Anubis and Osiris vs. Elkenah and Abraham

[RussB]

All:

After carefully considering nine pages of dialogue and after reading every word of every link posted by others, I've affirmed that the critics, such as Ritner, are correct that Smith got it wrong.

Because of this, we know that Smith could not have been a genuine prophet of God.

A genius story teller and charismatic leader, yes.

But not a prophet.

[volgadon]

After carefully considering

[USU78]

After carefully considering nine pages of dialogue and after reading every word of every link posted by others, I've affirmed that the critics, such as Ritner, are correct that Smith got it wrong.

To quote the learned gentleman, and at great risk to my posting addiction, I state with all seriousness and all due consideration, especially consideration of the source: "You lie!"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All:

After carefully considering nine pages of dialogue and after reading every word of every link posted by others, I've affirmed that the critics, such as Ritner, are correct that Smith got it wrong.

Because of this, we know that Smith could not have been a genuine prophet of God.

A genius story teller and charismatic leader, yes.

But not a prophet.

Yeah, you were really carefully in considering the other's pistion. Not!!!

You never once engaged a sinlge arguemnt seriously. I think it is funny because now you will go back to CARM and claim victory when no victory was ever had. Good job Russ, you convinced no one here of your view. Job well done.

[Blake]

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

This a just a non-response and dodge. First, the word is theophoric, not theophonic. Second, it is besides the point because many Israelites have demontraely baal derived names. Third, it is doubtful that anyone in their right mind could claim that Jerub-baal is Yahwistic. Good grief.

[SilverKnight]

All:

After carefully considering nine pages of dialogue and after reading every word of every link posted by others, I've affirmed that the critics, such as Ritner, are correct that Smith got it wrong.

Because of this, we know that Smith could not have been a genuine prophet of God.

A genius story teller and charismatic leader, yes.

But not a prophet.

This is a completely fair statement.

Many people agree with you, including a large percentage of this board.

Let us know when you discover how to apply the same skeptical rigor to your own supernatural truth-claims.

[T-Shirt]

demontraely

I'm not so sure you should be correcting one's spelling

T-Shirt

[volgadon]

Yeah, you were really carefully in considering the other's pistion. Not!!!

You never once engaged a sinlge arguemnt seriously. I think it is funny because now you will go back to CARM and claim victory when no victory was ever had. Good job Russ, you convinced no one here of your view. Job well done.

OTOH, thanks indirectly to Russ, we now have a Baal-Seth scarab to further show how plausible the idea is that Egyptian deities could be known under different, local names. a scarab discovered long after Joseph Smith had gone the way of all flesh.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

OTOH, thanks indirectly to Russ, we now have a Baal-Seth scarab to further show how plausible the idea is that Egyptian deities could be known under different, local names. a scarab discovered long after Joseph Smith had gone the way of all flesh.

To that, I agree. This has been a good discussion.

[volgadon]

Third, it is doubtful that anyone in their right mind could claim that Jerub-baal is Yahwistic

Jeru-baal, not Jerub. Nobody in their right mind could claim that Jerubaal wasn't Yahwistic. The name was given as a result of his destroying the altar of Baal and chopping down its main cultic implement, the asherah.

[RussB]

OTOH, thanks indirectly to Russ, we now have a Baal-Seth scarab to further show how plausible the idea is that Egyptian deities could be known under different, local names. a scarab discovered long after Joseph Smith had gone the way of all flesh.

That's the classic logical fallacy known as the argument from silence.

LDS apologetics rests on "plausibility."

From Cumorah to Nephi to Abraham, it always comes down to "plausible."

Here we have concrete evidence that Smith got the story wrong, the genders wrong and the identities wrong.

Abraham was not involved at all, but the Mormon mind defends Smith at all costs.

It's a phenomenon that continues to strike me as, well, odd and sad.

[Vance]

LDS apologetics rests on "plausibility."

As opposed to your apologetics that rest on implausibility?

[SilverKnight]

LDS apologetics rests on "plausibility."

All religious apologetics rest on plausibility - including your own.

[rodheadlee]

All:

After carefully considering nine pages of dialogue and after reading every word of every link posted by others, I've affirmed that the critics, such as Ritner, are correct that Smith got it wrong.

Because of this, we know that Smith could not have been a genuine prophet of God.

A genius story teller and charismatic leader, yes.

But not a prophet.

That's fine, I've no problem with that, as long as you speak only for yourself.

[volgadon]

That's the classic logical fallacy known as the argument from silence.

You need a better dictionary, or at the least to pay more attention when you read it. I did not employ an argumentum ex silentio.

LDS apologetics rests on "plausibility."

From Cumorah to Nephi to Abraham, it always comes down to "plausible."

As silverknight pointed out, all apologetics use it. Come to think of it,so does most history. It is only rarely that we have anything ironclad. BTW why the quotation marks?

Here we have concrete evidence that Smith got the story wrong, the genders wrong and the identities wrong.

Abraham was not involved at all, but the Mormon mind defends Smith at all costs.

Thus putting the lie to the claim that you carefully considered every word in every post.

It's a phenomenon that continues to strike me as, well, odd and sad.

Psychological projection?

That you refuse to engage the evidence I provided you with speaks volumes.

[rodheadlee]

Here we have concrete evidence that Smith got the story wrong, the genders wrong and the identities wrong.

Abraham was not involved at all, but the Mormon mind defends Smith at all costs.

It's a phenomenon that continues to strike me as, well, odd and sad.

What we have is incomplete secular evidence either way. I have a witness of the Holy Spirit that the BoA is of God, so don't be sad for me.

[RussB]

You need a better dictionary, or at the least to pay more attention when you read it. I did not employ an argumentum ex silentio.

Actually, you did:

"...we now have a Baal-Seth scarab to further show how plausible the idea is that Egyptian deities could be known under different, local names."

Here you are trying to loosely tie Abraham to the altar (pun intended) as some sort of "evidence" that it "could be" Abraham.

That's the argument from silence.

That you refuse to engage the evidence I provided you with speaks volumes.

Here's the thing, I read every word in this thread. Real Egyptologists tell us what the scene means. Joseph explained it very differently. He got the storyline wrong, he got the identities wrong and he got the genders wrong. In a nutshell, he attempted to reexplain the scene in fac. 1 completely differently from what it really means.

LDS apologists want to come across as experts on this issue, but the real experts disagree with you.

I like what Sandra Tanner has to say regarding fac. 2 fig. 7, the ithyphallic deity which supposedly represents the God of the Holy Bible.... according to Mormons.

"Joseph Smith's identification of these pagan deities with the God of Abraham makes no more sense than to claim that a a statue of the Buddha actually represents Jesus Christ in prayer or claiming the Hindu goddess Parvati is actually the Virgin Mary." Salt Lake City Messenger Nov. 2009, issue no. 13

Amen, Sandra.

Why don't Mormons see it?

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

"Joseph Smith's identification of these pagan deities with the God of Abraham makes no more sense than to claim that a a statue of the Buddha actually represents Jesus Christ in prayer or claiming the Hindu goddess Parvati is actually the Virgin Mary." Salt Lake City Messenger Nov. 2009, issue no. 13

Amen, Sandra.

[...]

This has got to be one of the silliest things I've read in a while.

If I have a statue of Buddha that represents Jesus Christ in prayer to me, then all the preening and posturing of fundamentalists and elitists isn't going to change that.

That's the very nature of symbolism (Sandra should stick to what she's good at -- ferreting out obscure Mormon texts while making prodigious use of caps lock and ellipsis insertion).

Just because a given thing meant something to one group of people doesn

[RussB]

This has got to be one of the silliest things I've read in a while.

If I have a statue of Buddha that represents Jesus Christ in prayer to me, then all the preening and posturing of fundamentalists and elitists isn't going to change that.

Wow.

That's just .... wow.

Buddha ain't Jesus. Buddha doesn't represent Jesus Christ in any way, praying or not.

Did Joseph get the scene wrong from an Egyptian perspective (i.e. what it was originally written for)? I sure think so. Does that mean his explanation of the symbolism of the scene when tied to the Mormon religious text he associated it with was wrong?

You can't just reinvent the story to suit your needs.

IMO, sans getting into the particulars of exactly how the BoA came to be, unless you claim some sort of special privilege of dictating what symbolism means to others outside of your faith (which, for all I know, you do), there is no way to say in good faith that the symbolism is incorrect in the context in which it is provided.

Joseph Smith himself attempted, via special privilege (inspiration), to dictate to others what the scene means.

He got it wrong.

[T-Shirt]

Actually, you did:

"...we now have a Baal-Seth scarab to further show how plausible the idea is that Egyptian deities could be known under different, local names."

Here you are trying to loosely tie Abraham to the altar (pun intended) as some sort of "evidence" that it "could be" Abraham.

That's the argument from silence.

Here's the thing, I read every word in this thread. Real Egyptologists tell us what the scene means. Joseph explained it very differently. He got the storyline wrong, he got the identities wrong and he got the genders wrong. In a nutshell, he attempted to reexplain the scene in fac. 1 completely differently from what it really means.

LDS apologists want to come across as experts on this issue, but the real experts disagree with you.

I like what Sandra Tanner has to say regarding fac. 2 fig. 7, the ithyphallic deity which supposedly represents the God of the Holy Bible.... according to Mormons.

"Joseph Smith's identification of these pagan deities with the God of Abraham makes no more sense than to claim that a a statue of the Buddha actually represents Jesus Christ in prayer or claiming the Hindu goddess Parvati is actually the Virgin Mary." Salt Lake City Messenger Nov. 2009, issue no. 13

Amen, Sandra.

Why don't Mormons see it?

I certainly hope you are not counting Sandra Tanner as one of your experts in Egyptology. Are you? By the way, who are the experts to whom you have consistently referred?

T-Shirt

[RussB]

I certainly hope you are not counting Sandra Tanner as one of your experts in Egyptology. Are you?

Of course not. Tanner doesn't claim to be an Egyptologist, but she (we) doesn't have to be to notice that Smith got the story way wrong. Sandra's right. It makes about as much sense as saying that a statue of Buddha represents Jesus praying.

I say it makes about as much sense as saying that a Buddhist believes Allah is God's only prophet. The BoA is that backwards thinking.

By the way, who are the experts to whom you have consistently referred?

T-Shirt

I hope you've seen it:

The Lost Book of Abraham

Mormons say that the video has been soundly rebutted. It has not. The fact remains that non-LDS Egyptolotists rightly view Smith's ideas very suspiciously.

[Doctor Steuss]

Wow.

That's just .... wow.

Buddha ain't Jesus. Buddha doesn't represent Jesus Christ in any way, praying or not.

I know it

[RussB]

Placing your intended condescension on the side, I'll get right to the point:

The story isn't changing; a pre-existing symbolism is being adopted to illustrate said story

The symbolism in question has specific meaning.

Joseph tried to change the meaning.

Joseph knew that no one at the time could read the papyri.

Years later, we can.

OOPS!

[Doctor Steuss]

Placing your intended condescension on the side,

But that's my best quality. It's no fun poking someone with a stick if there isn't going to be an emotional response. I think I'm going to take my ball and go home.

At least my mom still thinks I

[Doctor Steuss]

Taking a moment to drop my mighty anonymous internet fury (tremble, I say)