Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

[_consiglieri]

Do you REALLY think that the Egyptological academy actually ACCEPTS Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Book of Breathings?

A glance at my post above may temper your condescension.

[_BrianH]

LOL ...

Let me know if you ever want to get serious about something, little girl.

-BH

It is difficult to take seriously any argument from a flagrant sexist.

I dismiss you out of hand, Brian.

All the Best!


--Consiglieri

Ah ...the usual passive aggressive, cowardly irrelevant accusation and total avoidance of the subject at hand. Nothing quite impresses someone seeking a substantial debate as an answer to a very simple question in the form of a childish, irrelevant and unsupported personal accusation.

Your imaginary "gods" must be very proud of you. Be sure and let me know when you come of age, boy.

-BH

.

[_honorentheos]

Hi BrianH,

A while back I asked how your answer would differ from those of our pro-LDS participants if we were to take a similar line of reasoning as you use with the Joseph Smith papyri translation but apply it to scientifically refuted ideas contained in the Book of Genesis?

You've claimed elsewhere that all Mormoms appear to be cowards, and even had the gall to include ex-Mormons who supported your position in that category simply because they questioned your lack of integrity.

Since you don't value cowardice in the face of challenge, let's have it. Answer my question.

Oh, while the defenders of the pro-LDS argument may or may not mean this, you need to recognize that if Abraham were a real person (I doubt that personally), he would have been a Sumerian (Ur) with an entirely different set of deity than the Egyptians that included family deity. As I recall, some have suggested that the hebrew God YHWY may have simply been Abraham's family deity who, it so happened to turn out, didn't like Abraham's Dad making idols for other family deity so Abraham was commanded to break them all. So who knows what deity-names we're dealing with when it comes to Abraham?

Now, I could be wrong, but I wonder if there is an argument to be made outside of the realm of science that simply suggests the Egyptian papyri were a corrupted form of true theology conveyed by Abraham and what Joseph received via his seership was a restoration of something "true" but not accurately contained on the document. Thus, while modern science has been able to provide an accurate translation of the papyri hieroglyphs, it simply lacks the means of providing what a seer would be able to provide - a pure form of the original theology corrupted by the priesthood of Egypt?

Of course, I personally don't buy that, but I think its no different than a biblical literalist arguing for a literal resurrection of Christ or that Adam and Eve really were the first human beings.

If you are going to use the tool of science, friend BH, please recognize it has to be used in full. And it cuts just as sharp when it encounters your own beliefs. Maybe even more so.

[_consiglieri]

Nothing quite impresses someone seeking a substantial debate as an answer to a very simple question in the form of a childish, irrelevant and unsupported personal accusation.

Like when you called Corpsegrinder a "little girl"?

I get it. Color me impressed.

While you are trying to respond to how it was Joseph Smith correctly intuited the four sons of Horus represented the four cardinal points, you can try on the fact that Joseph somehow also managed to get the crocodile in Facsimile No. 1 correct, when he identified it as the "idolatrous god of Pharoah."

Modern Egyptologists view the crocodile in much the same way.

The crocodile's power to snatch and destroy it's prey was thought to be symbolic of the might of the pharaoh - the strength and energy of the reptile was a manifestation of the pharaoh's own power. The word 'sovereign' was written (using crocodile hieroglyphs). This way, the crocodile - and thus Sobek - was linked to the pharaoh, the sovereign of Egypt.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sobeka.htm

LDST's position ably explains any differences between Joseph Smith's translations and those of modern Egyptologists.

How do you explain the correspondences?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Little Boy")

[_BrianH]

Hi BrianH,

A while back I asked how your answer would differ from those of our pro-LDS participants if we were to take a similar line of reasoning as you use with the Joseph Smith papyri translation but apply it to scientifically refuted ideas contained in the Book of Genesis?

You've claimed elsewhere that all Mormoms appear to be cowards, and even had the gall to include ex-Mormons who supported your position in that category simply because they questioned your lack of integrity.

Since you don't value cowardice in the face of challenge, let's have it. Answer my question.


...blah blah blah <snip>

Why? What has your question to do with the subject under debate here in this thread? How is it, in your mind, that EVEN IF the entire Bible was proven to be a total hoax forged by the Catholic Church in 1492 when Columbus sailed the ocean blue, that would then somehow provide us with any reason whatsoever to think that Joseph Smith really did translate the Book of Breathings into the "Book of Abraham"???

-BH

.

[_honorentheos]

It wouldn't provide us with any reason to believe that Joseph Smith provide a translation of the papyri. In fact, it would make the argument that much easier since we could simply point out there is no evidence for a literal Abraham to begin with and the mythology that both leads up to him and decends from him is all moral fable.

Science, friend BH: it's a two-edged sword and it cuts through your own beliefs both bone and sinew.

[Guest]

Nothing quite impresses someone seeking a substantial debate as an answer to a very simple question in the form of a childish, irrelevant and unsupported personal accusation.

Like when you called Corpsegrinder a "little girl"?

I get it. Color me impressed.

CG was obviously behaving like a little girl. She is here to disrupt and prevent any cogent debate on the subject at hand, sort of like you.

While you are trying to respond to how it was Joseph Smith correctly intuited the four sons of Horus represented the four cardinal points, you can try on the fact that Joseph somehow also managed to get the crocodile in Facsimile No. 1 correct, when he identified it as the "idolatrous god of Pharoah."

Modern Egyptologists view the crocodile in much the same way.

The question you are avoiding as you try to change the subject here is, why should we think that Smith was right in his identification of the canopic idol/jars as "Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash", when those who can actually read Hieratic script and who are familiar with even the basics of Egyptian mythology & religion (of which Smith was totally ignorant) have universally recognized those same idols by the names that appear throughout all of the relevant literature: Imsety, Duamutef, Hapi, Qebehsenuef?

ALL of the idol gods of Egypt were the "gods of Pharoah", so its not hard to conclude that this idol was among them. And by the way, the word "Pharoah" did not exist in Abraham's day according to Mormon Egyptologist Stephen Thompson et al, so its appearance in the so-called "Book of Abraham" is just another anachronism demonstrating the falsehood of Smith's "revelations from God".

The crocodile's power to snatch and destroy it's prey was thought to be symbolic of the might of the pharaoh - the strength and energy of the reptile was a manifestation of the pharaoh's own power. The word 'sovereign' was written (using crocodile hieroglyphs). This way, the crocodile - and thus Sobek - was linked to the pharaoh, the sovereign of Egypt.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/sobeka.htm

LDST's position ably explains any differences between Joseph Smith's translations and those of modern Egyptologists.

Your predictable and empty cheerleading here aside, LDST has yet to even TRY to provide us with any reason to think that Smith's translation and identification of the canopic jars is correct, let alone explain away what he has just dismissed as meaningless differences between Smith and those who actually know what they are talking about. If you would like to point out where he even TRIED, please do. Until you do, your self-serving assessment will remain as empty as it is obvious.

How do you explain the correspondences?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Little Boy")

[/quote]

Why should I explain the alleged "correspondence" to you and let you change the subject when YOU have not answered the initial question which defines the topic of this debate?

Keep running.

-BH

.

[_BrianH]

It wouldn't provide us with any reason to believe that Joseph Smith provide a translation of the papyri. ...<snip>

Then it is irrelevant.

-BH

.

[_consiglieri]

Why should I explain the correspondence to you and let you change the subject when YOU have not answered the initial question which defines the topic of this debate?

Keep running.

-BH

It is clear that when confronted on a fair field of battle with weapons of your own choosing, you are the one who turns and runs away.





Like a little girl.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_honorentheos]

by the way, BH, it was awfully convenient of you to "blah-blah-blah" this out of my post:

Oh, while the defenders of the pro-LDS argument may or may not mean this, you need to recognize that if Abraham were a real person (I doubt that personally), he would have been a Sumerian (Ur) with an entirely different set of deity than the Egyptians that included family deity. As I recall, some have suggested that the hebrew God YHWY may have simply been Abraham's family deity who, it so happened to turn out, didn't like Abraham's Dad making idols for other family deity so Abraham was commanded to break them all. So who knows what deity-names we're dealing with when it comes to Abraham?

Now, I could be wrong, but I wonder if there is an argument to be made outside of the realm of science that simply suggests the Egyptian papyri were a corrupted form of true theology conveyed by Abraham and what Joseph received via his seership was a restoration of something "true" but not accurately contained on the document. Thus, while modern science has been able to provide an accurate translation of the papyri hieroglyphs, it simply lacks the means of providing what a seer would be able to provide - a pure form of the original theology corrupted by the priesthood of Egypt?

Personally, I think it would have been very odd to have Joseph accurately call out egyptian gods while talking about Abraham the Sumerian. We'd have a literal, ongoing war in the heavens! As it is, I think my explanation above covers any argument you make from science by relying on faith and the role of seer per LDST's comments. At that point, there isn't much more to say than you are missing the point - Abraham wasn't in Egypt so Joseph Smith doesn't have to reveal truths about Egyptian deity, he has to reveal truths about God in order for LDS persons to believe in his abilities to restore lost truths.

Deal with that if you can. And if you say another thing about the papyri without explaining how your own views somehow are out of reach of scientific examination then = FAIL.