Book Of Abraham Solution

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Hi I'm looking for logical arguments against my solution to Book of Abraham issues. So far I have only encountered ad hom.

Here's a relatively short excerpt to focus on. Thanks.

Jake: Can you offer an example for us to look at?

Rich: Yes, of course. Take figure 5 of facsimile 3. Joseph Smith's explanation reads, “Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.”

Jake: And what do you see as problematic?

Rich: What isn't problematic! First, the name of the guy is not Shulem. His name is Hor. And Hor was not a waiter. Hor is the man who commissioned to have the vignette made. He is the guy who the papyrus was buried with. The actual, legit translation reads, “Osiris, Hor, the justified forever.”[1]

Jake: Let's address your first point first. The name of the man is not Shulem, but Hor. That's correct. But did Joseph Smith ever say that the word Shulem was the name of the man?

Rich: He's obviously saying his name, or at least the supposed name.

Jake: What are you basing that claim on?

Rich: I'm basing it on English grammar. When you call someone something, that's their name.

Jake: So, “employee of the month” is my brother's name?

Rich: No, that's a title. But “Shulem” is not a title, it's a name.

Jake: How do you know?

Rich: Because even if it was a title, Hor didn't have a title called “Shulem.” So either way, Joseph Smith is wrong.

Jake: The translation you cited calls Hor “the justified.” Is that a title?

Rich: Yes, that's like a title.

Jake: Okay, but the word “shulem” is one English rendering of the Hebrew word, “shulam,” meaning “fully paid for,” thus meaning “justified.”

Rich: I'm going to have to look that up for myself. But even so, “fully paid for” does not mean “justified.”

Jake: In Christian theology, it does.

Rich: We aren't talking about Christian theology, but Ancient Egyptian theology.

Ryan: But Rich, you said Joseph Smith was completely wrong in what he said about the writing found in facsimile 3. Now this guy is saying something that might actually be a connection, and you aren't willing to even consider it?

Rich: That's just one small little coincidence. What about the part about Hor being a waiter?

Jake: Hor was a waiter. He literally brought food to the gods and waited on them. As a priest, Hor was their servant. After the gods had their fill, the priest would take the food away – and what remained would be eaten by the priests and their families. The gods of course would not physically consume any of the food, but it was physically prepared and brought to them.

Rich: What? Are you kidding me? You're actually trying to say that Hor was a waiter?

Jake: Yes, of course he was.

Rich: But Joseph Smith said he was a waiter to the “king,” not to the “gods.”

Ryan: That's a good point.

Jake: No, actually Joseph Smith said “kings,” which is plural, in the original 1842 printing. The apostrophe in our scriptures today was added years later by editors.

Rich: But that change was approved by Church leaders!

Jake: The Bible and the Book of Mormon both show that God allows his servants to make mistakes.

Rich: This is too much. There are so many problems here I don't even know where to begin. First, Joseph Smith was obviously talking about the Pharaoh.

Jake: Actually, the word “king” is used five times in the explanations for facsimile 3. Three of these times, it is an explicit reference to “Pharaoh.” The other two times it is used in plural form as “kings.”

Rich: That just means he forgot to use apostrophes.

Jake: Then you are not judging what he actually wrote, but instead you are attacking a straw man. Moreover, if he forgot to use apostrophes then why does the explanation for figure 1 have an apostrophe in “Pharaoh's throne?”

Rich: It doesn't matter anyway, because a “king” is not a “god.”

Jake: Actually, the gods to which Hor was a priest were each kings in their own right. Amun-Re, especially, being “king of the gods,” but the other gods as well, as explained by Richard Wilkinson:

Textual and representational evidence clearly shows that the Egyptians envisioned their deities to be organized in a manner similar to human society, with the institution of kingship providing the governmental model among the gods themselves.... Egyptian mythology is dogmatic that the institution of kingship was coeval with the rule of the gods.

…

Horus, Atum and Mut, for example, were commonly depicted wearing the Double Crown of Upper and Lower Egypt, while from the Third Intermediate Period youthful deities such as Ihy or Harpokrates may be shown wearing almost any of the various types of royal crowns.[2]

Rich: But in facsimile 3, Hor is depicted as being dead and in the afterlife. So, he wasn't even a priest anymore. And besides, Joseph Smith calls him a “principal waiter,” not just a “waiter,” so how do you explain that?

Jake: Well, let's go over these one at a time. First, the Book of Breathings tells us that Hor is priest of Amun-Re, priest of Min, and Priest of Khonsu. These titles do not end at his death, as the book is addressing him by these titles after his death and even after referring to him as Osiris. Second, Hor is a “principal waiter” because Hor was not an average priest but was at a higher level, that of “prophet,” according to the Book of Breathings.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Mormon Puzzle Pieces

[california boy]

I don't like weighing in on these issues because I think they are sensitive areas for the faith of many Mormons.  But I think the primary issue with the Book of Abraham is that the facsimiles are common burial prayer scrolls.  The claim was that they are scripture written by the hand of Abraham himself.  That claim is difficult to make given what records we currently have.  There is no evidence that what is written as the Book of Abraham is a literal translation of the scrolls.  It is a much bigger problem than just what is contained in one of the facsimiles for some.

 

I may be completely wrong on this.  I confess to not following this subject as intently as a lot of people who have come to different conclusions.  

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

I don't like weighing in on these issues because I think they are sensitive areas for the faith of many Mormons. But I think the primary issue with the Book of Abraham is that the facsimiles are common burial prayer scrolls. The claim was that they are scripture written by the hand of Abraham himself. That claim is difficult to make given what records we currently have. There is no evidence that what is written as the Book of Abraham is a literal translation of the scrolls. It is a much bigger problem than just what is contained in one of the facsimiles for some.

I may be completely wrong on this. I confess to not following this subject as intently as a lot of people who have come to different conclusions.

Thank you so much for replying! I appreciate you weighing in. My answer to the Book of Abraham issues does address the points you raise here, while converging on all the objective data points as far as I can discern. In other words, I have a very different narrative that may seem foreign to both apologist and critic because of preconceived ideas derived from the standard narrative. I would like people to challenge my narrative with logical arguments and to not reject it a priori for reasons they can't pin down - e.g. it may "seem" wrong to people since it conflicts with the picture they have in their head even though it does not conflict with data points. If you are willing to give me criticism, I think it would be helpful for you to start by reading my post, "the apologetic proof paradox," linked below, to get a feel for where I am coming from. It addresses a key issue relating to the papyri.

mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-apologetic-proof-paradox.html?m=1

[Rivers]

So what exactly is your BOA solution? Did you write it out somewhere that you could provide a link to? I would love to read it.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Rivers

[ERayR]

Do you have any references or is one expected to accept your work because you day so?

[pogi]

This addresses one character in one facsimile.

[Uncle Dale]

I once brought an LDS PGP to Wednesday night scripture study class.

It was for the purpose of comparing its Book of Moses with our so-called

"Inspired Version;" but my classmates' eyes immediately went over to

the BoA -- because it had "pictures."

 

Somebody else attempted to explain that strange "scripture" to the class,

but botched up his review of things Mormon pretty badly.

 

I thought I was being pretty clever, to be able to inject the term ithyphallic

into the conversation -- but nobody comprehended what I was referring

to (except for one elderly sister, who asked me more, while giving me a

lift home that night).

 

In as judicious language as I could summon up, I tried to explain the LDS

sacred scripture's depiction of Eloheim (or, is it Jehovah?) seated upon

his throne (in what our Victorian ancestors would have called a "delicate"

situation) -- She said nothing in reply that night.

 

Next Sunday, her sole remark was "If you ever bring that book back into

this chapel, have the decency to seal that page shut."

 

But -- I never brought the book back. So, that solved the problem.

 

UD

Edited February 9, 2015 by Uncle Dale

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

So what exactly is your BOA solution? Did you write it out somewhere that you could provide a link to? I would love to read it.

Thank you! Yes here is a link http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-book-of-abraham.html?m=1

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Do you have any references or is one expected to accept your work because you day so?

In the full treatment I provide notes for info that might be hard to find.

[Rivers]

Thank you! Yes here is a link http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-book-of-abraham.html?m=1

Thank you! I didn't realize that conversation excerpt in the OP was fictional and part of your explanation.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

Thank you! I didn't realize that conversation excerpt in the OP was fictional and part of your explanation.

I should have made that more clear - let me know any thoughts or criticism you have as you read

[canard78]

Do you have a long conversation for every single one of the badly translated items in the 3 facsimiles? It's going to be a bit laborious to wade through that many chats about the candy aisle every time!

What's your defence of Min, for example, in #2?

[Alan]

As I've said before, the BoA is both scripture AND a burial scroll.

 

I look at it this way.

In thousands of years from now archaeologists discover a piece of card with a picture on it. The picture depicts a smiling rotund man dressed in red and sporting a full white beard, a green tree, a star on top of the tree, red balls hanging on the tree, and presents around its foot. They identify the card as an Xmas card. They correctly point out that Xmas was a winter solstice celebration dating back to the Roman saturnalia festival. They also correctly describe the common Xmas celebration as including feasting, drinking, office parties, extravagant presents, drunkenness, glutony, sexual promiscuity etc. They know this because, following the discovery of a cache of Playboy and Vogue magazines, they have correctly identified the prevailing religion/culture of the day as Hedonism. 

 

A prophet of God interprets the card differently. He identifies it as a Christmas card. The jolly man represents an all seeing, all knowing god (he knows if you've been good or bad - as the song goes) who is the giver of gifts, the evergreen tree represents eternal life, the star represents the star of Bethlehem, the red balls the Saviours great drops of atoning blood.... and so on.

 

Both the archaeologist and the prophet are 100% correct.

[Buckeye]

As I've said before, the BoA is both scripture AND a burial scroll.

 

I look at it this way.

In thousands of years from now archaeologists discover a piece of card with a picture on it. The picture depicts a smiling rotund man dressed in red and sporting a full white beard, a green tree, a star on top of the tree, red balls hanging on the tree, and presents around its foot. They identify the card as an Xmas card. They correctly point out that Xmas was a winter solstice celebration dating back to the Roman saturnalia festival. They also correctly describe the common Xmas celebration as including feasting, drinking, office parties, extravagant presents, drunkenness, glutony, sexual promiscuity etc. They know this because, following the discovery of a cache of Playboy and Vogue magazines, they have correctly identified the prevailing religion/culture of the day as Hedonism. 

 

A prophet of God interprets the card differently. He identifies it as a Christmas card. The jolly man represents an all seeing, all knowing god (he knows if you've been good or bad - as the song goes) who is the giver of gifts, the evergreen tree represents eternal life, the star represents the star of Bethlehem, the red balls the Saviours great drops of atoning blood.... and so on.

 

Both the archaeologist and the prophet are 100% correct.

 

This can work so long as historicity is not needed for something to be "correct." But the minute we start care whether Adam, Nephi, Abraham, and Christ were real historic people - and in particular that the historic events attributed to them really happened - then the prophet starts to have a problem.

[The Nehor]

This is an impressive chain of suppositions with no real evidence:

Abraham says, speaking in past tense, that “at this time” human sacrifice “was” the custom of the priest of Pharaoh (Abraham 1:, implying that in Abraham's lifetime he had seen it end (cf. Abraham 1:20). Furthermore, this was not said to be the custom of Egypt, but is only said to be the custom of the “priest of pharaoh.”

I would propose that the priest of pharaoh and Abraham's father were part of a secret combination which conspired to take the throne of Egypt, and succeeded in doing so. The reason for this secret combination was that the Pharaoh chose to reject idolatry and planned on eliminating the practice throughout Egypt. The secret combination sought to defend idolatry by eliminating anyone it perceived as a threat to it. It also sought to unify Egypt under the banner of the gods and to expel outside influence.

But, like Amalickiah in Alma 47, the king who had been instated through murder was himself ultimately killed and his secret combination was put down. However, other idolatrous traditions remained in Egypt and were carried on – without the secret combination.

According to what I am proposing, the leaders of the secret combination adopted the sons of Horus as their insignia/identity, so that they could be “gods” to their followers. In other words, it was their way of claiming legitimacy as rulers and claiming one of their own as a successor to Pharaoh. The sons of Horus were thought to embody the soul of the Horus, and Horus as we have previously discussed, was embodied as the Pharaoh. The sons were represented as the canopic jars into which the deceased Pharaoh's remains were placed. Thus they held the power of renewal, which is a theme we see in The Book of the Dead , which states in reference to the four sons:

And Horus said to Ra, "Give me then two brothers in Pu and two brothers in Nechen, of this my own body; and that they may be with me as an everlasting renewal, through which the earth flourisheth and storms are quenched."[34]

I would also propose that names like “Elkenah,” “Libnah,” “Mahmackrah,” and “Korash” were secret words used in the context of the secret combination. As evidence of this, Abraham 1:7 tells us, “the priest of Elkenah was also the priest of Pharaoh.” This only seems like a relevant fact for Abraham to disclose to us if he's saying that “Elkenah” is a secret name for the Pharaoh himself.

[Uncle Dale]

...

What's your defence of Min, for example, in #2?

 

This was exactly the response of the members of the

Reorganized LDS scripture study group I mentioned in

an earlier posting to this thread.

 

Back in 1999 I did not feel comfortable in making any

direct criticism of LDS sacred scripture, but I did point

out the "Min" figure as the Mormon Church's official

depiction of Heavenly Father.

 

"You must be wrong about that," was all the class leader

had to say. But others in the meeting looked at me like I

must be half-crazy.

 

And, perhaps the presiding elder was correct, in saying

that my allegation that the seated Min in the PGP is

Eloheim. Probably the God of Abraham was supposed

to be Jesus the Son of Mary -- but I'll let some better

informed scholar correct my possible error.

 

Still, it is unbelievable that the First Presidency of the 

CofJCofLDS would publish BoA figure two as preserving

Father Abraham's own testimony, upon papyrus, that

the God of Israel is that figure seated upon a royal throne.

 

Has anybody ever brought this matter to the attention of

those elderly gentlemen?

 

UD

[cinepro]

This is an impressive chain of suppositions with no real evidence:

Abraham says, speaking in past tense, that “at this time” human sacrifice “was” the custom of the priest of Pharaoh (Abraham 1: , implying that in Abraham's lifetime he had seen it end (cf. Abraham 1:20). Furthermore, this was not said to be the custom of Egypt, but is only said to be the custom of the “priest of pharaoh.”

I would propose that the priest of pharaoh and Abraham's father were part of a secret combination which conspired to take the throne of Egypt, and succeeded in doing so. The reason for this secret combination was that the Pharaoh chose to reject idolatry and planned on eliminating the practice throughout Egypt. The secret combination sought to defend idolatry by eliminating anyone it perceived as a threat to it. It also sought to unify Egypt under the banner of the gods and to expel outside influence.

But, like Amalickiah in Alma 47, the king who had been instated through murder was himself ultimately killed and his secret combination was put down. However, other idolatrous traditions remained in Egypt and were carried on – without the secret combination.

According to what I am proposing, the leaders of the secret combination adopted the sons of Horus as their insignia/identity, so that they could be “gods” to their followers. In other words, it was their way of claiming legitimacy as rulers and claiming one of their own as a successor to Pharaoh. The sons of Horus were thought to embody the soul of the Horus, and Horus as we have previously discussed, was embodied as the Pharaoh. The sons were represented as the canopic jars into which the deceased Pharaoh's remains were placed. Thus they held the power of renewal, which is a theme we see in The Book of the Dead , which states in reference to the four sons:

And Horus said to Ra, "Give me then two brothers in Pu and two brothers in Nechen, of this my own body; and that they may be with me as an everlasting renewal, through which the earth flourisheth and storms are quenched."[34]

I would also propose that names like “Elkenah,” “Libnah,” “Mahmackrah,” and “Korash” were secret words used in the context of the secret combination. As evidence of this, Abraham 1:7 tells us, “the priest of Elkenah was also the priest of Pharaoh.” This only seems like a relevant fact for Abraham to disclose to us if he's saying that “Elkenah” is a secret name for the Pharaoh himself.

 

  ( <- That's what I looked like trying to give more than one rep point to that post.  Why can I only give one!)

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

As I've said before, the BoA is both scripture AND a burial scroll.

 

I look at it this way.

In thousands of years from now archaeologists discover a piece of card with a picture on it. The picture depicts a smiling rotund man dressed in red and sporting a full white beard, a green tree, a star on top of the tree, red balls hanging on the tree, and presents around its foot. They identify the card as an Xmas card. They correctly point out that Xmas was a winter solstice celebration dating back to the Roman saturnalia festival. They also correctly describe the common Xmas celebration as including feasting, drinking, office parties, extravagant presents, drunkenness, glutony, sexual promiscuity etc. They know this because, following the discovery of a cache of Playboy and Vogue magazines, they have correctly identified the prevailing religion/culture of the day as Hedonism. 

 

A prophet of God interprets the card differently. He identifies it as a Christmas card. The jolly man represents an all seeing, all knowing god (he knows if you've been good or bad - as the song goes) who is the giver of gifts, the evergreen tree represents eternal life, the star represents the star of Bethlehem, the red balls the Saviours great drops of atoning blood.... and so on.

 

Both the archaeologist and the prophet are 100% correct.

Your analogy is very good, and it may interest you to know that I include a similar Christmas analogy in my solution.

[Mormon Puzzle Pieces]

  ( <- That's what I looked like trying to give more than one rep point to that post.  Why can I only give one!)

Why did it deserve rep points?

[The Nehor]

Why did it deserve rep points?

Solid use of grammar.

[DragonLancer]

As I've said before, the BoA is both scripture AND a burial scroll.

 

I look at it this way.

In thousands of years from now archaeologists discover a piece of card with a picture on it. The picture depicts a smiling rotund man dressed in red and sporting a full white beard, a green tree, a star on top of the tree, red balls hanging on the tree, and presents around its foot. They identify the card as an Xmas card. They correctly point out that Xmas was a winter solstice celebration dating back to the Roman saturnalia festival. They also correctly describe the common Xmas celebration as including feasting, drinking, office parties, extravagant presents, drunkenness, glutony, sexual promiscuity etc. They know this because, following the discovery of a cache of Playboy and Vogue magazines, they have correctly identified the prevailing religion/culture of the day as Hedonism. 

 

A prophet of God interprets the card differently. He identifies it as a Christmas card. The jolly man represents an all seeing, all knowing god (he knows if you've been good or bad - as the song goes) who is the giver of gifts, the evergreen tree represents eternal life, the star represents the star of Bethlehem, the red balls the Saviours great drops of atoning blood.... and so on.

 

Both the archaeologist and the prophet are 100% correct.

 

Ryan's proposal is that elements of the original scroll of the Book of Abraham came down to us in modern times repurposed as the Book of Breathings (Sensen Document).  Your analogy is flawed, because in Ryan's concept, the symbols in use in the Book of Breathings started out anciently as part of the Book of Abraham.

 

In my theory, which is somewhat similar, anciently, those symbols were repurposed by ancient people as Abrahamic, and came down to us.  So, the reason your analogy is flawed is because some Prophet wouldn't just willy-nilly pick some symbols and start interpreting it this way.  In both Ryan's theory, as well as mine, these symbols have a HISTORY from ancient times as being interpreted Abrahamically.  So in our day, this isn't the first time they were interpreted this way or used this way.   Both Ryan's theory, as well as mine, explains differing ways in how these symbols were associated with Abraham in ancient times.  And so, your analogy fails. 

[DragonLancer]

Your analogy is very good, and it may interest you to know that I include a similar Christmas analogy in my solution.

 

But Ryan his analogy has a fatal flaw, because in your conception, as well as in mine, these symbols in the Sensen Papyrus have a history as being associated with Abraham.  Joseph Smith's usage of them, therefore, is not new, but a restoration of something of ancient precedent.

[The Nehor]

My theory is that the Book of Abraham was written in English originally and that God sent a computer back in time and switched the font to Wingdings to hide it from the unbeliever. This strange font became the Egyptian language and if someone would just become fluent in Wingdings or would type it in and switch the font we could get an accurate translation of the Book of Breathings that would be the modern Book of Abraham though some of the punctuation may be off due to scribal errors.

Note: This will only work on Windows 95 computers.

[mfbukowski]

Do you have a long conversation for every single one of the badly translated items in the 3 facsimiles? It's going to be a bit laborious to wade through that many chats about the candy aisle every time!

What's your defence of Min, for example, in #2?

If you didn't know it was "Min" you would think it was a stick figure of someone giving a sign in the present temple.  That's an arm on the other side of his body, with his hand extended at waist height, with a hand held in "approximately" a fist, because I do not want to say the correct description.  The other arm forms a square with, fancy that, a compass instead of a hand.  Golly gee I wonder what that could mean?

 

And that's exactly what it is.

 

Joseph was re-defining what his eyes plainly saw.  He called it "translation" because in his language, "translation" could mean a reinterpretation and a change into something else, or the explanation of the meaning or significance of a symbol

 

This is from Webster's 1828 dictionary, underlining added.

 

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.

 

Edited February 9, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Anteojito]

My problem with the BOA is that no one with real Authority will address the issue.  

 

We have what people trained in Egyptology say

We have what the apologists say

We have what the Church Leadership say (I am referring to what is written in the BOA)

 

So for me, what apologists say means nothing. They do not have the authority from the church to speak on its behalf.

 

If BKP for example, would come out and say that "The BOA is "X" and you need to get in line" I would respect that. I may not agree, but I would respect a firm stance on the topic.

 

Like him or not, BRM told it like he saw it. That is leadership. Again, I don't agree with harldy anything he said, but I admired his courage to lay it out there for the world to see.