Jump to content

Archived

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

semlogo

What are the implications if the BoA is false?

Recommended Posts

"Kirtland Egyptian Papers" = KEP

Thanks for the acronymn! I'll keep that in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Alright Brother Peterson, would you like me to word it differently?

Please clarify what is nonsense to you.

The nonsense is the insinuation that those who disagree or don't take a particular issue seriously are operating in bad faith.

That accusation seems to be Rob Bowman's stock in trade. At least today. (I haven't read anything from him in a very long time; I don't recall that he was this way a few years ago, but maybe I'm wrong.) I've had enough of it for the day. If people aren't willing to engage in civil discourse, I'm finding myself less and less inclined to be patient with them. There are plenty of other, more serious, better people to deal with.

Is it because I worded it badly?

Yes.

I apologize if the wording offended you.

No problem.

Are you open to this line of research or not?

Truthfully, at this stage, I have a whole lot on my plate, and the KEP are pretty far down on my list of priorities. I don't rule anything out, though.

Share this post


Link to post

I see that I should have included my usual qualification of "non-LDS" in order to differentiate between Egyptologists and apologists who have knowledge of Egyptology.

In any case, perhaps you could now answer my question regarding whether or not you believe that a "correct" translation of the other extant Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead papyri would also yield the Book of Abraham.

Still afraid to deal with my graphic illustrations, and still not prepared to own up to your deliberate quoting out of context, Foxy? You at least owe Rhodes an apology. Apart from that, it would sure be nice if you would participate in this discussion and not ignore the evidence.

Then you follow your nonsense about "Egyptologists and apologists" with a silly non sequitur? And more insults . . .

Are you really so afraid of having an actual discussion?

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for your open mindedness.

I didn't mean it that way. Again I apologize. I didn't mean to say that you were doing it in bad faith. I worded it poorly.

I get frustrated because people won't take it seriously. I have to overcome that and let it go.

I need to forgive people for dismissing me in the past. I know that is my problem, not yours.

I'm passionate about this issue. I don't know how to get people to take it seriously.

I need to stop trying so hard, because it is their agency, their prerogative.

I'm not a critic. I'm not allied with the critics. I just see this particular thing and get frustrated that it is labelled as something that only a critic would believe.

The nonsense is the insinuation that those who disagree or don't take a particular issue seriously are operating in bad faith.

That accusation seems to be Rob Bowman's stock in trade. At least today. (I haven't read anything from him in a very long time; I don't recall that he was this way a few years ago, but maybe I'm wrong.) I've had enough of it for the day. If people aren't willing to engage in civil discourse, I'm finding myself less and less inclined to be patient with them. There are plenty of other, more serious, better people to deal with.

Yes.

No problem.

Truthfully, at this stage, I have a whole lot on my plate, and the KEP are pretty far down on my list of priorities. I don't rule anything out, though.

Share this post


Link to post

Are you really so afraid of having an actual discussion?

Dr. Peterson has answered the question that I originally put to you in the negative. If you wish to engage in a discussion you could at least answer the question as well.

If the other extant Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead papyri were "correctly" translated, would they also yield the Book of Abraham?

If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is clear that everybody that subscribes to the missing papyrus theory would say that both the BOA text and the Book of Joseph text are lost and all we have are other papyri in the collection.

From the standpoint of that theory, the answer to your question is no.

For the very small number of people like me (or it may only be me and nobody else) that believe that Abrahamic meanings were ascribed to ideograms on the Sensen papyrus and so forth, then my answer is that either

(1) the Sensen papyrus can translate Abrahamically (in the same sense that the Facsimiles for the BOA translate Abrahamically, and that the "explanations" for those translations constitute the EAG, just as the explanations for the Facsimiles constitute the translations for the facsimiles) but still the actual text of the BOA is lost, or

(2) some set of ideograms on the Sensen papyrus represents a piece of something that translates Abrahamically that results in at least a piece of the text of the Book of Abraham, which acted as a catalyst for the rest to be received. Most likely it is the section represented by the ideograms that appear in the Book of Abraham manuscripts side-by-side to the text, as well as the heiratic W and the reed symbol in the EAG. And those only yield a part of the first couple of chapters. The rest was gotten straight from revelation. That is my view. If a better copy of the Book of Breathings were used today by some prophet with a seer stone, he could receive the rest of the Book of Abraham, theoretically. Or, he could just do the "catalyst" thing and receive the rest by revelation.

Similarly, the extant Book of the Dead text in the collection, when used with a Urim and Thummim/Seer Stone would yield at least a piece the Book of Joseph. If we extrapolate further, if we take, say the Book of the Dead version of Ani, and used that as our text, perhaps we would have more of the Book of Joseph before our eyes.

Dr. Peterson has answered the question that I originally put to you in the negative. If you wish to engage in a discussion you could at least answer the question as well.

If the other extant Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead papyri were "correctly" translated, would they also yield the Book of Abraham?

If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is clear that everybody that subscribes to the missing papyrus theory would say that both the BOA text and the Book of Joseph text are lost and all we have are other papyri in the collection.

From the standpoint of that theory, the answer to your question is no.

For the very small number of people like me (or it may only be me and nobody else) that believe that Abrahamic meanings were ascribed to ideograms on the Sensen papyrus and so forth, then my answer is that either

(1) the Sensen papyrus can translate Abrahamically (in the same sense that the Facsimiles for the BOA translate Abrahamically, and that the "explanations" for those translations constitute the EAG, just as the explanations for the Facsimiles constitute the translations for the facsimiles) but still the actual text of the BOA is lost, or

(2) some set of ideograms on the Sensen papyrus represents a piece of something that translates Abrahamically that results in at least a piece of the text of the Book of Abraham, which acted as a catalyst for the rest to be received. Most likely it is the section represented by the ideograms that appear in the Book of Abraham manuscripts side-by-side to the text, as well as the heiratic W and the reed symbol in the EAG. And those only yield a part of the first couple of chapters. The rest was gotten straight from revelation. That is my view. If a better copy of the Book of Breathings were used today by some prophet with a seer stone, he could receive the rest of the Book of Abraham, theoretically. Or, he could just do the "catalyst" thing and receive the rest by revelation.

Similarly, the extant Book of the Dead text in the collection, when used with a Urim and Thummim/Seer Stone would yield at least a piece the Book of Joseph. If we extrapolate further, if we take, say the Book of the Dead version of Ani, and used that as our text, perhaps we would have more of the Book of Joseph before our eyes.

I see this as a complex hybrid of all the available theories, and I am wondering why you don't just go with the "catalyst" theory and leave it at that.

To me, that is simple and direct, and does away with a lot of complication. It was revelation pure and simple. Like it or lump it. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Dan,

You wrote:

The nonsense is the insinuation that those who disagree or don't take a particular issue seriously are operating in bad faith.

That accusation seems to be Rob Bowman's stock in trade. At least today.

So, perhaps I haven't had my best day today. I can live with that. But I hope you read my apology and know that I sincerely regret offending you. And I don't think, and didn't mean to suggest, that you were "operating in bad faith." Again, I apologize for anything I said that gave you that impression.

Share this post


Link to post

Because the evidence points to a hybrid of some sort of all theories. And besides, when you make a concise expalantion, it really isn't all that complex.

Nobody would believe anything if there wasn't some truth to each theory. The problem with each theory is each one fails to explain all the evidence, and each one tries to establish itself as truth while ignoring the rest of the evidence for all the other theories.

Only a theory that explains all the evidence concisely has the remote chance of being true.

Something that is concise and explains all the evidence doesn't necessarily equate to being the most simple scenario.

I see this as a complex hybrid of all the available theories, and I am wondering why you don't just go with the "catalyst" theory and leave it at that.

To me, that is simple and direct, and does away with a lot of complication. It was revelation pure and simple. Like it or lump it. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is clear that everybody that subscribes to the missing papyrus theory would say that both the BOA text and the Book of Joseph text are lost and all we have are other papyri in the collection.

From the standpoint of that theory, the answer to your question is no.

For the very small number of people like me (or it may only be me and nobody else) that believe that Abrahamic meanings were ascribed to ideograms on the Sensen papyrus and so forth, then my answer is that either

(1) the Sensen papyrus can translate Abrahamically (in the same sense that the Facsimiles for the BOA translate Abrahamically, and that the "explanations" for those translations constitute the EAG, just as the explanations for the Facsimiles constitute the translations for the facsimiles) but still the actual text of the BOA is lost, or

(2) some set of ideograms on the Sensen papyrus represents a piece of something that translates Abrahamically that results in at least a piece of the text of the Book of Abraham, which acted as a catalyst for the rest to be received. Most likely it is the section represented by the ideograms that appear in the Book of Abraham manuscripts side-by-side to the text, as well as the heiratic W and the reed symbol in the EAG. And those only yield a part of the first couple of chapters. The rest was gotten straight from revelation. That is my view. If a better copy of the Book of Breathings were used today by some prophet with a seer stone, he could receive the rest of the Book of Abraham, theoretically. Or, he could just do the "catalyst" thing and receive the rest by revelation.

Similarly, the extant Book of the Dead text in the collection, when used with a Urim and Thummim/Seer Stone would yield at least a piece the Book of Joseph. If we extrapolate further, if we take, say the Book of the Dead version of Ani, and used that as our text, perhaps we would have more of the Book of Joseph before our eyes.

Thank you for being candid in your answer.

I suspect that the kind of thinking reflected in your response is more prevalent among Mormons than Dr. Peterson's response to the same question would indicate.

Share this post


Link to post

I just think that if we are going to say that the Facsimiles can have an Abrahamic interpretation, we might as well go all the way and say that the Sensen Papyrus ideograms can as well. I see no inconsistency in that logic.

Thank you for being candid in your answer.

I suspect that the kind of thinking reflected in your response is more prevalent among Mormons than Dr. Peterson's response to the same question would indicate.

Share this post


Link to post

Dr. Peterson has answered the question that I originally put to you in the negative. If you wish to engage in a discussion you could at least answer the question as well.

If the other extant Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead papyri were "correctly" translated, would they also yield the Book of Abraham?

If not, why not?

Why bother? You'll only bear false witness later about what anyone said or why they said it, instead of apologizing for your deliberate misstating the positions taken by virtually anyone on this board.

Again, if you want to have a real discussion -- which involves actual, respectful interchange of ideas and evidence -- that is certainly open for you, but it begins with repentance by you. An apology and promise not to do it again. Otherwise, why would anyone trust you?

Most of us here actually believe in civil discourse and the give and take which a real discussion entails. So far I have seen none of that from you. Instead, you exhibit blatant dishonesty and an unwillingness to address real data which calls into serious question your offhand, polemic remarks. Are you really so afraid of the evidence?

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for being candid in your answer.

I suspect that the kind of thinking reflected in your response is more prevalent among Mormons than Dr. Peterson's response to the same question would indicate.

Playing psychologist again, I see, but without actually knowing anything about either psychology or Egyptology. The only thing which determines what you think or say is clearly your wishful thinking and polemic position. No discussion evident here either, just opinion-mongering as usual.

Share this post


Link to post

Playing psychologist again, I see, but without actually knowing anything about either psychology or Egyptology. The only thing which determines what you think or say is clearly your wishful thinking and polemic position. No discussion evident here either, just opinion-mongering as usual.

It appears as if you are not willing to give a straight answer to my question even though two others have been willing to do so.

In an earlier post you suggested that I apologize to LDS apologists for misrepresenting their views, and mentioned Michael Rhodes and John Gee. In spite of what DCP stated in defense of John Gee, Ge's public statement about the relative unimportance of the Book of Abraham as LDS scripture is provided earlier in this thread (no apology due there). I provided a translation of a scene in the JSP papyri by Michael Rhodes as compared to that of Joseph Smith. There were no similarities so no apology due there, either.

However, I ran across this quotation below by Dr. Stephen Thompson, who is apparently an LDS Egyptologist . Given this statement, I am certainly willing to apologize in his case for doubting that LDS Egyptologists could be objective when it comes to the JSP and the BoA.

In the preceding I have argued that (1) Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are not in agreement with the meanings which these figures had in their original, funerary, context; (2) anachronisms in the text of the book make it impossible that it was translated from a text written by Abraham himself; and (3) what we know about the relationship between Egypt and Asia renders the account of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham extremely implausible. If one accepts that Joseph Smith was using the facsimiles in a fashion which was not consonant with their original purpose, it does not make sense to then insist that "the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices." I see no evidence that Joseph Smith had a correct conception of "Egyptian religious practices" or that a knowledge of such was essential to the production of the Book of Abraham.

Share this post


Link to post

Too bad he can't apologize for his bigotry, poor scientific method and general lack of knowledge in such areas as theology, science, geology, human resources, business, history, the English language, and a host of other "narrow niches" in what many know. As the cook said, not the sharpest knife in the drawer. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Too bad he can't apologize for his bigotry, poor scientific method and general lack of knowledge in such areas as theology, science, geology, human resources, business, history, the English language, and a host of other "narrow niches" in what many know. As the cook said, not the sharpest knife in the drawer. :P

It's too bad that the Board rules of "judging others, personal attacks, psychoanalyzing others, and attempting to provoke people" are so conveniently ignored by the likes of this poster. It seems to be a favorite (in some cases the only) way of attempting to gain one-upmanship.

Share this post


Link to post

It's too bad that the Board rules of "judging others, personal attacks, psychoanalyzing others, and attempting to provoke people" are so conveniently ignored by the likes of this poster. It seems to be a favorite (in some cases the only) way of attempting to gain one-upmanship.

Have your reported it? The mods are just as ready to censor Saints as apostates, antis, and other critics.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

It's too bad that the Board rules of "judging others, personal attacks, psychoanalyzing others, and attempting to provoke people" are so conveniently ignored by the likes of this poster. It seems to be a favorite (in some cases the only) way of attempting to gain one-upmanship.

Gervin you should know I have been banned from threads, and also asked to "take a break". So your point is invalid. And the fact you have ignored foxtrots bigoted remarks regarding religion and Mormons telling us the mere fact that someone is religious is enough not to hire them in certain fields reminds me of how empty your entire argument is.

Share this post


Link to post

Gervin you should know I have been banned from threads, and also asked to "take a break". So your point is invalid.

I don't follow the board too closely and I didn't know you had been banned. However, your past actions validate my point; you should probably know better.

And the fact you have ignored foxtrots bigoted remarks regarding religion and Mormons telling us the mere fact that someone is religious is enough not to hire them in certain fields reminds me of how empty your entire argument is.

I don't know who "foxtrots" is and can't say I recall reading anything by this poster. But I'm not making an argument, I'm making an observation. It may fit others ... it's fit me in the past, though hopefully I've learned a few things over the years.

Not intending to derail this thread so I won't post further. PM me if you'd like to discuss further. /G

Share this post


Link to post

It appears as if you are not willing to give a straight answer to my question even though two others have been willing to do so.

In an earlier post you suggested that I apologize to LDS apologists for misrepresenting their views, and mentioned Michael Rhodes and John Gee. In spite of what DCP stated in defense of John Gee, Ge's public statement about the relative unimportance of the Book of Abraham as LDS scripture is provided earlier in this thread (no apology due there). I provided a translation of a scene in the JSP papyri by Michael Rhodes as compared to that of Joseph Smith. There were no similarities so no apology due there, either.

However, I ran across this quotation below by Dr. Stephen Thompson, who is apparently an LDS Egyptologist . Given this statement, I am certainly willing to apologize in his case for doubting that LDS Egyptologists could be objective when it comes to the JSP and the BoA.

I suggest you read the entirety of John Gee's 2010 FAIR Conference address before assuming that Gee is tossing the BoA out the window. You provided a direct translation of the JSP by Rhodes, and ignored Rhodes' further explanation that completely contradicted your assertion. It is completely dishonest for you to assume that Rhodes and Thompson don't believe the BoA is an actual ancient text. Quote mining will get you nowhere.

According to Thompson:

Many themes of the book appear in other ancient literatures, including Abraham's struggle against idolatry (Jubilees 12; Charlesworth, Vol. 2, pp. 79-80), the attempted sacrifice of Abraham (Pseudo-Philo 6; Charlesworth, Vol. 2, pp. 310-12), and Abraham's vision of God's dwelling place, events in the Garden of Eden, and premortal spirits (Apocalypse of Abraham 22-23; Charlesworth, Vol. 1, p. 700). God's instruction to Abraham to introduce Sarai as his sister is echoed in the Genesis Apocryphon (column 19) as having come through a dream. Abraham's teaching astronomy to Egyptians (Book of Abraham Facsimile 3) is described in Pseudo-Eupolemus 9.17.8 and 9.18.2 (Charlesworth, Vol. 2, pp. 881-82) and in Josephus (Antiquities 1.8.2).

Thompson is not in any way ruling out a historical origin of the BoA. By the way, cite your sources. http://www.lds-mormon.com/thompson_book_of_abraham.shtml

Share this post


Link to post

It appears as if you are not willing to give a straight answer to my question even though two others have been willing to do so.

In an earlier post you suggested that I apologize to LDS apologists for misrepresenting their views, and mentioned Michael Rhodes and John Gee. In spite of what DCP stated in defense of John Gee, Ge's public statement about the relative unimportance of the Book of Abraham as LDS scripture is provided earlier in this thread (no apology due there). I provided a translation of a scene in the JSP papyri by Michael Rhodes as compared to that of Joseph Smith. There were no similarities so no apology due there, either.

However, I ran across this quotation below by Dr. Stephen Thompson, who is apparently an LDS Egyptologist . Given this statement, I am certainly willing to apologize in his case for doubting that LDS Egyptologists could be objective when it comes to the JSP and the BoA.

Again, what value is there in carrying on a conversation with a pathological liar?

You deliberately quoted Rhodes and Thompson out of context. When I and kolipoki09 (posts 109 and 145) called you on it, you pretended that you had done no such thing, and that anyhow quoting out of context was perfectly O.K. -- at least for you. When Dan Peterson nicely informed you that he knew Gee personally and that you were misrepresenting his views, you continued to misrepresent him.

An honest man would be at great pains not to misrepresent or misquote others (which always includes quoting out of context). What is sad is that you know no shame for such lack of integrity. Even sadder: We could have had a real discussion of the substantive issues, without worrying about what Rhodes, Gee, Thompson, or any other LDS Scholar might or might not have said on the subject. But you were so fearful of what might happen in such an opened-ended discussion, that you panicked and began a small propaganda war. And you were right to be fearful. For, if we had had a real discussion, you would have found yourself wondering whether you might have tied your horse to the losing side in this debate. Your biggest fear: Cognitive dissonance. That's something you can't handle.

Share this post


Link to post

Again, what value is there in carrying on a conversation with a pathological liar?

You deliberately quoted Rhodes and Thompson out of context. When I and kolipoki09 (posts 109 and 145) called you on it, you pretended that you had done no such thing, and that anyhow quoting out of context was perfectly O.K. -- at least for you. When Dan Peterson nicely informed you that he knew Gee personally and that you were misrepresenting his views, you continued to misrepresent him.

An honest man would be at great pains not to misrepresent or misquote others (which always includes quoting out of context). What is sad is that you know no shame for such lack of integrity. Even sadder: We could have had a real discussion of the substantive issues, without worrying about what Rhodes, Gee, Thompson, or any other LDS Scholar might or might not have said on the subject. But you were so fearful of what might happen in such an opened-ended discussion, that you panicked and began a small propaganda war. And you were right to be fearful. For, if we had had a real discussion, you would have found yourself wondering whether you might have tied your horse to the losing side in this debate. Your biggest fear: Cognitive dissonance. That's something you can't handle.

First of all, I have misquoted no one. Secondly, it is not my place to try to second guess LDS apologists or Egyptologists. They have said what they have said, and we have gone over their statements already.

What I find amusing is that you refer to me as a pathological liar in your attempts to defend the work of one of the best known of all time. You claim that I have fear of cognitive dissonance while you defend as a man of God and competent translator of ancient languages the author of the BoA who claimed that the very papyri in his possession (those funerary texts that were created millennia after Abraham lived), were written by the hand of Abraham, when you know that the same individual who made these claims also stated that the Kinderhook plates contained the history of a person who was the descendant of Ham through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt and you know this individual claimed to have golden plates and a Urim and Thummin, yet "brought forth" the Book of Mormon by a staring into his hat, and when you know this same individual declared that a Greek Psalter shown to him was a Dictionary of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics, the individual whose Book of Mormon states that a man should only have one wife and in whose Doctrine and Covenants claims that a man could not inherit the highest level in the CK without having multiple wives, and this after he had married teenage girls and the wives of other men over the objections of his first and only legal wife, and you claim that I suffer from fear of cognitive dissonance?

Perhaps you need to look up the definition again.

Share this post


Link to post
Again, what value is there in carrying on a conversation with a pathological liar?

And a dogmatic scientistic elitist to boot.

I see no value in attempting to converse with him at all. At least, I've seen none thus far.

Seriously, I suggest that people ignore him. That's what I'm doing, and life is good.

you were so fearful of what might happen in . . . an opened-ended discussion, that you panicked and began a small propaganda war.

For yet another illustration, see his shotgun blast of irrelevant and highly debatable charges immediately above.

He plainly wishes to avoid a serious discussion with you. Which, admittedly, demonstrates some genuine degree of wisdom on his part.

Share this post


Link to post

Too bad he can't apologize for his bigotry, poor scientific method and general lack of knowledge in such areas as theology, science, geology, human resources, business, history, the English language, and a host of other "narrow niches" in what many know. As the cook said, not the sharpest knife in the drawer. :P

Life's too short to be this angry all the time, Jeff. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

And a dogmatic scientistic elitist to boot.

I see no value in attempting to converse with him at all. At least, I've seen none thus far.

Seriously, I suggest that people ignore him. That's what I'm doing, and life is good.

For yet another illustration, see his shotgun blast of irrelevant and highly debatable charges immediately above.

He plainly wishes to avoid a serious discussion with you. Which, admittedly, demonstrates some genuine degree of wisdom on his part.

:P

No question that quote was totally out of context. The guy has no understanding of the philosophy of science while supposedly being a scientist. There's nothing there but invective, as shown by his previous post, to discuss.

How do you discuss insults reasonably? You don't - and that's all there is.

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...