Jump to content

Re, The Four Fold Creator And A Hypocephalus


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

amulet_spell.jpg

Hypocephalus of the temple musician Neshorpakhered

From Thebes, Egypt

Ptolemaic Period, 4th to 3rd century BC

Inscribed with a spell to give warmth to the head of the deceased

The hypocephalus, literally 'that which is below the head', was placed between the head of the mummy and the funerary headrest. The earliest examples appeared in the Late Period, around 664 BC. They were simply inscribed pieces of papyrus, mounted on cartonnage discs. By the Ptolemaic period (332-30 BC), they were made of linen stiffened with plaster, decorated with vignettes. The hieroglyphic inscription runs around the circumference of the disc.

This example is decorated with scenes relating to the daily creation of the sun. The two boats represent the sun during the night (left) and the day (right). Below, baboons herald the birth of the sun, whose four heads represent the first four generations of creation. Below are figures associated with the Afterlife, including the four sons of Horus, who looked after the internal organs of the deceased.

The spell around the outside of the disc is an abbreviated form of Chapter 162 of the Book of the Dead. It contains an appeal: 'Cause to come into being a flame beneath his head for he is the soul of that corpse which rests in Heliopolis, Atum is his name'.

Diameter: 14 cm

EA 36188

On loan to the exhibition 'Ancient Egypt', at the Bowers Museum of Cultural Art, Santa Ana, California (17 April 2005 - 17 April 2008)

G. Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt (London, The British Museum Press, 1994), fig. 85

S. Quirke and A.J. Spencer, The British Museum book of ancient Egypt (London, The British Museum Press, 1992), p. 96, fig. 75

I. Shaw and P. Nicholson (eds.), British Museum dictionary of Ancient Egypt (London, The British Museum Press, 1995), p. 137

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/compass/...-button=summary

Now an excerpt from Leiden papyrus 383

" O god hohos, cause to be sealed, be satisfied, be satisfied, Jehovah. I never appear appear without causing awe, soul of souls., Jehovah Ariaha, Ariaha, act for her, while they turn the face of the rebel, four sided one, Ianian; we act while I initiate the four-sided one. Send me the god in whose hand is the command so that he may tell me the answer to everything about which I inquire here today. Come in this multitude, O fury of Re! O creator who caused creation to come into being, Abraham, the pupil of the wedjat-eye, four fold creator, the great creator, who caused creation to be created, great verdant creation."

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/167911.ctl

Now, according to one website: "Re (Ra) was the Egyptian sun god who was also often referred to as Re-Horakhty, meaning Re (is) Horus of the Horizon, referring to the god's character. The early Egyptians believed that he created the world, and the rising sun was, for them, the symbol of creation. The daily cycle, as the sun rose, then set only to rise again the next morning, symbolized renewal and so Re was seen as the paramount force of creation and master of life."

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/re.htm

Link to comment

300px-Book_of_Abraham_Facsimile_2.gif

Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.

Judge for yourself. I make no claims.

Link to comment

300px-Book_of_Abraham_Facsimile_2.gif

Fig. 1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.

Judge for yourself. I make no claims.

I judge that the person who wrote about 'Kolob' was borrowing from KJV 2 Peter 3:8, and butchering the popular 19th century name for God, 'Jehovah'.

Link to comment

I judge that the person who wrote about 'Kolob' was borrowing from KJV 2 Peter 3:8, and butchering the popular 19th century name for God, 'Jehovah'.

2 Peter 3:8

8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Link to comment

Judge for myself? Are you kidding? I think you're up in the night. What exactly do you think all of this means? To me it means Joseph Smith had no clue whatsoever what the hypocephalus actually meant, and was making it all up. Is that the kind of judgment you had in mind?

Seriously, Herr Dr. Amun, what is it you are trying to say here? What meaning are you trying to say exists in the links you have provided?

Link to comment

2 Peter 3:8

:P But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

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

Jah-oh-eh

Je-ho-vah.

Link to comment

Judge for myself? Are you kidding? I think you're up in the night. What exactly do you think all of this means? To me it means Joseph Smith had no clue whatsoever what the hypocephalus actually meant, and was making it all up. Is that the kind of judgment you had in mind?

Seriously, Herr Dr. Amun, what is it you are trying to say here? What meaning are you trying to say exists in the links you have provided?

Im not a Doctor, that was someone elses misunderstanding.

Link to comment

Judge for myself? Are you kidding? I think you're up in the night. What exactly do you think all of this means? To me it means Joseph Smith had no clue whatsoever what the hypocephalus actually meant, and was making it all up. Is that the kind of judgment you had in mind?

Seriously, Herr Dr. Amun, what is it you are trying to say here? What meaning are you trying to say exists in the links you have provided?

I never claimed to have a PHD. That was someone else's misunderstanding.

Link to comment

I never claimed to have a PHD. That was someone else's misunderstanding.

Okie doke. No more Herr Dr. Amun then, just Her Amun as before. Still, the question remains, what connection between Joseph Smith's hypocephalus and the other Egyptian Hypocephalus are you trying to draw? Because nothing obvious is sticking out to me. Both are Egyptian Hypocephali, and I'm not sure what it is about the one you linked which you think supports the notion that Joseph Smith's interpretation of his hypocephalus was accurate.

Link to comment

Judge for myself? Are you kidding? I think you're up in the night. What exactly do you think all of this means? To me it means Joseph Smith had no clue whatsoever what the hypocephalus actually meant, and was making it all up. Is that the kind of judgment you had in mind?

Seriously, Herr Dr. Amun, what is it you are trying to say here? What meaning are you trying to say exists in the links you have provided?

Wow!!!!! I didnt notice till this morning. Im a pundit!!!! :P<_< Gracias mods!!! :unsure:

First, I have to state my view of the BoA and the facisimilies. 1)I believe the BoA to be an ancient book and the inspired word of God. Joseph was not the author. 2)I'm not sure as to whether Abraham wrote the BoA or whether it is a 1st centuary psuedopigrapha made by an Egyptian Jew or Egyptian Christian ala Apocalypse of Abraham and Testament of Abraham. 3)I believe in the catalyst theory of textual transmission. I believe that the BoA is a translation in the tradition of the BoMoses and/or "Testimony of John" found in D&C section 7. 4)I believe that the facsimiles attached to our modern translation of the BoA represent a semetic adaption/adoption of previosly existing egyptian motifs,or in other words Abraham didnt make them. This isnt my theory; I borrowed it from this book.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/167925.ctl

Q:So if Abraham didnt make them why are they part of the BoA

A: Ancient Jews occasionally borrowed egyptian motifs and adapted them to their own religion. For example, the Testament of Abraham contains a judgement scene that non-lds scholars first recognized as an adaptation from the 125th chapter of the Book of the Dead. I'll replicate this experiment on this board when time permits. There other examples; but that is a topic for another thread.Christians may also have done some of this:

5078.jpg

147493310_bfae7a1745_m.jpg

Q:So are you saying that their is a hidden meaning to the facisimilies only mormon scholars know?

A:Nope! I'm saying that the facsimiles can also be understood in a different context, the context of semetic adaptation.

Q:What about all the Egyptologists like Ritner who say BoA is whooy?

A: As shocking as it might seem, I actually value the insights Ritner and others provide in the study of the JS papyri. An egyptologists can tell us what these things meant to an ancient egyptian. They can't neccesarily tell us what they meant to an an ancient semite, what Abraham and his descendants were. That is why I believe the BoA is not an egyptological riddle, it is an Old Testament Psuedipigraphal one. Besides, the BoA was not written for an egyptian audience, it was written for a semetic one.

Q:So if the facimilies and the Hor Book of Breathings have a "pagan" egyptian context that is different from what is on the BoA, why did this theoretical jewish redacter add/adapt them to the BoA?

A: The answer to that depends on whether you have recieved your endowment or not. I recommend you read The Priests of Ancient Egypt. This book as required reading for the only class I took on egyptian religion at UCLA.

http://www.amazon.com/Priests-Ancient-Egyp...TF8&s=books

If you are endowed watch this video and compare it with your own temple experience, then you will see why an ancient lover of Abraham would have paired the two:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNoxKcWFEPw

I like this video because 1)It has that ridulous "Joseph was smart enough to guess,based on his knowledge of hebrew, that egyptian wrote from right to left, but stupid enough to assume 1 hieratic character=a paragraph of text, or that 5 consecutive charaters=a book"theory; and 2)because Ritner shows us what the Hor BoB contains.

Abraham 1:26

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that aorder established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the bblessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

OK NOW THAT THAT IS OUT OF THE WAY, AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIAN

1)

amulet_spell.jpg

These hypocephali are very very similiar, and represent the same things

300px-Book_of_Abraham_Facsimile_2.gif

2) What did figure 1 represent to the egyptians?

The sun, whose four heads represent the first four generations of creation. Re (Ra) was the Egyptian sun god. The early Egyptians believed that he created the world, and the rising sun was, for them, the symbol of creation. The daily cycle, as the sun rose, then set only to rise again the next morning, symbolized renewal and so Re was seen as the paramount force of creation and master of life.

3)What did this figure represent in the BoA?

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

4) What is Kolob?

Answer: Arabic "qalb" (plural "qulob"), meaning "heart" or "center."

Hebrew: qarab(kaw-rab')

a primitive root; to approach (causatively, bring near) for whatever purpose:--(cause to) approach, (cause to) bring (forth, near), (cause to) come (near, nigh), (cause to) draw near (nigh), go (near), be at hand, join, be near, offer, present, produce, make ready, stand, take.

Latterday Saints associate Celestial glory,kindgdom and the residence of God with the sun as a type. Re is at the center of the hypocephalus.

http://jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/STRHEB71.htm

5) What about, "The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh?"

Answer:Not egyptian concepts.

6)What about Jah-oh-eh?

Like Ebin go ondosh, Oblish and others, they are currently undeciferable foriegn words. Kinda like, "Adio orich Thambito" in Leiden apapyrus I 384.

7) Its Ra!!!!! Besides, Ra the Sun God had no connection with Abraham, nor did Abraham have connection with the hypocephalus.

A: Tell that to the egyptian preist who wrote Leiden 383. In that spell, Jehovah, Abraham,Re and the wedjat eye are connected.

8. Ya, but Abraham and Jehovah are being used as magic words.

A:And your point is?

9)What connection does that show between Abraham and the the hypocephalus?

In Leiden 383, an egyptian priest connects Jehovah,Re,the wedjat eye and Abraham.

This is the Wedjat eye: 27.jpg

It appears 3 times in the JS hypocephalus. Re appears twice, fig 1 and fig 3. JS indirectly connected Abraham with these symbols, and so did the Theban priest(author of LiedenI 383 and 384).

JS is in the ball park, when it comes to an egyptian understanding of figure 1. Whether it is a direct bulls eye in a semetic context cant be tested empiracally, yet it is plausable given the attested semetic practice of adopting/adapting egyptian motifs.

Link to comment

Dude, you are going to unbelievable lengths to try to find ways of making sense of something that Joseph Smith made up. Since Joseph Smith was using semitic religious concepts as his working environment, and there are connections between ancient semitic religion and ancient egyptian religion more than, say, ancient semitic religion and ancient Norwegian religion, if you seek hard enough, and look long enough, and allow yourself enough leeway, you will, and are, inevitably finding little things you can use to cobble together your story. But in the end, you're just going to be creating for yourself an elaborate virtual reality, for it is unreal.

Link to comment

Joseph Smith made up a story to explain the papyri, the hypocephalus, etc. The story he made, because it was in the context of this church he had created, was religious in nature. Joseph Smith could naturally have supposed that the papyri he had obtained, which he knew had been buried with mummies, would likely have been religious in nature. Therefor, he could be making up a religious story while knowing, or at least supposing, that the documents he had from the Egyptians were religious in nature. We already have a connection between them at a bird's eye view, which is that both his story and the actual nature of the documents would be religiously-themed.

Therefor, if you look hard enough, it is not surprising that you will find elements of the Egyptian religious themes which are somewhat related to things Joseph made up in his story, since he was using ancient semitic religious themes as material for his story. You will then think this little tidbit or other that you've identified is somehow evidence that Joseph Smith's story is true, when in fact it isn't. He still made it up. Is it coincidence that there might be some little theme or factoid which can be related somehow to actual Egyptian religion? No, if you mean by "coincidence" a completely random thing. But this isn't completely random, for from the outset we acknowledged that both Smith's story, and the papyrus, have religious themes. The real question is, to what extent are various religions of old going to share similar concepts, such as the deification of the Sun, or some kind of divine link between the mother and child and concepts relating to fertility and such. And in two stories using ancient religion as their backdrop, how many such areas of overlap in the themes of the two religions might one expect?

The bottom line is, Joseph Smith made a lot of claims as to what the papyrus he had meant, both the words on it, and the diagrams and pictures. His claims simply aren't born out, and the actual meanings are very different, even if the religious nature of the actual meaning to the Egyptian sometimes yields tiny little areas of common thought or religious overlap.

And the only explanation which even allows Joseph's story to apply correctly to the papyrus and diagrams is the completely untestable, ad hoc hypothesis which states that unknown semitic scribes or priests way back in the day simply adopted all of the egyptian metaphors and symbols and told their own story of Abraham using them. And of course, that cannot be tested, it cannot be falsified, and it exists as a theory solely to allow the BoA to remain inspired scripture in the face of the fact that the original explanation of things, and the one Joseph Smith gave, turned out to be wrong. Oh, and to top it off, the ancient semitic scribes, in their arrangement and use of the Egyptian symbols to tell an Israelite story, still left the symbols in an order and arrangement that, miraculously still makes sense as Egyptian religion.

It's almost as if Chinese people adopted the Roman alphabet to spell out Chinese stories, and lo and behold, when they did so, the arrangements of Roman letters that they produced actually made perfect sense in English, too.

What does it mean that you have to go to so much effort to try to find ways that the Book of Abraham is still "true"? What does it mean that Joseph Smith was wrong in his claims, but the BoA is still true, and you are the one who knows why, and can explain it all correctly, while the LDS church's "prophets, seers, and revelators" haven't even yet figured out that their initial claims were wrong, much less revealed the true nature of the papyri and diagrams yet?

Link to comment

It seems almost sort of like playing a circumscribed version of a free association game.

"Dog."

"Um, Fido."

"Fiduciary."

"Money"

"el dinero"

"soup"

You're jumping from culture to culture and language to language with breakneck speed, but if you sincerely want me to judge for myself, I'd say: I don't see any sort of meaningful connection that would be convincing to the as-yet-unconvinced.

Just my opinion.

Best to you.

CKS

Link to comment
Joseph Smith made up a story to explain the papyri, the hypocephalus, etc. The story he made, because it was in the context of this church he had created, was religious in nature. Joseph Smith could naturally have supposed that the papyri he had obtained, which he knew had been buried with mummies, would likely have been religious in nature. Therefor, he could be making up a religious story while knowing, or at least supposing, that the documents he had from the Egyptians were religious in nature. We already have a connection between them at a bird's eye view, which is that both his story and the actual nature of the documents would be religiously-themed.

Lots of could haves and not one fact.

Therefor, if you look hard enough, it is not surprising that you will find elements of the Egyptian religious themes which are somewhat related to things Joseph made up in his story, since he was using ancient semitic religious themes as material for his story. You will then think this little tidbit or other that you've identified is somehow evidence that Joseph Smith's story is true, when in fact it isn't. He still made it up.

...heaven forbid any one give the other possibility credence. Again, an appeal to probablity and not one new fact.

Is it coincidence that there might be some little theme or factoid which can be related somehow to actual Egyptian religion? No, if you mean by "coincidence" a completely random thing. But this isn't completely random, for from the outset we acknowledged that both Smith's story, and the papyrus, have religious themes. The real question is, to what extent are various religions of old going to share similar concepts, such as the deification of the Sun, or some kind of divine link between the mother and child and concepts relating to fertility and such. And in two stories using ancient religion as their backdrop, how many such areas of overlap in the themes of the two religions might one expect?

Another appeal to probablity.......

The bottom line is, Joseph Smith made a lot of claims as to what the papyrus he had meant, both the words on it, and the diagrams and pictures. His claims simply aren't born out, and the actual meanings are very different, even if the religious nature of the actual meaning to the Egyptian sometimes yields tiny little areas of common thought or religious overlap.
Lots of rhetoric and not one new fact. To test your claim we would have to make an examination of every interpretation made by the Prophet. I intend to do that as time permits.
And the only explanation which even allows Joseph's story to apply correctly to the papyrus and diagrams is the completely untestable, ad hoc hypothesis which states that unknown semitic scribes or priests way back in the day simply adopted all of the egyptian metaphors and symbols and told their own story of Abraham using them.

In regards to the untestability of the Semetic adaption/adoption theory, you do know I said something to that effect dont you? An ad hoc hypothesis? It is a hypothesis based on an attested ancient practice. In the near future I'll start a post on it, without even using the BoA.

And of course, that cannot be tested, it cannot be falsified, and it exists as a theory solely to allow the BoA to remain inspired scripture in the face of the fact that the original explanation of things, and the one Joseph Smith gave, turned out to be wrong.

More rhetoric, could you please tell me what the original explanation of things was?

Here is the begining of the version edited by Joseph himself, ""A Translation of Some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs[sic] of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus." TS, March 1, 1842

Oh, and to top it off, the ancient semitic scribes, in their arrangement and use of the Egyptian symbols to tell an Israelite story, still left the symbols in an order and arrangement that, miraculously still makes sense as Egyptian religion.

Why would you expect the papyri to be changed? Why would a lack of change be considered miraculous?

It's almost as if Chinese people adopted the Roman alphabet to spell out Chinese stories, and lo and behold, when they did so, the arrangements of Roman letters that they produced actually made perfect sense in English, too.
That would be a neat trick. Do you have any examples of that actually happening?
What does it mean that you have to go to so much effort to try to find ways that the Book of Abraham is still "true"? What does it mean that Joseph Smith was wrong in his claims, but the BoA is still true, and you are the one who knows why, and can explain it all correctly, while the LDS church's "prophets, seers, and revelators" haven't even yet figured out that their initial claims were wrong, much less revealed the true nature of the papyri and diagrams yet?
You have quite a literary flair :P Yet, not one attempt to show where I am wrong. The views I share are by no means original. As for the GA, it seems that you didnt get the memo:

"Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology, and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church. . ." Pres. Heber J. Grant, Anthony Ivins, Charles W. Nibley.

Link to comment

It seems almost sort of like playing a circumscribed version of a free association game.

"Dog."

"Um, Fido."

"Fiduciary."

"Money"

"el dinero"

"soup"

You're jumping from culture to culture and language to language with breakneck speed, but if you sincerely want me to judge for myself, I'd say: I don't see any sort of meaningful connection that would be convincing to the as-yet-unconvinced.

Just my opinion.

Best to you.

CKS

The way I see it, there isnt enough evidence of the translation to hold up a hypocephalus at a Vatican symposium on the subject, and then lead all of the cardinals and egyptologists to a baptism at the Tiber. Their is enough evidence to beat back the critics that say that the Prophets translation is pure bosh.

If Joseph's translations of the facsimilies represent a semetic adaption/adoption then an exact match with the egyptian view is not neccesary. In the future, I plan to pump out a well thought out example of an adaptation/adoption of the hypocephalus and the Apocalypse of Abraham, ala Michael Rhodes.

My original intention was to show Joseph's translation, and an egyptological one side by side, and let everyone think for themselves. I did that.

My initial disclaimer, before the red lettering, was a pre-emptive strike, so as to allow the a conversation about figure 1 to take place. Sadly, no one wants to actually talk about it.

You're jumping from culture to culture and language to language with breakneck speed,
Aside from the explanation of QLB, their have been no such linguistic leaps. As for "culture to culture" that was only the part of my disclaimer(ie my views on the BoA, because I knew that was what this thread was going to be about), it was a two part thread. The 2nd part was all about figure 1, and no one wants to talk about that.

Could someone show me how the following statement is incorrect?

"JS is in the ball park, when it comes to an egyptian understanding of figure 1. Whether it is a direct bulls eye in a semetic context cant be tested empiracally, yet it is plausable given the attested semetic practice of adopting/adapting egyptian motifs."

Link to comment

The way I see it, there isnt enough evidence of the translation to hold up a hypocephalus at a Vatican symposium on the subject, and then lead all of the cardinals and egyptologists to a baptism at the Tiber. Their is enough evidence to beat back the critics that say that the Prophets translation is pure bosh.

If Joseph's translations of the facsimilies represent a semetic adaption/adoption then an exact match with the egyptian view is not neccesary. In the future, I plan to pump out a well thought out example of an adaptation/adoption of the hypocephalus and the Apocalypse of Abraham, ala Michael Rhodes.

My original intention was to show Joseph's translation, and an egyptological one side by side, and let everyone think for themselves. I did that.

My initial disclaimer, before the red lettering, was a pre-emptive strike, so as to allow the a conversation about figure 1 to take place. Sadly, no one wants to actually talk about it.

Aside from the explanation of QLB, their have been no such linguistic leaps. As for "culture to culture" that was only the part of my disclaimer(ie my views on the BoA, because I knew that was what this thread was going to be about), it was a two part thread. The 2nd part was all about figure 1, and no one wants to talk about that.

Could someone show me how the following statement is incorrect?

"JS is in the ball park, when it comes to an egyptian understanding of figure 1. Whether it is a direct bulls eye in a semetic context cant be tested empiracally, yet it is plausable given the attested semetic practice of adopting/adapting egyptian motifs."

So, if I'm reading you correctly, no exact match is necessary. But one should assume that your tentative, cross-cultural, cross-linguistic (from Egyptian to Arabic) leaps indicate that JS was "in the ballpark?"

I suppose I can concede that, all things being equal, there are some potential parallels, but nothing that rises to the level of a "hit." How much inside the ballpark does JS have to be in order for you to infer meaningful correspondence? Just plausibly, given an a priori conviction that JS was telling the truth, in the ballpark?

I just don't see it. It seems like grasping at straws to me.

Best.

CKS

Link to comment
So, if I'm reading you correctly, no exact match is necessary. But one should assume that your tentative, cross-cultural, cross-linguistic (from Egyptian to Arabic) leaps indicate that JS was "in the ballpark?"
I dont believe Kolob is an egyptian word. I believe,like Kokobeam, it is a semetic derivative. Its kinda like "Adio Orich Thambito" in Lieden 1 384. "Adio Orich Thambito" might actually be a deformed greek. Kolob, Qalb, Qarab; I dont think God was speaking to Abraham in egyptian, nor do I think a native egyptian saw fig 1 and said "Oh Yeah, thats Kolob". I do believe that in antiquity some ancient jew or christian read the BoA and used the hypo as a visual aid in teaching and learning; think adaption.
I suppose I can concede that, all things being equal, there are some potential parallels, but nothing that rises to the level of a "hit."

YES!!!!! Someone understands me!! In a conversation, CLARITY TRUMPS AGREEMENT; thats what I alaways say.

How much inside the ballpark does JS have to be in order for you to infer meaningful correspondence? Just plausibly, given an a priori conviction that JS was telling the truth, in the ballpark?
Thats the rub of all this. In my initial 2 posts I provided facts and no commentary. I know fullwell, that no one agrees on what the facts mean. Kinda like, Alma ben Yehuda and Alma Mater.
I just don't see it. It seems like grasping at straws to me.

....and so we agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Sethbag:

Joseph Smith made up a story to explain the papyri, the hypocephalus, etc. The story he made, because it was in the context of this church he had created, was religious in nature.

Kerry:

And so much of the non-biblical ideas in that story that Joseph supposedly made up is now actually in our hands from the ancient Abraham tradition, and there are about 37 unique parallels in Joseph's story that have no biblical precedent. That is just quite fascinating to me no matter how you slice it.

Link to comment

The way I see it, there isnt enough evidence of the translation to hold up a hypocephalus at a Vatican symposium on the subject, and then lead all of the cardinals and egyptologists to a baptism at the Tiber. Their is enough evidence to beat back the critics that say that the Prophets translation is pure bosh.

Well no, there really isn't. Everything depends on your supposition that some ancient Israelite scribe took some Egyptian religious symbols and repurposed them to tell the story of Abraham to an Israelite audience. That is pure speculation, and while it is strictly possible that this may have happened, you show no reason to suppose that it actually did happen, other than the fact that it helps keep the hope alive that the BoA is inspired scripture from God. What we do know is that Joseph's translation of the Egyptian, as Egyptian, is pure bosh. We have no evidence before us that Joseph's translation of the Egyptian was of any other nature - that's all simple speculation and supposition.

If Joseph's translations of the facsimilies represent a semetic adaption/adoption then an exact match with the egyptian view is not neccesary. In the future, I plan to pump out a well thought out example of an adaptation/adoption of the hypocephalus and the Apocalypse of Abraham, ala Michael Rhodes.

If Joseph's translations of the facsimilies get as much leeway as you claim for them, via your ad hoc supposition that the papyri were produced by an Israelite scribe repurposing Egyptian symbols, then they can mean pretty much anything, and you can say they mean whatever you want for them to mean. Meanwhile, there's no convincing reason for anyone to believe that they actually do mean this, unless, of course, they really want to believe.

My original intention was to show Joseph's translation, and an egyptological one side by side, and let everyone think for themselves. I did that.

My initial disclaimer, before the red lettering, was a pre-emptive strike, so as to allow the a conversation about figure 1 to take place. Sadly, no one wants to actually talk about it.

Ok. Unfortunately, the egyptological interpretation of the papyri, and Joseph's translation, don't have much in common, so I don't think there was all that much to say about it.

Could someone show me how the following statement is incorrect?

"JS is in the ball park, when it comes to an egyptian understanding of figure 1. Whether it is a direct bulls eye in a semetic context cant be tested empiracally, yet it is plausable given the attested semetic practice of adopting/adapting egyptian motifs."

Ok, first, JS wasn't even in the same state as the ballpark, when it comes to an egyptian understanding of figure 1. That he scores a direct bullseye in a semitic context can only be stated as a possibility if you admit as evidence for it a supposition based on no actual evidence, backed up by the fact that some egyptian symbols have shown up in ancient Israelite contexts. You haven't shown that these specific Egyptian symbols actually have shown up in Israelite contexts (other than the claimed-as-Israelite BoA) with the meanings Joseph Smith ascribed to them. How do you even think up the words "direct bullseye" with such a flimsy argument? You are essentially saying that since some (not these) Egyptian symbols have shown up in some (not this) Israelite contexts before, it's possible that this could be the case here. You call that a direct bullseye? You offer up a mere possibility, with no evidence in support of it's actually being true. Hardly a bullseye.

If you can find, for one example, an ancient Israelite document that has a picture of a figure on a lion couch with a priest holding a knife, with words that can actually be translated by modern experts in the field, explaining that the figure is Abraham lying on the couch, about to be sacrificed by a wicked priest, or some such, then you can start talking about a bullseye.

Link to comment

I've got 10000 posts and im not a Pundit yet. Must be my posting style. See I am a loser. <_<

In order to be a pundit, you have to convince someone that you actually have something to say.

Don't be too hurt, I haven't convinced anyone either. Not that I actually have anything to say in that forum. :P

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...