Jump to content

Archived

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

Rommelator

Shinehah In Abraham 3:13

Recommended Posts

Again, the association is tangential at best. And an association is not the same as "Joseph Smith knew what he was talking about."

Once upon a time, I wrote a piece here about how the Book of Mormon must have been Norwegian in origin. I took about ten Book of Mormon names and found cognates and combinations of cognates from Norwegian that worked quite well. It isn't very hard to do what Kerry has done in any language.

I would like to see that. Did it pass peer review? :P

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post

In his recent commentary on the Book of Abraham, Michael D. Rhodes--who has a background in Egyptology--notes that the word Shinehah seems to be "Semitic rather than Egyptian" and suggests that it may be related to the Hebrew, Akkadian, and Arabic words for "year" (see Richard D. Draper, S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes, The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary [salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005], 273).

Just thought I'd put that out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Whether it's impressive or unimpressive to you is irrelevant. The point is, from a linguistic point of view, your methodology is crap. No comparative linguist would take it seriously. Lot's of "s-words," indeed.

Your methodology is what? Does it convince linguists that shinehah is a correct identification of an Egyptian word that means sun?

CFR!

The idiot-savant theory requires Joseph (during his Cambridge years) to consult all sorts of arcane and rare maps, books, magical manuscripts, etc. when he gets it right, but then assume that he just takes the English word "shine" and plays around with it. Joseph the brilliant con-man could have, and indeed would have, done a lot better than that.

I do not hold to the idiot savant theory. You are only amazed because you don't count the misses and are to willing to identifiy things as hits.

Take some random, moderately clever or just imaginative guy who is interested in languages. Now let him be actually studying languages that were in play at the time and region in question.

Now let him make up a whole bunch of stuff. Now let believing apologists scan it for decades and see if there isn't some made up word that has a relation to a similar sounding real word. (Listen to the Nostradamus scholars if you want to hear what this sounds like to the rest of us)

Try wetta for water.

I just made that up. It may not relate to anything Egyptian.

But, if I did that many many times, always using plausible sounding words for extremely basic concepts like sun, moon, water, earth, time, season, etc, and especially if I use words similar to English or Hebrew (which he was studying) then you WILL get pseudo-hits.

This is exactly that way it works when Nostradamus nuts read Nostradamus. They don't count the misses.

It's how it works with famous psychics like Jeane Dixon . No one is counting the misses.

And close is always considered a direct hit.

One never or seldom sees a straight hit (as if "shinehah" was just the actual common word for sun in Egyptian) Why do God's revelations always need a bandaid.

By the way, Bill, why don't you accept Nostradamus as a prophet? He has a lot of "hits".

Share this post


Link to post
In his recent commentary on the Book of Abraham, Michael D. Rhodes--who has a background in Egyptology--notes that the word Shinehah seems to be "Semitic rather than Egyptian" and suggests that it may be related to the Hebrew, Akkadian, and Arab words for "year" (see Richard D. Draper, S. Kent Brown, and Michael D. Rhodes, The Pearl of Great Price: A Verse-by-Verse Commentary [salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2005], 273).

Hmmmm. And JS was studying Hebrew.

Share this post


Link to post
One never or seldom sees a straight hit (as if "shinehah" was just the actual common word for sun in Egyptian) Why do God's revelations always need a bandaid.

Share this post


Link to post
What more of a hit do you want? If this is unacceptable to you then nothing will ever be acceptable to you. I even xeroxed the pages from the grammar book because I knew you'd refuse to accept the evidence. It was obviously a waste of time.

Using your "methodology" (and I use the term very loosely) NOTHING will ever be acceptable as evidence in favor of Joseph Smith.

Start counting the misses. Do the stats. Then I will be interested. I will be even more interested when impartial egyptologists and linguists are convinced by your arguments concerning the whole BOA documents. The whole thing should work as a considered whole! Not just a word here or there.

Oh, and be sure to check out the literature on Nostradamus. I think he gets better hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Start counting the misses. Do the stats. Then I will be interested. I will be even more interested when impartial egyptologists and linguists are convinced by your arguments concerning the whole BOA documents. The whole thing should work as a considered whole! Not just a word here or there.

Oh, and be sure to check out the literature on Nostradamus. I think he gets better hits.

Will you admit that this is evidence in favor of JS? (Not proof. Evidence.)

Share this post


Link to post
Start counting the misses. Do the stats. Then I will be interested. I will be even more interested when impartial egyptologists and linguists are convinced by your arguments concerning the whole BOA documents. The whole thing should work as a considered whole! Not just a word here or there.

Oh, and be sure to check out the literature on Nostradamus. I think he gets better hits.

What makes you think I don't pay attention to the misses? Have I claimed this is proof that the BOM is ancient? Have I claimed that it is proof that JS was a prophet? It is simply a piece of evidence that supports the claim of historicity.

And your ad hominem that only non-Mormon interpretations are valid of course further distorts the process in your favor. What would you say if I would only accept interpretations by Mormons? I suspect you'd accuse me of faulty methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Will you admit that this is evidence in favor of JS? (Not proof. Evidence.)

I will admit that if I were still believer I would consider this as interesting tentative evidence. Perhaps it is such in some weak pedantic sense.

I have since learned that a closer look or lots of time tends to erode these things. For example, I felt burned by "Ancient America Speaks". I also think I would have to count some of the Nostradamus stuff as technically positive evidence (drastically insufficient and implausible).

This all assumes that a closer look wouldn't debunk the whole thing flat out (which is what seems to always eventually happen).

I would say that it is positive evidence only in the same way that a blurry photo of a UFO counts as evidence of an alien invasion.

I would need much much more-enough to overwhelm the obvious objections and salient features of the whole situation (see the quote in my sig).

Share this post


Link to post

Hi friends,

It should be noted that Joseph Smith gives the meaning of Shinehah in a verse that also mentions Kokob and Kokaubeam, both of which are correctly translated Hebrew words. Joshua Seixas' Hebrew Grammar, in both its first and second editions (both of which the prophet owned a copy of), included the word Sh-N-H, which was translated as "a year." Neither edition of Seixas' grammar, however, included the Hebrew word for "sun" (at least that I can find). If Joseph didn't know the Hebrew word for "sun", using the word for "year" might have seemed a natural alternative, especially since he in his 1835 Alphabet and Grammar had made several references to "The moon, the earth and the sun in their annual revolutions." Ideas of revolution, time, and motion seem to be inherent in all the A&G's terms for celestial bodies, in fact. It should be noted that the first (known) use of Shinehah is as a D&C codename. JS's use of the term in the BoA may have provided a convenient opportunity to invest one of his nonsense words with a legitimate Egypto-Hebrew meaning.

Best,

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Hi friends,

It should be noted that Joseph Smith gives the meaning of Shinehah in a verse that also mentions Kokob and Kokaubeam, both of which are correctly translated Hebrew words. Joshua Seixas' Hebrew Grammar, in both its first and second editions (both of which the prophet owned a copy of), included the word Sh-N-H, which was translated as "a year." Neither edition of Seixas' grammar, however, included the Hebrew word for "sun" (at least that I can find). If Joseph didn't know the Hebrew word for "sun", using the word for "year" might have seemed a natural alternative, especially since he in his 1835 Alphabet and Grammar had made several references to "The moon, the earth and the sun in their annual revolutions." Ideas of revolution, time, and motion seem to be inherent in all the A&G's terms for celestial bodies, in fact. It should be noted that the first (known) use of Shinehah is as a D&C codename. JS's use of the term in the BoA may have provided a convenient opportunity to invest one of his nonsense words with a legitimate Egypto-Hebrew meaning.

Ah. Suddenly the mystery starts to dissipate. That didn't take long.

Share this post


Link to post

Since we are still on the subject of the Sun...

Tarski, you still have not responded to my question about Hathor=sun.

Come on now, it is fairly simple. How did Joseph Smith know that the Hathor cow is symbolic of the sun? He clearly says this in Fig. 5 of Fac. 2.

This is not just the Mormon view, but the standard view by Egyptologists.

"Hathor is the sun because she was the sun's eye, hence the sun." [bonnet, p. 280]

"In the end the goddess [Hathor] who bore the sun was herself equated with the sun, being regarded as the solar eye." [M. Lurker, The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt, trans. B. Cumming, London: Thames and Hudson, 1982, p. 59,]

Furthermore, now that MormonMason, Bill and myself have all three shown from the standard non-LDS sources (since you so dogmatically demand such) that the Semitic roots (Egyptian and Hebrew) shn and nhh are indeed equated with the sun, will you be willing to grant this? I think that the evidence is overwhelming. But, just in case you missed it:

shn= sun (Winfried Barta), sun's orbit (E. A. W. Budge), sun's cycle (also Budge). Three Egyptologists seem to think that shn represents solar properties, wouldn't you say? Further, Alan Gardiner, commenting on shn/shnw construct, says that "...it seems not unlikely that the idea was to represent the king as ruler of all that which is encircled by the sun."

The burden of proof rests on you to disprove these Egyptologists if you do not agree with them.

nhh=solar hawk and sun emblem (E.A.W. Budge) + "indefinite period of time" (also E.A.W. Budge) or "literally infinity" (Carol Andrews).

Is that good enough for you?

BTW, great shifting of the goal posts there when you suddenly demanded non-LDS Egyptologists to confirm Joseph Smith's interpretations after MormonMason, Bill and myself overwhelmingly demonstrated that Shinehah is an acceptable word for "sun" in Egyptian and Hebrew. Great Methodology. [/sarcasm]

Bill:

You probably know this, but good luck getting Tarski to budge an inch. I have come to learn that he/she/it is so dogmatic against Joseph Smith that despite our evidence, he/she/it refuses to open up. There seems to be no point in continuing this fruitless debate.

We seem to wasting our time and our efforts. :P

A part of me is sorry that I started this thread, as it has wasted the time of so many people. On the other hand, I am glad to know that I should refrain from any future debate with Tarski over historical or linguistic issues.

Share this post


Link to post

Chris:

JS's use of the term in the BoA may have provided a convenient opportunity to invest one of his nonsense words with a legitimate Egypto-Hebrew meaning.

Shinehah a nonsense word? Good grief! Now I know that I have been wasting my time. And now I know the full extend of your close-mindedness.

Very well. Please continue, gentlemen, with your rationalizations, generalizations, ad hominem attacks and flippant hand waving. I'm off to bed.

P.s.

Tarski, your "siggy" is also highly misinformed.

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/1912.htm

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/attackof.htm

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/discussi.htm

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/attacks.htm

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/book...&chapid=288

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/book...&chapid=287

Oops. I forgot that these are Mormon sources. My bad. I guess we should just through them out with the rest of 'em, huh?

Oh, and one more time.

Hathor=sun? You got anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Tarski, you still have not responded to my question about Hathor=sun.

While I don't especially feel like reopening this question at the moment, I would like to link the studio audience to a thread in which I think both the critics' and the apologists' perspectives on why Facsimile 2 gets some things "right" are made fairly clear. Which side one finds more persuasive will, I have little doubt, depend upon one's paradigm. Best,

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post
:P
Alas, another manifestation of the idiot-savant theory.

Share this post


Link to post
While I don't especially feel like reopening this question at the moment, I would like to link the studio audience to a thread in which I think both the critics' and the apologists' perspectives on why Facsimile 2 gets some things "right" are made fairly clear. Which side one finds more persuasive will, I have little doubt, depend upon one's paradigm. Best,

-Chris

Oh, that's right! I totally forgot that Joseph Smith was able to make "intuitive leaps" because Michael Chandler had told him that Fac. 2 was astronomical in design. Duh! Of course Joseph Smith would have been able to associate Hathor with the sun, the 4 sons of Horus with the cardinal point, the Sokar ship with 1000 and the heavenly firmament, Min as "God sitting upon his throne" the Re-Sokar as also representing deity upon a throne, Khenum-Re as the primordial forces of creation and Amun-Re similarly as primeval creation and baboons as stars. [/sarcasm]

There you go everyone. Michael Chandler and "intuitive leaps" is what made Joseph Smith such a good guesser with the hypocephalus.

Share this post


Link to post
Shinehah a nonsense word? Good grief! Now I know that I have been wasting my time. And now I know the full extend of your close-mindedness.

Shinehah was used in the 1835 D&C (sections 82 and 104 in the modern edition) as a codename for Kirtland. Also used as code words were shinelah (which was substituted for the English phrase "to print"), laneshine (which was substituted for "print shop"), and shinelane (which was substituted for "printing"). The 1835 Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar included the word Shineflis as the name of one of the fifteen fixed stars. Shinehah appeared again in 1838 as part of the phrase Olah[a] Shinehah, allegedly the name of the plains near Adam-Ondi-Ahman. The first time Shinehah is assigned an English meaning is Abr. 3:13, where it is said to refer to the sun. Presumably Olea is a variant of Olah[a]; it is referred to the moon.

Given Shinehah's transmission history, I think my suggestion that it began life as a "nonsense word" but later took on new meaning due to the prophet's study of Hebrew is perfectly reasonable. But you are welcome to take this as an indication of my mental intransigency if you wish.

Best,

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Which side one finds more persuasive will, I have little doubt, depend upon one's paradigm.
Oh, that's right! I totally forgot that Joseph Smith was able to make "intuitive leaps" because Michael Chandler had told him that Fac. 2 was astronomical in design. Duh! Of course Joseph Smith would have been able to associate Hathor with the sun, the 4 sons of Horus with the cardinal point, the Sokar ship with 1000 and the heavenly firmament, Min as "God sitting upon his throne" the Re-Sokar as also representing deity upon a throne, Khenum-Re as the primordial forces of creation and Amun-Re similarly as primeval creation and baboons as stars. [/sarcasm]

There you go everyone. Michael Chandler and "intuitive leaps" is what made Joseph Smith such a good guesser with the hypocephalus.

Case in point.

I should point out, for the benefit of our readers, that you overstate your case and understate mine. I refer them to the linked thread for a more accurate statement of the two sides' views. I also recommend they read the Facs. 2 explanations for themselves to make sure that the things cited (like "primordial forces of creation") are, in fact, the meanings JS assigned to the figures in question. Best,

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Shinehah was used in the 1835 D&C (sections 82 and 104 in the modern edition) as a codename for Kirtland. Also used as code words were shinelah (which was substituted for the English phrase "to print"), laneshine (which was substituted for "print shop"), and shinelane (which was substituted for "printing"). The 1835 Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar included the word Shineflis as the name of one of the fifteen fixed stars. Shinehah appeared again in 1838 as part of the phrase Olah[a] Shinehah, allegedly the name of the plains near Adam-Ondi-Ahman. The first time Shinehah is assigned an English meaning is Abr. 3:13, where it is said to refer to the sun. Presumably Olea is a variant of Olah[a]; it is referred to the moon.

Given Shinehah's transmission history, I think my suggestion that it began life as a "nonsense word" but later took on new meaning due to the prophet's study of Hebrew is perfectly reasonable. But you are welcome to take this as an indication of my mental intransigency if you wish.

Of course, we already noted in earlier posts the possible relationship between shinehah and Hebrew.

Two questions: 1- Are the code names in the original manuscripts, or only in the 1835 printed version? 2- What month was the 1835 edition printed?

Using the basic principle of subjecting the theories of the critics to just as much skeptical scrutiny as they subject the theories of believers, we should note the following.

1- JS began his translation of the papyri in July 1835. (HC 2:238)

2- He received a Hebrew Bible and lexicon on 20 Nov 1835. (HC 2:318)

3- Rabbi Sexias arrived to teach Hebrew on 26 Jan 1836. (HC 2:385)

Now, if JS decided to put Hebrew words into the BOA to provide verisimilitude, he had a Hebrew Bible, lexicon and ultimately a Rabbi to help him.

So, why in the world would he make up a "nonsense word" Shinehah and stick it in the BOA? It would be extraordinarily easy for him to learn that the standard Hebrew word for sun was

Share this post


Link to post
Hmmmm. And JS was studying Hebrew.

Well, Biblical Hebrew does have a fairly rare -hah phoneme (only a few obscure names contain it and Joseph Smith did not have a Strong's Concordance or Young's Analytical Concordance since neither would have been published yet, so it most likely was a Cruden's Concordance--if he had access to one at all), which other words containing it not attested in Biblical Hebrew do appear in Modern Hebrew.

Bilhah, Jogbehah are the only two in the Bible. There are two others with cheth instead of heh as the initial letter of the -hah phoneme, and these are: Janohah and Nohah.

None of these are to be found in the main body of the Concordance of Cruden. Many editions of Cruden's Concordance actually omitted certain portions of the Concordance, including the Table of Proper Names and the portion of the Concordance covering the Apocrypha or other portions at times. Only a complete and unabridged edition of Cruden (I had a devil of a time actually finding one in good condition, and most that say they are complete--aren't!) would have contained these sections, I believe.

At any rate, of these total of four names with a form of -hah phoneme as found in the KJV Bible, only Bilhah is contained within the Table of Proper Names in those editions which actually included these sections.

So, it could be either-or. On the one hand, this is not as likely since Joseph Smith would have known that Hebrew had a word for Sun. What is the likelihood he would have used a nonsense word instead, knowing that? On the other hand, both older and later Egyptian dialects did have some Semitic words in the vocabulary, so I guess some might say we are back to square one or two. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Bill,

The code names are not in the original manuscripts. They were added sometime in the months leading up to the August printing of the 1835 D&C. (The purpose of the code-names was to disguise the United Order revelations as ancient revelations to Enoch. This was done to mislead creditors who might try to go after the persons named in the revelations. When Orson Pratt explained all this in 1852, he referred to them as "fictitious names".) Seixas began teaching Hebrew in January, 1836. He seems to have permanently departed Kirtland at the end of March of the same year. Chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham was not translated until 1842. To clarify what I am saying, here is what I see as the progression here:

1) In 1835, when Joseph inserts the term as a code word for "Kirtland" in Sections 82 and 104, it is basically a made-up word that is designed to sound like an authentic Adamic term.

2) In 1838 Joseph identifies the plains of Shinehah Olah[a], thereby identifying the fictitious toponym with a real Adamic/Enochian locale.

3) In his study of Hebrew, Joseph has come across a Hebrew word that seems to answer to Shinehah. He includes the word and its (approximate) Hebrew meaning in the astronomical portion of the BoA in 1842.

In light of the above, I hope you'll see why your following question does not accurately understand what I am suggesting:

So, why in the world would he make up a "nonsense word" Shinehah and stick it in the BOA?

Thanks,

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Bill,

The code names are not in the original manuscripts. They were added sometime in the months leading up to the August printing of the 1835 D&C. (The purpose of the code-names was to disguise the United Order revelations as ancient revelations to Enoch. This was done to mislead creditors who might try to go after the persons named in the revelations. When Orson Pratt explained all this in 1852, he referred to them as "fictitious names".) Seixas began teaching Hebrew in January, 1836. He seems to have permanently departed Kirtland at the end of March of the same year. Chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham was not translated until 1842. To clarify what I am saying, here is what I see as the progression here:

1) In 1835, when Joseph inserts the term as a code word for "Kirtland" in Sections 82 and 104, it is basically a made-up word that is designed to sound like an authentic Adamic term.

2) In 1838 Joseph identifies the plains of Shinehah Olah[a], thereby identifying the fictitious toponym with a real Adamic/Enochian locale.

3) In his study of Hebrew, Joseph has come across a Hebrew word that seems to answer to Shinehah. He includes the word and its (approximate) Hebrew meaning in the astronomical portion of the BoA in 1842.

In light of the above, I hope you'll see why your following question does not accurately understand what I am suggesting:

Thanks,

-Chris

The problem remains. Why insert a so-called "nonsense word" when you not only have access to the Hebrew word for sun, but you have other members of the School of the Prophets who would know the Hebrew word for sun? There has to be some logical motive to insert a "nonsense word" instead of a Hebrew word. So far, all you have is an assertion that he did it.

Note, too, that some of the code names, like Baurak Ale, are also identifiable Hebrew words.

Share this post


Link to post

We should also note that according to the critics, JS is simply making up the BOA. So, let's say he discovered his "nonsense word" Shinehah was homophonous with the Hebrew word shanat (year) as Chris claims. Why not put in the BOA that year = Shinehah, and sun = Shamash? Remember, JS is making it all up, so he could equate Shinehah with any word he wanted. Chris' theory simply doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
I should point out, for the benefit of our readers, that you overstate your case and understate mine.

Really, how so? On the other thread, you posited that because Michael Chandler had told Joseph Smith that the hypocephalus of Sheshonq was a astronomical in nature, that gave him the ability to make "intuitive leaps" (your own words) and correctly assign explanations to the figures. When I asked you, for example, how Joseph Smith was able to correctly associate the number 1000 with the Sokar ship, you began to ramble about how the EAG and how he has it in there, and such. This does not answer, however, where he got 1000 from ANYWHERE! The EAG are just like the Book of Abraham in that he had NOTHING from which he could have previously gotten his information. The Egyptian language was not understood in Joseph Smith's America, so unless you are suggesting that he secretly studied under Champolleon over in Europe for a brief enough time to not be noticed that he was gone but long enough to correctly identify the contents of a hypocephalus, what do you have to go off of? And, when you think about it, this is exactly why critics will not budge with Joseph Smith's explanations of the Facsimiles. For Joseph Smith to get anything right before Egyptian was understood even by the most sophisticated scholars would be an amazing confirmation of his Prophetic ability, wouldn't you say? But, as we all know, we cannot allow Joseph Smith to get anything right. Nope. All of his Egyptian stuff is just mumbo jumbo nonsense, no matter how many pages of an Egyptian grammar or dictionary we scan for you to affirm something as simple as Shinehah.

I also recommend they read the Facs. 2 explanations for themselves to make sure that the things cited (like "primordial forces of creation") are, in fact, the meanings JS assigned to the figures in question. Best,

Take figures 1 and 2. These interesting fellows are Khunm-Ra and Amen-Ra, respectively. According to Egyptologist James R. Harris, figure 1 (Khunm-Ra) often has four heads (sometimes 2, as in the JS Hypocephalus) and represents to primordial elements of creation, including Geb (earth), Shu (air), Ra (fire), and Osiris (water). He represents the creation of all things from those primeval elements (no ex nihilo with the Egyptians) and is often called the father of the Gods, because he also created all Gods (including Ra, hence his name). His two heads looking forward and backward function much like the Roman god Janus, in that he is a time God who is looking back to the past and forward to the future. Khunm-Ra is also called the "great creator" and is sometimes holding the wes scepter of power or a potter's wheel symbolizing creation.

Furthermore, as Kerry Shirts has noted: http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/amunre.htm

This idea of measurement to the ancient Egyptians was precisely what Joseph Smith said, namely, "the system of measures must have coordinated not only length, volume, and weight, but also time."39 What is absolutely incredible is that "the source of the Egyptian cubit and foot" relates directly here. "There are 86,400 seconds in a day of twenty four hours, or the time it takes the earth to revlolve on its axis. So the distance traveled by the earth at the equator in one second is exactly 1000 of Jomard's cubits." (My emphasis)40 Most interesting... There is that number 1,000 as Joseph Smith said. Now then, we read further that "The builders of the Great Pyramid gave its base a length corresponding to the distance the earth rotates in 1/2 a second. This makes the cubit and the foot doubly earth commensurate: the cubit was equal to 1/1000 of a second of time, the foot to 1/100 second of arc."41 We find Joseph Smith exactly correct in this aspect of Figure 1 also, "the ancient astronomers took the earth's daily rotation on its axis as a unit of time and made 1,000 cubits the distance traveled by the earth in a second of time."42 In the ancient Egyptian parlance, based on measurements, "there are 360,000 geographic feet in one degree."43 Divide that by 360 days for the Egyptian year, and you have 1,000. There it is again. And again, we note that "the speed of rotation of the vault of heaven is 1000 geographic cubits a second."44 Again, "Three qedet of 9 grams makes the Roman ounce of which 1000 makes the cube of the Egyptian foot of 300 millimeters." Again the 1000 pops its head up. We read further that "the ancients were concerned particularly with the speed of a point at the equator [as Joseph Smith said, from the measure of this earth] in terms of sidereal time. A minute of time (solar time) corresponds to the length of 15 minutes of degree of equator." This equivilance left them with, among other measures, "1 second (sidereal time) = 1000 cubits."45 Interestingly a minute of time = 100,000 Mycanaean feet, which gives us "second of time = 1000 Greek cubits."46 "The Egyptians counted a minute of arc as being 1000 brasses, or 1000 fathoms of 6 feet."47

That Joseph Smith equated the number 1000 as being an important Egyptian figure is indicative of his prophetic calling. He twice mentions this number 1000 in the hypocephalus. This number was also important to the Egyptians, as a unit of measure of time and space, as well as one of the names of one of their most important Goddesses, namely Nut.

So we see Khnum-Ra is linked with the forces of time, 1/1000 of a second of time, to be precise.

chnum.jpg

Here is Khunm-Ra from Fac. 2

Now, who does Joseph Smith identify him as?

"Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh."

Note also that in the original, a lacuna was present where fig. 1 is that presumably Joseph Smith restored (correctly, I might add). In his restoration, he included the following hieratic characters not found in any of the Joseph Smith Papyri:

chnum1.jpg

These figures, according to James R. Harris, translate into the four primordial elements of creation (earth, air, fire, water). Joseph Smith correctly identified these figures as being associated with Khunm-Ra (the same as the figures he associated with Fig. 3, the Sokar Ship).

Furthermore, figures 22 and 23 Joseph Smith correctly identifies as stars receiving light from Fig 1. In Hypocephalus B.M. 8445a these baboons are identified as the morning stars receiving light from Khnum-RA with an inscription above their heads that read: "The god is adorned 4 times". Or, according to Harris, "the source of light and life is adorned by the morning stars."

Not bad for someone who didn't really know Egyptian, wouldn't you say Chris? Not bad at all for someone who is supposed to not have gotten anything right, according to Dr. Ritner, huh? Not bad for someone who is simply using "nonsense words". Not bad at all.

Now, moving onto figure 2. Joseph Smith identifies this figure as:

"Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham, as he offered sacrifice upon an altar, which he had built unto the Lord."

Once again, according to Harris, this Amen-Ra is also associated with the primeval creation powers, but this time as a "mysterious" creative power. His name in Egyptian i.m.n means "that which is hidden". He is holding a wes scepter, which signifies his power and governorship of creation and his dominion over mortals. Next to him is the lotus table, which Harris sees as a symbol of sacrifice.

All of this can be found in Studies in Scripture: The Pearl of Great Price from pages 267-270.

I am not even going into the other figures, figures 3 and 4 are my favorite, because I am sure that the readers get the point. Joseph Smith is spot on his explanations in figures 1 and 2, as has been demonstrated. He correctly identified the figures as being associated with creation, time, power, etc. and, in the case of figure 1, correctly restored hieratic characters not found in any of the JSP as meaning the forces of creation (earth, air, water, fire) and correctly associated them with Khnum-Ra, the creator God.

But I am sure that all of his "intuitive leaps", thanks to Michael Chandler, is what allowed him to do all of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Here is Khunm-Ra from Fac. 2

Now, who does Joseph Smith identify him as?

"Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh."

Quite simply amazing to me. Oh well there are 1000 (lol) ways to dismiss this stuff.

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.

×