Bokovoy on Facsimile 3

[_CaliforniaKid]

David,

I will defer to your expertise on the subject. Like I said, Hebrew Bible is neither my interest nor my area of study. You've got me curious now, though: are there any known rites or places of worship dedicated to the cult of Israelite kings? I knew that Israelite kings were anointed in special ceremonies and entered into a special relationship with Yahweh as his "sons", but I guess I always thought of this as distinct from situations where kings (or their "geniuses") were actually worshipped as divine.

Have a good day,

-Chris

[_Enuma Elish]

Let's see, between Shade's "that is a blatant falsehood; Hor is merely sitting on a throne," and aussieguy55's reference to Semitic adaptation as a "theory," I don't why I waste my time posting anything of substance on this board.

To make matter's worse, anytime I want to discuss the mad man Bill Hamblin, the moderators delete my threads.

[_Chap]

Let's see, between Shade's "that is a blatant falsehood; Hor is merely sitting on a throne," and aussieguy55's reference to Semitic adaptation as a "theory," I don't why I waste my time posting anything of substance on this board.

To make matter's worse, anytime I want to discuss the mad man Bill Hamblin, the moderators delete my threads.

The moderators here delete your threads? Have you tried going telestial?

[_Who Knows]

So David - if what you're saying is correct (and to the level of importance or correctness that you're implying) shouldn't we see egyptologists around the world studying Joseph Smith's amazing 'translations'? I mean, my understanding of this stuff is next to zero (my interest in the Book of Abraham lies with the translation process), so I have to naturally defer to the experts.

I guess maybe i'm just not following correctly, but why aren't the experts seeing what you're seeing? That just doesn't add up for me, especially when you say something like 'critics are fighting a losing battle'. Couldn't you in fact equally claim 'egyptologists are fighting a losing battle'

[_Enuma Elish]

David,

I will defer to your expertise on the subject. Like I said, Hebrew Bible is neither my interest nor my area of study. You've got me curious now, though: are there any known rites or places of worship dedicated to the cult of Israelite kings? I knew that Israelite kings were anointed in special ceremonies and entered into a special relationship with Yahweh as his "sons", but I guess I always thought of this as distinct from situations where kings (or their "geniuses") were actually worshipped as divine.

Have a good day,

-Chris

Hey Chris,

I'm not an expert in the archeological remains of ancient Israel. I'm a "text" guy and though I'm interested in the view of deified kings in the ancient Near East, it's not my focus. I would have to do some digging (no pun intended) to find out.

There's no doubt that kings in Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia, and Israel were seen as "divine." What it meant for each of these groups, however, to call their king a "god" is a complicated affair that we have not yet, nor will we probably ever, fully understand.

I suspect that each people and time period would have understood the designation a bit differently.

best,

--DB

[_Enuma Elish]

Hello Who Knows,

So David - if what you're saying is correct (and to the level of importance or correctness that you're implying) shouldn't we see egyptologists around the world studying Joseph Smith's amazing 'translations'? I mean, my understanding of this stuff is next to zero (my interest in the Book of Abraham lies with the translation process), so I have to naturally defer to the experts.

I guess maybe i'm just not following correctly, but why aren't the experts seeing what you're seeing? That just doesn't add up for me, especially when you say something like 'critics are fighting a losing battle'. Couldn't you in fact equally claim 'egyptologists are fighting a losing battle'

We will never see Egyptologists around the word studying Joseph Smith's amazing translations. If we approach the texts as an attempt by the Prophet to interpret ancient Egyptian documents, then clearly the Prophet was in error.

However, if we understand the texts correctly, namely as the Prophet adapting the texts to his vision of Abraham and LDS theology, the connection between ancient Near Eastern views concerning deification, the divine council, etc., and the interpretations provided by Joseph are quite profound.

I recognize that Joseph appears to have believed that his adaption was a literal translation, however, the fact that the Prophet was mistaken on this issue does not create any theological problems in my mind.

best,

--DB

[_Who Knows]

We will never see Egyptologists around the word studying Joseph Smith's amazing translations. If we approach the texts as an attempt by the Prophet to interpret ancient Egyptian documents, then clearly the Prophet was in error.

However, if we understand the texts correctly, namely as the Prophet adapting the texts to his vision of Abraham and LDS theology, the connection between ancient Near Eastern views concerning deification, the divine council, etc., and the interpretations provided by Joseph are quite profound.

I recognize that Joseph appears to have believed that his adaption was a literal translation, however, the fact that the Prophet was mistaken on this issue does not create any theological problems in my mind.

best,

--DB

Ok, I think I'm following you now. So basically, the text in the papyri (the characters next to the facsimiles) were completely unnecessary (for Joseph Smith to be able to 'translate' the Book of Abraham). Only the facsimile's themselves were important to Joseph Smith?

In other words - it's useless for egyptologists to compare the Book of Abraham with the papyri - since of course they do not match. What the egyptologists should be doing is comparing the text of the Book of Abraham with current understandings of the ancient world? Is this correct?

And then, you feel the Book of Abraham reveals things that were unknown at the time of Joseph Smith, but are known today by egyptologists (and historians and whoever else). Is this correct?

[_Enuma Elish]

We will never see Egyptologists around the word studying Joseph Smith's amazing translations. If we approach the texts as an attempt by the Prophet to interpret ancient Egyptian documents, then clearly the Prophet was in error.

However, if we understand the texts correctly, namely as the Prophet adapting the texts to his vision of Abraham and LDS theology, the connection between ancient Near Eastern views concerning deification, the divine council, etc., and the interpretations provided by Joseph are quite profound.

I recognize that Joseph appears to have believed that his adaption was a literal translation, however, the fact that the Prophet was mistaken on this issue does not create any theological problems in my mind.

best,

--DB

Ok, I think I'm following you now. So basically, the text in the papyri (the characters next to the facsimiles) were completely unnecessary (for Joseph Smith to be able to 'translate' the Book of Abraham). Only the facsimile's themselves were important to Joseph Smith?

In other words - it's useless for egyptologists to compare the Book of Abraham with the papyri - since of course they do not match. What the egyptologists should be doing is comparing the text of the Book of Abraham with current understandings of the ancient world? Is this correct?

And then, you feel the Book of Abraham reveals things that were unknown at the time of Joseph Smith, but are known today by egyptologists (and historians and whoever else). Is this correct?

That's a good assessment of my perspective. I agree with every critic who suggests that the traditional orthodox view of the Book of Abraham and the facsimiles, yea, even the view apparently held by Joseph himself is in error.

[_Who Knows]

That's a good assessment of my perspective. I agree with every critic who suggests that the traditional orthodox view of the Book of Abraham and the facsimiles, yea, even the view apparently held by Joseph himself is in error.

Ok. So would it be too much work for you to bust out some verses from the Book of Abraham, that you feel were unknowns at the time of Joseph Smith, but that have been confirmed or discovered since his time? Sorry, I'm sure you've done this, but my mind works in a crazy order. I'm just trying to keep it simple - for my sake.

[_Dr. Shades]

To make matter's worse, anytime I want to discuss the mad man Bill Hamblin, the moderators delete my threads.

Look in the Off-Topic Forum; you'll be pleasantly surprised.