Abraham in an Egyptian funeral text?

[A Random Catholic]

Dr Peterson:

Oh, I was serious when I admitted the chip- it should be obvious to anybody familiar with scholarly discourse who has read the article. My issue was who put the chip there, and when. With respect to that, I stand corrected. Or more fully informed. Or something. In any event, if the Ritner article isn't the work of a somewhat peeved, but fundamentally unbiased scholar, then such a work is sorely needed.

Well, the "somewhat peeved" part isn't essential, I suppose...

[Jarrod]

Great.  More non-experts quoting their favored "expert".

If you are referring to me, and suggesting that I am quoting my favorite expert, I have no favortie experts. I just collected all the info I could and arrived at my own conclusions.

And there is good ol' Jarrod, so much smarter than the rest of us deceived "believers".  Another Exmo who's convinced that leaving the church bumped his IQ 20 points.

You said that, I didn't. I gave a rundown of my own experiences, which I don't claim make me smarter, just better informed than many other Latter-Day Saints who have never looked into this issue.

It's just the condescending attitudes that kill me, especially when it's applied to the Book of Abraham.  How a bunch of non-eqyptologist who don't speak the languages, can't read the languages, have never spent a day in a post-graduate class room, but someone you are suddenly smarter than the folks who have actually spent time studying the issues.

This argument isn't valid. Do you read Greek or Hebrew? If not, how can you comment on the validity of the Bible? You can comment on the validity of the Bible because it has been reliably translated and you can read it in English. I have read the English translations of all the remaining scrolls, and there is enough evidence to convince me that Joseph Smith was not a translator. All you have to do is read the translations; Abraham is not to be found, and any common themes between Joseph Smith's claims and what scrolls remain are the result of some pretty incredible stretches. That is not me being condescending, that is me reading what the Egyptian really says. The facts speak for themselves. Speculation that we just don't have enough of the original scrolls is problematic because we do not know this for sure. Even if we take this assertion as fact, that we are indeed missing 87% of the original scrolls, why are we left with nothing pertaining to Abraham? I mean, we're really supposed to believe that 13+% of the scrolls contained irrelevant funerary text, and that this irrelevant text is all that survived? What are the odds? And again, what are we to make of Joseph's claim that some of the scrolls contained the Book of Joseph? Is that missing as well? Apparently not, Joseph's description of the Book of Joseph seems to indicate that we have parts of the scroll as well, but clearly we have nothing that translates into such things. This is not me being condescending, it is a review of the facts.

Are you really asserting that to know and understand what the scrolls really are depends on your being an Egyptologist capable of reading Egyptian? Do you really mean to say that I cannot arrive at any reliable conclusion if I have not spent a day in a post-graduate class room? If that's the case, then how can such a person make any reliable conclusion about the Book of Abraham one way or the other? Serioiusly, it sounds like you're suggesting that to assert that the Book of Abraham is fake, I'd have to basically major in Egyptology, but no such scholarship is required to assert that the Book of Abraham is authentic and genuine.

You also seem to be saying that I am propping myself up as being smarter or better informed than those who have dedicated their lives to Egyptian scholarship. That is not my position. But I don't believe you have to be fluent in Egyptian to read Michael D. Rhodes' book and realize there is no connection to any form of religion that Mormons practice. This conclusion is not condescending, it is a statement of fact. If someone has made a life out of finding common themes between the Book of Abraham and pagan funerary scrolls, does that mean that I should defer to their judgment, simply because they have advanced degrees in Egyptology? What if the position held by a professional Egyptologist is counter to Joseph Smith's claims? Am I required to question that scholar's motives toward the church simply because they disagree with Gee and other LDS Egyptologists?

The bottom line is, the Book of Abraham is highly accessible to any lay person who wants to know what the remaining scrolls say. We can rely on scholars to make determinations about the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, but this has been too troublesome thus far because there appear to be no non-Mormon Egyptologists who support Joseph's claims. We can call them all misguided if we like, but in the end you have to wonder why only LDS Egyptologists are able to find a connection where nobody else can. This seems to indicate far more about the motives of LDS Egyptologists than those of non-Mormon Egyptologists. If you have to be LDS to understand the Egyptology behind the Book of Abraham, does it legitimize or imperil the Mormon position?

It's almost comical.

Well, yeah, I agree. The only way to accept the Book of Abraham as real scripture is to discount everything else Joseph claimed the scrolls to be, or to simply ignore the inconsistency. It almost is comical.

[wjwalsh]

fundamentally unbiased scholar, then such a work is sorely needed. 

I have not read the Ritner article and thus cannot comment on it one way or another. However, my experience is that there are no fundamentally unbiased scholars. Everyone is biased by some preconceptions to one degree or another. Some people make a serious attempt at overcoming these preconceptions (and never entirely succeed), while others don't even make the attempt. Anyone who claims they are completely unbiased is a

[Daniel Peterson]

I have read the English translations of all the remaining scrolls, and there is enough evidence to convince me that Joseph Smith was not a translator.  All you have to do is read the translations; Abraham is not to be found.

How would reading through the English translations of "the remaining scrolls" prove that a Book of Abraham was not among the Joseph Smith Papyri if, as John Gee argues, 87% of the Joseph Smith Papyri are lost?

The facts speak for themselves.  Speculation that we just don't have enough of the original scrolls is problematic because we do not know this for sure.

I think the arguments are pretty good, myself. But even if we assign them only, say, 10% plausibility, they still weaken the assertion that we now have all the papyri and that they simply don't say, when translated, what Joseph Smith said they did.

Even if we take this assertion as fact, that we are indeed missing 87% of the original scrolls, why are we left with nothing pertaining to Abraham?  I mean, we're really supposed to believe that 13+% of the scrolls contained irrelevant funerary text, and that this irrelevant text is all that survived?  What are the odds?

Why should we assume that every item in an ancient library would have to be any more homogeneous than is every item in a modern library?

Let's think about this. Thirteen percent is roughly an eighth. I look to the bookshelf directly at my right in my office here, where my partial collection of the Loeb Classical Library sits. I choose eight books at random. They are:

1) The Greek Anthology, vol. 5

1) St. Augustine's Confessions, vol. 1

1) St. Augustine's Confessions, vol. 2

1) Apuleius, Metamorphoses, vol. 1

1) Apuleius, Metamorphoses, vol. 5

1) Cicero, De Natura Deorum

1) Manilius, Astronomica

1) Tertullian, Apology and De Spectaculis

You lucked out there, by the way. You got two double-volume sets. If I had looked a bit further either way, you would have had eight entirely separate titles. But I'm trying to be random and fair.

Now we pick one of the volumes up. Let's say that our choice falls on The Greek Anthology. It represents a collection of Greek poems. Would we be justified in expecting all of the other volumes to contain Greek poems, based upon our examination of one eighth of the collection? No. All of the other volumes are in Latin, and none of them contains poetry.

Let's say that we pick up Cicero's De Natura Deorum. It is a volume of philosophy. Can we generalize from it to say that all of the other volumes are philosophical? No. The Greek Anthology is poetry. Manilius is a pagan scientist. St. Augustine's Confessions is a Christian autobiography, written by one of the principal founders of historic mainstream Christian orthodoxy. Apuleius's Metamorphoses is a pagan novel. Tertullian is a Christian church father who ultimately became a Montanist heretic.

The ancient Egyptian Coptic Gnostic library at Nag Hammadi contains various works from various viewpoints written at various times. Any presumption that the ancient Egyptian library from which the Joseph Smith Papyri came must be uniform in content and attitude is shaky at best, especially since we have no idea what the principle of selection for its contents might have been, nor on what grounds its owner might have treasured this or that particular item.

[wjwalsh]

You can comment on the validity of the Bible because it has been reliably translated and you can read it in English. I have read the English translations of all the remaining scrolls, and there is enough evidence to convince me that Joseph Smith was not a translator.

(1) A number of scholars are devoted to the idea of canon authenticity. When I took Bible classes in graduate school, I seem to remember a number of my Jewish professors telling me that the current text is not the opriginal. Were they wrong and on what basis is your conclusion?

(2) I don't think you addressed Prof. Peterson's point. 87% of the scrolls are missing. How can you guarentee that the BoA isn't part of the 87% that we don't have, as opposed to the 13% that we do have. I seem to remmeber certain conclusions about the sect of Qumran that were initally made that had to be revisited once more scrolls were translated. Major assumptions had to be revised. On what basis can you guarentee your *belief*?

WJW

[wjwalsh]

The ancient Egyptian Coptic Gnostic library at Nag Hammadi contains various works from various viewpoints written at various times.

Same thing at Qumran. Very disparate, non-homogeneous works--spread over long periods of proposed authorship.

WJW

[A Random Catholic]

WJW:

Gosh all Nelly! You might find the discussion of post-modernism on the

[Jarrod]

This:

As far as the BoA, anyone who either accepts it or dismisses it obviously does so due to preconceptions...

I disagree. If I am reading your opinion correctly, you are suggesting that the only reason I might reject the Book of Abraham as authentic scripture is because I have presumed it to be false. I began my study of the Book of Abraham as a devout Gospel Doctrine teacher, and all of my presumptions were that the book was authentic. Perhaps I had the wrong presumption in presuming that the remaining scroll fragments ought to mention Abraham, or maybe it was too much to presume that the existence of pagan funerary texts in the scrolls detracts from its claim on legitimacy. But I don't see such presumptions as unreasonable. I see no reason why reason itself ought to be removed from the process of gaining (or proving) a testimony of the book.

The odd thing I have discovered about personal witnesses is that they are not wholly reliable. I have found that it is indeed possible to have a testimony of something only to discover it was not true after all. This is why I believe it is unrealistic to dismiss empirical evidence and scientific methods in favor of a conclusion made with reliance on a personal witness. I also believe it is totally possible for physical, empirical evidence to disprove a personal witness. I have heard many people suggest that if a personal witness is later disproven, it must not have been a personal witness in the first place. That may be, but I think this casts a shadow on anyone's ability to discern such personal witnesses. There is no objective way to prove what personal witnesses are valid and which ones aren't. All we can do is speculate and say that those who experience varying results are in error.

I would suggest that anyone who has come to a firm conclusion about the BoA has done so strictly because of their presumptions.

How do you seperate your presumptions from your personal witnesses? And do you hold your personal witnesses as eternally irrefutable by anything other than future personal witnesses?

[cinepro]

In either case, no one can truly say they have an opinion based strictly on empirical evidence because that kind of evidence is nonexistent.

I can think of no better reason to withhold belief.

I would suggest that anyone who has come to a firm conclusion about the BoA has done so strictly because of their presumptions.

Your conviction against the possibiltiy of an objective approach to determining the likelyhood of the truth of a claim is interesting. But I would find it to be characteristic of a person who adopts a "faith based" approach to belief (which to me = "belief without a good reason"). I don't believe the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be. And my presumption was that it was a translation of ancient writings of Abraham. Yet the evidence convinced me of the error of my presumption. Isn't that weird?

Dr. Peterson says:

On the basis of at least two distinct but converging lines of evidence, he argues that we now possess roughly 13% of the Joseph Smith Papyri --

Can you briefly summarize Gee's argument for the 13%? You bring this up over and over for the rest of the thread, but I'm curious as to the line of evidence and thinking that helped Gee arrive at this conclusion.

[wjwalsh]

I don

[wjwalsh]

Your conviction against the possibiltiy of an objective approach to determining the likelyhood of the truth of a claim is interesting. But I would find it to be characteristic of a person who adopts a "faith based" approach to belief (which to me = "belief without a good reason").

It is certainly representative of a faith based approach (And what is wrong with that!), but you missed my point I think. I believe the possibility of an objective approach is certainly possible. I am not saying empical evidence cannot determine the truth of a translation one way or another, I am saying that such empiricle evidence is not presently in anybody's possession.

WJW

[Confidential Informant]

If you are referring to me, and suggesting that I am quoting my favorite expert, I have no favortie experts.  I just collected all the info I could and arrived at my own conclusions.

Yes, but upon what basis did you arrive at your conclusions and what makes your conclusions any better than mine or Dr. Petersons? Yet you seem to hold them out there as being the only logical conclusion a person could arrive at.

You said that, I didn't.  I gave a rundown of my own experiences, which I don't claim make me smarter, just better informed than many other Latter-Day Saints who have never looked into this issue.

No you didn't say that...it was the condescending tone of your post that caused me to arrive at that conclusion. As to being better informed, are you? Seems to me that there are a plethora of folks who are far more knowledgable and better informed than you, John Gee, Michael Rhodes, Ben Maguire, Kevin Barney, John Tvedtnes, all of whom arrive at a very different conclusion than yours. Yet for some reason your posts convey the notion that your conclusions should have more weight.

This argument isn't valid.  Do you read Greek or Hebrew?  If not, how can you comment on the validity of the Bible?

The short answer would be, quite honestly, I can't. The longer, more approprate answer, is that we aren't talking about the content of the Bible, (or for that matter, the content of the Book of Abraham) the issue, as the critics have framed it, is the translation of the papyri. And if you are going to criticize a translation, you damn well better have knowledge of the languages involved.

You can comment on the validity of the Bible because it has been reliably translated and you can read it in English.

If the issue at hand was the "translation" of the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English, then I could not comment upon it, not being trained in those languges. The exact issue at hand in the B of A debate IS the translation. Since you do not read any form of Egyption, I am left to wonder at your qualifications to speak on the topic in anything other than second-hand terms.

I have read the English translations of all the remaining scrolls, and there is enough evidence to convince me that Joseph Smith was not a translator.

Which of course takes us right back to the same old argument that Gee and others have fronted: What is your proof that the extant scrolls represent the material the Joseph is claimed to have translated? Don't bother answering, the debate has raged for several decades now, I doubt that any blythe answer given by you on this thread is going to resolve the issue.

All you have to do is read the translations; Abraham is not to be found, and any common themes between Joseph Smith's claims and what scrolls remain are the result of some pretty incredible stretches.

Again, this whole thesis only works if you assume that the extant papyri represent all that there were. That is demonstrable untrue.

That is not me being condescending, that is me reading what the Egyptian really says.

Actually, that your reading what someone else has told you the Egyptian really says. If those same people gave you an actual Egyptian papyri and told you that it said "Elvis Lives and we are keeping his brain alive or Ork" you'd have no way of telling them they are wrong. In the exact same way that when I read the English Bible, I'm relying on the word of others that what I'm reading represents a faithful translation of what they original work said.

The facts speak for themselves.

Excuse me? I'm a criminal attorney and if there is one thing I can tell you, facts never speak for themselves. All facts, no matter what they be, require interpretation.

Speculation that we just don't have enough of the original scrolls is problematic because we do not know this for sure. 

No, actually it's not. It's quite readily demonstrable...unless, of course, you happen to be in possesion of all three facsimilies? To my knowledge, at least one of those is still missing. That fact alone proves that what we have extant is incomplete.

Even if we take this assertion as fact, that we are indeed missing 87% of the original scrolls, why are we left with nothing pertaining to Abraham?

I can think of several good reasons, the primary one that comes to mind is that it was separated from the remainder because of its importance. The Book of the Dead had no importance and was thus discarded or put aside.

I mean, we're really supposed to believe that 13+% of the scrolls contained irrelevant funerary text, and that this irrelevant text is all that survived?

If we were talking about a random act, then you might have point. But we aren't.

IF Joseph really could translate the scrolls, then it would make perfect sense for him to somehow separate those portions from the other, lesser important ones.

What are the odds?

Again, it depends on your position. From my POV, they're actually pretty good.

And again, what are we to make of Joseph's claim that some of the scrolls contained the Book of Joseph?  Is that missing as well?

Let me get this straight....Joseph said one of the scrolls was the book of Joseph, but we can't find it, so that serves as proof that other, additional scrolls don't or didn't exist? You'll excuse me, that line of reasoning escapes my religiously addled brain. I'm sure that if I were to leave the church that would make complete sense to me.

For some reason, the better line of reasoning seems to me to be: Joseph described the scrolls and their contents. We now have in our possession some of those scrolls, some of which conform to his descriptions, the majority of which do not, ergo, the set we have is incomplete.

Your line of reasoning says, Joseph described the scrolls and their contents, we now have the scrolls and they don't match what Joseph described, ergo Joseph lied and those scrolls never existed. This of course ignores the testimony of oither eyewitnesses who described the scrolls, etc.

Hey, you want to take that one to court? You go right ahead.

Joseph's description of the Book of Joseph seems to indicate that we have parts of the scroll as well, but clearly we have nothing that translates into such things.  This is not me being condescending, it is a review of the facts.

No, actually it's not. It's a review of the facts as you interpret them. There is no evidence, however, that your interpretation is in anyway authoritative.

Are you really asserting that to know and understand what the scrolls really are depends on your being an Egyptologist capable of reading Egyptian?

Yes. The only reason you or I anyone else has any understanding of the current scrolls is due to the fact that an actual Egyptologist (Gee, et al) has told us so. Now, we tend to believe them because we can see no reason for them to lie. But, if they did lie, how would we know it?

Do you really mean to say that I cannot arrive at any reliable conclusion if I have not spent a day in a post-graduate class room?

Not at all. My point is, obviously, that whatever conclusoin you arrive at, it is necessarily flawed since you relying on second hand information. However, I am saying that for your or anyone else to take Gee or Rhodes to task is foolishness seeing as how you have no grounding to question their conclusions. You'd simply be regurgitating someone else's arguments, relying on your faith in that source that it's arguments are correct.

If that's the case, then how can such a person make any reliable conclusion about the Book of Abraham one way or the other?  Serioiusly, it sounds like you're suggesting that to assert that the Book of Abraham is fake, I'd have to basically major in Egyptology, .

You assert that the B of A is fake, based not on any inherent knowledge of your own, but based rather on your reliance on other souces whose conclusions you trust. If you truly wanted to verify that those conclusions are correct, then yes, I'm saying you'd need to get some serious training in Egyptology.

but no such scholarship is required to assert that the Book of Abraham is authentic and genuine

And where have I made such a claim? Gee, Rhodes and other have the requisite training, they are fully versed in the counter arguments, and yet they have a reached a different conclusion than your sources have. That tells me the issue isn't nearly as cut and dried as your fundamentlist thinking would like it to be.

The fact is this: some, much or a ton of the scrolls are missing. Without that, your side of the argument bumps up against a huge brick wall. You can never prove to any extent that Joseph translated is not correct.

But I don't believe you have to be fluent in Egyptian to read Michael D. Rhodes' book and realize there is no connection to any form of religion that Mormons practice

And isn't it interesting that he can write that book and still maintain his belief in the Book of Abraham?

This conclusion is not condescending, it is a statement of fact.

Yes. But the conclusion you have drawn from it are not fact. They are conjecture.

If someone has made a life out of finding common themes between the Book of Abraham and pagan funerary scrolls, does that mean that I should defer to their judgment, simply because they have advanced degrees in Egyptology?

No, but it certainly requires more than a mere dismissal without offering any contrary evidence.

What if the position held by a professional Egyptologist is counter to Joseph Smith's claims? Am I required to question that scholar's motives toward the church simply because they disagree with Gee and other LDS Egyptologists?

Is that the only option you see open? Isn't it possible that Egyptologist is incorrect? What if his conclusions are based on a faulty understanding of the issue? What is his conjecture is not as cut and dried as he claims it is? I don't think you are required to question anyone's motives. I think you are required to keep more of an open mind.

The bottom line is, the Book of Abraham is highly accessible to any lay person who wants to know what the remaining scrolls say.

Again, you are incorrect. What is accessible is what the scholars have said they say. There is a difference.

We can rely on scholars to make determinations about the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, but this has been too troublesome thus far because there appear to be no non-Mormon Egyptologists who support Joseph's claims.

Why is this troublesome? Based on the scrolls we have, that conclusion would be mostly correct, would it not? I haven't seen Gee, Rhodes or any other Mormon scholar contradict that. However, your argument is far too broad. Scholars can determine that the current book of Abraham did not derive from the extant sources they can draw no conclusions regarding the missing portions.

We can call them all misguided if we like, but in the end you have to wonder why only LDS Egyptologists are able to find a connection where nobody else can.

I have yet to see any LDS scholar attempt to draw connections between what we have and the Book of Abraham. But then again, if you ask me, this whole uproar about the translation is a red herring at its best. It totally ignores the relevant issues.

This seems to indicate far more about the motives of LDS Egyptologists than those of non-Mormon Egyptologists.

If LDS eyptologist had made some claim regarding the extant papyri that was completely unsupportable, you might have point. They haven't. And if you believe they have, I'd like to see it posted here so we can discuss it in detail rather than using obscure insinuations that hint at malfeasance by LDS Egyptologists but provide no support for such assertions.

If you have to be LDS to understand the Egyptology behind the Book of Abraham, does it legitimize or imperil the Mormon position?

Another strawman? Who said you have to be LDS to understand the Egyptology behind it? I never did.

What amazes me is things like this: John Gee is recognized by non-LDS egyptologist as being a fine, upstanding, talented member of that field. He has published his works in several prominent eygtological reviews. His non-LDS related work (which is substantial) has been subjected to public scrutiny and peer review and seems to have held up quite well. But then, all of the sudden, when applies his considerable skills to the Book of Abraham, his motives are questioned, (this actually happens with all LDS scholars and researchers) and he portrayed as the Jekyl/Hyde figure whose dark side only appears when his religion is involved.

Truly amazing.

The only way to accept the Book of Abraham as real scripture is to discount everything else Joseph claimed the scrolls to be, or to simply ignore the inconsistency.  It almost is comical.

And again, you reach the completely wrong conclusion. As I said before, the whole translation issue is a red herring. It's an unwinnable argument for either side. That being said, that translation isn't the only thing we have to discuss. We actually have the purported translation: The Book of Abraham, which book provides a wealth of detail about the life and times of Abraham, Egyptian society of the day, etc. However, it's always amazed me how critics want to avoid the actual content of the Book of Abraham like the plague (except the part about Kolob which they often think they can make fun of).

The fact is that information contained in the B of A is a dead on bullseye. Much of the information contained in the book is verified by ancient sources, many of which were unavailable to Joseph in 1835. John Tvedtnes has catalogued literally hundreds of this "hits" in his book, "Ancient Traditions about Abraham" (I think that's the title.

So, the question is, if Joseph wasn't actually translating the papyri, how did he get so much of it right? And if he did indeed get it "right" isn't hat at least circumstantial evidence that an actual translation of ancient materials was taking place?

But no one ever wants to have that debate.

C.I.

[wjwalsh]

In either case, no one can truly say they have an opinion based strictly on empirical evidence because that kind of evidence is nonexistent.

I can think of no better reason to withhold belief.

See, here we go. If belief can only be based on empiricle evidence, then that pretty much discounts everything about the Mormon worldview, doesn't it?

WJW

[A Random Catholic]

WJW: (1) Going back to my other post, can you show me the evidence that Joseph Smith said a particular row of hieroglyphs was associated with a particlar translation of those hieroglyphs?

Random: Certainly.

WJW: Keep in mind the recent CBS document scandal. Can you actually authenticate a BoA translation from Joseph Smith (even a partial), so that we may check his translation? I suggest the answer is we don't have enough information that would convince say the Yale history department of the authenticity. It may be plausible, but plausibility does not equal authenticity.

Random: Nope. Just probable authenticity.

WJW: (2) Ahhh. What is sufficiently unbiased scholarship? I suggest the academic world is far more biased than a lay person might think and it is safer to assume and look for some type of bias than to assume none exists. I guess I am saying I rarely read something that is even mostly unbiased.

Random: I'm hardly unfamiliar with the academic world. And I think that I read "mostly unbiased" stuff all the time. Perhaps the world of pre-Columbian archaeology, or the history of the Great War (the two subjects about which I've read the most scholarly material) are islands of relative objectivity, but I dunno...

WJW: Let me start with this. I suggest a fundamental distinction between those who believe in the supernatural unseen world and those that do not. Would you agree that if such a world does not exist, then all those who do accept it, would most likely be in danger of biasing their scholarship? Likewise, for those on the other side?

Random: If the believers/unbelievers are chemists or architects or Egyptologists? Absolutely not!

WJW: Specifically, for the BoA, if a person accepts that God may have supernaturally intravened in the world to give the BoA to Joseph Smith, then all kinds of things open up. (emphasis mine)

Random: Well, I believe that God may have done that, although I think the probability is frankly pretty remote.

WJW: On the other hand, if such a thing is impossible, then we are straining at gnats aren't we, because then all Mormonism has to be a fabrication?

Random: Clearly. On the third hand, if we know that such a thing did, in fact, happen, because God has told us so, that's when "all sorts of things" really open up. One example, chosen at Random, is the possibility that Gee is wrong, the Book of Abraham was translated from the existing papyri, and the entire field of secular Egyptology is just blowing smoke. But this is not reasonable, at least to those of us in the "may" neighborhood, just across the tracks from "impossible."

WJW: And when we say the Bible is reliable and authentic, well, that just kills any suggestion of lack of bias doesn't it?

Random: I'm not sure I follow you. I believe that the Bible is "authentically" inspired and (when innerrantly interpreted) can be "relied" on to prove Christian doctrine. Do I believe in a global flood, covering the tops of the highest mountains, that occured about 4,000 years ago? Nope. Too much evidence against it.

Thanks,

Random

[A Random Catholic]

CI: If those same people gave you an actual Egyptian papyri and told you that it said "Elvis Lives and we are keeping his brain alive on Ork" you'd have no way of telling them they are wrong.

Random: This is the real world. They'd obviously be lieing or insane, and I think any reasonable person would reach that conclusion.

And again: we do have the original papyri from which the facsimiles were drawn!

[wjwalsh]

This is why I believe it is unrealistic to dismiss empirical evidence and scientific methods in favor of a conclusion made with reliance on a personal witness. I also believe it is totally possible for physical, empirical evidence to disprove a personal witness. I have heard many people suggest that if a personal witness is later disproven, it must not have been a personal witness in the first place. That may be, but I think this casts a shadow on anyone's ability to discern such personal witnesses. There is no objective way to prove what personal witnesses are valid and which ones aren't. All we can do is speculate and say that those who experience varying results are in error.

I would suggest that anyone who has come to a firm conclusion about the BoA has done so strictly because of their presumptions.

How do you seperate your presumptions from your personal witnesses? And do you hold your personal witnesses as eternally irrefutable by anything other than future personal witnesses?

(1) Again I did not say evidenced should be dismissed. I said it doesn't exist. Big difference.

(2) But you bring up an interesting point. Empiracle and scientific methodologies are a particular frame of human reference. On what basis would you say it is the only way to perceive truth?

Here is something I wrote in my dissertation (sans the footnotes) that is relevant to the limits of scientific methodology [The point being is you appear to be saying visable light is the only light that exists]:

Henri Frankfort and R.C. Raehner have noted modern evolutionary and rationalistic viewpoints keep most scholars from even understanding non-logos systems, such as ancient Near Eastern religion (or Mormonism, I would add). After all, since the sophics have not had the mantic experiences, how can they relate to them? In an example related to Mormonism, McMurrin said he found Smith and his visions baffling, for he could not understand such a viewpoint. If the sophic cannot even understand sacred narrative, much less believe it, then it would be almost impossible for him to consider it objectively. This fact partly accounts for the lack of objectivity in many previous studies of Smith and Mormonism, which were often done by sophics.

Certainly, in recent years, scholarly disciplines, such as anthropology, have developed an awareness of the problem of bias and compensated with methodologies designed to enhance objectivity as much as they are able. However, while the explicit biases of the past have mostly been expelled by new objective methodologies, the implicit ones remain. As sociologist Steve Bruce suggests,

[wjwalsh]

Random: This is the real world. They'd obviously be lieing or insane, and I think any reasonable person would reach that conclusion.

LOL. Yep, if one has a sophic mentality, then any reasonable person would reach that conclusion.

"To be clear, modernity has defined visions as false. If a person claims to have had a vision, then by definition, that person is claiming to be deluded and/or insane, assuming he is not fabricating the entire business."

WJW

[Moxy]

The burdon of proof is on the LDS church. They claim this is the BoA. Prove it.

They can't. The facsimiles are crap, the scrolls are crap. I belive it is faked. And so do more amd more people.

[Moxy]

Joseph Smith not only identified all the figures, but also claimed that there are Egyptian characters on Facsimile 3 that identify three of the figures. For example, the explanation for figure 5 is

[A Random Catholic]

Random: This is the real world.  They'd obviously be lieing or insane, and I think any reasonable person would reach that conclusion.

LOL. Yep, if one has a sophic mentality, then any reasonable person would reach that conclusion.

"To be clear, modernity has defined visions as false. If a person claims to have had a vision, then by definition, that person is claiming to be deluded and/or insane, assuming he is not fabricating the entire business."

WJW

Did you read CI's statement, my response to which you quoted above? The edit button is your friend. I'd post a favorite recipe instead, if I were you...

[Confidential Informant]

Why is it that so many people are humor impaired?

This is the real world.  They'd obviously be lieing or insane, and I think any reasonable person would reach that conclusion.

I thought it would be obvious that I was engaging in a bit of ridiculous hyperbole in order to make a point. <sigh>

Fortunely, I think the point is still made. Yes, intuitively you'd say that the person was lying....but could you prove it? No, you couldn't since you can't read the language that the expert can.

How about a more realistic example? For years, I "believed" that John said that "God is a spirit." Why? Because that's what the translators told me he said. So, even though I had an issue with the doctrinal ideas undergirding the statement, the fact that I couldn't read Greek prevented me from challenging the translator.

Then, I learned a little Greek and I found out that what John actually wrote was, "God is spirit" which changes the whole tenor of the verse (not to mention harmonizing that verse with several of John's other writings).

Jarrod is in the exact same boat when it comes to Egyptian. He believes as he does because that's what the translators have told him. He has no way of knowing for himself.

And again: we do have the original papyri from which the facsimiles were drawn!

And we also have some excellent responses regarding them. In fact, Kevin Barney's ideas on the subject are, IMO, stunning and ground breaking. You and Jarrod may feel free to ignore them as you wish.

C.I.

[juliann]

(2) Ahhh. What is sufficiently unbiased scholarship? I suggest the academic world is far more biased than a lay person might think and it is safer to assume and look for some type of bias than to assume none exists. I guess I am saying I rarely read something that is even mostly unbiased.

I am still wondering what kind of training you are getting to think that you have to have black helicopter theories about bias. Of course everyone starts with bias...that is why anyone worth reading states the scope and limitations of their study up front.

Let me start with this.  I suggest a fundamental distinction between those who believe in the supernatural unssen world and those that do not.  Would you agree that if such a world does not exist, then all those who do accept it, would most likely be in danger of biasing their scholarship?  Likewise, for those on the other side?

This is a bizarre conclusion and would indicate to me that you do not know many scholars. Do you notice how dualistic your thinking is? Now that is bias.

[wjwalsh]

Random: Certainly.

Random: Nope. Just probable authenticity.

Random: I'm hardly unfamiliar with the academic world. And I think that I read "mostly unbiased" stuff all the time. Perhaps the world of pre-Columbian archaeology, or the history of the Great War (the two subjects about which I've read the most scholarly material) are islands of relative objectivity, but I dunno...

Random: Well, I believe that God may have done that, although I think the probability is frankly pretty remote.

One example, chosen at Random, is the possibility that Gee is wrong, the Book of Abraham was translated from the existing papyri, and the entire field of secular Egyptology is just blowing smoke. But this is not reasonable, at least to those of us in the "may" neighborhood, just across the tracks from "impossible."

(1) I don't think this link gives what I asked for.

(2) Well, that is the point. You are making a judgement on what you believe is the most likely story. I understand that and can respect your point of view, but still disagree.

(3) Well possibly. But I suspect there is more bias in those areas as well. Almost every discipline and field of study has its politics involved. Biblical archaeology may have more than pre-Colombian (because less people have as much at stake), but I doubt it doesnt exist. The politics in Egyptology are notorious. Read Ritner's dissertation (esp. the footnotes).

(4) Well, yes, I can understand why someone wanting to play it safe might take that view. But let's step back for the moment. If you look at scholars a century ago, in their time, they ruled the world and their opinions were fact. Today, most of them are seriously discredited. I suspect 100 years from now, the scholars of the future will probably say the same about those of today. Interestingly, many of the changes in views in ancient Israel and early Christianity are more 'favorable' to Latter-day Saints.

WJW

[juliann]

This argument isn't valid. Do you read Greek or Hebrew? If not, how can you comment on the validity of the Bible? You can comment on the validity of the Bible because it has been reliably translated and you can read it in English.

Jarrod, guess what. I can read Greek. And the Bible is translated only after the MSS and variants have been selected by a committee that you do not even know. I think you had better come up with a better analogy.

[wjwalsh]

I am still wondering what kind of training you are getting to think that you have to have black helicopter theories about bias. Of course everyone starts with bias...that is why anyone worth reading states the scope and limitations of their study up front.

This is a bizarre conclusion and would indicate to me that you do not know many scholars. Do you notice how dualistic your thinking is? Now that is bias.