So, The BOA Is A Bunch Of Baloney Eh?

[noel00]

Larsen's book is good in laying out all the theories used to support the historicity of the BOA. Everything from the "Still lost theory" to the "catalyst" theory. I think this issue is part of the reason Kevin Graham has caused so much angst here, especially with William Schyver.

[grego]

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

Now, does this come with a double money-back guarantee that all your points will be clearly shown and proven?

[aaronshaf]

Some videos relevant to the Book of Abraham:

[Aaron - your links have been deleted because all you did was post (anti-Mormon) links. Hey, we may be softies but we aren't here so you can advertise anti-Mormon propaganda. This is a discussion board. That means you have to discuss instead of advertise/spam if you want posting privileges here. Please keep it in mind for future reference. ~mods]

[Neighbor]

So, the BoA is baloney?

Show me.

Anum, you can show yourself, why should I have to?:-)

Read this book and see how convinced you remain:-)

BY HIS OWN HAND UPON PAPYRUS

Then consider how important you think it is to just take Jesus at His word and believe whomsoever He said we are to hear while He was on earth.

I think some Mormon anger is related to guilt? Something Dr. Laura said made me think about it. The same could likely apply to those beyond Mormonism, so don't think I'm bashing:-) I just wonder why LDS get upset at questions about their religion.

[Chris Smith]

Now, does this come with a double money-back guarantee that all your points will be clearly shown and proven?

I have two articles in progress that I will probably submit to BCC Papers when I'm done. One is an exploration of some technical aspects of the relationship of the KEP documents to each other, to the papyri, and to the BoA. This serves as the basis for the other, which is a debunking of the missing papyrus theory and of the notion that JS translated past Abr. 2:18 prior to 1842. It also makes the case that the KEP are the working papers for the translation, and I think does so quite clearly. The former is about half-finished; some of the substance of the latter has been posted in bits and pieces on this forum in the past. If you wait for me to finish them and get them published, I won't even charge a reading fee.

BY HIS OWN HAND UPON PAPYRUS

Believe it or not, I like Jerald and Sandra Tanner's BoA chapter in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? better. However, Larson's foldout is VERY nice.

-CK

[William Schryver]

CK:

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.

I have followed everything you have ever said on this topic on this message board. And I am quite confident that you have never provided answers to the questions I posed above. Indeed, my entire point is that no one can provide those answers. There is so little consensus among Egyptologists about the meaning of things as to place the entire discipline thoroughly outside the realm of the â??hard sciences.â? Yes, much has been learned in the past two centuries, but it represents a mere â??drop in the bucketâ? of the knowledge necessary to understand the language, religion, and culture of the ancient Egyptians. I never cease to be amazed by the hubris with which critics of the LDS church pronounce as firm and settled the tentative conclusions of the Egyptologists of the world â?? conclusions which change from year to year and decade to decade. Itâ??s laughable. They tell us, â??we donâ??t really have any idea what purpose a hypocephalus served, but weâ??re absolutely certain it had nothing to do with what Joseph Smith said about it.â?

John Gee is a Book of Abraham apologist whose work frequently borders on absurdity.

And speaking of hubris â?¦ here we have 21-year-old California Kid, barely out of puberty, disparaging the work and intelligence of a bona fide Egyptologist, graduated with honors from Yale University, published in numerous journals, and trained in the specific area of the Greco-Roman era of Egyptian language and history. There is something that â??borders on absurdityâ? here, but it is not the work of Dr. John Gee.

noel00:

Larsen's book is good in laying out all the theories used to support the historicity of the BOA. Everything from the "Still lost theory" to the "catalyst" theory. I think this issue is part of the reason Kevin Graham has caused so much angst here, especially with William Schyver.

Charles Larson, another amateur Mormon critic who knows how to say exactly what his audience wants to hear, regardless of whether or not he knows what he's talking about ...

Oh, and of course you're right, Iâ??m literally writhing in angst. As Iâ??m sure are Dan Peterson, Brian Hauglid, David Bokovoy, and John Gee. Every morning we awaken from another nightmare where Kevin Grahamâ??s potent arguments have tormented our sleep. We are so utterly daunted by his logic and unassailable intellect that we all banded together and paid the operators of this message board to ban him in perpetuity, lest we be exposed for the imbecile frauds that we are.

Yawn ...

It must be bedtime again. Now where's that nightmare medication ..............

[Olavarria]

CK:

I have followed everything you have ever said on this topic on this message board. And I am quite confident that you have never provided answers to the questions I posed above. Indeed, my entire point is that no one can provide those answers. There is so little consensus among Egyptologists about the meaning of things as to place the entire discipline thoroughly outside the realm of the â??hard sciences.â? Yes, much has been learned in the past two centuries, but it represents a mere â??drop in the bucketâ? of the knowledge necessary to understand the language, religion, and culture of the ancient Egyptians. I never cease to be amazed by the hubris with which critics of the LDS church pronounce as firm and settled the tentative conclusions of the Egyptologists of the world â?? conclusions which change from year to year and decade to decade. Itâ??s laughable. They tell us, â??we donâ??t really have any idea what purpose a hypocephalus served, but weâ??re absolutely certain it had nothing to do with what Joseph Smith said about it.â?

And speaking of hubris â?¦ here we have 21-year-old California Kid, barely out of puberty, disparaging the work and intelligence of a bona fide Egyptologist, graduated with honors from Yale University, published in numerous journals, and trained in the specific area of the Greco-Roman era of Egyptian language and history. There is something that â??borders on absurdityâ? here, but it is not the work of Dr. John Gee.

noel00:

Charles Larson, another amateur Mormon critic who knows how to say exactly what his audience wants to hear, regardless of whether or not he knows what he's talking about ...

Oh, and of course you're right, Iâ??m literally writhing in angst. As Iâ??m sure are Dan Peterson, Brian Hauglid, David Bokovoy, and John Gee. Every morning we awaken from another nightmare where Kevin Grahamâ??s potent arguments have tormented our sleep. We are so utterly daunted by his logic and unassailable intellect that we all banded together and paid the operators of this message board to ban him in perpetuity, lest we be exposed for the imbecile frauds that we are.

Yawn ...

It must be bedtime again. Now where's that nightmare medication ..............

Great posts everyone. Ill try to jump in with a month or two. Gotta collect my thoughts, prepare for another round of midterms and papers. You probably wont here from me for a month or even more.

Keep arguing please.

[Chris Smith]

And speaking of hubris â?¦ here we have 21-year-old California Kid, barely out of puberty, disparaging the work and intelligence of a bona fide Egyptologist, graduated with honors from Yale University, published in numerous journals, and trained in the specific area of the Greco-Roman era of Egyptian language and history. There is something that â??borders on absurdityâ? here, but it is not the work of Dr. John Gee.

Will, John Gee's Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Pysical Evidence and his Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri are positively atrocious. Even PhD's can make complete fools of themselves in print. I presume the reason you've never responded to any of my posts on the subject (despite having apparently followed them closely) is that you feel it's not worth substantively interacting with a twenty-one year-old? Maybe you'd rather post ad hominems than actually carry on a decent conversation?

-CK

Great posts everyone

Her Amun,

In what respect was Will's post "great"?

-CK

[Olavarria]

Will, John Gee's Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Pysical Evidence and his Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri are positively atrocious. Even PhD's can make complete fools of themselves in print. I presume the reason you've never responded to any of my posts on the subject is that you feel it's not worth substantively interacting with a tenty-one year-old? Maybe you'd rather post ad hominems than actually carry on a decent conversation?

-CK

Her Amun,

In what respect was Will's post "great"?

-CK

lighten up Ck

As for guide to the JS P, the intro makes the point that it is not intended to be the last word on the subject or even apologia, but A GUIDE TO THE JSP.

It is a glorified pamphlet, and I dont think Gee intended it to be anything more than that.

[Theophilus07]

CK:

There is so little consensus among Egyptologists about the meaning of things as to place the entire discipline thoroughly outside the realm of the â??hard sciences.â?

This approach, which I believe was pioneered by Nibley, did not prove persuasive outside of LDS circles when he tried it. I doubt that non-LDS Egyptologists would agree with it. I see no reason for it to work here, either. And please note that this approach is an opinion and not established fact.

I never cease to be amazed by the hubris with which critics of the LDS church pronounce as firm and settled the tentative conclusions of the Egyptologists of the world â?? conclusions which change from year to year and decade to decade.

Possibly, but I read in this forum precisely the same certainty with which apologists judge that FARMS-produced material has definitively settled matters what insist on rearing their heads again and again afterward. Well, if the matters really were settled, they wouldn't reappear.

And speaking of hubris â?¦ here we have 21-year-old California Kid, barely out of puberty, disparaging the work and intelligence of a bona fide Egyptologist, graduated with honors from Yale University, published in numerous journals, and trained in the specific area of the Greco-Roman era of Egyptian language and history. There is something that â??borders on absurdityâ? here, but it is not the work of Dr. John Gee.

I don't believe Nibley pioneered this kind of ad hominem attack; examples exist for centuries before Nibley. But I think it was Nibley who may have pioneered this kind of ad hominem attack as part of the LDS apologists' toolkit. And as far as Dr. Gee's reputation is concerned, serious criticisms of his work and nonadherence with standard scholarly protocol was published by one of Dr. Gee's mentors, Dr. Robert Ritner. in the peer-reviewed â??â??The Breathing Permit of Horâ?? Among the Joseph Smith Papyri,â? Ritner, Robert, The Journal of Near Eastern Studies,â? The University of Chicago, Vol 62, No. 3, 2003, p. 7.

FARMS subsequently published a rebuttal to Dr. Ritner's article, but the FARMS rebuttal was published in an LDS apologist publication and not in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. The disadvantages of non peer-reviewed rebuttal include (1) it might not come to Dr. Ritner's or the rest of the non-LDS Egyptologists' attention in the FARMS publication, whereas it probably would have in a peer-reviewed journal, and (2) we'll never know if the rebuttal would have been robust and scholarly enough to have survived into a peer-reviewed journal.

Charles Larson, another amateur Mormon critic who knows how to say exactly what his audience wants to hear, regardless of whether or not he knows what he's talking about ...

I'm hardpressed to see how this ad hominem attack adds substance to this discussion.

Oh, and of course you're right, Iâ??m literally writhing in angst. As Iâ??m sure are Dan Peterson, Brian Hauglid, David Bokovoy, and John Gee. Every morning we awaken from another nightmare where Kevin Grahamâ??s potent arguments have tormented our sleep. We are so utterly daunted by his logic and unassailable intellect that we all banded together and paid the operators of this message board to ban him in perpetuity, lest we be exposed for the imbecile frauds that we are.

Scorn, derision, sarcasm and hyperbole are certainly understandable, but their use leads some of us critics to wish that the poster had contributed something of more substance.

Yawn ...

It must be bedtime again. Now where's that nightmare medication ..............

Examples have appeared in this forum recently of some of Joseph Smith's clear misses in his mistranslation of Egyptian as published in the PoGP. Instead of the scorn and sarcasm above, this discussion might have been better served by a substantive discussion of those clear misses. Other valid BoA topics for actual discussion here include passages which in the past have been used by LDS GAs to support exclusion of blacks from the LDS priesthood, a practice now discontinued. Other posters have noted anachronisms and have given chronological discussion of developments in Joseph Smith's evolving theology parallel some passages in the BoA. Responses to any of these important issues might have served this discussion better than scorn and sacrasm.

Theophilus07

[Chris Smith]

As for guide to the JS P, the intro makes the point that it is not intended to be the last word on the subject or even apologia, but A GUIDE TO THE JSP.

It is a glorified pamphlet, and I dont think Gee intended it to be anything more than that.

That's exactly why it's atrocious. It presents itself as a guide, not as an apologetic manifesto. But it reads like John Gee's personal ideological statement. He makes statements that are totally unsupported and presents them as if they were fact. For example, he tells us that prior to publishing installment 2 of the BoA in the Times and Seasons in 1842, JS made only minor revisions. But as Nibley points out, these were more than minor revisions:

...after three days he "recommenced translating from the records

of Abraham," and on the afternoon of the following day "continued

the translation of the Book of Abraham," and after

some church business "continued translating and revising and

reading letters in the evening." Thus we see that even

the rare occasions on which he found time to translate were

interrupted by business of various sorts. James R Clark posits

that the five chapters or 13 pages of the Book of Abraham

were all turned out in the thirty days between February 19 and

March 18, 1842; compared with the size of the Book of Mormon

and its rate of production, this is quite a minor performance.

Meaning of the KEP, p. 356

I should add that a fuller entry for March 8 than Nibley provides says, "Recommenced translating from the Records of Abraham for the tenth number of the Times and Seasons, and was engaged at my office day and evening." (http://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/4/33.html) The tenth number was the second installment, starting with 2:19. Joseph also wrote a letter to the T&S in which he says, "In the present no. will be found the commencement of the Records discovered in Egypt some time since as penned by the hand of Father Abraham which I shall continue to translate & publish as fast as possible till the whole is completed. . ." ("Joseph Smith to the Times and Seasons," Joseph Smith Collection, LDS archives; emphasis added). In other words, he was translating as he went. Yet Gee tells us with supreme confidence that these were just minor revisions (which he didn't even mention in Eyewitness, Hearsay... perhaps he became aware of these quotations sometime between writing these two works and felt he had to at least give them a nod?). Despite all the evidence that JS had only translated through 2:18 by 1842, Gee states without reservation that in mid-1835 Joseph had already translated more of the Book of Abraham than is currently published. Is this a guide to the Joseph Smith papyri or to John Gee's personal version of history? An uninformed reader might take his word for it, presuming that a "Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri" would contain only the undisputed facts of history. Instead we get spoonfed propaganda.

Why is this so important to John Gee? I think it's because without this, the hypothesis that the Alphabet and Grammar papers are "working papers" is on stabler footing. The Alphabet and Grammar contains material that closely mirrors the explanation of facsimile 2. If Gee can demonstrate that the BoA was originally longer than what we have, then he can claim that the Alphabet and Grammar reverse-engineered a text that is now unavailable to us, and that this now-lost text rather than the Alphabet was the basis for Facs 2's explanation. If Gee's theory fails, then it would appear that the explanation is dependent on the Alphabet. Which, of course, would implicate Joseph Smith in the production of that document. There is also the problem that the diary references to translation of the BoA pretty much all occur in November (with the possible exception of Oct 7), whereas the Alphabet is said to have been produced mostly in late July. So the Alphabet was produced prior to the BoA translation. Gee wants to evade this by having our full BoA and then some translated prior to July 1835. That way it can be a reverse-engineering project, and all the November references to translation can be a translation of some now-lost portion of the BoA. If JS never got past 2:18 in 1835, though, then it seems the November diary entries must refer to the translation of the first couple chapters, and these chapters must postdate the Alphabet and its system of astronomy (which was "unfolded" on October 1). That makes it a real uphill battle for any reverse-engineering hypothesis. Of course, Gee might have other reasons (there are certainly other implications that would be favorable to apologists if his theory were proven correct), but this is the only one he explores in his book and article.

That was a longer digression than I intended on that particular topic, but my point is that even a PhD can blind himself to the data if he is so inclined. And I believe that in his Guide, Gee blinds not only himself but also unsuspecting readers. His translation timeline on pages 4 and 5 is deceptive both in what it excludes and in the way it rephrases the entries that are included. There are other errors in the book, too. Perhaps I will elucidate them sometime when it's not after midnight.

-CK

[Oprichnik]

. oooooooooook, sorry to have the thread take a left hand turn, but WHAT EXACTLY are you talking about CK? I haven't heard of any papyrus discoveries, and BoA apologetics isn't my strong suite. A little background, please, preferably in a tabbed, double or line and a half spaced post. Makes it much easier to read. If not, I'll just copy and paste and put in the tabs. I have also read anti-LDS literature, and to be quite honest, I'd almost call them charismatic Christians, and I tend to stay away from them. If you desire, I could send you a book report and my notes. Oprichnik.

[Thinking]

Abraham 1:12

It’s accepted by both LDS critics and LDS apologists that the text on the recovered papyri fragments does not match what is found in the Book of Abraham. A popular explanation for this is the scrolls which contained the actual Book of Abraham were never recovered. “Some anti-Mormon writers reason that the eleven papyri fragments returned to the church in 1967 contained most, if not all, of the fragments Joseph Smith bought from Michael Chandler. They further reason that since the eleven pieces of papyri are the source of the Book of Abraham, and yet are identified by Egyptologists as fragments from the Book of Breathings - and not the writings of Abraham - Joseph Smith was a deceiver and a fraud. Therefore, the Book of Abraham is a product of creative imagination and is not based on an ancient text as he claimed it was. This claim is false. A careful reading clearly shows that at least two and probably three scrolls of unknown length were purchased by the Church, in addition to several flat pieces that were not part of any scrolls." (H. Donl Peterson, The Story of The Book Of Abraham, p. 249)

The problem with Peterson’s explanation is the text of Abraham 1:12. “...and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation (facsimile 1) at the commencement of this record.” Facsimile 1 is clearly visible on one of the discovered fragments (p. 273), and that text is not what is found in the Book Of Abraham. According to Abraham 1:12, that fragment should be “the commencement of this record.”

[Thinking]

Genesis 20:1-12

1 And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.

2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.

3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife.

4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?

5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.

6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

7 Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not, know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine.

8 Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid.

9 Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done.

10 And Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?

11 And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife’s sake.

12 And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Did Abraham lie by not revealing that Sarai was his wife?

If you believe that he did not lie, then what follows doesn’t matter.

If you believe that he did lie, then is it right for God to tell him to lie?

Abraham 2:22-25

22 And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me: Behold, Sarai, thy wife, is a very fair woman to look upon;

23 Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but they will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise:

24 Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is thy sister, and thy soul shall live.

25 And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife, all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my asister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee.

I believe that Abraham did lie because he withheld the most relevant part of his relationship with Sarai. He did it out of fear for his life. According to the BoA, God told Abraham to lie. Lying is the best plan God can create? No, lying was the plan Abraham came up with and God had to clean up the mess.

[Chris Smith]

. oooooooooook, sorry to have the thread take a left hand turn, but WHAT EXACTLY are you talking about CK? I haven't heard of any papyrus discoveries, and BoA apologetics isn't my strong suite. A little background, please, preferably in a tabbed, double or line and a half spaced post. Makes it much easier to read. If not, I'll just copy and paste and put in the tabs. I have also read anti-LDS literature, and to be quite honest, I'd almost call them charismatic Christians, and I tend to stay away from them. If you desire, I could send you a book report and my notes. Oprichnik.

Hey Oprich,

I don't know how to tab or double-space on this forum, sorry.

I'm not sure how much you already know, so I apologize if this is something of a rehash. In 1835 JS purchased some papyri from Michael Chandler. These papyri and the mummies that accompanied them had been excavated in Thebes. Joseph proceeded to translate part of the Book of Abraham from one of the rolls; another roll he identified as the Book of Joseph. Prior to the final publication of the BoA in 1842, at least four manuscripts of the BoA translation were created-- these are currently housed in the church archives. A series of Egyptian characters appears in the margins of three of the manuscripts (the fourth is a printer's maunscript and does not have the characters). It has long been supposed that the BoA was translated from these characters.

The papyri JS owned were thought to have been destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire. However, in about 1960 the papyri were rediscovered. Among them was Facsimile 1 and the fragments that immediately followed it on the roll from which it was cut. This is significant because Abr. 1:12 claims that facsimile 1 was affixed to the "commencement" of Abraham's record. Could these be the remanants of the Book of Abraham papyri?

This possibility received further confirmation when several people noticed that the characters in the margins of the translation manuscripts match up sequentially with the fragment immediately to the left of facsimile 1 in the above picture. It seems pretty apparent that the creators of these documents (JS and his scribes) believed that this fragment was a record of Abraham written in Egyptian characters. Unfortunately, it has proven instead to be instructions for wrapping the Book of Breathings with a mummy. The Book of Breathings is an Egyptian text that serves as a magical permit (as in a notice of permission) for the mummified individual to exercise certain bodily functions (particularly breathing) in the afterlife. Thus it seems that JS did not translate it correctly.

-CK

[PacMan]

And as far as Dr. Gee's reputation is concerned, serious criticisms of his work and nonadherence with standard scholarly protocol was published by one of Dr. Gee's mentors, Dr. Robert Ritner. in the peer-reviewed â??â??The Breathing Permit of Horâ?? Among the Joseph Smith Papyri,â? Ritner, Robert, The Journal of Near Eastern Studies,â? The University of Chicago, Vol 62, No. 3, 2003, p. 7.

FARMS subsequently published a rebuttal to Dr. Ritner's article, but the FARMS rebuttal was published in an LDS apologist publication and not in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. The disadvantages of non peer-reviewed rebuttal include (1) it might not come to Dr. Ritner's or the rest of the non-LDS Egyptologists' attention in the FARMS publication, whereas it probably would have in a peer-reviewed journal, and (2) we'll never know if the rebuttal would have been robust and scholarly enough to have survived into a peer-reviewed journal.

Iâ??m interested in why you forgot to add how an LDS apologist publication is thus void of reason, unless of course, such an insinuation is unproven. But let us be sure that while Ritner is an expert of a science all but understood, he has on multiple occasions, taken absurd academic liberties himself that even the most novice of historians can debunk. Unfortunately for Larson and others, they follow Ritnerâ??s every word like Lemmings, otherwise refusing to engage in critical research toward Ritnerâ??s statements. And Iâ??ll leave you hanging until some overconfident comes to Ritnerâ??s defenseâ?¦.

With all due respect to â??Thinking,â? frustration from an apologetic stance lies to a great degree of addressing argumentum absurdum, such as the following:

Did Abraham lie by not revealing that Sarai was his wife?

If you believe that he did not lie, then what follows doesnâ??t matter.

If you believe that he did lie, then is it right for God to tell him to lie?

Not only is the logical links non-existent, but the argument fabricated. Brother â??Thinking,â?? was Sarai his sister? Of course! But the argument via deception is only truly illuminated via tu quoque: So let us ask our pharisaic friend a question: has the Lord at anytime commanded the death of another, after having given his command to the contrary? Whatever you are trying to prove, remains completely and utterly, unproven, unfounded, irrational, and certainly not academic. What are you proving?

This possibility received further confirmation when several people noticed that the characters in the margins of the translation manuscripts match up sequentially with the fragment immediately to the left of facsimile 1 in the above picture. It seems pretty apparent that the creators of these documents (JS and his scribes) believed that this fragment was a record of Abraham written in Egyptian characters.

And THIS is what we get because of Ritnerâ?¦summaries that completely forgo an understanding of the real times in which Joseph lived, evident in sweeping and ignorant statements made by Ritner as a historian (which he is not), not an Egpyptologist. The jury must still remain out in discussion as to the adjacent characters because Ritnerâ??s (and the critcsâ??) position is not only untenable, but ludicrous when confronted with the glaring historical evidence. It is simply inconceivable in my mind that the adjacent characters where by which the text of the BoA manuscript was written. Such a conclusion is inconsistent with history and the evidence which we DO have.

PacMan

P.S. Will, whereâ??ve you beenâ?¦vacationing?

[Theophilus07]

Iâ??m interested in why you forgot to add how an LDS apologist publication is thus void of reason, unless of course, such an insinuation is unproven.

From http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html, we read,

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of 'reasoning' has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

Person B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself."

In this case, my now twice-stated position X is that LDS rebuttal in FARMS publications is less likely to have come to Dr. Ritner's and all other Egyptologists' attention than had the rebuttal been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Of course, that would be because LDS apologists publications have less penetration of the Egyptologist community than do the peer-reviewed scholarly publications.

Pacman ignores this stated position and instead erroneously claims position Y to be that I claim FARMS and LDS apologist material does not have the same quality as do articles in peer-reviewed academic journals. In fact, my second post about this in another thread in this forum actually complemented FARMS on the noticeable upgrade in quality.

If quality in this discussion is truly a consideration to Pacman, then I respectfully suggested avoidance of attempts to derail the topic with a strawman fallacy.

I still hold that an appropriate LDS defense of Dr. Gee's work appear in the same forum that the original criticism did. I strongly encourage FARMS or any LDS apologist to send the strongest possible LDS apologist rebuttal to The Journal of Near Eastern Studies ("JNES"). Having read the rebuttal on the FARMS site, I would look forward to reading a rebuttal (and one valid criticism could well be made of Dr. Ritner's tone) in the JNES.

Theophilus07

[Thinking]

With all due respect to â??Thinking,â? frustration from an apologetic stance lies to a great degree of addressing argumentum absurdum, such as the following:

Did Abraham lie by not revealing that Sarai was his wife?

If you believe that he did not lie, then what follows doesnâ??t matter.

If you believe that he did lie, then is it right for God to tell him to lie?

Not only [are] the logical links non-existent, but the argument fabricated. Brother â??Thinking,â?? was Sarai his sister? Of course! But the argument via deception is only truly illuminated via tu quoque: So let us ask our pharisaic friend a question: has the Lord at anytime commanded the death of another, after having given his command to the contrary? Whatever you are trying to prove, remains completely and utterly, unproven, unfounded, irrational, and certainly not academic. What are you proving?

"Tu quoque" does not apply because we are talking about a God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2 & from LDS scriptures, D&C 62:6). Commanding the death of another is a different act, and to my limited knowledge, there is no scripture which says that God cannot kill. In fact I'm sure you can list the verses which indicate otherwise.

The point is this: If God cannot lie, then the book which says that He did (by telling somebody else to lie) must be challenged.

[Log]

I'm confused - when did God command Abraham to say Sarai was NOT his wife? That would have been a lie.

I will say explicitly that withholding information is not lying.

[Stargazer]

I'm confused - when did God command Abraham to say Sarai was NOT his wife? That would have been a lie.

I will say explicitly that withholding information is not lying.

Well, I sort of agree with you, but let me play Devil's Advocate for a second.

Wife: Where were you this afternoon?

Husband: I was at The Office.

Wife: Oh, OK.

What Wife does not know is that there is a tavern near the community college named The Office. This is where the Husband was all afternoon. Has Husband told her a lie?

[PhilipTraum]

I think some people are straying way off topic here. It also appears to me, lurking in some of the recent threads about the BoA, that some folks are more insecure about this subject than they would like to be letting on.

[Chris Smith]

And THIS is what we get because of Ritnerâ?¦summaries that completely forgo an understanding of the real times in which Joseph lived, evident in sweeping and ignorant statements made by Ritner as a historian (which he is not), not an Egpyptologist. The jury must still remain out in discussion as to the adjacent characters because Ritnerâ??s (and the critcsâ??) position is not only untenable, but ludicrous when confronted with the glaring historical evidence. It is simply inconceivable in my mind that the adjacent characters where by which the text of the BoA manuscript was written. Such a conclusion is inconsistent with history and the evidence which we DO have.

Pacman,

Do you have a reason for refusing to make the obvious association, or are you just pontificating? Allow me to supply another piece of the picture.

desiring to be one who possessed great Knowledge; a greater follower of righteousness; a possessor of greater knowledge; a father of many nations; a prince of peace; one who keeps the commandments of God; a rightful heir, a high priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers, from the beginning of time; even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time; even the right of the first born, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers, unto me.

Kiah broam-kiah brah oam-Zub Zool oan

This character shown dissected

Kiah brah oam Coming down from the beginning - right by birth - and also by blessing, and by promise - promises made: a father of many nations; a prince of peace; one who keeps the commandment of God; a patriarch; a rightful heir; a highpriest.

-----------------

Nobody questions the fact that the English text in the Grammar and Alphabet is a translation of the characters in the margins. Observe the similarity between the GAEL translation and the text beside an identical character in the translation manuscripts. Now tell me, do you still think (as you stated in a previous thread) that these characters were added merely as "markers" of some kind? At the very least, it seems that the persons responsible for the GAEL believed that there was a translation relationship between the characters and the text in the translation manuscript.

I believe that the only explanation the apologists can bring to bear here that is even remotely tenable is that it was all a big mistake; somebody (presumably Joseph and his scribes) read the bit in 1:12 about facsimile 1 having been attached to the commencement of the record, assumed that JSP XI was the text of the BoA, and made an attempt to reverse-engineer it. But for whatever reason, they were wrong. Facsimile 1 was not attached to the commencement of the BoA, and all the GAEL efforts were just a big screw-up based on a faulty premise. If you can make a case for that, you are welcome to try. However, I don't believe that the GAEL can be explained as a reverse-engineering attempt. There is a significant quantity of information therein that has no obvious relationship to the extant translations, and cannot have been derived therefrom. And then there is the problem of the Katumin passage, which explicitly claims to be a translation of the next page. Since it is not an accurate translation, Joseph and his scribes would have had to be mistaken about the relationship between these two texts as well, and perhaps to have paired them as part of a reverse-engineering experiment. How would they have come to this mistaken conclusion? Then there is the problem of the translation of the characters in facsimile 3, which also appears to be incorrect. Another error that occurred in pursuit of an Egyptian Alphabet? I am not saying all this is impossible, but it seems to me that the mistakes begin to multiply and that any argument along these lines enters the realm of unrestrained and unsupported ad hoc hypothesizing.

-CK

[SolarPowered]

Her Amun, how did you get the title of this thread to read "BOA" instead of "Boa"??!! I've tried to get all-caps acronyms in titles on other threads, and the board always seem to automatically make the first letter of everthing capital, and everything else lower case. It would appear that you've found the magical incantation to get around that.

I did it on edit. I don't know why it doesn't work the first time around. ~ sneaky moderator

[William the Conqueror]

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

Fantastic! This sounds similar to Alexander Campbell's assessment of the Book of Mormon published in the Millennial Harbinger in 1831. Of Smith Campbell stated, '...as impudent and ignorant a knave as ever wrote a book...' Kudos for you and Alexander!

[GRW]

I'm confused - when did God command Abraham to say Sarai was NOT his wife? That would have been a lie.

I will say explicitly that withholding information is not lying.

Sorry, I can't let you get away with this. Here is the church's teaching as presented to new members, from the Gospel Principles manual, in the chapter "Honesty":

"Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: 'Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour' (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when he was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest."

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-40,00.html

By the church's own definition, what Abraham is said to have done is dishonest.