Book of Abraham

[Paul Osborne]

P.S. Paul, I honestly have NOOO idea what your quote is implying. Get to the point please. What point does it serve?

My point is simple. Do you believe it? If you don't want to say whether you do than fine. Be like the rest of the crowd.

Yes or no.

[William Schryver]

P.S.  Paul, I honestly have NOOO idea what your quote is implying.  Get to the point please.  What point does it serve?

My point is simple. Do you believe it? If you don't want to say whether you do than fine. Be like the rest of the crowd.

Yes or no.

Help thou my unbelief.

There's got to be something you can say that can somehow articulate a little better what you mean. Please?

At any rate, I'm outta here for the time being. Gotta make hay (literally) while the sun shines.

[William Schryver]

NOTE TO ALL POSTERS ON THIS THREAD!

I HAVE DELETED OFFENDING POSTS THAT WERE OFF TOPIC AND THAT SPECULATED AT OTHER PEOPLE LYING ETC. WE ARE NOT GOING TO TOLERATE SUCH BEHAVIOR. DEMONSTRATE THE OTHER PARTIES WEAKNESS BY CONTRASTING YOUR OWN STRENGTH OF ARGUMENT. LEAVE OUT PERSONAL INSULTS, EVEN IF VERY PITHY AND IF YOU THINK THEY MAKE YOU LOOK SMARTER ETC.

SUCH BEHAVIOUR IS NOT APPRECIATED ON THIS BOARD. GOOD NATURED AND EVEN SPIRITED DEBATE IS WELCOMED.

DEXIOS

We weren't fighting Dad.

(Wipes the blood from under his nose.)

Really.

We were just playing REALLY HARD.

[Jon Haugo]

Paul:

We understand that Egyptian has a pronounceable alphabet. You missed the point. The question is, did JS & Assoc?

Considering they were reasearching an alphabet, I say it is indisputable that they knew that Egyptian to be alphabetically based.

PacMan

Paul would know better than I but I think that Paul's position is that JS literally thought that he was giving a literal translation from the hard copy that he possessed through the Holy Spirit. But instead, the Holy Spirit was using the papyri to reveal a more detailed account not found in the papyri itself. JS would then try to make a grammar guide through his intelligence alone, not guided by the Spirit. Therefore the BOA translation is inspired but not the KEP. Is this right Paul?

BTW - PacMan, it doesn't matter to me if you do a thread about the BOM. I think I will have time, but I am not sure. I don't have as much time as I used to.

Jon

[PacMan]

Paul

I'm more interested in the issue of the Alphabet...but for now...

I truly don't see the relevance, nor have I seen the context of your quote. Sure, I guess I'll say yes....although I dare say I didn't believe JS when he mentioned that 10 foot Quakers lived on the dark side of the moon.

Oh no! Wait...what if the translation's wrong! Confound me for falling into your Satanic trap of twisting words!! ARRGGGHHH!!! Move over Beelzebub...here comes PacMan!!

Your 'mysticism' is pointless...second only to irritating.

PacMan

P.S. To Jon:

As I understand it, the argument is that the KEP characters next to the BoA manuscript insinuates that the text is a description of the character....found in the BofBreathings. To have so many words come from one symbol does NOT hold if JS & Assoc. KNEW that Egyptian was phonetic...it would have been impossible. So if they didn't think it was phonetic, why were they trying to construct an Alphabet?

If you want to do a thread, I'll join.

[Kevin Graham]

== So what is the point in the snarling and ad hominem...if there is such a good argument against them? Isn't that what you criticize the mopologists for, Kevin? huh? The personal stuff?

I have already explained my position numerous times, and I have also explained why I felt I was personally misled by those who had my trust. This is old news as far as this discussion goes, but I suspect you are jumping in and dwelling on it so the moderators will see it as an opportunity to shut down the thread. But since you refuse to drop it here goes...

As I explained to gtaggart - which you could simply read if you cared to - my criticism of Gee's disingenuousness was a minor point, and in fact had nothing whatsoever to do with the argument. It was simply an observaton that I felt about personally - that it would be impossible for this to be an innocent mistake - so I mentioned it. In predictable fashion, a couple of LDS die-hards started whinning about my attack on Gee, instead of addressing the point of Gee's failed arguments. As I said before, Gee is a public figure and sets himself up for criticism. Scholars of ever stripe are criticized on this forum, so there is no reason why criicism of Gee should be considered sensitive subject matter and censored.

== Why not take the high road and show us the way?

My argument is not based in ad hominem. That is your false characterization of my argument for rhetorical purposes. I have already conceded the point that Gee might possibly be innocent here, and I did so to get this irrelevancy behind us. Then you come along and drag it out again.

== Why are you demanding Gee answer untrained countermopologists

I never demanded anything from Gee, and "untrained" in what exactly? Gee's training as an Egyptologist certainly hasn't done him any favors when it comes to his own untrained eye in ink analysis. Egyptology isn't the issue here, nor does knowledge in it give one person an advantage over another.

== when Metcalfe can't even write a civil post on a message board....

This is flat out false. Brent Metcalfe is generally very civil compared to the rest of us, and for this reason he has made friends with plenty of LDS apologists who would disagree, particularly Michael Ash, Kevin Barney, Scott Pierson, etc. Aside from the jackass post - in self-defense - one would have a hard time trying to characterize his posts as uncivil.

== while openingly sneering that he is just too knowledgable to descend to everyone else's level and respond?

This is an interesting comment given the fact that it is Brent Metcalfe who is actually responding to questions here, and not John Gee.

== What is with the double standards?

You have yet to demonstrate one except in your highly selective crticisms of posters here. You still haven't explained why "jackass" is such a bad thing when Brent says it, but OK when Dan Peterson does. I don't recall you or the moderators having a hissy when that happened.

[Observer]

...POSTS THAT WERE OFF TOPIC AND THAT SPECULATED AT OTHER PEOPLE LYING ETC. WE ARE NOT GOING TO TOLERATE SUCH BEHAVIOR. DEMONSTRATE THE OTHER PARTIES WEAKNESS BY CONTRASTING YOUR OWN STRENGTH OF ARGUMENT. LEAVE OUT PERSONAL INSULTS, EVEN IF VERY PITHY AND IF YOU THINK THEY MAKE YOU LOOK SMARTER ETC...

Surely this doesn't apply to esteemed members like Pahoran, Juliann, etc. Wouldn't an enforcement of this policy wipe away a good 30 to 40 percent of these fine member's posts? Go ahead and use the 'Search' feature for these posters. The conduct you describe has been rampant and well established on this board.

As was mentioned earlier, there seems to be a loyal cult Apologist/Scholar following here and the fact that Juliann mentions "double standards" is beyond laughable. I wasn't aware we were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Apologetic Latter-day Apologists.

[Scott Gordon]

Surely this doesn't apply to esteemed members like Pahoran, Juliann, etc. Wouldn't an enforcement of this policy wipe away a good 30 to 40 percent of these fine member's posts? Go ahead and use the 'Search' feature for these posters. The conduct you describe has been rampant and well established on this board.

As was mentioned earlier, there seems to be a loyal cult Apologist/Scholar following here and the fact that Juliann mentions "double standards" is beyond laughable. I wasn't aware we were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Apologetic Latter-day Apologists.

We have had some really disgusting language and attacks on this thread including "jack***" and blow it out his *****.

The posters have all been here long enough to know better than this.

While you may not like everything Juliann has to say, she never uses language like this or personal attacks like this.

We do cut people a lot of slack. Kevin has been given LOTS of slack on this board, much more than Juliann.

Frankly, I don't know why you are bringing up the other posters.

If you want to talk about the KEP, then talk about the KEP. Please don't say derisive things about scholars, apologists, Mormons, or anti Mormons.

It is difficult to sit quietly while your intelligence or integrity is being questioned.

There is more than one way to interpret a set of facts. Lets drop the mocking tone and accept the fact there is more than one way to look at things.

[Scott Gordon]

Just to clear the air, Juliann had nothing to do with Kevin no longer being on the FAIR e-list.

Now lets talk about the Book of Abraham and the KEP.

[William Schryver]

Kevin,

I am still anxious for you to respond to my initial post of the day on page 13 -- before the thread got almost irretrievably derailed.

By the way, just out of curiosity, where do you live? I only ask because I got the impression that your time zone is considerably in advance of mine here in southern Utah.

Thanks in advance. I've actually really enjoyed this thread and this topic. I've learned quite a lot and hope to learn even more before we're done here.

Edit: I also noted that there have been considerably in excess of 4000 (!) views of this thread! Sounds like an item of interest to me.

Second Edit: I have to go move the sprinklers in my pasture now (yes, I confess I'm just a freakin' uneducated hick from S. Utah!) and then do some errands, but I'll check back later ...

[Dale]

The main way that it's suggested that the EAG was not used in the translation of the Book of Abraham is that it was produced after the translation. If I understand the associated argument right the Book of Breathings characters were added after the translation was already finished than contemporary with translation.

With Ed Asment in an essay of his I read he pointed to content in the EAG that was directly related to the content of the Book of Abraham.

Other than the route of hand-writing analysis John Gee tried I see no way to argue this effort post dated the translation. Perhaps someone ought to be negotiating with Brent Metcalfe to share his photos. Certainly photos could be re-produced in high quality copies though it might cost some money. even finding some document & photo experts to go & meet Brent & examine what he had would be a valuable excercise.

The other key type of argument is that descriptions of the Book of Abraham papyrus don't match the Book of Breathings so can't be the source. This type of argument has also been answered by critics like Charles Larson.

Anyway I am convinced that we do not know that Joseph Smith had no special interest in the Book of Breathings text. He may indeed have seen it as the source of the Book of Abraham. I see no way to blame the scribes outside of proving John Gee's & Hugh Nibley's old arguments.

-------

Provis this topic gets a lot of responses because it's a common topic for friends & critics of the church restored in 1830. I am trying to try & understand how to answer it so I don't look dumb with critics. I am Community of Christ/RLDS which views the Book of Abraham as Joseph's speculative writing. I myself though am open to some personal belief in the book though I favor Paul Osbournes catalyst revelation idea.

I am open to the missing papyrus idea although I do not see a solid basis for that belief. I just think a superficial set of arguments seem to being made for that belief that have fell victim to critics responses. In the future an tough apologetic defense of this missing papyrus idea should be made, or it must be given up on.

[Kevin Graham]

Provis,

== First, no one ever suggested that they were

[Kevin Graham]

== I am still anxious for you to respond to my initial post of the day on page 13 -- before the thread got almost irretrievably derailed.

Just did.

== By the way, just out of curiosity, where do you live? I only ask because I got the impression that your time zone is considerably in advance of mine here in southern Utah.

Yeah, I am in Brazil. Probably four hours difference.

[Jon Haugo]

Dale,

I don't see Paul anymore. I was wondering if he was banned. Does the same message board exist as before? There was another that you and Paul were very active on this very subject. So you have a link for that?

Jon

[Dale]

Dale,

I don't see Paul anymore. I was wondering if he was banned. Does the same message board exist as before? There was another that you and Paul were very active on this very subject. So you have a link for that?

Jon

Kevin Graham has a website. Under the Debate category it lists board discussion forum. It's deader than the FAIR board. http://www.kevingraham.org/apologia.htm I kind of hung out there, but I am an ameteur on this subject. Paul was here earlier in the post and suspect he will be back. I am sure Paul will be back as long as everybody behave themselves so the moderators don't feel the need to close the post.

[William Schryver]

KG:

== And, in any event, you need to explain the fact that (in the only case where the KEP expressly inform us that a "translation" is occurring) when W. W. Phelps provides his "translation" for the Princess Katumin story, he matches three full lines of Egyptian characters to 4 lines of English text.

I am not sure what you need explained here, but I think Brent has since covered this.

I was about to leave when I noted that you had replied to prior post. So ...

I thought my inference with this question was clear. Why, in the Princess Katumin story, does Phelps manifest an modern understanding of the relationship of x number of Egyptian characters to y number of English words (where x and y are relatively equal numbers), while in the "translation" manuscripts there is this overwhelming disproportion of one Egyptian character to 100+ English words?

If Brent "covered" this, I must have missed it or failed to comprehend it. Are you saying that your answer is the same as his, and if so, what is that answer?

== Your question actually begs a pair of additional (and perhaps more pertinent) questions (in my estimation): The A&G was begun, but little more, there being only a handful of characters that ever received a corresponding

[Paul Osborne]

I don't see Paul anymore. I was wondering if he was banned. Does the same message board exist as before? There was another that you and Paul were very active on this very subject. So you have a link for that?

Jon

No, I'm not banned. There isn't a good reason to ban me.

I believe the KEP is an inspired work, Jon. There are few Mormons that will stand up for it.

Attention:

I believe Joseph Smith when he said:

[Paul Osborne]

I thought my inference with this question was clear.

[Paul Osborne]

I've noticed how people like to skip over my questions and yet they carry on with their own defence.

How was astronomy UNFOLDED in the mind of the prophet when making the EAG?

October 1

[Jon Haugo]

Paul:

We understand that Egyptian has a pronounceable alphabet.  You missed the point.  The question is, did JS & Assoc?

Considering they were reasearching an alphabet, I say it is indisputable that they knew that Egyptian to be alphabetically based.

PacMan

Paul would know better than I but I think that Paul's position is that JS literally thought that he was giving a literal translation from the hard copy that he possessed through the Holy Spirit. But instead, the Holy Spirit was using the papyri to reveal a more detailed account not found in the papyri itself. JS would then try to make a grammar guide through his intelligence alone, not guided by the Spirit. Therefore the BOA translation is inspired but not the KEP. Is this right Paul?

BTW - PacMan, it doesn't matter to me if you do a thread about the BOM. I think I will have time, but I am not sure. I don't have as much time as I used to.

Jon

Hi Paul,

I'm sorry I guessed wrong about my above statement. I am curious as to your opinion about the idea of inspiration in connection with the KEP. If JS used a single Egyptian letter to give 100 words, I struggle to see inspiration in that. Again, sorry for having presumed to know your view.

Jon

[Paul Osborne]

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.

[5th Degree]

"Jah-oh-eh: The earth under the governing power of Oliblish, Enish-go-on dosh, and Kae-e-vanrash, which are the grand Key or in other words, the governing power, which governs the fifteen fixed stars that governs the earth, sun, & moon (which have their power in one) with the other twelve moving planets of this system. Oliblish - Enish-go-on-dosh, and Kae-e-vanrash, are the three grand central powers that govern all the other creations, which have been sought out by the most aged of all the fathers, since the beginning of the creation, by means of the Urim and Thummim: The names of the other twelve of the fixed stars are: Kolob, Limdi, Zip, Vusel, Venisti, Waine, Way-oh-ox-oan, oansli, Kible, Shineflis, flis, os. The Egyptian names of the fifteen moving planets are: Oan-isis, Flos-isis, flo-ese, Abbesels, Ele-ash, Subble, Slundlo, Car-roam, Craw-ma-Kraw, obbles-isim, Izins-bah, missel, Nah-mesile, Ohee-oop-zah, Zool."

Now, do you believe this message came from the prophet Joseph Smith?

[ ] yes

[ ] no

How is it that LDS apologists simply chalk this stuff up as something made up by the scribes? How is that LDS apologists don't want to accept something in the same vein as nonMormons want to learn the Book of Mormon? Oh, they made up the EAG! Oh, they made up the Book of Mormon. I find that LDS apologists are a lot like nonLDS critics. No one wants to face anything that challenges their personal comfort and belief structure of how Mormonism was built.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Hi Paul,

I'm sorry I guessed wrong about my above statement.  I am curious as to your opinion about the idea of inspiration in connection with the KEP.  If JS used a single Egyptian letter to give 100 words, I struggle to see inspiration in that.  Again, sorry for having presumed to know your view.

Jon

Jon,

No need to apologize. You

[Jon Haugo]

Thanks Paul for your response.

Jon

[Paul Osborne]

Paul

I'm more interested in the issue of the Alphabet...but for now...

I truly don't see the relevance, nor have I seen the context of your quote.  Sure, I guess I'll say yes....although I dare say I didn't believe JS when he mentioned that 10 foot Quakers lived on the dark side of the moon. 

Oh no! Wait...what if the translation's wrong!  Confound me for falling into your Satanic trap of twisting words!!  ARRGGGHHH!!!  Move over Beelzebub...here comes PacMan!!

Your 'mysticism' is pointless...second only to irritating.

PacMan

You will not receive the benefits of the EAG because of your unbelief. But if you have faith like a mustard seed and let it grow in you therein you can water it and watch it grow! It's as simple as that. But, if you want to toss the KEP in the same bin as the antis do the BofM - that is your choice.

I believe the KEP is a sacred record. I am offended when LDS people treat it with contempt, not to accuse you, however.

Paul O

[PacMan]

Paul,

You were asking me to make a personal statement of something that I hadn't read in context. Moreover, I must have missed the loop because I still DON'T see the point you are trying to make. Thus to say I am suffering from 'unbelief' boggles me...I have no idea what you think I should belive in!!

Moreover, I haven't tossed anything in the bin--don't be so vulgar in your accusations!! I'm trying to figure things out and trying to ask reasonable questions, but instead of answers I receive some byword of reproof!

Perhaps you may be confusing me with someone else.

Again, I ask the question: Did Joseph and his scribes believe they were dealing with a language with a phonetic alphabet? If not, why did they try and construct an alphabet when alphabets necessitate phonetics?

Regards,

PacMan

I DARE SAY THAT THE REASON YOU (and several others) DON'T RESPOND TO MY QUESTION IS BECAUSE IT IS DEVESTATING TO THE HYPOTHESIS YOU HOLD SO DEAR TO YOUR HEART. THAT JOSEPH SMITH AND HIS SCRIBES WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE GRAMMAR AND ALPHABET OF THE EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE DEMANDS THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY DID SO BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT BOTH AN EGYPTIAN GRAMMAR AND ALPHABET EXISTED.

BECAUSE ALPHABETS ARE ONLY USED IN LANGUAGES WITH PHONETIC SCRIPT, IT THEREFORE PROVES THAT JOSEPH SMITH AND HIS SCRIBES WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT A SINGLE CHARACTER DID NOT ASSOCIATE TO A PARAGRAPH OF A TRANSLATED NARRATIVE. THE CHARACTERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BoA MANUSCRIPT ARE NOT THE CHARACTERS BY WHICH THE TEXT WAS TRANSLATED!!