Jump to content

So, The BOA Is A Bunch Of Baloney Eh?


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

Apparently, the discovered fragments that were 'believed' to have been those used by Joseph Smith had been attached to the Book of Breathings which is not about Abraham. I believe this is apparently is their strongest argument.

However, a lot like the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham oddly has a boat load of internal evidences, and its growing. Just a lot of the external evidence is missing, causing a dispute about its true origin, but it doesn't over shadow the resulting contents, as it appears to be a ligit story of Abraham, the unique details related in the book have been discovered in ancient texts and legends about Abraham.

Link to comment

Shame on you her amun, trying to embarrass the anti's like that!

Link to comment

The Book of Abraham was translated from the Sensen papryus, which is not a text about Abraham. The hypocephalus is not an astronomy textbook, facsimile 1 is not human sacrifice, and facsimile 3 is not Abraham teaching astronomy in pharaoh's court. His cosmology has no relation to reality, nor does it reflect actual ancient ideas about astronomy (not to mention being internally incoherent). Joseph Smith showed us quite clearly in the Alphabet and Grammar that he was being inventive, and that he had no actual ability to translate ancient languages. His restorations of the papyri are incorrect. The creation chapters of the BoA are a reworking of the creation narrative in Genesis, following in the footsteps of JS's earlier reworkings (for example, in the Book of Moses). For the most part he was just rewriting it to reflect a plurality of divinities. It really fits quite nicely into the overall trajectory of his developing theology. The Book of Abraham also reflects a mythology of the origins of the races that is both anachronistic and offensive to Christian sensibilities. Its references to Ur of the Chaldees are anachronistic. All the stuff about the Flood, Noah and the dicovery of Egypt, etc. is mythological and scientifically without basis. Joseph clearly included words and ideas in the BoA and the GAEL that are borrowed from his Hebrew textbook: both the name Ahmestrah (from the GAEL) and Abraham teaching astronomy are from the first few pages of Josephus, which Oliver Cowdery was reading and quoting from in 1835. And the Hebrew terms in the BoA very closely follow the unusual transliterations found in the Seixas Hebrew grammar text. At the time Joseph Smith wrote this text, he was living in a state of sin. He had delivered other revelations that oviously were not from God, like the one where he threatened Emma with destruction if she didn't accept the other wives he had secretly married. Since that Nauvoo-era revelation is clearly out of whack, I see no reason to trust any of his other revelations from this period. I believe he will go to hell for the things he did at Nauvoo, and the Book of Abraham will follow him there.

That is my frank assessment.

-CK

Link to comment

CK,

Quit beating around the bush and make your point!

:unsure:

:P<_<

He might suffer more in hell for these deceptions if he didn't repent and turn to God. But he will only go to hell because of his unbelief.

I strongly disagree, but we'll leave it at that.

-CK

Link to comment
I believe he will go to hell for the things he did at Nauvoo, and the Book of Abraham will follow him there.

That is my frank assessment.

What if your frank assesment is misguided and wrong, and when you get there you find that neither Joseph nor his books are in hell, then what? If you find that there was a council in heaven, if you find that intelligence always was and cannot be created? These are probably pointless questions but I cant help them arising when I see such bitter assesment of Joseph and his work.

Link to comment

What if your frank assesment is misguided and wrong, and when you get there you find that neither Joseph nor his books are in hell, then what?

:P Are you saying I'm going to hell, Smith? <_<

If Joseph is not in hell, then I will rejoice for him. As for my assessment of the BoA, I am willing to reopen the issue if and when either the spirit or reason tell me there is a reason to do so. In the meantime, I see no reason to let the fear that I might be wrong dominate my life.

-CK

Link to comment

Hypothetical

A says: "The moon is made of cheese"

B asks, "The moon is made out of elements and molecules t through z"

C asks B, "What if you die and God tells you the moon is made of cheese?"

How exactly should B respond to C?

Smith...not exactly the most pursuasive way to rebut CK.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in BOA based on faith alone.....

Link to comment

CK:

The Book of Abraham was translated from the Sensen papryus â?¦

How do you know this? Is there some new, definitive evidence that establishes this fact? Did I miss something?

The hypocephalus is not an astronomy textbook â?¦

Who said it was? Certainly not Joseph Smith. What is the purpose of a hypocephalus? Do you know?

â?¦ facsimile 1 is not human sacrifice, and facsimile 3 is not Abraham teaching astronomy in pharaoh's court.

What do these vignettes represent? Please provide us with an airtight explanation, one that presents a consensus of competent Egyptologists. Iâ??m excited to learn what these things really do mean.

His cosmology has no relation to reality, nor does it reflect actual ancient ideas about astronomy â?¦

Please tell us about â??ancient ideas about astronomy.â? Demonstrate for us the cosmology of ancient Egypt. Please do so using the consensus opinion of competent Egyptologists. Iâ??m excited to learn how the Egyptians viewed these things.

All the stuff about the Flood, Noah and the dicovery of Egypt, etc. is mythological and scientifically without basis.

Please prove this to us.

Abraham teaching astronomy are from the first few pages of Josephus â?¦

Please quote Josephus for us, so that we can see exactly what he has to say about Abraham in Egypt. Letâ??s see all the details Josephus provides that will explain where Joseph Smith got his story.

At the time Joseph Smith wrote this text, he was living in a state of sin.

Prove this. Please. I assume you have photos.

He had delivered other revelations that oviously were not from God, like the one where he threatened Emma with destruction if she didn't accept the other wives he had secretly married.

Demonstrate how you know that any of Joseph Smithâ??s revelations were obviously not of God.

I believe he will go to hell for the things he did at Nauvoo, and the Book of Abraham will follow him there.

Well, at least youâ??ve couched this as an opinion, unlike the other brash claims youâ??ve made above.

You may be right. Joseph Smith may go to hell, along with all of us who are choosing to regard him as the literal mouthpiece of God Almighty. But if he does, it wonâ??t be for bringing forth the Book of Abraham. And I believe the day will come when you will humbly and ashamedly acknowledge that the Book of Abraham was a revelation from God to man on earth. But it may not happen in this lifetime.

Link to comment

:P Are you saying I'm going to hell, Smith? <_<

I can see how my sentence could be taken to mean that but I can also see how it can be taken to mean that when you get to the other side wherever that may be (ie heaven or hell) and you find that Joseph is either in the same place or in the other place then you will know of whether or not your prediction was correct.

In any case I am not wont to damn anyone to hell and I think it sad that people get so judgemental as to declare that such and such is going to hell because of this and that. It isnt really our place to be doing that. As I recall all judgment has been given to the Son, I would leave it up to Him to decide.

Link to comment

Will,

If you want a complete course in science, Egyptology, and the Book of Abraham, I think I can accommodate you for the eminently reasonable price of $20,000 tuition a year. If not, then I have a life to attend to. I recommend you try reading some books that don't have "Nibley" or "Gee" emblazoned across the front.

-CK

Link to comment

I can see how my sentence could be taken to mean that but I can also see how it can be taken to mean that when you get to the other side wherever that may be (ie heaven or hell) and you find that Joseph is either in the same place or in the other place then you will know of whether or not your prediction was correct.

In any case I am not wont to damn anyone to hell and I think it sad that people get so judgemental as to declare that such and such is going to hell because of this and that. It isnt really our place to be doing that. As I recall all judgment has been given to the Son, I would leave it up to Him to decide.

But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liarsâ??their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

I do not presume to know where Joseph Smith will be in the afterlife. But it is my belief that he will be in hell. People who manipulate others by claiming divine revelation hurt too many people for me to feel justified mincing words.

-CK

Link to comment

You copped out kid.

Hardly. I have addressed most of these questions elsewhere. I am not going to rehash everything that has ever been said on this subject in a single thread, and Mr. Schryver knows it. John Gee is a Book of Abraham apologist whose work frequently borders on absurdity.

-CK

Link to comment

Smith...not exactly the most pursuasive way to rebut CK.

You are probably right but I am not at the point of trying to rebutt CK, all I am trying to do is first perhaps give him some food for thought and second trying to get a bit more insight into what he thinks and why. Anyway, I have learnt that my job is not to be the persuasive one, that belongs to the third member of the Godhead.

Link to comment

I do not presume to know where Joseph Smith will be in the afterlife. But it is my belief that he will be in hell. People who manipulate others by claiming divine revelation hurt too many people for me to feel justified mincing words.

So how would people like Moses or Joshua fit into this picture then? Do you believe they will end up in hell too? If not, why not?
Link to comment

Her Amun--

For a solid, introductory analysis of BoA from an "anti" persepective, you might want to check out Larson's By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus.

You can even read it online, if you're interested, here.

If you've already read it, perhaps you could start a new thread (so that this one doesn't get cluttered up) with your specific criticisms of Larson's conclusions. I'd be interested in reading your take on it.

Best.

CKS

Link to comment

For a solid, introductory analysis of BoA from an "anti" persepective, you might want to check out Larson's By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus.

CKS,

A quick and short off topic question if you dont mind. I have just noticed your little slogan line, something about being it only for the logic. May I ask in what?

Link to comment

CKS,

A quick and short off topic question if you dont mind. I have just noticed your little slogan line, something about being it only for the logic. May I ask in what?

Hi Smith--

The phraseology stems from Zappa and Company's parody of the Beatle's Sargent Pepper album: We're Only In It for the Money.

money.jpg

It was a bit of self-deprecating humor meant to call into question the legitimacy of my participation on the board--i.e., I'm only here to expose bad logic, rather than to learn. Of course, that's not really true, but I thought it was kind of funny at the time.

Oddly enough, you're the only one who's ever questioned me on the line. And, I'm betting the reference was probably too obscure for anyone to make the intended connection. Who listens to Frank Zappa these days?

I haven't really thought about it at all since I made the change sometime in Aught Six. Maybe it's time to rotate in something less arcane.

Best to you.

CKS

Link to comment

It was a bit of self-deprecating humor meant to call into question the legitimacy of my participation on the board--i.e., I'm only here to expose bad logic, rather than to learn. Of course, that's not really true, but I thought it was kind of funny at the time.

Ok, thanks. I asked because I found it kind of odd for one who is a believer.

But now back to the regular programming on this thread of the BOA....

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...