Dr. Mercer et al.
Mark Hines
On December 29, 1912, the New York Times headlines about Joe Smith's
Book of Abraham broadcast for all the world to see, "Sacred Books
Claimed to Have Been Given Divinely to the First Prophet Are Shown to be
Taken from Old Egyptian Originals, Their Translation Being a Work of
Imagination."
The headlines were based on the book Joseph Smith, Jr., As a Translator
by F. S. Spalding (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Arrow Press, 1912). In the
book, eight experts on Egyptian antiquities found Smith's explanations
of the Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham completely false. All
universally respected Egyptologists who have since examined the matter
have agreed with them.
One of the eight, Dr. Samuel Mercer, wrote a booklet called Joseph Smith
as an Interpreter and Translator of Egyptian. (One can get a copy of
this booklet from the Tanners' Website. It is included in the booklet
Why Egyptologists Reject the Book of Abraham. One can see a copy of
letters from the eight scholars at www.ortk.org/boajw.htm) As one of the
eight original scholars, Dr. Mercer was distinguished as a specialist in
Egyptology. He was the custodian of the Hibbard Collection of Egyptian
reproductions, the most complete collection in the United States (The
Utah Survey, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 3).
Dr. Mercer wrote, "No one can fail to see that the eight scholars are
unanimous in their conclusions. Joseph Smith has been shown by an
eminently competent jury of scholars to have failed completely in his
attempt or pretense to interpret and translate Egyptian figures and
hieroglyphics." (Ibid., p. 10).
Dr. Mercer also agreed that the ithyphallic (with erect penis) god Min
and the ithyphallic snake god Nehebkau are in Figure 7 of Facsimile 2.
Dr. Mercer wrote,
"Fig. 7 represents Nehebka, the serpent-god, presenting an uzat-eye to
Horus-Min who is seated. Horus-Min was formerly sometimes called
Horammon. Joseph Smith calls Horus-Min 'God sitting upon his throne,'
and Nehebka, the Holy Ghost 'in the form of a dove,' the last expression
being, of course, an anachorism." (The Utah Survey, p. 24)
Dr. Mercer observed, "Any pupil of mine who would show such absolute
ignorance of Egyptian as Smith does, could not possibly expect to get
more than zero in an examination in Egyptology." (Improvement Era, vol.
16, p 615.)
Dr. Mercer continued, "The failure of the Mormon replies is explained by
the fact that the unanimous opinion of the scholars is unassailable. In
the judgment of the scholarly world, therefore, Joseph Smith stands
condemned of self-deception or imposition."
This information is given out of Christian love. Obviously, this
information is of benefit only to those who have good hearts and who
love God. If you, as a true Mormon, are satisfied with the Mormon
representation of "God" as a pagan god who sits with an erect penis, and
content with the representation of the Mormon "Holy Ghost" as a snake
god who also has a stiff penis--Egyptians often representing the two
gods as facing each other with hardons--you are knowingly worshipping
demons, and you will definitely get your just rewards when you die.
There is hope, though, to fill your eyes with tears and to immediately
repent of the Satanic religion Mormonism. You don't have even one second
to waste. Those who have ever burned themselves severely have a very
small glimpse of what hell will be like. The crying, gnashing of teeth
and burn pain will last forever.
__________________________
Mark Hines
www.ortk.org/m.htm
www.ortk.org/e.htm
geen...@my-deja.com
mjh...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Hines) wrote:
>
>
> On December 29, 1912, the New York Times headlines about Joe Smith's
> Book of Abraham broadcast for all the world to see, "Sacred Books
> Claimed to Have Been Given Divinely to the First Prophet Are Shown to
>be Taken from Old Egyptian Originals, Their Translation Being a Work of
> Imagination."
We've already proven from two independent disciplines, i.e. (1) Jewish
Abrahamic literature -- totally undiscovered and unknown in Smith's own
time (Smith died in 1844; the bulk of this newly discovered ancient
Hebrew literature having been uncovered AFTER Smith's death), and (2)
the Abrahamic Egyptian hieroglyphic scrolls owned by J. Smith (known
collectively as the "J.S. Papyri") that Smith's translation of the
ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic scrolls were entirely within authorized
outlines of Abrahamic pseudepigrapha -- a literature the content of
which Smith could not possibly have known other than from Divine
sources.
Let's repeat that proof here, since Mr. Hines has so often purveyed his
own bilious mixture of anti-Mormon vomit and "expert" nonsense.
"There are many hundreds of drawings found in Egyptian funerary
documents that closely resemble our Facsimiles No. 1 and 3, and
over a hundred on the pattern of No. 2. No two of these, however,
are exactly alike, and recent studies comparing them have come to
appreciate that though the man on the couch and the man on the
throne belong to obviously stock situations, what appeared at first
glance as minor variations in the pictures, or may even escape the
notice of the casual viewer altogether, are sometimes of real
significance. Thus a recent study of more than a hundred compositions of
the type of facsimile No. 3 has shown that though they all deal with
scenes at the court of Pharaoh, no two depict the same event, and that
they are not funerary scenes at all, but records of those memorable
occasions in the lives of the men who commissioned the pictures
when they had the supreme honor of being presented at court.
Sometimes one of these "stock representations" differs drastically
from the others, none more so than our Facsimile No, 1."
Hugh Nibley, THE THREE FACSIMILES FROM THE BOOK OF
ABRAHAM(1980) located at
http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Hugh-Nibley/TrFac.html
"FACSIMILE NO. 1
The instant reaction of most professing Egyptologists to the sight of
Facsimile No. 1 is to announce that it is the most- routine and
common place object imaginable, that countless drawings identical
with this one are to be found on tomb and coffin walls and papyri.
Some of the better scholars were given pause, however, and right
from the beginning T. Deveria insisted that the Mormons must have
made drastic alterations in the sketches, because they were
decidedly not as they should be. The main effort of the learned
since the discovery of the original in a damaged condition in 1967
has been to reconstruct the missing parts in a way to show that they
were really nothing out of the ordinary, while quietly ignoring the
really impressive uniqueness of the parts that are not missing.
For instance, an eminent Egyptologist maintained that the fingers
of the reclining man's upper hand are really the feathers of a bird. In
time, however, he yielded enough to declare that even if they were
fingers it would make no difference to the interpretation. Wouldn't
it? If this turns out to be the only instance known of the man on the
couch lifting two hands, that would indeed make a great deal of
difference. But forget about the fingers and the feathers; in what
other "embalming scene" does a priest with or without an Anubis
headdress, lean over a corpse that is waving both an arm and a
leg?
That gesture, as a number of special studies have pointed out,
indicates a stirring to life and a rising from the couch, not the utter
quiescence of a corpse about to be laid away. And what about the
big crocodile under the couch? Or the lotus stand? You will not find
them in any of the other Lion-couch vignettes. This figure waving an
arm and a leg is indeed quite uncommon among lion couch
scenes, being rarely described, we are told because of its
peculiarly sacred nature (Era, June 1969, 126), but it does occur,
and in a most significant context.
The best-known examples of such a figure (e.g., from the tomb of
Seti I and the Temple of Opet) are depicting an episode from the
Sed Festival, in which the King is ritually put to death and then
restored to life. An important part of the Sed Festival was the
choosing of a substitute to die for the King, so that he would not
have to undergo the painful process to achieve resurrection. So in
pictures resembling this one we do indeed have a situation such as
that described by Joseph Smith as the attempt by agents of
Pharaoh to sacrifice Abraham. The Jewish traditions tell us that the
attempt was actually made and failed in the manner described in
the Book of Abraham.(Era, 1969,)"
Nibley, supra.
How could it be that wholly INDEPENDENT Jewish (not Egyptian)
Abrahamic traditions (oral, then written) verify generally Smith's
interpretation of the J.S. hypocephali? How could Smith have been
proven correct by two independent textual sources out of wholly
divergent disciplines?
Please notice that Mr. Hines has yet even to comment upon the above
uncontested facts about ancient Egyptology and Smith's ability to "hit
the mark" of (then fully unknown) Jewish Abrahamic literature EVEN from
disparate sources of Egyptian hieroglyphics.
How could Smith POSSIBLY have done that, if not via God's direction and
aid?
<snip to end>
I shall preclude you (here, at least) from purveying your bogus
Egyptological vomit unless and until you, Mr. Hines, provide us answers
to the above quotation.
I shall not allow you to "ignore" the conclusive prove above of Smith's
ability to translate ancient Egyptian matching exactly ancient Jewish
traditions totally unknown in his own day, a skill YOUR own
"Egyptologists" with their laborious academic credentials and pompous
reputations have yet to understand nor appreciate.
How about it, Mark. Want to "really" debate Smith's proven ability to
translate ancient hierogryphics, or will you continue to "avoid" real
analysis of Smith's evidence? Afraid, my friend, to venture into real
evidence SUPPORETING Smith, or will you resort to yhour common pattern
of "hit and run," without exposing your own lazy and pompous "experts"
to the same analysis and proven evidence we quote hereinabove?
How about giving us some pertinent evidence for a change, i.e. evidence
attacking or disproving Nibley's analysis and evidence, above?
> Mark Hines
> www.ortk.org/m.htm
> www.ortk.org/e.htm
When will you begin "objectively" researching Smith's history and
ability to translate ancient Egyptian? When will you begin looking for
the truth INSTEAD of searching solely for dirt on Smith?
Wouldn't your life be more "worthwhile" if you sought truth rather than
obfuscation and bias?
Respectfully,
Gerry L. Ensley.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
bunny...@gmail.com
> On December 29, 1912, the New York Times headlines about Joe Smith's
> Book of Abraham broadcast for all the world to see, "Sacred Books
> Claimed to Have Been Given Divinely to the First Prophet Are Shown to be
> Taken from Old Egyptian Originals, Their Translation Being a Work of
> Imagination."
>