Anubis and Osiris vs. Elkenah and Abraham

[volgadon]

He said that Elkenah is Anubis and that Abraham is Osiris.

This is obviously a mistake.

Calling Zeus Dushara and Aphrodite al-Uzzah, are those mistakes too?

Convince me?

I'm not called Sisyphus.

[RussB]

Yes it is.

You have irrefutable proof of such.

So why exactly are you still here?

Mormons think Joseph got it right.

He didn't.

No one wants to be where they're not wanted.

I'll leave if you want.

[RussB]

Calling Zeus Dushara and Aphrodite al-Uzzah, are those mistakes too?

I'm not called Sisyphus.

Can we please stick to Anubis/Elkenah, Osiris/Abraham?

[RussB]

I see content on repeating your same mantra. What you reall should say is " I want to hear what you all have to say but what I will say as a rebuttle to every thing you say is, They tell us that Joseph got the story wrong, the genders wrong, and identities wrong."

It is so nice to have this discussion with you. John Gee has a PHD in egyptology, are you going to ignor what he has to say?

All I have is you claiming that they say so. Most egyptologist wont even touch this stuff. Not to mention that most egyptologist think that Abraham never even exsisted, that would have serious consiquesnces to your own theological views. So do you really want to go down this rabbit trail?

I'd be interested to see Gee's explicit recommendation that Anubis is rather Elkenah and Osiris is rather Abraham.

Got anything on that?

[SilverKnight]

Mormons think Joseph got it right.

He didn't.

And a billion Christians assume the Bible gets it right on innumerable things it actually gets spectacularly wrong.

Mormons are so unwilling to acknowledge this glaring mistake for the same reasons you are so unwilling to acknowledge similarly-glaring problems with your own theology.

Like the naive mormons you attack on your site, you would rather live in a cloister of ignorance than admit the real world is much different than your narrow worldview allows.

No one wants to be where they're not wanted.

I'll leave if you want.

When you admit that many of the same tactics you copiously employ to discredit mormonism are just as damaging to your own faith-based belief system we will have something to talk about.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I've seen an example of your questions.

"Did you put up a Christmas tree last December, by the way?"

Let's stick to Smith, okay?

We'll get to it again. Let's revisit your point about Abraham and paganism, actually, okay? Did you put up a Christmas tree last December?

[LifeOnaPlate]

This is sadly the typical red herring that has become the LDS apologetic on discussion boards.

It may seem typical to you because you often employ double-standards, and when the double-standard is pointed out you misread it as a "red herring." Happens a lot to you, then?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'd be interested to see Gee's explicit recommendation that Anubis is rather Elkenah and Osiris is rather Abraham.

Got anything on that?

THere is quite a bit of context that is involved in discussions such as this. And you wont get an "explicit recommendation that Anubis is rather Elkenah and Osiris is rather Abraham."

I will look for it. What the main point it that Osiris can represent anyone. I think that Kerry Shirts has a few articles on it too.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It may seem typical to you because you often employ double-standards, and when the double-standard is pointed out you misread it as a "red herring." Happens a lot to you, then?

This is the main point. We are trying to point out a glarng double standard.

Also:

If Mormonism is false, what makes Russ think that I would convert to his brand of Evangelical Christianity? It has even more problems then the precieved ones in mormonism. But alas that is a topic for a different thread. Perhaps I will start one.

[volgadon]

Can we please stick to Anubis/Elkenah, Osiris/Abraham?

No. Lets see if it is at all reasonable to suppose that deities might be known under different names in different places.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Mormons are so unwilling to acknowledge this glaring mistake for the same reasons you are so unwilling to acknowledge similarly-glaring problems with your own theology.

Turning it into a "glaring mistake" takes an awful lot of unwarranted assumptions for granted. Is there one and only one true way of deciphering hieroglyphics?

[Mortal Man]

No one wants to be where they're not wanted.

I'll leave if you want.

Do you guys think that chasing RussB off the board constitutes victory?

[LifeOnaPlate]

No. Lets see if it is at all reasonable to suppose that deities might be known under different names in different places.

Biblical scholars tell me that El and YHWH encounter similar issues. Indeed, some claim that these are entirely different gods and that the Bible inadvertently retains the polytheism of its early peoples. Are these points red herrings, or do they speak directly to the false dilemma Russ presents?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Do you guys think that chasing RussB off the board constitutes victory?

Who are "you guys"? It seems morel likely that Russ needs a pretense for leaving and SilverKnight is trying to oblige.

[T-Shirt]

This is sadly the typical red herring that has become the LDS apologetic on discussion boards.

Why is this a red herring? It is very relevant. Why did John use the image of Babylon while referring to Rome? Why does he use the image of a bride when referring to the church? Why does scripture use the image of a lamb in relation to Christ?

Rather than defiantly claiming that Babylon is not Rome, a bride is not the church and a lamb is not Christ, one need but take a moment and ask why a certain symbol is used to portray something else. One must try to see through the eyes, culture and time of the writer for better understanding. When looking at a flag of the United States, an American understands that a star is not always, just a star.

Best,

T-Shirt

[RussB]

Allow me to cut right to your chase, SilverKnight.

Like the naive mormons you attack on your site, you would rather live in a cloister of ignorance

Contrary to your popular belief, I've examined Bible Difficulties.

This is not the time nor place for that discussion.

Do not expect that you can knee-jerk a "Oh, yeah? The Bible is junk too" and expect me to follow your suit.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you guys think that chasing RussB off the board constitutes victory?

No, and I have not asked for him to leave.

[volgadon]

LOAP, Russ won't answer you about the Christmas tree, but he is the same guy that started a CARM thread on how our churches are empty on Christmas Day yet his brand of Christian ones are full. I think it safe to assume that he has put up a tree.

[volgadon]

Do you guys think that chasing RussB off the board constitutes victory?

He won't engage any of our points, yet to score a moral victory has to pretend that he is being chased off the board. It is entirely a threat of his own, not something we have engaged in.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No. Lets see if it is at all reasonable to suppose that deities might be known under different names in different places.

This is worth repeating. I don't beleive that JS was trying to identify the "gods" as the egyptians knew them. I haven't seen any evidence that that was what he was trying to do. In the narrative Abraham claims to be in the land of the Chaldeans.

Why does what JS "translated" need to match up with egyptian understanding? I believe that John Gee posed this question or something like it.

[Vance]

LOAP, Russ won't answer you about the Christmas tree, but he is the same guy that started a CARM thread on how our churches are empty on Christmas Day yet his brand of Christian ones are full. I think it safe to assume that he has put up a tree.

Is it then safe to assume that he is into paganism?

[Zakuska]

T-Shirt,

If you are Kerry Shirts, I would appreciate your direct responses to the problem I have encountered, i.e. Smith did not correctly name the gods.

LDS apologists only loosely connect the dots.

T-Shirt is not kerry Shirts.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Is it then safe to assume that he is into paganism?

No, because when a real Christian does something with a pagan symbol, it no longer means that it is pagan.

[SilverKnight]

Allow me to cut right to your chase, SilverKnight.

Contrary to your popular belief, I've examined Bible Difficulties.

I'm sure you have, and I am sure you are fully convinced by your own apologetics on the the juggernaut of impenetrability that is biblical inerrancy.

However many of us remain unconvinced.

Do not expect that you can knee-jerk a "Oh, yeah? The Bible is junk too" and expect me to follow your suit.

Nobody said the Bible is junk, only that it not immune to the same kinds of criticism that you pour onto mormonism and other religions you view as false heresies.

That you can sit there and muse on modern egyptology and quote from secular professors, while believing what you do is utterly laughable.

I wonder what how those same professors would regard your own holy writs?

[RussB]

Why is this a red herring? It is very relevant. Why did John use the image of Babylon while referring to Rome? Why does he use the image of a bride when referring to the church? Why does scripture use the image of a lamb in relation to Christ?

Rather than defiantly claiming that Babylon is not Rome, a bride is not the church and a lamb is not Christ, one need but take a moment and ask why a certain symbol is used to portray something else. One must try to see through the eyes, culture and time of the writer for better understanding. When looking a a flag of the United States, an American understands that a star is not always just a star.

Best,

T-Shirt

It's a red herring because it doesn't deal with Elkenah/Abraham.

It's a red herring because it seeks to take the focus off the topic and, er rather AT hand as a means of loosely connecting the dots elsewhere.

When we look through the eyes of the culture of the time of the Egyptians, we find that Smith got it wrong.