Icontropy and Book of Abraham Facsimiles: Shulem Has Met His Match!

[_moksha]

Apologists need to explore the possibility of alternate realities. Maybe these events and artifacts come from Alternate Earth where everything lines up perfectly true. Too bad Rod Serling is not around to submit articles to the Interpreter.

[_Physics Guy]

Adopting individual symbols is a lot easier than adopting a whole scene. ... [T]he facsimiles are whole scenes, not disconnected symbols. How often do people take whole paintings from a culture other than their own and re-label them to tell a completely different story?

Thanks for your whole post, but this point of yours in particular is an important observation that doesn't even depend on knowing about ancient Judaism or Egypt. Indeed, why recopy an entire scene exactly, including its incomprehensible written text, just so that you can re-purpose its symbols for your own meanings? That scarcely even makes sense today, when all it takes to copy a scene is a key click. When the only way to copy a scene was to re-paint it all by hand, there was definitely no interest in copying anything except the specific symbols one wanted. You take an ankh, or a crown; you don't take the whole picture.

Ugh. I think I have to admit that Hamblin put one over on me. His post wasn't insightful or reasonable at all. The iconotrophy that has always been happening is adapting previous symbols to new purposes, but what the Book of Abraham has to involve is exact copying of whole multi-figure scenes complete with meaningless glyphs. That is not iconotrophy, and for Hamblin to propose that it was is sheer sophistry. I'm embarrassed I fell for it. Thanks for setting me straight.

[_Philo Sofee]

Adopting individual symbols is a lot easier than adopting a whole scene. ... [T]he facsimiles are whole scenes, not disconnected symbols. How often do people take whole paintings from a culture other than their own and re-label them to tell a completely different story?

Thanks for your whole post, but this point of yours in particular is an important observation that doesn't even depend on knowing about ancient Judaism or Egypt. Indeed, why recopy an entire scene exactly, including its incomprehensible written text, just so that you can re-purpose its symbols for your own meanings? That scarcely even makes sense today, when all it takes to copy a scene is a key click. When the only way to copy a scene was to re-paint it all by hand, there was definitely no interest in copying anything except the specific symbols one wanted. You take an ankh, or a crown; you don't take the whole picture.

Ugh. I think I have to admit that Hamblin put one over on me. His post wasn't insightful or reasonable at all. The iconotrophy that has always been happening is adapting previous symbols to new purposes, but what the Book of Abraham has to involve is exact copying of whole multi-figure scenes complete with meaningless glyphs. That is not iconotrophy, and for Hamblin to propose that it was is sheer sophistry. I'm embarrassed I fell for it. Thanks for setting me straight.

Me too man. Isn't that the point of all this scholarly jargon and techniques though? Fancy words and nifty techniiques from antiquity makes things more believable. Even using the sophisticated word antiquity is more impressive than using ancient times or olden times. It builds up a scholarly image. It was how the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies made it as long as it did. Using these words no one had ever heard of before, how on earth could Joseph Smith have known??? This was the key punchline in so much of the Book of Mormon studies of apologetics. And yet, it has no sticking power. This is important to realize. And interestingly enough, it was the Jenkins/Hamblin debate that made this entire house of cards come down for me personally. It was the end of the illusion I had been suckered into as well.

[_Shulem]

Me too man. Isn't that the point of all this scholarly jargon and techniques though? Fancy words and nifty techniiques from antiquity makes things more believable. Even using the sophisticated word antiquity is more impressive than using ancient times or olden times. It builds up a scholarly image. It was how the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies made it as long as it did. Using these words no one had ever heard of before, how on earth could Joseph Smith have known??? This was the key punchline in so much of the Book of Mormon studies of apologetics. And yet, it has no sticking power. This is important to realize. And interestingly enough, it was the Jenkins/Hamblin debate that made this entire house of cards come down for me personally. It was the end of the illusion I had been suckered into as well.

Great comments from Physics Guy and Philo! You guys are so correct and see the whole picture for what it is. Apologetic tactics used by these guys is a twisted and distorted red herring. It's really bad. I'm afraid that Clark Goble is guilty of this practice as well.

Hey Philo, please post a link to the above mentioned debate between Jenkins/Hamblin.

thanks

[_Manetho]

Hey Philo, please post a link to the above mentioned debate between Jenkins/Hamblin.

thanks

You must have been away from Mormon Discussions at the time; it was the biggest topic on the forum while it was happening. It took place in a bunch of posts on Hamblin and Jenkins' blogs on Patheos, but after the dust settled, Jenkins compiled links to all of them on this page: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm.

[_Shulem]

Hey Philo, please post a link to the above mentioned debate between Jenkins/Hamblin.

thanks

You must have been away from Mormon Discussions at the time; it was the biggest topic on the forum while it was happening. It took place in a bunch of posts on Hamblin and Jenkins' blogs on Patheos, but after the dust settled, Jenkins compiled links to all of them on this page: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm.

Yes, yes, yes. I forgot.

Thank you for posting the link. I need to redo -- moreover find where I last left off. Might as well start at the beginning.

[_Physics Guy]

What was it that Jenkins did that made a big difference for you, Philo? Was there anything in particular, or were you just ready to change your mind at that point anyway?

[_Shulem]

What was it that Jenkins did that made a big difference for you, Philo? Was there anything in particular, or were you just ready to change your mind at that point anyway?

Philo,

I would also be very interested in what specific point or element about the Book of Abraham that bothered you most. Perhaps there is a few, please express what specific things about the Book of Abraham that caused you the most concern. I'm not trying to force a conversation you perhaps don't have energy or interest in having but just want to know where you were coming from. Was there an Achilles’ heel or a breaking point of such?

[_Themis]

Ugh. I think I have to admit that Hamblin put one over on me. His post wasn't insightful or reasonable at all.

Like I said earlier, Iconography is a distraction. Being a good thinker who is not very biased to believe either way a little more investigation revealed it's major flaws, but this distraction is really meant for believing members who have that bias to keep them distracted. While Manetho has made some great points it shouldn't be necessary once once realizes that we have the text that goes with the pretty pictures.

[_Shulem]

we have the text that goes with the pretty pictures.

Hey, Joe, you're wrong about those characters above the head. I don't give a rat's ass what the Holy Ghost told you. You're wrong. You tell the Holy Ghost and the spirit of revelation which is the testimony of Jesus that there is no king's name written in the writing. You're wrong, sir. Your solemn declaration you made in the Times and Seasons is utterly false.



Look Joe: It doesn't say "Shulem" in the writing above the hand. You are making that up just like you made up fictitious Book of Mormon names. You sir, are a liar. It doesn't say Shulem! You are clueless what it really says. Your Mormon revelations are dead wrong and you're not fooling me!

Listen up everybody, Joe Smith is wrong about what the writing says in the Facsimile. He is making names up out of thin air just like he did with the Book of Mormon. He can't read Egyptian.