Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Bokovoy

Facsimile 3

Recommended Posts

You people just don't get it (complete with the sneering triumphant attitude...)

This is not "just a funeral scene" that JS screwed up... (snickers all around)

In fact, EVERYTHING in an Egyptian funeral scene has to do with the Temple. (What do you think the Egyptians were doing in their funeral rites? They were seeing their beloved off to the next life, among the gods. And don't tell me this isn't what LDS do in their temples!)

And references to astronomy have to do with the Temple too.

Oh no. David Bokovoy is spot on. I suggest you listen to him more carefully...

(And Kerry, I look forward to seeing more of your treatises, as well.)

Beowulf

Share this post


Link to post
This is not "just a funeral scene" that JS screwed up... (snickers all around)

In fact, EVERYTHING in an Egyptian funeral scene has to do with the Temple. (What do you think the Egyptians were doing in their funeral rites? They were seeing their beloved off to the next life, among the gods. And don't tell me this isn't what LDS do in their temples!)

And references to astronomy have to do with the Temple too.

I think you're a little unclear on the concept so hold the snickers. You have two choices.

Choice one: Accept Joseph Smith's explanations about this being a scene where Abraham sits on Pharaoh's throne. However, to accept Smith's explanation, you cannot simultaneously claim it's an Egytian scene showing a deceased person on his way to heaven and thus tied to the LDS endowment or sealing temple ceremony. Remember, both Smith and the Church claim this is NOT an Egyptian funeral scene and have for over a hundred years.

Choice two: Reject Smith's and the Church's explanations so you say the scene IS a depiction of a deceased person on his way to heaven and thus make a connection, however tenuous, to the idea behind LDS temple ceremonies. However if you admit Smith's and the Church's explanations are so completely wrong, you just disproved the Book of Abraham and, not co-incidentally, disproved Smith's prophetic ability to translate and establish that the Church was founded by a false prophet who makes things up.

You can't have it both ways. It's one or the other. Others have already pointed this out.

As a nonbeliever, I'll be delighted to accept you into the folds of those who think Smith's and the Church's explanations are completely wrong thus proving Smith wasn't a prophet and that the Church isn't true.

So which way do you want to play it?

James Clifford Miller

[email protected]

Share this post


Link to post

I personally see Joseph Smith as making speculative attempts to translate the papyrus by inspiration. Thinking they were Biblical stories this was all he wanted out of the papyrus. He clearly with facimilie no. 3 adopted it to complement the Book of Abrahams content which was different from actual literal content of the papyrus. D.&C. 9:7-9 allows for an incorrect translation by the prophet. I do think Kerry Shirts research demonstrates Joseph Smith recieved true impressions here & there. But his comments on the figures actual meaning is speculative.

The LDS canonized it but the Community of Christ treats it as the speculative writing of Joseph Smith.

I do think it's possible the Lord could have given Joseph a true story which he futily tried then tried to relate to the literal content of the papyrus. Not a lie of God because I don't believe God lies. I do think any part of translation especially of primitive spiritual impressions would involve explanation & interpretation. I assume if Gods intent was to translate into conventional egyptological terms he wouldn't have allowed Joseph Smith to misunderstand the papyrus. God not correcting & agreeing with Joseph Smith's explanations are two different things.

I do not agree with critics who say Joseph Smith mistranslated the papyrus, so how do we know he got the Book of Mormon translation right? We don't know the same quality of inspiration was involved. The Lord said the Book of Mormon was translated correctly. But with the Book of Abraham he never said it was translated correctly. As early as 1829 Joseph Smith was reported to have said "some revelations were of God, others of mem, and others of the devil." Somebody else said he felt revelations even if coming from the President of the church should be tested in the leading quorums before going to the people. He knew he could be decieved, or even mispeak for God.

Share this post


Link to post

Really? What nail? The Prophet said it was Abraham discussing astrology.

The intended point was lost on both you and Cinepro.

The nail Joseph hit was the temple ritual, not the facsimile translation.

Share this post


Link to post
Aside to Cinepro: Were you reading my mind? I just read your post...c'mon, admit it...you stole my thoughts! (I'm afraid that explains alot!)

As Beowulf would phrase it, Lady Sundancer, you and Cinepro "got it." This is a strictly either-or situtation.

James Clifford Miller

[email protected]

Share this post


Link to post

Really? What nail? The Prophet said it was Abraham discussing astrology.

The intended point was lost on both you and Cinepro.

The nail Joseph hit was the temple ritual, not the facsimile translation.

So are you disavowing his facsimile translation?

James Clifford Miller

[email protected]

Share this post


Link to post
So are you disavowing his facsimile translation?

I used to think you were just being difficult on purpose. You really don't get it, do you. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I guess we have gotten off topic. The point was that Joseph hit the nail on the head with temple ritual. Is this a wrong idea?

So his translation of the facimilie it has been admitted was wrong from an conventional egytological standpoint. I am not sure problems with the Book of Abraham make it any less worthy of belief.

Plus I know of Bible problems that makes the Book of Abraham look equally good. One example Tom Murphy discounts the Genisis account of creation as fictional based on current DNA research. He rejects creationist apologetics as incorrect. To me the prophetic abilitities of all Bible prophets are under dispute if man was the third chimpanzee. Man originated according to Evolutionists in Africa not with Adam & Eve in some mythical garden of Eden. I do not think you can question parts of the Bible as historical & others fictional without questioning the whole Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
And they are "reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy".

Were you this shocked when you found out the DSS contained astrology texts? Astronomy has always been associated with temple.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting about astronomy & the temple.

Share this post


Link to post
Interesting about astronomy & the temple.

The Zigurats, ancient Mesopotamian temples were also a point of astronomical observation.

Sumerians: When ancient Sumerian astronomers ascended their ziggurats to study the stars they believed to be getting closer to the cosmos, thus heightening their accessability to the meaning of its happenings. A ziggurat is a series of terraces piled one on top of another. They were attempting to bridge the gap between earth, heaven, and the Gods.

Source:

http://spot.pcc.edu/~mhutson/astronomy/121...sopotamian.html

Look out the structure of a Zigurat, the different steps until the highest place.

So, it's not a question of either or, is a question of how they both correlationed to each other, Smith interpretation of Abraham in the PGP & Smith recovery of the temple ritual.

Bye!

Share this post


Link to post
Figure 2, whom Joseph Smith misidentified as

Share this post


Link to post

Miller:

So do you think that Figure 4 is "King Pharaoh" or the goddess Maat? And how about the rest of the misidentifications?

Kerry:

Yes. That is seriously the answer. He is BOTH. I demonstrate that in my article soon to be out. A must read if this issue haunts you.

Share this post


Link to post
So Smith not only completely misidentified the five clearly labeled figures, he even completely missed the gender on two of them. Smith might have gotten away with misidentifying these figures except for the Egyptian language labels and Egyptologists can and have translated them and it

Share this post


Link to post
Hello Cinepro,
From David's post, it seems Joseph got everything wrong.

So sorry I led you astray. I personally believe that the facsimiles served as a catalyst for inspiration, so from this angle, Joseph clearly did not get anything

Share this post


Link to post
The vignettes are truly funerary scenes. Joseph Smith simply borrowed them for a higher purpose and by symbolic representation the story of Abraham is vivified.

Paul, do you have any statements from Joseph that clearly indicate his intent of using the scenes for 'symbolic representation'?

On the other hand, are there quotes in which Joseph says he 'tranlated' the scenes?

Share this post


Link to post

I think that the critics got caught off guard on this one. They are still trying to gain their balance.

I think that it is wonderful to see something that can strengthen faith in the gospel. I know that I need it after all the negatives that are batted around. Thanks David for the post.

Share this post


Link to post
The vignettes are truly funerary scenes. Joseph Smith simply borrowed them for a higher purpose and by symbolic representation the story of Abraham is vivified.

Paul, do you have any statements from Joseph that clearly indicate his intent of using the scenes for 'symbolic representation'?

On the other hand, are there quotes in which Joseph says he 'tranlated' the scenes?

Zorak,

When it comes to Facsimile No. 3, it's pretty clear to me that the prophet was just using the scene to help create the story. Don't you think he knew they were really women? Just look for yourself. Surely you don't think the prophet was just being dumb - besides, the critics are always quick to point out how Joseph Smith had an eye for women. So, let's do be consistent. :P

king%20and%20prince.jpg

Paul O

Share this post


Link to post

Kerry's not blowing his own horn here, but he is willing to part with CDs of his live Sunstone presentation, from which the article is, I assume, refined, for a pittance.

Oh, and Kerry? Please do cash my check. :P

Share this post


Link to post
When it comes to Facsimile No. 3, it's pretty clear to me that the prophet was just using the scene to help create the story. Don't you think he knew they were really women? Just look for yourself. Surely you don't think the prophet was just being dumb - besides, the critics are always quick to point out how Joseph Smith had an eye for women. So, let's do be consistent. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
This is very interesting.  I never looked really looked at the facsimilies this way.

I never really looked at them at all. I am afraid I am an idiot with all this but I did like the comparison of the pictures. When it comes to faith and knowledge...I am rather a simpleton. And certainly faith at least my faith in god is rather fragile. And so I like such things to come before my eyes. Although I am always expecting someone to shoot what faith I have down, I am trying now to gird up my loins by being on fair.

That's why I was glad to see your post on the fellowship thread as were many others who are perhaps just like me...girding up the loins. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...