Fortigurn wrote:Here are some comments from Professor Castillos which weren't quoted:
The detailed interpretation and translation that Joseph Smith made of these common ancient Egyptian funerary scenes is quite absurd, to put it mildly, for instance, in Number 1, the figure is seen as a pagan priest about to sacrifice Abraham and the canopic jars are described as "idols", the ba or soul of the deceased is described as "the Angel of the Lord"; in Number 2 the version is even more creative and the "translation" completely divorced from reality, in spite of the Prophet's vivid imagination, he was baffled by a series of characters which he described as certain "numbers", which certainly was not anything of the sort but a simple line of writing; in Number 3, things really seem to get out of hand, the scene according to Joseph Smith was Abraham discussing astronomy with the Pharaoh.
Thanks, Fort, exactly where I was going with this. Jimmy, why didn't you post the whole context of the artcle?
Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Castillos wrote:But if traditional notions are upheld, Mormon egyptologists are on this subject, so to speak, between a rock and a hard place, because if they admit that Joseph Smith's interpretations have little to do with current egyptological knowledge, they will be in trouble with their church leaders and if they proclaim their agreement with current church beliefs on this subject, they will most likely be in trouble with their other colleagues, a difficult position hardly anybody would envy.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
Yes, that's the same guy to whom Paul referred earlier, and it's the same guy I just quoted. I don't see why you quoted him, since he offers not a shred of support for the traditional LDS view of the Book of Abraham.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
Fortigurn wrote:Here are some comments from Professor Castillos which weren't quoted:
The detailed interpretation and translation that Joseph Smith made of these common ancient Egyptian funerary scenes is quite absurd, to put it mildly, for instance, in Number 1, the figure is seen as a pagan priest about to sacrifice Abraham and the canopic jars are described as "idols", the ba or soul of the deceased is described as "the Angel of the Lord"; in Number 2 the version is even more creative and the "translation" completely divorced from reality, in spite of the Prophet's vivid imagination, he was baffled by a series of characters which he described as certain "numbers", which certainly was not anything of the sort but a simple line of writing; in Number 3, things really seem to get out of hand, the scene according to Joseph Smith was Abraham discussing astronomy with the Pharaoh.
Yeah, but only if traditional interpretations apply, he says that it would be completely
different if a different approach is taken.
jimmyspa wrote:..If so, the way in which this revelation was transmitted to a Prophet is not so important or relevant as the validity, the basic goodness and the internal consistence of such writings and their agreement with the contemporary events as known from other sources, all which would be clearly beyond the capability of a man without divine inspiration."
Jimmy
I beg to differ, the donkey is just playing dead. I'm going to wack it again.
The way in which the "revelation" was transmitted to a "prophet" is not so important or relevant as the validity etc. However, the testimony of the "prophet" and the multitude of the witnesses is - it was a TRANSLATION.
The most amazing part of this translation is that God prestoed a simple funerary script into a book written 2,000 years earlier by a famous polygamist and then poof change the document back again to what it is.
Fortigurn wrote:Here are some comments from Professor Castillos which weren't quoted:
The detailed interpretation and translation that Joseph Smith made of these common ancient Egyptian funerary scenes is quite absurd, to put it mildly, for instance, in Number 1, the figure is seen as a pagan priest about to sacrifice Abraham and the canopic jars are described as "idols", the ba or soul of the deceased is described as "the Angel of the Lord"; in Number 2 the version is even more creative and the "translation" completely divorced from reality, in spite of the Prophet's vivid imagination, he was baffled by a series of characters which he described as certain "numbers", which certainly was not anything of the sort but a simple line of writing; in Number 3, things really seem to get out of hand, the scene according to Joseph Smith was Abraham discussing astronomy with the Pharaoh.
Yeah, but only if traditional interpretations apply, he says that it would be completely different if a different approach is taken.
Jummy
Please explain what you mean by "traditional interpretations" as they would apply to the Book of Abraham.
Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Fortigurn wrote:Here are some comments from Professor Castillos which weren't quoted:
The detailed interpretation and translation that Joseph Smith made of these common ancient Egyptian funerary scenes is quite absurd, to put it mildly, for instance, in Number 1, the figure is seen as a pagan priest about to sacrifice Abraham and the canopic jars are described as "idols", the ba or soul of the deceased is described as "the Angel of the Lord"; in Number 2 the version is even more creative and the "translation" completely divorced from reality, in spite of the Prophet's vivid imagination, he was baffled by a series of characters which he described as certain "numbers", which certainly was not anything of the sort but a simple line of writing; in Number 3, things really seem to get out of hand, the scene according to Joseph Smith was Abraham discussing astronomy with the Pharaoh.
Yeah, but only if traditional interpretations apply, he says that it would be completely different if a different approach is taken.
Uh Jimmy you don't seem to see the problem. If the traditional interpretation is abandoned, then the LDS Church doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's been telling everyone for this past 100 years and more that the traditional interpretation is the right one. This would be less of a problem if your church didn't claim to have prophets who are supposed to sort this stuff out. Unfortunately, it's clear that your prophets know nothing, and your church has to be repeatedly corrected by non-Mormons.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
It seems to me that Professor Castillos ignores in his research all of the other Abraham writings found outside of Mormonism. Perhaps if he did so he would see that the facimilies all describe exactly what Abraham went through while in Egypt.
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
Gazelam wrote:It seems to me that Professor Castillos ignores in his research all of the other Abraham writings found outside of Mormonism. Perhaps if he did so he would see that the facimilies all describe exactly what Abraham went through while in Egypt.
Actually he wouldn't. But you're avoiding the issue. The issue is that the Egyptian on the papyri are not what Smith said they were. That is the issue. It is for this reason that Castillo is suggesting that the LDS Church abandon its traditional claims regarding the papyri. They are only an embarrassment to professional LDS Egyptologists, and a laughingstock to non-LDS professional Egyptologists.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|