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

[Robert F. Smith]

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

And the Zoramites follow the same practice individually on their Rame-ˁomdam (Rameumptom) "Holy-stand/"

[Calm]

"non-Mormon LDS" as in

non-mormon LDS Egyptologist Klaus Baer

That's a new one.

Edited November 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

What is astonishing here, "TruthSeeker," is that you speak so authoritatively about something you completely misunderstand, and about which you have not done adequate reading or study.  This leads you again and again to make absolute declarations which are false.  When the falsehood is pointed out to you, you are not even embarrassed, and merely go on to make even more specious declarations of imaginary fact.  Thus, you declare with certainty that Ra is the only sun-god, casting aside over a century of Egyptology.  The ancient Egyptians would have been puzzled by your either-or world of simple one-to-one correspondences, because they do not apply in ancient Egypt.  

 

Manfred Lurker (An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt), 66-67, can help us make sense of Horus:  in cippi of Horus, Horus stood on a crocodile [his vahana], while at Edfu he “was venerated in the image of the winged disc,” at Kom Ombo he was the son of Re, and “bore the name of Haroeris,” and at “Heliopolis, . . he was regarded as the god of the morning sun under the name of Re-Herakhty.”  In other words, Horus is a sun-god.  Each pharaoh was Horus incarnate.

 

pp. 117-118, Sobek or Suchos “means ‘crocodile,’ and 13th dynasty “rulers incorporated his name in theirs,” some of the images of Sobek carrying falcon heads, showing the close relationship between Sobek and royal Horus.  “A further identification with Re led to a form of the crocodile with the solar disc on its head.  The Greeks generally depicted Suchos as Helios with a halo of rays and the attribute of a crocodile in his hand.”

 

Shagreel is most likely proto-Hebrew *Šaǵarey-’El "Gates-of-El (the Horizon)," which is similar to Moabite šʿryh = šaʿrê-ha “Her gates” (Mesha Stele 2), both in the construct state, the ordinary plural being the Hebrew toponym  Šaʿarayim “The Two Gates” (I Sam 17:52, I Chron 4:31), which is now known to be Khirbet Qayafa.  Cf. also Hebrew haša‘ar laYHWH "the gate of the LORD" (Ps 118:20); same word as Egyptian syllabic ša-ʿa-ra “gate” (Papyrus Amherst 4,3).

 

Of course, these celestial gates or pylons are symbolized by the doors of earthly temples and shrines which are opened by the priests (J. Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, 36, 48)., and the sun rises between them in the horizon as Re-Harakhty “Re-Horus-of-the-Horizon.”

 

However, there is in fact an Ugaritic god named Šgr (Baal Cycle, tablet 5 [KTU 1.5], III:16-17, and CAT 1.148.31), in Simon Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (SBL/Scholars Press, 1997), 145, n. 164.

 

The upshot is that you must deliberately misread Abraham 1:1-20 as taking place inside Egypt, when it clearly states that it is taking place within the land of Ur of Chaldea (i.e., North Syria/North Mesopotamia), in order to perpetrate your hoax of one single priest, and only Egyptian gods (1:12 priests), in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  You can only obtain credible information from a text by reading it in a straightforward and reasonable way.

[Calm]

 

 

pp. 117-118, Sobek or Suchos “means ‘crocodile,’ and 13th dynasty “rulers incorporated his name in theirs,” some of the images of Sobek carrying falcon heads, showing the close relationship between Sobek and royal Horus.  “A further identification with Re led to a form of the crocodile with the solar disc on its head.  The Greeks generally depicted Suchos as Helios with a halo of rays and the attribute of a crocodile in his hand.”

 

Reminded me of this:

 

 

and found this picture that is too big so just visit the link

http://www.john-howe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/7A-Horus-Sobek-port.jpg

Edited November 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[drums12]

Not to derail this thread, but I'm a novice when it comes to the Book of Abraham and the arguments surrounding it.  I've tried reading the "long explanation" on the fairmormon website but it seems fragmented and hard to follow (at least for my brain).  Where can I find a fairly objective (I realize complete objectivity is impossible) outline of the issues in layman's terms?  Kind of like a "Book of Abraham for dummies?" 

[cognitiveharmony]

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.

i think that we are probably about done with this discussion as you repeatedly show that you are unable to follow even the simplest of conversations. In each of the cases above that you would like me to admit that I was wrong, I made no claims against what you said, I either simply asked you for a source or asked you to explain something as I'm not an expert in this field. Your response about Hathor showed that you were correct on that one point of which I asked you to explain. You responded with a source for the word qarob being an epithet and I looked up the source and found that you were misrepresenting not only the source, but also the correlation to the epithet. The epithet was VERY CLEARLY represented by Dahood to be an epithet for GOD being near to us. NOT something being near to GOD SUCH AS A PLANET OR STAR and could in no way be correlated in this manner as you suggested. You know this. Yet you chose to misrepresent Dahood. You have no desire to answer any of my criticisms and have resorted repeatedly to ad hominem attacks such as calling me "cognitivedissonance" as you know that the more I research your sources and what you present, the more it falls apart. I never claimed that Joseph didn't study Hebrew. I've known that for quite some time. I'm also aware of many of the words that he used in his "translation" are his poor transliterations of Hebrew words that actually correspond somewhat with the meaning that he ascribes. This would actually be more of an argument against him in my opinion but that is subjective. But you take specific words that aren't Hebrew and don't have any correlation in Hebrew such as Kolob and Elkenah and simply try to transliterate them into something that they are not. These "made up" words along with his imaginary Egyptian words that HE HIMSELF identifies as Egyptian are serious blows to any apologetics regarding his "translations". Yet you are trying to lump them in with the more benign words such as Kae-e-vanrash. If you have no intention of answering any of my criticisms I see no need to proceed with this. Anybody who loves a church more than truth deserves that church. 

 

I will end with this however. You keep saying that I'm not an expert so my criticisms don't count...yet you won't even answer my criticisms of Joseph's representations of Khnumu. So I'll say it yet again....

 

Please submit your paper for PEER REVIEW!!!! Try to get it published in a reputable JOURNAL!!!! I have a feeling that you have no interest in this whatsoever because then you won't be able to sling your condescending "you're not an expert so I don't have to answer to you" junk around when they call you out on all of the logical fallacies and misrepresentations of sources. You've done Nibley proud.

Edited November 25, 2013 by cognitiveharmony

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

Please submit your paper for PEER REVIEW!!!!

Everyone knows that this is the source of all truth. If it is peer reviewed it is true. If it is not it is false. Golly that was so easy.

 

Anyway it was a fun thread. Learned some new things.

Edited November 25, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[volgadon]

i think that we are probably about done with this discussion as you repeatedly show that you are unable to follow even the simplest of conversations. In each of the cases above that you would like me to admit that I was wrong, I made no claims against what you said, I either simply asked you for a source or asked you to explain something as I'm not an expert in this field. Your response about Hathor showed that you were correct on that one point of which I asked you to explain. You responded with a source for the word qarob being an epithet and I looked up the source and found that you were misrepresenting not only the source, but also the correlation to the epithet. The epithet was VERY CLEARLY represented by Dahood to be an epithet for GOD being near to us. NOT something being near to GOD SUCH AS A PLANET OR STAR and could in no way be correlated in this manner as you suggested. You know this. Yet you chose to misrepresent Dahood. You have no desire to answer any of my criticisms and have resorted repeatedly to ad hominem attacks such as calling me "cognitivedissonance" as you know that the more I research your sources and what you present, the more it falls apart. I never claimed that Joseph didn't study Hebrew. I've known that for quite some time. I'm also aware of many of the words that he used in his "translation" are his poor transliterations of Hebrew words that actually correspond somewhat with the meaning that he ascribes. This would actually be more of an argument against him in my opinion but that is subjective. But you take specific words that aren't Hebrew and don't have any correlation in Hebrew such as Kolob and Elkenah and simply try to transliterate them into something that they are not. These "made up" words along with his imaginary Egyptian words that HE HIMSELF identifies as Egyptian are serious blows to any apologetics regarding his "translations". Yet you are trying to lump them in with the more benign words such as Kae-e-vanrash. If you have no intention of answering any of my criticisms I see no need to proceed with this. Anybody who loves a church more than truth deserves that church. 

 

I will end with this however. You keep saying that I'm not an expert so my criticisms don't count...yet you won't even answer my criticisms of Joseph's representations of Khnumu. So I'll say it yet again....

 

 

 

Actually, in Sefer Yetzirah there are two forms of "R," one stressed, one unstressed. The latter would have sounded somewhat similar to an "L." Also, the transliterations aren't poor, they follow then-contemporary conventions. You also ignored the reference which I provided on iconotropy.

 

Please submit your paper for PEER REVIEW!!!! Try to get it published in a reputable JOURNAL!!!! I have a feeling that you have no interest in this whatsoever because then you won't be able to sling your condescending "you're not an expert so I don't have to answer to you" junk around when they call you out on all of the logical fallacies and misrepresentations of sources. You've done Nibley proud.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

[cdowis]

 

Manfred Lurker (An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt), 66-67, can help us make sense of Horus:  in cippi of Horus, Horus stood on a crocodile [his vahana], while at Edfu he “was venerated in the image of the winged disc,” at Kom Ombo he was the son of Re, and “bore the name of Haroeris,” and at “Heliopolis, . . he was regarded as the god of the morning sun under the name of Re-Herakhty.”  In other words, Horus is a sun-god.  Each pharaoh was Horus incarnate.

 

pp. 117-118, Sobek or Suchos “means ‘crocodile,’ and 13th dynasty “rulers incorporated his name in theirs,” some of the images of Sobek carrying falcon heads, showing the close relationship between Sobek and royal Horus.  “A further identification with Re led to a form of the crocodile with the solar disc on its head.  The Greeks generally depicted Suchos as Helios with a halo of rays and the attribute of a crocodile in his hand.”

 

Shagreel is most likely proto-Hebrew *Šaǵarey-’El "Gates-of-El (the Horizon)," which is similar to Moabite šʿryh = šaʿrê-ha “Her gates” (Mesha Stele 2), both in the construct state, the ordinary plural being the Hebrew toponym  Šaʿarayim “The Two Gates” (I Sam 17:52, I Chron 4:31), which is now known to be Khirbet Qayafa.  Cf. also Hebrew haša‘ar laYHWH "the gate of the LORD" (Ps 118:20); same word as Egyptian syllabic ša-ʿa-ra “gate” (Papyrus Amherst 4,3).

 

Of course, these celestial gates or pylons are symbolized by the doors of earthly temples and shrines which are opened by the priests (J. Assmann, The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, 36, 48)., and the sun rises between them in the horizon as Re-Harakhty “Re-Horus-of-the-Horizon.”

 

However, there is in fact an Ugaritic god named Šgr (Baal Cycle, tablet 5 [KTU 1.5], III:16-17, and CAT 1.148.31), in Simon Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (SBL/Scholars Press, 1997), 145, n. 164.

 

 

 

If I remember correctly, Nibley gives the opinion that the name of the god is NOT pharaoh, or shagreel, but these are the names of individuals who worshipped the particular gods (which are unnamed).  "Of pharaoh" denotes "belonging to", or "worshipped by". 

 

Assuming my memory is correct, this would seem to resolve the issue.

[volgadon]

The epithet was VERY CLEARLY represented by Dahood to be an epithet for GOD being near to us. NOT something being near to GOD SUCH AS A PLANET OR STAR and could in no way be correlated in this manner as you suggested. You know this. Yet you chose to misrepresent Dahood.

 

 

What role do the celestial bodies play in Genesis 1?

[TruthSeeker2013]

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.

You say, "[w]ithout that understanding and perspective, people can become victim to a very misleading impression of what is in fact taking place." How so? I again ask what the relevance is? It's labeled as "Contents" for some years and later as "Introduction." Why does the label matter? Isn't it the substance of what follows that is important? I've pointed out in multiple posts now that the heading (as you term it) at the beginning of the PoGP is one thing and the Book of Abraham introduction is another thing. I've also pointed out, in multiple posts now, that the heading (as you term it) at the beginning of the PoGP was not instituted until 1851, after Joseph's death, so clearly it wasn't written by him and is probably not canon. I've also pointed out that I'm not even sure if the Book of Abraham introduction, which appeared in the manuscript and Joseph's publication of it, is canon. Seriously, how is calling the label "Contents" or "Introduction" the "Pearl of Great Price Introduction to the Book of Abraham" misleading? What does it communicate that isn't "playing fair" and that can lead people to "become victim to a very misleading impression of what is in fact taking place." I don't get it. Does anyone else understanding what Robert is getting at?

[omni]

You say, "[w]ithout that understanding and perspective, people can become victim to a very misleading impression of what is in fact taking place." How so? I again ask what the relevance is? It's labeled as "Contents" for some years and later as "Introduction." Why does the label matter? Isn't it the substance of what follows that is important? I've pointed out in multiple posts now that the heading (as you term it) at the beginning of the PoGP is one thing and the Book of Abraham introduction is another thing. I've also pointed out, in multiple posts now, that the heading (as you term it) at the beginning of the PoGP was not instituted until 1851, after Joseph's death, so clearly it wasn't written by him and is probably not canon. I've also pointed out that I'm not even sure if the Book of Abraham introduction, which appeared in the manuscript and Joseph's publication of it, is canon. Seriously, how is calling the label "Contents" or "Introduction" the "Pearl of Great Price Introduction to the Book of Abraham" misleading? What does it communicate that isn't "playing fair" and that can lead people to "become victim to a very misleading impression of what is in fact taking place." I don't get it. Does anyone else understanding what Robert is getting at?

 

I think we are playing semantics here, you are correct that what matters is the content since you never claimed that the change was canonical scripture like the introduction.  IMHO, it would be obvious to a reasonable observer why the church changed the heading; to allow for a belief in the catalyst theory or a more traditional translation.  

 

I still haven't seen a response as to why the church changed the heading.  These headings aren't done nilly-willy, but with much thought and prayer.  There was obviously some meaning behind the change.

[Robert F. Smith]

My paper: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tz1iy4q7w39wvor/The%20Book%20of%20Abraham%20Criticisms%20Defenses%20and%20Implications.pdf

I have found the Book of Abraham criticisms and defenses to be relatively complex and difficult to understand without visual aids. To solve these problems, I put together my own paper on the Book of Abraham. It includes 37 visual aids, and covers 6 main topics:

1. The Papyri's Age Proves That it Cannot Contain Abraham's Writing as Joseph Claimed

2. Joseph's Translation of the Facsimiles was Incorrect

3. The Church Proposes New Theories to Defend the Book of Abraham

4. The Missing Papyrus Theory Fails

5. The Catalyst Theory Fails

6. The Church Has Revised History in an Attempt to Minimize the Devastating Implications of the Book of Abraham

I would love your thoughts on my paper. What could I do to make it better?

It could be made much better and more interesting by giving a fair hearing to the other points of view, i.e., by actually arraying the best arguments on both sides of the debate.  That doesn't mean you can't come down on one side or the other during the debate, but any conclusions reached are always more interesting and convincing when the umpire is evenhanded and fair.   I'd say the same of the very one-sided MormonThink Blog.

 

Did I get anything wrong? Any and all criticism is welcome!

 

The visual aids are excellent and were reminiscent of some of the best illustrations on this board by Kevin Graham. Too bad that they were not accompanied by a professional and dispassionate description according to standard Egyptology. Wider reading and experience might help in providing that sort of analysis. 

As it stands, the piece is designed as a hatchet job on Joseph Smith and the LDS Church, often via hearsay and gigantic leaps in logic about what Joseph said or didn't say, as well as about what the KEP do and don't mean -- but also due to the kind of either-or conclusions which are foreign to ancient Egyptian thought, and which I have covered on this thread to some extent (as well as in my own "Brief Assessment of the Book of Abraham").

This 62-page piece often makes false statements, such as that the 1912 "jury" consisted of Egyptologists, even though some of them were not. I see no problem with some of them being experts in other areas of ancient Near Eastern lore (also applicable to the BofA), but their actual qualifications should be correctly reflected. Indeed, it would stand "TruthSeeker" in good stead if he would own up to the fact that most of them were deeply prejudiced and gave unnecessarily short-shrift to Joseph's claims. As a much wiser Egyptologist (John A. Wilson) stated many years later, the comments of the 1912 "jury" were really "indignant snorts." Most of it had no value (Wilson, Thousands of Years, 176.).

 

Edited November 26, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

TruthSeeker2013, on 25 Nov 2013 - 4:31 PM, said:

You say, "[w]ithout that understanding and perspective, people can become victim to a very misleading impression of what is in fact taking place." How so? I again ask what the relevance is? It's labeled as "Contents" for some years and later as "Introduction." Why does the label matter? Isn't it the substance of what follows that is important? I've pointed out in multiple posts now that the heading (as you term it) at the beginning of the PoGP is one thing and the Book of Abraham introduction is another thing. I've also pointed out, in multiple posts now, that the heading (as you term it) at the beginning of the PoGP was not instituted until 1851, after Joseph's death, so clearly it wasn't written by him and is probably not canon. I've also pointed out that I'm not even sure if the Book of Abraham introduction, which appeared in the manuscript and Joseph's publication of it, is canon. Seriously, how is calling the label "Contents" or "Introduction" the "Pearl of Great Price Introduction to the Book of Abraham" misleading? What does it communicate that isn't "playing fair" and that can lead people to "become victim to a very misleading impression of what is in fact taking place." I don't get it. Does anyone else understanding what Robert is getting at?

 

I think we are playing semantics here, you are correct that what matters is the content since you never claimed that the change was canonical scripture like the introduction.  IMHO, it would be obvious to a reasonable observer why the church changed the heading; to allow for a belief in the catalyst theory or a more traditional translation.  

 

I still haven't seen a response as to why the church changed the heading.  These headings aren't done nilly-willy, but with much thought and prayer.  There was obviously some meaning behind the change.

This is a good an indication, omni, as we are likely to get, with you now speaking of the "heading" as having been changed, when it has not been changed. The actual PGP "introduction" now really contains no more than a shortened version of the table of contents, and that is probably the real reason it was changed -- to shorten it -- since the heading on the first page of text of the Book of Abraham retains the traditional, full description. All of TruthSeeker's long and convoluted discussion in his paper is dedicated to overlooking that simple explanation in the way that Kremlin watchers used to interpret the slightest change in behavior as indicative of some major shift (during the Cold War). Some of that is just so silly.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

You say, "[w]ithout that understanding and perspective, people can become victim to a very misleading impression of what is in fact taking place." How so? I again ask what the relevance is? It's labeled as "Contents" for some years and later as "Introduction." Why does the label matter? Isn't it the substance of what follows that is important? I've pointed out in multiple posts now that  it) at the beginning of the PoGP is one thing and the Book of Abraham introduction is another thing. I've also pointed out, in multiple posts now, that the heading (as you term it) at the beginning of the PoGP was not instituted until 1851, after Joseph's death, so clearly it wasn't written by him and is probably not canon. I've also pointed out that I'm not even sure if the Book of Abraham introduction, which appeared in the manuscript and Joseph's publication of it, is canon. Seriously, how is calling the label "Contents" or "Introduction" the "Pearl of Great Price Introduction to the Book of Abraham" misleading? What does it communicate that isn't "playing fair" and that can lead people to "become victim to a very misleading impression of what is in fact taking place." I don't get it. Does anyone else understanding what Robert is getting at?

It is false to say that "the heading (as you term it) at the beginning of the PoGP . . ," simply because headings are placed over the text, and introductions are separated from the text -- usually at the beginning of a book, as in the beginning of the PGP.

 

What you are saying here only points up the degree of confusion that you (and now omni) are subject to.  A college English teacher might give us good third party arbitration on your continual and deliberate failure to use proper terminology.  Headings are always on the very page in which the material referred to is contained, and are usually at the top or head of the column or columns referred to.  Introductions are always separated by several pages from the actual text of a book or pamphlet.  I suggest you go to a bookstore or library and examine a random selection of books to see how they are organized.  Ask some people you trust what the "introduction" is (hint:  It is usually labeled as such), and also ask them what headings are.

 

I believe that you conflate those terms on purpose so as to confuse unwary readers and thus to flim-flam them.  Since the PGP introduction is really just a shortened table of contents when it comes to the description of the book, I see no major message coming from any LDS authorities, and I doubt that they are even aware that you are going on and on about their imaginary machinations.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

i think that we are probably about done with this discussion as you repeatedly show that you are unable to follow even the simplest of conversations. In each of the cases above that you would like me to admit that I was wrong, I made no claims against what you said, I either simply asked you for a source or asked you to explain something as I'm not an expert in this field. Your response about Hathor showed that you were correct on that one point of which I asked you to explain. You responded with a source for the word qarob being an epithet and I looked up the source and found that you were misrepresenting not only the source, but also the correlation to the epithet. The epithet was VERY CLEARLY represented by Dahood to be an epithet for GOD being near to us. NOT something being near to GOD SUCH AS A PLANET OR STAR and could in no way be correlated in this manner as you suggested. You know this. Yet you chose to misrepresent Dahood.

You claimed that Kolob was a made-up word  In response I cited reliable sources showing it to be an excellent Afroasiatic name or epithet for God. You seem to accept that much. But I did not make any further claims about what Dahood said about it, and I most certainly did not misrepresent him -- you cannot quote me doing so.

 

You have no desire to answer any of my criticisms and have resorted repeatedly to ad hominem attacks such as calling me "cognitivedissonance" as you know that the more I research your sources and what you present, the more it falls apart. I never claimed that Joseph didn't study Hebrew. I've known that for quite some time. I'm also aware of many of the words that he used in his "translation" are his poor transliterations of Hebrew words that actually correspond somewhat with the meaning that he ascribes. This would actually be more of an argument against him in my opinion but that is subjective. But you take specific words that aren't Hebrew and don't have any correlation in Hebrew such as Kolob and Elkenah and simply try to transliterate them into something that they are not.

Here again I provided actual Hebrew words and their multiple sources, and you automatically reject them as "made-up." Why? Did you bother to consult a Hebrew teacher in a local college or university? Reminds me of anti-Mormon Fawn Brodie declaring falsely in her famous book that "Nauvoo" was not a Hebrew word, only to remove that false claim in her second edition.

 

You say that you have known for some time that Joseph studied Hebrew.  Why then do you go on to speak falsely of Joseph's "poor transliterations of Hebrew words"?  If you know about his study under Joshua Seixas in Kirtland, then you would also know that all of those "poor transliterations" (including Nauvoo) are actually accurate transliterations according to Sephardic Jewish norms.  They were in the book!!

 

These "made up" words along with his imaginary Egyptian words that HE HIMSELF identifies as Egyptian are serious blows to any apologetics regarding his "translations". Yet you are trying to lump them in with the more benign words such as Kae-e-vanrash. If you have no intention of answering any of my criticisms I see no need to proceed with this. Anybody who loves a church more than truth deserves that church. 

Since you mention Kae-e-vanrash, which is used in Fac 2:5 to refer to the “grand key” or “governing power,” it appears to be a Sephardic transliteration of hypothetical Hebrew *K^e-ʼeban-raš ➔ *K^e-ʼeben-roʼš, “The-very-capstone, corner-stone; the-capstone, corner-stone, keystone” (cf. NAB Mark 12:10 = Psalm 118:22 ∥Acts 4:11; Zechariah 4:7), with emphatic prefix, kaph veritatis.  The rash is proto-Hebraic and likely pre-Amarna, later becoming rosh.

 

I will end with this however. You keep saying that I'm not an expert so my criticisms don't count...yet you won't even answer my criticisms of Joseph's representations of Khnumu. So I'll say it yet again....

 

Please submit your paper for PEER REVIEW!!!! Try to get it published in a reputable JOURNAL!!!! I have a feeling that you have no interest in this whatsoever because then you won't be able to sling your condescending "you're not an expert so I don't have to answer to you" junk around when they call you out on all of the logical fallacies and misrepresentations of sources. You've done Nibley proud.

I did not say the quotation you attribute to me.

You don't need to be an expert, but a little humility would go far toward helping allay your misplaced anger -- that all of your claims here have been demonstrably false. You should accept that with good grace.  Accurate information can't hurt you, and (due to your anonymity) you are suffering no public embarrassment.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Jude2]

You don't need to be an expert, but a little humility would go far toward helping allay your misplaced anger -- that all of your claims here have been demonstrably false. You should accept that with good grace.  Accurate information can't hurt you, and (due to your anonymity) you are suffering no public embarrassment.

He did ask us for a review! 

[bcuzbcuz]

It could be made much better and more interesting by giving a fair hearing to the other points of view, i.e., by actually arraying the best arguments on both sides of the debate.  That doesn't mean you can't come down on one side or the other during the debate, but any conclusions reached are always more interesting and convincing when the umpire is evenhanded and fair.   I'd say the same of the very one-sided MormonThink Blog.

 

 

The visual aids are excellent and were reminiscent of some of the best illustrations on this board by Kevin Graham. Too bad that they were not accompanied by a professional and dispassionate description according to standard Egyptology. Wider reading and experience might help in providing that sort of analysis. 

As it stands, the piece is designed as a hatchet job on Joseph Smith and the LDS Church, often via hearsay and gigantic leaps in logic about what Joseph said or didn't say, as well as about what the KEP do and don't mean -- but also due to the kind of either-or conclusions which are foreign to ancient Egyptian thought, and which I have covered on this thread to some extent (as well as in my own "Brief Assessment of the Book of Abraham").

This 62-page piece often makes false statements, such as that the 1912 "jury" consisted of Egyptologists, even though some of them were not. I see no problem with some of them being experts in other areas of ancient Near Eastern lore (also applicable to the BofA), but their actual qualifications should be correctly reflected. Indeed, it would stand "TruthSeeker" in good stead if he would own up to the fact that most of them were deeply prejudiced and gave unnecessarily short-shrift to Joseph's claims. As a much wiser Egyptologist (John A. Wilson) stated many years later, the comments of the 1912 "jury" were really "indignant snorts." Most of it had no value (ç.).

I have Wilson's book in front of me. Your summary of his comments, lack, how should I say it, veracity. Whether Wilson is a "wiser Egyptologist" than, say, Breasted or Flinders Petrie, is perhaps displaying more your own ignorance than the truthfulness to the statement. The more appropriate word to describe the differences between Wilson and Breasted/Flinders Petrie is perhaps that Wilson is "living in a more modern world" and we can leave "wiseness" for someone else to decide. Hugh Nibley thought Wilson was "unreliable". (Wilson "Thousand of Years, An Archaeologist's Search for Ancient Egypt" 1972 Scribner. p177) Note! Wilson calls himself an archaeologist, not an Egyptologist)

You imply in your quote that The comments by Petrie, Breasted and others are considered by Wilson "most of it had no value". You and I both know that Wilson said no such thing. That is your comment, added within the quote framework to make it appear to be a statement from Wilson.

 

You are out of the thread and the next time you question anyone's veracity because you disagree with their conclusions you will be out of the board.

[TruthSeeker2013]

It could be made much better and more interesting by giving a fair hearing to the other points of view, i.e., by actually arraying the best arguments on both sides of the debate.  That doesn't mean you can't come down on one side or the other during the debate, but any conclusions reached are always more interesting and convincing when the umpire is evenhanded and fair.   I'd say the same of the very one-sided MormonThink Blog.

 

 

The visual aids are excellent and were reminiscent of some of the best illustrations on this board by Kevin Graham. Too bad that they were not accompanied by a professional and dispassionate description according to standard Egyptology. Wider reading and experience might help in providing that sort of analysis. 

As it stands, the piece is designed as a hatchet job on Joseph Smith and the LDS Church, often via hearsay and gigantic leaps in logic about what Joseph said or didn't say, as well as about what the KEP do and don't mean -- but also due to the kind of either-or conclusions which are foreign to ancient Egyptian thought, and which I have covered on this thread to some extent (as well as in my own "Brief Assessment of the Book of Abraham").

This 62-page piece often makes false statements, such as that the 1912 "jury" consisted of Egyptologists, even though some of them were not. I see no problem with some of them being experts in other areas of ancient Near Eastern lore (also applicable to the BofA), but their actual qualifications should be correctly reflected. Indeed, it would stand "TruthSeeker" in good stead if he would own up to the fact that most of them were deeply prejudiced and gave unnecessarily short-shrift to Joseph's claims. As a much wiser Egyptologist (John A. Wilson) stated many years later, the comments of the 1912 "jury" were really "indignant snorts." Most of it had no value (Wilson, Thousands of Years, 176.).

These are great suggestions, thanks Robert. And someone asked something like this earlier in the thread but can you point me to a website or something where there's a nice summary of all the BoA stuff that points to it being a correct translation? I read your paper but I was unable to follow it very well as it was very technical and I lack the education and experience you have in the field.

Edited November 27, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[TruthSeeker2013]

I believe that you conflate those terms on purpose so as to confuse unwary readers and thus to flim-flam them.  Since the PGP introduction is really just a shortened table of contents when it comes to the description of the book, I see no major message coming from any LDS authorities, and I doubt that they are even aware that you are going on and on about their imaginary machinations.

I really don't see why the label matters, but apparently you see something in it that's important to you. You opined that perhaps the change to the introduction was to make it shorter. But if you take out the "See History of the Church, vol. 4, pp. 519-534" then it's only 2 words shorter than the 1981 edition, and almost nothing else in the rest of the PoGP introduction is changed, so I doubt that was the main goal. And why totally rework it to back away from Joseph's three claims if the church is only trying to shorten things? In any case, for those who are interested, here's a photo of the adjustments the church made between the 1981 PoGP Introduction and the 2013 PoGP introduction:

http://i.imgur.com/GHDfW5z.png

And here's where it can be founds on lds.org: http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/scripture-comparison_eng.pdf

Edited November 27, 2013 by TruthSeeker2013

[Robert F. Smith]

He did ask us for a review! 

Well, by all means, let's have one!!  How might that be accomplished?

[Robert F. Smith]

I have Wilson's book in front of me. Your summary of his comments, lack, how should I say it, veracity. Whether Wilson is a "wiser Egyptologist" than, say, Breasted or Flinders Petrie, is perhaps displaying more your own ignorance than the truthfulness to the statement. The more appropriate word to describe the differences between Wilson and Breasted/Flinders Petrie is perhaps that Wilson is "living in a more modern world" and we can leave "wiseness" for someone else to decide. Hugh Nibley thought Wilson was "unreliable". (Wilson "Thousand of Years, An Archaeologist's Search for Ancient Egypt" 1972 Scribner. p177) Note! Wilson calls himself an archaeologist, not an Egyptologist)

You imply in your quote that The comments by Petrie, Breasted and others are considered by Wilson "most of it had no value". You and I both know that Wilson said no such thing. That is your comment, added within the quote framework to make it appear to be a statement from Wilson.

Perhaps you would like to give us the full quote in context from Wilson's book.

[Robert F. Smith]

These are great suggestions, thanks Robert. And someone asked something like this earlier in the thread but can you point me to a website or something where there's a nice summary of all the BoA stuff that points to it being a correct translation? I read your paper but I was unable to follow it very well as it was very technical and I lack the education and experience you have in the field.

Sorry my paper didn't seem clear enough.  You might try the comments of LDS Egyptologist, Dr. Val Sederholm, starting with http://valsederholm.blogspot.com/2010/10/book-of-abraham-facsimile-2-church.html .  He has been commenting on the BofA for years on his blog.  However, I don't think that there are any summaries which just enumerate the correct or wrong "answers."  At least not in the form of an answer sheet.

[Robert F. Smith]

I really don't see why the label matters, but apparently you see something in it that's important to you. You opined that perhaps the change to the introduction was to make it shorter. But if you take out the "See History of the Church, vol. 4, pp. 519-534" then it's only 2 words shorter than the 1981 edition, and almost nothing else in the rest of the PoGP introduction is changed, so I doubt that was the main goal. And why totally rework it to back away from Joseph's three claims if the church is only trying to shorten things? In any case, for those who are interested, here's a photo of the adjustments the church made between the 1981 PoGP Introduction and the 2013 PoGP introduction:

http://i.imgur.com/GHDfW5z.png

And here's where it can be founds on lds.org: http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/scriptures/scripture-comparison_eng.pdf

I see no evidence of a "totally rework" here, and see no reason for deceptive palaver about it.  Here are the portions of text at issue:

 

1981 PGP Introduction

 

Following is a brief introduction to the present contents:

 

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 1 March 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois. (See History of the Church, 4:519–34.)

 

2013 PGP Introduction

 

Following is a brief introduction to the present contents:

 

2.  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.

 

The 2013 section is 9 words shorter than the 1981.  These are the primary changes:  A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.  >    An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. 

 

The first sentence is rewritten by insertion of “inspired” along with smoothing by reversal of the first and third clauses:  “writings of the patriarch Abraham” is placed after “inspired,” while “some Egyptian papyri” is moved to the end.  The unnecessary words “containing” and “patriarch” are both dropped, and that whole sentence is further simplified by being broken into two sentences  This actually improves the style considerably.  Probably a Church editor did this, and likely did not see any special implications in his/her work.  The Brethren need have had no hand in it.  I see no significant changes here.

[wenglund]

He did ask us for a review! 

 

Yes. However, it appears he isn't very open to accepting or engaging the criticism, and is highly resistent to rightly defering to those with superior knowledge. So, for all intents and purposes, he or she isn't really looking for a review, but for praise and readership. Reviewing in this case has been a waste of time since, as is often the case, critics of the Church are loath to be criticized.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-