Gee's paper on Four Idolatrous Gods in the Book of Abraham

[_Dr Moore]

More likely for two of them, but Gee doesn't consider acknowledging in his paper:

* Libnah was borrowed from the Old Testament.
* Elkenah was borrowed from the Old Testament name Elkanah

[_Tom]

Gee writes:

The Hittites preserved a myth, supposedly Canaanite,31 about this god. According to that myth, Elkunirša lived at the headwaters of the Euphrates river.32 The myth, as such, is lamentably fragmentary, but has been summarized as follows:

“Ašertu, the wife of Elkunirša, attempts to seduce Baʿal. The Storm-god reveals everything to her husband and insults her on his inspiration. Thirsting revenge, Ašertu regains the favor of her husband, who then lets her do whatever she like with Baʿal. The goddess Anat now comes on the scene. Having overheard the conversation between Elkunirša and Ašertu, she warns Baʿal. Here the text breaks off. Elkunirša is the Hittitized form of the Semitic phrase ‘El Creator of the Earth.’”33

The myth contains intriguing passages, such as one character (Ašertu) saying to another, (Baʿal) “Come sleep with me”; and when the offer was refused, responding, “Else I will press you down with my [word] and [stab] you with my [. . .]”34 The restoration of “stab” comes from a parallel passage in the story. This passage echoes the passage in the Book of Abraham in which “this priest [of Elkenah (see Abraham 1:7)] had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time, who were the daughters of Onitah, one of the royal descent directly from the loins of Ham. These virgins were offered up because of their virtue; because they would not bow down to worship gods of wood or of stone, they were killed upon this altar, and it was done after the manner of the Egyptians” (Abraham 1:11).

I examined the source cited in footnote 34, Hoffner, trans., Hittite Myths (the second edition is available online here (see pp. 90-92)).

Regarding the Canaanite myth, Hoffner writes:

In this fragment the younger, more virile god Baal (in Hittite called “the Storm God”) is propositioned by El’s wife Asherah (Hittite Ashertu). When he refuses her, she threatens him and eventually accuses him to her husband El. The couple then plan revenge on the Storm God (Baal), but Baal’s sister, Anat-Astarte ... overhears their plan and flies to warn her brother. The text is interrupted by a long break. When it resumes, Baal is treated for injuries.

Hoffner notes that this myth has similarities to the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39) and the Egyptian “Tale of the Two Brothers.”

I’m not seeing the similarity of the Canaanite myth (recall that Gee uses the verb echoes) to the passage in the first chapter of the Book of Abraham:

5 My fathers, having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given unto them, unto the worshiping of the gods of the heathen, utterly refused to hearken to my voice;

6 For their hearts were set to do evil, and were wholly turned to the god of Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah, and the god of Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt;

7 Therefore they turned their hearts to the sacrifice of the heathen in offering up their children unto these dumb idols, and hearkened not unto my voice, but endeavored to take away my life by the hand of the priest of Elkenah. The priest of Elkenah was also the priest of Pharaoh.

8 Now, at this time it was the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to offer up upon the altar which was built in the land of Chaldea, for the offering unto these strange gods, men, women, and children.

9 And it came to pass that the priest made an offering unto the god of Pharaoh, and also unto the god of Shagreel, even after the manner of the Egyptians. Now the god of Shagreel was the sun.

10 Even the thank-offering of a child did the priest of Pharaoh offer upon the altar which stood by the hill called Potiphar’s Hill, at the head of the plain of Olishem.

11 Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time, who were the daughters of Onitah, one of the royal descent directly from the loins of Ham. These virgins were offered up because of their virtue; they would not bow down to worship gods of wood or of stone, therefore they were killed upon this altar, and it was done after the manner of the Egyptians.

[_Shulem]

Time

Based on the Book of Abraham, Abraham seems to have lived in a time when Egyptians were in the northern Levant.

So, you're also saying that based on the Book of Abraham, Abraham seems to have lived in a time when Egyptian kings allowed vile Asiatics to sit on a pharaonic throne and teach Asiatic principles of astronomy and mathematics.

Isn't that right, professor Gee?

The only time when that appears to be the case is between the reigns of the Pharaohs Sesostris II (1871‒1864 BC) or Sesostris III (1863‒1825 BC) on one end and Amenemhet III (1843‒1798 BC) on the other end.

There is no way in hell, by the record, that a vile Asiatic such as Abraham, would have ever been granted the right to sit on the throne of a powerful king of the 12 Dynasty.

You are way over your head, Gee. No way! Abraham never sat in Sesostris's or Amenemhat's throne as claimed by J Smith who didn't know jack crap about Egyptology. Are you really that stupid or is it you're just a liar trying to create a false backdrop wherein stupid ignorant Mormons can eat false Egyptology out of your hand?

You're evil, Gee. You're a liar and have a lying spirit about you.

You deserve to be demonized. You are a false Egyptologist and a liar.

[_moksha]

More likely for two of them, but Gee doesn't consider acknowledging in his paper:

* Libnah was borrowed from the Old Testament.
* Elkenah was borrowed from the Old Testament name Elkanah

These Biblical names are much too commonplace to be considered Egyptian Gods. That would be like admitting the similarities of the names in the Vern Holley maps were more than a mere coincidence.

[_I have a question]

I thought this was an interesting comment from Bryce Hammond

"The odds of Joseph Smith guessing the names correctly is astronomical."

Not necessarily. Given a large enough corpus of texts, it seems one is likely to find many arbitrary patterns. It is perhaps the principle called Ramsey Theory: "Given enough elements in a set or structure, some particular interesting pattern among them is guaranteed to emerge." In other words, the chances are not astronomical, but rather it's basically guaranteed to happen.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

[_Dr Moore]

More likely for two of them, but Gee doesn't consider acknowledging in his paper:

* Libnah was borrowed from the Old Testament.
* Elkenah was borrowed from the Old Testament name Elkanah

These Biblical names are much too commonplace to be considered Egyptian Gods. That would be like admitting the similarities of the names in the Vern Holley maps were more than a mere coincidence.

True true... except that Gee distorts both names to arrive at his "gods" bulls eye.

[_I have a question]

These Biblical names are much too commonplace to be considered Egyptian Gods. That would be like admitting the similarities of the names in the Vern Holley maps were more than a mere coincidence.

True true... except that Gee distorts both names to arrive at his "gods" bulls eye.

When you say he distorts them, do you mean he simply amends them without Egyptological precedent, sort of out of whole cloth, simply for the purpose of creating a bulls eye where one doesn't exist?

[_Dr Moore]

Something like that, yes 100% that is exactly what he does, with all 4 names!

Astronomical odds!

[_Shulem]

Let's be clear about one thing:

The names given by Joseph Smith to the gods under the altar are 100% wrong just like the names he gave to the persons in Facsimile No. 3.

No sir, that ain't Egyptian. Both Smith and Gee are liars. The placing of Hebrew names from Smith's Bible into Egyptian funerary spells is 100% inappropriate and utterly wrong.

You lose, Gee.

[_SteelHead]

This will serve a text book example of the Texas Sharp Shooter fallacy for generations to come.