Enuma Elish wrote:I haven’t written any “whoppers,” Dr. Shades.
Might I humbly suggest that you refrain from misinterpreting your lack of understanding as me somehow lying?
I don't suffer under a lack of understanding. I understand your position perfectly; disagreeing with it is not equivalent to misunderstanding it.
Your comments have demonstrated a lack of awareness regarding not only my perspectives regarding the Book of Abraham, but even the observations made by non-LDS scholars, such as Robert Ritner.
I'm aware of your perspective. I'm simply pointing out that your perspective does not correlate with Joseph Smith's perspective.
Hence, if you’re in part basing your apostasy from Mormonism upon the Book of Abraham as Joseph Smith’s Achilles heel, you may really, really want to reevaluate your position.
If the Book of Abraham was the Jehovah's Witnesses' problem, would you be telling defectees from the Watchtower to Mormonism that they may really, really want to reevaluate their position?
When I state that Facsimile no. 3 depicts the deified deceased Hor “at the veil,” being introduced into the heavenly council or assembly, I have made an observation sustained by every single learned critic of the document.
Indeed you have. I agree with you. Unfortunately, Joseph Smith disagrees with you, with me, and with every single learned critic of the document.
As every learned critic knows, in Facsimile 3, the gods who appear assembled in the council setting include Isis, Osiris, Ma'at, Hor, and Anubis.
Too bad Joseph Smith doesn't know it. That's been my point all along.
Figure five is Hor, the deceased and deified owner of the documents which serves as a “permit” created by Isis to assure that this deified man regains the ability to breathe and function after death while enjoying the privileges and responsibilities connected with the members of the divine council of gods.
Joseph Smith disagrees with you. Smith, through the gift and power of God, translated the characters above his hand to discover that it was Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters. Are you saying that God is wrong?
I suggest you read Robert Ritner's Anti-Mormon article if you still refuse to take my word for it.
I totally take your word for it. Joseph Smith, however, does not, so your argument lies with him.
Joseph Smith adapts this Egyptian document to provide a depiction of Abraham sitting upon the throne. In other words, the Prophet has adapted an ancient temple drama to depict Abraham receiving sacred privileges from the king, including a type of enthronement.
And I adapt this Egyptian document to provide a depiction of Curly, Larry, and Moe attempting to infiltrate a cross-dresser convention.
I submit that Joseph Smith's false adaptation is of no greater value than my false adaptation, and I defy you to prove otherwise.
As I have illustrated, enthronement in the ancient Near East and in the Bible is directly linked with deification. Hence, Joseph’s adaptation of the scene as a depiction of an event in Abraham’s life presents a foreshadowing of Abraham’s current enthronement as an exalted deity within LDS theology (see D&C 132:29).
Too bad he didn't say so.
I recognize that this information has got to prove disturbing to those who want nothing more than to view the Book of Abraham as Joseph's Achilles heel, but I can assure you that I have not presented anything new that learned critics of the text would find objectable.
But you seem to want to leave Smith's translation and interpretation completely out of it.
Yet of course your doubts won’t alter the fact that Facsimile no. 3 is a standard ancient Near Eastern temple drama that historically derives from ancient Sumerian cylinder seals, which depict the owner of the document being introduced into the presence of deity via a sacred handclasp.
Right. It's too bad that Joseph Smith said something completely different; that Shulem the king's principal waiter was fiddling around in front of Abraham sitting on Pharaoh's throne.
Here is an example of one such seal from Mesopotamia. Notice the owner of the seal clasping hands with the deity in the same exact manner depicted in Facsimile no. 3.
Unfortunately, the ones doing the hand-clasping were Shulem, the king's principal waiter, and the prince of Pharaoh. According to the Lord's mouthpiece, neither Abraham nor the deceased were doing it.
This ancient Near Eastern motif, which expresses unity with the divine via the act of a sacred handclasp, appears throughout the biblical psalms in connection with kingship and temple worship. . . Note the connection between the handclasp and enthronement.
Nowhere did the Lord, through his mouthpiece, say that Shulem the waiter was going to be either enthroned or deified.
As Chris has explained, it is once again, you, my friend, who are mistaken. Hor clasps hands with Lady Ma’at in facsimile no. 3. It is Osiris, not Hor, who appears seated upon the throne.
So it's too bad the Lord, through his mouthpiece, totally got that detail wrong, isn't it?
Once more, you have cooked up a nice scenario that corresponds to historical reality, but you have completely ignored Joseph Smith's original interpretation of the document in question. Most egregiously, you have chosen to utterly ignore the meaning of the characters above the figures' hands, the ones that were so helpfully provided by God through the Prophet Joseph.
Ergo, your interpretation is to be regarded as a novel apologetic but not as anything approaching anywhere near exegetical fact.