Jump to content

Archived

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

semlogo

What are the implications if the BoA is false?

Recommended Posts

Mr. Bukowski,

If you don't see the difference between a circular argument that assumes the truth of a document and a historical argument that examines what the document says to see what can be determined to be factual, I probably can't help you understand it. Maybe you could ask a Mormon historian.

Your claim that I have answered nothing is ridiculous. Go bother someone else.

Share this post


Link to post

Mr. Bukowski,

If you don't see the difference between a circular argument that assumes the truth of a document and a historical argument that examines what the document says to see what can be determined to be factual, I probably can't help you understand it. Maybe you could ask a Mormon historian.

Your claim that I have answered nothing is ridiculous. Go bother someone else.

You appear to not understand that historical novels can be perfectly consistent without being historically accurate. The texts could have been selected precisely for their historical coherence to give them a consistent story, ignoring other documents which did not cohere with the story being presented. There would be no way to know that when all that survives are the documents we have.

Allow me to point out that you are the one who started this. Will YOU please go bother someone else?

Your arguments stand or fall on their own merits, or lack thereof.

Share this post


Link to post

So, I take it then that you would defend the position that other extant Book of the Dead and Book of Breathings papyri (of which there are several with scenes essentially identical to those in the possession of Joseph Smith), if translated "correctly", would yield the Book of Abraham.

Is that correct?

If not, why not?

My main point was that you should refrain from misstating the positions of others. The correct response from you would be an apology to those whom you have misinterpreted, and a promise to not do it again (even though they are not present, we all have an interest in correct attributions)..

That said, you have apparently gotten the message that some classes of Egyptian "funerary" documents have a great deal in common, and that is correct. That doesn't mean that they are "essentially identical," but it does mean that the formulaic, ritual language does have a great deal of commonality. We also know that the long term Jewish community in Egypt (thousands of years there) was bound to learn the local language and customs to some greater or lesser extent -- as they have in whatever diaspora they have been in -- even marrying Egyptian wives and adopting Egyptian names to some extent. In transmitting their unique traditions this clearly had an important effect. The accompanying example of non-Egyptian use of a lion-couch scene is merely indicative (please note the Aramaic legend):

post-16778-0-34542000-1301386307_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post

My main point was that you should refrain from misstating the positions of others. The correct response from you would be an apology to those whom you have misinterpreted, and a promise to not do it again (even though they are not present, we all have an interest in correct attributions)..

I have not misquoted anyone or misstated anyone's position. The comments of John Gee regarding the relative unimportance of the BoA, now that its provenance has been called into serious question, have already been mentioned on this thread. If you folow Mormon apologetics, you are certainy aware of his comments.

As for Michael Rhodes, provided below is his translation of the meaning of a scene from the JSP as compared to that of Joseph Smith. Don't know about you, but I see no agreement or similarity whatsoever between these two translations.

Joseph Smith "Translation:

"Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God."

Michael Rhodes Translation:

"A seated deity with two (or in most hypocephali, four) ram's heads. He is holding in his hand the symbols of life, dominion and stability...This seated figure represents god as the creator, either Amon-Re or Khnum. When thus depicted with four heads, this god united within himself the attributes of the gods Re (the sun), Shu (light), Geb (the earth), and Osiris (god of the next world and the resurrection), and represented the primeval creative force."

Share this post


Link to post

So, I take it then that you would defend the position that other extant Book of the Dead and Book of Breathings papyri (of which there are several with scenes essentially identical to those in the possession of Joseph Smith), if translated "correctly", would yield the Book of Abraham.

Is that correct?

If not, why not?

Sheesh, someone needs Ritalin.... try and focus on the subject matter. :P

So does the trots go Theban, Saitan, Annu, Menhu-hetep, now does he have want the originals, revised, edited in another way?

If you knew anything about the "Book of the Dead" as you call it (which you apparently don't) then you would know that there are a number of distinct versions depending on the period from whence the book originated. In fact there could be several more versions yet to be translated depending upon your place in Egytian society and your wealth within your niche of society, and the religious political attitudes of the time.

But hey, the amature scientist with a bigoted streak in him must be allowed to make a buffo foolish statement when he gets the chance. ;) It amuses the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post

I have not misquoted anyone or misstated anyone's position. The comments of John Gee regarding the relative unimportance of the BoA, now that its provenance has been called into serious question, have already been mentioned on this thread. If you folow Mormon apologetics, you are certainy aware of his comments.

As for Michael Rhodes, provided below is his translation of the meaning of a scene from the JSP as compared to that of Joseph Smith. Don't know about you, but I see no agreement or similarity whatsoever between these two translations.

Your statement of Mar 26, 2011, was as follows:

. . . scenes in the JSP for which we have the "translations" of Joseph Smith, these "translations" bear no resemblance whatsoever to those of qualified Egyptologists, including Michael Rhodes, who is LDS.

Thus, while we may not have all of the papyri that were in Joseph Smith's possession, in those several examples where we can check his ability to translate, including names of characters in scenes from the papyri, the meaning of the scenes themselves, and even the Kinderhook plates, etc., we find not a single example supporting Joseph Smith's claim that he could translate ancient languages. What we do find, even in comparison to LDS Egyptologist translations, is that Joseph Smith was simply making it up as he went along.

I claim that this fact is already recognized among apologists, who have transitioned to a rear guard action, and that is why we have principal BoA apologists such as John Gee making statements to the effect that Mormonism does not depend on the BoA.

Note your word "whatsoever," Foxy. That is an absolute statement about Rhodes' comments on the JSP. I cited specific sources in which Rhodes supported Joseph's interpretations, which you promptly ignored, and continue to ignore, and refuse to apologize for your unsupportable statements. That is unscholarly at best and dishonest at worst.

For you to deliberately overlook those instances in which Joseph's translations or descriptions of scenes in the facsimiles coincide with those of standard Egyptology seems to me odd, even for a heavily biased anti-Mormon, and more in keeping with a propaganda war than a rational and gentlemanly discussion.

Yet you state unequivocally that "in those several examples where we can check [Joseph's] ability to translate, including names of characters in scenes from the papyri, the meaning of the scenes themselves, . . we find not a single example supporting Joseph Smith's claim that he could translate ancient languages." Not a single example?

Those are your actual statements, and you even use "we" -- as though you have actively participated in this checking process. Thus far, the only "checking" which you seem to have done is to ignore any contrary evidence, and you seem oblivious to any sort of dialogue & discussion of this issue, even though that is the explicit purpose of this Board. Are you really so unsure of the stability of your position that you feel it necessary to make unsupportable absolute statements and ignore contrary evidence? Wouldn't you rather win the debate fair and square, if that is possible?

Share this post


Link to post

It has already been shown that it was not at all uncommon for ancient Jews to apply Egyptian motifs to their own stories and legends. The Israelites at Lachish were already speaking Egyptian at the time of Lehi (an interesting situation considering the Book of Mormon's claim of using a modified Hebrew/Egyptian language).

Thus, you have two different interpretations of the same motif that are in fact, much more similar than you're willing to admit Foxtrot. The hypocephalus depicted the journey back to the presence of God for the Egyptians, and for Joseph Smith, it represented Abraham's ascension to the cosmos.

It is also painfully evident that you've failed to even look at Michael Rhodes' treatise beyond a skimming quote mine. Rhodes himself agrees that Joseph Smith has his interpretation fundamentally right.

This seated figure represents god as the creator, either Amon-Re or Khnum. When thus depicted with four heads, this god united within himself the attributes of the gods Re (the sun), Shu (light), Geb (the earth), and Osiris (god of the next world and the resurrection), and represented the primeval creative force.

Joseph Smith says that this is

Share this post


Link to post

. . . provided below is (Rhodes') translation of the meaning of a scene from the JSP as compared to that of Joseph Smith. Don't know about you, but I see no agreement or similarity whatsoever between these two translations.

Joseph Smith "Translation:

"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 cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh."

Michael Rhodes Translation:

"A seated deity with two (or in most hypocephali, four) ram's heads. He is holding in his hand the symbols of life, dominion and stability...This seated figure represents god as the creator, either Amon-Re or Khnum. When thus depicted with four heads, this god united within himself the attributes of the gods Re (the sun), Shu (light), Geb (the earth), and Osiris (god of the next world and the resurrection), and represented the primeval creative force."

Above, I have expanded and given Fac 2:1 in full from the BofA.

With the proper background, you might be able to understand the multivalent iconographic or iconotropic meaning to diverse groups in that ancient world. Semites regularly viewed Egyptian deities in their own terms, and in ancient Israel, Egyptian symbols were frequently used on signet rings, but in the mind of the user placed in the context of his own religion and culture. Thus, the winged sun-disk was used throughout the ancient Near East, but was interpreted by the Egyptian as Re, by the Israelite as El or Yahweh, by the Canaanite as El, while in Mesopotamia he was Shamash, etc.

Last time I provided an Aramaic lion couch scene, which were afraid to comment on. Here is another scene with broad religious implications of the sort which I have just been describing:

post-16778-0-88313300-1301496213_thumb.j

This is a syncretic 19th Dynasty Egyptian stela in which the nude goddess Qudshu-Asherah-Isis stands on a lion en face between Ptah-Min-El and Reshef-Nergal-Melcarth, just above a register (reminiscent of LDS Book of Abraham Facsimile 3) in which her sister

Share this post


Link to post

Now, would you like to try the comparison test again?

I see that I should have included my usual qualification of "non-LDS" in order to differentiate between Egyptologists and apologists who have knowledge of Egyptology.

In any case, perhaps you could now answer my question regarding whether or not you believe that a "correct" translation of the other extant Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead papyri would also yield the Book of Abraham.

Share this post


Link to post

44Foxtrot:

"I see that I should have included my usual qualification of "non-LDS" in order to differentiate between Egyptologists and apologists who have knowledge of Egyptology.".

That is pure sophistry, and your bias is showing.

Share this post


Link to post
to differentiate between Egyptologists and apologists who have knowledge of Egyptology.

I've just dipped into this thread for the first time, and I see that people here are still trying to deal with the same frustrating, slippery, and (frankly) arrogant 44F.

If having studied Egyptology at the Freie Universit

Share this post


Link to post

I see that I should have included my usual qualification of "non-LDS" in order to differentiate between Egyptologists and apologists who have knowledge of Egyptology.

In any case, perhaps you could now answer my question regarding whether or not you believe that a "correct" translation of the other extant Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead papyri would also yield the Book of Abraham.

I see, so any Egpytologist is qualified to make statements about the Book of Abraham, providing he or she isn't a Latter-day Saint...

...for if a Latter-day Saint was to make a statement(s) even remotely positive toward the idea that Joseph Smith could have possibly interpreted any ancient text correctly, they would only be engaging in "apologetics" and nothing more.

You have utterly failed, time and time again to account for the cultural, philological, and linguistic crossovers between the Egyptians and ancient Israel, which leaves the door entirely open for the plausibility of Joseph's interpretation.

You have also sought (and failed) to move the goal posts for what constitutes a "translation" by committing the fallacies of presentism and syllogistic fallacious association. You're not engaging scholarship. You're appealing to your emotions (and biases) and nothing more.

Even as a self-described critic of much of the contemporary Book of Abraham apologetic arguments, I find your behavior remarkably disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post

I've just dipped into this thread for the first time, and I see that people here are still trying to deal with the same frustrating, slippery, and (frankly) arrogant 44F.

If having studied Egyptology at the Freie Universit

Share this post


Link to post
Perhaps you would be willing to answer my question. Do you believe that a "correct" translation of the other extant Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead papyri would also yield the Book of Abraham?

No.

Does anybody believe that?

Is there any reason why we need to?

Share this post


Link to post

I've just dipped into this thread for the first time, and I see that people here are still trying to deal with the same frustrating, slippery, and (frankly) arrogant 44F.

You need to put 44F on you "ignore" list--a delightful little device, by the way. It will make you happy. Listening to his one-note-samba each day is so ... tedious.

Share this post


Link to post
You need to put 44F on you "ignore" list--a delightful little device, by the way. It will make you happy. Listening to his one-note-samba each day is so ... tedious.

Good suggestion.

Is there a formal (i.e., mechanical, automatic) way of doing this on this board, or do I just have to muster the will-power to do it?

Share this post


Link to post

I can show on historical grounds that Jesus rose from the dead without treating the Bible as inspired.

Sometime in the next few weeks I will be posting a short essay entitled, "The Easter Story". I hope that you will respond to it.

Share this post


Link to post

Edited so wording is not offensive:

I have argued for it, and I'm an apologist. I believe that Abrahamic translations were made of the Book of Breathings ideograms in the columns surrounding Facsimile #1 as well as from the text of the Book of Breathings.

Whether this means that the KEP is a translation of Abrahamic material from the Book of Breathings that interprets those hieroglyphs in Abrahamic ways like the Explanations for the Facsimiles interpret Funerary material,

or whether it is the text of the Book of Abraham, I don't really have a big problem with it. I mean, I don't care if we still are missing the Egyptian original text of the Book of Abraham. I'm saying that Abrahamic translations were made of ideograms on the Book of Breathings papyrus in the EAG portions of the KEP.

It doesn't matter to me if we have yet to find the text of the Book of Abraham. The fact that Abrahamic translations were made of Book of Breathings ideograms is very significant and needs to be dealt with.

Yes, there is reason that we need to, because it is an important line of research that has not been taken seriously.

Ed Goble

No.

Does anybody believe that?

Is there any reason why we need to?

Share this post


Link to post
I fail to understand why BYU types are so rabidly against this line of research, and why they hide behind the fact that the BOA is canonical but the KEP is not.

"BYU types"? "Rabidly"? "Hide"?

Sigh.

I don't need this kind of nonsense.

I've already had enough, and more than enough, from Rob Bowman and MM.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure I'm missing something plain and I'll be hating myself for asking... but... K.E.P.?

Share this post


Link to post

Edit:

I apologize.

But I can't change the fact that I said it now, I can only apologize.

"BYU types"? "Rabidly"? "Hide"?

Sigh.

I don't need this kind of nonsense.

I've already had enough, and more than enough, from Rob Bowman and MM.

Share this post


Link to post

Let's start a new thread if you want to talk KEP again. Let's keep this one on point. "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" = KEP

I'm sure I'm missing something plain and I'll be hating myself for asking... but... K.E.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...