Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Olavarria

The Book Of Abraham And The Book Of Breathings

29 posts in this topic

03990_000_fac-3.jpg

Line to the Right of Isis (Figure 2):

The great Isis,mother of the god.

The Three Lines to the Right of Osiris (Figure 1):

(1) Words spoken by Osiris, the Foremost of the Westerners: (2) May you, Osiris, Hôr, abide at (3) the side of the throne of his greatness.

Line in Front of Ma’at (Figure 4):

(1) Ma’at, Lady of the West.

The Two Lines in Front of the deceased (Figure 5):39

(1) Osiris, Hôr,the (2) justified forever.

The Three Lines in Front of Anubis (Figure 6):

(1) Words spoken by Anubis . . . (2) Lord of heaven, foremost of (3) the Westerners.

What is the Book of Breathings?

What does the Book of Abraham say about the Egyptian priesthood?

Abraham 1:27

Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Edited by Pedro A. Olavarria
0

Share this post


Link to post

Pedro,

You left out the line along the bottom. Here it is as rendered by Mike Rhodes:

"The gods of the West, the gods of the cavern, the gods of the south, north, west, and

east say: May Osiris, Hôr, justified, born of Taykhebyt, prosper."

Moreover, since Egyptologist Jim Allen agrees with all others in his profession that the illustrations themselves should be read as large ideograms, we ought to interpret each figure and the whole scene. In this case, in my opinion, we should interpret it the way a group of Jews then living in Egypt might interpret them based on their traditions, including an aggada in their possession, along with their knowledge of the surrounding Egyptian culture:

Thus, where Joseph describes Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne by the politeness of the king, we may note that J. G. Griffiths, Origins of Osiris, 1st ed., Münchner ägypt. Studien 9 (Berlin, 1966), 82-85, insisted that the king is the ultimate source of the right to wear the crown, and that it is also worn by those identified with Osiris (citing Farina), e.g., the deceased, Sokar, etc.

Doc2.pdf

Likewise, where Joseph identifies the obviously female figure behind the throne as king Pharaoh, Hugh Nibley points to a case recognized by Dietrich Wildung where "we can identify Anat [the Canaanites' version of Hathor] as ‘Anat of Ramses [the king] himself in the shape of a goddess."

LIkewise, prince of Pharaoh brings to Nibley's mind repeated instances in which male gods, royalty, and commoners adopted the mask and dress of goddesses such as Hathor or Ma’at (or Wrt-kЗw) -- the queen can even dress as the high priest.

Joseph's final line has Abraham reasoning upon the principles of astronomy (as he does elsewhere in the Book of Abraham), which is what Josephus says in Antiquities of the Jews, I, 7, 2 (§158), quoting 3rd cent. B.C. Berossus that "there was among the Chaldeans a man righteous and great, and skilful in celestial science" (Abram); I, 8, 2 (§167), Abram "delivered to them [the Egyptians] the science of astronomy"; Pseudo-Eupolemus (OTP, I:881-882), quoted in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX, 17, 8; IX, 18, 1-2; Testament of Abraham 9 - 10 (OTP, I:886-888); Jubilees 12:16-19 (OTP, II:81); Qur'an 6:76-80; Apocalypse of Abraham 12, 15 - 24 (OTP, I:694-701); Ma‘ase Abraham Abinu (Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I:26-27), all cited by D. Peterson in Ensign, 24/1 (Jan 1994), 19-20.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
3

Share this post


Link to post

Great insights Roberto;)

I'm just drawn to Abraham's description of Egyptian priesthood, as a clever imitation of the true priesthood. Have you read any of the translations of the BoB?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Figure 1, according to Egyptologists, refers to the Egyptian God Osris.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand."

Figure 2, according to Egyptologists, refers to Isis, the wife of Osris.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

FIgure 3, according to Egyptologists, is simply a libation platform.

But according to Joseph Smith it: "Signifies Abraham in Egypt"

Figure 4, according to Egyptologists, refers to the Goddess Maat.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand."

FIgure 5, according to Egyptologists, refers to Hor.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."

FIgure 6, according to Egyptologists, refers to the God Anubis.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince."

Don't tell me. Scholars get things wrong all the time?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Figure 1, according to Egyptologists, refers to the Egyptian God Osris.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand."

Figure 2, according to Egyptologists, refers to Isis, the wife of Osris.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

FIgure 3, according to Egyptologists, is simply a libation platform.

But according to Joseph Smith it: "Signifies Abraham in Egypt"

Figure 4, according to Egyptologists, refers to the Goddess Maat.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand."

FIgure 5, according to Egyptologists, refers to Hor.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."

FIgure 6, according to Egyptologists, refers to the God Anubis.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince."

Don't tell me. Scholars get things wrong all the time?

Xander, or Kevin,

Scholars tend to interact with one another and they try to show mutual respect by actually reading what others say. Your comments here show no effort to do any of that. Instead, you completely ignored the comments contained in this thread and made comments on the Book of Abraham motivated strictly by preconceived notions. You might try studying what the scholars actually say, and give credit where it is due. Of course that does require some semblance of sincerety.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Scholars tend to interact with one another and they try to show mutual respect by actually reading what others say.

Is this supposed to be news?

Your comments here show no effort to do any of that.

Which scholars do you think deserve my respect? My post made it clear that you can either believe scholars, or Joseph Smith. Scholars aren't divided on the meanings of these images/symbols.

Instead, you completely ignored the comments contained in this thread and made comments on the Book of Abraham motivated strictly by preconceived notions.

Yes, my "preconceived notion" is that if Joseph Smith had the ability to properly translate ancient documents, then he wouldn't have made so many mistakes in the numerous falsifiable examples. He didn't even come close. A female is a male and Anubis is a slave, simply because he is pictured in black. This tells us more about his imagination than his ability as a Prophet.

You might try studying what the scholars actually say, and give credit where it is due.

I have. But I'm not going to focus on the cherries picked by apologists. I'm going to take in everything, including what Joseph Smith got wrong. Why is this off the table?

Of course that does require some semblance of sincerety.

My quest for truth has always been sincere, which is why I'm willing to accept all the data and form my conclusions accordingly. All Pedro did was provide 5 of the 6 scholarly explanations, but neglected to show how Joseph Smith explained them. He also seeks to find meaning in a text that most LDS scholars consider irrelevant to the Book of Abraham since it is necessarily from the "wrong scroll."

0

Share this post


Link to post

Xander, or Kevin,

Scholars tend to interact with one another and they try to show mutual respect by actually reading what others say. Your comments here show no effort to do any of that. Instead, you completely ignored the comments contained in this thread and made comments on the Book of Abraham motivated strictly by preconceived notions. You might try studying what the scholars actually say, and give credit where it is due. Of course that does require some semblance of sincerety.

Pedro and Robert,

I don't understand this issue as well as some on this board. Is the general LDS consensus to explain the discrepency between the fac 3 interpretation Joseph Smith gave and what Egyptologists believe it says is that the roles of the various gods are being portrayed by those in the explanation. For example, the black slave is playing the role of Anubis by wearing a mask? Also, what does the part "characters above the hand" actually mean and does this involve a different interpretation in Abraham's time versus the time of the papyrus?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Figure 1, according to Egyptologists, refers to the Egyptian God Osris.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand."

Figure 2, according to Egyptologists, refers to Isis, the wife of Osris.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

FIgure 3, according to Egyptologists, is simply a libation platform.

But according to Joseph Smith it: "Signifies Abraham in Egypt"

Figure 4, according to Egyptologists, refers to the Goddess Maat.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand."

FIgure 5, according to Egyptologists, refers to Hor.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."

FIgure 6, according to Egyptologists, refers to the God Anubis.

But according to Joseph Smith, it refers to: "Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince."

Don't tell me. Scholars get things wrong all the time?

Hey Xander,

I personally don't have an opinion on Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles. There are various theories about how Joseph's explanations relate to the Egyptian. Was it a modern redaction by Joseph? Was it an ancient Egyptian redaction? Were the vignettes of the Hor BoB redacted for use in the BoA? I don't know.

What we can all agree on, Mormons or not, is the original Egyptian context. Have you read Rhodes or Ritner's translations?

I'm just impressed with Abraham's claim the true priesthood order he belonged to and the Egyptian priesthood came from the same source. If that is true, then Egyptian priesthood and true priesthood should be similiar. Using Mormon terms, the Hor Book of Breathings can be described as an Ancient Egyptian Endowment.

Edited by Pedro A. Olavarria
0

Share this post


Link to post

Pedro and Robert,

I don't understand this issue as well as some on this board. Is the general LDS consensus to explain the discrepency between the fac 3 interpretation Joseph Smith gave and what Egyptologists believe it says is that the roles of the various gods are being portrayed by those in the explanation. For example, the black slave is playing the role of Anubis by wearing a mask? Also, what does the part "characters above the hand" actually mean and does this involve a different interpretation in Abraham's time versus the time of the papyrus?

I just spend 30 minutes writing a response and then accidently closed the MADB window on google chrome aghagahagah!!

I was basically fleshing out what I wrote here.

Basically, when you look at Jacob's shulam in Genesis and BoJared's shelem in the Book of Ether and Joseph's Shulem in Facsimile 3, what you have are 3 cases were Shulem/shulam/shelem is being used in the context of men being brought into the presence of God.

Edited by Pedro A. Olavarria
0

Share this post


Link to post

I just spend 30 minutes writing a response and then accidently closed the MADB window on google chrome aghagahagah!!

I was basically fleshing out what I wrote here.

Basically, when you look at Jacob's shulam in Genesis and BoJared's shelem in the Book of Ether and Joseph's Shulem in Facsimile 3, what you have are 3 cases were Shulem/shulam/shelem is being used in the context of men being brought into the presence of God.

Thanks for the link. I was unaware that Shulem had a connection with the ascension motif. Is there anything about Olimlah?

0

Share this post


Link to post
I just spend 30 minutes writing a response and then accidently closed the MADB window on google chrome aghagahagah!!

Firefox has a marvelous add-in called Lazarus. I (unfortunately) use it regulaly.

Lehi

0

Share this post


Link to post

Xander, or Kevin,

Scholars tend to interact with one another and they try to show mutual respect by actually reading what others say. Your comments here show no effort to do any of that. Instead, you completely ignored the comments contained in this thread and made comments on the Book of Abraham motivated strictly by preconceived notions. You might try studying what the scholars actually say, and give credit where it is due. Of course that does require some semblance of sincerety.

In vain, I've made numerous such attempts at getting Kevin to actually think through his criticisms and approach them in an intellectually substantive manner, rather than as a snide, angry polemicist. Neither I nor anyone else I am aware of has, as of yet, succeeded in any such endeavor. I certainly wish Robert well in his own sincere point of order here.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Scholars aren't divided on the meanings of these images/symbols.

Except that the "meanings" of the symbols and motifs took on multiple layers of meaning and interpretation over time as Egyptian religion developed and matured. I think the idea that Egyptian religious iconography can be approached, as to interpretation, in such a simplistic, black and white manner is indicative of the author's desire to use it as a polemical tool, and not a sincere "search for truth," as Kevin claims is his real aim.

3

Share this post


Link to post

In vain, I've made numerous such attempts at getting Kevin to actually think through his criticisms and approach them in an intellectually substantive manner, rather than as a snide, angry polemicist.

Then perhaps you could provide a quick reference to one of these "numerous attempts." We all know that all you have ever done is attack me in ways similar to what you have just done above. But it is rather funny how some folks decide to go the apologetic route of claiming Egyptology is essentially worthless. As if it will keep changing to the point that all of Joseph Smith's erroneous explanations will one day become correct. Male gods will become females and female gods will eventually become males! I mean that is what you really need to happen, and to think it will is not "thinking through" your own argument.

Calling everything I say "angry" is not offering "intellectually substantive" commentary. Anyone who knows me knows "angry" doesn't even begin to describe me. You're just another armchair psychologist with a particular hatred and paranoia for apostates. In your mind we're all angry, because that just complete's the picture for you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
I think the idea that Egyptian religious iconography can be approached, as to interpretation, in such a simplistic, black and white manner is indicative of the author's desire to use it as a polemical tool, and not a sincere "search for truth," as Kevin claims is his real aim.

Or you could let him speak for himself about his sincerity instead of using old baggage to pigeon hole him. We may not agree on a lot of issues but I think if both sides tried a lot harder to discuss things instead of entrenching ourselves good things could come out of all this.

Nemesis

0

Share this post


Link to post

Or you could let him speak for himself about his sincerity instead of using old baggage to pigeon hole him. We may not agree on a lot of issues but I think if both sides tried a lot harder to discuss things instead of entrenching ourselves good things could come out of all this.

Nemesis

What was the point of this response? No, I don't know either. If Nibley and other LDS scholars have shown anything over the years, it is that Kevin's standard argument from authority, which he routinely deploys in lieu of the adducing of actual evidence on other issues as well as the question of BofA origins, in this case of the form "Scholars aren't divided on the meanings of these images/symbols." is a brash oversimplification of the actual nature of the "images/symbols" and the meanings they have accreted and supported over time.

I think Robert's reply was apropos:

Scholars tend to interact with one another and they try to show mutual respect by actually reading what others say. Your comments here show no effort to do any of that. Instead, you completely ignored the comments contained in this thread and made comments on the Book of Abraham motivated strictly by preconceived notions. You might try studying what the scholars actually say, and give credit where it is due. Of course that does require some semblance of sincerety.

As someone with years of experience debating Mr. Graham, I'll just second that response here again.

1

Share this post


Link to post

Then perhaps you could provide a quick reference to one of these "numerous attempts."

Years worth? No thanks. In any case, you're perfectly aware of them without my reminding you of their nature.

We all know that all you have ever done is attack me in ways similar to what you have just done above.

Given your long and distinguished history as a civil, respectful, intellectually mature interlocutor across a range of apologetic issues and with numerous LDS apologists here and at Shade's board, please forgive my savage, unfair, beastly attacks upon your profound intellectual integrity.

But it is rather funny how some folks decide to go the apologetic route of claiming Egyptology is essentially worthless. As if it will keep changing to the point that all of Joseph Smith's erroneous explanations will one day become correct. Male gods will become females and female gods will eventually become males! I mean that is what you really need to happen, and to think it will is not "thinking through" your own argument.

But the "images/symbols" you mention are a body of religious iconography far more nuanced and textured than critics like yourself allow, and when faced with interlocutors who actually understand this aspect of ancient Egyptian religious symbolism and have the substantive knowledge of Egyptology that you do not possess, you tend towards an immediate retreat to the bluster of "all scholars agree..." Its a long and well worn pattern.

Calling everything I say "angry" is not offering "intellectually substantive" commentary. Anyone who knows me knows "angry" doesn't even begin to describe me. You're just another armchair psychologist with a particular hatred and paranoia for apostates. In your mind we're all angry, because that just complete's the picture for you.

Anyone who "knows" you as an online critic of the Church, over at least the last four or five years or so, knows that "angry," indeed, does not begin to describe the level of fervency, intensity, psychological obsessiveness, and emotional focus you bring to your historic criticisms of the Church in this and other forums.

Please don't return bad behavior for bad behavior. Kevin is suspended for a feud with another poster for a couple more days. Don't pile on in his absence. - Ares

0

Share this post


Link to post

Pedro,

Bien, buen siervo y fiel . . .

I loved the ascension connection when I read your previous post the first time. It's such a great insight.

Cheers

0

Share this post


Link to post

Xander just seems to be another critic who enjoys telling us what we believe, and painting "you have to believe this or that" picture. His criticisms are nothing new and they have all been addressed several times. Criticisms like his are getting tiring. Please, Xander, be civil at the very least.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Xander is not the subject of this thread. Get back on topic.

Skylla

0

Share this post


Link to post

Pedro,

You left out the line along the bottom. Here it is as rendered by Mike Rhodes:

"The gods of the West, the gods of the cavern, the gods of the south, north, west, and

east say: May Osiris, Hôr, justified, born of Taykhebyt, prosper."

Moreover, since Egyptologist Jim Allen agrees with all others in his profession that the illustrations themselves should be read as large ideograms, we ought to interpret each figure and the whole scene. In this case, in my opinion, we should interpret it the way a group of Jews then living in Egypt might interpret them based on their traditions, including an aggada in their possession, along with their knowledge of the surrounding Egyptian culture:

Thus, where Joseph describes Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne by the politeness of the king, we may note that J. G. Griffiths, Origins of Osiris, 1st ed., Münchner ägypt. Studien 9 (Berlin, 1966), 82-85, insisted that the king is the ultimate source of the right to wear the crown, and that it is also worn by those identified with Osiris (citing Farina), e.g., the deceased, Sokar, etc.

Doc2.pdf

Likewise, where Joseph identifies the obviously female figure behind the throne as king Pharaoh, Hugh Nibley points to a case recognized by Dietrich Wildung where "we can identify Anat [the Canaanites' version of Hathor] as ‘Anat of Ramses [the king] himself in the shape of a goddess."

Likewise, prince of Pharaoh brings to Nibley's mind repeated instances in which male gods, royalty, and commoners adopted the mask and dress of goddesses such as Hathor or Ma’at (or Wrt-kЗw) -- the queen can even dress as the high priest.

Joseph's final line has Abraham reasoning upon the principles of astronomy (as he does elsewhere in the Book of Abraham), which is what Josephus says in Antiquities of the Jews, I, 7, 2 (§158), quoting 3rd cent. B.C. Berossus that "there was among the Chaldeans a man righteous and great, and skilful in celestial science" (Abram); I, 8, 2 (§167), Abram "delivered to them [the Egyptians] the science of astronomy"; Pseudo-Eupolemus (OTP, I:881-882), quoted in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX, 17, 8; IX, 18, 1-2; Testament of Abraham 9 - 10 (OTP, I:886-888); Jubilees 12:16-19 (OTP, II:81); Qur'an 6:76-80; Apocalypse of Abraham 12, 15 - 24 (OTP, I:694-701); Ma‘ase Abraham Abinu (Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch I:26-27), all cited by D. Peterson in Ensign, 24/1 (Jan 1994), 19-20.

What you seem to be hinting at is that if one is overly literalistic when interpreting certain ancient Egyptian documents, as is the tendency for we western thinkers, one may likely miss the wealth of figurative or symbolic meanings that may have been intended by the eastern authors.

I agree, and I suspect that there is some significance to pharaohs being symbolized as goddesses or masked as goddesses, though I am not sure what the supposed symbolism may be. Could it be representative of false priesthood? I don't know, but it may be of interest to consider.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
0

Share this post


Link to post

03990_000_fac-3.jpg

Line to the Right of Isis (Figure 2):

The great Isis,mother of the god. Etc., etc.

The conclusion is that the above figure has nothing to do with LDS religion. It has something to do only with the mummy bought from the Egypt and with the Egypt religions. It teaches nothing, because it was the result of so many adulterations on the original Book of Abraham. it is like you have the origianl Diaray of your grand-mother. A good and honest woman. But then somebody may steal such Diary and falsify some parts of it. And as by miracle it "appears". And some scandals are revealed and put in the web, in scandalous sites, for everybody see that your grand-mother was a prostitute. There are evidences. The greatest one is in her own diary, written with her own hand... That is the situation of Book of Abraham.

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/ad03c06f815315ce030d6b4adaf470fed08cdb56a78610460694bbdac70e497a6g.jpg

Click on above URL for you see the same FAC-Simile that is provided just at the start of this message, with comments on the Egyptian translated message on it: very false message. Now all such false material, as if the added things to the Diary of your grand-mother,are removed. And you have a "clean message", without teaching from apostated false priests, evil ones.

ad03c06f815315ce030d6b4adaf470fed08cdb56a78610460694bbdac70e497a4g.jpg

Now you have the correct picture. The figure is separated into TWO PARTS.

In the left part you have the Heavenly Environment, where remain Gods, living with their Divinity Condition and Heavenly TIME.

In the right side you have the Temporal mortal environment, where remain mortal persons: Abraham, next the Egyptian priest and then an Egyptian person.

What separates them? A courtain. Exactly as the Courtain that separates what is the most holly in the most inner of the Temple (where God lives, and where Aaron can enter just once a year...) and the mortality environment. Such curtain is made of two ways. One way is VISIBLE WAY, with the specified materiais revealed by God to Moses. But there is another CURTAIN, quite like SPIRITUAL, that is provided by quite like a SPIRITUAL CURTAIN of SMOKE of INCENSE, provided by KOLOB. It generates a SPIRITUAL LIKE CURTAIN that ZACHARIAH was generating in the Temple when an Angel came to him, next to the physical curtain of the Temple, and provided God's revelation. Thus it is the symbolism that the ANGEL was in one side of the VEIL, made by the physical curtain and also by the spiritual (KOLOB's CURTAIN OF smoke) curtain. Thus ANGEL was in the SPIRITUAL SIDE, and ZACHARIAH was in the temporal or MORTAL side of the curtain.

It is exactly what we have above. You can see that between the SPIRITUAL, DIVINE, God's side, and the MORTALITY and TEMPORAL side, we have a INCENSE BURNER (it is falsified, we will see in detail what was falsified and for what...) generating the CURTAIN of SMOKE OF INCENSE BURNED that is separating HEAVENLY TIME to MORTALITY TIME.

Thus such CURTAIN of SMOKE is quite like the SYMBOLISM of the EQUATION converting God's Time into Mortality's time and vice-versa, quite like the "magic curtain" we have in some movies to change from one dimension and time into another dimension and time, as if in "dimensional portals".

Probably the "Woman" is the Heavenly Mother (and Isis is just an "evil Usurper model" from Lucifer") and she is touching on the "greatest hat" (on background) that is from Heavenly Father. He is sat on the same and long wood seat, from background to foreground. And in foreground is sat His Son, Jehovah, wearing a smaller "hat" and He is the one in direct contact, frace to face, with Abraham. We are to see why this is the case because of the detail of the KOLOB x their feet (Son's x Abraham's).

With best personal regards, sincerely yours,

SAVELLI

Edited by SAVELLI
0

Share this post


Link to post

In light of some of the comments made in this thread, I liked what Larry Morris had to say in the 2004 FARMS Review of, "The Breathing Permit of Hor' Thirty-four Years Later. Dialogue 33/4 (2000): 97—119." by Robert K. Ritner. Morris' review is titled: "The Book of Abraham: Ask the Right Questions and Keep On Looking."

He said:

In JNES Ritner reports that personal attacks followed publication of his translation in Dialogue. This is regrettable and reflects poorly on those who responded in such a manner. As Ritner describes: "The earlier version of this article produced internet discussions devoted not to the translation, but to scurrilous remarks concerning my own religious and personal habits. Let the scholar be warned" (p. 162 n. 7).

Ritner apparently believes that those who engage in these kinds of discussions ought to follow basic standards of good scholarship. I agree. Ritner does not say precisely what those standards are, but I suggest the following:

Avoiding sarcastic language or ad hominem arguments

Making explicit and fair assumptions

Following sound methodology

Documenting arguable facts

Eschewing ax-grinding

By the way, this article provides some excellent foundation for the current discussion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

0

Share this post


Link to post

The conclusion is that the FAC-SIMILE figure has nothing to do with LDS religion. It has something to do only with the mummy bought from the Egypt and with the Egypt religions. It teaches nothing, because it was the result of so many adulterations on the original Book of Abraham.

It is suggested some revision on the 3 Fac-similes from the Egypt mummy, by removing the Egyptian religious teaching material and their apostasy they introduced in LDS religion. Notice how great was Egyption religion influence. Quite like the revival of the times of Pharaoh, before Christianism and Judaism, as if they could teach us something.

When it was to be something opposite. In fact they removed Abraham's teaching and replaced it by their teaching and their God's and let just some mixture of little Abraham.

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/29a3efe2f7f344b808622eec3f2ccd2c3d48e816db21f5920090bdbc79d3d4486g.jpg

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/29a3efe2f7f344b808622eec3f2ccd2c3d48e816db21f5920090bdbc79d3d4486g.jpg

Click on above URL to see it very enlarged. Then move the image up and down to see details of the 3 Fac-similes: nr. 1, 2 and 3, very enlarged.

Notice that in each FAC-Simile we had KOLOB, Incense Burner generating KOLOB-Incense Smoke Curtain (Veil) Separating Celestial Time environment from our Mortality Time Environment and thus working as if a TRANSFORMER of TIME, shifting from one type of time into another type of time and vice-versa. Thus making the function of the mathematical equation.

In the case of Fac-Simile nr. 1, the KOLOB is just next to the Abraham's head and is generating a Kolob - Incense smoke Curtain (Veil) betwee Abraham and the Priest (from one side) and (from the other side) the bird, which is the symbolism of God, as Holly Spirit (then was Jehovah doing that Duty). Thus Jehovah was not living in our Mortality Time, but in Heavenly Time and was separated from our Mortality Time by a Veil.

Thus the Veil, Kolob, was next to God, separating God from us. The same is in Temple, in the most Holly of the Holly: that time was Celestial Time, separated by also a Curtain of KOLOB - Incense Smoke Burned to make like the symbolism of such separation.

29a3efe2f7f344b808622eec3f2ccd2c3d48e816db21f5920090bdbc79d3d4484g.jpg

with best personal regards, sincerely yours,

SAVELLI

0

Share this post


Link to post
ad03c06f815315ce030d6b4adaf470fed08cdb56a78610460694bbdac70e497a4g.jpg

I don't know if "diary" is a good analogy for these ancient religious writings, but I found your interpretation interesting.

However, I must ask what is the basis for your interpretation?

I ask because there is much about the hieroglyphic vignette, and much going on in the vignette, that seems not only lacking in your explanation, but also somewhat at odds with what you depict.

For example, why, to your way of thinking, is Abraham represented in the form of an Egyptian-looking woman? Why is he holding hands with who you identify as pharaoh? What meaning, if any, is there to the way Abraham is holding his right arm? Why is Abraham looking at the pharaoh? Is there any significance to Abraham's headdress and cloths?...to name but a few of many questions that come to mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.