BH>>That is incorrect. The fact that Smith's translation is inded "different" means that it IS necessarily incorrect, unless you can meet the fundamental challentge here of showing that the established translation (and relevent identities) is the one that is INCORRECT.
LDST>The fact that the Prophet Joseph rendered a translation that is different than modern scholarship speaks to one fact - the translations differ. There are four possibilities:
Joseph Smith Jr is incorrect, scholars are incorrect
Joseph Smith Jr is incorrect, scholars are correct
Joseph Smith Jr is correct, scholars are incorrect
Joseph Smith Jr is correct, scholars are correct
The truth value of each of these scenarios is not contingent upon whether scholar's and Joseph are in agreement with respect to the translation of the papyri.
That is simply incorrect. The proper identification of these idols does not exist in the vacuum necessary for your statement above to be any value. The truth value of any of the above scenarios is entirely and exclusively dependent upon which one is borne out by the linguistic evidence. The FACT is, the universal consensus of linguistic expertise on this matter not only totally excludes even one word of Smith's "translation", it integrates fully into all of the other relevant linguistic, historical and cultural evidence where Smith's identification/translation has exactly ZERO integration into the cultural, linguistic, historical matrix that informs us about the mythology, religion and language of the ancient Egyptians.
BH>>You can begin by AT LEAST showing us some reason to think that there ever were any deities in Egypt known as "Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash" and then showing us that these names were associated with the canopic deities depicted on the original document.
LDST>God told Joseph, via the gift of seer-ship, that these were the names. God revealed new truth to Joseph.
I don't think you understand the problem you are facing here. I am not asking you to tell me what you believe happened with this "translation". I already know what you have been led to believe. The challenge HERE is for you to provide us with some actual REASONS to think that what you believe is actually TRUE. Simply repeating what the LDS church has told you to think on this matter is altogether inadequate to even begin to address the problem.
BH>>The translation of Egyptian langauge terms and even the proper identificaion of Egypt's mythological deities does not require a "seer" nor any "revelations from God". Such a task is a simple matter of linguistics and history, both of which have provided us with subatantive, relevant facts that conclusively prove -in the continuing absense of any evidence to the contrary- that Mr. Smith had no idea what he was talking about. CLAIMING to have a divine revelation that fully contradicts established FACT on matters of Egyptian language does not amount to a refutation of that fact. We all know what Mormons have been led to believe about Smith's translation of a common and well-recognized "Breathing Permit". The challenge for you here is to provide some actual evidence and valid arguments to show that what you have been led to believe is actually TRUE.
LDST>The claim is that Joseph used his gift of seer-ship to translate an ancient text in the way that God wanted it translated. The claim is not that Joseph was translating, verbatim, Egyptian to English. That is where you are falling down in your argument. You want disprove a claim that has not been made.
Nothing I said above includes nor even hints at me claiming that I thought Smith was translating English to English. That is either a misunderstanding or an outright straw man fallacy on your part. I will say it again:
"The translation of Egyptian langauge terms and even the proper identificaion of Egypt's mythological deities does not require a "seer" nor any "revelations from God". Such a task is a simple matter of linguistics and history, both of which have provided us with subatantive, relevant facts that conclusively prove -in the continuing absense of any evidence to the contrary- that Mr. Smith [i]had no idea what he was talking about".
You can
CLAIM that Smith received a revelation from God until your eyes bleed, H-man; that simply does not meet the challenge you have been presented with here. What you need to do is SHOW US that Smith's translation/identification of these Egyptian idols is CORRECT. The FACT is, the entire body of Egyptological scholarship on the matter proves that he was NOT correct ...unless you can SHOW US something to the contrary ...a task you have not yet done.
BH>>This is a circular argument and is thus invalid. Your claim ASSUMES that Smith's revelation is TRUE, when the fact is, the whole issue here directly addresses the truthfulness of your foundational assumptions about the truthfulness of Smith's alleged revelation.
LDST>Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet, seer, and revelator. Is it your claim that he was not any of those things?
At this point I have to tell you again: simply repeating what you have been led to believe by the LDS church about Joseph Smith is insufficient to meet the challenge of this debate. The topic here is a TEST of your claim that Smith was a prophet. If he really WAS a prophet, then his alleged "revelation" about the identities and names of the four canopic idols found in all Breathing Permits, including the one he bought from Chandler, is CORRECT. He received this alleged "revelation" in 1835, before the Egyptian language or mythology had been studied. As it turns out, AFTER over 150 years of study by countless thousands of qualified archaeologists, Egyptologists, linguists, historians and anthropologists it is evident that Smith was not only wrong, but his "revelation" was not even close.
BH>>You are mistaken. I do NOT view the Book of Abraham as a treatise on Egyptian folk lore. The Book of Abraham is LDS "scripture" - claimed by the LDS church to be a revelation from God. But the FACT is, the "Breathing Permit" from which the Book of Abraham was suppsoedly "translated" (by the alleged "gift and power of God" as you have been told), most certainly IS a 1st century pagan document as required by the mythological religion of Egypt, recording the ritual embalming of a dead Egyptian guy. Moreover, no matter WHAT Smith claimed the Book of Abraham was (and he shows no evidence of even knowing what it was), the FACT is, the original language on the document is the question here. What I do or do not think of the Book of Abraham is not the issue. The issue here is the supposedly miraculous translation from that language asserted by your "prophet" and his organization. But according to all relevant facts in evidence before us all, and as documented in decades of scholarship, the original document identifies the idol/deities depicted on the papyrus as characters VERY different from those claimed by your "prophet", who could not even read the document he supposedly translated. Furthermore, the objective FACTS observed throughout the rest of Egyptian language and mythology fully bear out the universal consensus of all establihed historical and linguistic scholarship and therefore totally DISPROVE the claims of your organization and its "prophets".
LDST>The Book of Abraham is not "scripture", it is scripture. The Book Of Abraham wasn't supposedly "translated", it was translated. Joseph was not a "prophet", Joseph was a prophet. I will not insist that you act respectfully, but your language betrays your motives.
What will help you make your case is to stop simply repeating what you have been told to think, and start actually formulating actual arguments based on some facts and relevant evidence. I already know WHAT you believe. The challenge here is for you to present some evidence and valid reasoning to demonstrate that your claims are true. Simply asserting your opinion about your own beliefs does not even begin to approach the standard of proof about the accuracy and truthfulness of Smith's alleged "translation" of an Egyptian Breathing Permit into the Book of Abraham. Merely repeating what you have been led to believe does not constitute the articulation of a proper argument that will support your claims about what you have been led to believe.
Back to the issue at hand - The Book of Abraham is not a study of ancient languages. It is scripture that was translated by divine intervention.
Oh come on ..that is just a
dodge. I never said the Book of Abraham was a study of ancient languages. The FACT is, the original document was inscribed in an ancient language - a language that Smith claimed to have "translated" by his alleged "gift and power of God" to supposedly understand languages he could not even read. Now, as the one making the positive assertion that Smith DID translate the Breathing Permit papyrus into the "Book of Abraham" you bear the full burden of proof here. What you must do is stop misrepresenting (or perhaps just plain misunderstanding) my challenge and start providing some evidence that will confirm that Smith's "revelation from God" was truthful and correct. If you cannot start meeting that burden of proof, all we will have is the usual empty assertion of what Mormons have been told to think by the LDS organization.
BH>>Now, the task you face here is to DISPROVE the universal consensus of all relevant scholarship, not to just proclaim WHAT you have been told to "think". We already know WHAT you believe. To participate in this debate (much less to prevail here) you must tell us WHY we should think that WHAT you believe is actually TRUE. To do that, you must provide us with some REASONS to conclude that your "prophet's" alleged "revelation" reflects the linguistic FACTS we must change to accept your conclusion.
LDST>That is my task - to disprove the validity of current scholarship on Egyptology? How am I supposed to do that? First, you have not presented any scholarly reference for your claims, so there is nothing here to review. Second, you and I aren't equipped with the proper backgrounds and scholarly tools to engage the current research - my training is not even close to Egyptology or the study of ancient texts.
Your task here is to provide some evidence that will confirm that Smith identified the four canopic idols in his copy of a common Breathing Permit correctly. IF he did, then yes, the uniform consensus of all current Egyptological scholarship will stand corrected. The standard works are available to anyone who can read. Literally ANY book you will ever find on the topic of Egyptian religion will identify “Qebehseneuf”, “Duamutef”, “Hapy” and “Imsety” and most will show you their images. Not ONE has ever even mentioned "Elkenah", "Libnah", "Mahmackrah" or "Korash" let alone assigned any of those names to the idols universally recognized as representing the four Sons of Horus. These are not minor, unknown figures in Egyptology. They are major deities and as such have been thoroughly documented throughout the field of Egyptian mythology. YOU may not be aware of that fact, but your being uninformed does not constitute a refutation.
That said, I've not once disputed that the scholarship is wrong. A cursory reading of my position states that Joseph added new knowledge that does not denigrate the status of current research.
You are simply wrong. The identities and names of these deities is the very essence of this debate. If Smith was right then not only is all relevant scholarship WRONG, we must conclude that the ancient Egyptians themselves did not even know the names of their own deities, since THEY
invariably recognized these mythical gods as “Qebehseneuf”, “Duamutef”, “Hapy” and “Imsety”. Just CLAIMING that Smith had some additional "knowledge" is nothing but an empty assertion. You have not presented any reasons WHY a reasonable person should grant you the truth of this claim. Meanwhile, the entire vast body of well-documented Egyptological scholarship on the matter totally excludes any of Smith's alleged "new knowledge", such that no rational person could do anything but shrug such a claim off as the mechanical
repetition of LDS dogma.
BH>>Should "scripture" not tell the
TRUTH? Why shoud we think that the Book of Abraham is telling the TRUTH, and in particular that it was translated correctly, if you cannot provide any actual evidence or reasons to think that it was?
LDST>What, specifically, does the Book of Abraham claim that you can show to be false? Besides the differences that you've already stated? Have you read The Book of Abraham?
I don't think you understand the nature of a debate. I have no burden to prove what is FALSE since a negative cannot be proven. The burden of proof lies on the one making the POSITIVE assertion - in this case YOU. YOU are saying that Smith was CORRECT in his translation. The Book of Abraham makes MANY claims that can be tested and shown to be true or false. The case in point here is that the Book of Abraham claims that the canopic idols in the rather common Lion Couch scene on the original papyrus and rendered by your so-called "prophet" in his alleged Book of Abraham "translation", are named Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash. That claim is either true or it is false. Your burden here is to provide us with some evidence and valid reasoning that will lead to the conclusion that this claim is both accurate and truthful. As it stands, you have yet to even
TRY to meet the burden of proof you bear in this debate.
BH>>Whether the Book of Abraham is "scripture" or not is not the issue. The issue here is the accuracy of the Book of Abraham's supposedly miraculous translation from what is universally recognized by all relevant scholarship as a 1st century, pagan, Egyptian "Breathing Permit".
LDST>Well, we have the Book of Abraham. It is accepted as canonical scripture by the LDS church...so....
So what? The fact that you accept the Book of Abraham as scripture is not the issue here! I do not in any way dispute that YOU think it is scripture. The issue HERE in THIS debate is a TEST of that claim. If it IS scripture then it must necessarily tell the TRUTH, unless the LDS God is a liar. Now the Book of Abraham tells us many things that are proven FALSE in light of the FACTS of Egyptian language, history, mythology and religion (ALL of which are represented in the original papyrus). The example we are debating here is the FACT that the Book of Abraham claims that the identities of the canopic idols in Facsimile 1 are Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash. Given the abundance of depictions of these important Egyptian mythological figures to the Egyptians themselves and throughout Egyptian literature and lore, your task SHOULD be quite easy. But the sad fact facing the LDS church is that not only are these NOT the correct identities of these idols, these are not even Egyptian words.
I've explained that differences do not mean that one account is true, the other false. Perhaps you can tell me why you so vehemently believe these differences (which I acknowledge are present) show the translation to be fraudulent.
And your explanation is entirely
specious. The FACT is, Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash are NOT the names of these idol deities any more than "Hefnee Gaga" is "George Washington". The names given by Smith to these VERY common Egyptian mythological characters are never mentioned anywhere in ANY Egyptian literature. Nor are the relative identities given in the Book of Abraham even CLOSE to correct. There is not Egyptian deity named "Elkenah". There IS an Egyptian deity universally recognized as "Qebehseneuf". There is no Egyptian deity named "Libnah". There IS an Egyptian deity universally recognized as "Duamutef". There is no Egyptian deity named "Mahmackrah". There IS an Egyptian deity universally recognized as "Hapy". There is no Egyptian deity named "Korash". There IS an Egyptian deity universally recognized as "Imsety".
Not only are these REAL Egyptian names, they are universally recognized names REAL names found throughout Egyptian mythology as found in reference to these particular idols routinely depicted on all 1st century "Breathing Permits" and throughout many other contemporaneous Egyptian iconography and literature. Furthermore, these names have actual MEANINGS that reflect the roles of these deities in the pagan pantheon of Egypt. Finally, the meanings are etymologically rooted in the Egyptian language itself. Thus we have very good reason to conclude that these deities are correctly identified as literally the entire body of relevant scholarship has identified them.
By contrast, the LDS "prophet" tells us that their names of these idols are Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash. These are not Egyptian names. They are not even Egyptian words. They appear nowhere in any archaeological or literary evidence from ancient Egypt, nor indeed anywhere outside the Book of Abraham. Nor do they have any meaning in the Egyptian langauge and they lack any etymological root in any part of the Egyptian language. So, given the total lack of any evidence (and you certainly have not even TRIED to present any) in support of Smith's claim ...the question remains: why should anyone believe him and NOT all of the evidence piled up so high against him?
If you cannot present any evidence to support the claim of Smith's accuracy and truthfulness in his allegedly miraculous translation, then we have good reason to dismiss the claim of this being a revelation in the first place because God SHOULD HAVE been able to AT LEAST get the names of the characters in his own "revelation" correct.
-BH
.