Jump to content

Archived

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

Rommelator

Shinehah In Abraham 3:13

Recommended Posts

Quite simply amazing to me.

True that.

Oh well there are 1000 (lol) ways to dismiss this stuff.

Tell me about it. Between "many s-words" to "Intuitive leaps" I am ready to lose my mind. :P

Share this post


Link to post
True that.

Tell me about it. Between "many s-words" to "Intuitive leaps" I am ready to lose my mind. :P

You mean JS is a brilliant idot. Or an idoitic genuis? Which one is he. Or perhaps the briliantly idiotic con man.

Only a few more posts for you.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

As I noted above, the GAEL refers repeatedly to celestial bodies (including the sun) "in their annual revolutions". I don't think it's that much of a stretch to suggest that, rather than using the more standard Hebrew word, JS took this opportunity to invest one of his made-up "Adamic" words with a legitimate meaning. We should also remember that while JS thought of Adamic, Egyptian, and Hebrew as closely related languages, he was not technically translating the BoA from Hebrew. It was supposedly a hieroglyphic text. He therefore had some room for liberty in inserting words and assigning meanings. One of the things that I think is clear from my study of JS's revelations is that there are varying degrees of logic to their various aspects. He was combining reasoned study of language, Bible, and history with sheer intuition and imagination. I think "creative syncretism" would be the best term for the project he was engaged in. The situation with Shinehah accords well with that pattern. I don't doubt that you'll disagree, but, well, that's your prerogative.

Rommelator,

As I said, I don't feel like reopening discussion of Facsimile 2 at the moment. I think I will merely reiterate that my views on most of the figures are well-stated in the linked thread. If I figure out what happened with the ship and the number 1000, which was the one that I acknowledged not having an answer for in that thread, I'll keep you apprised. In the meantime, it doesn't bother me much. Those of us who are counting the misses have quite a tally going (Shirts' valiant efforts notwithstanding). Best,

-Chris

Share this post


Link to post
As I said, I don't feel like reopening discussion of Facsimile 2 at the moment. I think I will merely reiterate that my views on most of the figures are well-stated in the linked thread. If I figure out what happened with the ship and the number 1000, which was the one that I acknowledged not having an answer for in that thread, I'll keep you apprised. In the meantime, it doesn't bother me much. Those of us who are counting the misses have quite a tally going (Shirts' valiant efforts notwithstanding). Best,

-Chris

Very well. I still don't understand how your views about "Intuitive leaps" and such can possibly be reconciled with the fact that Joseph Smith got Egyptian right before even the Egytpologists, but hey, we all have our right to our theories. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

Those of us who are counting the misses have quite a tally going (Shirts' valiant efforts notwithstanding). Best,

Whatever. I guess I just see the evidence more in favor of Joseph Smith than against him.

Share this post


Link to post
You mean JS is a brilliant idot. Or an idoitic genuis? Which one is he. Or perhaps the briliantly idiotic con man.
Whatever suits the fancy of the critics, I suppose.On the one hand, when he mentions horses, steel, etc. in the Book of Mormon, he is a clumsy claud. However, when he gets the Hypocephalus correct, he is heralded as the master of "intuitive leaps" and such.
Only a few more posts for you.
I know. I am very...

Share this post


Link to post
Very well. I still don't understand how your views about "Intuitive leaps" and such can possibly be reconciled with the fact that Joseph Smith got Egyptian right before even the Egytpologists, but hey, we all have our right to our theories. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.

Or in this case the sokar boat that = 1000.

Share this post


Link to post
...excited.

:P

Just go welcome 3 more people in the introduction pages. Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Or in this case the sokar boat that = 1000.

Exactly what I was thinking. :P Or, I guess the same Sokar boat that is, according to non-LDS Egyptologist Alexandre Piankoff, the heavenly firmament and that signified in Hebrew raqica.Wait, where have I heard that one before?

"Answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens; also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand; answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time."

A ha! Joseph Smith plagiarized from Piankoff...er...wait...

Just go welcome 3 more people in the introduction pages. Lol.

Okay. Good idea! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Exactly what I was thinking. :P Or, I guess the same Sokar boat that is, according to non-LDS Egyptologist Alexandre Piankoff, the heavenly firmament and that signified in Hebrew raqica.Wait, where have I heard that one before?

"Answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens; also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand; answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time."

A ha! Joseph Smith plagiarized from Piankoff...er...wait...

Okay. Good idea! ;)

Whoa. I guess I need to read more. I find this stuff quite interesting.

yeah for 500.

Share this post


Link to post
yeah for 500.

It does not seem to work at 500. Dang, I am so sad. I thought I was there... :P

Whoa. I guess I need to read more. I find this stuff quite interesting.

I find it very interesting.

Here is a good place to start.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Hugh-Nibley/TrFac.html

Edit: I just got it to work, thanks to the 500 posts! Hurray!!

Share this post


Link to post
It does not seem to work at 500. Dang, I am so sad. I thought I was there... :P

I find it very interesting.

Here is a good place to start.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Hugh-Nibley/TrFac.html

Edit: I just got it to work, thanks to the 500 posts! Hurray!!

That is going to be quite a read. Ill need to do that when I get home. Er, wait, I wont have time either. Well shoot, I guess Ill have to make time.

Share this post


Link to post
Exactly what I was thinking. :P Or, I guess the same Sokar boat that is, according to non-LDS Egyptologist Alexandre Piankoff, the heavenly firmament and that signified in Hebrew raqica.Wait, where have I heard that one before?

"Answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens; also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand; answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time."

A ha! Joseph Smith plagiarized from Piankoff...er...wait...

Okay. Good idea! ;)

Found this from LDS egyptologist Stephen Thompson:

As another example of the attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations of the figures in this facsimile, note Facsimile 2, Figure 4, which has been claimed to be an instance in which the prophet "hits it right on the mark." The explanation given in the Book of Abraham notes that this figure "answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens, also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand."

Admittedly, certain identification of this figure is not possible with the information currently available to the Egyptologist. Varga originally identified the figure as the god Sokar, but later resorted to the more vague description of "the mummy of a falcon with outspread wings." The problem is that this figure does not match exactly the iconography of any known falcon god, i.e., mummiform with outspread wings. One suggestion is that this figure is to be identified with the falcon who rises from the Duat in Book of the Dead spell 71.

When attempting to evaluate the correctness of Joseph's explanation of the figure, it should be noted that there is no evidence that the ancient Egyptians ever depicted the sky (firmament of the heavens) as a ship of any sort. In order to get around this, Mormon apologists dissect the wings of the bird in the ship and compare them with depictions of the sky as outspread wings. Rhodes identifies the bird in Figure 4 as Horus-Sokar and claims that "Horus was a personification of the sky." It should be pointed out, however, that Joseph's interpretation of the figure apparently applies to the whole figure, not to only a part of it. I can see no justification for removing a part of the figure and then claiming to find interpretations which can be forced to agree with Joseph's explanation.

In order to support Joseph's identification of this figure as the number 1,000, reference is made to a supposed Egyptian "ship of 1000" found in a passage from a sarcophagus dating to the Egyptian 26th Dynasty. There we find the expression wi3.f n h3 r tpwy.fy, which Sander-Hansen renders as "seinem Schiffe der 1000 bis zu seinen beiden K pfen" (his ship of 1,000 up to its two heads). In Sander-Hansen's discussion of the passage, he notes that he understands this phrase to mean a ship 1,000 cubits in length. This text is a later version of Book of the Dead Spell 136a. Recent translators have recognized that h3 in this phrase does not refer to the number 1,000, but to the word h3 meaning flowers or buds. T. G. Allen, in his translation of the Book of the Dead, renders the phrase as "the bark with blossom(s) at its ends," and Faulkner, in his translation, renders it as "the bark . . . which has lotus-flowers on its ends." In connection with this spell, Milde notes that "lotus-shaped prows are very common in various vignettes." In other words, there is no Egyptian "ship of 1000," only a ship with lotus-shaped prows. And all this is quite beside the point. Joseph, in his explanation of the figure in the facsimile said that it was "also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand." It was not. There is no evidence that any ship was ever used as a numerical figure to represent 1,000 or any other number. It should also be noted that of those who wish to equate the figure from the facsimile with the so-called "ship of 1000," none has ever produced an image of this ship and then compared it to the facsimile. It is simply assumed that if a ship of 1,000 can be found in an Egyptian text, it must be the one Joseph Smith was talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
That is going to be quite a read. Ill need to do that when I get home. Er, wait, I wont have time either. Well shoot, I guess Ill have to make time.

You should defiantly read it when you get the chance. I just got done with it last night and found it highly enjoyable and very informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Found this from LDS egyptologist Stephen Thompson:

See a rejoinder by Shirts:

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/part2.htm

And from Dr. Nibley,

It was A. Piankoff who abserved that the outstretched Egyptian wings signify the same as the Hebrew raqica (which Joseph Smith renders phonetically as Raukeeang). Abraham was asked not only to count the stars as a metaphorical measure of his progeny, but he meets us in Gen. 15:5 as an observer (habbet) and Counter (sephor) of the stars. Granted that "the space-bark has nothing literal about it, and all its fixtures are symbolic," (Jecquier), it is none the less significant that, Joseph Smith says all the things about it that the Woerterbuch does, to wit, (1) that it "answers to the Hebrew word raukeeang [did he get that from Professor Piankoff?] signifying (Not depicting!) expanse, or the firmament of the heavens." (2) are "answering to the measurement of time," (3) that the symbol for it is a ship, (4) that it is "also a numerical figure, in Egyptian, signifying one thousand;" (5) "answers to...the firmament of the heavens" (6) time being measured in terms of cycles and revolutions.

Bold mine.

Share this post


Link to post

Also from Rhodes:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbraham/jshypo.htm

Note especially that there is more than just one example of the boat being associated with 1000 than Thompson allows:

"On the sarcophagus of the princess Anchenneferibre is found a description of the "Khabas in Heliopolis" and "Osiris in his ship of a thousand."[62] The term Khabas (Egyptian h3-b3=s) means "A Thousand is her souls" and refers to the starry hosts of the sky,[63] confirming again Joseph Smith's explanation that it represents the expanse of the heavens."

Share this post


Link to post
See a rejoinder by Shirts:

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/part2.htm

And from Dr. Nibley,

Bold mine.

Yeah, I've read both of those before (as I said, I've known Kerry Shirts a very long time). As Thompson correctly points out, the wings as expanse or firmament must be removed from the rest of the figure for Joseph's interpretation to work even in a forced way. Kerry's rejoinder attempts to get around that by suggesting other depictions of the "falkenkopfiger Gott" but admits that "Thompson has a point."

Oddly, he refutes Thompson by affirming Thompson's point that, to signify the firmament or sky, the bird with outstretched wings must be "dissected" from the entire figure: "Here Thompson seems to be on shakier ground. Can the falcon with outspread wings signify the sky, the expanse? Absolutely!"

Since Thompson has already mentioned "depictions of the sky as outspread wings," I'm not sure how Kerry is contradicting him.

Note especially that there is more than just one example of the boat being associated with 1000 than Thompson allows:

"On the sarcophagus of the princess Anchenneferibre is found a description of the "Khabas in Heliopolis" and "Osiris in his ship of a thousand."[62] The term Khabas (Egyptian h3-b3=s) means "A Thousand is her souls" and refers to the starry hosts of the sky,[63] confirming again Joseph Smith's explanation that it represents the expanse of the heavens."

The citation is for Sander-Hansen in 1937, who Thompson shows in his article had mistranslated "ship of 1000," which should be "ship with lotus-shaped prows."

Share this post


Link to post

Also from Jeff Lindsay:

Figure 4 in Facsimile 2 is a figure that Joseph said represents the expanse of the heavens, the revolutions of Kolob and Oliblish, and also signified the number 1,000. According to Rhodes [Rhodes, 1992-a, p. 126], "This is the hawk-god, Horus-Sokar. Horus was a personification of the sky, and Sokar was associated with the revolution of the Sun and other celestial bodies. Finally, the ship here shown is described in Egyptian texts as 'ship of a thousand.' Joseph Smith hits it right on the mark." (Note: I have been told that a published non-LDS text that linked an Egyptian boat to the number 1,000 was the result of a translation error. I will discuss this below, giving Thompson's critique. However, there are other texts mentioned below which link various aspects of Figure 4 to the number 1000. Any of you Egyptologists care to comment?)

Nibley [1980] cites multiple sources to show that outstretched wings above a boat represent the sky ("the Sunship on the Wings of the Sky," according to Kees), or that outstretched wings alone represent the heavens or the sky. Joseph Smith is right on target when he says it represents "expanse, or the firmament of the heavens." Rudolph Anthes also notes that the wings of Horus were equated with the sky. While "the Egyptians regarded the sun as a falcon flying in heaven," the "idea that his wings represented the sky was incidental and naturally accepted in spite of any logical objections" [R. Anthes, "Egyptian Theology," p. 171, as cited by MacGegor and Shirts, 1999, pp. 223-224]. Outstretched wings can also symbolize Nut the Sky-goddess - although I have been told that the hawk wings are different that the wings representing Nut, in which case some of the following correlations may be in error. On the other hand, Nut is also linked to a boat, possibly as in Figure 4. Dealing with the context of Nut, we again find references to numbers and stars, providing tentative correlations to what Joseph Smith stated ("also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand; answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, which is equal to Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time"). Nibley writes:

This woman whose outspread wings shield the dead in countless coffins, has the same name as that of the ship in Fig. 4: "The One with a Thousand Souls" (Bonnet 537), being so called because the stars are her children (Kees). A Pyramid text says, "Nut receives the gods to herself and lets them sink [a nautical term is used] as 'One with a Thousand souls {Kha-ba-s), lest they depart from thee as stars; so may NN not be removed from thee in his name of the Distant One (the Sky). She has counted her children...." (Kees, Lesebuch, 24; PT 784-5). The stele of one Nebipusenwasret ends: "Ye shall be as an Imperishable Star, a star that is in the Khabas," concerning which Blackman comments, that "Kh3-b3-s must mean 'thousand is her soul(s)' and refer to the countless stars appearing by night in the body of Nut" (Blackman)....[The] famous funeral stele of a great princess, a daughter of Psammetichus II, ... reads "Behold ye Khabasu of Heliopolis...the God is born...one who can take the helm. Osiris A. (the Princess) ... will take along Osiris in his Ship of a Thousand, even with two heads, so that by it he can mount to heaven and to the counter-heaven" (Sander-Hansen). This is our Figure 4. According to the Woerterbuch (III,230), Khabasu means

the expanse of the starry heavens as observed from Heliopolis;

the stars are those that provide the reckoning of Time at the New Year;

their collective name is written with the ideogram of a Ship;

the word means literally "a thousand = 1000, b3 = spirit, soul, -s = her or its,"

the thousand in this case refers specifically to 'the collectivity of the starry hosts.'

Faulkner's dictionary renders khabas as 'the starry sky"; Budge's Dictionary p. 530 as "a star or luminary" ....

[Nibley, 1980, pp. 59-60]

However, a respected LDS scholar recently e-mailed me to say that he now thinks that "h3-b3-s" might just be syllabic writing for "hbs" (meaning "lamp"), but he also felt that critics of the Book of Abraham overlook the possibility of a pun in the writing system, since it is clearly a designation for the stars.

Nibley then notes that Professor A. Piankoff has "observed that the outstretched Egyptian wings signify the same as the Hebrew raqiha [my transcription of the typeset term], which Joseph Smith renders phonetically as Raukeeang." The many parallels between Joseph Smith's comments on Figure 4 of Facs. 2 and scholarly interpretations of related figures are worthy of consideration. He chooses a reasonable word (Raukeeang); says that it signifies expanse, or the firmament of heavens; notes a link to the measurement of time; and finds a connection to the number 1,000.

Stephen Thompson [Thompson, 1995] criticizes the alleged correlations for Figure 4 (pp. 150-152). Thompson first notes that certain identification of the bird figure is impossible; while some say it is Sokar or other forms of a falcon, he says the figure does not exactly match any known falcon god. Then he writes:

...there is no evidence that the ancient Egyptians ever depicted the sky ... as a ship of any sort. In order to get around this, Mormon apologists dissect the wings of the bird in the ship and compare them with depictions of the sky as outspread wings. Rhodes [1992-a] identifies the bird in Figure 4 as Horus-Sokar and claims that "Horus was a personification of the sky." It should be pointed out, however, that Joseph's interpretation of the figure apparently applies to the whole figure, not to only a part of it. I can see no justification for removing a part of the figure and then claiming to find interpretations which can be forced to agree with Joseph's explanation."

I find Thompson's criticisms fitting into a pattern: a) In Figure 4, the bird with outstretched wings cannot symbolize the sky, since that would be dissecting the outstretched wings (which do represent the sky) from the figure; cool.gif In Figure 6, the sons of Horus don't represent the four quarters of the earth, since they only represent such for coronations; and c) the cow goddess can't represent the sun, only the mother of the sun. The consistent unwillingness to grant any leeway to Joseph Smith is most curious. I also think it is unnecessary to "dissect" the wings of the bird to see a connection to the sky, if the bird represented really is connected to Horus, for Wilkinson describes Horus as "the ancient falcon god of the heavens, whose eyes were the sun and moon and whose speckled plumage was the starry sky..." [Wilkinson, 1994, p. 134].

Thompson continues, now turning to the connections of Figure 4 to the number 1,000:

In order to support Joseph's identification of this figure as the number 1,000, reference is made to a supposed Egyptian "ship of 1000" found in a passage from a sarcophagus dating to the Egyptian 26th Dynasty. There we find the expression wi3.f n h3 r tpwy.fy, which Sander-Hansen renders as ... "his ship of 1,000 up to its two heads." In Sander-Hansen's discussion of this passage, he notes that he understands this phrase to mean a ship 1,000 cubits in length. This text is a later version of the Book of the Dead Spell 136a. Recent translators have recognized that "h3" in this phrase does not refer to the number 1,000 but to the word "h3" meaning flowers or buds. T.G. Allen, in his translation of the Book of the Dead, renders the phrase as "the bark with blossom(s) at its ends," and Faulkner, in his translation, renders it as "the bark ... which has lotus-flowers on its ends." In connection with this spell, Milde notes that "lotus-shaped prows are very common in various vignettes." In other words, there is no Egyptian "ship of 1000," only a ship with lotus-shaped prows."

To his credit, Thompson does provide a footnote which alludes to an altering translation by P. Barguet, which he only provides in French: "une barque, dont une myriade est a sa tete (avant) et une myriade a sa tete (arriere)." My poor French skills suggest this translation: "a boat, upon which is a myriad at the [front] head and a myriad at the [rear] head." It appears that at least one recent scholar chooses to translate "h3" in a manner designating a large number (though "myriad" is given, which can mean "numerous," "countless," or can also mean 10,000). Curiously, this translation by Barguet is from a 1986 publication, making it the most recent of the several translations Thompson cites for the passage in question.

I would also add that Thompson is overlooking several possible instances in which the number 1,000 has connections to the concepts in Figure 4. I think Thompson is wrong in saying that there is no evidence to support Joseph's commentary on this figure.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml#f2

Share this post


Link to post
The citation is for Sander-Hansen in 1937, who Thompson shows in his article had mistranslated "ship of 1000," which should be "ship with lotus-shaped prows."

Rhodes alludes to this citation in his article, but I think the 2nd note, number 62, is the one dealing with "Osiris in his ship of a thousand." I do not have Thompson's article with me at the moment, but I think that he is dealing with a different footnote, the first one, 61, that Rhodes used in his older paper on the JS Hypocephalus and not number 62. I could be wrong though, since I do not have Thompson's article with me.

Share this post


Link to post
eah, I've read both of those before (as I said, I've known Kerry Shirts a very long time). As Thompson correctly points out, the wings as expanse or firmament must be removed from the rest of the figure for Joseph's interpretation to work even in a forced way. Kerry's rejoinder attempts to get around that by suggesting other depictions of the "falkenkopfiger Gott" but admits that "Thompson has a point."

Oddly, he refutes Thompson by affirming Thompson's point that, to signify the firmament or sky, the bird with outstretched wings must be "dissected" from the entire figure: "Here Thompson seems to be on shakier ground. Can the falcon with outspread wings signify the sky, the expanse? Absolutely!"

Since Thompson has already mentioned "depictions of the sky as outspread wings," I'm not sure how Kerry is contradicting him.

I think that it is because Thompson is missing the bigger context of the figure of the Sokar. He seems to think that the Hawk's outstretched wings in conjunction with the boat invalidates it as signifying expanse. This is what I think Shirts is getting him on.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, here is the key:

So it would seem that Thompson has a point. This is not a popular way to depict the falcon in Egyptian art.

Thompson seems to be complaining that this is not the conventional way to depict the Sokar Hawk, and thus this invalidates Joseph Smith's explanations. However, Hypocephali had no standard conventional method of depiction; each one is unique. I do not think that the Hawk in conjunction with the boat invalidates Joseph Smith's interpretation.

Also from Kerry:

Anthes notes directly that "on the ivory comb of King Horus Serpent of the First Dynasty, the falcon Horus is represented twice: in the lower register he stands upon the symbol of the royal palace as the king, in the upper register he stands in a boat beneath which two wings representing the sky are spread....the sky was thought to be represented by the wide-spread wings of the same falcon."21 We are even told that Horus represented a body in the sky! "The idea that Horus appears in the horizon and on heaven obviously means that he is a celestial body."

So there is Egyptological precedent for a Sokar Hawk in conjunction with the boat representing the heavenly firmament. Interesting.

The issue with 1000 is more interesting. From what I have read, there is still a debate going on as to what h3 really translates as. Some prefer the 1000, others the blossom, while even some others prefer to read it similar to nhh in that it represents an indefinite number or infinity. But if I am correct, then Rhodes has provided another example of h3 being associated with 1000 that Thompson did not account for.

Share this post


Link to post
Ah, here is the key:

Thompson seems to be complaining that this is not the conventional way to depict the Sokar Hawk, and thus this invalidates Joseph Smith's explanations. However, Hypocephali had no standard conventional method of depiction; each one is unique. I do not think that the Hawk in conjunction with the boat invalidates Joseph Smith's interpretation.

Actually, Thompson's objection is the mummified hawk with outstretched wings, which is not only not conventional but has no equivalent anywhere else, according to Thompson. He may well be wrong, but Kerry doesn't deal with this other than to show hawks with outstretched wings as signifying the heavens, which, as I've shown, Thompson acknowledges.

Also from Kerry:

So there is Egyptological precedent for a Sokar Hawk in conjunction with the boat representing the heavenly firmament. Interesting.

Again, Thompson disagrees. I suppose it comes down to whom you trust. For me, Thompson has no anti-Mormon ax to grind, whereas Kerry has a clear agenda.

The issue with 1000 is more interesting. From what I have read, there is still a debate going on as to what h3 really translates as. Some prefer the 1000, others the blossom, while even some others prefer to read it similar to nhh in that it represents an indefinite number or infinity. But if I am correct, then Rhodes has provided another example of h3 being associated with 1000 that Thompson did not account for.

What I find interesting is that Rhodes combines two elements "Khabas in Heliopolis" and "Osiris in his ship of a thousand." As I've said, the ship of 1000 is disputed, but what connection is there between Khabas in Heliopolis and the ship of 1000? Rhodes seems to assert a connection but doesn't specify what it is, and then he expounds on the Khabas part to suggest that Joseph got it right. I'm just a simple BYU grad, so you may have to explain this to me.

Share this post


Link to post
We should also note that according to the critics, JS is simply making up the BOA.

No. He is likely doing a combination of things--his endeavers were opportunistic. But he is not doing what he claimed to be doing (translating the words of Abraham from the Egyptian on the papyri).

Share this post


Link to post

Turns out that the Egyptian numeral for 1,000 is a drawing of a lotus plant.

Hieroglyph.gif

Perhaps this is where the confusion as to whether or not it is 1000 or a lotus has come from. And, subsequently, perhaps both readings are correct in this regard.

Actually, Thompson's objection is the mummified hawk with outstretched wings, which is not only not conventional but has no equivalent anywhere else, according to Thompson. He may well be wrong, but Kerry doesn't deal with this other than to show hawks with outstretched wings as signifying the heavens, which, as I've shown, Thompson acknowledges.

So its the mummified hawk Thompson is complaining about? Okay, good clarification. Sokar is often found in conjunction with Osiris and Ptah. Osiris, of course, being the mummified god of the dead. According to Catherine Graindorge, there are examples of the mummified Sokar-Osiris in Egyptian tombs, but I guess this is not the same as a mummified Sokar-Horus. However, like I said, there was no real convention in drawing hypocephali or the figures that adorned them, so, who knows, we may have a unique case here.

Either way, there is no doubt that the outstretched wings of Sokar-Horus represent the firmament, as has been readily attested in Egyptian art.

Again, Thompson disagrees. I suppose it comes down to whom you trust. For me, Thompson has no anti-Mormon ax to grind, whereas Kerry has a clear agenda.

But Kerry was merely reporting the findings of another Egyptologist, who has confirmed that there is at least one associate between Sokar and the Boat. And if there is only one, that is still more than Thompson's claim that there is no example of such. In this case, I think that Thompson has been soundly refuted.

What I find interesting is that Rhodes combines two elements "Khabas in Heliopolis" and "Osiris in his ship of a thousand." As I've said, the ship of 1000 is disputed, but what connection is there between Khabas in Heliopolis and the ship of 1000? Rhodes seems to assert a connection but doesn't specify what it is, and then he expounds on the Khabas part to suggest that Joseph got it right. I'm just a simple BYU grad, so you may have to explain this to me.

It seems that the connection was made by the ancient Egyptians. As Rhodes noted, the sarcophagus of the princess Anchenneferibre is what made the connection. This would fit rather well, since Khabas seems to be a sky deity similar to Nut and the Osiris ship of 1000 would similarly fit within the context of heavenly bodies if indeed the ship of 1000, as posited by Rhodes, is similar to if not THE heavenly Sokar ship. Either way, the Egypians seemed to associate a sky deity with the ship of 1000, which would lend credence to Joseph Smith's identification of figure 4 in Facsimile 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Turns out that the Egyptian numeral for 1,000 is a drawing of a lotus plant.

Hieroglyph.gif

Perhaps this is where the confusion as to whether or not it is 1000 or a lotus has come from. And, subsequently, perhaps both readings are correct in this regard.

So its the mummified hawk Thompson is complaining about? Okay, good clarification. Sokar is often found in conjunction with Osiris and Ptah. Osiris, of course, being the mummified god of the dead. According to Catherine Graindorge, there are examples of the mummified Sokar-Osiris in Egyptian tombs, but I guess this is not the same as a mummified Sokar-Horus. However, like I said, there was no real convention in drawing hypocephali or the figures that adorned them, so, who knows, we may have a unique case here.

Either way, there is no doubt that the outstretched wings of Sokar-Horus represent the firmament, as has been readily attested in Egyptian art.

Thompson has already said that.

But Kerry was merely reporting the findings of another Egyptologist, who has confirmed that there is at least one associate between Sokar and the Boat. And if there is only one, that is still more than Thompson's claim that there is no example of such. In this case, I think that Thompson has been soundly refuted.

That's not how I read the passage cited. There's a boat under which are two spread wings. The wings, not the boat, represent the sky, which again Thompson has already said is a standard interpretation. Interestingly, as Thompson said, it's the wings that are separate from said boat that signify the heavens, and for Kerry et al's interpretation, you have to take the wings off the mummified bird and "dissect" them from the rest of the figure.

It seems that the connection was made by the ancient Egyptians. As Rhodes noted, the sarcophagus of the princess Anchenneferibre is what made the connection. This would fit rather well, since Khabas seems to be a sky deity similar to Nut and the Osiris ship of 1000 would similarly fit within the context of heavenly bodies if indeed the ship of 1000, as posited by Rhodes, is similar to if not THE heavenly Sokar ship. Either way, the Egypians seemed to associate a sky deity with the ship of 1000, which would lend credence to Joseph Smith's identification of figure 4 in Facsimile 2.

So the two symbols merely being on the same sarcophagus make them connected? Hmmm.

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.

×