Facsimile 3

[James Clifford Miller]

Honestly if Joseph Smith's grammar was his & not the scribes I think he would agree the characters were a catalyst to recieve revelation about Abraham. If asked about that stuff he would not say today he provided a conventional translation of Egyptian.

Then you're going to have to reject the Book of Mormon.

All of the BoM manuscripts were written by Joseph Smith's scribes, too, and not by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith employed scribes for virtually everything he wrote. You know that. If you can accept the BoM which was published using his scribes' work, there is no reason to reject the Joseph Smith Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar which was also written using his scribes' work.

You may well speculate that Smith would agree the characterrs were a catalyst and you may well speculate that today he wouldn't call his translations translations, but that's just your speculation. I doubt you will be able to find a single utterance or piece of writing in which Smith says anything like that. Until you provide documentation that Smith actually said anything like that, your speculation remains speculation.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

[James Clifford Miller]

But I ask you to ask yourself something. Why didn

[James Clifford Miller]

LSD,

Let

[Mighty Curelom]

Pointing at the Joseph Smith Translation of the bible as proof that Joseph's MO for ancient documents included "inspired" content not related to the actual text of the source material is rather silly. Joseph called his translation of the bible a translation. He was very clear that his intention was to restore the lost bits of the bible that had become corrupted over the centuries--bits that the original source documents would have contained.

But we know now that his efforts at restoring the bible to its original form were an abject failure. Comparing JS's translation with the oldest source documents demonstrates that JS didn't have a clue what he was doing. The explanation that apologists give us is as ad hoc as you can get--since it can't be a translation (as Joseph specifically referred to it as), then JS's revisions must have been inspired, and not based on what was actually written on the original source documents.

In other words, it's silly to point to the JST as evidence of a pattern of an inspiration-style of manufacturing scripture using ancient documents as a muse (or catalyst, if you prefer) because the real pattern here is that of fraud.

[LadySundancer]

LSD,

Let

[LadySundancer]

I just want to add comments here that I prepared for another post. Taking the lazy way out, as it were.

So far as the Book of Abraham is concerned, in order to accept the work of current day apologists, I would have to accept that Joseph Smith didn't mean what he said and that he was a Prophet who honestly believed that God revealed to him that the restoration of the Church included restoration of that which was plain and precious and the gathering of Israel in order to prepare for the Second Coming which he believed was imminent, delivered a translation that was so complex it was only to begin to be understood in these current times.

I do not mean to come off as disparaging here. I do think people need to be aware of what all of this requires of a person. And now, I'll leave you all to it.

Lady Sundancer

[Ron Beron]

But I ask you to ask yourself something. Why didn

[Dan Vogel]

Well now, just a few posts ago I had asked if Dan Vogel were on this thread and as if on cue, you are. I have recently read about your ideas in the book "Joseph Smith: Rough Rolling Stone" (Bushman). Thank you for reinforcing what I've read via your comments here.

Lady Sundancer

You're welcome ... I guess?

[Paul Osborne]

Pointing at the Joseph Smith Translation of the bible as proof that Joseph's MO for ancient documents included "inspired" content not related to the actual text of the source material is rather silly. Joseph called his translation of the bible a translation. He was very clear that his intention was to restore the lost bits of the bible that had become corrupted over the centuries--bits that the original source documents would have contained.

On one hand you admit that Joseph

[James Clifford Miller]

But I ask you to ask yourself something. Why didn

[Dale]

Honestly if Joseph Smith's grammar was his & not the scribes I think he would agree the characters were a catalyst to recieve revelation about Abraham. If asked about that stuff he would not say today he provided a conventional translation of Egyptian.

Then you're going to have to reject the Book of Mormon.

All of the BoM manuscripts were written by Joseph Smith's scribes, too, and not by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith employed scribes for virtually everything he wrote. You know that. If you can accept the BoM which was published using his scribes' work, there is no reason to reject the Joseph Smith Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar which was also written using his scribes' work.

You may well speculate that Smith would agree the characterrs were a catalyst and you may well speculate that today he wouldn't call his translations translations, but that's just your speculation. I doubt you will be able to find a single utterance or piece of writing in which Smith says anything like that. Until you provide documentation that Smith actually said anything like that, your speculation remains speculation.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

I honestly see the Book of Mormon translation as based more on the literal meaning of the characters not so with the papyrus. The Lord said his translation was correct. the Lord never said Joseph's final translation of the papyrus was correct.

I am not speculation I am looking at the grammar, the facimile explanations, the early Book of Abraham manuscript with Book of Breathings symbols & am interpreting the evidence. The translation was not conventional, but rather meditation symbols that were a catalyst to revieve inspiration about Abraham.

What I see you doing is trying to say Joseph Smith lied about doing what he thought was a literal translation. But to me him thinking his translation was literal & being literal was another story.

[Dan Vogel]

David,

For the record, I

[Dale]

Abraham 1:12 could have been a modern interlopation by Joseph Smith in a manuscript he believed was ancient.

[James Clifford Miller]

Jim: But I ask you to ask yourself something. Why didn

[James Clifford Miller]

Honestly if Joseph Smith's grammar was his & not the scribes I think he would agree the characters were a catalyst to recieve revelation about Abraham. If asked about that stuff he would not say today he provided a conventional translation of Egyptian.

Then you're going to have to reject the Book of Mormon.

All of the BoM manuscripts were written by Joseph Smith's scribes, too, and not by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith employed scribes for virtually everything he wrote. You know that. If you can accept the BoM which was published using his scribes' work, there is no reason to reject the Joseph Smith Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar which was also written using his scribes' work.

You may well speculate that Smith would agree the characterrs were a catalyst and you may well speculate that today he wouldn't call his translations translations, but that's just your speculation. I doubt you will be able to find a single utterance or piece of writing in which Smith says anything like that. Until you provide documentation that Smith actually said anything like that, your speculation remains speculation.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

[Dale]

Are you thinking I am blaming the grammar on the scribes? That was not my intent. I am not satisfied John Gee, or Hugh has made his case for that. The grammar cites the characters, and developed that became the Book of Abraham. This is what Ed Ashment argued in an essay of his I have.

They basically date the grammar to post date the translation rather than being contemporary with the translation. The characters from the Book of Breathings in the Book of Abraham manuscript according to Ed Ashment was contemporary with translation, but John Gee holds it was added later. If this was correct the grammar was a later project produced while they no longer acted as Joseph's scribes.

The Book of Abraham would have been finished so it was an speculative attempt by the scribes to match up the finshed papyrus with the wrong portion of the papyrus with the papyrus. Not my position, but this is how I understand the John Gee, and Hugh Nibley thinking to go. They focus on the missing papyrus as the source.

But the key idea of this group is that it was impossible for them to have produced it while acting as Joseph's official scribes. But I side with Paul Osbourne & Brent Metcalfe that John Gee has not proven the stuff including the Book of Breathings characters were not contemporary with translation.

To me if you meditate on a character from the Book of Abraham, and you get a different meaning out of your translation the character was a speculative catalyst rather than a source for a literal translation. Speculated meanings & literal meanings can be shown to be different.

[Paul Osborne]

Are you referring to the inspired explanations Joseph Smith actually made in the printed PoGP (which anyone can compare to actual explanations by non-LDS Egyptians), or to the explanations Smith never made, but were suggested by others 37 years after the PoGP was first published? If you are referring to the explanations Smith actually made, you yourself said he said publicly that the world is more than welcome to try and translate. And the world did. And the actual translation is different from what Smith claimed. As I discuss below, the great LDS scholar Hugh Nibley even translated it differently than did Smith.

But that brings us back to my original question, i.e. why didn

[Paul Osborne]

No, Paul, it's to emphasize that Smith never once mentioned any of the alternative spin theories and that it took the Church 37 years to come up with the first one, and another 89 years (from 1879 to 1968) to start the rest. Now you can disprove me by coming up with a quote of Smith's where he presents ANY of the spin theories.

Without documentation that the Lord has silenced his prophets on this situation, we're going to have to consider this just your personal opinion and speculation, at that. By the way, I fail to see how your statement about the prophets calling down fire from heaven is germane at all to this discussion. What were you trying to convey with this fire and brimstone speculation?

Look, I feel that I

[e=mc2]

Incidentally, since the infamous Charles Larson's theories idea is being bandied about around here as of late, I might add I have looked into him a bit and found him seriously marred with his logic. Please help yourself to seeing it here:

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/withhis.htm

Best,

kerry

[Paul Osborne]

Incidentally, since the infamous Charles Larson's theories idea is being bandied about around here as of late, I might add I have looked into him a bit and found him seriously marred with his logic. Please help yourself to seeing it here:

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/withhis.htm

Best,

kerry

Oh goody.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Paul: Evidence does show that the prophet gave some interesting pointers of how he translated the ancient language which I believe was Adamic, used by the Egyptians as an ambassadorial language.

This is just fascinating. Please provide evidence that the Egyptians ever used Adamic as an ambassadorial language.

I

[e=mc2]

Good ole Brother Miller asketh:

Where in the explanation of Facsimile does it say that "King Pharaoh" made Abraham either a king or a god? Your quotes seem to discuss making someone a king or a god. There's nothing at all like that in the explanation in the PoGP.

Kerry:

It's not in the explanation, it's in the ancient theology of the Jews with Enoch, Ezekiel, etc. as well as the Book of Revelation. It is the knowledge of the ancient Egyptians, that to be on the king's throne IS to be DIVINE. In Pyramid Text, it notes:

606. ... sit on this throne of Re' ... take possession of the

heritage of your father Geb in the presence of the great company of the Ennead in On, which proclaim his legality.

The throne of Re is his ship, which to get into means one has acquired the life of the God. The inheritance of Geb (the earth) is possession of all the earth. The Ennead is the Council of the Gods of ancient Egypt.

Nibley, "Abraham in Egypt," p. 126:

The formula, "You do what Osiris did, because you are on his throne," implies that "the throne 'makes' the king." "The throne made manifest a divine power which changed one of several princes into a king fit to rule." When the King or his substitute rises from the lion-couch, having overcome the powers of death (Fac. No. 1) at the Sed Festival, it is the throne rather than the man that is acclaimed as he seats himself upon it. Which throne one sits on makes no difference, for there is only one, the archtypal throne of heaven, earth, and underworld. But who would sit on Pharaoh's own throne while he was alive and standing by? "No Pharaoh of Egypt," cried one of Joseph Smith's learned critics, "would have resigned his throne, even temporarily, to Abraham or any other person

[Ron Beron]

The point is that you've provided no scripture, no statements from the First Presidency, and no statements from General Authorities to support the alternative spin theories for the BoA, even after I asked for them.  I think that speaks for itself.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

Perhaps it is, after all, a matter of faith. I am not sure what you are seeking. Apparently, it is comment made by a president of the church that attests that JS used alternate means of interpretation. Well, the GA's say simply that the BofA is translated by the gift and power of God. How that came about is left open to the listener. BTW, even if they did come out with a direct comment on the mode of interpretation would you accept it? I don't think so.

[James Clifford Miller]

Good ole Brother Miller asketh:

Where in the explanation of Facsimile does it say that "King Pharaoh" made Abraham either a king or a god? Your quotes seem to discuss making someone a king or a god. There's nothing at all like that in the explanation in the PoGP.

Kerry:

It's not in the explanation, it's in the ancient theology of the Jews with Enoch, Ezekiel, etc. as well as the Book of Revelation.

Thank you for the admission.

James Clifford Miller

millerjamesc@cox.net

[osteotome]

I'm sorry if this has already been covered but how do the BOA critics brush aside the text of the BOA?? I'm sorry but I don't have all my references here but I remember how Nibley compared the text of Joseph Smith's BOA with other found texts of BOA and they were very similar?? The reference was Nibley's Abraham in Egypt.

On a side note of JS translation of the Bible it's interesting in his account of Enoch as found in Moses 6-7, he mentions the names Mahija and Mahujah. Early Critics assumed these to be renditions of Mehujael Enoch's grandson as noted in Genesis 4:18; Again From Nibley's Abraham in Egypt we find that Mahujah is a central figure in the oldest Book of Enoch that has been found (Qumran cave 1 1976).

The name Mahujah is only found again in this oldest Book of Enoch and in Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible aka Moses 6, 7.

Again we may bicker about how he arrived at the text we have for the BOA and for the translation of the Bible but his texts continue to be spot on when compared to anciet texts describing the same story