Is this statement true?

[CA Steve]

I am curious as to why the 3 facsimiles were included in BOA.

[jmordecai]

Irrelevant.

This translation was a restoration of the original meaning. The text he was looking at was not the original text- got that???????????

And what evidence supports your view (as many LDS don't share it)?

[jmordecai]

What we do have, apparently was in Joseph's possession is a part of an Egyptian book of Breathings which is a formulary for magically transforming the body into an immortal body, essentially a god. It was a corruption - written much after Abraham- it is an apostate version- of Abraham's original Book of Abraham- which was written in Egyptian by Abraham by his own hand on papyrus.

You base this on what?

Joseph restored by "translation" the original Book of Abraham which contains portions of the temple ordinances which are necessary for exaltation.

Based on what?

So the Papyri Joseph had, had a similar significance to the purpose of the original papyri written by Abraham, their meaning and significance were the same- but the doctrines and formulae- the words- were incorrect.

ditto?

He translated the correct formulae if you will, from the apostate writings he had before him.

It was a "catalyst" for what is termed a "translation" which was received by revelation.

That is the simplest I know how to make it. I'm about done.

All this is speculation.

[jmordecai]

And we know they are not Egyptian words how, exactly?

Because they aren't. None of these words have been found in the plethora of all things Egyptian. If you disagree, demonstrate otherwise.

[Jason]

Because they aren't. None of these words have been found in the plethora of all things Egyptian. If you disagree, demonstrate otherwise.

So, since they haven't been found in any other surviving Egyptian texts they can't be Egyptian words?

I'm sorry, I don't think you can demonstrate that some words were never a part of another language from a limited sample of surviving texts.

That would be proving a negative, wouldn't it?

[CA Steve]

So, since they haven't been found in any other surviving Egyptian texts they can't be Egyptian words?

I'm sorry, I don't think you can demonstrate that some words were never a part of another language from a limited sample of surviving texts.

That would be proving a negative, wouldn't it?

Since we would all agree it is impossible to recover every Egyptian text ever written, at what point would you agree the words probably are not Egyptian? I mean if you are going to use the "can't prove a negative argument" then I could claim that "Isday ordway is gyptianway" is Egyptian and it would be impossible to disprove.

[Jason]

Since we would all agree it is impossible to recover every Egyptian text ever written, at what point would you agree the words probably are not Egyptian? I mean if you are going to use the "can't prove a negative argument" then I could claim that "Isday ordway is gyptianway" is Egyptian and it would be impossible to disprove.

Showing that they came from some other language might be an appropriate proof. For instance, your phrase is obviously pig latin.

Or a statement from the author of the text in which they appear of what language they borrowed the words in question from, or that they made them up.

[CA Steve]

Showing that they came from some other language might be an appropriate proof. For instance, your phrase is obviously pig latin.

Or a statement from the author of the text in which they appear of what language they borrowed the words in question from, or that they made them up.

Neither one of those explanations would 'prove' my words were not Egyptian if the "can't prove a negative" argument is applied. The only way to do that would require having all Egyptian texts ever written (an impossible task) and compare every Egyptian word ever written against my text. So I ask again, how much Egyptian text would have to be recovered for you to believe the words are not Egyptian?

[mfbukowski]

I am curious as to why the 3 facsimiles were included in BOA.

They give, as Joseph stated in the notes, valuable keys for understanding the endowment for those who can read the symbols.

Christ taught in parables too, for those who can hear, let them hear. For those who can't, well you figure it out.

[mfbukowski]

And what evidence supports your view (as many LDS don't share it)?

1- The title

2- What the text actually states (in the facsimilies) about being keys to temple worship etc.

3- Nibley

4- the Spirit

But not necessarily in that order. And pray tell, what is contrary view of "many LDS"? And what is their alleged "evidence".

I can see that critics would have another view- that is expectable. But "many LDS"? I would like to see evidence of that statement. Where is your poll data?

[Jason]

Neither one of those explanations would 'prove' my words were not Egyptian if the "can't prove a negative" argument is applied.

Yes they would.

If the writer says "no, I made those up, I don't know any Egyptian," then they weren't Egyptian words, even if the author happened to make up words that closely matched real Egyptian words.

If you say "obviously what I just said is Pig Latin, not Egyptian" then I will probably believe you since I can also recognize Pig Latin.

[mfbukowski]

All this is speculation.

Absurd. Your position is speculation. Naa naaa nee naa naa. I am putting forward the postion of most on this board, Nibley, and what Joseph himself has said. Why would Joseph be stupid enough to publish the facsimilies when Egyptian was already partially translated if he meant the translation to be taken literally?

He had already been burned by releasing the Anthon manuscript- how stupid do you think this cunning fraudster was?

The facsimilies are exactly what Joseph said they were, it's not my fault if you don't understand them. Go to the temple a few hundred times, analyze the structure of the endowment, memorize it so that your free time can allow the spirit to work over the information, and study the facsimilies and your opinion will change. Mine did.

It would also help to be an ordinance worker for a while. There is much "lore" about these matters which makes perfect sense.

There is a reason these are initiation rituals- the un-initiated do not understand them and aren't meant to.

[CA Steve]

Yes they would.

If the writer says "no, I made those up, I don't know any Egyptian," then they weren't Egyptian words, even if the author happened to make up words that closely matched real Egyptian words.

If you say "obviously what I just said is Pig Latin, not Egyptian" then I will probably believe you since I can also recognize Pig Latin.

No Jason they would not 'disprove' anything. Even if I admitted my words were pig latin or were made up, I could argue that you cannot 'prove' they were not also Egyptian because not all Egyptian texts have been found. If we use the "cannot prove a negative argument" then we cannot know that they are also not Egyptian without comparing them to all Egyptian texts. How much Egyptian would have to be available for you to believe these are not Egyptian words? By your "cannot prove a negative argument" I could even claim were are talking in Egyptian right now and no one could 'disprove' it.

By the way thanks for the response on "Why the facsimiles were included." Was there any sort of commentary that gave more information about them outside of what it says in BOA when they were published in Times and Seasons? By information I mean why they were included with BOA.

[Jason]

No Jason they would not 'disprove' anything. Even if I admitted my words were pig latin or were made up, I could argue that you cannot 'prove' they were not also Egyptian because not all Egyptian texts have been found. If we use the "cannot prove a negative argument" then we cannot know that they are also not Egyptian without comparing them to all Egyptian texts. How much Egyptian would have to be available for you to believe these are not Egyptian words? By your "cannot prove a negative argument" I could even claim were are talking in Egyptian right now and no one could 'disprove' it.

Maybe we are speaking Egyptian after all.

In any case, it appears the critics should drop the silly "these aren't Egyptian words" argument.

[Senator]

Maybe we are speaking Egyptian after all.

In any case, it appears the critics should drop the silly "these aren't Egyptian words" argument.

It appears either side of the argument is silly.

[CA Steve]

Maybe we are speaking Egyptian after all.

In any case, it appears the critics should drop the silly "these aren't Egyptian words" argument.

And, as we say in Egyptian, we should drop the silly "can't prove a negative" argument. Perhaps a better way to phrase the point would be 'from the Egyptian we now know are these are not Egyptian words".

[Jason]

And, as we say in Egyptian, we should drop the silly "can't prove a negative" argument.

But you can't logically prove a negative.

Perhaps a better way to phrase the point would be 'from the Egyptian we now know are these are not Egyptian words".

How about "we really know much less about ancient Egyptian than we think we do, so the words in the Book of Abraham might in fact have been perfectly legitimate Egyptian words when Abraham wrote them"?

[CA Steve]

But you can't logically prove a negative.

How about "we really know much less about ancient Egyptian than we think we do, so the words in the Book of Abraham might in fact have been perfectly legitimate Egyptian words when Abraham wrote them"?

You could have substituted any language in place of Egyptian and still be make the same point.

We are going in circles regarding proving a negative. I think I have quite clearly shown how the "can't prove a negative" argument leads to anything and every thing being Egyptian or any other language for that matter and therefore is usless and silly as a response.

[jmordecai]

The facsimilies are exactly what Joseph said they were, it's not my fault if you don't understand them.

The facsimile are not what Joseph said they were. They are common Egyptian funerary documents that have nothing to do with Abraham.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

There's not a single Egyptologist who agrees that Smith's translation or interpretation is accurate.

Go to the temple a few hundred times, analyze the structure of the endowment, memorize it so that your free time can allow the spirit to work over the information, and study the facsimilies and your opinion will change.

Go look at Book of the Dead scenes here

And hypocephalus here

How unlucky that out of all the 'Egyptian' words Smith identifies, every single one (including the names of Egyptian gods) coincidentally have not been found in all of Egyptology. Its the same stretch that of the animals mentioned in the book of Mormon, how unlucky that those are the one's that don't fit the geography or were extinct long before BoM times. How unlucky that out of the 6,000+ known languages of the world, "Reformed Egyptian" has eluded us. What bad luck out of all the work done in South America, we can glean of the Maya, Inca, Olmec cultures and cities, but are unlucky enough to skip or misidentify the Nephite people and their cities. Claiming "we can't prove a negative" only buys one time until you end up crying wolf.

[Jason]

The facsimile are not what Joseph said they were. They are common Egyptian funerary documents that have nothing to do with Abraham.

...maybe. Actually there are distinct differences between the facsimilies and every other Egyptian funerary document that has survived to the present.

There's not a single Egyptologist who agrees that Smith's translation or interpretation is accurate.

Of course, Egyptology is only about 200 years old and could change completely with a new discovery made tomorrow.

Claiming "we can't prove a negative" only buys one time until you end up crying wolf.

Claiming we can't prove a negative is true. You can't. Really.

[mfbukowski]

The facsimile are not what Joseph said they were. They are common Egyptian funerary documents that have nothing to do with Abraham.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

There's not a single Egyptologist who agrees that Smith's translation or interpretation is accurate.

Go look at Book of the Dead scenes here

And hypocephalus here

How unlucky that out of all the 'Egyptian' words Smith identifies, every single one (including the names of Egyptian gods) coincidentally have not been found in all of Egyptology. Its the same stretch that of the animals mentioned in the book of Mormon, how unlucky that those are the one's that don't fit the geography or were extinct long before BoM times. How unlucky that out of the 6,000+ known languages of the world, "Reformed Egyptian" has eluded us. What bad luck out of all the work done in South America, we can glean of the Maya, Inca, Olmec cultures and cities, but are unlucky enough to skip or misidentify the Nephite people and their cities. Claiming "we can't prove a negative" only buys one time until you end up crying wolf.

You are a fundamentalist who takes everything literally. Your criticism is like saying the bible cannot be true because the world was not created in 6 days and donkeys don't talk. Duh.

JOSEPH KNEW THAT EGYPTIAN HAD ALREADY BEEN TRANSLATED- SO WHY WOULD HE PUBLISH THE EGYPTIAN "TEXT" IF IT WAS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY?

Pardon me yelling, but how many times do I have to ask that question?

No, what Joseph said they were were "Translations of the Book of Abraham, Written by his own hand on papyrus"

What he was looking at were Egyptian funerary documents, what he published were Egyptian funerary documents, but that is not what he "translated".

He translated what he said he translated. He published keys to the temple, which if seen for what they are- spiritual keys to the temple, not Egyptian hypocephali.

The diagrams happen to be identical to hypocephali, but HAVE TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEANING

A woman can argue for abortion rights by saying "This is my body"! and a Catholic priest at the consecration of the mass can say "This is my body" and the SAME WORDS HAVE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEANING!

Cheeesh! Why can you not see this? DO YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF ONE SYMBOL STANDING FOR ONE THING AT ONE TIME AND IN ANOTHER CONTEXT IT STAND FOR SOMETHING ELSE?

How about the Hopi Swastika?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Native_American_basketball_team_crop.jpg/220px-Native_American_basketball_team_crop.jpg

The fact that the Egyptians co-opted and corrupted Abraham's endowment has nothing to do with Joseph's restoration of the endowment.

It would be like someone today talking about the Hopi swastika- if its original meaning had been lost- and being criticized for not recognizing a "Nazi symbol" when in fact its derivation is much older and of totally different significance.

[Vance]

DO YOU HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF ONE SYMBOL STANDING FOR ONE THING AT ONE TIME AND IN ANOTHER CONTEXT IT STAND FOR SOMETHING ELSE?

EXACTLY!!!!!!

Take this symbol for example. http://aroundtheclockcarpetcleaning.net/ESW/Images/ChristianFish.jpg

It used to mean something totally different. From http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm

The pre-Christian history of the fish symbol:

The fish symbol has been used for millennia worldwide as a religious symbol associated with the Pagan Great Mother Goddess. It is the outline of her vulva. The fish symbol was often drawn by overlapping two very thin crescent moons. One represented the crescent shortly before the new moon; the other shortly after, when the moon is just visible. The Moon is the heavenly body that has long been associated with the Goddess, just as the sun is a symbol of the God.

jmordecai,

How do you like them apples?

[CA Steve]

You are a fundamentalist who takes everything literally. Your criticism is like saying the bible cannot be true because the world was not created in 6 days and donkeys don't talk. Duh.

JOSEPH KNEW THAT EGYPTIAN HAD ALREADY BEEN TRANSLATED- SO WHY WOULD HE PUBLISH THE EGYPTIAN "TEXT" IF IT WAS TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY?

Pardon me yelling, but how many times do I have to ask that question?

So are you saying it is not Egyptian?

[mfbukowski]

So are you saying it is not Egyptian?

What is not Egyptian?

Is a Swastika German?

Suppose I said the Swastika was a Hopi symbol for the sun, and you argued no, that I was an idiot, because the swastika was a German symbol for a notable dictator's regime.

And no matter what I said, you would produce pictures of it being used on uniforms and bombs and airplanes and on the Brandenburg Gate etc etc etc and told me repeatedly that every known historic scholar says that the swastika was symbol for the Third Reich.

And you did this after nine thousand other people had said the same thing on this board going back to day one?

Who would be right?

Suppose someone translated one of Shakespeare's plays and took the phrase "Juliette is the sun" and translated it "Juliette is a star" and someone attacked Shakespeare for being the worlds most idiotic scientist for saying that a young lady could be a "celestial body of hot gases that radiates energy derived from thermonuclear reactions in the interior"

Who would be the idiot then?

[CA Steve]

What is not Egyptian?

Is a Swastika German?

Suppose I said the Swastika was a Hopi symbol for the sun, and you argued no, that I was an idiot, because the swastika was a German symbol for a notable dictator's regime.

And no matter what I said, you would produce pictures of it being used on uniforms and bombs and airplanes and on the Brandenburg Gate etc etc etc and told me repeatedly that every known historic scholar says that the swastika was symbol for the Third Reich.

And you did this after nine thousand other people had said the same thing on this board going back to day one?

Who would be right?

Suppose someone translated one of Shakespeare's plays and took the phrase "Juliette is the sun" and translated it "Juliette is a star" and someone attacked Shakespeare for being the worlds most idiotic scientist for saying that a young lady could be a "celestial body of hot gases that radiates energy derived from thermonuclear reactions in the interior"

Who would be the idiot then?

Sorry, It seemed to be a simple question.