Evidences 4 The Book Of Abraham

[Olavarria]

Setting

Abraham lives in "Ur of the Chaldees" and survives an attempted sacrifice at Olishem by the priest of a cult that mixed Egyptian and local religion. Though in Ur, he was sacrificed in the presence of Semitic and Egyptian gods, El and Sobek, among others.

Ulisum

Egyptian influence in the Levant during the time of Abraham.

Sobek at Ebla

Theology

The Book of Abraham describes a multitude of Gods in a Council.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[wenglund]

Was the city of Olishem known to have existed in Joseph Smith's day? In other words, is it mentioned in any or all the books that the critics collectively believe is where Joseph may have derived the Book of Abraham?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Olavarria]

Was the city of Olishem known to have existed in Joseph Smith's day? In other words, is it mentioned in any or all the books that the critics collectively believe is where Joseph may have derived the Book of Abraham?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

No, the Naram SIn inscription was translated after Joseph's martyrdom.

[Chris Smith]

Regardless of whether Ulisum is Ullaza in Palestine or Ulizina in Turkey, it appears it is a city far from Haran, where the BoA's plain of Olishem is supposed to be located.

[Vookman]

Regardless of whether Ulisum is Ullaza in Palestine or Ulizina in Turkey, it appears it is a city far from Haran, where the BoA's plain of Olishem is supposed to be located.

How can anyone base their faith on these serial coincidences? Next thing you know, someone is going to find out Jesus was born at Jerusalem, and there were men named Alma, and the earliest Greek Biblical texts are going to support the Book of Mormon's rendering of "he who is angry at his brother" and omits without a cause, or that priesthood was not exclusively delivered to Jesus in Hebrews, or there was cement and barley in the New World...or that the Old Testament really did teach that Hebrews believed in multiple real gods, or...a NT belief that men could be become gods.

You would have to be daft to think such outrageous statements could be true

[Olavarria]

It seems like Pharoah was also worshiped as a weather god during this time.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[Olavarria]

Regardless of whether Ulisum is Ullaza in Palestine or Ulizina in Turkey,

Good point, the author of that book I linked had it at the Gulf of Ishkenderun(Turkey). Abraham says that the sacrifices occurred at the "at the head of the plain of Olishem."

I dont know anything about Ullizina or Ullaza.

it appears it is a city far from Haran, where the BoA's plain of Olishem is supposed to be located.

That's interesting, I see Olishem as being far from Haran, not close to it.

Abraham 1:8,10

Now, at this time it was the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to offer up upon the altar which was built in the land of Chaldea, for the offering unto these strange gods, men, women, and children.

Even the thank-offering of a child did the ^apriest of Pharaoh offer upon the altar which stood by the hill called Potiphar’s Hill, at the head of the plain of Olishem.

Abraham 2:1

"Therefore I left the land of ^aUr, of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and I took Lot, my brother’s son, and his wife, and Sarai my wife; and also my ^bfather followed after me, unto the land which we denominated Haran."

Ur and Olishem are in the same "land", but Haran is in a different land.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[Olavarria]

Egyptian iconography on Syro-Palestinian cylinder seals of the Middle Bronze Age

In the Book of Abraham, we have the implicit claim that a Semite from the Middle Bronze Age adopted Egyptian iconography.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Pedro A. Olavarria

[Mike Reed]

and there were men named Alma

http://culturalmormoncafeteria.blogspot.com/2010/01/alma-matter-does-name-verify-or.html?m=1

[Chris Smith]

Ur and Olishem are in the same "land", but Haran is in a different land.

Mesopotamian Ur (which is how the BoA's "Ur of the Chaldees" should really be read) is even farther from Ullaza and Ulizina than the Syrian Ur near Haran that the apologists have proposed. And both are cities in their own right, not plains within the precincts of a city named Ur. Any way you look at it, Ulisum doesn't appear to be Olishem.

[Chris Smith]

How can anyone base their faith on these serial coincidences?

See here.

[shalamabobbi]

Some discussion here regarding Olishem..

[wenglund]

See here.

For an excellent examples of this, see the OP here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Olavarria]

Some discussion here regarding Olishem..

Here's Hoskisson's paper on the subject.

[Olavarria]

Here's Hoskisson's paper on the subject.

From Gee,

It might come as some surprise to some that Abraham is in the area of northern Mesopotamia and Syria. The term Chaldean did not mean the same in Joseph Smith's day as it does now. In the present day, the Chaldeans are equated only with the tribes of the Kaldu that lived in the Iron Age in southern Mesopotamia. In Joseph Smith's day it referred to the language that we call Aramaic and especially the Aramaic dialect that we call Syriac. It also referred to those who spoke that language (which originated in northern Syria). It also referred to the general area of greater Mesopotamia. Additionally, it was used as a term forsuperstitious.

The Chaldeans do not appear as such in the Hebrew Bible. Abraham is said to be from Ur of the Kasdim, not the Chaldeans. Though Kasdim is translated as Chaldeans, that is no indication that the Kasdim are theKaldu. Recent analysis of the names in the biblical account of Abraham indicates that all of them originate in northern Mesopotamia. The name Abram itself, is attested only in northern Mesopotamia. The name is also only attested at the time when the Book of Abraham predicts it. Several towns are named Ur in Mesopotamia, that is the reason why it must be qualified as the Ur of the Kasdim.

[Jack]

As posted elsewhere, where is the Book of Mormon museum? If there is one, what do they fill it with since there are no artifacts or evidence of these civilizations?

[wenglund]

As posted elsewhere, where is the Book of Mormon museum? If there is one, what do they fill it with since there are no artifacts or evidence of these civilizations?

The museum for the Book of Mormon is in the same place as the museum for the Book of Revelations--i.e. in each of the believer's hearts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Robert F. Smith]

As posted elsewhere, where is the Book of Mormon museum? If there is one, what do they fill it with since there are no artifacts or evidence of these civilizations?

BYU has a Museum of Peoples and Cultures, if that is what you mean.

However, your premise appears to be in error, and you might want to have a look at John Sorenson's large and well-illustrated Images of Ancient America: Visualizing Book of Mormon Life (FARMS, 1997). Sorenson's magnum opus on the archeology of the Book of Mormon should be out early next year.

[altersteve]

Next thing you know, someone is going to find out Jesus was born at Jerusalem...

He was. Do you know what the word "at" means?

And we don't base our faith on coincidences. We base our faith on revelation from God.

Edited November 4, 2011 by altersteve

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

http://culturalmormo...ify-or.html?m=1

The fact that is is a genuine Hebrew name is just a coincidence. Mike you are too funny.

I think you would have a valid point if the name was not a Hebrew name but merely a name from antiquity. The fact that there were males named Alma in the 19th century does not take away this evidence as you claim.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[floatingboy]

The footnote about Sobek in Ebla also mentions a sacred tree found there. My money is on it being the one mentioned in Lehi's dream. Which makes Lehi's telling of it only a recasting of an earlier, well-known parable as told (written?) by Abraham himself.

[Mike Reed]

The fact that is is a genuine Hebrew name is just a coincidence. Mike you are too funny... The fact that there were males named Alma in the 19th century does not take away this evidence as you claim.

Try this example: The Book of Mormon mentions rocks. My son found a rock while digging in the dirt the other day. Should I therefore write a paper about my son's "archeological" discovery and submit it to the FARMS Review, arguing that this is evidence confirming the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? Of course not. This doesn't count as evidence. Why doesn't it? Because the existence of rocks in the New World was not news (or particularly special) to Joseph Smith and his contemporaries. But if the rock gave visions, on the other hand... that would be different. But I digress...

In order to count the masculine use of the name "Alma" as evidence confirming the authenticity of the BoM, one needs to simultaneously argue (effectively) that Joseph Smith and his contemporaries should have assumed that the name was strictly (or fundamentally) feminine. This has not been done effectively. On the contrary, apologists have either skipped this important step, or they have exaggerated levels of past criticisms by misusing 20th century criticisms as though they are reflective of attitudes in Joseph Smith's day. With few exceptions, apologists rarely consider Joseph's environment seriously. Have any apologists ever mentioned that the masculine use of the name Alma was fairly common in Joseph Smith's day? And have they mentioned the Irish legend of Alma the One-Tooth? Why haven't they? Either they are unaware of these things, because they didn't bother to look (again, most apologists rarely consider Joseph's environment seriously)... or they are purposefully withholding this important information because it makes their "evidence" less impressive.

I think you would have a valid point if the name was not a Hebrew name but merely a name from antiquity.

I am not following you.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Mike Reed

[T-Shirt]

Have any apologists ever mentioned that the masculine use of the name Alma was fairly common in Joseph Smith's day?

I have to question you on this one. I readily admit that there were men, in the 19th century, named Alma, but I don't think it was even, remotely, a common male name. For example, in the 1830 census, there are 13 people listed with the name Alma in the entire State of New York. The 1830 census only gives the names of heads of household, so, granted, most of these are probably male. Nevertheless, 13, in the entire state, is not exactly common compared to, let's say, the name Joseph, which shows up 7,686 times for heads of household. Compared to all heads of household in the State of New York, 1 in 25,000 heads of household was named Alma. For the entire USA, there are only 46 heads of household named Alma and 50,152 named Joseph.

In 1840 (which also only lists heads of household), there are 10 occurrences of Alma in New York and 46 in the entire USA. In contrast, for the name Joseph, there are 9,127 in New York and 63,661 in the USA.

In 1850, the census lists all names and we can therefore search by gender. Here are the numbers:

Males named Alma in New York - 21

Females named Alma in New York - 627

Males named Alma in the USA - 186

Females named Alma in the USA - 2,266

Males named Alma in the USA - 1 in 56,000

For comparison, the name Joseph, in the USA, appears over 265,000 times.

So, you can say that Alma was, indeed, a male name, in the 19th century, but you cannot say that it was common. In fact, the statistics show that it was quite rare and quite likely that the vast majority of people in the USA had never heard of a man named Alma.

Best,

T-Shirt

Edited November 4, 2011 by T-Shirt

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am not following you.

Seriously Mike, it is rather straight forward.

You think it is a non hit because "hey the name was common name in JS day". That simply wont do. Since the name is legitimately Hebrew and it is of ancient origin that makes it a hit. Period.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mike Reed]

For what it is worth, I said "fairly" common. And I meant this relatively--not compared to names in general, but rather compared to the feminine usage. You get my point though, right? The masculine use was far from preposterous--especially in the light of the Irish legend of Alma the one-tooth. 186/2266 significantly outweighs a single inscription found in antiquity.

But thanks for the statistics.