dblagent007 Posted September 9, 2009 Author Posted September 9, 2009 This is a false dichotomy. Bro. Rhodes' statement isn't addressing the accuracy of his translations, he's addressing how well the translation squares with Egyptian ideologies. Many of them are remarkably similar. Some are not.I wondered if there wasn't some nuanced interpretation to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism statement. The statement is specific enough to give some readers the impression that JS's translation is correct, but also vague enough to give Rhodes cover ala the argument you have provided.
William Schryver Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 That the Book of Abraham represents an accurate translation of an authentic, ancient document that was in the possession of Joseph Smith.I don't hardly believe that sincere believers in the restored gospel need to reference the Nibley books I mentioned in order to convince themselves of that.Nevertheless, there is much in those books that will certainly reinforce the faith of those who recognize the Book of Abraham as the word of God, and who have had witness borne to them of the divine origins of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.
William Schryver Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Thanks for pointing out that article. From past discussions, I just took it as a given that no one believes that "the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices." That is why this statement in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism is so perplexing. Has Rhodes, or someone else, explained how they arrived at the conclusion that JS's translation accords with the present understanding of Egyptian religious practices?That is precisely the purport of Nibley's works which I referenced above.
William Schryver Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 I wondered if there wasn't some nuanced interpretation to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism statement. The statement is specific enough to give some readers the impression that JS's translation is correct, but also vague enough to give Rhodes cover ala the argument you have provided.I believe Rhodes' statement was very deliberately worded. He is clearly stating that, in his judgment, Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Book of Abraham and his explanations of the meaning of the accompanying vignettes is "correct."I agree with him.
dblagent007 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Posted September 10, 2009 I believe Rhodes' statement was very deliberately worded. He is clearly stating that, in his judgment, Joseph Smith's "translation" of the Book of Abraham and his explanations of the meaning of the accompanying vignettes is "correct."You and Maklelan seem to disagree on this point.
dblagent007 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Posted September 10, 2009 That is precisely the purport of Nibley's works which I referenced above.Stephen E. Thompson's article (the full version can be found here) provides a persuasive rebuttal of Nibley's arguments regarding the facsimiles. Has anyone rebutted Thompson's article?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Stephen E. Thompson's article (the full version can be found here) provides a persuasive rebuttal of Nibley's arguments regarding the facsimiles. Has anyone rebutted Thompson's article?In a true Jaybare fashion,I don't trust it because the person writting it is not LDS. Sorry.On a more serious note I am not qualified to offer a rebuttle.
structurecop Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 I don't hardly believe that sincere believers in the restored gospel need to reference the Nibley books I mentioned in order to convince themselves of that.Ah, so if someone isn't convinced that the Book of Abraham is an accurate translation of an ancient book then they are an insincere believer? Nice one. Nevertheless, there is much in those books that will certainly reinforce the faith of those who recognize the Book of Abraham as the word of God, and who have had witness borne to them of the divine origins of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.So it's not particularly convincing to skeptics. That's what I was looking for. Thanks.
dblagent007 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Posted September 10, 2009 In a true Jaybare fashion,I don't trust it because the person writting it is not LDS. Sorry.On a more serious note I am not qualified to offer a rebuttle.Huh? Maybe I'm confused, but I thought Stephen E. Thompson is LDS?I try to evaluate the arguments on the merits. I don't care whether the person making them is LDS (Gee), non-LDS (Chris Smith), or something in between.
Olavarria Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 "the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices."Which practices?
Olavarria Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 How will critics of Joseph Smith explain such a remarkable correspondence?By reciting the mantra that Bro.Gee is a liar/loon and that Egyptology PHD's aren't begging for baptism.
Olavarria Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/44025-hypocephalus-figure-1/page__p__1208679658__fromsearch__1entry1208679658Heres some stuff Ive done on the hypo
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Huh? Maybe I'm confused, but I thought Stephen E. Thompson is LDS?I try to evaluate the arguments on the merits. I don't care whether the person making them is LDS (Gee), non-LDS (Chris Smith), or something in between.Yeah I figured he was LDS, but I was just ribbing Jaybare as Williams quote originally stemmed from a non LDS eygptologist and yet Jaybare still rejected it. IOW I was being ironic. Also you if noted my last sentance, "on a more serious note".Thanks for the reference.
ttribe Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 So you're a fan of the catalyst theory?I'd say "fan" is a bit of an overstatement, but I find the explanation to be a reasonable one. However, I first heard that explanation when I was in seminary at age 17, so maybe I've just been brainwashed.
ttribe Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 So it's not particularly convincing to skeptics. That's what I was looking for. Thanks.As long as faith is a core requirement, I suspect nothing will be particularly "convincing to skeptics".
Jaybear Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Yeah I figured he was LDS, but I was just ribbing Jaybare as Williams quote originally stemmed from a non LDS eygptologist and yet Jaybare still rejected it. IOW I was being ironic. Also you if noted my last sentance, "on a more serious note".Thanks for the reference.Please don't mislead. I asked for a reference from a nonLDS Egyptology expert who agrees with JS that "shinehah" is Egyptian for Sun. That request for a reference has not been answered. Frankly, if you can't convince an nonLDS expert that Smith was right, and "shinehah" is Egyptian for Sun, why should you expect critics to take the apologetic argument that flows from shinehah seriously?Moreover its painfully obvious that if apologists had a credible and convincing argument that Smith was capable of reading and translating ancient Egyptian, there would be no need for doublespeak, or for other apologists to advance the catalyst theory.
structurecop Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 As long as faith is a core requirement, I suspect nothing will be particularly "convincing to skeptics".Faith is a core requirement of what? Bad scholarship?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Please don't mislead. I asked for a reference from a nonLDS Egyptology expert who agrees with JS that "shinehah" is Egyptian for Sun. That request for a reference has not been answered. Frankly, if you can't convince an nonLDS expert that Smith was right, and "shinehah" is Egyptian for Sun, why should you expect critics to take the apologetic argument that flows from shinehah seriously?Moreover its painfully obvious that if apologists had a credible and convincing argument that Smith was capable of reading and translating ancient Egyptian, there would be no need for doublespeak, or for other apologists to advance the catalyst theory.Perhaps I miss read William, he said that the one that originally made the claim was a non LDS egyptologist and that Gee brought that little bit of information to light to the apologetic front. IOW it wasn't Gee's work that equated Shinehah as being " a bona fide Egyptian term signifying the solar ecliptic" it was a non LDS egyptologist that did.
ttribe Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Faith is a core requirement of what? Bad scholarship?Give me a break...I am talking the basic belief in the divinity of the Book of Abraham, not the "scholarship" and quasi-scholarship that has been attached to its study. But then, I suspect you knew that and just wanted to make a snarky remark....
stn9 Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Any chance of someone posting an excerpt or two from Krauss's paper? How does he spell the word? Does he give it with or without vowels?
structurecop Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Give me a break...I am talking the basic belief in the divinity of the Book of Abraham, not the "scholarship" and quasi-scholarship that has been attached to its study. I don't care about the divinity of the Book of Abraham, any more than I care about the divinity of any book. I'm concerned about the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, a question which should require little to no "faith" to answer.But then, I suspect you knew that and just wanted to make a snarky remark....Well, I never!
ttribe Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 I don't care about the divinity of the Book of Abraham, any more than I care about the divinity of any book. I'm concerned about the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, a question which should require little to no "faith" to answer.Authenticity of the "book" or authenticity of the text?Well, I never!Good one.
structurecop Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Authenticity of the "book" or authenticity of the text?Of the text. Of the "translation" of the papyri (which I am aware, we may never know).
ttribe Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Of the text.Which is what I was referring to with respect to the "divinity" of the BoA. Of the "translation" of the papyri (which I am aware, we may never know).This, to me, is a desire to validate the authenticity of the "book" when trying to go back to the papyri (which we may not even have at this point).I'm curious - how do you approach the BoM? JS, essentially, made the exact same claim. The only difference is that you don't have access to any portion of the plates (and I remain uncovinced that we have any portion of the papyri that JS claims to have used for the actual "translation" process).
structurecop Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Which is what I was referring to with respect to the "divinity" of the BoA.Perhaps I misunderstood. I'm not really worried about whether Abraham really wrote the contents. I am interested, however, in whether the text of our current Book of Abraham is an accurate translation of the papyri.On the other hand, I do appreciate the fact that what we have in English has similarities with beliefs held by ancient people. I still find it unlikely that the Book of Abraham is what JS claimed it is, but I find value in its doctrines.I'm curious - how do you approach the BoM? JS, essentially, made the exact same claim. The only difference is that you don't have access to any portion of the plates (and I remain uncovinced that we have any portion of the papyri that JS claims to have used for the actual "translation" process).Hey, foul -- you can't subscribe to both the "catalyst" and "missing scroll" theories! I am open to the Book of Mormon at least partially being a story of actual people (like Ostler's "expansion of an ancient text" theory). In my opinion, there are enough compelling reasons that I can at least empathize with people who think it is historical. I also think there are compelling reasons to not believe its claims or the claims of Joseph Smith. If we had the gold plates, however, like you said, we would probably be having a totally different conversation.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.