Jump to content

Lost Book Of Abraham: Anti-mormon Video


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

Is it another "revelation"? SOunds like another LDS effort to whitewash their never ending problem with doctrine and fantasy claims

Oh good, YOU are back! Amazing how the Church took no effort to whitewash how the Book of the Dead coincides with temple theology. I guess we just can't get past that "problem." Gee whiz. Speaking of fantasy claims -- have you read the Bible lately?

Link to comment

This Aaronshaf kid (who posted this video) sends these videos to as many Mormon-related boards as he can find. I think he's even posted a lot of stuff here. He always throws his opinion out there and then never defends it, but I saw this video about six months ago and made a bunch of comments about the conclusions of the "experts" they interview. I then followed up with an issue that completely killed the thread. No one had an explanation for the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Testament of Abraham and the dozens of other Abrahamic ascension texts that closely mirror the Book of Abraham. I asked them to account for the glaring similarities and they all just hemmed and hawwed about how the ascension texts weren't canonical and never addressed the issue. Aaronshaf never responded to any of my arguments.

Link to comment
I then followed up with an issue that completely killed the thread. No one had an explanation for the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Testament of Abraham and the dozens of other Abrahamic ascension texts that closely mirror the Book of Abraham. I asked them to account for the glaring similarities and they all just hemmed and hawwed about how the ascension texts weren't canonical and never addressed the issue. Aaronshaf never responded to any of my arguments.

nice. could you provide me with a link towards that thread? it should be in here somewhere.

To loosly, paraphrase/plaigerize an idea from Nibly: the BoA and BoM are like two diamonds. If i hand you a diamond and say, "look I have a diamond". You inspect the diamond, using diamond inspection tecniques. You dont ask me were I got it from. Throwing away my real diamond , simply because I told you that it grew out of my ear, without even so much as testing whether it is a real diamond is stupid.

"That cant be a real diamond, it grew out of his ear". TEST THE DIAMOND,SEE IF IT CUTS GLASS.

The critics are so obssesed with "discovering" and later disproving Joseph's modus operandi, that they completly ignore the diamond(book). The translation was a supernatural one.

Is it another "revelation"? SOunds like another LDS effort to whitewash their never ending problem with doctrine and fantasy claims
please show an example of this, regarding the BofA.
Link to comment

I personally think the Book of Abraham was a product of Joseph Smith's speculation about the papyrus content he mistook as revelation. If revelation was involved God somehow made lemons into lemonade. The papyrus was not at all like the Book of Mormon plates as no angels were involved. The Lord never verified Joseph Smith's translation was correct.

One possibility is God gave Joseph Smith a text unrelated to the content of the papyrus to teach him a lesson about translation. If the critic's case is correct Joseph Smith was able to get paragraphs of text out of selected Book of Breathings characters. Maybe the Lord made it so simple to indicate to Joseph Smith that the reputed translation did not work with the papyrus. But Joseph Smith instead of questioning his revelation from God simply went to his grave thinking his translation was correct. It's ok to question God.

I would have been more impressed with the film if it had dealt with believers evidence for the Book of Abraham.

Link to comment

I suspect a volume 2 of the New Mormon Challenge by Zondervan might have a section on Book of Abraham evidences. They did go after significant Book of Mormon evidences in that volume. Only had two essays on the Book of Mormon though. I assumed the Book of Abraham would be their next likely target. Not sure they are planning a volume 2, but they might do that, or something similar some day.

Saying the source might be still missing only does so much for the Book of Abraham. It does deflect immediate attention from the Book of Breathings. It would only prove the Book of Abraham if the contents were found & agreed with the Book of Abaham. But it does help a lot because the critics say the source was found in 1967. If the Book of Abraham source wasn't found then the critics have been misinforming the public.

I think most critics are satisfied with saying Joseph Smith's translation abilities on the Book of Abraham was disredited when the Book of Breathings was found. If genuine revelation was involved, and that was the source God gave Joseph Smith a different story that was upon the papyrus. Perhaps the Lord never exactly said the papyrus was the Book of Abraham, but that was Joseph Smith's own hasty explanation, or interpretation.

Abraham was told to waste his time to prepare to sacrifice Issac. The Lord might just be eccentric enough to allow Joseph Smith to think the papyrus contained the literal writing of Abraham. If the Lord could be cruel to Abraham why would he not have Joseph, and his scribes waste time working with the papyrus? Maybe the Lord thought Joseph Smith was smart enough to realize his facimilie explanations did not match conventional Egyptian that he never corrected his servant. What is a bad conventional translation of Egyptian might be a true revelation from God anyway.

Link to comment

DALE

You have some interesting and very plausible points. Afterall, Joseph was niether perfect or Superman. There missing scroll theory, the pure revelation theory and the Book of Moses-esque translation theory(all three among believers). Perhaps your should be called, the Nice save theory. Joseph Smith thinks he is looking at the BoA, while scrolling thru the BoD, God gives him the BoA. Interesting,possible but not intellectually satisfying. Tjhough you could be right. <_<

I personally think that anciently their was a BoA(our BoA) and that around 1 AD, was passed on along with a copy of the BoD. The BoD, could have been used as a memorization tool for the endowment. When reading the ancient egyptian endowment, the former day saint officiator could remember the details of the true priesthood ritual(they are almost identical, just switch up the pantheon and add covenants). Anyone who has recived their endowment knows what im talking aboutThe BoD facsimilies were also adopted to provide visual aid to the BoA( the adaptation of egyptian motifs by ancient jews is an attested practice). Dr. Ritner is flat out wrong!!! The BoA is not a story about human sacrifice, though it does have that. From the very begining the BoA IS ABOUT PRIESTHOOD AND WHAT LINEAGE IT BELONGS TO. :P It makes perfect sense, that prayer that echoes temple theology should be associated with a book about Abraham.

Also, I love how they say "Joseph was learning hebrew so he must have summized that egyptian read right to left." Ok, he sumized based on a knowledge of hebrew that egyptian wrote right to left, but that knowledge of hebrew couldnt keep him from summizing that one character=a paragraph. PALEEEZE. They also neglect to mention that much evidence points to the fact that the chracters along side the translation were written afterwards. So Joseph Smith needs a codex about 6 inches thick to pump about the BoM, but the BoA requires only.....lets say 10,15 characters? Besides, why only 5,6 post translation match ups of sequencial BoD characters with the text? Why not go all the way done the text with the source paragraph-characters. The idea that the KEP reveal the modus operandi of Joseph is baseless.

Also, it doesnt matter if the priest has a jackal or a bald man's head, it still is a priest. Interesting how they left out that correct interpretation. They also left out the FACT that amongs some egyptian priests, Abraham was associated with a lion couch scene.

lpext.jpg

Not surprisingly, Joseph doesnt get credit for introducing this concept to the world.

Link to comment
The critics are so obssesed with "discovering" and later disproving Joseph's modus operandi, that they completly ignore the diamond(book). The translation was a supernatural one.

Okay, let's talk about the "diamond." I'm not an Egyptologist, and I'm guessing you're not either, so we both have to rely on the authority of experts. So...of all the Egyptologists in the world, which ones are impressed with the Book of Abraham? If you said "the Mormon ones," you're right. But that's ALL that are impressed. Non-LDS experts who are qualified to judge the quality of this so-called "diamond" are decidedly not impressed by it. And if your response to that is "if they were impressed by the Book of Abraham, they'd convert and be LDS,"--fine. Name one. Name a single Egyptologist who converted to Mormonism.

Link to comment
The critics are so obssesed with "discovering" and later disproving Joseph's modus operandi, that they completly ignore the diamond(book). The translation was a supernatural one.

Okay, let's talk about the "diamond." I'm not an Egyptologist, and I'm guessing you're not either, so we both have to rely on the authority of experts. So...of all the Egyptologists in the world, which ones are impressed with the Book of Abraham? If you said "the Mormon ones," you're right. But that's ALL that are impressed. Non-LDS experts who are qualified to judge the quality of this so-called "diamond" are decidedly not impressed by it. And if your response to that is "if they were impressed by the Book of Abraham, they'd convert and be LDS,"--fine. Name one. Name a single Egyptologist who converted to Mormonism.

You're basing an academic argument on who is converted to Mormonism by the Book of Abraham? You just got plenty of info and you sidestep all of it to offer "Why don't really smart people get baptized then, huh?" Are you joking?

Link to comment
You're basing an academic argument on who is converted to Mormonism by the Book of Abraham?

No. Rather than discuss the fanciful just-so stories that apologists have come up with (the "catalyst" theory? the "hidden meaning" theory?) which aren't subject to falsification anyway, I'm asking if the actual end result of the process is as impressive as Her Amun seems to think it is. That's what she(?) asked for, so that's what I gave. But it's NOT impressive. Just ask any Egyptologist who hasn't "drank the koolaid."

The only reason I even mentioned converts is to preempt the response that apologists make when faced with the fact that non-LDS experts are utterly unimpressed with the Book of Abraham. It is typically asserted that if an Egyptologist WAS impressed by the BoA (or any other bit of Mormon esoterica), they'd convert and then wouldn't qualify as a non-LDS expert. But this just doesn't happen, so that argument can't be made. You have to find another reason why non-LDS Egyptologists (or archeologists, or historians, or mesoamerican scholars) aren't convinced by LDS apologetics in their relative fields of expertise.

Link to comment
I would have been more impressed with the film if it had dealt with believers evidence for the Book of Abraham.
Amen and Amen. Anti's never tackle lds apologia the way lds attack anti stuff. Where is the anti equivalent of FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS?

It doesn't exist. Usually when Anti's have a 'Doctor' in their name, it's from a mill.

Link to comment
You're basing an academic argument on who is converted to Mormonism by the Book of Abraham?

No. Rather than discuss the fanciful just-so stories that apologists have come up with (the "catalyst" theory? the "hidden meaning" theory?) which aren't subject to falsification anyway, I'm asking if the actual end result of the process is as impressive as Her Amun seems to think it is. That's what she(?) asked for, so that's what I gave. But it's NOT impressive. Just ask any Egyptologist who hasn't "drank the koolaid."

So now you openly ignore strong evidence because you feel a better argument can be made from your angle, and then you compare Mormonism to a suicide cult? Until people can account for the Apocalypse and Testament of Abraham, the lion-couch scene with Abraham's name right under it and the fact that witnesses report that in the original papyri the priest held a knife (despite being completely uncharacteristic of this kind of text) then no one is going to take that ridiculous argument seriously. What "process" are you referring to? The process of anti-Mormons paying Egyptologists to make blanket statements and misrepresent the evidence? Is that supposed to convert someone? What is this process you refer to?

The only reason I even mentioned converts is to preempt the response that apologists make when faced with the fact that non-LDS experts are utterly unimpressed with the Book of Abraham. It is typically asserted that if an Egyptologist WAS impressed by the BoA (or any other bit of Mormon esoterica), they'd convert and then wouldn't qualify as a non-LDS expert. But this just doesn't happen, so that argument can't be made. You have to find another reason why non-LDS Egyptologists (or archeologists, or historians, or mesoamerican scholars) aren't convinced by LDS apologetics in their relative fields of expertise.

And I am utterly unimpressed with non-LDS experts. They overlook evidence and refuse to give it a second glance. Why? Because they're paid to make it look bad. Klaus Baer (much more of a respected expert than anyone else who has ever looked at it) was impressed with the Book of Abraham. He told Hugh Nibley the key was not in what the Egyptian said, but in what the English said. The English text makes a far better argument because it would have been impossible for Smith to make up a text that so closely parallels soon-to-be discovered ascension texts from all over the Near East. We would like to enter into a discussion about this, but some people appear to be so utterly devastated by the notion of debating evidence they cannot possibly refute that they would rather talk about conversion percentages. That's a joke.

Link to comment

Hi There,

Her Amun wrote:

Amen and Amen. Anti's never tackle lds apologia the way lds attack anti stuff. Where is the anti equivalent of FARMS REVIEW OF BOOKS?

Did not Dr. Robert Ritner on that Book of Abraham video refuted John Geeâ??s claim that the Book of Breathings text ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text) Scroll was really about 10 feet long. I believe that John Gee has been refuted with his claim that the Book of Breathings text was really 10 feet long. Here is what Dr. R. Ritner wrote:

There is no justification for Gee's unsubstantiated attempt to more than double this figure to '320 cm (about 10 feet)' in Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 10 and 12–13. Gee presumably wishes to allow space for a supposedly 'lost hieratic text' of The Book of Abraham; his figure derives from the average length of a manufactured (blank) Ptolemaic papyrus roll—not comparable, individual documents cut from such a roll.

[R. Ritner, "Among the Joseph Smith Papyri," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 62.3 (July 2003): 166n33]

Dale wrote:

Saying the source might be still missing only does so much for the Book of Abraham. It does deflect immediate attention from the Book of Breathings. It would only prove the Book of Abraham if the contents were found & agreed with the Book of Abaham. But it does help a lot because the critics say the source was found in 1967. If the Book of Abraham source wasn't found then the critics have been misinforming the public.

I think most critics are satisfied with saying Joseph Smith's translation abilities on the Book of Abraham was disredited when the Book of Breathings was found.

Critics of the BofA have been attacking the translation process for the BofA since about 1912 (mainly because of the facsimiles), way before the year of 1967. The literal translations of the facsimiles done by scholars do not agree with the translations that Joseph Smith gave for the facsimiles. The closest literal translation that JS got right was Facsimile #2, Figure #6.

The Mighty Curelom wrote:

No. Rather than discuss the fanciful just-so stories that apologists have come up with (the "catalyst" theory? the "hidden meaning" theory?) which aren't subject to falsification anyway, I'm asking if the actual end result of the process is as impressive as Her Amun seems to think it is.

Most of the LDS Apologists here do Not believe in the 'Catalyst' Theory for the BofA. They do Not believe that the Book of Breathings Text is Not the source for the Book of Abraham, even though the evidence is very overwhelming that the Book of Breathings text was indeed the source for the BofA. Click Here for the Evidence.

I find that the Catalyst theory for the BofA is more believable than the refuted missing papyrus text theory for the BofA.

Link to comment

MC

Your questian is an indirect appeal to non-thought. Their isnt enough evidence of the BoA or BoM to cause the chapels to overflow. But their is enough evidence with which to defend the scriptures, evidence that was conviniently left out of the video. Evidence which anti's in general want to gloss over with the "ya, they're mormons" ad hominim. Which is what you are close to doing. In looking for non-lds to convert to mormonism, based on a secular understanding of scripture, what you are in effect sayoing is: " opinions of mormon egyptologists dont count. Why? Because they are mormon. If you want an unbiased view then you must find a catholic,atheist,jew or buddhist, who converts to mormonism because of their egyptological studies." It is a non-sequiter!! :P Egyptologists arnt joinig the church ergo Joseph didnt bring to us an ancient egyptian volume. What has one to do with the other?

So...of all the Egyptologists in the world, which ones are impressed with the Book of Abraham?
The actual book is rarely, if ever discussed. Rather, what is discussed are the facsimiles and papyri.
Okay, let's talk about the "diamond."
Im waiting for you to start :ph34r: rather you seem to just want to talk about how many egyptologists are converting to mormonism.
Name one. Name a single Egyptologist who converted to Mormonism.
Their arent any that I know of. So what? Are you advocating that I give up my powers of reason and blindly follow someone, just because they have a pHd in a related field? Ive heard anti's accusing mormons of blindly following the bretheren( :unsure: ) but this takes the cake. How many egyptologists have to convert before you do? Give me a break! <_<

Your statement is also begging the questian as to whther the BoA is even an egyptological issue. In reality, it is one that belongs to the realm of Biblical/Pseudipigrapcal study; just like the Apocalypse of Abraham(whic bares a connection to the hypocephalus) and the Testament of Abraham(whih bares a connection to BoD 125) The only thing that links them to Egyptology is the facsimiles. The only thing an egyptologist can tell you is WHAT THE FACSIMILIES MEANT TO ANCIENT EGYPTIANS.They cant tell you what they meant to jews. In fact, their is a good chance that they would actually have meant something to jews, given how they redacted/adopted many egyptian themes.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Complete/Series/BYU-SBA.html

Synopsis of Relationship between Amenemope and Proverbs

Amenemope

Proverbs

Subject

1. 3/9â??11, 16

22:17â??18

Appeal to hear

2. 1/7

22:19

Purpose of instruction

3. 27/7â??8

22:20

Thirty sayings

4. 1/5â??6

22:21

Learning a worthy response

5. 4/4â??5

22:22

Do not rob a wretch

6. 11/13â??14

22:24

Avoid friendship with violent people

7. 13/8â??9

22:25

Lest a trap ruin you

8. 7/12â??13

22:28

Do not remove landmarks

9. 27/16â??17

22:29

Skillful scribes will be courtiers

10. 23/13â??18

23:1â??3

Eat cautiously before an official

11. 9/14â??10:5

23:4â??5

Wealth flies away like an eagle/geese

12. 14/5â??10

23:6â??7

Do not eat a stingy person's food

13. 14/17â??18

23:8

Vomiting results

14. 22/11â??12

23:9

Do not speak before just anyone

15. 7/12â??15

23:10â??11

Do not remove landmarks of widows

16. 11/6â??7

24:11

Rescue the condemned

Semitic Transformations from the Vignette to Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead to the Judgment (Psychostasy) Scene of the Testament of Abraham

Egyptian Context

Semitic Context

1. Osiris

Abel

2. Anubis

Dokiel

3. Horus

Purouel

4. Thoth

Enoch or an angel

5. Maat

An angel

Semitic Transformations from Hypothetical Egyptian Original Underlying the Demotic Story of Setna to the Deducible Jewish Popular Version (from which the Lucan Account of the Rich Man and Lazarus Descends)

Egyptian Context

Semitic Context

1. Osiris

Abraham

2. Amnte

Bosom of Abraham

3. Horus (or falcon of Horus)

Angels

Semitic Transformations from a Hypocephalus to the Apocalypse of Abraham

Egyptian Context

Semitic Context

1. A circular disk representing the upper world and the netherworld

Abraham is shown "the fulness of the whole world and its circle"

2. "O Mighty God, Lord of heaven and earth, of the hereafter, and of his great waters" [from Facsimile 2, left middle]

Abraham is shown "what is in the heavens, on the earth, in the sea, and in the abyss"

3. Four Sons of Horus

A. Hapy [baboon]

B. Imsety [man]

C. Duamutef [jackal]

D. Qebehsenuf [falcon]

Four fiery living creatures, each with four faces (via Ezekiel 1â??2)

Lion [or ox]

Man

Ox [or lion]

Eagle

The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources

Kevin L. Barney

They do Not believe that the Book of Breathings Text is Not the source for the Book of Abraham, even though the evidence is very overwhelming that the Book of Breathings text was indeed the source for the BofA
ah yes, the "one character equals a paragraph" theory. People still cling on to this despite the fact that the characters WHERE ADDED AFTER THE TRANSLATION WAS COMPLETE, as shown by the different color inks, not matching the text and in even one case, over lapping it.
Link to comment

The Egyptian texts that mentioned the name of Abraham all date after 180 A.D. John Gee wrote in the Ensign in 1992:

There are dozens of references to Abraham in Egyptian texts, some of which have traditionally, been called â??magical,â? 1 although many scholars are not sure how to distinguish ancient magic from religion. 2 The references occur in five different languagesâ??Demotic, Old Coptic, Coptic, Greek, and Hebrew. Here, we mention six of the references to Abraham, dating to the third century A.D., most of which came from Thebes, the place where the Joseph Smith papyri were found, and were originally acquired by Giovanni dâ??Anastasi, who sold them to several museums in Europe.

( http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=t...;fn=default.htm , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

The Book of Breathings papyrus text, the papyrus scroll that Joseph Smith believed (purportedly) contained the writings of Abraham, dates sometime between B.C.E. 60 and 50 A.D. Since all the Egyptian texts that mentioned the name of Abraham clearly all date after the Breathings papyrus, I find that the name of Abraham found in those Egyptian texts (that all date after 180 A.D.) to be insignificant to the â??authenticityâ?? of the Book of Abraham.

These findings of the Egyptian texts that mentioned the name of Abraham on them (clearly all dating after the Breathings papyrus) leads to absolutely No credibility to the refuted missing papyrus text theory for the Book of Abraham.

Link to comment
The Book of Breathings papyrus, the papyrus that Joseph Smith believed (purportedly) contained the writings of Abraham, dates sometime between B.C.E. 60 and 50 A.D.

OK

Since all the Egyptian texts that mentioned the name of Abraham clearly all date after the Breathings papyrus, I find that the name of Abraham found in those Egyptian texts (that all date after 180 A.D.) to be insignificant to the â??authenticityâ?? of the Book of Abraham.

I find the fact that, at least some, ancient egyptian preists associated Abraham with the lion couch and the wedjat eye to be highly significant. Joseph was the first modern to associate Abraham with these symbols, at a time when no such association was known to exist.

"The wedjat-eye was a symbol of perfection, prosperity, preservation, wholeness, completion, health, and resurrection; in Christian times it was the word the Copts used for salvation. It occurs four times in facsimile no. 2 of the book of Abraham (twice in figure 3, and once in figures 5 and 7", Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts John Gee. These abrahamic associations are concepts that Joseph Smith introduced to the world, during a time when such associations were not known to have existed.

These findings of the Egyptian texts that mentioned the name of Abraham on them (clearly all date after the Breathings papyrus) leads to absolutely No credibility to the refuted missing papyrus text theory for the Book of Abraham.

Who said they were being used to add credibility to the "refuted" missing text theory? The questian is: did ancient egyptian priests associate Abrham with the lion couch? Yes. The wedjat eye? Yes. Etc. As to the age of our BoD..........: it is 100 to 200 years older than the Anastasi collection. But so what? The questian should be: when did these associations begin to start? That I dont know. BUT I think it is important to note, the more we know about the ancient world the more ancient the BoA looks. That should not happen if the anti's are correct.

Link to comment
The critics are so obssesed with "discovering" and later disproving Joseph's modus operandi, that they completly ignore the diamond(book). The translation was a supernatural one.

Okay, let's talk about the "diamond." I'm not an Egyptologist, and I'm guessing you're not either, so we both have to rely on the authority of experts. So...of all the Egyptologists in the world, which ones are impressed with the Book of Abraham? If you said "the Mormon ones," you're right. But that's ALL that are impressed. Non-LDS experts who are qualified to judge the quality of this so-called "diamond" are decidedly not impressed by it. And if your response to that is "if they were impressed by the Book of Abraham, they'd convert and be LDS,"--fine. Name one. Name a single Egyptologist who converted to Mormonism.

Hmmm.... Let me get out my apples-to-apples editing pen and see what we have...

Okay, let's talk about the "diamond." I'm not a Islamic scholar, and I'm guessing you're not either, so we both have to rely on the authority of experts. So...of all the Islamic scholars in the world, which ones are impressed with the Bible? If you said "the Christian ones," you're right. But that's ALL that are impressed. Non-Christian experts who are qualified to judge the quality of this so-called "diamond" are decidedly not impressed by it. And if your response to that is "if they were impressed by the Bible, they'd convert and be Christian,"--fine. Name one. Name a single Islamic scholar who converted to Christianity.

Or, let's try another slight edit...

Okay, let's talk about the "diamond." I'm not a Bible scholar, and I'm guessing you're not either, so we both have to rely on the authority of experts. So...of all the Bible scholars in the world, which ones are impressed with the Koran? If you said "the Muslim ones," you're right. But that's ALL that are impressed. Non-Muslim experts who are qualified to judge the quality of this so-called "diamond" are decidedly not impressed by it. And if your response to that is "if they were impressed by the Koran, they'd convert and be Muslims,"--fine. Name one. Name a single Bible scholar who converted to Islam.

Wait! Here's yet another one...

Okay, let's talk about the "diamond." I'm not a Talmudic scholar, and I'm guessing you're not either, so we both have to rely on the authority of experts. So...of all the Talmudic scholars in the world, which ones are impressed with the Talmud? If you said "the Jewish ones," you're right. But that's ALL that are impressed. Non-Jewish experts who are qualified to judge the quality of this so-called "diamond" are decidedly not impressed by it. And if your response to that is "if they were impressed by the Talmud, they'd convert and be Jews,"--fine. Name one. Name a single Talmudic scholar who converted to Judaism.

Isn't this fun? Strawmen always are, particularly at Halloween! :P

(Hint: Scholarly analysis of any text never leads to conversion. That only happens through the Spirit.)

-Allen

Link to comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNoxKcWFEPw

I like how similiar the Book of Dead is to the LDS temple rituals.

These people are missing the boat,theyobviously arnt aware of, or have purpusfully ignored the latest LDS thought on this subject. Enjoy.

Is it another "revelation"? SOunds like another LDS effort to whitewash their never ending problem with doctrine and fantasy claims

You just can't see the truth so you must claim we are wrong.

2 Ne. 1: 23

23 Awake, my sons; put on the armor of righteousness. Shake off the chains with which ye are bound, and come forth out of obscurity, and arise from the dust.

Link to comment

The Egyptian texts that mentioned the name of Abraham all date after 180 A.D. John Gee wrote in the Ensign in 1992:

There are dozens of references to Abraham in Egyptian texts, some of which have traditionally, been called â??magical,â? 1 although many scholars are not sure how to distinguish ancient magic from religion. 2 The references occur in five different languagesâ??Demotic, Old Coptic, Coptic, Greek, and Hebrew. Here, we mention six of the references to Abraham, dating to the third century A.D., most of which came from Thebes, the place where the Joseph Smith papyri were found, and were originally acquired by Giovanni dâ??Anastasi, who sold them to several museums in Europe.

( http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=t...;fn=default.htm , Bold Emphasis Mine. )

The Book of Breathings papyrus text, the papyrus scroll that Joseph Smith believed (purportedly) contained the writings of Abraham, dates sometime between B.C.E. 60 and 50 A.D. Since all the Egyptian texts that mentioned the name of Abraham clearly all date after the Breathings papyrus, I find that the name of Abraham found in those Egyptian texts (that all date after 180 A.D.) to be insignificant to the â??authenticityâ?? of the Book of Abraham.

These findings of the Egyptian texts that mentioned the name of Abraham on them (clearly all dating after the Breathings papyrus) leads to absolutely No credibility to the refuted missing papyrus text theory for the Book of Abraham.

Perhaps I'm not aware of an element of this debate that seems to go unspoken whenever I hear it. What on earth does the dating of the other Abraham papyri have to do with the book of Breathings? Surely the conclusion is not being reached that we are currently in possession of the oldest papyri that has ever existed on this earth that mentions Abraham (thus making it clear that the book of Breathings cannot be related). That's a ridiculous argument. All of this stuff works within a body of literature that repeats over and over again for centuries. We have translated very little of the papyri that has been discovered, and that can't amount to more than about 5% of what was anciently written. To say that we have all the information we need to make just about any conclusion is a big mistake.

Link to comment

I've noiticed no one wants to address the issue head on. First the people said Abraham was actually "abracadabra," but when that proved to be utterly false they then say the dating of the manuscript means it cannot have anything to do with the book of Breathings. Everyone's shying away from actually confronting the argument.

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...