My Paper On The Book Of Abraham Criticisms And Defenses - Please Review!

[TruthSeeker2013]

That the Church does not is debatable imo considering how the intro to the BoA itself hasn't changed and seems to me to be essentially what TS is saying was also included in the PoGP intro.

And this is what is said about it on lds.org, which I believe is newly updated so it surely shows the current official position:

http://www.lds.org/topics/scriptures?lang=eng&query=book+of+abraham

The only thing missing there is the third item which is still present in the BoA intro.

Simply because the Church doesn't say the same thing everywhere, doesn't indicate that it is stepping away from any position.

It's not the different statements that are significant. It's the change. The PoGP has contained the same three claims since its first printing in 1851. And now the church is backing away from it. Why would the church change it? There must be a reason. The church doesn't take the effort to change around introduction to scripture for no reason at all. It seems to me they're trying to walk a narrow line of not directly contradicting Joseph's claims while still moving in a direction where the evidence is compelling them (distancing the papyri from the BoA). Edited November 24, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, you're mixing up two different introductions. As you mention, Joseph wrote an introduction to the BoA in the manuscript, and this same introduction appeared in the first printing in 1842 with the addition of the "purporting to be." The "purporting to be" was removed in the 1878 edition and has never appeared again. Now the Pearl of Great Price has its OWN introduction of the contents, including the BoA. The PoGP was first published in 1851 and in every edition since then, like in the BoA introduction, it has always included the three things Joseph claimed: 1) Joseph translated the papyri, 2) the papyri were the source of the BoA, and 3) Abrahams own writing appeared on the papyri. To reiterate, EVERY edition of the BoA has included these three things in the introduction and EVERY edition of the PoGP until 2013 has included these three things. So it's a very significant change.

It's interesting, also, that the BoA introduction, which was originally instituted by Joseph himself, remains unchanged in the 2013 edition, but the 2013 PoGP intro is changed to back away from the very 3 claims made in the 2013 BoA intro. It seems the church felt comfortable changing the PoGP intro which was instituted first in 1851 after Joseph's death, but didn't feel comfortable changing the BoA intro which was instituted by Joseph. To read them side by side in the 2013 edition leaves no question that the church is trying to back away from Joseph's claims.

Thanks for the details, TruthSeeker, which verify what I said.

 

Unfortunately, you have confused the PGP "Introduction" with the BofA "heading" and seem unable to extricate yourself from that confusion.

 

As usual, you are unable to distinguish official Canon from mere introductory material, which is typical of those who basically reject reason and scholarship.

[Robert F. Smith]

How does the apologist persist in continuing with the literal translation but the church doesn't quite go there any longer. Aren't they communicating?

Introductory material is never part of an official church Canon of Scripture,  and introductions change with the wind.

 

What is important is that the official Church Canon has consistently read the same all these years, and even "TruthSeeker" admits that, while trying to change the nomenclature in order to confuse you.  He believes that by terming the canonical Book of Abraham heading an "introduction," he can level the field of attack and so make the specious claim that the Church has changed its position.  It's only word magic, Tacenda.  Just more flim-flam.

Edited November 24, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[TruthSeeker2013]

Thanks for the details, TruthSeeker, which verify what I said.

Unfortunately, you have confused the PGP "Introduction" with the BofA "heading" and seem unable to extricate yourself from that confusion.

As usual, you are unable to distinguish official Canon from mere introductory material, which is typical of those who basically reject reason and scholarship.

Again, you return with the personal attacks. Why do you add personal attacks to an otherwise civil conversation? What value does it add? What are you trying to accomplish? I've asked you once already, Robert, and let me ask you a second time to please keep the discourse civil. I have not attacked or insulted you, please offer me the same respect. It does not strengthen your argument.

In my previous posts and my paper, I, too, differentiated between the two - the BoA introduction was implemented by Joseph himself and the PoGP introduction was first implemented in 1851 after Joseph's death. In fact I'll quote from my post above:

"It's interesting, also, that the BoA introduction, which was originally instituted by Joseph himself, remains unchanged in the 2013 edition, but the 2013 PoGP intro is changed to back away from the very 3 claims made in the 2013 BoA intro. It seems the church felt comfortable changing the PoGP intro which was instituted first in 1851 after Joseph's death, but didn't feel comfortable changing the BoA intro which was instituted by Joseph. To read them side by side in the 2013 edition leaves no question that the church is trying to back away from Joseph's claims."

I believe, as I've already stated, that the church probably feels uncomfortable altering the introduction that was implemented by Joseph but probably feels like it has a little more wiggle room with the PoGP introduction. I think that highlights the narrow line the church is trying to walk as I've discussed above. Is the PoGP introduction of the BoA canon? I don't think so. Is the BoA introduction canon? Maybe. It was published by Joseph and part of what was eventually canonized, but it is indeed introductory in nature rather than independently substantive. But whether either are canon is irrelevant to my point. My point is merely that the change is indicative of the fact that the church has recognized the BoA problems and is backing away from Joseph's claims in an effort to allow for alternate defenses because Joseph's claims (the three I've mentioned above) are very difficult to uphold. The fact that the church is backing away from its founders own claims should raise a red flag or at least warrant further investigation into why the change was made.

[TruthSeeker2013]

Introductory material is never part of an official church Canon of Scripture, and introductions change with the wind.

What is important is that the official Church Canon has consistently read the same all these years, and even "TruthSeeker" admits that, while trying to change the nomenclature in order to confuse you. He believes that by terming the canonical Book of Abraham heading an "introduction," he can level the field of attack and so make the specious claim that the Church has changed its position. It's only word magic, Tacenda. Just more flim-flam.

It seems you are conflating position with canon. I made no statement about canon, only about the introductions (which may or may not be canon). The church has indeed changed the introduction. What is the purpose of an introduction but to state what the church's understanding is of the contests? It's position in that regard has changed. This indicates that the church has changed it's position on how it views the BoA.

Let me ask you, Robert, what do you make of the change? Do you agree that the change is different in that it backs away from the three things (which I've repeated above) that every other introduction claimed? What do you think is the significance, if any, of that? Why would the church change it without having some reason to do so?

[cognitiveharmony]

Your arguments here are with the non-Mormon scholars I cite in each case.  My brief assessment did not cite all of them, but certainly enough so that you could go to those sources for verification and further information if desired.  My approach is to read and study the standard scholars and to compare what they have said to what is found in the Mormon Canon.  That does not make all of my extrapolations correct, but what you are saying here is more toward faulting the conclusions of the standard non-Mormon scholars than faulting my conclusions.  You might try distinguishing one from the other, lest your pseudonym be changed from "cognitiveharmony" to "cognitivedissonance."

 

I haven't found anti-Mormons claiming that Joseph batted zero (you are a first).  Most of them even try to find explanations for his correct identifications in contemporary books and articles, or in claiming that some of his identifications were pictorially obvious.  You even cite Rick Grunder using the environmental approach to show that Joseph merely adapted contemporary publications to his use.  The dilemma for you is that you have claimed Joseph got everything wrong, so that you may have a very hard time explaining harmoniously how it is possible for Grunder and others to say that Joseph got some things right due to his cribbing from contemporary sources.  Once again, you appear to be caught in the clutches of doublespeak.

 

Your problem with the Ram-god having two or four heads is based on your lack of familiarity with ancient Egyptian religion.  He is shown most commonly with one head (as in a birth scene for Amenhotep III at Deir el-Bahari), or with two heads, and with four heads, as frequently in cippi of Horus and hypocephali at the center.  Why you make an issue of this is not clear to me.  What is the controversy here?  You would probably even try to argue against the concept of Janus Quadrifons at Rome!!

 

You don't like Mitchell Dahood's theophoric translation of Psalm 119:151 Qarob.  So?  I didn't invent the word or the translation, nor even the wordplay with the previous verse.  Moreover, it is both Egyptian & Hebrew (Afroasiatic), as pointed out by Loprieno.  So please don't get mad at me for what Dahood has said about it.  He was a Roman Catholic priest and professor at the Gregorian University in Rome.  He had no interest in defending Mormonism.

 

Hathor, the cow-goddess, wears the solar disk in her horns (Herodotus & Plutarch), and her boat and the boat of Sokar were drawn on sledges in a festival circuit imitating the movement of the sun   C. H. Davis even believed Hathor to be “the Sun himself with feminine attributes” (Davis, Egyptian Book of the Dead, 21).  In fact Hathor is the Sun-eye, and pilot of the sun-ship (C. Bleeker, Hathor and Thoth, 66,73,159).  Hathor is the Eye of Re, and the Eye of Re is the Sun (J. Kaster, Wings of the Falcon, 85 n. 24, 94 n. 22; Pyramid Text 765).

Thanks for answering my question about Hathor. It's too bad Joseph didn't name this God as Hathor instead of Enish-go-on-dosh which is not even an Egyptian word. As a matter of fact, let's look at Joseph's explanation of this tile in context.

Here is what he said - 

 

"Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob."

 

Granted the Hebrew words in his explanation can be close transliterations of actual Hebrew words with similar meaning but that can easily be explained by his study of the Hebrew language with Prof. Seixas. However, the Egyptian word Enish-go-on-dosh is unidentifiable and does not exist in the Egyptian language. He doesn't just say that Hathor is said by the Egyptians to be the sun but that they also say that it (the Sun) borrows it's light from Kolob. Did the Egyptians really say that? He takes a concept that the Egyptians had of Hathor being the Goddess of the dawn or Sun and extends it to her borrowing her light from some star named Kolob? He is not describing Hathor as just a representation of the Sun, he is saying that she is a governing planet that governs 15 other planets/stars. Do you contend that this is a correct translation of the God Hathor and the Egyptian understanding of this God? The rest of his explanation is pure nonsense and I will address more of it later. 

 

I've been doing some research on the word Qarob and I found that you are misrepresenting the use of this word. It has indeed been described as an epithet in Psalms 119:151. However, the word appears to be rarely used as an epithet, it is simply the context of this verse in Psalms that applies this meaning. Also the epithet of "Near-One" does not describe something and it's state of being near to God such as a planet or star. The epithet actually describes the Lord as being near to something else and in this case specifically, the psalmist. This is a subtle but very importance difference when looking at the correlation that you are attempting. And you would be hard pressed to find Mr. Dahood or anyone else for that matter stating that the word qarob in this verse would be describing anything other than the concept of the Lord being near in a spiritual and personal way whereas Joseph's use of the term "near" appears to refer to physical proximity. We can find many instances of this adjective describing many other things as "near" such as evil etc. See Judges 20:34 and Esther 10:3. So in short, your correlation just doesn't fit.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not faulting Mr. Dahood, I'm faulting your use of his research in an irresponsible way. 

 

Khnumu in this context should be a 4 headed ram God. I understand that he is sometimes represented with one head and possibly 2 but NOT NORMALLY IN THIS CONTEXT.  After viewing dozens of hypocephali which contained depictions of Khnumu, I only found 1 that was depicted with 2 heads and the quality and detail was by far inferior to the quality and detail present in facsimile 2 along with the other dozens that represented this God with 4 heads. It was as if the artist who rendered this drawing wasn't an artist at all and didn't have a good understanding of how to depict this god or any of the other figures present. He drew the heads as simple ovals with no detail as if he was in a hurry to just get it done. Regardless, my main criticism here is that this head was VERY OBVIOUSLY copied from another portion of the hypocephali with slight alterations and was incorrectly placed in this tile. You need only compare the original with the restored version and you can very easily see where the "ram horns" along with the main features came from. You can then go further and compare this to the many existing hypocephali that have this God depicted on them to see how these heads are normally drawn. The differences between them and the image in facsimile 2 is striking.

 

My comments about Joseph were implied as being limited to what I had covered in my criticisms so far as expressed in the statement "it appears that Joseph is batting JUST ABOUT 0 SO FAR". I'm not quite sure why you misunderstood that but hopefully that clears things up for you a bit. I personally would be expecting a prophet translating by the power of God to be batting about 100% at this point but that's just my opinion. Some people expect less out of their God and His prophets. I would however amend my assessment of his batting average to be maybe .010 because he sort of got one small facet of his explanation of the Goddess Hathor correct in that the Egyptians sometimes viewed her as a female representation of the Sun. 

[Robert F. Smith]

........................................................   

In my previous posts and my paper, I, too, differentiated between the two - the BoA introduction was implemented by Joseph himself and the PoGP introduction was first implemented in 1851 after Joseph's death. In fact I'll quote from my post above:

"It's interesting, also, that the BoA introduction, which was originally instituted by Joseph himself, remains unchanged in the 2013 edition, but the 2013 PoGP intro is changed to back away from the very 3 claims made in the 2013 BoA intro. It seems the church felt comfortable changing the PoGP intro which was instituted first in 1851 after Joseph's death, but didn't feel comfortable changing the BoA intro which was instituted by Joseph. To read them side by side in the 2013 edition leaves no question that the church is trying to back away from Joseph's claims."

I believe, as I've already stated, that the church probably feels uncomfortable altering the introduction that was implemented by Joseph but probably feels like it has a little more wiggle room with the PoGP introduction. I think that highlights the narrow line the church is trying to walk as I've discussed above. Is the PoGP introduction of the BoA canon? I don't think so. Is the BoA introduction canon? Maybe. It was published by Joseph and part of what was eventually canonized, but it is indeed introductory in nature rather than independently substantive. But whether either are canon is irrelevant to my point. My point is merely that the change is indicative of the fact that the church has recognized the BoA problems and is backing away from Joseph's claims in an effort to allow for alternate defenses because Joseph's claims (the three I've mentioned above) are very difficult to uphold. The fact that the church is backing away from its founders own claims should raise a red flag or at least warrant further investigation into why the change was made.

You keep purveying false information here, and I don't understand why, unless it is deliberate.

 

You say that the 1851 ed of PGP included an introduction.  False.  It included a preface, which had nothing to do with type of introductory material you are speaking to, and which did not mention the BofA.  It did have a table of contents with the same BofA heading we are speaking about.

No introduction was added to the PGP until the 1921 edition, and it did not speak of the Book of Abraham.

The first time that introduction to the PGP mentioned Abraham was in 1981.

 

As usual, you are unable to distinguish an introduction from a heading.  Most people are able to do so, unless they have an ulterior motive for not doing so.

I have no problem with anyone drawing whatever conclusions they wish about changes in introductions, and the like, and you are not the first to do so.  I only ask that you do us the courtesy of not making repeated false statements about the Mormon Canon.  Accurate terminology might help.

[Robert F. Smith]

Thanks for answering my question about Hathor. It's too bad Joseph didn't name this God as Hathor instead of Enish-go-on-dosh which is not even an Egyptian word. As a matter of fact, let's look at Joseph's explanation of this tile in context.

Here is what he said - 

 

"Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob."

 

Granted the Hebrew words in his explanation can be close transliterations of actual Hebrew words with similar meaning but that can easily be explained by his study of the Hebrew language with Prof. Seixas. However, the Egyptian word Enish-go-on-dosh is unidentifiable and does not exist in the Egyptian language. He doesn't just say that Hathor is said by the Egyptians to be the sun but that they also say that it (the Sun) borrows it's light from Kolob. Did the Egyptians really say that? He takes a concept that the Egyptians had of Hathor being the Goddess of the dawn or Sun and extends it to her borrowing her light from some star named Kolob? He is not describing Hathor as just a representation of the Sun, he is saying that she is a governing planet that governs 15 other planets/stars. Do you contend that this is a correct translation of the God Hathor and the Egyptian understanding of this God? The rest of his explanation is pure nonsense and I will address more of it later. 

 

I've been doing some research on the word Qarob and I found that you are misrepresenting the use of this word. It has indeed been described as an epithet in Psalms 119:151. However, the word appears to be rarely used as an epithet, it is simply the context of this verse in Psalms that applies this meaning. Also the epithet of "Near-One" does not describe something and it's state of being near to God such as a planet or star. The epithet actually describes the Lord as being near to something else and in this case specifically, the psalmist. This is a subtle but very importance difference when looking at the correlation that you are attempting. And you would be hard pressed to find Mr. Dahood or anyone else for that matter stating that the word qarob in this verse would be describing anything other than the concept of the Lord being near in a spiritual and personal way whereas Joseph's use of the term "near" appears to refer to physical proximity. We can find many instances of this adjective describing many other things as "near" such as evil etc. See Judges 20:34 and Esther 10:3. So in short, your correlation just doesn't fit.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not faulting Mr. Dahood, I'm faulting your use of his research in an irresponsible way. 

 

Khnumu in this context should be a 4 headed ram God. I understand that he is sometimes represented with one head and possibly 2 but NOT NORMALLY IN THIS CONTEXT.  After viewing dozens of hypocephali which contained depictions of Khnumu, I only found 1 that was depicted with 2 heads and the quality and detail was by far inferior to the quality and detail present in facsimile 2 along with the other dozens that represented this God with 4 heads. It was as if the artist who rendered this drawing wasn't an artist at all and didn't have a good understanding of how to depict this god or any of the other figures present. He drew the heads as simple ovals with no detail as if he was in a hurry to just get it done. Regardless, my main criticism here is that this head was VERY OBVIOUSLY copied from another portion of the hypocephali with slight alterations and was incorrectly placed in this tile. You need only compare the original with the restored version and you can very easily see where the "ram horns" along with the main features came from. You can then go further and compare this to the many existing hypocephali that have this God depicted on them to see how these heads are normally drawn. The differences between them and the image in facsimile 2 is striking.

 

My comments about Joseph were implied as being limited to what I had covered in my criticisms so far as expressed in the statement "it appears that Joseph is batting JUST ABOUT 0 SO FAR". I'm not quite sure why you misunderstood that but hopefully that clears things up for you a bit. I personally would be expecting a prophet translating by the power of God to be batting about 100% at this point but that's just my opinion. Some people expect less out of their God and His prophets. I would however amend my assessment of his batting average to be maybe .010 because he sort of got one small facet of his explanation of the Goddess Hathor correct in that the Egyptians sometimes viewed her as a female representation of the Sun. 

I see that your method of dealing with the cognitive dissonance you feel when shown to be poorly informed is to shift from one issue to another, as well as to soft-peddle your failure to accept standard Egyptology and standard scholarship generally in ancient Near Eastern studies.  A simple admission that you were wrong would have been appropriate in each of the above areas.  As to the batting score, that would require a fair-minded and knowledgeable umpire.  It is clear from what you have said thus far that fair judgment is the furthest thing from your mind.  I could even take one of the strange words you quote above and show you the actual etymological derivation, but since you are in automatic rejection mode why would that be worth my time.  It's a shame that you are not here for an actual discussion.  You might have learned something.

 

At least now you admit that Joseph studied Hebrew.  Now, can you tell which of the strange words in the BofA are Hebrew?  And which are not.  You equivocate on Qarob (both admitting and denying that it is authentic), and you seem unable to take Dahood at his word, once again faulting me for what he himself said.  More doublespeak sans dout.  If you are unable to make progress on clearcut issues, what chance do we have on the more complex ones?  Your choice.

[Robert F. Smith]

It seems you are conflating position with canon. I made no statement about canon, only about the introductions (which may or may not be canon). The church has indeed changed the introduction. What is the purpose of an introduction but to state what the church's understanding is of the contests? It's position in that regard has changed. This indicates that the church has changed it's position on how it views the BoA.

Let me ask you, Robert, what do you make of the change? Do you agree that the change is different in that it backs away from the three things (which I've repeated above) that every other introduction claimed? What do you think is the significance, if any, of that? Why would the church change it without having some reason to do so?

What I recommend to you is to read the views on this same issue by David Bokovoy (he pretty much takes your pov) and the very interesting discussion which follows, at http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-1/ , and http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-2/ .

 

Some of that discussion also took place on this discussion board, and I expressed my opinion at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60238 the book of abraham an end to the apologetic war pt 1/page__pid__1209237003__st__100#entry1209237003 .

[bcuzbcuz]

Sure. Here's the 2013 BoA introduction. It has been the same since it was first published in 1842 except that "purporting to be" inserted before "the writings of Abraham" was removed in 1878:

"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catacombs of Egypt, the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

Here's the 2013 PoGP introduction of the BoA:

"An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois."

Why has the introduction changed to the plural in referring to the papyrus, calling them now papyri?

[TruthSeeker2013]

If the information is included in one of the intros, why should it matter if it isn't included in the other?

 

And you only posted the 2013 versions, do you have the other version that is different, the intro to the PoGP so we can see for ourselves what has been changed please.

Sure. Here's the chronology (this is all in my paper):

1851 (first edition) editions until 1878 edition:

"A Translation Of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus. Translated from the papyrus by Joseph Smith." http://www.thebookofabraham.info/PGP%201851.pdf

1878 editions until 1981 edition:

"The Book of Abraham, A Translation Of some Ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the Catacombs of Egypt, the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. Translated from the papyrus by Joseph Smith." http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=LGkTGPfxit4C&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&pg=GBS.PP11

1981 edition until 2013:

"The Book of Abraham. A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. See History of the Church, vol. 4, pp. 519-534." http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/pgp/introduction

2013:

"The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois." http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/introduction?lang=eng

Edited November 24, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[TruthSeeker2013]

You keep purveying false information here, and I don't understand why, unless it is deliberate.

 

You say that the 1851 ed of PGP included an introduction.  False.  It included a preface, which had nothing to do with type of introductory material you are speaking to, and which did not mention the BofA.  It did have a table of contents with the same BofA heading we are speaking about.

No introduction was added to the PGP until the 1921 edition, and it did not speak of the Book of Abraham.

The first time that introduction to the PGP mentioned Abraham was in 1981.

 

As usual, you are unable to distinguish an introduction from a heading.  Most people are able to do so, unless they have an ulterior motive for not doing so.

I have no problem with anyone drawing whatever conclusions they wish about changes in introductions, and the like, and you are not the first to do so.  I only ask that you do us the courtesy of not making repeated false statements about the Mormon Canon.  Accurate terminology might help.

Robert, I fail to see the relevance of what the introduction is labeled as. What I call "introductions" are what appear at the beginning of every PoGP. True, from 1851 to 1981 it appears under "Contents," from 1981 to 2013 it appears under "Introductory Note" and in 2013 it appears under "Introduction." But what's the relevance of these labels? It's the content of the introduction that's important. I call it an "introduction" in every edition because that's what it is. What relevance do you see in these labels?

[Jude2]

The Book of Abraham has destroyed my testimony of traditional Mormonism.

 

I’ve had the complete opposite reaction;  

 

“And it came to pass that the priest made an offering unto the god of Pharaoh (crocodile) and also unto the god of Shagreel, even after the manner of the Egyptians. Now the god of Shagreel was the sun.” Abraham 1:9

 

 

“….One of the masterpieces displayed in the Luxor Museum is a calcite pair statue showing King Amenhotep III (c.1391–1353 bc) embraced by the crocodile god ‘Sobek-Ra, Lord of Sumenu’.  The seven-ton statue was found in a sealed pit in Dahamsha (ancient Sumenu) in ad 1967.….Sobek-Ra was an entity who combined the essence of two deities: the crocodile god and the sun god. This dual god is depicted as part animal to convey his strange and awesome divine powers. In particular, he has the strength, cunning, and longevity of the crocodile and power over the life-giving waters of the Nile. The solar disc in the headdress conveys that Ra, god of life-giving light, is manifesting himself in his form of Sobek. He is depicted as part human to allow him to interact with the king and offer him the ankh, the symbol of life. The statue group is intended to show, and by showing to bring about, the desired loving relationship between the king, representing humanity, and Sobek-Ra, representing the gods.” 

 

http://symbolankh.devhub.com/blog/805663-sobek-ra/

 

How did Joseph hit that so dead on right? 

[TruthSeeker2013]

Why has the introduction changed to the plural in referring to the papyrus, calling them now papyri?

I read it as "records" being the same as "papyri," so it doesn't look like a change to me. It seems to me that the reference to papyrus in the pre-2013 introductions is only to indicate that Abraham literally wrote on the material that is papyrus.

[TruthSeeker2013]

What I recommend to you is to read the views on this same issue by David Bokovoy (he pretty much takes your pov) and the very interesting discussion which follows, at http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-1/ , and http://www.withoutend.org/book-abraham-apologetic-war-pt-2/ .

 

Some of that discussion also took place on this discussion board, and I expressed my opinion at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60238 the book of abraham an end to the apologetic war pt 1/page__pid__1209237003__st__100#entry1209237003 .

Thanks for the links. I take some time to read through them and try to respond.

[bcuzbcuz]

I read it as "records" being the same as "papyri," so it doesn't look like a change to me. It seems to me that the reference to papyrus in the pre-2013 introductions is only to indicate that Abraham literally wrote on the material that is papyrus.

Thank you, I enjoy reading your posts.

[TruthSeeker2013]

I’ve had the complete opposite reaction;

“And it came to pass that the priest made an offering unto the god of Pharaoh (crocodile) and also unto the god of Shagreel, even after the manner of the Egyptians. Now the god of Shagreel was the sun.” Abraham 1:9

“….One of the masterpieces displayed in the Luxor Museum is a calcite pair statue showing King Amenhotep III (c.1391–1353 bc) embraced by the crocodile god ‘Sobek-Ra, Lord of Sumenu’. The seven-ton statue was found in a sealed pit in Dahamsha (ancient Sumenu) in ad 1967.….Sobek-Ra was an entity who combined the essence of two deities: the crocodile god and the sun god. This dual god is depicted as part animal to convey his strange and awesome divine powers. In particular, he has the strength, cunning, and longevity of the crocodile and power over the life-giving waters of the Nile. The solar disc in the headdress conveys that Ra, god of life-giving light, is manifesting himself in his form of Sobek. He is depicted as part human to allow him to interact with the king and offer him the ankh, the symbol of life. The statue group is intended to show, and by showing to bring about, the desired loving relationship between the king, representing humanity, and Sobek-Ra, representing the gods.”

http://symbolankh.devhub.com/blog/805663-sobek-ra/

How did Joseph hit that so dead on right?

Here's my initial reaction: Joseph identified the crocodile in Facsimile 1 as the "the idolatrous God of Pharaoh." But this is wrong, it actually should be the god "Horus." Then Joseph messes up again in identifying "a god of Shagreel" which doesn't exist. Then he messes up a third time by saying that the god of Shagreel was the sun. It's not clear if he's referring to a sun god or not but in any case the sun god is Ra. So the verse says that the priest made an offering unto the God of Pharoah (which he identifies as a crocodile, which is wrong), and unto the sun (which he identifies as the "god of Shagreel" but Shagreel doesn't exist and the god of the sun is Ra).

So now we find a combined God of the sun God Sobek (never mentioned by Joseph) and Ra (never mentioned by Joseph). 1:9 never mentions a combined diety, only that the priest offered offerings to both Gods, so why does this seem to be a hit at all?

In any case, by odds alone Joseph is going to have some "hits." Just as we can find chiasmus and hebrewisms in Green Eggs and Ham and Jane Eyre. But the fact remains that nearly everything Joseph translated is completely incorrect. Yes, there may be some parallels here and there as there are with everything, but his translations are simply wrong.

Or, suppose Joseph did get some things completely right. Let suppose for arguments sake that even 1/10 of his translations were DEAD ON. Even if that was the case then Joseph still somehow got the other 9/10 wrong without realizing it and also was mistaken that the papyri actually contained Abraham's handwriting and signature. So if Joseph can be confusing his own imagination with revelation, then isn't everything else he produced and claimed to be "revelation" put into question?

Edited November 24, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[Jude2]

Here's my initial reaction: Joseph identified the crocodile in Facsimile 1 as the "the idolatrous God of Pharaoh." But this is wrong, it actually should be the god "Horus." 

 

You think that funny crawly thing is a bird? Talk about being totally blinded by what you what to see. 

[TruthSeeker2013]

You think that funny crawly thing is a bird? Talk about being totally blinded by what you what to see.

Jude, I'd ask you, like I asked Robert, to refrain from personal attacks. I have not attacked you and I ask that you offer me the same respect. It does not strengthen your argument. I'm surprised by how frequent these personal attacks occur on this board where I'm assuming mostly Mormons are posting. It seems to be the opposite of how Mormons treat each other in person.

In assuming you are referring to Figure 9 in facsimile 1 which does indeed depict a crocodile. While the crocodile is usually Sobek, non-mormon LDS Egyptologist Klaus Baer and Mormon Egyptologist Stephen Thompson identify it as Horus.

"Stephen E. Thompson, professor of Egyptology at Brown University and member of the LDS Church, identifies this crocodile as represesenting the god Horus.7 While Sobek is often portrayed in the form of a crocodile, (see this link on Sobek) in the case of this re-enactment of the Osiris-myth, it would be more appropriate to identify this figure as Horus. As Klaus Baer noted:

"The versions of the Osiris myth differ in telling how Seth disposed of Osiris after murdering him, but he was commonly believed to have cut Osiris into little pieces, which he scattered into the Nile, leaving Isis the task of fishing out and assembling the parts of her brother and husband so that he could be resurrected and beget Horus. In this she was helped by Horus in the shape of a crocodile, who is represented in the water (the zigzags) below the vignette....8

"Möller... discusses the occasionally attested practice of having a small (and prudently muzzled) crocodile swim alongside the boat carrying the mummy across the Nile to the cemetery."9"

http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_6.html

As for the other arguments I made, do you have a counter?

[wenglund]

I've tried to be more than accommodating by referring you to certain parts of my paper. But unless you read it and can give me specifics we're left playing a game of you not knowing fully what I've written and me not knowing what you're trying to get at with your questions. Can you please read my paper and then tell me directly what you're trying to say. It seems like it would save time, and avoid guesswork on both our parts.

 

I will commit to reading your entire paper on condition that you first answer the questions that I have asked. No more games or guesswork.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[TruthSeeker2013]

I will commit to reading your entire paper on condition that you first answer the questions that I have asked. No more games or guesswork.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, I'm not willing to do that right now. The questions are too vague and I am also not interested in answering a list of questions with no idea of what you're getting at, especially if it's something I've already covered in my paper and thus would be a waste of time. If you have a point, please make it and explain your support for it. If you would prefer not to then that's ok too.

[volgadon]

A good discussion. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/58056-raukeeyang-made-up/?hl=raukeeyang

[volgadon]

 

There is. As one example, there is a Rabbinic statement explicitly identifying the iconography of Sarapis with Joseph the Patriarch, and that of Isis with Eve, the mother of all living.

 

 

 

 

Great picture. Where is it from and what dates have been attached to it?

 

 

That particular one is from teh Catacombs. There wasn't a picture of the Naaran synagogue, which is what I was really looking for. The orans position has never been in dispute as the typical jewish prayer position of Antiquity. http://books.google.com/books?id=oD2vKMCu_JgC&pg=PA229&dq=orans+position+jewish&hl=en&sa=X&ei=04SSUob2FImsrgGXjICgBQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=orans%20position%20jewish&f=false

[wenglund]

Sorry, I'm not willing to do that right now. The questions are too vague and I am also not interested in answering a list of questions with no idea of what you're getting at, especially if it's something I've already covered in my paper and thus would be a waste of time. If you have a point, please make it and explain your support for it. If you would prefer not to then that's ok too.

 

I appreciate you letting me know that you are unwilling to agree to my terms. As I see it, and have gathered from reading the pertinent portion of your paper, I found little or no indication that you have sufficient in-depth familiarity with KEP documents to allow for a productive exchange, and so until your are able and willing to answer my exploritory questions, further discussion would be a waste of my time. To each their own.

 

Looks like I am done with this thread.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 24, 2013 by wenglund

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert, I fail to see the relevance of what the introduction is labeled as. What I call "introductions" are what appear at the beginning of every PoGP. True, from 1851 to 1981 it appears under "Contents," from 1981 to 2013 it appears under "Introductory Note" and in 2013 it appears under "Introduction." But what's the relevance of these labels? It's the content of the introduction that's important. I call it an "introduction" in every edition because that's what it is. What relevance do you see in these labels?

As I have stated repeatedly, and as you very well know, you deliberately term the headings as introductions so as to obfuscate.  Books which have introductions normally label them as such, or at least they actually function in that way.  There was never an introduction to the Pearl of Great Price until 1921, and it did not then mention the BofA.  You have deliberately taken two separate items and conflated them.  One is an integral part of the Book of Abraham, and the other (1981 and 2013) is completely separate from the BofA "heading," and actually termed an "introduction."  This is plain and easily understood.  Anyone with a sense of propriety would see that and acknowledge it.

 

Without that understanding and perspective, people can become victim to a very misleading impression of what is in fact taking place.  In this case, your skewed data and inappropriate emphasis constitute chicanery.

 

It's called playing fair, "TruthSeeker."  Most people understand what that means.