Vogel's new book on Abraham

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Shulem »

Vogel wrote:Smith therefore identified Ta-sherit-Min's scroll and the Nefer-ir-nebu vignette as the record of ancient Joseph just as he identified Hor's scroll as the Book of Abraham. This raises an obvious question: Since Gee and Muhlestein have argued that the the Book of Abraham was on the same scroll as Hor's Book of Breathings, do they also want us to believe a real Book of Joseph was attached to the end of Ta-sherit-Min's Book of the Dead? One wonders if they have thought sufficiently through the implications of their "long-scroll" theory.

Oh, they have thought about it long and hard, you can be sure of that. But they are not paid by the Church to undermine faith in Smith's claims in translating the Book of Abraham and the promise to someday translate the Book of Joseph. Gee & Muhlestein are paid to put a spin on anything and everything to go in the direction they want it to go.

Vogel mentioned that Oliver Cowdery wrote a piece in the Messenger and Advocate wherein Cowdery mentioned specific vignettes on the papyrus and how those things related to ancient biblical themes. Does Gee believe those vignettes are part of the Book of Joseph? Or, is the Book of Joseph attached separately at the end of the scroll as Gee postulates is the case with the Book of Abraham on Hor's scroll?

But look:

Wikipedia wrote: The deceased sitting on a mat before three Gods, which Cowdery described as "The representation of the god-head."

Image


The deceased standing before a walking serpent. Cowdery said that this was the Serpent of Eden.

Image


The deceased striding in front of a pillar which represents the city Heliopolis. Cowdery associated it with "Enoch's Pillar."

Image

So, Gee is stuck with what to do about all the hieratic writing that surrounds the vignettes. What of the writing that flanks the vignettes? Is that part of the Book of Joseph? Obviously, to Smith & Cowdery, the vignettes were biblical themes that were used to tell the story and the Book of Joseph must be very close at hand. Just how close at hand is the Book of Joseph to the hieratic writing that surrounds the vignettes?

These are questions that Gee will not answer. I'm quite confident that John Gee has no expectations whatsoever that there was actual writings anywhere on that scroll wherein he could translate it into a so-called Book of Joseph. Gee can translate the writing around the vignettes and it doesn't translate into the Book of Joseph, let alone the things Cowdery said they meant. That is a problem!

Not only do defenders have the writing of the Facsimiles to contend with but also the writing that surrounds Cowdery's vignettes described meticulously in the Church periodical! And where was Joseph Smith during all that? He was right there at Oliver's side.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Shulem »

Hi Dan,

Are you still around? I will be taking up the second half of your book before too long. I set it aside so that I wouldn't devour it in a single sitting but extend the pleasure. I hope my criticisms expressed in this thread didn't touch a nerve or make you angry. Your book is wonderful and will remain on my bookcase for life.

You are welcome to come up to the Celestial Forum and inform curious board members and anyone else about your thoughts and feelings of omitting Shinehah in your book as evidence to support Joseph Smith's claim to translate Egyptian.

Thanks,

Shulem

Jeff Lindsay and Stephen O. Smoot take aim at Dan Vogel over “Shinehah”
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Philo Sofee »

Do come up to the celestial Dan. I also would love to hear your take on Shinehah. Shulem has very rudely :lol: :lol: :lol: put out my research and his own on Shinehah when we were apologists, and we can't seem to refute ourselves... :lol: :lol: :lol: So we look forward to you coming and helping us into our glorious apostasy... :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 6:20 pm
Do come up to the celestial Dan. I also would love to hear your take on Shinehah. Shulem has very rudely :lol: :lol: :lol: put out my research and his own on Shinehah when we were apologists, and we can't seem to refute ourselves... :lol: :lol: :lol: So we look forward to you coming and helping us into our glorious apostasy... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Never fear, my friend, you don't have to go back to church! Save ur money and keep thinking for yourself. I've got it all covered and am working on the Shinehah problem right now as a matter of fact. You won't be disappointed. U can trust Shulem to get the job done and then some!

By the time I'm done with Shinehah it will disappear from apologetic websites altogether.

Merry Christmas everyone!

:lol:
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Mon Nov 01, 2021 6:20 pm
:lol: :lol: :lol:

ANNOUNCEMENT:

Shulem has taken the Shine out of Shinehah! Shinehah will never be the same again!

The apologists are going to really hate me now.

Please wonder on up with your free ticket to to the Celestial Forum and find out for yourself how that shine has disappeared! Don't you remain in the dark by ever residing in the Terrestrial. You owe it to yourself to be a little more glorified.

thank you
User avatar
dan vogel
CTR A
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 1:37 am

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by dan vogel »

Shulem,
Sorry for the delay. If Cowdery was the primary scribe, then time was taken to draw the three groups of characters and WWP could follow along. If Joseph Smith changed the wording during dictation from "who reigned" to "who began to reign," Cowdery decided to change it one way and WWP another. If WWP copied later, he would not have needed to correct his. The only way WWP could make an inline correction later would be for him to write "reigned" wipe erased and then cancelled it and then continued on the same line with "began to reign." At the same time, Cowdery would then correct his to match. WWP makes a number of mistakes apparently due to the rush in writing from dictation, rather than from copying.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Shulem »

dan vogel wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 12:53 am
Shulem,
Sorry for the delay. If Cowdery was the primary scribe, then time was taken to draw the three groups of characters and WWP could follow along. If Joseph Smith changed the wording during dictation from "who reigned" to "who began to reign," Cowdery decided to change it one way and WWP another. If WWP copied later, he would not have needed to correct his. The only way WWP could make an inline correction later would be for him to write "reigned" wipe erased and then cancelled it and then continued on the same line with "began to reign." At the same time, Cowdery would then correct his to match. WWP makes a number of mistakes apparently due to the rush in writing from dictation, rather than from copying.

Okay then, looking at Cowdery's dictation (photo below) the opening sentence:

"Katumin, Princess, daughter of On-i-tas" agrees with WWP. It appears that Cowdery may have taken license to then write "[Pharaoh King]" in brackets when he should have only written "king" by itself. Phelps simply wrote "On-i-tas of Egypt" but then penciled the word "king" above to complete the royal title for On-i-tas. So, Cowdery was writing too much stuff and WWP was slower and not writing enough. Quite a contrast, I'd say.

Then a problem begins after Cowdery draws his inline characters (maybe there was a distraction between Smith and the scribes during that moment) and then dictation resumes and Cowdery writes "who reigned" while in that same instance of dictation WWP wrote "who reigned" and then suddenly dictation stopped because Smith snapped his finger to make a correction to have both of them write "began to reign" instead of "who reigned". Thus we see how each scribe made that correction.

Simultaneous dictation therefore seems to be what is taking place.

Don't you just love this stuff? lol
Cowdery dictation wrote:Image
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Shulem »

Dan,

I just finished chapter 3 on Pure Language. I think you are on solid ground and spot on about how John Gee is wrong to excuse Joseph Smith as the most active member of *his* Egyptian Alphabet project in showing how his penmanship and marked differences detail how he was as much involved as Cowdery and Phelps who were simply following the prophet. John Gee is wrong in trying to distance the prophet from his manuscripts. Smith was the Translator and his ordained scribes and assistants followed his lead and sustained him in every way they could. Your observations clearly point out that Smith was an active participant and he was the leader of the project as well as the leader of the Church. That makes sense, right? If he's the leader of the Church then he must also be the leader of the translation project because he held the keys of the gift of translation seeing he was the Seer.

Your scholarship is excellent. Shulem-approved!!

lol

I trust chapter 4 will be fun.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Vogel's new book on Abraham

Post by Shulem »

John Gee-Gee wrote: Volgel doesn't know what he's talking about even if the characters jumped out of the margins and bit him on the nose. I'm the Egyptologist. I know the characters. I know the writing. I know what it all means. Listen to me!

I know because I know. And Shulem, I'll never tell you the King's name. It's a secret and it's sacred.

Image
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

I as in ME

Post by Shulem »

Joseph Smith, July 1835; via Willard Richards in September of 1842 wrote:The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arrangeing a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.

Image

Joseph Smith
Post Reply