Abraham in an Egyptian funeral text?

[Paul Osborne]

Catholic,

Thanks for your contribution.

Christ being lifted up on the cross is reminiscent of Moses

[Daniel Peterson]

You said,

(1) We probably don't have the text.

(2) The translation is correct.

Which I took to mean, "We possibly do have the text- the extant Joseph Smith Papyri may be the sole source of the Book of Abraham, although that is improbable.

I think it's highly improbable. I feel no obligation to defend it. It's not my position.

In my reply, I attempted to convey the query, "Is it not wholly impossible that the Book of Abraham was translated from the extant Joseph Smith papyri, assuming you assign the conventional meaning to the word, "translation?"

It's extremely improbable. But we already knew, if the text has to come from the currently extant papyri, that it can't be a "conventional" translation. They can be translated, and they don't contain the Book of Abraham in any straightforward sense. Anyway, I'm not necessarily committed to the position that it was a "conventional" translation, even if we lack the manuscript that gave rise to the current scriptural text. It certainly can't have been "conventional" in the way that I used to translate Middle Egyptian when I was studying that language, laboriously working my way through Faulkner's lexicon and Gardiner's grammar. Joseph didn't know Egyptian, and never really claimed to. So what's new?

[A Random Catholic]

Christ being lifted up on the cross is reminiscent of Moses

[A Random Catholic]

In my reply, I attempted to convey the query, "Is it not wholly impossible that the Book of Abraham was translated from the extant Joseph Smith papyri, assuming you assign the conventional meaning to the word, "translation?"

(If the extant papyri are all there ever were, then the translation)... certainly can't have been "conventional" in the way that I used to translate Middle Egyptian when I was studying them, laboriously working my way through Faulkner's lexicon and Gardiner's grammar.

Got it- thanks.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'll try again.

(1) We probably don't have the text.

There are those who have had the opportunity to do research on this subject that disagree with this statement strongly.

I'm aware of that. So what?

I don't believe I'm obligated to surrender to them simply because they disagree.

(2) The translation is correct.

Which non LDS people learned in egyptian translation will back up your assertion the translation is correct? There are many that have shown the translation totally incorrect !!!

How, precisely, have they done that?

If it has not yet been demonstrated that we even have the original text from which the Book of Abraham was translated -- and, as I've said, I don't believe that it has been demonstrated -- on what basis can an Egyptologist argue that the translation is incorrect?

If you're confronted with the statement "The Sun has risen in the sky," and you're told that it is a translation but aren't provided with the original text, you have no basis whatsoever to denounce it as a false translation. You simply have no grounds on which to judge the matter. It's possible that the underlying sentence is indeed the Egyptian wbn ra m pt, and that the translation is correct. But the underlying sentence might also be the German Nur Neugierig ist

[leeuniverse]

What's funny is that the anti's through out their Conservativism when it comes to being an anti-mormon, for by being anti they actually become a liberal, but they don't realize it of course.

They manipulate the truth to tell great lies of us, just like the liberals do against Bush and Republicans and Conservatives.

I've been listening to Saun Hannity for awhile now, and I always laugh that every characteristic of the anti's is exactly like the Kerry's out there, the Kerry's who actually think we are in the wrong.

Anti's don't realize that most of us mormons are Conservative and Republican, thus we don't perscribe to the Liberal ideology, so their judgements against us is according to their own ignorance and bigotry and not actually something against God or Right.

[PhilipTraum]

What's funny is that the anti's through out their Conservativism when it comes to being an anti-mormon, for by being anti they actually become a liberal, but they don't realize it of course.

They manipulate the truth to tell great lies of us, just like the liberals do against Bush and Republicans and Conservatives.

Am I right in reading your post as saying you think that it is worse to be a "liberal" than an "anti-Mormon"? I can't agree with your analogy, anyways.

I've been listening to Saun Hannity [sic] for awhile now, and I always laugh that every characteristic of the anti's is exactly like the Kerry's out there, the Kerry's who actually think we are in the wrong.

The audacity of some people. To actually think you are in the wrong...

[alienward]

I'll try again.

(1)  We probably don't have the text.

There is enough evidence to conclude you do have the text. Smith divined it from the same scrap he hacked upside down into the hypocephalus he didn't have a clue about.

(2) The translation is correct.

The pictures from the Book of the Dead Smith claimed are from the Book of Abraham and his

[juliann]

Anti's don't realize that most of us mormons are Conservative and Republican, thus we don't perscribe to the Liberal ideology, so their judgements against us is according to their own ignorance and bigotry and not actually something against God or Right.

Oh, please. Most of "us Mormons" aren't even American let alone Republican. Get over yourself.

[Dale]

Hi,

There's a good Book of Abraham source debate going on in the Pwarl of Great Price section of the message board.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Paul Osborne]

Anti's don't realize that most of us mormons are Conservative and Republican, thus we don't perscribe to the Liberal ideology, so their judgements against us is according to their own ignorance and bigotry and not actually something against God or Right.

Oh, please. Most of "us Mormons" aren't even American let alone Republican. Get over yourself.

Paul O

[Guest Just Curious]

There is a Dr. Thomas Key who has done a scientific evaluation of the BoA and points out the many many errors in translation of the 3 known facsimilie as well as point out the numerous errors in the BoA itself. He basically scientifically proves the whole BoA is a lie, hoax and fraud...here is the weblink if you choose to see the truth behind the BoA yourself...

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/drkey/mormon.htm

It is a free download in pdf format so feel free to download the book and read the truth for yourself. the BoA simply will not, does not and cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny without the most outlandish interpretations and twisting/spinning of what it says...

The truth will set you free....

[Guest The Headless Laban]

There is a Dr. Thomas Key who has done a scientific evaluation of the BoA and points out the many many errors in translation of the 3 known facsimilie as well as point out the numerous errors in the BoA itself. He basically scientifically proves the whole BoA is a lie, hoax and fraud...here is the weblink if you choose to see the truth behind the BoA yourself...

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/drkey/mormon.htm

It is a free download in pdf format so feel free to download the book and read the truth for yourself. the BoA simply will not, does not and cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny without the most outlandish interpretations and twisting/spinning of what it says...

The truth will set you free....

I think the BofA has been throroughyl debunked as a traditional Egyptian translation. However, I think Paul Osbourne's approach would work if the church went that way. There are still issues with it, as I pointed out earlier, but it is much easier to defend than the "lost scroll theory." His approach takes it out of the realm of science, and makes it untouchable to "learned men." Non-believers still won't buy it, and will continue to mock and ridicule it, but it will allow the believers to go on faith. FARMS and FAIR need to scrap their "lost scrolls" theory and embrace the "catalyst" theory.

[A Random Catholic]

Trembling in stark terror, I await your bizarre, otherworldly connection between the brazen serpent and the Joseph Smith papyri.  If anybody needs me, I'll be curled up into a fetal position under my bed, sobbing uncontrollably...

We feel your pain, RC. Move over and make room.....

Paul Osborne on this thread

It may interest you to hear that I am working on some BofA apologetic material that will rock the Mormon world of apologetics! BofA apologetics will never be the same when I release that material. I am opening the door; or is it that I will open a can of worms?

Just wait and see. FARMS and FAIR will meet their match. The professors are not smart enough to figure it out. They think they are so wise in all their education and love their position as scholars.

There's room for one more down here, Dr. Peterson. Bring some Nachos, huh?

[A Random Catholic]

FARMS and FAIR need to scrap their "lost scrolls" theory and embrace the "catalyst" theory.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know...

[Daniel Peterson]

There is a Dr. Thomas Key who has done a scientific evaluation of the BoA and points out the many many errors in translation of the 3 known facsimilie as well as point out the numerous errors in the BoA itself.  He basically scientifically proves the whole BoA is a lie, hoax and fraud...

I corresponded with Thomas Key for quite a while back in the early nineties. Our correspondence petered out when I went over to Jerusalem for six months in 1993. He was quite ill then, and I wonder if he's still alive.

He's a nice fellow, but didn't strike me as exactly the most sophisticated, subtle, or well-informed thinker, and his "scientific examination" of the Book of Mormon, which he sent to me, is very unimpressive. (We didn't even bother to review it, and I can't muster any enthusiasm to read it again.) Anyway, he's a biologist. What kind of "scientific evaluation" of the Book of Abraham is he qualified to perform? (If you're talking about the astronomical portions of the Book of Abraham, I suggest that you withhold judgment at least until you've studied the forthcoming FARMS volume Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant.) How can "science" prove that Joseph "lied"? How much Egyptian does Dr. Key know, so as to be speaking authoritatively about "the many many errors in translation" in the facsimiles? What kind of demonstrated expertise does he have on ancient Egypt?

the BoA simply will not, does not and cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny without the most outlandish interpretations and twisting/spinning of what it says...

Yes, you've said that before. But there are very well-informed people who disagree. Are they simply too stupid or too dishonest to see what is so obvious to you?

[A Random Catholic]

While I think a great deal of the Thomas Key material is true, that document could use a few hundred footnotes, as opposed to the zero it features now. Some of his complaints are rather debatable: he states a couple of times that the Book of Moses is too wordy, as if that's an objectively verifiable statement. All in all, not the first place to which I'd point a sincerely seeking Latter-day Saint.

[Daniel Peterson]

There's room for one more down here, Dr. Peterson.  Bring some Nachos, huh?

No thanks. Life is short.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know...

Good point.

Anyway, I don't think anybody at FARMS feels any need to jettison the "lost scrolls" theory. We don't think it's false, and that would be the only decent reason to abandon it.

[Paul Osborne]

I think the BofA has been throroughyl debunked as a traditional Egyptian translation. However, I think Paul Osbourne's approach would work if the church went that way. There

[Paul Osborne]

There's room for one more down here, Dr. Peterson. Bring some Nachos, huh?

I doubt very much that FARMS scholars will take me on. That includes Gee, Rhodes, and Peterson. Debating me could be a career decision having serious unforeseen consequences. The moment they take me on is the moment they open a huge door.

Hint. I

[Guest Just Curious]

He's a nice fellow, but didn't strike me as exactly the most sophisticated, subtle, or well-informed thinker, and his "scientific examination" of the Book of Mormon, which he sent to me, is very unimpressive. (We didn't even bother to review it, and I can't muster any enthusiasm to read it again.) Anyway, he's a biologist. What kind of "scientific evaluation" of the Book of Abraham is he qualified to perform? (If you're talking about the astronomical portions of the Book of Abraham, I suggest that you withhold judgment at least until you've studied the forthcoming FARMS volume Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant.) How can "science" prove that Joseph "lied"? How much Egyptian does Dr. Key know, so as to be speaking authoritatively about "the many many errors in translation" in the facsimiles? What kind of demonstrated expertise does he have on ancient Egypt?

Well since you haven't read his work lets look at it and you can feel free to point out his errors in his analysis...

A FACSIMILE FROM

THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM

No. 1

EXPLANATION

Fig. 1. The Angel of the Lord.

Fig. 2. Abraham fastened upon an altar.

Fig. 3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.

Fig. 4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.

Fig. 5. The idolatrous god of Elkenah.

Fig. 6. The idolatrous god of Libnah.

Fig. 7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.

Fig. 8. The idolatrous god of Korash.

Fig. 9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.

Fig. 10. Abraham in Egypt.

Fig. 11. Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.

Fig. 12. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.

Dr. Keys analysis...

According to the bible Abraham never faced sacrifice in Egypt, Egyptians are not recorded as sacrificing people on beds or anywhere else for that matter. Pharaoh is not the name of an egyptian god but the name the ruler was called. Shagreel is not the egyptian sun god but Ra was..the names of the egyptian gods are all wrong! The prominent egyptian gods were..Ra, Shu, Geb, Tefnut, Nut, Set, Osiris, Isis, etc...not the names Joseph proposed! Feel free to correct anything here that is wrong...

[Daniel Peterson]

Well since you haven't read his work lets look at it and you can feel free to point out his errors in his analysis...

I didn't say that I hadn't read it. I said that I didn't find it very impressive, and that I have no interest in reading it again.

Dr. Keys analysis...

According to the bible Abraham never faced sacrifice in Egypt, Egyptians are not recorded as sacrificing people on beds or anywhere else for that matter.  Pharaoh is not the name of an egyptian god but the name the ruler was called.  Shagreel is not the egyptian sun god but Ra was..the names of the egyptian gods are all wrong!  The prominent egyptian gods were..Ra, Shu, Geb, Tefnut, Nut, Set, Osiris, Isis, etc...not the names Joseph proposed!  Feel free to correct anything here that is wrong...

It's all wrong, Just Curious.

The Book of Abraham never says that Abraham faced sacrifice in Egypt, either. So Dr. Key's point there is irrelevant. Poor Dr. Key didn't notice that the attempted sacrifice of Abraham in Abraham 1 occurs "in the land of the Chaldeans," not in Egypt. He didn't even notice that the biographical portion of the Book of Mormon ends "when I was come near to enter into Egypt" (Abraham 2:22). The Book of Abraham text doesn't actually take Abraham into Egypt.

There is evidence for human sacrifice in Egypt, as Professor Gee has shown. But, even so, the Book of Abraham account speaks of such sacrifice only in an area outside of Egypt but under some degree of Egyptian influence.

The Egyptian pharaoh was indeed regarded as a god.

The god names can all now be identified as names of deities in the ancient Near East. (A full publication on this is forthcoming. Discussions of some of them -- e.g., of Shagreel -- have already been published.)

[Calm]

Bring some Nachos, huh?

Nachos are not good under the bed food. I suggest candy bars and/or suckers, stuff you can just shove in your mouth onehanded without it falling apart or dripping.

[Paul Osborne]

Dr. Keys analysis...

You mean the itty-bitty little tiny book called the Bible? I wonder what else might not be told therein. It makes me wonder.

Egyptians are not recorded as sacrificing people on beds or anywhere else for that matter.

And the records now extant tell everything that ever happened in Egypt and Chaldea. Tell me, how much do we know about the early Dynasties? According to Biblical chronology that is the time in which Abraham lived. But I

[alienward]

The Book of Abraham never says that Abraham faced sacrifice in Egypt, either.  So Dr. Key's point there is irrelevant.  Poor Dr. Key didn't notice that the attempted sacrifice of Abraham in Abraham 1 occurs "in the land of the Chaldeans," not in Egypt.  He didn't even notice that the biographical portion of the Book of Mormon ends "when I was come near to enter into Egypt" (Abraham 2:22).  The Book of Abraham text doesn't actually take Abraham into Egypt.

This has got to be some kind of joke. Not only does the BoA place Abraham in Egypt, it says the Egyptians will kill him:

And I, Abraham, journeyed, going on still towards the south; and there was a continuation of a famine in the land; and I, Abraham, concluded to go down into Egypt, to sojourn there, for the famine became very grievous.

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;

Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say