Anubis and Osiris vs. Elkenah and Abraham

[volgadon]

In this thread, we should discuss what evidence exists for Smith.

That he existed? Plenty.

[Doctor Steuss]

I'm not outraged so much as befuddled.

Heh.

I reckon it's not the first time someone has been befuddled by their own polemical device.

Where is the peer review?

For what? If it's a FARMs publication, I believe Dr. Peterson has explained the peer review process in detail in the past. I'm sure you could PM him.

Who is Elkenah?

A (likely fictional) individual referred to in a religious text held by most Mormons to be divinely inspired.

Or, from a believer's standpoint, I reckon one could go with Barney (he seems to be a pretty careful/thoughful fellow).

[LifeOnaPlate]

Though he has studied "biblical difficulties" I predict RussB would not like what those same professors of Egyptology, Archeology, History, Biology, Chemisty and Physics (at least those not employed at Oral Roberts University) would have to say about his Biblical Fundamentalism.

No, he studies "Biblical Difficulties," silly.

[RussB]

Russ, you can keep on ignoring my post on Baal-Seth, but it is quite obvious that you in no way, shape or form were interested in a real discussion.

"Russ, you can keep on ignoring my post on Baal-Seth."

Yeah. I'll forever ignore Baal worship.

I'm forever disinterested in linking such with the God of the Holy Bible.

[volgadon]

"Russ, you can keep on ignoring my post on Baal-Seth."

Yeah. I'll forever ignore Baal worship.

I'm forever disinterested in linking such with the God of the Holy Bible.

????

If someone has any idea what Russ is going on about or how that relates to my question, would you please let me know?

[LifeOnaPlate]

"Russ, you can keep on ignoring my post on Baal-Seth."

Yeah. I'll forever ignore Baal worship.

I'm forever disinterested in linking such with the God of the Holy Bible.

That's a strange decision, given the peer-reviewed biblical scholars who would disagree with your fundamentalist inerrantist perspective of the Bible.

Time to talk about motes and beams, yes?

[LifeOnaPlate]

????

If someone has any idea what Russ is going on about or how that relates to my question, would you please let me know?

In Russ's anachronistic and historically inaccurate reading of the Bible, anything with the word "Baal" in it is bad and pagan. (Except all those Israelite lands and names that contain "Baal"?)

[Zakuska]

In Russ's anachronistic and historically inaccurate reading of the Bible, anything with the word "Baal" in it is bad and pagan. (Except all those Israelite lands and names that contain "Baal"?)

Which is intrestingh because he beleives the words of a prophet of the God Baal, (who Peter and Paul call a false prophet) hook line and sinker.

[Vance]

????

If someone has any idea what Russ is going on about or how that relates to my question, would you please let me know?

NO body knows, not even Russ!

I'm not outraged so much as befuddled.

[consiglieri]

If a feller is chumming the waters with drivel, he shouldn

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"Russ, you can keep on ignoring my post on Baal-Seth."

Yeah. I'll forever ignore Baal worship.

I'm forever disinterested in linking such with the God of the Holy Bible.

Come on Russ, you are not even trying here. I have to wornder why.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

We need a bigger boat.

All the Best!

--Brodieri

Isn't it "Were gonna need a bigger boat" Or "Your gonna need a bigger boat"?

Let me get my piano wire.

[USU78]

If someone has any idea what Russ is going on about or how that relates to my question, would you please let me know?

He assumes from his assiduous study of the book of Judges that Jerub-baal is a worshipper of the local Canaanite baal(s) and not JHWH.

This is because if the theophonic baal comes up, it must be a Canaanite diety and not a JHWH-worshipping Israeli hero.

That, my friend, is why he won't address Seth-Baal scarabs.

USU "Ephod? What ephod?" 78

[Mortal Man]

Were did JS claim he was giving an egyptian understanding for this fac?

I'm having d

[RussB]

That's a strange decision, given the peer-reviewed biblical scholars who would disagree with your fundamentalist inerrantist perspective of the Bible.

Time to talk about motes and beams, yes?

I'm interested not in motes and beams but rather a peer reviewed, non-Mormon paper showing the Elkenah/Abraham connection.

I suspect that you'll present that about the same time Cumorah is found, i.e. never.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm having d

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm interested not in motes and beams but rather a peer reviewed, non-Mormon paper showing the Elkenah/Abraham connection.

I suspect that you'll present that about the same time Cumorah is found, i.e. never.

As soon as you give me a mormon peer review journal that tells me that Elkenah/Abraham isn't a connection.

Do you see the problem with what you are asking for? You are attempting to state that mormons are to dishonest in their studies and that only if non-mormon peer reviewed it would it be truthful.

I find that shallow. Truth is truth regardless of were it comes from.

[Nemesis]

Is it me or are the goal posts moving?

Nemesis

[Mortal Man]

Were did JS claim that he was giving an expliantion of the gods as the egyptians understood them[?]

Well, even if you're excluding Facsimile 3 from the debate, I'd still say that his explanation for "the pillars of heaven" implicitly applies to the whole vignette.

[volgadon]

I'm interested not in motes and beams but rather a peer reviewed, non-Mormon paper showing the Elkenah/Abraham connection.

I suspect that you'll present that about the same time Cumorah is found, i.e. never.

Just as soon as you can show a peer reviewed paper categorically stating that Anubis and Osiris could never be associated with anyone else.

[Vance]

Is it me or are the goal posts moving?

Nemesis

Portable goal posts are standard issue anti-Mormon implements.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, even if you're excluding Facsimile 3 from the debate, I'd still say that his explanation for "the pillars of heaven" implicitly applies to the whole vignette.

Hmmm I will have to think on this one.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm interested not in motes and beams but rather a peer reviewed, non-Mormon paper showing the Elkenah/Abraham connection.

I suspect that you'll present that about the same time Cumorah is found, i.e. never.

Can you explain to me why an argument is either valid or invalid based on its location of publishing? I am aware of the added ethos of the requirements you name, but at the same time the articles that have been posted here for you to read can also be evaluated on their own merits, and often quote from and utilize non-Mormon peer reviewed work. What about the location of an argument invalidates it?

Maybe the beam in your eye is blocking the point.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Just as soon as you can show a peer reviewed paper categorically stating that Anubis and Osiris could never be associated with anyone else.

Yes, where is the peer-reviewed, non-fundamentalist, non-anti-mormon journal stating that Anubis and Osiris (or their priests!) could never be associated with anyone else.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hmmm I will have to think on this one.

Here is what number 12 says.

Fig. 12. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.

The Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau,to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem. Now we have a Hebrew word in here too.

The text here does not say that the egyptians mean this to signify "expanse, or the firmament over our heads".

I can see that with regards to number 12 he might be giving the defintion as the egyptians understand it. I still maintain that that is not necisarrily the case for every explination. Esp. when we consider the narrative.