Lost Book Of Abraham: Anti-mormon Video

[Olavarria]

an absolute dither trying to defend the book of breathings as an actual autobiography of a man who lived in a completely different time period than Hor.

This is what you and the other anti's dont understand. No one is saying that the Book of the Dead discovered in 1967 is the Book of Abraham. The Book of the Dead with facsimilie 1 attached is not the Book of Abraham. No one is claiming that. Stop saying that we are.

Is any one going to debate the facts I presented in my previous posts? Probably not.

[cksalmon]

SOME ANCIENT EGYPTIAN PRIESTS FROM THE SAME HISTORICAL TIME PERIOD OF OUR BoD , ASSOCIATED THE BIBLICAL ABRAHAM WITH A LION COUCH SCENE.

Can you document this?

Thanks.

CKS

[Olavarria]

SOME ANCIENT EGYPTIAN PRIESTS FROM THE SAME HISTORICAL TIME PERIOD OF OUR BoD , ASSOCIATED THE BIBLICAL ABRAHAM WITH A LION COUCH SCENE.

Can you document this?

Thanks.

CKS

It already has been.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbr...am_egyptian.htm

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=171&table=review

Also, the FARMS publication "Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham" contains a whole section of translations, of the various magical papyri that connect biblical Abraham to the lion couch and wedjat eye.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/167911.ctl

[cksalmon]

Dear Noggin,

I think the comlaint made by Charity was that you were not using the word "forge" as a verb, but as an object.

All the Best!

Syntactically yours,

--Consiglieri

Well, a nominal predicative, to be most precise.

I love grammar!

CKS

[consiglieri]

Dear Noggin,

I think the comlaint made by Charity was that you were not using the word "forge" as a verb, but as an object.

All the Best!

Syntactically yours,

--Consiglieri

Well, a nominal predicative, to be most precise.

I love grammar!

CKS

Hi, CKS,

To put it mildly, if I am able to correct somebody's grammar, they are in sore shape!

Do check out that interesting documentation associating the name of Abraham with a lion couch scene, and let us know what you think. It is a pretty remarkable coincidence.

And while you're at it, you may want to meander over to my new thread dealing with Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon. The coincidences just keep piling up.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Noggin]

...and here you all are in an absolute dither trying to defend the book of breathings as an actual autobiography of a man who lived in a completely different time period than Hor.

This is what you and the other anti's dont understand. No one is saying that the Book of the Dead discovered in 1967 is the Book of Abraham. The Book of the Dead with facsimilie 1 attached is not the Book of Abraham. No one is claiming that. Stop saying that we are.

Is any one going to debate the facts I presented in my previous posts? Probably not.

Okay, snipey comment of mine about the spelling errors is formally retracted. I can't take the pressure to post here with perfect spelling.

Agreed. The book of the dead is just the book of the dead, nothing more than a egyptian breathing permit. ... but one thing it certainly is, is part of the ruse used by Joseph Smith to convince his followers that he could read Egyptian, was a prophet, and establish important supportive and much needed clarifications to church doctrine. (priesthood, polygamy)

That said, Her Amun, aren't you making an assumption about the 1967 papyri? It's clear to me that you are reading mostly Mormon apologetics. That claim you just shared is an old saw. It's one of many excuses that is hammered to death in Larsen's book, By His Own Hand On Papyrus. The claim that there is many feet of the scroll missing has been trounced. Joseph Smith could not read or translate egyptian. The oddball egyptian to english translations we have of his are certified bogus. Remember Smith's five degrees of egyptian grammar? Egyptian "grammar" does not have five degrees. But read Smith's exhaustive analysis and explanations of it... pretty impressive if it was'nt so... completely bogus. Here is the deal, if you are so sure that the 1967 Book of the Dead is not the ruse Joseph Smith used for writing the Book of Abraham, why don't you read Larsen's book? What do you have to lose?

If the book of Abraham was a fabrication, would you want to know?

If the book of Abraham was a fabrication, how would you know? By asking god?

And therein lies the question.

Also, You are stating that your previous posts are filled with fact. I doubt they are-- based on this short interaction with you and your claimed "fact" that the 1967 book of the dead is not Joseph Smith's prop source of the Book of Abraham. But as time permits, I will go read what you have posted.

[Noggin]

And who cares that the priest figure has the head of a jackal or whatnot... ? I care. That drawn in was a deliberate forge to support the "translated" text. The jackal figure, in the rest of the breathing permits of that time does not hold a knife like Smith had drawn in after the fact. Please.

Ummmmm... No. We have journal accounts describing the papyri prior to the lacunae in Fac. 1 that describe a bald man holding a knife. And Michael Rhodes has shown contemporary examples of priests holding knifes in BoB and related texts.

Which journal accounts are those, Jerubaal? I have seen the priests holding knives, but as I recall, they were not in the book of breathings of the Hor time period. These knife wielding priests were in totally separate scripts. Am I wrong then? Isn't it more likely that the figure in Facs 1 with the missing head should be a Jackal and not a bald human holding a knife trying to kill Abraham on the altar? The Jackal fits better to what was normally drawn for breathing permits in that time period.

Noggin

[cksalmon]

SOME ANCIENT EGYPTIAN PRIESTS FROM THE SAME HISTORICAL TIME PERIOD OF OUR BoD , ASSOCIATED THE BIBLICAL ABRAHAM WITH A LION COUCH SCENE.

Can you document this?

Thanks.

CKS

It already has been.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbr...am_egyptian.htm

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=171&table=review

Also, the FARMS publication "Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham" contains a whole section of translations, of the various magical papyri that connect biblical Abraham to the lion couch and wedjat eye.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/167911.ctl

First link provided:

This page wouldn't load. Bad link?

Second link provided:

I. The name Abraham appears on Egyptian papyri.

A. The name Abraham on the papyri discussed is that of the biblical Abraham.

1. One of these occurrences of the name is connected with a lion couch scene.

I can't find any supporting documentation for this claim here. Can you point it out here?

I did find this:

The fundamental issue is whether or not the name Abraham appears in Egyptian papyri.

But I didn't find a supporting reference to a connection between Abraham and a lion couch.

Third link provided:

Perhaps you could provide a synopsis of the evidence for linking Abraham with the lion couch, as this link refers one to a book for purchase, but no at-hand documentation of the question at hand. I'm assuming that, if you take this as evidence for connecting Abraham and the lion couch, you've digested the material and can provide us with a summary.

Best.

CKS

[Olavarria]

Also, You are stating that your previous posts are filled with fact. I doubt they are-- based on this short interaction with you and your claimed "fact" that the 1967 book of the dead is not Joseph Smith's prop source of the Book of Abraham

Ill answer your complete post within the week, I promise.

But I have to make one thing clear. Yes, the JSP discovered in 1967 does have our Fac.1. Yes, Joseph did own this papyri. I dont doubt that.

Ill provide a more complete answer, no later than this weekend. I'm crazy busy and probably have spent more time on this thread than I should.

I will respond.

ps.

I wasnt offended by the snipy cooment

[Olavarria]

sk

Sorry about the first link. i cant find a better one.

As for the Book, I have a copy a my parents house(Im away in grad school). Basically, its a spell that says something to the effect of "Sieze her.....Bind her....Abrham on the....... make a copy of this spell with the exact words". Perhaps I can scan it and post it, maybe. It all depends if I go home on the weekend or not. Ill try but no promises.

[maklelan]

SOME ANCIENT EGYPTIAN PRIESTS FROM THE SAME HISTORICAL TIME PERIOD OF OUR BoD , ASSOCIATED THE BIBLICAL ABRAHAM WITH A LION COUCH SCENE.

Can you document this?

Thanks.

CKS

It already has been.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbr...am_egyptian.htm

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=171&table=review

Also, the FARMS publication "Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham" contains a whole section of translations, of the various magical papyri that connect biblical Abraham to the lion couch and wedjat eye.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/167911.ctl

First link provided:

This page wouldn't load. Bad link?

Second link provided:

I. The name Abraham appears on Egyptian papyri.

A. The name Abraham on the papyri discussed is that of the biblical Abraham.

1. One of these occurrences of the name is connected with a lion couch scene.

I can't find any supporting documentation for this claim here. Can you point it out here?

I did find this:

The fundamental issue is whether or not the name Abraham appears in Egyptian papyri.

But I didn't find a supporting reference to a connection between Abraham and a lion couch.

Third link provided:

Perhaps you could provide a synopsis of the evidence for linking Abraham with the lion couch, as this link refers one to a book for purchase, but no at-hand documentation of the question at hand. I'm assuming that, if you take this as evidence for connecting Abraham and the lion couch, you've digested the material and can provide us with a summary.

Best.

CKS

The photograph above shows a lion couch scene. The word that is circled is the name Abraham.

One anti-Mormon has questioned whether or not it really says Abraham. He says it's just a magical word similar to "abracadabra." He has no unbiased scholars who back him up on this, but we have the rest of the unbiased scholarly community backing us up that it really is the biblical Abraham. Other similar Egyptian texts also mention Isaac, Jacob, Noah and Moses. John Gee's review of that one scholar's book (in which he explains in much greater detail why it is the biblical Abraham) can be found here:

http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=OTg1...p;type=cmV2aWV3

[cksalmon]

SOME ANCIENT EGYPTIAN PRIESTS FROM THE SAME HISTORICAL TIME PERIOD OF OUR BoD , ASSOCIATED THE BIBLICAL ABRAHAM WITH A LION COUCH SCENE.

Can you document this?

Thanks.

CKS

It already has been.

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbr...am_egyptian.htm

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=171&table=review

Also, the FARMS publication "Traditions about the Early Life of Abraham" contains a whole section of translations, of the various magical papyri that connect biblical Abraham to the lion couch and wedjat eye.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/167911.ctl

First link provided:

This page wouldn't load. Bad link?

Second link provided:

I. The name Abraham appears on Egyptian papyri.

A. The name Abraham on the papyri discussed is that of the biblical Abraham.

1. One of these occurrences of the name is connected with a lion couch scene.

I can't find any supporting documentation for this claim here. Can you point it out here?

I did find this:

The fundamental issue is whether or not the name Abraham appears in Egyptian papyri.

But I didn't find a supporting reference to a connection between Abraham and a lion couch.

Third link provided:

Perhaps you could provide a synopsis of the evidence for linking Abraham with the lion couch, as this link refers one to a book for purchase, but no at-hand documentation of the question at hand. I'm assuming that, if you take this as evidence for connecting Abraham and the lion couch, you've digested the material and can provide us with a summary.

Best.

CKS

The photograph above shows a lion couch scene. The word that is circled is the name Abraham.

One anti-Mormon has questioned whether or not it really says Abraham. He says it's just a magical word similar to "abracadabra." He has no unbiased scholars who back him up on this, but we have the rest of the unbiased scholarly community backing us up that it really is the biblical Abraham. Other similar Egyptian texts also mention Isaac, Jacob, Noah and Moses. John Gee's review of that one scholar's book (in which he explains in much greater detail why it is the biblical Abraham) can be found here:

http://farms.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=OTg1...p;type=cmV2aWV3

The circled part must not be in Egyptian, else I couldn't (almost) read it. What is it's linguistic provenance?

Is this Demotic?

Best.

CKS

[maklelan]

My understanding is that the above is Coptic, but Dr. Gee's article mentions Demotic and Coptic examples.

[Noggin]

The church has to be a fraud in your world, so you cannot think objectively about the possibility that the Book of Abraham is an ancient text , beacuese you would have to repent, get rid of your porn and rejoin the church."

bleh. tasteless. which I am positive was your goal in response to my jabs.

Noggin wrote:

Or that they just don't get "it" ("it" meaning your point of view?).

Her Amun responded:

No, the fact that the BoA is not an egyptologiacl subject. The papyri and facsimilies are, but when they have begun to attack the BoA, then they have stepped outside the bounds of their expertise. ALL THEY CAN TELL US IS WHAT THE PAPYRUS AND THE FACSIMILIES MEANT TO AN EGYPTIAN. THEY CANNOT, NOR HAVE THEY ATTEMPTED TO, TELL US WHAT THEY MEANT TO AN ANCIENT JEW.

It's not an egyptological subject? How so? Is there some second meaning in these scrolls and facsimiles that no one but the Mormons can identify? What would an ancient jew want to do with egyptian hieroglyphics? Correct me if I am wrong, but the ancient jews despised all things pagan. Egyptian=pagan, so why would the god of Israel write cryptically in a language abhorred by the jews? Uh, okay I am assuming that you are trying to say that the ancient jews took some special meaning to the facsimilies and pappyri?

And about that. Doesn't Father Abraham have to be writing in egyptian hieroglyphics for the Joseph Smith claim to unfurl? The text does "translate" into something to the fact of

The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

This wording is taken directly from the first page of the Book of Abraham.

Noggin wrote:

And who cares that the priest figure has the head of a jackal or whatnot... ? I care

Her Amun responded:

Fine, I don't because I subscribe to semitic adaption/redaction it makes no difference what the original was.

Noggin wrote:

That drawn in was a deliberate forge to support the "translated" text. The jackal figure, in the rest of the breathing permits of that time does not hold a knife like Smith had drawn in after the fact. Please.

Her Amun responded:

IF the figure never held a knife, how does that prove a forge?

The forgery is plain. The other found and verified books of breathing of this time period have Jackal headed figures representing

I refer to figure 3 in the facsimile below. Joseph Smith says that figure 3 is the idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice and that the bird is the angel of the lord. In reality, the translation has nothing to do with any Elkenah priest, Father Abraham, or any angel of any lord.

then you see a rather strained explanation from Joseph Smith found on figure 12. Figure 12 was translated by Joseph Smith as being

Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.

This is all pretty much as bogus as it gets. You have the figures 1 through 12, and you have 12 completely bogus translations of these 12 figures. Well? I am just going to take a wild guess and say the rest of the book of Abraham does not have much more credulity than this. And incidentally, if you read a few books, you find that this is so.

Please answer me about Smith's laborious explanations of the five degrees of egyptian grammar. He spent significant amount of time on that. Yet it failed to resemble anything remotely egyptian. I gather you might try to tell me he was just working things out in his mind... practicing... showing god he was serious about translating the papyri... But examine the timeline and you see that Joseph Smith declared it was many things (Written by father abraham, served under king neko, etc) prior to starting the invented egyptian alphabet and grammar. So apparently, Smith "knew" egyptian prior.

Do you have evidence that suggests Joseph believed he was making an inspired restoration of the facsimilies to their original state?

I have evidence that Joseph Smith desperately needed a miracle to keep his struggling church afloat. Doctrinal issues were causing high ranking church goers to leave... and his cronies were beginning to doubt this whole polygamy shpeel.

I mean, add it all up. Polygamy, angels who will kill god's prophet if he didn't take multiple wives, anachronisms a plenty in the book of Mormon, metallurgy, Flavius Josephus laced into the Book of Abraham, the variant accounts of the first vision, the seer stone and money digging escapades with its concurrent court conviction by Judge Neeley that Smith was a glass looker.

Added up, it does not appear to be what it claims.

The only thing I am grateful for is that it works for you. I applaud that. Just know that it seems odd that the rest of the world cannot see the importance of what you hold up as empirical, undeniable, factful truth.

Noggin

[maklelan]

Added up, it does not appear to be what it claims.

How does the existence of almost identical, then undiscovered, ancient Jewish ascension texts fit into your addition? You have considered them, correct?

[journeyman]

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?

So, did Joseph Smith translate the egyptian correctly or not?

The Egyptian Scholars say NO! Are they anti-mormon now?

[maklelan]

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?

So, did Joseph Smith translate the egyptian correctly or not?

The Egyptian Scholars say NO! Are they anti-mormon now?

Yeah, and did Joseph Smith "translate" the book of Moses correctly? Well, he "translated" it straight out of thin air, so we don't know. Did he "translate" the Book of Mormon correctly? Well, he never even looked at the text, so we don't know. Did he translate the whole Bible correctly? Well, he did it from English into English, so, as a "translation," it's hard to tell. Maybe there's a nuance to his use of the word "translate" that you're glossing over as you search for error.

I'm getting tired of saying this.

[Not quite me]

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?

So, did Joseph Smith translate the egyptian correctly or not?

The Egyptian Scholars say NO! Are they anti-mormon now?

Yeah, and did Joseph Smith "translate" the book of Moses correctly? Well, he "translated" it straight out of thin air, so we don't know. Did he "translate" the Book of Mormon correctly? Well, he never even looked at the text, so we don't know. Did he translate the whole Bible correctly? Well, he did it from English into English, so, as a "translation," it's hard to tell. Maybe there's a nuance to his use of the word "translate" that you're glossing over as you search for error.

I'm getting tired of saying this.

It's really quite simple. There is no way to test the BofM or Moses translations because, as you correctly pointed out, there are no source texts. With the Book of Abraham, we have the source text, even if you think there was some missing scroll or other. The facsimiles are there with Joseph's translation of them for us to see and judge. Changing the definition of "translate" is convenient, but pretty disingenuous.

[maklelan]

It's really quite simple. There is no way to test the BofM or Moses translations because, as you correctly pointed out, there are no source texts. With the Book of Abraham, we have the source text, even if you think there was some missing scroll or other. The facsimiles are there with Joseph's translation of them for us to see and judge. Changing the definition of "translate" is convenient, but pretty disingenuous.

But when Joseph Smith has never used the word "translate" in the manner in which you now demand it be interpreted, who is being disingenuous?

As an aside, I have repeatedly asked many people to account for the existence of almost identical ancient Jewish Abrahamic ascension texts that were unknown to the world when the Book of Abraham was written. People keep talking about the Egyptian, but, again, Klaus Baer (one of the most respected Egyptologists around) said the book would be vindicated based on what the English says, not the Egyptian. Nissim Wernick, a Jewish Rabbi, wrote a dissertation saying that the Book of Abraham and its doctrines fits perfectly into ancient Jewish tradition. I'm asking you all to account for this. I've asked several times and I have been ignored every time. The Book of Abraham has sister texts that were dug up fifty years after it was written; account for them.

[Not quite me]

It's really quite simple. There is no way to test the BofM or Moses translations because, as you correctly pointed out, there are no source texts. With the Book of Abraham, we have the source text, even if you think there was some missing scroll or other. The facsimiles are there with Joseph's translation of them for us to see and judge. Changing the definition of "translate" is convenient, but pretty disingenuous.

But when Joseph Smith has never used the word "translate" in the manner in which you now demand it be interpreted, who is being disingenuous?

As an aside, I have repeatedly asked many people to account for the existence of almost identical ancient Jewish Abrahamic ascension texts that were unknown to the world when the Book of Abraham was written. People keep talking about the Egyptian, but, again, Klaus Baer (one of the most respected Egyptologists around) said the book would be vindicated based on what the English says, not the Egyptian. Nissim Wernick, a Jewish Rabbi, wrote a dissertation saying that the Book of Abraham and its doctrines fits perfectly into ancient Jewish tradition. I'm asking you all to account for this. I've asked several times and I have been ignored every time. The Book of Abraham has sister texts that were dug up fifty years after it was written; account for them.

I don't know that I'm demanding anything. It's just that when Joseph says that the papyrus was written by Abraham in his own hand and that the numbered explanations of the facsimile figures are translations, I don't expect someone to step in and say, "Oh, well, that's because we don't know what he meant by translation." If so, what on earth was the point of having the papyrus or reproducing its figures? Sorry, but this makes no sense, unless you're trying to rationalize how a bogus translation could actually work.

[maklelan]

I don't know that I'm demanding anything. It's just that when Joseph says that the papyrus was written by Abraham in his own hand and that the numbered explanations of the facsimile figures are translations, I don't expect someone to step in and say, "Oh, well, that's because we don't know what he meant by translation." If so, what on earth was the point of having the papyrus or reproducing its figures? Sorry, but this makes no sense, unless you're trying to rationalize how a bogus translation could actually work.

I am trying to make all the pieces fit. I don't believe you want to admit there are more pieces. Everyone has repeatedly refused to comment on the fact that two ancient Jewish texts strikingly similar to the Book of Abraham were unearthed 50 years after the Book of Abraham was written. These texts are now known to be part of a very large and very common corpus of ancient texts known as ascension texts. The Book of Abraham is a perfect match for the ascension text criteria. A Jewish Rabbi even devoted his dissertation to the uncanny resemblance to ancient Jewish theology. I cannot just dismiss this fact because Egyptologists are skeptical. My mind and my testimony will not let me. You, on the other hand, refuse to address it. For you the argument is isolated to what the Egyptian says, but that's only half the argument. You, however, are not interested in the entire argument. Until you are willing to accept that there is an entirely different dynamic to this argument that makes it difficult to so flippantly dismiss the text you will never convince me or any believer that you care about the truth any more than you care about your own opinion.

[Not quite me]

I don't know that I'm demanding anything. It's just that when Joseph says that the papyrus was written by Abraham in his own hand and that the numbered explanations of the facsimile figures are translations, I don't expect someone to step in and say, "Oh, well, that's because we don't know what he meant by translation." If so, what on earth was the point of having the papyrus or reproducing its figures? Sorry, but this makes no sense, unless you're trying to rationalize how a bogus translation could actually work.

I am trying to make all the pieces fit. I don't believe you want to admit there are more pieces. Everyone has repeatedly refused to comment on the fact that two ancient Jewish texts strikingly similar to the Book of Abraham were unearthed 50 years after the Book of Abraham was written. These texts are now known to be part of a very large and very common corpus of ancient texts known as ascension texts. The Book of Abraham is a perfect match for the ascension text criteria. A Jewish Rabbi even devoted his dissertation to the uncanny resemblance to ancient Jewish theology. I cannot just dismiss this fact because Egyptologists are skeptical. My mind and my testimony will not let me. You, on the other hand, refuse to address it. For you the argument is isolated to what the Egyptian says, but that's only half the argument. You, however, are not interested in the entire argument. Until you are willing to accept that there is an entirely different dynamic to this argument that makes it difficult to so flippantly dismiss the text you will never convince me or any believer that you care about the truth any more than you care about your own opinion.

I have read both of the texts you suggested, and I'm not seeing the striking similarities, other than that they both claim to have something to do with Abraham. What exactly are you seeing as being so striking? I haven't refused to address anything. Rather, I find your redefinition of a translation to be rather strained.

Let me give you an analogy. I give you a text that I tell you was translated from Spanish. I claim it's a menu from a Colombian restaurant. I give you some snippets of Spanish along with what I claim is a translation. You notice that the Spanish is actually a set of directions to the Prado in Madrid. You say, nevermind, the translation actually has a lot in common with actual Colombian menus, so therefore we need not restrict our definition of the word "translation."

Do you see why someone would have a problem with this approach? It's not that I flippantly dismiss the text so much as I find the evidence for its authenticity somewhat less than striking.

And now we're making judgments about whether I care about truth. Honestly, can we just disagree without questioning each other's motivations?

[Noggin]

This post has been revised, see below.

[Noggin]

Klaus Baer (one of the most respected Egyptologists around) said the book would be vindicated based on what the English says, not the Egyptian. Nissim Wernick, a Jewish Rabbi, wrote a dissertation saying that the Book of Abraham and its doctrines fits perfectly into ancient Jewish tradition. I'm asking you all to account for this. I've asked several times and I have been ignored every time. The Book of Abraham has sister texts that were dug up fifty years after it was written; account for them.

Klaus Baer, one of the first to provide the church with an independent translation of the found 1966 papyri? His translation turned out nothing along the lines of the book of abraham context. I disagree when you say Mr. Baer said the book would be vindicated based on what the English says, not the Egyptian. I mean, from what the "real" english translation shows, is nothing but damning. You should ask yourself why Joseph Smith failed to translate the papyri into what Klaus Baer et al, uh post rosetta stone era, did? And you should also ask yourself why indeed the english "translation" does contain such poignant jewish textural overtone and concepts. I commend you for observing this. There is a ready and obvious reason.

Besides, Mr. Baer was being kind. It is a mental pretzel game to think that a serious non LDS scholar would actually suggest that the incorrectly translated book of abraham would be "vindicated" (what does that mean, proven true???) by what the english translation says. It's convenient that Mr. Baer is dead so he cannot explain what he meant.

As for Nissim Wernick, the Jewish Rabbi... his text was published in 1968. The rabbi connects many kabbalistic concepts of pre existence, concept of a pre birth soul, supreme intelligence, among other things.. in sum:

"Comparisons, therefore, can be made; parallels do exist between the BofA and Jewish literature, with regards to pre-mortal existence. Similar to the BofA there is a pre-earth state of man, these souls are different, but have the potential of becoming eqaul. These souls are consulted and take part in the affairs of heaven. This analysis affords a fuller understanding of some areas of correspondence between Judaism, its beliefs and concepts, and those of the BofA. Man is here to be proved, and if man is successful

while on earth, then the Lord will accept the souls back to their eternal abode where they will "have glory added upon their heads forever and ever."

Nachmonides states that "one day according to the Lord is equal to one thousand years." The "Genesis Rabbah" uses much the same language when it has God saying: "One of my days is equal to one thousand years" "In conclusion, both the BofA and Jewish literature are in agreement that the creation did not occur in 7 days as is reckoned, but rather in seven thousand years

It goes on and on. And you know, these parallels are to be completely expected and I will tell you why in a second. I do not believe that the honorable rabbi knew as we do know now that Joseph Smith was a student of the Kabbalah and other esoteric occultic features of the day. Smith tutored extensively under the guidance of Alexander Neibaur in 1841. We should take note that the 19th century was replete with a keen interest in Kabbalah and how its origins reflected upon Christian roots. see a very intriguing article:

Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 27, No. 3, Fall 1994, pp. 117-194

Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection source: http://www.gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm

In the spring of 1841 there apparently arrived in Nauvoo an extraordinary library of Kabbalistic writings belonging to a European Jew and convert to Mormonism who evidently new Kabbalah and its principal written works. This man, Alexander Neibaur, would soon become the prophet's friend and companion

(see page three of this article, about half way down)

The God of Joseph Smith is a daring revival of the God of some of the Kabbalists and Gnostics, prophetic sages who, like Smith himself, asserted that they had returned to the true religion. . . . Either there was a more direct Kabbalistic influence upon Smith than we know, or, far more likely, his genius reinvented Kabbalah in the effort necessary to restore archaic Judaism

(see the first page)

It is now no secret that the theosophy of Joseph Smith gets a jump start from Kabbalistic roots. Even the Masonic connection to Smith is steeped in hermetic-kabbalistic tradition. And knowing that Smith tutored under the guide of Neibaur, and was himself a 33rd degree Free Mason makes the connection quite clear. It is a fact that:

Smith and his family had a variety of interactions with non-orthodox Western religious traditions generally termed "occult... Magical rituals, Kabbalah, Hermes Trismegistos, Rosicrucians, Seer's stones, divining rods, Masonic lore, and astrology

(same source)

and

Newel and Avery note in their biography of Emma Smith, "Through Alexander Neibaur, Joseph Smith had access to ancient Jewish rites called cabalism at the same time he claimed to be translating the papyri from the Egyptian mummies [which became his Book of Abraham]. That [smith] not only knew something of Kabbalah, but apparently possessed a collection of original Jewish Kabbalistic works in Nauvoo, is however documented in material almost totally overlooked by Mormon historians

(same source)

I think that rather explains why the english "words" (I won't stoop to directly call it a translation by any means) of the book of abraham have heavy ancient jewish textual overtones you are observing.

one last quote and I'll be on my way:

By the dawn of the nineteenth century the Hermetic tradition had developed sub rosa several elements characteristic of an incipient heterodox religion, including clear restorational aspirations. From this fertile bed sprang numerous occult fraternities and societies: societies Kabbalistic, alchemical, magical, and Masonic.

Please consider the religious/ magical world view of the 19th century that Smith was immersed in. He delved into the ancient texts, learned some of the intriguing Kabbalist, Masonic, Hermetic lore and incorporated his findings into his very own book of abraham.

That makes much more sense than jumping to a rash conclusion that the english "translation" mimics ancient jewish texts and therefore the book of anraham must be "true".

You accused the forum of not addressing this claim of yours. This has been my attempt. If nothing else, at least you can see plainly that there is an extremely plausible reason for why the rest of the world does not become star struck by the product of Joseph's mind... the book of abraham.

I lied. One last quote:

one must recognize that the sophisticated Rosicrucian, Kabbalistic, and alchemical ideas represented at Ephrata had been quilted into Pennsylvania's esoteric lore for over one hundred years prior to Joseph's summer visits in the 1820s. If Smith did have contact with individuals influenced by these traditions (of which there must have been more than a few), his knowledge of things Hermetic, Kabbalistic, and alchemical would have been augmented.

(same source)

Noggin

[Not quite me]

That would explain why Egyptian characters in the facsimiles are given Hebrew translations. Some time ago, I read that the Book of Abraham's discussion of the planets and their rotations, etc., depends heavily on a book that was circulating among members at the time. Does that ring a bell with anyone? (I know, I could look it up, but I was hoping someone else had the reference.)

Excellent post, Noggin. Or maybe correlations are only valid when they support Mormon claims.

Klaus Baer (one of the most respected Egyptologists around) said the book would be vindicated based on what the English says, not the Egyptian. Nissim Wernick, a Jewish Rabbi, wrote a dissertation saying that the Book of Abraham and its doctrines fits perfectly into ancient Jewish tradition. I'm asking you all to account for this. I've asked several times and I have been ignored every time. The Book of Abraham has sister texts that were dug up fifty years after it was written; account for them.

Klaus Baer, one of the first to provide the church with an independent translation of the found 1966 papyri? His translation turned out nothing along the lines of the book of abraham context. I disagree when you say Mr. Baer said the book would be vindicated based on what the English says, not the Egyptian. I mean, from what the "real" english translation shows, is nothing but damning. You should ask yourself why Joseph Smith failed to translate the papyri into what Klaus Baer et al, uh post rosetta stone era, did? And you should also ask yourself why indeed the english "translation" does contain such poignant jewish textural overtone and concepts. I commend you for observing this. There is a ready and obvious reason.

Besides, Mr. Baer was being kind. It is a mental pretzel game to think that a serious non LDS scholar would actually suggest that the incorrectly translated book of abraham would be "vindicated" (what does that mean, proven true???) by what the english translation says. It's convenient that Mr. Baer is dead so he cannot explain what he meant.

As for Nissim Wernick, the Jewish Rabbi... his text was published in 1968. The rabbi connects many kabbalistic concepts of pre existence, concept of a pre birth soul, supreme intelligence, among other things.. in sum:

"Comparisons, therefore, can be made; parallels do exist between the BofA and Jewish literature, with regards to pre-mortal existence. Similar to the BofA there is a pre-earth state of man, these souls are different, but have the potential of becoming eqaul. These souls are consulted and take part in the affairs of heaven. This analysis affords a fuller understanding of some areas of correspondence between Judaism, its beliefs and concepts, and those of the BofA. Man is here to be proved, and if man is successful

while on earth, then the Lord will accept the souls back to their eternal abode where they will "have glory added upon their heads forever and ever."

Nachmonides states that "one day according to the Lord is equal to one thousand years." The "Genesis Rabbah" uses much the same language when it has God saying: "One of my days is equal to one thousand years" "In conclusion, both the BofA and Jewish literature are in agreement that the creation did not occur in 7 days as is reckoned, but rather in seven thousand years

It goes on and on. And you know, these parallels are to be completely expected and I will tell you why in a second. I do not believe that the honorable rabbi knew as we do know now that Joseph Smith was a student of the Kabbalah and other esoteric occultic features of the day. Smith tutored extensively under the guidance of Alexander Neibaur in 1841. We should take note that the 19th century was replete with a keen interest in Kabbalah and how its origins reflected upon Christian roots. see a very intriguing article:

Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 27, No. 3, Fall 1994, pp. 117-194

Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection source: http://www.gnosis.org/jskabb1.htm

In the spring of 1841 there apparently arrived in Nauvoo an extraordinary library of Kabbalistic writings belonging to a European Jew and convert to Mormonism who evidently new Kabbalah and its principal written works. This man, Alexander Neibaur, would soon become the prophet's friend and companion

(see page three of this article, about half way down)

The God of Joseph Smith is a daring revival of the God of some of the Kabbalists and Gnostics, prophetic sages who, like Smith himself, asserted that they had returned to the true religion. . . . Either there was a more direct Kabbalistic influence upon Smith than we know, or, far more likely, his genius reinvented Kabbalah in the effort necessary to restore archaic Judaism

(see the first page)

It is now no secret that the theosophy of Joseph Smith gets a jump start from Kabbalistic roots. Even the Masonic connection to Smith is steeped in hermetic-kabbalistic tradition. And knowing that Smith tutored under the guide of Neibaur, and was himself a 33rd degree Free Mason makes the connection quite clear. It is a fact that:

Smith and his family had a variety of interactions with non-orthodox Western religious traditions generally termed "occult... Magical rituals, Kabbalah, Hermes Trismegistos, Rosicrucians, Seer's stones, divining rods, Masonic lore, and astrology

(same source)

and

Newel and Avery note in their biography of Emma Smith, "Through Alexander Neibaur, Joseph Smith had access to ancient Jewish rites called cabalism at the same time he claimed to be translating the papyri from the Egyptian mummies [which became his Book of Abraham]. That [smith] not only knew something of Kabbalah, but apparently possessed a collection of original Jewish Kabbalistic works in Nauvoo, is however documented in material almost totally overlooked by Mormon historians

(same source)

I think that rather explains why the english "words" (I won't stoop to directly call it a translation by any means) of the book of abraham have heavy ancient jewish textual overtones you are observing.

one last quote and I'll be on my way:

By the dawn of the nineteenth century the Hermetic tradition had developed sub rosa several elements characteristic of an incipient heterodox religion, including clear restorational aspirations. From this fertile bed sprang numerous occult fraternities and societies: societies Kabbalistic, alchemical, magical, and Masonic.

Please consider the religious/ magical world view of the 19th century that Smith was immersed in. He delved into the ancient texts, learned some of the intriguing Kabbalist, Masonic, Hermetic lore and incorporated his findings into his very own book of abraham.

That makes much more sense than jumping to a rash conclusion that the english "translation" mimics ancient jewish texts and therefore the book of anraham must be "true".

You accused the forum of not addressing this claim of yours. This has been my attempt. If nothing else, at least you can see plainly that there is an extremely plausible reason for why the rest of the world does not become star struck by the product of Joseph's mind... the book of abraham.

I lied. One last quote:

one must recognize that the sophisticated Rosicrucian, Kabbalistic, and alchemical ideas represented at Ephrata had been quilted into Pennsylvania's esoteric lore for over one hundred years prior to Joseph's summer visits in the 1820s. If Smith did have contact with individuals influenced by these traditions (of which there must have been more than a few), his knowledge of things Hermetic, Kabbalistic, and alchemical would have been augmented.

(same source)

Noggin