Exploring The Kep Anyone?

[Pahoran]

I was looking for the names Joseph Smith first gave to the jars.

Actually Joseph didn't give any names to the jars.

This is a standard polemical approach, incidentally, that relies upon glib misrepresentations of a superficial reading. Is "President of the United States" the name of this person?

If not, then "the idolatrous god of X" is not the name of anything on any of the facsimiles either.

The names in the PoGP are a little different and some interesting things can be learned by studying the history of the changes. These things help answer the question as to whether or not there could have been a missing "Q" source. One of the most interesting changes is for the jar on the left. This is "Korash" in the modern PoGP but originally it was "a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt"; i.e., a guy who looks like Pharaoh.

No, your "i.e." is exactly the same kind of glib misrepresentation of a superficial reading.

Let's look again at the passage in question. According to you, it said: "a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt."

Tell us, MM: what is the antecedent of "that" in your quote?

It's "a god."

Thus, it labels the picture as "a god like unto the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt."

Not "a god like unto the mug of Pharaoh, king of Egypt."

Understand the difference?

Likewise, Joseph's final identification was not to call the thing "Korash," but "the idolatrous god OF Korash."

I've highlighted the preposition in the forlorn hope that you may yet be the first of your kind to grasp its significance.

To say that Imsety is "the idolatrous god OF Korash" does not in any way assert that "Korash" forms any part of his Egyptian name.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited August 8, 2011 by Pahoran

[Mortal Man]

I believe that is possible that he received at least a portion of the Av0 prior to extensive study of the scrolls, and in some ways even likely.

Ok, since the names show up very early in the text (by the sixth verse) then I take it you believe it's "likely" he received them by revelation before studying the images and forming his own ideas?

If so, then we're back to my previous question, which I'll put another way.

Did God tell Joseph that the left-most jar is "Pharaoh", "the God of Pharoah", "a god like unto that of Pharaoh" or however you want to put it?

If so, why?

If not, then why did Joseph originally call Imsety/Korash "[something] Pharaoh"?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Did God tell Joseph that the left-most jar is "Pharaoh", "the God of Pharoah", "a god like unto that of Pharaoh" or however you want to put it?

If so, why?

If not, then why did Joseph originally call Imsety/Korash "[something] Pharaoh"?

I am not sure that he did. As to your 2nd question, I have no idea, perhaps he just mislabeled it. It does happen.

I am sure you have quite the narrative that you will share with us on why JS originally called it "[something] Pharaoh".

I confess, this conversation is starting to remind me of certain critics that take issue that a few words were changed in the BoM.

I look forward to your response.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[wenglund]

Ok, since the names show up very early in the text (by the sixth verse) then I take it you believe it's "likely" he received them by revelation before studying the images and forming his own ideas?

I am a little confused. The heathen gods in question do show up early in the text, but not in connection with jars. The jars don't come into play until Explanations are given for Facsimili 1--which I have no idea when it may have been wreitten. Are you conflating the two?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 8, 2011 by wenglund

[Mortal Man]

The heathen gods in question do show up early in the text, but not in connection with jars.

The heathen gods in question are absolutely connected with the jars. Abr. 1:6-20 is an extended description of Facsimile 1 and the story behind it.

12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

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.

14 That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics.

The jars don't come into play until Explanations are given for Facsimili 1--which I have no idea when it may have been wreitten. Are you conflating the two?

No, I'm reading the text.

[wenglund]

The heathen gods in question are absolutely connected with the jars. Abr. 1:6-20 is an extended description of Facsimile 1 and the story behind it.

Could you please point me to where the word "jars" is mentioned in Ab. 1:6-20?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Could you please point me to where the word "jars" is mentioned in Ab. 1:6-20?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Lol. Sorry. Good point.

[Mortal Man]

Could you please point me to where the word "jars" is mentioned in Ab. 1:6-20?

I can see by your increasing obtuseness that you're no longer interested in this conversation.

Have a nice day.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I can see by your increasing obtuseness that you're no longer interested in this conversation.

Have a nice day.

Um, MM, I think he is entirely serious and interested. I also think, literally, speaking, he is correct.

Now if you want to talk about Fac1 that is a different story.

So what are the names of the Jars in Fac1?

Please continue.

[Pahoran]

I can see by your increasing obtuseness that you're no longer interested in this conversation.

Have a nice day.

I'm not sure that Wade is necessarily the one being obtuse here.

After all, you assume that "Abr. 1:6-20 is an extended description of Facsimile 1 and the story behind it." That's an interesting assumption; however, you have not engaged the alternative possibility, namely that Facs 1 was included because it illustrated the text. IOW, your assumption makes the picture prior to the text, but what is the state of your argument if the text is prior to the picture?

In any event MM, why don't you stop fencing with us? Clearly you think it significant that Joseph at one point stuck the label "the idolatrous god of Pharaoh" on a figure he later called "the idolatrous god of Korash." Why don't you tell us why you think that matters?

This is, after all, your argument. Why don't you just tell us what it is?

Regards,

Pahoran

[wenglund]

I can see by your increasing obtuseness that you're no longer interested in this conversation.

Have a nice day.

Itereseting dodge. Good day to you as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-