Is this statement true?

[mfbukowski]

EXACTLY!!!!!!

Take this symbol for example. http://aroundtheclockcarpetcleaning.net/ESW/Images/ChristianFish.jpg

It used to mean something totally different. From http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm

jmordecai,

How do you like them apples?

Yep.

And if you remember the Egyptian ankh, it is the same oval, a bit more rounded, topped by a cross. It means "life" and the generation thereof. The oval is the female portion, and guess what the male portion is??

While you are at it, you can also look up "vesica piscis" for volumes and volumes of material related to both these symbols. I mean what do bunnies have to do with Easter and the rebirth of the sun? Figure it out!

[mfbukowski]

Sorry, It seemed to be a simple question.

It's not.

[jadams_4242]

Well, papyrus is usually unrecoverable after it has burned in a museum fire.

Do we really?

yes we "really" do now know. because of technologys and discoveries that were not available to anyone in this hemiphere at that time, let alone J.S..he got it right!! how did he do it without the info nobody on the earth had at that time.. actually it wasnt until the discovery of the rosetta stone that we could be able to decyper this style cryptic writings.. and an expert in europe that in a "small" manner was able to discover how to read them about the same time J.S was translating....the entire world knew not.. how could smith have known?

[CA Steve]

What he was looking at were Egyptian funerary documents, what he published were Egyptian funerary documents, but that is not what he "translated".

He translated what he said he translated. He published keys to the temple, which if seen for what they are- spiritual keys to the temple, not Egyptian hypocephali.

The diagrams happen to be identical to hypocephali, but HAVE TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEANING

If what he translated is not Egyptian hypocephali, then what is it? I refer to that which is on the disk not the english translation. I mean if they are not Egyptian but just some unknown symbols, why take the time to recreate the disk and why attach it to the BOA?

[Joseph Antley]

My opinion is that we should stop throwing around an archaic usage of "translation" as if our use is still the normal definition.

[jmordecai]

JOSEPH KNEW THAT EGYPTIAN HAD ALREADY BEEN TRANSLATED- SO WHY WOULD HE PUBLISH THE EGYPTIAN "TEXT" IF IT WAS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY?

Lets get the facts straight.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone was the key to deciphering Egyptian characters. The stone was discovered in 1799. It wasn't until 1858 (23 years after Smith started work on the Book of Abraham) that the first English translation of the Stone was completed by the Philomathean Society.

What he was looking at were Egyptian funerary documents, what he published were Egyptian funerary documents, but that is not what he "translated".

This assumes what you need to prove, because you can't reconcile Joseph's interpretations with the facsimiles. So you have to fabricate out of thin air an alternative "reality" for the pieces to fit. This also contradicts Joseph's own account of what he was doing:

"... with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics..." (DHC 2:236)

"... this afternoon recommenced translating the ancient records." (Diary of Joseph Smith, October 7, 1835, p. 7; also in DHC 2:289)

"I returned home and spent the day in translating the Egyptian records" (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 19, 1835, p. 47; also DHC 2:318)

"in the afternoon we translated some of the Egyptian records" (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 24, 1835, p. 49; also DHC 2:320)

The diagrams happen to be identical to hypocephali, but HAVE TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEANING

So let me get this straight... not only are the words Joseph described not found in any of Egyptology... but all the "meanings" have been lost! Thus in order to buy your explanation, we have to assume that all the Egyptian characters on Smith's hypocephali and vignettes at one time meant something completely different! Poof, problem fixed!

The fact that the Egyptians co-opted and corrupted Abraham's endowment has nothing to do with Joseph's restoration of the endowment.

It is not a fact as there is no evidence Abraham had anything to do with this.

It would be like someone today talking about the Hopi swastika- if its original meaning had been lost- and being criticized for not recognizing a "Nazi symbol" when in fact its derivation is much older and of totally different significance.

But your argument requires this dynamic for... an entire language. Your argument is further hampered, as Joseph's hypocephali and vignettes date to around the time of Christ, and our understanding of the evolution of the Egyptian language goes back to about 3,200 B.C. Thus you have to demonstrate how and when the characters used around the time of Christ underwent such a dramatic evolution in meaning. Furthermore, we have no record of any Egyptian gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash from the time of Christ backwards. Joseph's use of "Pharaoh" is an anachronism if indeed we are to believe (without any good reasons) that the BoA text is dated to the time of Abraham.

[jadams_4242]

Lets get the facts straight.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone was the key to deciphering Egyptian characters. The stone was discovered in 1799. It wasn't until 1858 (23 years after Smith started work on the Book of Abraham) that the first English translation of the Stone was completed by the Philomathean Society.

This assumes what you need to prove, because you can't reconcile Joseph's interpretations with the facsimiles. So you have to fabricate out of thin air an alternative "reality" for the pieces to fit. This also contradicts Joseph's own account of what he was doing:

"... with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics..." (DHC 2:236)

"... this afternoon recommenced translating the ancient records." (Diary of Joseph Smith, October 7, 1835, p. 7; also in DHC 2:289)

"I returned home and spent the day in translating the Egyptian records" (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 19, 1835, p. 47; also DHC 2:318)

"in the afternoon we translated some of the Egyptian records" (Diary of Joseph Smith, November 24, 1835, p. 49; also DHC 2:320)

So let me get this straight... not only are the words Joseph described not found in any of Egyptology... but all the "meanings" have been lost! Thus in order to buy your explanation, we have to assume that all the Egyptian characters on Smith's hypocephali and vignettes at one time meant something completely different! Poof, problem fixed!

It is not a fact as there is no evidence Abraham had anything to do with this.

But your argument requires this dynamic for... an entire language. Your argument is further hampered, as Joseph's hypocephali and vignettes date to around the time of Christ, and our understanding of the evolution of the Egyptian language goes back to about 3,200 B.C. Thus you have to demonstrate how and when the characters used around the time of Christ underwent such a dramatic evolution in meaning. Furthermore, we have no record of any Egyptian gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash from the time of Christ backwards. Joseph's use of "Pharaoh" is an anachronism if indeed we are to believe (without any good reasons) that the BoA text is dated to the time of Abraham.

u took the words right out of my mouth!! thank you...

[mfbukowski]

My opinion is that we should stop throwing around an archaic usage of "translation" as if our use is still the normal definition.

OK,

What do you propose?

[Joseph Antley]

OK,

What do you propose?

Nothing. I just complain, I don't offer solutions.

[Mortal Man]

Furthermore, we have no record of any Egyptian gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash from the time of Christ backwards.

In translating the names of the four idolatrous gods, plus the crocodile, underneath the bedstead in Facsimile 1, Joseph needed some authentic Egyptian names from the time of Abraham. Fortunately, Exodus 6 provides a long list of names shortly after Jehovah appears to Abraham.

Exodus 6:

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

...

11 Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.

...

17 The sons of Gershon; Libni, and Shimi, according to their families.

...

19 And the sons of Merari; Mahali and Mushi: these are the families of Levi according to their generations.

...

21 And the sons of Izhar; Korah, and Nepheg, and Zichri.

...

24 And the sons of Korah; Assir, and Elkanah, and Abiasaph: these are the families of the Korhites.

Joseph believe that "ah" and "ash" were Egyptian phonemes; i.e., typical royal Egyptian name endings.

[jmordecai]

In translating the names of the four idolatrous gods, plus the crocodile, underneath the bedstead in Facsimile 1, Joseph needed some authentic Egyptian names from the time of Abraham. Fortunately, Exodus 6 provides a long list of names shortly after Jehovah appears to Abraham.

Exodus 6:

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

...

11 Go in, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land.

...

17 The sons of Gershon; Libni, and Shimi, according to their families.

...

19 And the sons of Merari; Mahali and Mushi: these are the families of Levi according to their generations.

...

21 And the sons of Izhar; Korah, and Nepheg, and Zichri.

...

24 And the sons of Korah; Assir, and Elkanah, and Abiasaph: these are the families of the Korhites.

Joseph believe that "ah" and "ash" were Egyptian phonemes; i.e., typical royal Egyptian name endings.

[Jason]

Sorry, It seemed to be a simple question.

That's the problem, isn't it - it's not at all as simple as it might first appear to be.

[Pahoran]

Lets get the facts straight.

That would be a nice change, yes.

It is not a fact as there is no evidence Abraham had anything to do with this.

A statement you can make only by rejecting out of hand the only real evidence that counts.

Your argument is further hampered, as Joseph's hypocephali and vignettes date to around the time of Christ, and our understanding of the evolution of the Egyptian language goes back to about 3,200 B.C. Thus you have to demonstrate how and when the characters used around the time of Christ underwent such a dramatic evolution in meaning..

Clearly you do not understand the argument.

Furthermore, we have no record of any Egyptian gods Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash from the time of Christ backwards..

I never cease to be amused by those who think this argument is evidence of anything but their own reading skills. How did Joseph actually identify those figures again? What does the word "of" mean to you?

Joseph's use of "Pharaoh" is an anachronism if indeed we are to believe (without any good reasons) that the BoA text is dated to the time of Abraham.

Yes, the Book of Abraham contains all sorts of "anachronisms" like that: English words, including "and," "the" and "Pharaoh."

Regards,

Pahoran

[CA Steve]

That's the problem, isn't it - it's not at all as simple as it might first appear to be.

Actually I think the question was quite simple. It seems the answer is difficult depending on what you believe.

[mfbukowski]

The bottom line was that it was all pure revelation- Joseph A is right, we probably need to be referring to it as "revelation" or something else rather than "translation".

I frankly don't care if "translating" the pattern on the wallpaper or what caused the BOA to be written, it is irrelevant.

There will never be an answer for those who want to criticize the BOA, and on the other hand for those who understand it and its clear links to the temple rites, there can be no question of its scriptural nature.

There are just too many layers of meaning in it to be anything other than inspired, and anyone who doesn't see that, well, doesn't see that.

I know what the reaction will be, but I really don't care.

The evidence is what it is. Either you see it or you don't.

[Jason]

Actually I think the question was quite simple. It seems the answer is difficult depending on what you believe.

Asking something as simple as "what color is that ball?" is really complicated depending on how fully you address the question. The wavelength of light reflected by the ball is dependent on its molecular makeup, and the color perceived by your brain as those light particles impact youre retina might be dependent on whether you are red/green color blind and your prior exposure to colors and cultural background.

So what seems a simple question isn't really simple at all.

[CA Steve]

Asking something as simple as "what color is that ball?" is really complicated depending on how fully you address the question. The wavelength of light reflected by the ball is dependent on its molecular makeup, and the color perceived by your brain as those light particles impact youre retina might be dependent on whether you are red/green color blind and your prior exposure to colors and cultural background.

So what seems a simple question isn't really simple at all.

Or you could just say' Red'. While it is much over used, in this case I believe that Ockham had it right.

[Jason]

Or you could just say' Red'. While it is much over used, in this case I believe that Ockham had it right.

Ockham's Razor is often useful but sometimes the simplest explanation really isn't the best one.

[mfbukowski]

Or you could just say' Red'. While it is much over used, in this case I believe that Ockham had it right.

Yes, isn't belief in things you can't prove wonderful?

I think that it is much simpler to just say "God created all the animals" than thinking all this complexity came from natural selection, since I too am a believer in dear sainted uncle Bill Ockham.

Of course for the record, what I actually believe is neither of those.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think your are missing the point.

Your argument that Joseph was interpreting and not translating (whatever) is irrelevant because these are not Egyptian words:

Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, Shaumau, Kolob, Jah-oh-eh, Oliblish, Enish-go-on-dosh, Kae-e-vanrash, Floeese, Kli-flos-is-es, Hah-ko-kau-beam, Shulem, Olimlah

Of the words you list here, only three are described as Egyptian in the Book of Abraham (Fac 2:1, 2, 4, 5): Jah-oh-eh, Oliblish, and Enish-go-on-dosh. Several others are well-known Hebrew words in Sephardic/Seixas-style transliteration. The remainder we can examine for possible etymological associations. One thing worth bearing in mind is that the text of the Book of Abraham places the event (in which the idolatrous gods are part of a human sacrificial ritual) takes place somewhere on a plain in Syria. The late Jaroslav Cerny pointed out that "Naturally, Egyptian settlers and garrisons abroad built sanctuaries there to their own gods, but toward the native gods they behaved as they so often did in Egypt towards the god or goddess of another town: they simply considered them as different names and forms of their own Egyptian deities." (Cerny, Ancient Egyptian Religion, 41). The pattern of cross-identification of gods is well-known and should present no problem for the serious researcher.

[Fifth Columnist]

JOSEPH KNEW THAT EGYPTIAN HAD ALREADY BEEN TRANSLATED

How did you reach this conclusion?

[mfbukowski]

How did you reach this conclusion?

Surely you are aware of the Egyptian Revival movement?

Surely you are aware of the great interest in all things Egyptian starting with the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, and the fact that from right around 1800 America was awash in interest in all things Egyptian?

http://www.amazon.com/American-Hieroglyphics-Symbol-Egyptian-Renaissance/dp/0801829089#reader_0801829089 (Pages 3-4)

That the mere fact that the Papyri came to Kirtland in the first place was due to such a great interest in America in all things Egyptian.

It is impossible to conceive that Joseph knew nothing of Champollion and that some translation had taken place- I perhaps over stated saying that "Egyptian had been translated"- since that task is still ongoing, but clearly you would have had to live under a rock to not have heard of Champollion during this period. The point was, that Joseph must have known that translation was underway and that scholars were ready to dispute his "translations" if not immediately, then soon enough in the future.

Wikipedia, Rosetta Stone

Study of the decree was already under way as the first full translation of the Greek text appeared in 1803. It was 20 years, however, before the decipherment of the Egyptian texts was announced by Jean-Fran

[Robert F. Smith]

I was reading Exodus not long ago and came across 'Elkanah' and thought to myself "I've seen that somewhere else" but at the time couldn't place it. Nice find.

In translating the names of the four idolatrous gods, plus the crocodile, underneath the bedstead in Facsimile 1, Joseph needed some authentic Egyptian names from the time of Abraham. Fortunately, Exodus 6 provides a long list of names shortly after Jehovah appears to Abraham.

The only authentic Egyptian names from Exodus 6 are Moses, Phinehas, Pharaoh, Egypt, and the hybrid Egyptian-Hebrew Putiel. However, in the midst of around 50 or more names listed in Exodus 6 (carefully selected from all the other chapters and verses in a Bible rife with names) one is bound to come up with some similarities which can then be manipulated in magical fashion to give the sought-after result. Thus, Hebrew person Libni is easily converted to the common biblical Hebrew place-name Libnah, Assume that Joseph believed that -ash is an Egyptian royal termination (based on questionable information from the G&A) added to Hebrew Korah in order to produce the name of an idolatrous god, Korash, and finally Mahali magically becomes Mahmackrah. Elkanah occurs frequently in the Bible, but here is out of proper Book of Abraham order, as is Pharaoh. Finally, Exodus 6 is the wrong place to find "authentic Egyptian names from the time of Abraham," since by that time Abraham had been dead for at least half a millennium!!

What is truly remarkable is that Joseph Smith just happens to correctly describe the four Egyptian canopic gods under the bier, and the crocodile in the watery register below them. He begins with falcon-headed Elkenah, a name known to biblical Hebrew (cf. I Samuel 1:1) as a hypocoristicon for 'El 'Elyon qone shamayim wa'arets "El Elyon Creator of Heaven and Earth" (Genesis 14:19,22, Exodus 20:11, Judith 13:18[23-24], etc.), but which was also known earlier as a Canaanite god-name El-Kunirsha, or 'El-qone-'ertsi on a Hittite tablet (pronounced 'Elqonrs "'El Creator of the Earth"), which should remind us that Elkkenner is a variant spelling of this god-name in the KEP. Next is Libnah "White," possibly incorporating or punning on the Hebrew word for "heart" leb (= Egyptian ib), since that is the organ usually placed in the jackal-headed jar. Next is baboon-headed Mahmackrah, whose name may incorporate the Egyptian word for "north" mh(t), which is the directional association of this particular god. Human-headed Korash is next, possibly Egyptian *Ku-ras "spirit of the south," which is the proper direction for this god (the pronunciation of Egyptian -ros "south" in Isaiah 11:11 Pathros would have been -ras in the Semitic of Abraham's day). When these four are lined up with their well-known Egyptian counterparts, they fit very snugly, and are correctly described in Fac 2:6 (see my forthcoming Book of Abraham Commentary for further details). Together with Sobek, the actual crocodile-god of Pharaoh, they are all arrayed before an altar on a hill next to the plain of Olishem, which is the correct name for Ulisum (Akkadian), an Egyptian-controlled area of NW Syria in the late 3rd millennium B.C.

There, Abraham is about to be sacrificed with these gods (and Shagreel) in attendance. As Arelene Wolinski has pointed out, wall paintings, bas reliefs, and statuary of Egyptian gods and goddesses with animal heads on human bodies are actually priests and priestesses wearing animal-head masks during various funerary, coronation, and other religious rituals ("Egyptian Ceremonial Masks: A Reexamination of the Priest and his Role," April 12, 1989, lecture at the California Museum of Ancient Art, Los Angeles). Nothing odd or out of place in the transmittal by the Jews of these written traditions, updating and renewing the records from time to time as they always did with the elements of their Holy Writ, while frequently adapting local cultural, religious, and artistic influences. A prime example of this very tendency among Aramaeans in Egypt can be found in a 5th century B.C. funerary stele with lion couch scene inscribed in Aramaic in B. Porten & A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents in Ancient Egypt, IV:257 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1999).

[Fifth Columnist]

Surely you are aware of the Egyptian Revival movement?

Surely you are aware of the great interest in all things Egyptian starting with the discovery of the Rosetta Stone, and the fact that from right around 1800 America was awash in interest in all things Egyptian?

http://www.amazon.co...ader_0801829089 (Pages 3-4)

That the mere fact that the Papyri came to Kirtland in the first place was due to such a great interest in America in all things Egyptian.

It is impossible to conceive that Joseph knew nothing of Champollion and that some translation had taken place- I perhaps over stated saying that "Egyptian had been translated"- since that task is still ongoing, but clearly you would have had to live under a rock to not have heard of Champollion during this period. The point was, that Joseph must have known that translation was underway and that scholars were ready to dispute his "translations" if not immediately, then soon enough in the future.

Wikipedia, Rosetta Stone

Also search "Egyptian Revival"

Yeah, I think you definitely overstated your conclusion since it is purely circumstantial and conflicts with the contemporary historical narrative. The historical record indicates that regardless whether he though Egyptian had been translated, he thought he was also capable of translating Egyptian. I admire the complex mental construct you have erected to get JS out of this jam, but it is too much for me.

[mfbukowski]

Yeah, I think you definitely overstated your conclusion since it is purely circumstantial and conflicts with the contemporary historical narrative. The historical record indicates that regardless whether he though Egyptian had been translated, he thought he was also capable of translating Egyptian. I admire the complex mental construct you have erected to get JS out of this jam, but it is too much for me.

Nothing complex about it. The whole continent was afire for anything Egyptian and THAT is the whole reason the mummies got to Kirtland in the first place. Would a con man, knowing that Champollion was already in the process of translating Egyptian, and after having made a similar mistake with the Anthon affair, make the same mistake again and come up with a fake "translation" for some other professor to blow out of the water?

How is that "complex"?? No con man would be that stupid. You can say what you want about Joseph, but "stupid" is not a name I have heard him ever called.

And let's take your point on directly. Suppose Joseph did think he could translate Egyptian and suppose he was wrong. (I am not conceding the point for one minute- this is a hypothetical) What difference would it make?

Moses supposedly wrote Genesis and the rest of the Torah through pure revelation, no translation, no intermediary- pure revelation, and billions take it as scripture. That is the account they believe.

The Book of Abraham can be seen as pure revelation regardless of what Joseph thought, on the false (in my opinion) view that he was mistaken about translating it. Millions of people believe Mohammad saw Gabriel who revealed the Koran. Suppose it could be proven that there was no angel and that the Koran was received by direct revelation through the mouth of Mohammad.

What's the difference? As I said earlier, it would not matter to me if Joseph was staring at the pattern of the wallpaper when he received his revelations, staring at a peepstone, looking into a crystal ball, looking at a fire or the ocean. The bottom line is that the book was received by revelation and everything else is ultimately irrelevant. If I am looking at a fire and see words appear, and write them down and it turns out to be of scriptural quality and coheres with other scripture as well as the BOA does, what is the difference? If he was staring at those papyrii and thought he was literally translating (an idea I do not accept for one minute) it would make no difference whatsoever to me.

What he "got" was from God, and I don't care how he "got" it.