Kevin Barney paper on Elkenah

[_CaliforniaKid]

Is "Elkenah" found in the Bible. I've heard of this name being used in America and I assume the parents got it from the Bible?

Elkanah, I believe, is found in the Bible.

[_truth dancer]

Elkenah is also a family name.

There are many folks with that last name from (at least) as far back as the early 1700's If I recall correctly. They settled in Massachutes which is where my ancestors lived at the time.

:-)

~dancer~

[_Jersey Girl]

Is "Elkenah" found in the Bible. I've heard of this name being used in America and I assume the parents got it from the Bible?

Elkanah, I believe, is found in the Bible.

Where is it found in the Bible? I have a hard time deciphering Kerry's notes.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

Heck! Nevermind! I got it with the first reference.

1 Samuel 1

1 - Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name [was] Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:
2 - And he had two wives; the name of the one [was] Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

So why doesn't anyone think that the Prophet didn't simply get the name from 1 Samuel? Of course I don't approach this from the point of defense.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

Libnah

Numbers 33:20

And they departed from Rimmonparez, and pitched in Libnah.

Another name located in the Bible.

Jersey Girl

[_dartagnan]

The Book of Abraham gets deeper and more facinating the more you study it. Far from being some sort of embarassment for Joseph Smith, it actually serves as further proof of his Prophethood.

Sorry, but this statement is just asinine. You’re actually amazed that a man who developed a theology around a glorified man named Elohim (which is wrong in Hebrew) could have just as easily added another “El” name in the Book of Abraham? Not expected, but "amazing" say the apologists. Never mind the fact that it has nothing to do with Egyptian. Never mind that the word “Elkanah”is found on twenty different occasions in the KJV. Since it is part of the “Ancient World,” apologists call this proof of his prophethood!!

This is a Hugh Nibley trick that I am afraid has been followed by too many apologists. He often referred to “the Ancients” as if they were a specific group of people which pertained to whatever “parallel” he was imagining. The “Ancient World” spans thousands of years so it is hardly unfathomable that some kind of parallel somewhere across that spectrum of time, could be interpreted as “similar.”

To call this evidence is weak, but to call it “proof” is absolutely idiotic.

Sorry.

Here is a portion of a critique by LDS scholar Kent Jackson, who wasn't thrilled with Nibley's method in the book he was reviewing:

In most of the articles Nibley shows a tendency to gather sources from a variety of cultures all over the ancient world, lump them all together, and then pick and choose the bits and pieces he wants. By selectively including what suits his presuppositions and ignoring what does not, he is able to manufacture an ancient system of religion that is remarkably similar in many ways to our own--precisely what he sets out to demonstrate in the first place.

Sound familiar? This is essentially current Book of Abraham apologetics in a nutshell.

[_Fortigurn]

Here is a portion of a critique by LDS scholar Kent Jackson, who wasn't thrilled with Nibley's method in the book he was reviewing:

In most of the articles Nibley shows a tendency to gather sources from a variety of cultures all over the ancient world, lump them all together, and then pick and choose the bits and pieces he wants. By selectively including what suits his presuppositions and ignoring what does not, he is able to manufacture an ancient system of religion that is remarkably similar in many ways to our own--precisely what he sets out to demonstrate in the first place.

Sound familiar? This is essentially current Book of Abraham apologetics in a nutshell.

Now that is quotable. Do you have the entire article by any chance?

[_Great Cthulhu]

The Book of Abraham gets deeper and more facinating the more you study it. Far from being some sort of embarassment for Joseph Smith, it actually serves as further proof of his Prophethood.

Sorry, but this statement is just asinine. You’re actually amazed that a man who developed a theology around a glorified man named Elohim (which is wrong in Hebrew) could have just as easily added another “El” name in the Book of Abraham? Not expected, but "amazing" say the apologists. Never mind the fact that it has nothing to do with Egyptian. Never mind that the word “Elkanah”is found on twenty different occasions in the KJV. Since it is part of the “Ancient World,” apologists call this proof of his prophethood!!

This is a Hugh Nibley trick that I am afraid has been followed by too many apologists. He often referred to “the Ancients” as if they were a specific group of people which pertained to whatever “parallel” he was imagining. The “Ancient World” spans thousands of years so it is hardly unfathomable that some kind of parallel somewhere across that spectrum of time, could be interpreted as “similar.”

To call this evidence is weak, but to call it “proof” is absolutely idiotic.

Sorry.

Absolutely! Great rebuttal, dartagnan.

In most of the articles Nibley shows a tendency to gather sources from a variety of cultures all over the ancient world, lump them all together, and then pick and choose the bits and pieces he wants. By selectively including what suits his presuppositions and ignoring what does not, he is able to manufacture an ancient system of religion that is remarkably similar in many ways to our own--precisely what he sets out to demonstrate in the first place.

Sound familiar? This is essentially current Book of Abraham apologetics in a nutshell.

Yes, it does sound familiar. Now it makes perfect sense that Her Amun (a prolific MAD poster) calls himself a Hugh Nibley wannabe.

[_Jersey Girl]

Gaz,

Regarding Elkenah. If I'm reading the two commentaries accurately, Barney asserts that Elkenah connects to the God of the West. Kerry, asserts that Elkenah connects to the East.

How are these opposing theories any sort of proof of the Prophethood of Joseph Smith?

How are these proof of anything?

The only thing it proves in my view, is that LDS apologists cannot find solid agreement in their theories.

When a total amateur such as myself can go into a topic like this stone cold and find that, if nothing else, the theories don't agree, that some of the names are found in the Bible itself, that Kerry doesn't support or clearly define his position stated in the intro of his commentary, that Barney doesn't agree with Kerry, that apologists are trying to find some sort of theory instead of accepting the work of professional Egyptologists who examined the papyri and the fact that in Egyptian culture the canopic jars were used during embalment (?) to hold the internal organs of the deceased and that the papyri are indeed from the time of Christ, that they are funerary scrolls and NOT see how that fits...and instead make up diverse theories based on Joseph's redrawing the missing parts of the papyri and that such theories don't fit anything...

none of what they're producing constitutes proof of any thing at all.

(I know, that was the longest run-on sentence in history!)

Gaz, I understand that you believe the Book of Abraham to be scripture. I understand why apologists continue to work on their theories. But what are my choices? Remain silent because I think someone is fully immersed in the material they produce knowing the amount of hours and effort that goes into it?

Or do I say what I feel is truth when I see the chance to do so?

I think I've reached a point where I have to say what I feel is the truth. Life is too short and I'm too old to go around faking it . In my postings on this thread, I have tried to present things in a good natured and respectful way. I haven't used defammatory language against either the apologists, their theories or the Prophet Joseph Smith.

I hope you and others have noticed that.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

Gaz,

Here is what I'm talking about by not clearly defining one's position. This is the intro to the piece you gave us by Kerry:

We grant the critics a point in noting the four names of the four canopics under the lion couch are not necessarily Egyptian names. But they are names that are found in the ancient world, namely Egyptian combined with ancient Syro-Canaanitish elements, and that is the point. This is not just gibberish. Abraham is pointing our the ancient Egyptian customs to a non-Egyptian audience of his in the Book of Abraham.

1. What ancient Egyptian customs? The embalming or a sacrifice?
2. Kerry refers to the canopic jars as canopic jars. Canopic jars were used
for embalming. Is that the custom Abraham wants to share with his
non-Egyptian audience?
3. If Abraham is writing for a non-Egyptian audience in language that is meant
for the Hebrew "ear"...why isn't he writing for the Hebrew "eye"?

He doesn't state what Egyptian custom he thinks Abraham is trying to point out to his non-Egyptian audience.

Do you see?

The remainder of the commentary has nothing at all to do with Egyptian customs. Kerry and others are trying to develop theories that fit with Joseph's redrawing of the papyri and Joseph's commentary.

In his commentary, Kerry mentions Anubis on one of the jars.

Gaz....if Joseph had redrawn that scene accurately, the figure of what appears to be a man with a knife...would have had the head of a jackal.

The figure, Gaz, is Anubis. And that, my friend, is Egyptologically correct.

Jersey Girl