Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Kevin Graham

Book of Abraham

Recommended Posts

== P.S. Kevin: Being 'aware' of something and having 'access' to that same thing is not synonomous.

Never said it was.

== Considering the world they lived in, it is more feasible that they had heard about these French findings in a newspaper, etc., and thought 'maybe we can figure it out too.'

That is beyond the realm of plausibility. Why? Because Smith would be placing the LDS Church within the confines of verification. If he screwed up, and scholarship proved his translation wrong, the Church he founded goes into the toilet because it proves he was a false prophet. He never would have taken that chance. Ever.

Everything that points to the Church's truthfulness is spirit based, and intentionally so. This means the Church could never be proven false through scientific or worldly means. However, if Smith knew scholars had cracked the Egyptian code in Europe, then that would have been his first jump into that arena, allowing the Church to stand or fall on scholarly verification.

Smith never would have allowed this.

Share this post


Link to post

So much to say and so little time to say it. Many of the points made in this thread have already been addresses in other threads.

Now, I would like everyone to read again what Joseph Smith was thinking and tie it to the KEP, please.

Share this post


Link to post

Kevin,

That works if he knew he was a fake and trying to mislead people. If he knew what it was he had (and that the translation was going to be accurate), then why would he care what science said? On the contrary, it'd be a great testimony to his abililty to translate.

On the contrary, if he was pulling one over, why after the BoA manuscript was finished did JS (and the church leaders for that matter) preserve the papers? If I were faking, I'd of put them in a Hoffman car years ago, and 'Ooopps! Now we'll never know!' It only makes sense that he thought what he was doing was 100% legite.

Besides, Joseph was obviously trying to build the kingdom of God to span generations...do you think he thought that hieroglyphs would never be understood and his translation would never come under fire?

There is no reason to believe he'd have been that pretentious.

PacMan

P.S. The Metcalfe book I'm really waiting for is, "Cool words, and how to use them." :P

Share this post


Link to post

Still unanswered:

My questions is what gave them the idea that a character could result in hundreds of words of text? Their experience with languages did just the opposite...give them reason to believe that it doesn't happen.

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post
It only makes sense that he thought what he was doing was 100% legite.

Oh, I agree. Do you believe what the prophet preached?

[ ] yes

[ ] no

Share this post


Link to post

== That works if he knew he was a fake and trying to mislead people.

No, it works either way since he would have been disinclined to have the Church proved through worldly means just as well as disproved.

== If he knew what it was he had (and that the translation was going to be accurate), then why would he care what science said?

Well, according to Provis he knew Egyptian read from right to left, and that a character couldn't represent entire sentences, because of what contemporary science had said. None of this is supportable.

== On the contrary, it'd be a great testimony to his abililty to translate.

Only if he actually translated correctly. If the Book of Breathings is the source for the BoA, then he got it wrong. That is why LDS apologetics needs to do whatever it is necessary to reject that possibilty.

== On the contrary, if he was pulling one over, why after the BoA manuscript was finished JS (and the church leaders for that matter) preserve the papers?

Ah, but they didn't. They were eventually sold off and thought to have been lost in a fire in Chicago. It wasn't until 1967 that they were rediscovered, but LDS apologists have since insisted that the papyrus used in the translation is still missing.

Further, the point here is that it really wouldn't matter to Smith if they were preserved or not because Egyptian was thought to be a dead language that could never be verified through science. That is why he took a stab at translation. Just like translaing the mysterious language of "Reformed Egyptian" for the BoM, translating an Egyptian papyrus as a reference to Abraham, he assumed could never truly be verified either.

== If I were faking, I'd of put them in a Hoffman car years ago, and 'Ooopps! Now we'll never know!' It only makes sense that he thought what he was doing was 100% legite.

Makes no sense at all because you keep ignoring the fact that if he were aware of the Egyptian scholarship being able to verify his work, that he would have asked that it be verified just as the Anthon transcript was set to be verified for the Book of Mormon.

== Besides, Joseph was obviously trying to build the kingdom of God to span generations...do you think he thought that hieroglyphs would never be understood and his translation would never come under fire?

Um, yea. That is how things were for 1400 years anyway.

== Still unanswered:

It has been answered numerous times.

Share this post


Link to post
Still unanswered:
My questions is what gave them the idea that a character could result in hundreds of words of text? Their experience with languages did just the opposite...give them reason to believe that it doesn't happen.

PacMan

If they saw a prophet do such things then that's the reason they would have done such a fruitless approach.

Share this post


Link to post
The simple factor of the precise punctuation is, to me, a strong argument against the thesis. If anyone would have known how to apply punctuation to a text, it was Phelps. But you can't place semi-colons at the end of a phrase without knowing that another related phrase is going to follow it. And the placement of Phelps' semi-colons is, in my estimation, not a retrofit but rather an integral part of the completely fluid and uninterrupted flow of script from his pen.

This is why I call for professional help. We need nonbiased experts who can examine all of the documents in question. I think this can be arranged if there is cooperation by Church scholars. These experts should have samples of other oral dictation documents of that era, especially any produced by the brethren in the Church. How was oral dictation written and produced in those days? Was punctuation something that could be added while doing the work and or afterwards?

Neither of us is qualified to give a definitive answer. We offer our opinions. But, with that said I feel my argument is much stronger in light of all the evidence that shows that the brethren nursed the KEP as if they were sacred writings preserved by the hand of the Lord.

Yes, I did enjoy my bath.

Paul O

Share this post


Link to post
Still unanswered:
My questions is what gave them the idea that a character could result in hundreds of words of text? Their experience with languages did just the opposite...give them reason to believe that it doesn't happen.

PacMan

It has been demonstrated that the brethren used simple characters to help construct whole concepts

Share this post


Link to post

In looking at the hand-writing on the documents it's known that the 1830 edition of the Bok of Mormon had grammar mistakes. This may be a dumb issue, but in edition to punctuation does the document look edited to correct scribal mistakes in grammar, or dictated with such dictation mistakes intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Exhibited the alphabet of the ancient records, to Mr. Holmes, and some others" (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 316).

Jon

Unfornately there are too many LDS apologists that don't want to open their eyes and ears to this inspired document. Why? Because of academia! Well, they cannot receive a gift unless they are willing to receive it. Therefore, their minds are blinded and they stumble while trying to explain away this great work. If only people would open their hearts to the possibility that God is the author of this work and it's a restoration of Adamic learning. I seem to be the only one that believes this.

EAGnotebook.JPG

Paul O

Share this post


Link to post
Only if he actually translated correctly. If the Book of Breathings is the source for the BoA, then he got it wrong. That is why LDS apologetics needs to do whatever it is necessary to reject that possibilty.

How do you feel about the Front Cover of Manuscript No. 6, signed by Joseph Smith Jr. attesting to a Katumin?

How do you feel about the translation in Manuscript No. 7 ?

How do you feel about the word Shinehah predating the coming of the Egyptian papyrus in Kirtland?

How do you feel about a king's name in Facsimile No. 3?

king%20and%20prince.jpg

Paul O

Share this post


Link to post

KG:

I want to provide this preface to all my future comments on this topic:

I have made a conscious decision to break in pieces any preconceptions or presuppositions I have had regarding this subject matter. I intend to reassemble these pieces over the course of the next several days/weeks as I continue my study of the question of the

Share this post


Link to post

KG:

Further, the point here is that it really wouldn't matter to Smith if they were preserved or not because Egyptian was thought to be a dead language that could never be verified through science. That is why he took a stab at translation. Just like translaing the mysterious language of "Reformed Egyptian" for the BoM, translating an Egyptian papyrus as a reference to Abraham, he assumed could never truly be verified either.

Now who's doing the mind reading? Come on, there is NO evidence whatsoever that Joseph pursued a translation of Egyptian because he felt it was unfalsifiable. You know that. Why do you insist on trying to make this point? There are MANY possibilities here, but this one is complete conjecture, and somewhat mean-spirited at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Hi Provis,

The deleted word "whereunto" immediately precedes its corrective emendation "unto"

Share this post


Link to post

Except, perhaps, when it comes to dealings with Metcalfe. :P )

Just remember there are board rules. You've already broken them in an earlier post while bad mouthing this poster. Read the rules. Clean up your act, pal.

Paul O

Share this post


Link to post
In any event, I just think it defies logic to believe that Phelps, for one, who was well versed in Latin and Greek, would have considered a single symbol capable of rendering such a large quantity of English text.

Share this post


Link to post

Boys,

Appreciate the help. Understand that through my life I accepted the BoBreathings explanation and it's never affected my testimony. Now, I'm playing devil's advocate on any side that I don't understand, and am not trying to prove anything. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence or call you out...just trying to understand. That being said....

Paul...with your quote on, "Were I an Egyptian....", I honestly don't understand your point. I need you to explain that. But I agree that nonbiased experts would be revealing. But because they have yet been part of the equation, I take any concludison with a grain of salt.

And I am not saying your wrong on the character analysis...I'm just asking for an example that a character can produce a story line! Everything you've presented (that I've seen) is connected to a definition which JS as translator could have included!!

Kevin...JS's 'disinclination' is irrelevant. Why do you think JS was worried about the correctness of his translation? And as Paul pointed out, much of the KEP was carefully brought to Utah. That some was SOLD rather than BURNED seems to support my point that they weren't worried about what they contained.

And as far him verifying the work, he DID contact Chandler in 1835-- 9 years after Champollion. Considering the finding and what Joseph Smith had in his posession, I can't believe that some word didn't reach him!! If the "most learned" were aware of JS's story (as Chandler said they were), you must think that one of them had heard of Champollion?!?! Again, it makes PERFECT sense that Joseph had heard of Champollion's work; and a description of the nature of the characters is probably the first thing he heard!! That could have been reason enough for calling a stop to their attempts of learning the grammar and alphabet.

Oh, P.S. on that...why did they refer to it as being an 'Alphabet,' if they thought it wasn't phonetic? Then it wouldn't be considered an alphabet!!

And that Phelps wouldn't have thought that individual characters contain lengthy information, is because he had no reason to!! The proof that he did is your proof of burden!!

Cheers,

PacMan

Share this post


Link to post
And of the A&G that was completed, not a bit of it had anything to do with the characters that appear in the left-hand columns of the

Share this post


Link to post

Except, perhaps, when it comes to dealings with Metcalfe. :P )

Just remember there are board rules. You've already broken them in an earlier post while bad mouthing this poster. Read the rules. Clean up your act, pal.

Paul O

Paul,

Actually, I have not violated "board rules" at all, at least as I understand them. Metcalfe, as a public character, and as well one who probably occupies the highest profile position of "Mormon-baiter" and self-appointed critic, does not fall under the same protection as, say, you do. (Your fancy website notwithstanding - <_< )

So just settle down. I'm sure Brent can take it. He certainly dishes it out with the best of them. Besides, I was only guilty of condemning his methodology and his motives, something that is hardly new and revolutionary on this board. He has gone much further along the road of ad hominem than I have ever even looked down.

By the way, since you're weighing in with your expertise, how many characters in the EAG have any corresponding explanation?

And how many of those explanations would you characterize as "full"?

Do you or do you not acknowledge that none of the characters contained in the EAG appear in the left-hand column of the "translation" of the Book of Abraham?

Does the EAG (in your opinion) have any relationship whatsoever to the Book of Abraham?

Your responses will be anxiously awaited.

Share this post


Link to post
And of the A&G that was completed, not a bit of it had anything to do with the characters that appear in the left-hand columns of the

Share this post


Link to post
I'm relying for this statement on Nibley's statement to that effect.

That's not a good thing to do. Get all the facts before you generalize. Don't think for a second that Nibley was on the up and up. He had an agenda and worked to support that agenda by writing the way he did.

Paul O

Share this post


Link to post

Paul:

Please tell me what you think the prophet meant when he said, "unfolded" and how the EAG was used to achieve this unfolding. Feel free to do a word search for "unfold" in the D&C. We can definitely tie the EAG to revelation. Unless of course, you want to deny it.

First, I don't "want" to deny anything, unless it deserves denying. And I'm not insinuating that the EAG wasn't used for anything, only that, according to my previous knowledge, it was not used in the "translation" of the BoA. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm relying for this statement on Nibley's statement to that effect.

That's not a good thing to do. Get all the facts before you generalize. Don't think for a second that Nibley was on the up and up. He had an agenda and worked to support that agenda by writing the way he did.

Paul O

Paul,

My, my, my -- you're certainly testy today!

As I've stated previously, I do NOT fall into the category of someone who throws a blanket condemnation over the things that anyone says. (Except, perhaps, Metcalfe -- :P ) Especially Nibley. And I'm not inclined to cast aspersion on his name, motives, etc.

I believe Nibley was right most of the time. Does that mean 90% or 51%? I don't know. I'm still learning -- as I have confessed. But my conclusion, to date, is that Nibley is right more often than he is wrong. If you think he was wrong in a specific instance, I would ask you to kindly demonstrate it -- for my edification, if not yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...