Alternate Authorship Bom Theories-problems

[Who Knows]

>But what does that have to do with the Southern Arabic word NHM (pronounced by the locals as Nihm) meaning stone-cutting?

Look up the meaning of "gift" in English and then in German. Same word, different meanings.

Finally, stone cutting could have evolved from the many graves in the area, for example.

That's kind of my point. One of the arguments for the whole NHM thing is that in Hebrew it means something like comfort/consolation/etc (and how that fits in nicely with it being a supposed burial place). But it means something totally different in southern arabic. So that argument is out the window.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran you star!!

Take a look on the date and time of my writings....it was 3 in the morning on a Saturday night after I had just come back from a social event. Of course I am not going to care how to spell pretentious or read a boring and superfluous article about how the Old Testament fathers all appear on Magical Spell manuscripts from Egypt when I am half asleep u goon.

Oddly enough, my board settings don't show your posts timestamped with your local time. They show them timestamped with something resembling US Mountain Standard Time. U goon.

Now: another of Ashment's errors--which you have quite uncritically swallowed and now rather unthinkingly regurgitate--is the notion that documents can be marginalised and ridiculed simply by pinning the label of "magical" on them. The current scholarly consensus is that "magic" is not a meaningful category and does not usefully describe anything. Mister Ashment is not keeping up.

Talk about people being pretentious...u could write for FARMS!! The whole notion of it is absurd. However, even if the names did appear on them, it still wouldnt change the fact that Joseph didnt have a clue what those manuscripts said.

Smilies are not arguments. Why is the notion "absurd?" And if indeed it is so absurd, why did Ashment so resolutely and emphatically deny that the name is on the papyri? Why did he go to the trouble of publishing on the subject? He seems to have paid rather a lot of attention to an "absurd" notion, don't you think?

Type "Abraham" and Egyptian Papyri or Egyptian book of the dead or anything like that.....and you tell me what you find.....All lds articles....nothing from non-mormons scholars.

Meaning that no non-Mormon scholars have studied the issue enough to publish on it.

Meaning also that no non-Mormon scholars have refuted the claim either, correct?

That's what happens in scholarship you see, Steve; scholars study and write on subjects that take and hold their interest. Would you like to guess which group of scholars publishing today have the greatest level of interest in Abraham's sojourn in Egypt, and his presence in any ancient Egyptian documents?

I'll give you a tiny hint: rather a lot of them are working at a place called Provo.

Tell you what....I am going to go to London this Friday...I will take articles from Gee to the Egyptian Museum and I will chat to people there to see what they say. I will ask them to read both articles by Gee and the one by Ashment and ask them which one they think is probable. Dont forget that these guys are going to be Cambridge and Oxford graduates matey without a faith-promoting agenda.

Nor, hopefully, a faith-denying one. Matey.

Which won't necessarily prevent them from being opinionated snobs who would turn up their lordly noses in high class British disdain at anything remotely associated with Mormons.

But we'll find out what happens after you tell us what they said. Maybe they'll just pass judgement without actually seeing the papyri or knowing anything about the background of the discussion. Or maybe they will know something about the subject after all. Or maybe they won't, but they'll be willing to research the question.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Irondukesteve]

Now: another of Ashment's errors--which you have quite uncritically swallowed and now rather unthinkingly regurgitate--is the notion that documents can be marginalised and ridiculed simply by pinning the label of "magical" on them. The current scholarly consensus is that "magic" is not a meaningful category and does not usefully describe anything.

wait wait....I wager that you DO write for FARMS with a snide reply like that!! Have you ever read any translated Egyptian funerary texts or read anything by anyone that doesnt work at Provo? If you have you will know that the "general scholarly consensus" is that egyptian funerary texts are rituals containing spells. (I will also wager you are one of the people that criticizes Quinn's Mormonism and the Magic World View because the title does not reflect the actual culture and supernatural beliefs of the time, when infact it has nothing to do with the main points of Quinn's message...one of them being that JS used stones in a hat to bring about the BoM etc.) Mate, all you have to do is go to the library and rent out virtually any book from any university on egyptian funerary texts (except Provo publishing ltd. ) and you will find that they refer to these rituals as spells. Never once did I infer that they could be marginalised simply because they sometimes use the word "magic" as a pretext.(and scholars do sometimes use the word magic to describe them.) You will also find that they use code names that are meaningless to anyone else but the Egyptians. The texts may well contain variants of the name Abraham but concluding that they are referring to Abraham of the Old Testament is another!

...I'll give you a tiny hint: rather a lot of them are working at a place called Provo.

hahahaha .....sooo wait....rather a lot of the scholars that agree with Gee and investigate Abraham in Egypt are at Provo?? hahahaha Do you know how biased you make them sound??

Which won't necessarily prevent them from being opinionated snobs who would turn up their lordly noses in high class British disdain at anything remotely associated with Mormons.

U really sound like you have a problem Sounds like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder or perhaps you have just been indoctrinated to think that Martin Harris's experience with Charles Anthon will apply to every scholar. And thus you will dismiss them if they do not give you the reinforcement you are looking for. It is that kind attitude that will cause people to get their backs up. I have met many scholars who do not care if you are a Mormon, Hindu, Atheist, Seventh-day etc. They will tell you how it is no matter what your belief system.

[cdowis]

>That's kind of my point. One of the arguments for the whole NHM thing is that in Hebrew it means something like comfort/consolation/etc (and how that fits in nicely with it being a supposed burial place). But it means something totally different in southern arabic. So that argument is out the window.

Your wording is very very clever, so let's pin your down to specifics.

Precisely what is "that argument" that is out the window? NHM as evidence of the BOM, or the footnote which gives a translation of the name.

Are we talking about the BOM itself, dear fellow, or the footnote?

"And it came to pass that Ishmael died, and was buried in the place which was called Nahom."

Please note that the BOM author does not give a translation of the name. Only the name itself is given, within the context of its location.

Here are the facts==>>

1. There is a place called NHM in the same locale as referenced in the BOM text.

2. The name is ancient, within the possible date of the BOM events.

3. The translation of the name itself is **not** given by the BOM author.

But I am sure your rejection of the BOM evidence will not be swayed by such facts. I may agree with you that the footnote is not particularly remarkable, but I am very much impressed by the physical and historical evidence itself.

OK, let's throw the footnote out the window, if it pleases you.