Vogel Schools Jacob Hansen on Book of Abraham

[Shulem]

MG? Screw him. He's stuck with the Book of Abraham whether he likes it or not and that's his problem. And what he makes of the tale told in chapter one about a woman discovering Egypt after the biblical flood dated at 2400 BC is his problem too.

I've already expressed my views in regard to the Book of Abraham elsewhere.

Right. And you know what I think? I think you don't believe Smith's origin story of *how* and *when* Egypt was "first" founded according to chapter one. YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT! And you're absolutely correct not to. So, I congratulate you for that much.

Welcome to the critics club, MG. Would everyone please welcome MG to the critics club?

Thanks.

[Shulem]

I've already expressed my views in regard to the Book of Abraham elsewhere.

What, no more continuous revelation from Mormon-MG who should be filled with the so-called Spirit®?

Thus, spiritual MG has declared all that there is to declare. There can be nothing left for him to declare.

Hey, MG, tell us who reigned over Egypt about the time Greek-Egyptus went down to discover the land of Egypt?

[Shulem]

I've already expressed my views in regard to the Book of Abraham elsewhere.

Oh, I forgot to mention how the views you've expressed elsewhere concerning the Book of Abraham say nothing about the main point I've brought up which is that ancient Egypt cannot fit into Smith's biblical timeline. I acknowledged that you brought up David Rohl and his so-called New Chronology which I suspect you know very little about. Thank goodness I gave you my personal links that put things in perspective when it comes to reducing time off the time-line and thus shorten the chronology.

You used Rohl's to define "unresolved issues" that might lend support to a shorter chronology in favor of Smith's in the Book of Abraham. But in doing so you clearly tipped your hand in showing you don't know what you're talking about and possibly used deception in your post to point readers away from the truth. Indeed, you're a sly one, MG. But not sly enough for me! You see, David Rohl's ideas do nothing to save Smith's narrative that Egypt was founded in 2300 BC! But YOU would like to think so because you've got a lying spirit about you. Readers on this board should be warned of your deceptive practices which mirrors the apologetic model created by crooked Mormon Egyptologists.

Anyway, here's Rohl and see for yourself that his "unresolved issues" do nothing to help the Book of Abraham. You see, even Rohl supports an Egypt that greatly predates the Egypt of Smith's making.

Checkmate, MG! (which means shut your f-ing mouth because I don't want to hear another word from you -- shut up!)

[Moksha]

I've already expressed my views in regard to the Book of Abraham elsewhere.

Thanks.

At times like this in the narrative, you might like to take a paragraph and refresh your conclusions and perhaps even post a link to the longer exposition.

The Timeline of the Shire extends well beyond the coming of Bilbao Baggins' 111th Birthday.

[MG 2.0]

…shut your…mouth because I don't want to hear another word from you…

TTOC

[Shulem]

…shut your…mouth because I don't want to hear another word from you…

TTOC

I'm glad we have come to this understanding. Please don't infect the thread with false and misleading information designed to defend your position when in fact it does not.

Thanks.

[Shulem]

At times like this in the narrative, you might like to take a paragraph and refresh your conclusions and perhaps even post a link to the longer exposition.

For over a hundred years, the Church enjoyed the luxury of not having to deal with much Book of Abraham criticism from a chronologically historical point of view as explained in my Celestial thread and in other threads on this board. Book of Abraham criticisms generally focused on things pertaining to translation and the mischaracterization of the hieroglyphic writing and vignettes -- notably the Facsimiles. But that has since changed! I'm not an evangelical Christian taking swipes at the Church while in the process ignoring the elephant in the room which is: Early biblical chronological history is a myth and is not based on fact! The Bible is wrong!

So, you see, I'm taking a swipe at the Bible and the Book of Abraham and it kills two birds with one stone.

You may call me, David.

[dan vogel]

Dan can speak for himself but I think he explained it here.

The problem seems to be that Vogel does not directly engage with the significance of Shinehah as a genuine Egyptian word for the sun recognized by Egyptologists.

Regards,
MG

The best evidence shows Joseph Smith used shinehah as a code name for the 1835 D&C, and that Abraham chapter 3 was dictated in 1842. It also appears in an 1838 revelation (D&C 117:8). Joseph Smith associated the name with the Adamic language, before the arrival of the papyri. It's not evidence for anything.

[dan vogel]

I know a lot of codes were used to keep polygamy secret but what was their reason for using code words for buildings and towns? Was it simply Smith and others doing super secret club stuff?

The link that I provided in Wikipedia gives a short description of why code names were adopted:

These names appear only in seven of the book's sections, mainly those dealing with the United Order (or United Firm). It is believed that their purpose was to avoid the use of these sections in lawsuits by opponents of the Church, since giving the real names might have provided evidence that the United Order was legally a company, with its members financially liable for each other and the whole Order.

I hope that Vogel doesn't feel his thread has been hijacked in posting subject matter not discussed in his podcast which is the purpose of this thread.

I will say that Jacob Hansen seems somewhat stoopid.

No, I'm enjoying this conversation.

[Shulem]

No, I'm enjoying this conversation.

Oh good; I figured if the thread remained on a Book of Abraham track then you'd be okay with it.

Thanks for chiming in.