Anubis and Osiris vs. Elkenah and Abraham

[Vance]

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

So a pagan symbol used in a non-pagan application removes the stain from paganism from the symbol for that application (except in applications designated by anti-Mormons like Russ)?

[Vance]

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

Since the document is about Abraham, why must it be looked at "through the eyes of the culture of the time of the Egyptians"?

[LifeOnaPlate]

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 hand as a means of loosely connecting the dots elsewhere.

Actually, you brought up Abraham's supposed pagan activities. When I responded you ceased that part of the conversation and now call it a red herring. So why did you introduce a red herring in the first place, then? [i don't think it's a red herring, I think it's a point for valid discussion, and one that doesn't bode well for your overall arguments, which explains why you have tried to run away from it.]

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

And here is the underlying assumption. You think that JS was trying to give an explination in the way that an ancient egyptian would understand it. Were did you get that idea.

No one that I know of has claimed that that was what JS was "trying" to do. Want to try again. It seems as if you ahve constructed another straw man.

[volgadon]

Who is this?

[RussB]

Who is this?

I don't know.

Does it have to do with Smith's facsimiles?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Who is this?

Q??? I guess.

[volgadon]

I don't know.

Does it have to do with Smith's facsimiles?

It has everything to do with Anubis/Elkenah and Osiris/Abraham.

Here is a Canaanite inscirbed scarab, from an area under Egyptian political (and with that, religious) domination. It takes Seth, an Egyptian deity, and identifies him with Baal, a local one.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It has everything to do with Anubis/Elkenah and Osiris/Abraham.

Here is a Canaanite inscirbed scarab, from an area under Egyptian political (and with that, religious) domination. It takes Seth, an Egyptian deity, and identifies him with Baal, a local one.

Do you have a refernce for this? THis is good stuff.

When dealing with drive by posters on the subject of the BoA, this seems to be a similar idea that is going on in the BoA.

It seems we normally get, "Why did JS not translate the egyptian correctly"?

This question makes a lot of assumptions.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So a pagan symbol used in a non-pagan application removes the stain from paganism from the symbol for that application (except in applications designated by anti-Mormons like Russ)?

(Think about me talking in one of those robot voices) mmmmmmmmmm......correct!

[RussB]

It has everything to do with Anubis/Elkenah and Osiris/Abraham.

In what way does it have to do with Smith's incorrect identifications?

Here is a Canaanite inscirbed scarab, from an area under Egyptian political (and with that, religious) domination. It takes Seth, an Egyptian deity, and identifies him with Baal, a local one.

[RussB]

Do you have a refernce for this? THis is good stuff.

When dealing with drive by posters on the subject of the BoA, this seems to be a similar idea that is going on in the BoA.

It seems we normally get, "Why did JS not translate the egyptian correctly"?

This question makes a lot of assumptions.

I assure you that I am much more than a "drive-by poster" by asking sincere questions about Smith's misidentification of Egyptian deities.

I've read some (not all) of Nibley, Gee and Rhodes. Shirts attempts to make it make sense. Lindsay makes his attempts too.

Per usual, the LDS Church takes no official position either way. They let those who will claim no official stance speak for them.

It's sheer marketing genius!

[volgadon]

Do you have a refernce for this? THis is good stuff.

When dealing with drive by posters on the subject of the BoA, this seems to be a similar idea that is going on in the BoA.

It seems we normally get, "Why did JS not translate the egyptian correctly"?

This question makes a lot of assumptions.

I'm reading Trapp's translation of Keel and Uehlinger's Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. I checked the book out of the university library. It is a study of the pictorial evidence for how deity was percieved and depicted in biblical times. Every other page consists of illustrations, and the text explains and compares them. So far, I highly recommend it. Baal-Seth is discussed in pp. 76-79, as part of the chapter on the Late Bronze Age, entitled Egyptian Colonialism.

The scarab itself is from Grave 120 at Lachish.

[volgadon]

In what way does it have to do with Smith's incorrect identifications?

That identifying images is not nearly as clear-cut as you would like to think, that Egyptian gods in areas under Egyptian control were identified with local dieties, are you still not getting the picture?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm reading Trapp's translation of Keel and Uehlinger's Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel. I checked the book out of the university library. It is a study of the pictorial evidence for how deity was percieved and depicted in biblical times. Every other page consists of illustrations, and the text explains and compares them. So far, I highly recommend it. Baal-Seth is discussed in pp. 76-79, as part of the chapter on the Late Bronze Age, entitled Egyptian Colonialism.

The scarab itself is from Grave 120 at Lachish.

Very good. I may actually have to check this out. This sounds like what I think happened with the papryi we have. I am no expert so I may be totally mistaken in what I think is going on.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I've read some (not all) of Nibley, Gee and Rhodes. Shirts attempts to make it make sense. Lindsay makes his attempts too.

You may have, I can't imagine why you'd lie about what you've read, but it seems to me you did not understand what you read.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I assure you that I am much more than a "drive-by poster" by asking sincere questions about Smith's misidentification of Egyptian deities.

I've read some (not all) of Nibley, Gee and Rhodes. Shirts attempts to make it make sense. Lindsay makes his attempts too.

Per usual, the LDS Church takes no official position either way. They let those who will claim no official stance speak for them.

It's sheer marketing genius!

I never called you a drive by poster. I said what happens is that when this these questions are asked in the past they they are done by drive by posters. Time will tell if you are indeed a drive by poster.

Just becasue Obama says that he is not for single payor doesn't mean that he is telling the truth.

IOW just becuase you say you aren't doesn't mean you are telling the truth either. Actions speak louder than words.

You still are not getting it. JS never claimed to have identifed egyptian deities. You think he did, no one here claims that he did are that that was even his goal.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Just becasue Obama says that he is not for single payor doesn't mean that he is telling the truth.

Good idea, let's bring up irrelevant political analogies to get the whole discussion shut down.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Good idea, let's bring up irrelevant political analogies to get the whole discussion shut down.

Um......Yeah. I am gonna need you to come on in on Sunday.....mmmmm Kay?

My apologies.

[RussB]

I never called you a drive by poster. I said what happens is that when this these questions are asked in the past they they are done by drive by posters. Time will tell if you are indeed a drive by poster.

If you mean by "drive by poster" that my time is short, it may be. I've not claimed to be a part of this community through thick and thin, through sleet, rain, dark of night and all that. I simply wish to pose my question(s) and see how Mormons respond. Is that okay?

Just becasue Obama says that he is not for single payor doesn't mean that he is telling the truth.

Slam dunk! We agree.

But let's not get too side-tracked, k?

IOW just becuase you say you aren't doesn't mean you are telling the truth either. Actions speak louder than words.

My words are asking YOU to tell me what's going on with Joseph's words.

You still are not getting it. JS never claimed to have identifed egyptian deities. You think he did, no one here claims that he did are that that was even his goal.

Au contraire, mon frere! JS specifically claimed to have identified the deities.

He called one Elkenah; that one there on the left. He called the other Abraham. That one laying there on the altar.

Egyptologists say "whoops!" That one there on the left isn't Elkenah. We never heard of that guy. He's Anubis. And that guy on the alter isn't Abraham. It's Osiris.

...and stuff like that.

[Jason]

But did he claim they were Egyptian gods?

That is - belonging to the pantheon modern-day Egyptologists are familiar with?

[volgadon]

Au contraire, mon frere! JS specifically claimed to have identified the deities.

He called one Elkenah; that one there on the left. He called the other Abraham. That one laying there on the altar.

Egyptologists say "whoops!" That one there on the left isn't Elkenah. We never heard of that guy. He's Anubis. And that guy on the alter isn't Abraham. It's Osiris.

...and stuff like that.

He called the one on the left the idolatrous priest of Elkenah, not Elkenah.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Au contraire, mon frere! JS specifically claimed to have identified the deities.

He called one Elkenah; that one there on the left. He called the other Abraham. That one laying there on the altar.

Egyptologists say "whoops!" That one there on the left isn't Elkenah. We never heard of that guy. He's Anubis. And that guy on the alter isn't Abraham. It's Osiris.

...and stuff like that.

Hmmm, I am gonna need a CFR that JS claimed that he was identifing egyptian gods.

The only time Egypt is used is to identiy that King of Pharaoh over Egypt.

This verse might shead some light.

13 It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

Which I will also point out that the figure identifed as "the God of Pharaoh" is indeed a hit in Egyptian.

The other gods are never identifed as being egyptian.

IOW the God of Pharaoh is indeed an egyptian god, that JS did get right. However to get back to my other point, the other gods are never claiemd to be egyptian. Please keep that in mind.

And repetition is indeed a powerful tool to help people learn.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

He called the one on the left the idolatrous priest of Elkenah, not Elkenah.

This is true.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If JS had stated in the facs. or in the BoA narrative that Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash were the names of the gods in teh egyptian or as understood by the egyptians, you might a great point with witch to beat the church with. You seem to think this is indeed what JS did. I see no evidence for this.