Re, The Four Fold Creator And A Hypocephalus

[Sethbag]

Her Amun, let's get back to the Chinese analogy I mentioned earlier.

You are saying that you believe an Israelite scribe at some time used Egyptian symbols to tell an Israelite story. Ok. Would you agree that this is somewhat akin to a Chinese person using the Roman alphabet to tell a story in Chinese?

If so, wouldn't it be odd if a document, supposedly written in Chinese, using the Roman alphabet, just happened to have all the letters arranged in a pattern which was meaningful as a complete story in English?

Doesn't it seem odd to you that a scene, which you claim was drawn by an Israelite scribe using Egyptian symbols to tell an Israelite story, just happens to also make perfect sense as an Egyptian funerary scene as well? And the Egyptians were so confused by this apparent similarity that they actually buried it with a mummy, just as they would do if it had in fact been an Egyptian funerary document?

[e=mc2]

Sethbag:

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,

Kerry:

No its not. Both Kevin Barney and I have shown that Jews used ancient Egyptian materials for their own purposes. Mine is on my research website here:

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

And Kevin Barney has an article in the 3rd publication of the series of the Studies of the Book of Abraham, Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, where Jews have been known (and we do have their materials now) to use Egyptian materials for their own peculiar and personal interpretations of their own faith.

Sethbag:

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

Kerry:

That's not true. I am a complete blithering idiot, and they threw me into the Pundits.......

[Sethbag]

Kerry, I'm not saying that no Israelites ever used Egyptian symbols. I'm saying there's no evidence that this happened in the case of the BoA. In the case of the BoA, it is pure speculation. In the case of the BoA, what you guys are saying, in essence, is that since the Egyptian symbols, taken as Egyptian, don't mean what Joseph Smith says they mean, perhaps these symbols were actually used by an Israelite to mean something Israelitish. As support for this notion you guys offer up examples of where an/some Egyptian symbols were used by an Israelite in other contexts. Ok, at least this shows that it's conceivable. But you guys haven't shown any evidence that this is in fact what happened in the case of the BoA. It's a totally ad hoc hypothesis based on no evidence whatsoever, other than a desire for the BoA to be true.

Back to my last point to Her Amun, and Kerry, by all means feel free to jump in on this too: If the BoA documents and drawings were in fact written by an Israelite, repurposing Egyptian symbols to depict an Israelite story, how comes the symbols all just happen to be in the right arrangement to look just like an Egyptian funerary document, and to make perfect sense as such? And how did such an Israelitish document about Abraham happen to "fool" the Egyptians by its uncanny similarity to other, real Egyptian funerary documents, such that the Egyptians actually used it as if it had been a real Egyptian funerary document, and buried it with a mummy?

[Sethbag]

Kerry? Her Amun? Anyone?

[cksalmon]

Kerry, I'm not saying that no Israelites ever used Egyptian symbols. I'm saying there's no evidence that this happened in the case of the BoA. In the case of the BoA, it is pure speculation. In the case of the BoA, what you guys are saying, in essence, is that since the Egyptian symbols, taken as Egyptian, don't mean what Joseph Smith says they mean, perhaps these symbols were actually used by an Israelite to mean something Israelitish. As support for this notion you guys offer up examples of where an/some Egyptian symbols were used by an Israelite in other contexts. Ok, at least this shows that it's conceivable. But you guys haven't shown any evidence that this is in fact what happened in the case of the BoA. It's a totally ad hoc hypothesis based on no evidence whatsoever, other than a desire for the BoA to be true.

Back to my last point to Her Amun, and Kerry, by all means feel free to jump in on this too: If the BoA documents and drawings were in fact written by an Israelite, repurposing Egyptian symbols to depict an Israelite story, how comes the symbols all just happen to be in the right arrangement to look just like an Egyptian funerary document, and to make perfect sense as such? And how did such an Israelitish document about Abraham happen to "fool" the Egyptians by its uncanny similarity to other, real Egyptian funerary documents, such that the Egyptians actually used it as if it had been a real Egyptian funerary document, and buried it with a mummy?

You've phrased the question in a very interesting way, Seth.

I'm curious as to what responses you'll receive.

It seems the common apologetic approach is to demonstrate that there are known instances of Egyptian/Hebrew overlap in various genres and time periods; thus, JS's BoA translation gains credibility (somehowâ??even when the correspondences are obscure and tenuous) by reference to them. From what I've seen and read, here and elsewhere, it is a much more daunting task to to defend the BoA translation as it stands with primary reference to the extant source document itself.

Best.

CKS

[Sethbag]

The real question is, can anyone point to examples, primarily with Egyptian symbol borrowing by Israelites, but even involving language/symbol borrowing between other language/religion pairs, where symbols from one language/culture were used by a different to describe a story of non-trivial length in that second culture, and the particular arrangment of symbols/characters/whatever just happened to still make perfect sense in the first language, and not just in a "Mad Libs" sort of way, but in fact making perfect sense as a fairly common story from that first language?

I mean this seriously. It would be like a Chinese author writing down the story of the First Emperor in Chinese spelled out using Roman letters, and the particular arrangement of characters also happening to read perfectly as "Little Red Riding Hood" in English.

Now, where did I leave all my monkeys and keyboards? I'm still looking for Shakespeare, darnit!

[cksalmon]

The real question is, can anyone point to examples, primarily with Egyptian symbol borrowing by Israelites, but even involving language/symbol borrowing between other language/religion pairs, where symbols from one language/culture were used by a different to describe a story of non-trivial length in that second culture, and the particular arrangment of symbols/characters/whatever just happened to still make perfect sense in the first language, and not just in a "Mad Libs" sort of way, but in fact making perfect sense as a fairly common story from that first language?

I mean this seriously. It would be like a Chinese author writing down the story of the First Emperor in Chinese spelled out using Roman letters, and the particular arrangement of characters also happening to read perfectly as "Little Red Riding Hood" in English.

Now, where did I leave all my monkeys and keyboards? I'm still looking for Shakespeare, darnit!

I'm assuming the lack of responses indicate a lack of interest.

But, I don't truly know that.

Perhaps, we'll hear something soon.

Best.

CKS

[e=mc2]

First off, I think you are laboring under a misperception. The Israelites could and did borrow other cultures symbols, however, Joseph Smith is NOT saying in his interpretations of the facsimiles that they are ISRAELITE or ABRAHAMIC but this is what the Egyptians thought.

Sethbag:

In the case of the BoA, what you guys are saying, in essence, is that since the Egyptian symbols, taken as Egyptian, don't mean what Joseph Smith says they mean, perhaps these symbols were actually used by an Israelite to mean something Israelitish.

Kerry:

Again, Joseph Smith is not saying the interpretations of the facsimiles is Israelte, but it is what the ancient Egyptians understood. He is also not saying this is the true religion and we are bound by it, but it is what at one point or another the Egyptians believed. True enough, later Israelites or Jews adapted them for their purposes, but this dosn't mean they accepted the Egyptian view.

[cksalmon]

First off, I think you are laboring under a misperception. The Israelites could and did borrow other cultures symbols, however, Joseph Smith is NOT saying in his interpretations of the facsimiles that they are ISRAELITE or ABRAHAMIC but this is what the Egyptians thought.

Sethbag:

In the case of the BoA, what you guys are saying, in essence, is that since the Egyptian symbols, taken as Egyptian, don't mean what Joseph Smith says they mean, perhaps these symbols were actually used by an Israelite to mean something Israelitish.

Kerry:

Again, Joseph Smith is not saying the interpretations of the facsimiles is Israelte, but it is what the ancient Egyptians understood. He is also not saying this is the true religion and we are bound by it, but it is what at one point or another the Egyptians believed. True enough, later Israelites or Jews adapted them for their purposes, but this dosn't mean they accepted the Egyptian view.

I'm not sure what the point is here.

Ancient Egyptians understood an Israelite heritage for their markings?

How does this legitimize the texts in question? Please reference how ancient Egyptians believed the ancient Israelite conception of God. Do you have some sort of legitimate proof? Or would you wow us with tenuous parallels? Please make a definitive connection between the two...

They didn't accept the Egyptian view, but they adduced it, nonetheless?

CKS

[e=mc2]

Ancient Egyptians understood an Israelite heritage for their markings?

Come on guys...... this is easy. It is the JEWS who borrowed ideas, art, etc., from the Egyptians for their own purposes, without worrying about the original Egyptian context.

[Olavarria]

Back to my last point to Her Amun, and Kerry, by all means feel free to jump in on this too: If the BoA documents and drawings were in fact written by an Israelite, repurposing Egyptian symbols to depict an Israelite story, how comes the symbols all just happen to be in the right arrangement to look just like an Egyptian funerary document, and to make perfect sense as such? And how did such an Israelitish document about Abraham happen to "fool" the Egyptians by its uncanny similarity to other, real Egyptian funerary documents, such that the Egyptians actually used it as if it had been a real Egyptian funerary document, and buried it with a mummy?

I think you are jumping the gun here, or at least misunderstanding my point. The lion couch scene,hypocephalus and fac 3 where all made by egyptians. I never said that they were made by an israelite. To say that I claim that an israelite made them is a delivrate strawman at worst and a misundestanding at best. My view, if you bothered to read by earlier post was, that the BoB was associated with the BoA text in antiquity, for reasons related to the temple. The BoA's use of these same egyptian,non-jewish,pagan,non-mormon motifs parralells the ToA's use of BoD 125 and a few other examples.

Her Amun, Kerry, anyone?

Dont let my talent for starting threads fool you, I actually have a life that does not revolve around the message board. In the mean time spare some lose change and buy Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant

Lets get back to the chinese

lil red riding hood in chinese

小红到奶奶家去。 因为小红很想她奶奶所以小红要带给她 炒猪饱。

Then again your translation will be suspect given your access to chinese dictionaries online.

As alaways, Im gonna start a thread on the egyptian adoption of jewish things and jewish adoption of egyptian things, just give me time because Im in grad school(MBA) and crazy busy.

As alaways, I will provide facts and Sethbag will provide factless rhetoric, which may be persuasive to some but not to me.

[Sethbag]

Ok, there seems to be some confusion here. Let's see if we can disambiguate this discussion.

1. Kerry seems to be saying that Egyptians wrote the documents and drew the pictures that are the source for the Book of Abraham. He seems to be saying that the Egyptians intended for the documents and pictures to represent the story of Abraham, as it appears to us in the Book of Abraham.

This seems to fly in the face of the modern egyptological conclusion that the documents and pictures in question constitute the Breathing Permit of Hor (speaking of the written papyri and facsimile #1 at the least), and have fully translated them to the extent possible given what remains, and at least several different Egyptologists have agreed on this point.

2. We've heard over and over how the Israelites sometimes borrowed Egyptian symbols in the telling of Israelite stories and such. This argument (which I don't know enough to dispute, and am inclined to accept for lack of any reason not to) seems, in the past, to have been used to back up the claim that it was an Israelite scribe who wrote the documents in question, borrowing from Egyptian symbols to tell the story of Abraham.

Her Amun is saying I've got this wrong, that it was Egyptians who wrote this stuff after all, but that the Breathing Permit of Hor, while constituting the Breathing Permit of Hor to the Egyptian priests, actually also means the story told in the Book of Abraham, when interpreted by Israelites.

Am I reading you wrong? Her Amun, I beg of you, please avail yourself of this thread to explain to me what it is precisely that you believe respecting the Breathing Permit of Hor documents and pictures and the story of Abraham from the BoA. Please explain how the Book of Abraham comes from the Breathing Permit of Hor, because obviously I'm not understanding your point. How do get from pointing out that the Israelites sometimes borrowing some Egyptian symbols gets you from Egyptians writing the Breathing Permit of Hor to this actually meaing the Book of Abraham story. Please, clear up the confusion here.

[Tarski]

Her Amun is saying I've got this wrong, that it was Egyptians who wrote this stuff after all, but that the Breathing Permit of Hor, while constituting the Breathing Permit of Hor to the Egyptian priests, actually also means the story told in the Book of Abraham, when interpreted by Israelites.

I hope thats not what Her Amun is saying. That would be like saying that my grandfathers death certificate is the story of the Japanese tengu 天狗 but only when the Japanese read it. How did they arrange the code just perfectly so that it in ordinary english it was my grandfathers very generic death certificate?

[Olavarria]

We've heard over and over how the Israelites sometimes borrowed Egyptian symbols in the telling of Israelite stories and such. This argument (which I don't know enough to dispute, and am inclined to accept for lack of any reason not to) seems, in the past, to have been used to back up the claim that it was an Israelite scribe who wrote the documents in question, borrowing from Egyptian symbols to tell the story of Abraham.

Close, gentile egyptians made the facsimiles, some jews borrowed them for reasons completly unrelated to their original funrerary context.

Her Amun is saying I've got this wrong, that it was Egyptians who wrote this stuff after all, but that the Breathing Permit of Hor, while constituting the Breathing Permit of Hor to the Egyptian priests, actually also means the story told in the Book of Abraham, when interpreted by Israelites.

Wrong, Wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong! The BPoH is not the BoA!!!!!!! I never said it was!!!!!!!!!!

The BPoH is the BPoH. I challenge you to show me where I said otherwise!!!!!!!!!

Am I reading you wrong? Her Amun, I beg of you, please avail yourself of this thread to explain to me what it is precisely that you believe respecting the Breathing Permit of Hor documents and pictures and the story of Abraham from the BoA. Please explain how the Book of Abraham comes from the Breathing Permit of Hor, because obviously I'm not understanding your point. How do get from pointing out that the Israelites sometimes borrowing some Egyptian symbols gets you from Egyptians writing the Breathing Permit of Hor to this actually meaing the Book of Abraham story

.

yes, broder you are reading me way wrong.

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. If you were ever an endowed LDS, this will make perfect sense to you.

Didnt you see it earlier on page 1?

I believe that the fac 1,2,3 are funerary documents. Fac 1 depicts Osiris and Anubis, in what is probably an enbalming scene, fac 3 is probably derived from The Judgement from BoD ch. 125(wow, im actually disagreeing with Gee). Fac 2 is a hypucephalus, deigned to magically help the deseased become a god, mimicking the the resurection of the sun, I think.

So what do they have to do with Abraham?

Again, sometime in the next few months I'll try to show examples of the 2 way interreligous borrowing between jews and egyptians during the Greco-Roman period, and how the use of the facsimiles, WHEN PUT TOGETHER WITH THE BOA are an example of this. This isnt a cop out, it just takes time and im hella busy, and trying to get a 4.0, in grad school, thus my presense on the board will be less pronounced in the coming months.

So to put it in the most simple terms:

BPoH=BPoH

BoA=either taken from a currently missing papyrus, or was lost forever in antiquity and transmitted thru divine revelation ala BoMoses and/or "Testimony of John" found in D&C section 7.

Why was the BPoH connected with BoA?

Because the BPoH echoes temple theology.

Sethbag,

It seems that the only reading you've done on th e semetic adaption/adoption theory is on this board and that you havent been exposed to the original work done on the subject. Seriously, get a copy of Astronomy,Papyrus and Covenant or go to the Fair Wiki.

[cksalmon]

BPoH=BPoH

BoA=either taken from a currently missing papyrus, or was lost forever in antiquity and transmitted thru divine revelation ala BoMoses and/or "Testimony of John" found in D&C section 7.

Why was the BPoH connected with BoA?

Because the BPoH echoes temple theology.

I think this is an important concession from Her Amun: BoA is not, in any sense, derived from the extant BPoH document. It has been associated with BoA for reasons having nothing to do with how the BPoH actually reads.

I wonder if that's what JS thought?

Best.

CKS

[Olavarria]

I think this is an important concession from Her Amun.....

Consession? I invite anyone to read the threads I have started on this subject. The views described in my last post have been the views I have shared from the time I started posting, almost a year ago.

Truth is truth is truth. The BPoH is the BPoH is the BPoH.

BoA is not, in any sense, derived from the extant BPoH document.

I swear, how is it that you understand what Im saying and SethBag doesnt? I love you man.

It has been associated with BoA for reasons having nothing to do with how the BPoH actually reads.

eh.......not really. The BoA is about priesthood, and Abraham's attempt to show that he had it and Pharoah didnt, and that the Pharoah was just a priesthood poser. The BPoH is almost identical to the egytian priesthood initiation ritual(ie this type of stuff was done on the living and the dead) I know we cant talk about temple stuff on this board, so its almost pointless for me to bring it up.

I wonder if that's what JS thought?

I wish we knew. But one thijng I believe is certain, the KEP are useless in shedding light on that subject-but that is a subject for a different thread.

........and now that 1 person has understood my position, Im outties!