Jump to content

Archived

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

kamenraider

Why Are There Engravings Of Egyptian Funeral Documents In My Quad?

Recommended Posts

Hey Nehor, here is a quotation from Mormon philosopher Bill from Beliefnet that I thought was germane:

I wouldn't go as far as he did. I don't think the Priesthood ban was divinely instituted and drawing one from the Book of Abraham is an amazing leap. I suspect that the Abraham story is correct. The Premortal story is important and I suspect that the whole Kolob thing was thrown in to give our 'looking beyond the mark' people something harmless to play with and provide an analogy for God. I suspect that when (hopefully soon) I get my starship tour of the galaxy like Abraham got in those great ascension stories that the whole thing will make much more sense.

I too like the facsimilies. Gives me something to look at in Priesthood Lessons when the Teacher hasn't read any of the lesson. These ones don't have nearly as much writing on them than my old scriptures, may need to get on that :P

Share this post


Link to post

So verse 14 is a complete interpolation? And verses 12 and 13 as well? Why do you believe a redactor would put words in Abraham's mouth to refer the reader to common vignettes on a separate scroll belonging the mummy of a dead guy named Hor?

You sure do like to throw in subtle fight-picking into your responses.

I believe the facsimiles fit the story. Some author borrowed common Egyptian scenes (such as the lion couch scene, a hypocephalus, and pharaoh in the throne room), and used their symbolism to relate them to the story of Abraham. This is, after all, exactly what these Egyptian scenes were used for. They were templates of sorts for stories.

I am intrigued when I see some weird but interested properties on the facsimiles. Facsimile 1 with Abraham alive in a praying position (no other lion couch scene shows the individual alive). Some fight was put into that scene trying to say that the person's hands were not raised in the air. But I believe it was Paul Osborne who collected dozens of instances of how Egyptians drew thumbs and tips of birds wings, and showed conclusively that yes, they were not birds wings, but were the individual's hands in the air. Further, a bird that can represent the angel of the Lord. Also, the curious wording "pillars of heaven" was an Egyptian phrase. Facsimile 2 fig 6 is absolutely 100% correct (in fact, it doesn't use symbolism much. It states it exactly as it is). Figure 5 is a cow, and Joseph Smith said the Egyptians used it to represent the Sun. Egyptologists recognize that cow as giving birth to the Sun. Definitely not exact, but still intriguing. I mean, how many times have you looked at a picture of a cow and thought "That relates to the Sun".

Again, I mentioned earlier that there are so many variables an unknowns that I don't really think my ideas are the correct ones. There are so many issues floating around that I don't get or don't know (for example, the name written above the head in facsimile 3). I'm with solarpowered stating that I feel I'm about 3% current in current BoA research. So I'm just stating what my best guess is. My belief/guess is that some redactor came along, read the story of Abraham, modified it slightly, and either borrowed or drew scenes that symbolically represent the story. I don't know how they could end up on separate scrolls. It was apparently very common for vignettes to appear on different rolls. I don't know why it happens so often, but it does.

Share this post


Link to post

You sure do like to throw in subtle fight-picking into your responses.

I didn't mean for it to be taken that way -- I was just a little confused.

I believe the facsimiles fit the story. Some author borrowed common Egyptian scenes (such as the lion couch scene, a hypocephalus, and pharaoh in the throne room), and used their symbolism to relate them to the story of Abraham. This is, after all, exactly what these Egyptian scenes were used for. They were templates of sorts for stories.

I guess the facsimiles can be interpreted to fit the story of Abraham, however they don't immediately accompany the text of the Book of Abraham. That's where my confusion comes in -- how do we (or did they) know or find indicated which separate scroll the accompanying illustrations were to be found on? Perhaps the Book of Abraham text was attached later to the same roll as Hor's copy of the Book of Breathings, but that's just conjecture.

I looked up the Nibley quote you posted in this thread in my edition of The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri (which is a first edition, however the quote was still there) hoping that I might find an accompanying illustration or figure, but there wasn't one. I'll have to find a copy of the 2nd ed. so I can check out the "cf. pg. 77, fig. 16". Anyway, I don't think that J. C. Goyon's point was that the text and vignettes were each on separate scrolls, but that when the Book of the Dead was abbreviated into a Book of Breathings, some vignettes were inserted in places (on the same scroll) somewhat unrelated to the text.

I am intrigued when I see some weird but interested properties on the facsimiles.

...

Further, a bird that can represent the angel of the Lord. Also, the curious wording "pillars of heaven" was an Egyptian phrase. Facsimile 2 fig 6 is absolutely 100% correct (in fact, it doesn't use symbolism much. It states it exactly as it is). Figure 5 is a cow, and Joseph Smith said the Egyptians used it to represent the Sun. Egyptologists recognize that cow as giving birth to the Sun. Definitely not exact, but still intriguing. I mean, how many times have you looked at a picture of a cow and thought "That relates to the Sun".

I agree. Earlier in the thread I mentioned being "...aware that there are some pretty remarkable things in the explanations for the facsimiles, as far as Joseph interpreting their meaning goes (which I see as additional evidence that he is a prophet). "

Facsimile 1 with Abraham alive in a praying position (no other lion couch scene shows the individual alive). Some fight was put into that scene trying to say that the person's hands were not raised in the air. But I believe it was Paul Osborne who collected dozens of instances of how Egyptians drew thumbs and tips of birds wings, and showed conclusively that yes, they were not birds wings, but were the individual's hands in the air.

Although I see a line that looks very thumblike, I also see an absence of long finger lines like the ones on the lower hand, and I also see the kind of dots used to represent feathers, so I don't think I can agree that the evidence is conclusive:

upperhandem0.jpg

My belief/guess is that some redactor came along, read the story of Abraham, modified it slightly, and either borrowed or drew scenes that symbolically represent the story. I don't know how they could end up on separate scrolls. It was apparently very common for vignettes to appear on different rolls. I don't know why it happens so often, but it does.

Isn't it obvious though, that (though they may be interpreted to match the BOA text) the facsimiles were not custom-drawn to match the text of the Book of Abraham? Also, why assume they were on different rolls? They could've been attached by the redactor (which I think could make sense as far as explaining how we would know they were supposed to go together, or perhaps how someone in Kirtland could mistakenly assume that they went together).

Share this post


Link to post

You dont have to believe the book of abraham to be scirpture to be lds. The RLDS church doesnt and there is talk that Hugh B. Brown did not believe the book of abraham was inspired.

I take it as pseudo-epigraphical similar to the Book of Enoch(which used to be canonized and is officially early christian scipture). It inspires me and contains Ancient Royal Cult teachings and therefore I take it as inspired "scripture". (Scripture does not need to be factual or historical to be such)

Share this post


Link to post

I actually believe the Book of Abraham to be scripture -- no doubts at all, and no quotes on the word necessary. It's just those facsimiles and explanations that I don't know about (although I understand that they do contain some remarkably inspired understanding on some points).

Share this post


Link to post

Although I see a line that looks very thumblike, I also see an absence of long finger lines like the ones on the lower hand, and I also see the kind of dots used to represent feathers, so I don't think I can agree that the evidence is conclusive:

The collection that Paul Osborne had showed dozens of hand tips and wing tips.

Wingtips were always closed. Meaning a curve contained all the "feather" lines. Handtips were always open, meaning there was never a curve to contain the "finger" lines. Further, thumbs are always drawn in a very distinct way, with a large u-shaped hook in them. I tried to find the link, but I think my memory may have failed me. I believe my brain merged webpages of both Paul Osborne's site, and our own own Kerry Shirts who also wrote about this too: link

Isn't it obvious though, that (though they may be interpreted to match the BOA text) the facsimiles were not custom-drawn to match the text of the Book of Abraham? Also, why assume they were on different rolls? They could've been attached by the redactor (which I think could make sense as far as explaining how we would know they were supposed to go together, or perhaps how someone in Kirtland could mistakenly assume that they went together).

It isn't obvious to me that they aren't custom drawn. :P I think there is very, very little about the facsimiles that we can say are "obvious". That includes which roll (if it at all) the text appeared on.

Share this post


Link to post

It isn't obvious to me that they aren't custom drawn. :P I think there is very, very little about the facsimiles that we can say are "obvious". That includes which roll (if it at all) the text appeared on.

I'm really just wondering if there's anything on the facsimiles that relates to Abraham's story, and why we should or would regard the explanations as scripture if so many of them are incorrect. We know the Book of Abraham mentions a bedstead and five gods, and facsimile 1 has those elements. Do you know of anything else on the facsimiles that screams "Abraham-Specific"? Do you think that the redactor introduced the atypical element of two hands being raised (if he even did) as the big clue that we are to understand the vignettes on that particular copy of the Book of Breathings to pertain to Abraham's story somehow in spite of a non-speculative translation that indicates to the contrary?

Is there anything HERE that pertains to the text of the Book of Abraham?

Regarding the hand/wing thing, I seem to re-member THIS page, which could be relevant to why a bird might be depicted there.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm really just wondering if there's anything on the facsimiles that relates to Abraham's story

Definitely a good question. I'm in no position to give good answers to this.

and why we should or would regard the explanations as scripture if so many of them are incorrect.

Are you certain of this? If so, why?

Do you think that the redactor introduced the atypical element of two hands being raised (if he even did) as the big clue that we are to understand the vignettes on that particular copy of the Book of Breathings to pertain to Abraham's story somehow in spite of a non-speculative translation that indicates to the contrary?

Again, I don't know why the vignette is found next to a Book of Breathings roll. I don't know if a redactor placed it there. I don't know if it's a copy of the vignette, or a copy of a copy. I don't know if the author intended to put obvious clues to let us know that the lion couch scene relates to Abraham. (One lion couch scene does with words nearby that link it to Abraham. We know the facsimiles definitely aren't that explicit).

As for the purpose why the hands are in the air. As Jeff Lindsay points out, the person on the couch is in a perfect praying symbol, rotated 90 degrees. link

boa-2.gif

Again, if you compare it to facsimile 1, not only are the hands in that position, but one leg is stretched away from the other leg in the same manner. (Now, again, I'm in no position to say "that is supposed to represent Abraham praying". I recently ran across another vignette where the person on the couch has only one arm up and touching the forehead and the leg in the air in the same way.)

Is there anything HERE that pertains to the text of the Book of Abraham?

I don't know anyone who thinks it does.

Regarding the hand/wing thing, I seem to re-member THIS page, which could be relevant to why a bird might be depicted there.

Because of examples like this, I can definitely understand why people wonder if facsimile 1's tips are wingtips. But the open ended lines and especially the distinctive thumbs are a dead give away. Those two things are the tips of hands.

Share this post


Link to post

Her Amun,

Thanks for your reply. I don't know if I have time to scrutinize two full scholarly papers all the while scratching my head and asking myself which parts might apply to what I asked. Could you be a little more specific?

Sorry bro, you have to read. No quick fixes from me. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry bro, you have to read. No quick fixes from me. :P

I'm sorry Her Amun, I guess asking for an original answer using more than a dozen or so words is asking too much. Nevermind.

Share this post


Link to post

Although I see a line that looks very thumblike, I also see an absence of long finger lines like the ones on the lower hand, and I also see the kind of dots used to represent feathers, so I don't think I can agree that the evidence is conclusive:

An excellent observation on the dots. I don't think I've ever encountered that particular observation before.

Share this post


Link to post

What do you guys think of the following approach from Joe Sampson in his book Written by the Finger of God?

sampjn0.jpg

Do you endorse these sort of ideas? Are you embarassed by them?

I think Sampson's book was very entertaining and informative, but I would be hesitant to say that his approach here has any genuine credibility as far as resolving these issues.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry Her Amun, I guess asking for an original answer using more than a dozen or so words is asking too much. Nevermind.

good comeback :P

The probem is Gee and Barney do provide original answers, which are better documented than anything youll get from me.

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't go as far as he did. I don't think the Priesthood ban was divinely instituted and drawing one from the Book of Abraham is an amazing leap. I suspect that the Abraham story is correct. The Premortal story is important and I suspect that the whole Kolob thing was thrown in to give our 'looking beyond the mark' people something harmless to play with and provide an analogy for God. I suspect that when (hopefully soon) I get my starship tour of the galaxy like Abraham got in those great ascension stories that the whole thing will make much more sense.

I too like the facsimilies. Gives me something to look at in Priesthood Lessons when the Teacher hasn't read any of the lesson. These ones don't have nearly as much writing on them than my old scriptures, may need to get on that :P

I believe the priesthood ban was Divinely authorized, though for reasons that are not clear to me.

I believe the lifting of the ban was Divinly authorized. The Lord directs the Church. He knows more than us and when we are reunited with Him that whole chapter in Church history will make alot more sense.

Share this post


Link to post

What do you guys think of the following approach from Joe Sampson in his book Written by the Finger of God?

Sampson is correct that this is how the alphabet and grammar works.

Share this post


Link to post

By the way, comparison of the two FARMS Reviews of Joe Sampson's book provides some interesting insight into two of the major apologetic paradigms (and into how willing they are to turn and devour one another). The viciousness of the latter article, especially given that its conclusions are based on a misrepresentation of the historical evidence of JS's involvement in the alphabet and grammar project, turns my face a bit red.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=160

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.ph...view&id=181

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...