The Sensen Papyrus Is The Egyptian Original: An Open, Abstract System Of An Ancient Egyptian

[mfbukowski]

Ok.  So, let me lay out the parameters/scope for anyone that wants to "give it a shot", and you cannot vary from these parameters, because evidence demands these parameters.  You are confined within these parameters, and lets see what you come up with that is "better than this":

(1) Joseph Smith is a prophet.

(2) Joseph Smith actually did translate from the papyrus that the forensic evidence said he did.

(3) Egyptology says that conventional Egyptian does not yield that translation.

(4) The Holy Ghost says the Book of Abraham is a true translation.

(5) But Joseph Smith actually did translate from this papyrus according to forensic evidence.  These two sides of the issue are not in conflict, though they appear to be.  We must search for the marriage between the two.

(6) Objectivity demands that the forensic evidence be primary.  Mormon bias to ignore the forensic evidence is not honest.  So to be perfectly objective as far as evidence goes, we embrace it.  Our conclusions don't have to be the same as critics.  We just ought to actually agree with the critics on this one thing, that we should at least be constrained by forensic evidence.

(7) The revelation or catalyst theories don't cut it because you actually have to have something that shows that Joseph Smith did actually translate something ancient, meaning that there was actually a translation process too, not JUST a revelation process.  You could try to get around this, but then you wouldn't have an actual translation, but you would have yet another apologetic thing that doesn't accept evidence.

( 8)This means that there is something else that we aren't seeing.

( 9)You see that Joseph Smith left notes of his translation process.  It is logical to consult those, and actually attribute them to the prophet rather than his scribes?  If we take the translations seriously in them, that means they are testable and can be reverse engineered.

(10) We ask the question, what are we not seeing within the realm of possibilities within these confines?

 

What are other known facts:

 

(11) The Supercryptogram theory already fails, because this is a regular old funerary papyrus, and the original author did not intend a double meaning in his papyrus.  The central tenet of the supercryptogram theory means exactly this, that the original author of the Sensen papyrus "hid" a double meaning in his papyrus.  If there is something hidden here, then the process for its being hidden is something else.

(12) LDS theorists have demonstrated the principles of Adaptation/Iconotropy, etc.

(13) Ancient Egyptian sects are known to have repurposed documents and symbolism in them.

 

So, conclusion:

If constrained to these parameters, it is logical that someone, other than the original author, in ancient times, repurposed the Symbolism of the Sensen papyrus to represent Abrahamic information.

To figure out how he repurposed it, perhaps we should consult the notes Joseph Smith left of the translation process, called the KEP, and not pass the responsibility for the KEP on to the scribes.

Perhaps if we actually follow through long enough in our research, we will start to be able to reverse engineer what was going on there.  If we can, then we can actually see that things start to line up with things we already know to be ancient.

 

Chances are, even if various details for a theory you choose do not precisely match mine, if constrained to the same parameters/criteria, you will come up with something like mine.

Because, if you want a forensic-evidence-based theory rather than another apologetic thing that doesn't accept that evidence, your assumptions would end up having to be pretty much like mine.

This is why I am unafraid of whether details of my theory are wrong, because something like my theory will in the end be right, if constrained to these parameters.

If someone follows these parameters, they will start to see what I have seen, and will start to conclude similar conclusions, if not exactly the same.

That is why, my hope is that someone else will constrain themselves to the same parameters and see for themselves that I am not kidding about what I see.

My invitation is for someone to come up with something better if they can then, following these parameters.

If I have to modify some of the details of my theory, I will do that.  That is why I am trying to talk to people.

That's why I'm trying to get other people to brainstorm.

Therefore what is it that you propose that is "better"?  I predict that it would be details that you would modify, not the primary type of theory.

If your definition is to modify the parameters above, then you are transforming the forensic evidence from what it is into something that it is not.

We ought to once and for all attribute to Joseph Smith that he is responsible for the whole KEP project and for the translations of the Sensen Papyrus in it, like the critics have been showing for decades.  The forensic evidence shows this to be so.  There is no getting around that part.  So we ought to embrace that and make it one of the primary pillars of our thinking.

​Transforming the parameters above yields things like the missing papyrus theory, the scribes did it theory, the revelation theory, the catalyst theory, and so forth, all theories that for one reason or another, might feel good, but do not actually explain things.  So do we want a theory that fits the evidence, or do we want a theory that just feels good?

I would say that special pleading is actually not letting forensic evidence speak.  I would say that my theory is not guilty of that, but that other apologetic approaches are in fact the ones that are full of special pleading.

Well I was responding to the other post and challenging Cinnamon Bear Head to "give it a shot", but thanks for the post.

 

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, and I am sorry others have been unkind

But cutting to the chase on your theory, I think your parameters are too rigid, in thinking that religious matters can be decided by evidence.

The bottom line is that no amount of physical evidence can prove that Jesus is the Christ and atoned for your sins and mine, nor could one ultimately know that the BOA is the "word of God" without a testimony.

Also I think there is a good dose of presentism in your understanding of what the word "translate" meant to Joseph- it definitely does not mean what it means now.

1828 Webster

 

 

TRANSLA'TE, v.t. [L. translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Heb. 16.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Sam. 3.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

THAT is a very fluid term which can mean practically anything, but definitely NOT what we would now call a "literal translation".

 

But I am quite sympathetic to your view in a general way, in fact after being endowed and studying the facsimilies many years ago, I looked at facsimile 2, section 7, which is usually seen upside down, but in turning the book around, I saw what seemed to be VERY familiar gestures from the temple, and from that I made some conclusions which I still hold today.  I will not reproduce the section of the cut because I do not know how do

 

I believed that Joseph looked at the papyri almost as a child might look naively as a picture book, and those "visions" were guided by the spirit to allow him to reveal the Book of Abraham, as he understood the pictures, as guided by the Holy Ghost.

Several years ago, I wrote and posted something similar to what I understand your view to be- and I will quote it below, but first let me say that yes, I know what convnetional Egyptology says about the figures I will be describing, I know about the god Min and all of that, but in this passage I deliberately throw that all way to see the facsimilie in a completely naive manner- just seeing it as a picture. :

 

Note the position of the hands/arms on the seated figure.  Note also that one arm is raised to the square, and is represented as a right angle.  Note that the hand on that arm is represented by a compass shape.  Note the opposite "hand",-as seen in this naive context- is brought forward.  The bird figure represents the Holy Spirit, also possibly doing the same things with its arms that the seated figure is doing. (taking into account some primitive drawing perspective problems).  Read what Joseph says this represents, in the explanation page.  The eye between the bird and the seated figure represents God, just as it does on the back of the dollar bill.  Note the other scribble below the bird, and between the figures.  What is it? I dunno. Could it be a stick figure with a funny head raising it’s hands high above the head?  The seated figure from an Egyptian perspective could be the god Horus with a hawk tail.  Horus was a messenger of the gods, in bird form, not unlike the symbol of the dove for the Holy Spirit.

I have found this observation quite useful.

 

So yes, I think I have some understanding of how you see these "translations" and think you are definitely onto something, with the reservations I mentioned above.

Edited December 21, 2014 by mfbukowski

[DragonLancer]

Well I was responding to the other post and challenging Cinnamon Bear Head to "give it a shot", but thanks for the post.

 

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying, and I am sorry others have been unkind

But cutting to the chase on your theory, I think your parameters are too rigid, in thinking that religious matters can be decided by evidence.

The bottom line is that no amount of physical evidence can prove that Jesus is the Christ and atoned for your sins and mine, nor could one ultimately know that the BOA is the "word of God" without a testimony.

Also I think there is a good dose of presentism in your understanding of what the word "translate" meant to Joseph- it definitely does not mean what it means now.

1828 Webster

 

 

THAT is a very fluid term which can mean practically anything, but definitely NOT what we would now call a "literal translation".

 

But I am quite sympathetic to your view in a general way, in fact after being endowed and studying the facsimilies many years ago, I looked at facsimile 2, section 7, which is usually seen upside down, but in turning the book around, I saw what seemed to be VERY familiar gestures from the temple, and from that I made some conclusions which I still hold today.  I will not reproduce the section of the cut because I do not know how do

 

I believed that Joseph looked at the papyri almost as a child might look naively as a picture book, and those "visions" were guided by the spirit to allow him to reveal the Book of Abraham, as he understood the pictures, as guided by the Holy Ghost.

Several years ago, I wrote and posted something similar to what I understand your view to be- and I will quote it below, but first let me say that yes, I know what convnetional Egyptology says about the figures I will be describing, I know about the god Min and all of that, but in this passage I deliberately throw that all way to see the facsimilie in a completely naive manner- just seeing it as a picture. :

 

I have found this observation quite useful.

 

So yes, I think I have some understanding of how you see these "translations" and think you are definitely onto something, with the reservations I mentioned above.

 

I didn't say religious matters should necessarily be decided by evidence if there is no evidence is avaliable.  I think, however, that among various theories on religious matters, some handle AVAILABLE evidence better than others.  People will believe whatever with or without evidence.  But this is entirely about available evidence, not about belief, except for the fact that I am trying to stay within the realm of things that believers believe, because I am a believer, and the option that Joseph Smith didn't produce a historic Book of Abraham is not an option for that reason.  This is evidence that we do have.  And this is what I am talking about.  I think a great many people on this message board would agree that the Mesoamerican theory for Book of Mormon lands handles evidence in such a way that leads to a certain conclusion, and they agree that the Heartland theory is a theory that abuses available evidence.  The missing papyrus theory is analogous to the heartland theory in its mistreatment of evidence.  You can believe whatever you want about the catalyst theory.  if it works for you as a framework to keep your faith growing so you can progress, then good for you.  I think that there is a better evidence-based option for people that care about the evidence that is available.  This is what my theory offers for people who care, who have been looking for an evidence-based, faithful option on which to buttress their faith journey.

 

Though I disagree with John Dehlin on most things, and think he is basically an apostate that hasn't been excommunicated yet, I think he is right on a few things about how he offers people a great many individuals to pattern their faith journey after.  Some are apostates and critics.  Others are apologists.  Others are people that favor evidence-based approaches that are believing, but not entirely apologetic.  So, I think he is wrong in offering people critics as role models, but believers can profit from the interviews he has done with faithful people.

 

I think that an evidence-based theory for the Book of Abraham that is a faith-promoting theory is something that people have lacked, and didn't have it as an option before.  I think this approach, as I said, offers people that type of option, and also paves the way for people at some future time that might be able to do the same kind of thing I have tried to do better than I have.  If I have planted those types of seeds in what I have done, I have succeeded, in spite of spastic, knee-jerk, arrogant, know-it-all-based dismissals by Mr Loki and Mr bcuzbcuz.

 

If I can reach somebody that at some future time can deal with the evidence better than I have, but come up with something along the lines of what I have, and can make a better case than I can, then the sacrifices that I have made and heartache that I have endured may be worth something.

Edited December 21, 2014 by DragonLancer

[Brian 2.0]

Do you believe that JS knew he was doing what your theory states?  Do you believe he thought the papyri was non-Ambrahamic if translated normally from Egpytian, but that it contained the themes of the Book of Abraham in this coded way?

[mfbukowski]

Do you believe that JS knew he was doing what your theory states?  Do you believe he thought the papyri was non-Ambrahamic if translated normally from Egpytian, but that it contained the themes of the Book of Abraham in this coded way?

What do you think the group of scribes who wrote what we now know as "Isaiah" were thinking about when they said "Thus saith the Lord?"

 

 

The book identifies itself as the words of the 8th century BCE prophet Isaiah ben Amoz, but there is ample evidence that much of it was composed during the Babylonian captivity and later.^[3] The scholarly consensus which held sway through most of the 20th century saw three separate collections of oracles:^[4]Proto-Isaiah (chapters 1–39), containing the words of Isaiah; Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40–55), the work of an anonymous 6th-century author writing during the Exile; and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56–66), composed after the return from exile.^[5] While one part of the consensus still holds – virtually no-one maintains that the entire book, or even most of it, was written by one person – this perception of Isaiah as made up of three rather distinct sections underwent a radical challenge in the last quarter of the 20th century.^[4] A great deal of current research concentrates on the book's essential unity, with Isaiah 1–33 projecting judgement and restoration for Judah, Jerusalem and the nations, and chapters 34–66 presupposing that judgement has already taken place and restoration is at hand.^[6] It can thus be read as an extended meditation on the destiny of Jerusalem into and after the Exile.^[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

 

So do we throw out all the "good stuff" because we don't even know who wrote it, or how?

[Brian 2.0]

What do you think the group of scribes who wrote what we now know as "Isaiah" were thinking about when they said "Thus saith the Lord?"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

 

So do we throw out all the "good stuff" because we don't even know who wrote it, or how?

I'm not really going that far, I'm just trying to understand the theory a little more first. He mentioned the KEP was this legend/key. I'm just curious if he feels JS understood that or if JS presumed that anyone who knew Egyptian would come up with the BoA as well doing a standard translation.

[mfbukowski]

I'm not really going that far, I'm just trying to understand the theory a little more first. He mentioned the KEP was this legend/key. I'm just curious if he feels JS understood that or if JS presumed that anyone who knew Egyptian would come up with the BoA as well doing a standard translation.

I don't think he cared, quite honestly.

 

Joseph was a visionary and visonaries understand the reality of visions.  Whether or not someone else has the same vision is irrelevant.  He is what Harold Bloom would call a "strong poet" who organizes worlds according to his own visions.

This article was written by a non-Mormon philosopher who understood better than Mormons, the uniqueness of Mormonism.  In it he speaks of his friend,  James Faulconer, a BYU philosophy professor.  It is a most profound article, but only a few understand it.  I find that very sad.  But you may enjoy it.

Like Bloom, I see Joseph Smith’s apostasy (from what we would call "creedal Christianity"- mfb) as strong poetry, a gloriously presumptive and delusional creation from the same climate as Whitman, if not enjoying quite the same air quality. Perhaps Mormonism is not so far from romanticism after all. To claim that it is simply Christian is to fail to grasp its theological, poetic and political audacity. It is much more than mere Christianity. Why are Mormons so keen to conceal their pearl of the greatest price? Why is no one really talking about this? In the context of you-know-who’s presidential bid, people appear to be endlessly talking about Mormonism, but its true theological challenge is entirely absent from the discussion.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/why-i-love-mormonism/?_r=0

[VideoGameJunkie]

I trust Joseph Smith. And can I be taken off Limited? I don't even know why I was put on it.

[Tacenda]

I trust Joseph Smith. And can I be taken off Limited? I don't even know why I was put on it.

We done broke some rules apparently, VGJ. And there is no limit to our "limitedness"! It's what eternal hell feels like on discussion boards on the internet I guess.

[DragonLancer]

Do you believe that JS knew he was doing what your theory states?  Do you believe he thought the papyri was non-Ambrahamic if translated normally from Egpytian, but that it contained the themes of the Book of Abraham in this coded way?

 

Joseph Smith knew this much: he was translating themes, not text, from this papyri.  He knew that the details of the text had to be gotten by revelation, and that the themes were just telling him about the basics of the story.  I can show and have shown this fact in the various posts in my blog.  I demonstrate from the details in the "grammar" parts of the KEP, where Joseph writes about the "subject" and how the "subject" must be elaborated upon for such and such amount of text, depending on various factors.  He thought it was the original by Abraham's own hand, or perhaps an actual copy.  Joseph Smith knew nothing about regular Egyptological Egyptian because at that time, it was just barely something that the world started to know about, and Joseph didn't know about it.

 

My theory is attempting to explain evidence, to see how that evidence can harmonize with the basic premise that Joseph Smith knew something was Abrahamic about the papyri.  It is clear that Joseph Smith's beliefs on the matter of the papyri were literalistic after the same manner that he believed literalism with Freemasonic myth.  So you can't really blame Joseph Smith for not knowing all the details.  What is important is that he knew enough to do his job.

 

So, I am treating this matter after the same manner as I treat Freemasonry.  I know that there are authentic pieces of ancient Temple worship in Freemasonry.  I know that it contains what Joseph Smith said it did (ancient Temple relics), although the way they got there was not how Joseph thought they got there.  Similarly, Joseph thought the papyri were the actual original Book of Abraham, but my theory is attempting to harmonize how the evidence shows it is not that way in the literal sense that Joseph thought.  But, now, it is evident from the evidence that the papyri are still Abrahamic after a certain manner, and still contain what Joseph Smith said they contained, but that the technical way they contain it is different than Joseph Smith could imagine with the limitations of his knowledge.

 

So, in summary, this is less about what Joseph Smith thought, and more about the fact that knowledge comes to the world line upon line.  It is important that Joseph Smith sensed it was Abrahamic, and that it was necessary to use it in a translation.  His assumptions about literalness and so forth are not as important as the fact that he knew that by using it, he could get the Book of Abraham.  Joseph Smith knew it was the Book of Abraham, not details of how it is the book of Abraham.  The Spirit gave him the amount of information he needed to fulfill his part of the process.  We can come along after the fact and analyze it and see the details to the degree that the evidence allows.  And my theory shows detail about how it is still the Book of Abraham through this transformation by way of the key and the abstract system, not from the literal translations of the mechanical, Egyptological intent of the document.  I show a number of examples of the abstractions I am talking about, and how they are logical containers for the values that Joseph Smith was applying to them.

Edited December 23, 2014 by DragonLancer

[Thinking]

So I presume Joseph received his translation by revelation?

 

How is this different than the catalyst theory?  It seems this is similar to what I believe- there WAS an ancient book, and Joseph "restored" it through revelation.

 

End of story- simple.

 

No. Simple would be if the text of the Book of Abraham was on the same papyrus that the LDS Church has in its possession.

[Grudunza]

DragonLancer, you mention articles about your theory being on your blog... I probably missed it at some point, but would you please post a link?

[DragonLancer]

DragonLancer, you mention articles about your theory being on your blog... I probably missed it at some point, but would you please post a link?

 

Sure.  

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/

[Brian 2.0]

One thing I do admire about your theory is that you don't discount the KEP as some messing about by the scribes and JS had nothing to do with it.

[bcuzbcuz]

Sure.  

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/

You reference once again to Nibley's statement about figure 7 in facsimile 2. Use your knowledge of Egyptian gods. Figure 7 is Min, God of fertility. He is always portrayed in the same way. I've seen him on walls of clay plaster in the Valley of the Kings.. He is often portrayed with one leg missing or one arm cut off, but he always has an erection. It was claimed that he fathered children of the two kingdoms while the king and his soldiers were off fighting against some enemy.

The fact that figure 7 in facsimile 2 has an erection should suffice to qualify him, not as God the Father, but as Min. If the facsimile's are to portray Abraham and his relationship to God, then a definition is needed to explain why God is pictured with an erection. The Greek had fables of Zeus, portrayed as a bull or as a swan, mounting some maiden, but I have never seen such a portrayal accepted for the Judaic, Christian God. I have never, ever, seen God, the father, portrayed in such a disrespectful manner. If you know of any portrayal of god being sexually aroused please share it.

[mfbukowski]

You reference once again to Nibley's statement about figure 7 in facsimile 2. Use your knowledge of Egyptian gods. Figure 7 is Min, God of fertility. He is always portrayed in the same way. I've seen him on walls of clay plaster in the Valley of the Kings.. He is often portrayed with one leg missing or one arm cut off, but he always has an erection. It was claimed that he fathered children of the two kingdoms while the king and his soldiers were off fighting against some enemy.

The fact that figure 7 in facsimile 2 has an erection should suffice to qualify him, not as God the Father, but as Min. If the facsimile's are to portray Abraham and his relationship to God, then a definition is needed to explain why God is pictured with an erection. The Greek had fables of Zeus, portrayed as a bull or as a swan, mounting some maiden, but I have never seen such a portrayal accepted for the Judaic, Christian God. I have never, ever, seen God, the father, portrayed in such a disrespectful manner. If you know of any portrayal of god being sexually aroused please share it.

This doesn't even address the issue.  All you are doing is asserting your opinion.  It is the logical equivalent to saying "No, it's not" to someone saying "Yes, it is".

 

So what?   See my discussion above of the same point.  Post 51.  The whole point is to NOT "use your knowledge of the Egyptian gods".

Several years ago, I wrote and posted something similar to what I understand your view to be- and I will quote it below, but first let me say that yes, I know what convnetional Egyptology says about the figures I will be describing, I know about the god Min and all of that, but in this passage I deliberately throw that all way to see the facsimilie in a completely naive manner- just seeing it as a picture. :

 

Edited December 25, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I don't know about anyone else here, but my objective in life is to have a "true" understanding of the nature of God.

 

Knowing what the ancient Egyptians thought about God does not get me any closer to a "true understanding" whatever that is to mean to you.  Studying the god Min does not get me closer- debating whether a figure "represents" the god Min or a guy with an erection does not get me closer to understanding God.  Who cares what the figure "represents"?

 

The entire point is that understanding figure 7 as I understand it gets me closer to understanding God in a true way that works in my life.

 

THAT is all that matters, and that is all we can hope for from ANY text- from the Bible, Book of Mormon or anything else.

[DragonLancer]

You reference once again to Nibley's statement about figure 7 in facsimile 2. Use your knowledge of Egyptian gods. Figure 7 is Min, God of fertility. He is always portrayed in the same way. I've seen him on walls of clay plaster in the Valley of the Kings.. He is often portrayed with one leg missing or one arm cut off, but he always has an erection. It was claimed that he fathered children of the two kingdoms while the king and his soldiers were off fighting against some enemy.

The fact that figure 7 in facsimile 2 has an erection should suffice to qualify him, not as God the Father, but as Min. If the facsimile's are to portray Abraham and his relationship to God, then a definition is needed to explain why God is pictured with an erection. The Greek had fables of Zeus, portrayed as a bull or as a swan, mounting some maiden, but I have never seen such a portrayal accepted for the Judaic, Christian God. I have never, ever, seen God, the father, portrayed in such a disrespectful manner. If you know of any portrayal of god being sexually aroused please share it.

 

Its kind of comical that you are so hung up on the phallus as a symbol of procreative power when it doesn't bother Mormons, nor did it bother ancient Egyptians.

[DragonLancer]

One thing I do admire about your theory is that you don't discount the KEP as some messing about by the scribes and JS had nothing to do with it.

 

thanks

[bcuzbcuz]

Its kind of comical that you are so hung up on the phallus as a symbol of procreative power when it doesn't bother Mormons, nor did it bother ancient Egyptians.

I have not responded to your last posts because I have been in a non-internet zone known as Luxor, Egypt. Our hotel offered internet coupling but only during the hours when they had electricity and through a telephone hook-up (remember those?).

Our last night there, New Years Eve, the Coptic church around the corner from our hotel received bomb threats and the military took over all internet connections plus a very clear presence of troops equiped with AK 47's and tanks with 50 mm machine guns.

Today we're sailing down the Nile from Aswan and our boat actually has an internet connection.

All of this is just a preamble to my comments about the obvious display of Min, in all his glory, as figure 7 in facsimile 2. Have you been to Egypt? Have you studied Egyptian hieroglyphs? Are you fluent in Arabic or Coptic or Egyptian hieroglyphs? Hell, I'd be impressed if you could read cuneform.

If you've been to any of the numerous temples along the Nile you will have seen a multitude of portrayals of Min. None, absolutely none of these depictions, ever even hint at Min being the supreme god, not even close. Min is always displayed in the same manner. You chose to remark that "Its kind of comical that you are so hung up on the phallus as a symbol of procreative power when it doesn't bother Mormons". Talk about ignoring the obvious.

Show where in Mormon scripture or in Mormon commentary on the Book of Abraham that anyone references to Min's erection as being encompassed in the description of his "godhood". He is defined as godly but without any reference to his erection. As though that was either unimportant or non-existing.

Upon the collapse of the Egyptian empires, somewhere around the rise of Coptic Christianity, and later the rise of Islamic beliefs, many of Min's statues and murals were deformed. Obviously, many people were upset about the depiction of a god with a completely obvious erect penis. Many of the murals have suffered damage only to the phallus, the rest of the images were untouched. I can send you internet site references to confirm this or any number of pictures I have taken myself.

What you can't supply, because they don't exist, are references to Min's supreme godliness. Min is not, was not, has never been, the supreme God the Father, as provided in the Book of Abraham. That particular portrayal is provided only by Joseph Smith, very incorrectly, besides.

[mfbukowski]

I have not responded to your last posts because I have been in a non-internet zone known as Luxor, Egypt. Our hotel offered internet coupling but only during the hours when they had electricity and through a telephone hook-up (remember those?).

Our last night there, New Years Eve, the Coptic church around the corner from our hotel received bomb threats and the military took over all internet connections plus a very clear presence of troops equiped with AK 47's and tanks with 50 mm machine guns.

Today we're sailing down the Nile from Aswan and our boat actually has an internet connection.

All of this is just a preamble to my comments about the obvious display of Min, in all his glory, as figure 7 in facsimile 2. Have you been to Egypt? Have you studied Egyptian hieroglyphs? Are you fluent in Arabic or Coptic or Egyptian hieroglyphs? Hell, I'd be impressed if you could read cuneform.

If you've been to any of the numerous temples along the Nile you will have seen a multitude of portrayals of Min. None, absolutely none of these depictions, ever even hint at Min being the supreme god, not even close. Min is always displayed in the same manner. You chose to remark that "Its kind of comical that you are so hung up on the phallus as a symbol of procreative power when it doesn't bother Mormons". Talk about ignoring the obvious.

Show where in Mormon scripture or in Mormon commentary on the Book of Abraham that anyone references to Min's erection as being encompassed in the description of his "godhood". He is defined as godly but without any reference to his erection. As though that was either unimportant or non-existing.

Upon the collapse of the Egyptian empires, somewhere around the rise of Coptic Christianity, and later the rise of Islamic beliefs, many of Min's statues and murals were deformed. Obviously, many people were upset about the depiction of a god with a completely obvious erect penis. Many of the murals have suffered damage only to the phallus, the rest of the images were untouched. I can send you internet site references to confirm this or any number of pictures I have taken myself.

What you can't supply, because they don't exist, are references to Min's supreme godliness. Min is not, was not, has never been, the supreme God the Father, as provided in the Book of Abraham. That particular portrayal is provided only by Joseph Smith, very incorrectly, besides.

So what?

Pardon me for cutting in.

I don't know about anyone else here, but my objective in life is to have a "true" understanding of the nature of God.

Knowing what the ancient Egyptians thought about God does not get me any closer to a "true understanding" whatever that is to mean to you. Studying the god Min does not get me closer- debating whether a figure "represents" the god Min or a guy with an erection does not get me closer to understanding God. Who cares what the figure "represents"?

The entire point is that understanding figure 7 as I understand it gets me closer to understanding God in a true way that works in my life.

THAT is all that matters, and that is all we can hope for from ANY text- from the Bible, Book of Mormon or anything else.

Edited January 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[bcuzbcuz]

So what?Pardon me for cutting in.

Cut in all you like. In fact, that is what makes this site interesting.

Although I don´t share your objective in life, having a "true" understanding of the nature of God....simply because I believe that impossible to do, I do investigate with vigor the claims of people purporting to have such an understanding. In Islam, Allah has 99 names. Each of them, such as the All Beneficiant , the Rewarder of All Signifigance, the Self-Existing One, etc., etc., are both clearly evident, while being totally impossible to define or understand. The confusion the expression creates as to its fully comprehensible understanding, is seen as a benefit, the more you comprehend, the less you know, kind of gobbledigook.

Joseph Smith made claims to being able to understand God, to even communicate with him, to ask personal advice and council. Those are big claims. If those claims have merit, one must be able to move in for a closer view without being snowed under by smoke and mirrors. The Book of Abraham, when accepted as Mormon scripture and during the time I grew up in the church, purported to be a translation, transliteration, a mysterious revelation from ancient texts, by definition, scriptural texts.

Now that some of the original papyri have been recovered, it is fully understandable that these texts should fall under scrutiny.

The papyrus bought by the church and Joseph Smith do not say what Joseph Smith claimed they said. There is not one word that translates correctly. Even the pictures, Facsimile 1 and 2, do not portray what Joseph Smith claimed they portrayed. Some people who have written here find that completely in order. They believe that The Book of Abraham is one of God´s many mysteries. They believe it is meant to be completely Incomprehensible. They see reason and right in its very incomprehensibility.

I don´t.

When I grew up, the Book of Abraham was meant to be studied and wisdom procurred about the pre-life and God´s attention to man. The BofA was presented as true scripture, not filled with faults of mis-translation or faulty recording, like the Old and New testaments.

Now, it is meant that the BofA is just as filled with errors as the other scriptures, or may be so perfect that it lies beyond evaluation. That brings us back to Incomprehensibility. It becomes true beyond truth, wise beyond wisdom, great beyond greatness, perfect beyond.....well, you get my meaning.

In facsimile 2, figure 7 is the Egyptian god, Min. He is not God the Father, any more than the Nordic gods of fertility, Freja and Frej, celebrated every first of May in the Nordic countries represent God the Father by symbolicly fertilizing the earth. In Mormonism, God the father is the creator. It´s a far stretch to start portraying him with an erection.

´

´

´

´¨¨:

[DragonLancer]

I have not responded to your last posts because I have been in a non-internet zone known as Luxor, Egypt. Our hotel offered internet coupling but only during the hours when they had electricity and through a telephone hook-up (remember those?).

Our last night there, New Years Eve, the Coptic church around the corner from our hotel received bomb threats and the military took over all internet connections plus a very clear presence of troops equiped with AK 47's and tanks with 50 mm machine guns.

Today we're sailing down the Nile from Aswan and our boat actually has an internet connection.

All of this is just a preamble to my comments about the obvious display of Min, in all his glory, as figure 7 in facsimile 2. Have you been to Egypt? Have you studied Egyptian hieroglyphs? Are you fluent in Arabic or Coptic or Egyptian hieroglyphs? Hell, I'd be impressed if you could read cuneform.

If you've been to any of the numerous temples along the Nile you will have seen a multitude of portrayals of Min. None, absolutely none of these depictions, ever even hint at Min being the supreme god, not even close. Min is always displayed in the same manner. You chose to remark that "Its kind of comical that you are so hung up on the phallus as a symbol of procreative power when it doesn't bother Mormons". Talk about ignoring the obvious.

Show where in Mormon scripture or in Mormon commentary on the Book of Abraham that anyone references to Min's erection as being encompassed in the description of his "godhood". He is defined as godly but without any reference to his erection. As though that was either unimportant or non-existing.

Upon the collapse of the Egyptian empires, somewhere around the rise of Coptic Christianity, and later the rise of Islamic beliefs, many of Min's statues and murals were deformed. Obviously, many people were upset about the depiction of a god with a completely obvious erect penis. Many of the murals have suffered damage only to the phallus, the rest of the images were untouched. I can send you internet site references to confirm this or any number of pictures I have taken myself.

What you can't supply, because they don't exist, are references to Min's supreme godliness. Min is not, was not, has never been, the supreme God the Father, as provided in the Book of Abraham. That particular portrayal is provided only by Joseph Smith, very incorrectly, besides.

 

Your attempts at trying to minimize my skillsets in understanding the ancient world by saying you don't know this or can't read that are not going to stop those that want to gain something from my work from getting what they will get from it, just as much as the rest of the people that have ever thrown ad-hominems at me or have tried to mentally abuse me in some way.

 

You are like child hitting the same key on a piano and expecting people to somehow like your tune, or be impressed.  My thread was not about Min.  It was about a generalized theory for the Book of Abraham.  Get over the use of Min as a symbol like any other symbol.  That's about all I can suggest for you.  My participation in this thread is done anyway.  You, like the rest of the people that have detracted from the subject, are not a person I plan to have any more conversation with.

[mfbukowski]

Cut in all you like. In fact, that is what makes this site interesting.

Although I don´t share your objective in life, having a "true" understanding of the nature of God....simply because I believe that impossible to do, I do investigate with vigor the claims of people purporting to have such an understanding. In Islam, Allah has 99 names. Each of them, such as the All Beneficiant , the Rewarder of All Signifigance, the Self-Existing One, etc., etc., are both clearly evident, while being totally impossible to define or understand. The confusion the expression creates as to its fully comprehensible understanding, is seen as a benefit, the more you comprehend, the less you know, kind of gobbledigook.

Joseph Smith made claims to being able to understand God, to even communicate with him, to ask personal advice and council. Those are big claims. If those claims have merit, one must be able to move in for a closer view without being snowed under by smoke and mirrors. The Book of Abraham, when accepted as Mormon scripture and during the time I grew up in the church, purported to be a translation, transliteration, a mysterious revelation from ancient texts, by definition, scriptural texts.

Now that some of the original papyri have been recovered, it is fully understandable that these texts should fall under scrutiny.

The papyrus bought by the church and Joseph Smith do not say what Joseph Smith claimed they said. There is not one word that translates correctly. Even the pictures, Facsimile 1 and 2, do not portray what Joseph Smith claimed they portrayed. Some people who have written here find that completely in order. They believe that The Book of Abraham is one of God´s many mysteries. They believe it is meant to be completely Incomprehensible. They see reason and right in its very incomprehensibility.

I don´t.

When I grew up, the Book of Abraham was meant to be studied and wisdom procurred about the pre-life and God´s attention to man. The BofA was presented as true scripture, not filled with faults of mis-translation or faulty recording, like the Old and New testaments.

Now, it is meant that the BofA is just as filled with errors as the other scriptures, or may be so perfect that it lies beyond evaluation. That brings us back to Incomprehensibility. It becomes true beyond truth, wise beyond wisdom, great beyond greatness, perfect beyond.....well, you get my meaning.

In facsimile 2, figure 7 is the Egyptian god, Min. He is not God the Father, any more than the Nordic gods of fertility, Freja and Frej, celebrated every first of May in the Nordic countries represent God the Father by symbolicly fertilizing the earth. In Mormonism, God the father is the creator. It´s a far stretch to start portraying him with an erection.

I am sorry you have such a naive understanding of "true scripture". I would suggest you study the history of all the manuscripts we now call "The Bible" to disabuse you of the idea that they are all inerrant and from God's lips.

[bcuzbcuz]

I am sorry you have such a naive understanding of "true scripture". I would suggest you study the history of all the manuscripts we now call "The Bible" to disabuse you of the idea that they are all inerrant and from God's lips.

Good point. Naive is a good word for Mormon. Where are you on the scale of naivity? Are you still at the point of thinking that answers are available, just not supplied?

[mfbukowski]

Good point. Naive is a good word for Mormon. Where are you on the scale of naivity? Are you still at the point of thinking that answers are available, just not supplied?

Naive?

Hardly.

"There are no facts, only interpretations"- Nietzsche.