Have you studied the scholarship and examined the scholarly consensus that Abraham was a mythical figure?
I will answer your question if you will answer or give some substantiative comment on my earlier question:
In the past Dan Vogel has been rather 'duck and weave' when it comes to going into any depth on the topic of Shinehah. He says it was used as a 'code' word in the D&C, if I'm not mistaken, but fails to attribute the ancient Egyptian correlation. Not only that, but that Shinehah can be traced to the time of Abraham's life in Egypt.
Am I wrong? What do YOU make of Shinehah and the conversations that have gone on surrounding the 'random' use of this word by Joseph Smith in the Book of Abraham? I'm asking because I would expect there are some brilliant minds here, including Marcus's, that could add some light on this topic. It seems to present a conundrum for the critics.
Or maybe not?
Regards,
MG
My point is that if Abraham wasn’t a real person, then none of the other “bullseyes” that Joseph Smith got right matter.
It’s like believing Hercules was a real person, and believing that you translated some documents that he wrote. No matter what is in that document, it certainly wasn’t written by Hercules.
I will answer your question if you will answer or give some substantiative comment on my earlier question:
In the past Dan Vogel has been rather 'duck and weave' when it comes to going into any depth on the topic of Shinehah. He says it was used as a 'code' word in the D&C, if I'm not mistaken, but fails to attribute the ancient Egyptian correlation. Not only that, but that Shinehah can be traced to the time of Abraham's life in Egypt.
Am I wrong? What do YOU make of Shinehah and the conversations that have gone on surrounding the 'random' use of this word by Joseph Smith in the Book of Abraham? I'm asking because I would expect there are some brilliant minds here, including Marcus's, that could add some light on this topic. It seems to present a conundrum for the critics.
Or maybe not?
Regards,
MG
My point is that if Abraham wasn’t a real person, then none of the other “bullseyes” that Joseph Smith got right matter.
I think they do. More specifically, this one. The bullseye may directly confirm that Abraham was a real person.
Have you looked at and read any of the four links I've provided to you?
I suppose you might respond to the following with something other than "No, it cannot" or "there is no"...without providing any backup for what you're saying.
I don't need to. You made an assertion with nothing to back it up.
You say, "I have unicorns in my basement!"
I reply, "No, you don't."
Your rejoinder is, "You didn't offer an evidence that I don't have unicorns in my basement."
The bullseye may directly confirm that Abraham was a real person.
We know that Joseph Smith's revelations claim that Abraham was a real person. Smith also claimed Abraham's father (Terah) was 70 years old when Abraham was born. We are also informed by Joseph Smith that Terah was born when his father Nahor was 29 years old.
QUESTION:
Were Tera and Nahor real people as documented through Smith's revelations?
Have you studied the scholarship and examined the scholarly consensus that Abraham was a mythical figure?
I will answer your question if you will answer or give some substantiative comment on my earlier question:
In the past Dan Vogel has been rather 'duck and weave' when it comes to going into any depth on the topic of Shinehah. He says it was used as a 'code' word in the D&C, if I'm not mistaken, but fails to attribute the ancient Egyptian correlation. Not only that, but that Shinehah can be traced to the time of Abraham's life in Egypt.
Am I wrong? What do YOU make of Shinehah and the conversations that have gone on surrounding the 'random' use of this word by Joseph Smith in the Book of Abraham? I'm asking because I would expect there are some brilliant minds here, including Marcus's, that could add some light on this topic. It seems to present a conundrum for the critics.
Or maybe not?
Regards,
MG
Dan can speak for himself but I think he explained it here.
Dan Vogel says:
December 7, 2021 at 3:01 am
Jeff, You seem perplexed about my discussion of Shinehah, but I was focused on the use of it by Gee to argue that the translation had reached Abr. 3:17 in the Kirtland phase. If the Hebrew words were added later, why not Shinehah? Its use to prove the translation had exceeded Abr. 2:18 is weak. I wasn't concerned with it as evidence of antiquity. My main goal was to correct chronology.
I will answer your question if you will answer or give some substantiative comment on my earlier question:
In the past Dan Vogel has been rather 'duck and weave' when it comes to going into any depth on the topic of Shinehah. He says it was used as a 'code' word in the D&C, if I'm not mistaken, but fails to attribute the ancient Egyptian correlation. Not only that, but that Shinehah can be traced to the time of Abraham's life in Egypt.
Am I wrong? What do YOU make of Shinehah and the conversations that have gone on surrounding the 'random' use of this word by Joseph Smith in the Book of Abraham? I'm asking because I would expect there are some brilliant minds here, including Marcus's, that could add some light on this topic. It seems to present a conundrum for the critics.
Or maybe not?
Regards,
MG
Dan can speak for himself but I think he explained it here.
Dan Vogel says:
December 7, 2021 at 3:01 am
Jeff, You seem perplexed about my discussion of Shinehah, but I was focused on the use of it by Gee to argue that the translation had reached Abr. 3:17 in the Kirtland phase. If the Hebrew words were added later, why not Shinehah? Its use to prove the translation had exceeded Abr. 2:18 is weak. I wasn't concerned with it as evidence of antiquity. My main goal was to correct chronology.
The problem seems to be that Vogel does not directly engage with the significance of Shinehah as a genuine Egyptian word for the sun recognized by Egyptologists.
Dan can speak for himself but I think he explained it here.
The problem seems to be that Vogel does not directly engage with the significance of Shinehah as a genuine Egyptian word for the sun recognized by Egyptologists.
I suppose you might respond to the following with something other than "No, it cannot" or "there is no"...without providing any backup for what you're saying.
I don't need to. You made an assertion with nothing to back it up.
You say, "I have unicorns in my basement!"
I reply, "No, you don't."
Your rejoinder is, "You didn't offer an evidence that I don't have unicorns in my basement."
Four links. All apologetic. No commentary or summary from you. This is blatant link and run.
I'll let the links stand as they are with the additional comment that each of these essays gives reason to think that Shinehah is an anomaly. How do you explain it?
