This is going to be long, and a bit lecture-esque so sit tight and take notes. For TBMs, there may be a test on this later.
I recently was able to attend the showing in Idaho Fall’s museum of King Tut’s relics (mostly recreations, but that’s okay, I still find it fascinating). I’ll be updating this post with images from the visit as I go.
First, the sheer volume of what we know about Egyptian at this point amazes me.
Second, even something like this totally illustrates how the Book of Mormon is flawed in so many many ways:
1) Chariots were in Egypt in the 16th century B.C. You’d think we’d find some if they existed over in America… you know, along with the wheel. Just imagine hitching a tapir to one of these. These things were not just crudely made whatevers. They were serious chariots. The lack of evidence isn’t evidence of lack, but remember –there is 1000 years of lack in the BOM, yet we find Egyptian chariots over the same time period, along with drawings, writings, and discussions about them.
2) Golden Daggers were used only for ceremonial reasons. Why? Because a golden weapon would be lousy. Egyptians knew it. Warriors knew it. Only those who didn’t have to fight with knives would ever buy that a golden-handled sword (Laban) would be wielded in defense of a people.
3) You see how they wrote all over this sarcophagus? FARMS/FAIRLDS would jump all over it. “SEE? writing in Gold! BoM is true, bitches!” Except, do you see how thick that gold is? You see how little they can write because of the size of the Egyptian language? And no, saying, “it was reformed Egyptian” does not help your case.
4) These sure look like a win for Joseph Smith, right? I mean, they look like different gods like in facsimile 1… but no, they are actually good evidence against. Sure, in King Tut’s time they were altered so they look like they are 4 different gods, but in Abraham’s time the heads on these would all have been pharaoh’s. Let me state that again more clearly. The four figures in the bottom of facsimile 1 clearly place that image as after King Tut’s time (1600 B.C.) and thus make it anachronistic for Abraham to be there (around 2000 B.C.) by several hundred years. But they do match for a funerary text from 500 B.C. (which is what the facsimile turned out to be).
5) DNA – In this National Geographic article, they are able to trace King Tut’s lineage and even discover that his parents produced him through incest. They are able to find his father, and show there is a good chance the fetuses found were his daughters –helping to explain why Ramses I came to power.
I mean, the amount we can tell is amazing. And why is no one claiming this DNA evidence is false, or that the urn-dating might actually reference some ancient Chaldean myth? Because King Tut’s father’s religion died with him, and there are no apologists today.
Remember, when it is science and not religion, it works and we believe it. When it is science and religion, apologists enter doubt into the equation by seizing every opportunity to make people question.