Apparently Nibley thinks that the 7th firmament (also called a "mountain") upon which Abraham was standing was the surface of the sun, and that that's why fire is described. I suggest to you that fire is representative of the glory of God. In any case, nothing in the Apocalypse suggests either that this was the surface of the sun or that the phenomena being described are a helium cycle. Nibley is to be commended for his imagination, but in no way does this lend evidentiary support to the Book of Abraham.
-CK
And what do you think God uses Suns for if not to melt down the dust of the universe and organize it into worlds?
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
I don't know where the earliest known account of the story comes from. There are allusions to it in the 15th chapter of Genesis.
No, there aren't.
The link I provided led to a copy of one of the midrash, the date of its writing I don't know. But it recounts the same story of Nimrod (pharaoh) offering Abraham as a sacrifice.
It was medieval-- too late to be of any real value. And from Kerry's commentary on it, it was not clear if the Nimrod-as-Pharaoh bit was from the midrash itself or if Kerry pulled that from some other source or maybe even just came to that conclusion on his own. Honestly, if you truly think this avenue of investigation is worth pursuing, I think you should acquire a copy of the midrash, post it for us to read with the relevant portions bolded (so we don't have to take Kerry Shirts' word for it), and explain why you think we should consider the medieval version of the story to have evidentiary value even though it is clearly a distortion of an earlier permutation of a story that's first attested in the first century.
And what do you think God uses Suns for if not to melt down the dust of the universe and organize it into worlds?
First of all, I doubt your statement is scientifically sound. Secondly, I'm not sure where it came from. The Apocalypse of Abraham says nothing of the sort, and I don't recall the Book of Abraham saying anything like that either. So... relevance?
I was going to post an excerpt from Hugh Nibleys "Apocryphal writings and teaching of the Dead Sea Scrolls" but it seems the entire thing covers the subject of creation.
Your comments were worthy of a second read. Interesting point of view to say the least - thanks for your contribution to the discussion. There just isn’t any question in my mind that a literal translation of Book of Abraham text in conventional form was not part of the prophet’s work. The catalyst principle definitely applies to the Joseph Smith translation. He took a funerary vignette and used it to tell a story about things that happened long ago although the things in the vignette were unrelated to the actual story the prophet was restoring.
The central theme of Joseph’s revelation regarding Facsimile No. 3 is that the Patriarch Abraham was revealing principles of astronomy while sitting on the throne of Egypt. That’s a mighty thing to say! Now, IF the Facsimile was actually a fingerprint of Abraham’s visit in Egypt, his name would be contained in the writing above his head and there would be something said regarding astronomy. But that is not the case. I'm convinced, based on the evidence we have, even if we had ALL the papyrus had by the prophet we would not find the name Abraham anywhere therein or the story that the prophet restored.
I think the same could be said for the writing that flanks the Facsimile No. 1 as shown in the original papyrus. Abraham is not found in the writings of a funerary spell.
Actually paul, you forget that Mormonism is what we are debating and the only intelectual property that matters IS what has beensaid previously about Mormonism and not your attempts towards grasping at straws.
Admit it or look like a fool.
Vegas, that's the nicest thing you ever said to me. Maybe I can be nice back.
~~~
Now, whatever happened to JOHN GEE? He dropped a bomb on this message board and then ran.
I recieved an email from John Gee stating that this thread was not started by him. Someone of very low character is impersonating him. I am including part of the email I received from John Gee. Frankly I feel bad for having fallen for this hoax. It just goes to show how naïve I can be. My apologies to John.
Dear Brother Osborne,
Thank you for bringing this information to my attention. The individual posting under the pseudonym "John Gee" is certainly NOT me. I did not do it; I would not do it. Consider the following points:
(1) Have you ever seen me do something like this before? My preference is to conduct my discussions on the Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham in print, where I can develop an argument and provide references. In the last half-dozen years in non-Mormon venues alone, I have published a dozen articles and given eighteen presentations at international conferences dealing with various aspects of the Book of Abraham or the Joseph Smith Papyri. Five more articles are in press in various Egyptological publications. I have neither need nor desire to participate on message boards. I do not prefer to write for places where most of the posters are hiding behind the mask of anonymity.
(2) As you can see from my signature on my email, I do not identify myself the way that the impostor did. I have no current interest in posting messages on message boards. Although there may be some good to come from posting messages in the internet's open sewer, I have yet to see it.
(3) I had never heard of this particular message board until you sent me your email. I did not know it existed until this morning.
PLEASE DELETE POSTS IN THIS THREAD THAT HARM JOHN GEE'S REPUTATION. JUST LEAVE THOSE THINGS THAT ARE WORTH WHILE TO THE THREAD. ALSO, PLEASE BOOT THE IMPERSONATOR. DON'T DELAY, THANKS!