimiles and what Smith claimed they were. It's complete nonsense and gibberish. Interesting that even Dr Ritner recognizes that Joseph got some facsimile explanations right. How is that possible? Decades ago, in an open question & answer session on the BofA, I asked the late Prof Klaus Baer his opinion of a string of those correct explanations. He did not answer me. Instead, I thought he nearly had a coronary. He had to sit down immediately. He knew that what I said was right on target, and that I was naming as sources many of his close colleagues in Egyptology. I did not pursue the matter with him. 5 Link to comment
Recommended Posts