Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

[notHagoth7]

As to if you're asking me why I give Joseph the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the Pearl of Great Price, I have scores of reasons.

1. Personal witness through the Spirit of God that the Nephite record is of God - and that it testifies of mankind's loving redeemer.
2. Joseph's role in fulfilling repeated Bible prophecies/timelines.
3. Joseph's fulfilled prophecies.
4. Clear testimony from secular histories/cultures that Nephites actually existed/exist.
5. etc.

What are your core reasons for doubting/questioning that God called/led/inspired Joseph?
(As Joseph said: "I don’t blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I would not have believed it myself.")

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Um...not what I said. Move goalposts much?

Your original question: 

My response: Yep.

Moving the goalposts?  

I asked you if you thought the facsimiles originated with Abraham.

You responded with "yep".

So, CFR that support the belief that the facsimiles originated with Abraham.  (No goalpost moving at all.)

Edited March 17, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

I will take a look at your own study and read it.  

Do you have a link? Or I guess I should have asked Robert. 

[notHagoth7]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Please respond to the CFR above to back up your claim regarding the facsimiles.

I did.

Very interested in your response to my other response.

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

The Missing Papyrus Theory, IMO, is very weak and has been discussed here:

"The Missing Papyrus theory fails. Some apologists argue that we do not have the papyri from which the Book of Abraham was translated. This argument fails for multiple reasons, including: 

 

a. The Book of Abraham text itself (Abraham 1:12-14) refers to Facsimile 1 which appears at the beginning of the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll which we have. Furthermore, Abraham 1:12 states that Facsimile 1 appears “at the commencement of this record” which is consistent with the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham since Facsimile 1 appears at the beginning of that scroll.

 

b. All three of the 1835 manuscripts of the Book of Abraham are made up of Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin and a translation of them into the Book of Abraham on the right. All of these Egyptian characters in the manuscripts are taken from the Breathing Permit of Hor in the order they appear on the papyrus, indicating that the Breathing Permit of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll has been translated and there is no disagreement that it has nothing to do with the Smith’s translation of Book of Abraham but is instead a common Egyptian funerary text from the first or second century BC.

 

c. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham (by measuring the length of the scrolls' windings, the length of the scroll has been established - https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf). 

 

d. The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles."

 

Your comparison to the US Constitution is flawed.  We have the original copy of the Constitution, which was signed in 1787.  The copies we have today match the original version.  Now, the BoA for example, does not match any of the existing papyrus fragments we have today.  In fact, the fragments are from thousands of years after Abraham lived and don't even mention his name.  I see no strong argument at this point to suggest that there is a set of lost papyri that might account for the flaws in the BoA.  Even if they were to find some additional papyrus fragments, do you really think they would match Joseph Smith's translation at this point?  Based on what we DO have today, I see no other way but to call the BoA a complete fraud and failed translation (no offense please but that is my opinion).  

 

dberries question was "Then what is the basis of claiming the LDS Church is admitting the Book of Abraham text came from the extant papyri?" which really has nothing to do with the missing papyrus theory.  THe Church in the essay claims it's possible the BoA could be authentic even if the papyrus either extant or the portions that are missing do not say anything about Abraham--the catalyst theory.  If catalyst theory all the reasons to reject the missing papyrus theory go out the window:

Quote

a. The Book of Abraham text itself (Abraham 1:12-14) refers to Facsimile 1 which appears at the beginning of the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll which we have. Furthermore, Abraham 1:12 states that Facsimile 1 appears “at the commencement of this record” which is consistent with the Breathing Permit of Hor scroll being the source of the Book of Abraham since Facsimile 1 appears at the beginning of that scroll.

If the catalyst theory then this doesn't matter.  It could be that the claim in Abr 1:12-14 is wrong or was assumed by Joseph Smith.  Or could be referring to something else entirely.

Quote

b. All three of the 1835 manuscripts of the Book of Abraham are made up of Egyptian characters in the left-hand margin and a translation of them into the Book of Abraham on the right. All of these Egyptian characters in the manuscripts are taken from the Breathing Permit of Hor in the order they appear on the papyrus, indicating that the Breathing Permit of Hor is the source of the Book of Abraham. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll has been translated and there is no disagreement that it has nothing to do with the Smith’s translation of Book of Abraham but is instead a common Egyptian funerary text from the first or second century BC.

THis is a non starter considering Joseph's method of "translation".  He would not have looked at the characters when translating.  THus the characters in the margins next to English text does not represent a translation. 

Quote

c. The Breathing Permit of Hor scroll we have has a missing portion but we know the Book of Abraham could not have appeared there because it is 13 times too small to contain the Book of Abraham (by measuring the length of the scrolls' windings, the length of the scroll has been established - https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf). 

This really has nothing to do with the catalyst theory.

 

Quote

The Missing Papyrus Theory fails to account for the incorrectly translated and incorrectly restored facsimiles."

This too does not address the catalyst theory. 

 

I too think the BoA is not of ancient origin, at least not completely.  But I don't think that matters if one considers it scripture.  It can be scripture and not ancient and not accurate history in any sense. 

[JulieM]

1 minute ago, notHagoth7 said:

I did.

That post contains no references.

Once again, CFR that the facsimiles originated with Abraham.

Please supply actual references or withdraw your claim.  If it's just your opinion, then state that, no need for such rudeness when it's you making the assertion.

[notHagoth7]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

...I asked you if you thought the facsimiles originated with Abraham.

You responded with "yep".

So, CFR that support the belief that the facsimiles originated with Abraham....

I don't need any. Although I understand why you might want some. (I'm analytical by nature as well.)

For me, when the veracity of an individual (i.e. Joseph) is sufficiently established (for me) from multiple reliable vantage points, as I alluded to earlier, I have zero conflict granting that person the benefit of any (supposed) doubt on something as minor as the historical origin of any other ancient religion/practice. 

Should I one day decide to delve further into Egyptian beliefs/practices, and happen to come up with something more relevant from that culture, I'd be happy to share. Short of that, I suggest considering/reviewing some of the other vantage points I've already alluded to. You might likewise conclude that there is considerable mettle/metal/steel behind Joseph's claims of communing with God.

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

I don't need any. Although I understand why you might want some. (I'm analytical by nature as well.)

For me, when the veracity of an individual (i.e. Joseph) is sufficiently established (for me) from multiple reliable vantage points, as I alluded to earlier, I have zero conflict granting that person the benefit of any (supposed) doubt on something as minor as the historical origin of any other ancient religion/practice. 

Should I one day decide to delve further into Egyptian beliefs/practices, and happen to come up with something more relevant from that culture, I'd be happy to share. Short of that, I suggest considering/reviewing some of the other vantage points I've already alluded to. You might likewise conclude that there is considerable mettle/metal/steel behind Joseph's claims of communing with God.

So you have no references?  I really would like to see anything anyone has found regarding the claims both you and Ahab have made here.  

But, I can see that it's just your opinion with no references to back it up.

Why not just state that as per the rules of this board when a CFR is asked for?

Edited March 17, 2017 by JulieM

[notHagoth7]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

That post contains no references.

It alludes to several worthwhile things I'm willing to share/discuss, if that is an acceptable starting point.

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Once again, CFR that the facsimiles originated with Abraham.

What I offered instead was considerable cause to trust Joseph's statements of faith/reality. More valuable than any CFR.

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Please supply actual references or withdraw your claim.  If it's just your opinion, then state that...

It is my belief...which is precisely what you originally asked.Grounds for that belief have been offered...and I would be happy to explore at least some of those grounds with you, upon request.

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

...no need for such rudeness when it's you making the assertion.

Rudeness?

I had/have zero intention of being rude. If you opted to take offense, my apologies. Absolutely no offense was intended. Just a wee bit of playful banter.

 

Per board rules, either answer the CFR or retract the statement of fact and restate as an opinion.  ~Mods

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And if we were to get the opinions of the top 100 Egyptologists today, are they all wrong and flakes as well?  Imagine that -- the top Egyptology scholars' examination is just "irrelevant" ("so what?") to you and means nothing...

This is called cognitive dissonance...

People can believe in the BoA, but don't tell the world it is a valid translation because most of what JS translated is pure nonsense.  Just look at the church's essay:

"None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments."

 

It depends on what they say and how they say it. Ritner is displaying (but evidently not recognizing) cognitive dissonance by injecting bias into his hypothesis and imposing it on his findings. For example, the Church essay does not convey what he says it does in his paper.

You clearly do not understand what my "so what" refers to. I do not presume to know why that is, but since you brought up cognitive dissonance, it could be a defense mechanism to avoid any unpleasantness you might find in experiencing that state.

[notHagoth7]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So you have no references?

But, I can see that it's just your opinion with no references to back it up.

Why not just state that as per the rules of this board when a CFR is asked for?

Julie,

You misunderstand the rules of the board.

I have hundreds/thousands/millions of references for what I have said I believe.

And for why I believe such. (The most important reference, as already stated, is the witness of Heaven. What greater witness/reference could one have?)

As to your opportunity to retrace *some* of my steps, you may start here, if you wish.

Caveat - doing so carelessly/prayerlessly makes you more accountable for the ongoing choice to doubt. I wish you a worthwhile journey/outcome - and hope to be available here to answer questions about that path, should such questions arise.

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Julie,

You misunderstand the rules of the board.

I have hundreds/thousands/millions of references for what I have said I believe.

Ok, that's great.

Please post the links to just 2 or 3 of them (that state the facsimiles originated with Abraham) for me to read.  Thanks.

(And I do understand the rules of this board regarding a CFR that had been issued.  It's a "Banned Behavior" for:

"Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statement" (Which  is what you're doing here.)

Edited March 17, 2017 by JulieM

[notHagoth7]

7 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ok, that's great.

Please post the links to just 2 or 3 of them (that state the facsimiles originated with Abraham) for me to read.  Thanks.

As I said earlier:

"For me, when the veracity of an individual (i.e. Joseph) is sufficiently established (for me) from multiple reliable vantage points, as I alluded to earlier, I have zero conflict granting that person the benefit of any (supposed) doubt on something as minor as the historical origin of any other ancient religion/practice." 

If you're genuinely interested in gauging Joseph's general veracity/reliability, you may, as I invited earlier, begin here. To help gauge his prophetic truthfulness.

You won't find much discussion of Egypt there. (Although there is a worthwhile link to a valuable online video resource.) What you will find is considerable reason for why Joseph's veracity/reliability in other matters is well established.

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7

[HappyJackWagon]

29 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Julie,

You misunderstand the rules of the board.

I have hundreds/thousands/millions of references for what I have said I believe.

And for why I believe such. (The most important reference, as already stated, is the witness of Heaven. What greater witness/reference could one have?)

As to your opportunity to retrace *some* of my steps, you may start here, if you wish.

Caveat - doing so carelessly/prayerlessly makes you more accountable for the ongoing choice to doubt. I wish you a worthwhile journey/outcome - and hope to be available here to answer questions about that path, should such questions arise.

I've seen an assertion twice on this thread, once by you and once by Ahab, that personal revelation or a "witness of Heaven" trumps any need to provide a reference. One can have personal beliefs based on a personal witness but that personal witness does not carry over to inform others like me. Your personal witness doesn't inform me in any way, shape, or form. If a statement is made suggesting a fact, such as "Abraham taught the Egyptians and gave them their funery texts" then there should be some kind of resource to show that it is more than just your opinion. If it is just your opinion, that's fine, but identify it as such. Don't state it as fact and not be able to back it up with anything other than your testimony.

I don't view your comments as condescending like Ahab's but it would be super helpful for discussion to identify personal beliefs/idea/etc as personal as opposed to some kind of church teaching for which there is no reference. This thread has been plagued with derails simply because people refuse to honor the CFR or amend their statement to reflect a personal belief as opposed to a church teaching.

Quote

Elder Ballard- “Gone are the days when a student asked an honest question and a teacher responded, ‘Don’t worry about it!’ Gone are the days when a student raised a sincere concern and a teacher bore his or her testimony as a response intended to avoid the issue. Gone are the days when students were protected from people who attacked the Church.”

https://www.lds.org/church/news/help-build-unwavering-faith-in-students-lives-elder-ballard-tells-ces-teachers?lang=eng

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Hestia]

Ahab has been banned from the thread so carry on without him.  Feel free to consider his statements retracted if it makes anyone feel better.

[notHagoth7]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've seen an assertion twice on this thread...that personal revelation or a "witness of Heaven" trumps any need to provide a reference. One can have personal beliefs based on a personal witness but that personal witness does not carry over to inform others like me.

Understood. Completely.

However, I didn't say/mean that such a witness of Heaven trumps the need to provide any other reference. I instead said that it is the most reliable reference. And is therefore the reference we encourage others to seek, above all.

In agreement with your assertion, scripture and reason and charity are clear that we are to be prepared to provide answers for the reason(s) for our belief.

Many of my reasons for trusting Joseph's revelations about the ancient Middle East/Egypt were offered/provided. Remains to be seen how viable an onramp such reasons/references are for others who are largely of an analytical mindset.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

...there should be some kind of resource to show that it is more than just your opinion....

If I've seen a man, on more than one occasion, run a mile in under 4 minutes, barring any video footage, all I have is my eyewitness testimony that he is capable of running swiftly...at length. And I have provided considerable foundation...drawing from hundreds/thousands/millions of witnesses...that jointly testify that Joseph ran his race...triumphantly. 

If some prefer to focus on the assertion that he had a limp...or on assertions of critics generations later that with such a defect, Joseph somehow couldn't possibly run swiftly/at length, such after-the-fact assertions don't negate what I witness/witnessed. 

If I may be clear, a disbelief statement...which some have repeatedly stated in this thread...is a belief statement...of doubt. And is drastically less supported than my belief statement that was backed up with hundreds/thousands/millions of non-LDS resources. 

My access to this forum is increasingly limited. Hoping to be able to respond to feedback on those proferred/provided resources. 

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

...it would be super helpful for discussion to identify personal beliefs/idea/etc as personal....This thread has been plagued with derails simply because people refuse to honor the CFR or amend their statement to reflect a personal belief as opposed to a church teaching.

I had/have no need to amend my statement.

Julie initially and directly asked whether I believed certain things to be true. Which I truthfully answered.

So to be fair, I'm not the one(s) derailing the thread with after-the-fact hairsplitting/semantics.

That's not meant to be unkind to anyone in this thread. I'm just baffled that someone asks what I believe...and asks for reasons for such a belief...and then that person and others repeatedly decline to comment on the extensive reasons/reasoning actually provided.

If some don't like belief statements, then I suggest such people stop asking belief questions.

Fair 'nuf?

Looking forward to substantive responses to the reasons/reasoning provided for trusting Joseph's veracity/ministry.

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Julie initially and directly asked whether I believed certain things to be true. Which I truthfully answered.

....

Fair 'nuf?

And then you claimed to have "hundreds/thousands/millions of references" to back up what you believe (specifically that the facsimiles originated with Abraham.)

I've asked you to post links to just 2 or 3 of these millions of references.

I think that is a fair and reasonable request.

 

Edited March 17, 2017 by JulieM

[notHagoth7]

22 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And then you claimed to have "hundreds/thousands/millions of references" to back up what you believe (specifically that the facsimiles originated with Abraham.)

I've asked you to post links to just 2 or 3 of these millions of references.

Perhaps I have been unclear.

If so, I will repeat a third time: (Since they say 'third time is a charm.')

I currently have zero references "that the facsimiles originated with Abraham."

Yet I have offered links to hundreds/thousands/millions of non-LDS references that affirm Joseph's testimony/reliability in other matters. So I have to ask: how many letters of reference does a man need to have in order to establish a general/reasonable level of reliability? 

If millions of non-LDS witnesses ain't enough to create a tipping point for a glimmer of hope that Joseph is precisely who he claimed to be...and to start to prayerfully reconsider his testimony...I don't quite know what to offer as an onramp from disbelief to something much more meaningful.

With such a cloud of non-LDS witnesses...spanning over 2,000 years of documented history...it is quite reasonable to affirm/conclude that Joseph's word on Abrahamic issues can also be trusted with reasonable assurance.

Does that clear the air as to my words/meaning?

If so, I invite any and all to actually/honestly address/consider any of the hundreds/thousands/millions of references provided/offered three times previously in this thread.

Awaiting substantive/thoughtful response.

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Perhaps I have been unclear.

If so, I will repeat a third time: (Since they say 'third time is a charm.')

I currently have zero references "that the facsimiles originated with Abraham."

Yet I have offered links to hundreds/thousands/millions of non-LDS references that affirm Joseph's testimony/reliability in other matters. So I have to ask: how many letters of reference does a man need to have to establish a general/reasonable level of reliability? 

If millions of non-LDS witnesses ain't enough to create tipping point for hope that Joseph might be precisely who he claimed to be...and to prayerfully reconsider his testimony...I don't quite know what to offer you as an onramp from disbelief.

With such a cloud of non-LDS witnesses...spanning over 2,000 years of documented history...it is quite reasonable to affirm/conclude that Joseph's word on Abrahamic issues can also be trusted with reasonable assurance.

Does that clear the air as to my meaning?

If so, I invite you to actually/honestly address/consider any of the thousands/millions of references provided/offered three times previously in this thread.

Awaiting substantive/thoughtful response.

Did you see the message from Hestia about answering the CFR? ETA: sorry, I see that you retracted.

Edited March 17, 2017 by Tacenda

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Perhaps I have been unclear.

If so, I will repeat a third time: (Since they say 'third time is a charm.')

I currently have zero references "that the facsimiles originated with Abraham."

Ok, thank you for the retraction,  (this was specifically what my original question was regarding and what the resulting CFR was asking for.)  Sorry if I missed the first two.

If you want to expand the discussion to other topics (ie.  "Joseph's testimony and reliability in other matters"), that could be an interesting discussion, IMO.

Edited March 17, 2017 by JulieM

[notHagoth7]

2 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

Per board rules, either answer the CFR or retract the statement of fact and restate as an opinion.  ~Mods

? I made no statement of fact that needs retraction.

I made a statement of belief that requires no retraction - because it was in direct response to Julie's direct query about what I happen to "believe."

I stand behind every statement of fact I subsequently provided. And offered a link that opens the door to hundreds/thousands/millions of corroborating non-LDS references/witnesses of Joseph's veracity. 

Baffled/intrigued that none have yet opted to comment on what's beyond that initial threshold.

Still awaiting substantive forum response to such.

Regards.

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7

[notHagoth7]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did you see the message from Hestia about answering the CFR? ETA: sorry, I see that you retracted.

? I did not retract. One step.

Yet none have yet ventured to step forward across the threshold and engage with the content provided/offered.

[notHagoth7]

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Ok, thank you for the retraction....

? I have made no retraction. I stand by every word I have said in this thread.

30 minutes ago, JulieM said:

If you want to expand the discussion to other topics (ie.  "Joseph's testimony and reliability in other matters"), that could be an interesting discussion, IMO.

K. Sounds enjoyable, if time/resources/tech access allow.

Would you prefer that discussion here in this thread (since such does weigh into the OP's assertion that the BofA preface was somehow misleading)?

Or would you prefer a separate thread(s)?

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Robert F. Smith]

21 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I'd be happy if anyone can find the word "Kolob" on any papyrus from anytime between 2000 BC and 300BC. It would be even better if any of those word usages talks about stars or worlds. Otherwise a word without reference doesn't mean very much

Kolob appears frequently in ancient Egyptian inscriptions and papyri throughout all of Egyptian history, but that fact needs to be placed into ancient Near Eastern context in order to make any sense.  Here is a short excerpt from my Book of Abraham Commentary (not yet published):

The Afroasiatic root is *qrb/qlb > Proto-Semitic qrb > Akkadian qurbum, qerbum, "near, interior, midst (of cosmic region)" = Hebrew qereb, qarob, "near; interior, midst; heart," Ancient Egyptian qӠb "interior, midst," Arabic qalb (pl. qulūb) "heart,"^[1] which was used for example as Qalb at-Taiman ACanopus, Heart of the South.@^[2]  

Book of Abraham 3:3 refers to "the governing ones; and the name of the great one^[3] is Kolob, because it is near [Heb. qarob "near"] unto me, . . : I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as [the earth]," 4, "Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, . . ; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to [earth]," 16, "Kolob is the greatest of all the Kokau­beam [Heb. kokkabim "stars"] . . , because it is nearest unto me"; Facsimile 2:1, "Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time," i.e., "one day to a cubit"; 2:5, "the Sun, . . borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash [Hebrew ﹸeben-roš,^[4] Greek lithos...kefalen gonias, lithos...ﹸakrogoniaios "key-stone, cornerstone"; cf. Ps 118:22, Isa 28:16, Mat 21:42, Mk 12:10, Acts 4:11, Eph 2:20, I Pt 2:6-7; 1QS 8:7, 4QS258 frag. 2, 1:2], which is the grand Key, or, . . governing power."

All Egyptologists identify the ram-headed creator-god in Facsimile 2:1 as Hnmw "Molder, He-who-makes," variously transliterated in modern times as "Khnum, Khnoum, Chnum, and Chnemu."^[5]  The ancient Greeks referred to him variously as Χvoυβις, Χvoυβι, Χvoυβã, Κvηφ, Κvoυφις.^[6]  In Aramaic generally, and to the Jews at Elephantine (Yeb), Egypt, in particular, he was known as Ḥnum, Ḥnub.^[7]  With four ram heads displayed, he subsumed within himself (1) Reˁ as sun and heavens, (2) Shu of the air, (3) Osiris of the netherworld, and (4) Geb as the earth.^[8]

Khnum (like Amun) was called "Father of the Gods": "Father of the fathers of the gods, the lord who evolveth from himself, maker of heaven, earth, the underworld, water, and mountains."^[9]  At Luxor, Deir el-Bahari, Elephantine, Philae, as well as in the "Great Hymn to Khnum"^[10] at Esna and elsewhere, "he is represented making man out of clay on a potter's wheel," just as Yahweh himself was depicted in the Bible (Gen 2:7, Job 33:6, Isa 29:15-16, 45:9, 64:7, Jer 18:6, Rom 9:20-21).^[11]  Khnum's spouse Heket, the frog-headed goddess, was the midwife who breathed the breath of life into the human and animal bodies Khnum had fashioned on the potter=s wheel (cf. Gen 2:7,19).^[12]  In the "Tale of the Two Brothers" (which is very similar to the story of Joseph and Potiphar's Wife in Genesis 39:7-20), Khnum created the wife of Bata.^[13]  In addition, it was Khnum "who raised up the sky," the dome-like firmament: Hebrew raqiaˁ^[14] (= Book of Abraham Raukeeyang in facsimile 2:4; cf. Gen 1:6-7).

---

     ^[1] Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction, 29,32,58; Erman & Grapow, Wörterbuch, III:9-10; Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed., '178, m-q3b "in the midst of"; Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, "Q" 13:214-227; John Gee, William Hamblin, and Daniel Peterson, A>And I Saw the Stars=: The Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy,@ in J. Gee & B. Hauglid, eds., Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, Studies in the Book of Abraham 3 (Provo: FARMS, 2005), 3 n. 9, on empyrean qalb as the Throne of God.

     ^[2] K. Christensen, ANew Wine and New Bottles: Scriptural Scholarship as Sacrament,@ Dialogue, 24/3 (Fall 1991), 124, citing G. de Santillana & H. von Dechend, Hamlet=s Mill, 73-74.

     ^[3] Abraham 3:3,22 Agreat one(s)@; cf. Syriac rwrbnﹸ Agreat one(s)@ in Odes of Solomon 36:4.

     ^[4] Possibly preceded by the Hebrew kaf-veritatis, used to stress something, as in Obad 11, Neh 7:2 -- Koehler & Baumgartner, eds., Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden: Brill/ Grand Rapids: Eeerdmans, 1951/1953), 27 (5); cf. Geers, JNES, IV/2:65-67.

     ^[5] Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed., Sign List, C4, citing Urkunden, IV:99, 5; Jacq, Fascinating Hieroglyphs, 83; Budge, The Mummy, 275-276; Vycichl Dictionnaire étymologique 62.

     ^[6] Budge, The Mummy, 275.

     ^[7] Erman & Grapow, Wörterbuch, III:381; Grelot, Documents Araméens d'Égypte, 59 ('59.5); the priests of Khnum destroyed the Jewish temple at Elephantine, Egypt, in 410 B.C., apparently in anger over the blasphemous Jewish sacrifice there of rams -- Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 286; Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed., 406-407, citing Kraeling in Biblical Archaeologist, 15/3:64.

     ^[8] Lurker, An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Egypt, 74.  These four gods may be related to Richard Howard's claim that in Khnemu were united "the spirits of the four elements [earth, sky, water, fire]," in his Restoration Scriptures, 2nd ed., 208, fig. 1.

     ^[9] Budge, The Mummy, 275 note 1.

     ^[10] Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, III:109-115.

     ^[11] Budge, The Mummy, 275 (quote); Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament, 56, 70, citing J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, II:81-82, and Gordon, "Khnum and El," Scripta Hierosolymitana, 28:203-214; Murnane, Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt, 23, 214.

     ^[12] Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament, 93n (citing Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, III:113, and Pritchard, ANET, 431), 110.

     ^[13] Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, II:207.

     ^[14]Anchor Bible Dictionary, III:1167-1168; Currid, Ancient Egypt and the Old Testament, 67, citing Sauneron and Yoyotte, La naissance du monde, 72.

Edited March 18, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[notHagoth7]

8 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I'd be happy if anyone can find the word "Kolob" on any papyrus from anytime between 2000 BC and 300BC....

Here's a recent comment that mentions Greek references of *kolob**...a language which clearly predates 300 BC.

8 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

...It would be even better if any of those word usages talks about stars or worlds. Otherwise a word without reference doesn't mean very much

The ancient world, fitting nicely within the window of time you've requested, on various occasions referred to stars (and the like) as God's children/servants.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/job/38.7?lang=eng#p6

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/dan/12.3?lang=eng#p2

See, by way of comparison, the "Metaphorical exegisis" section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob

Thoughts?

Edited March 17, 2017 by notHagoth7