Abraham in an Egyptian funeral text?

[Paul Osborne]

The Book of Abraham never says that Abraham faced sacrifice in Egypt, either.

[Paul Osborne]

In case Dr. Peterson has a hard time understanding this scripture, he can read the header:

alienward,

I am going to enjoy every moment watching Dr. Peterson roast you over the coals. You are wrong dude!!

Oh how I can't wait - alienward just made a huge mistake in not knowing squat about the book he attacks and then he has the nerve to attack a professor who is an expert on its contents!!

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

[alienward]

Go read the whole book of Abraham. You think you're going to tell Dr. Peterson that he doesn't know the logistics of the BofA? I would be afraid to do that and would have to be darn sure my facts were straight. You're so far over your head you will drown if you keep this up.

When apologists like Daniel Peterson pile excuses upon excuses to try and support claims those evil anti

[Bob Bennett]

First, I'd like to thank Alienward for motivating me to reread the first two chapters of Abraham (an activity which he apparently refuses to do, instead quoting someone's summary commentary - perhaps a look at the actual text of the Book of Abraham would prevent AW from sticking his foot in his mouth in the future). It turns out that Dr. Peterson is precisely correct. The entire first two chapters of the Book of Abraham take place outside of Egypt - in Ur, Canaan, the road towards Egypt, but not actually in Egypt itself. At that point, the text leaves the biographical story of Abraham and discusses astronomy, the premortal existence and the creation. We never again return to the story of Abraham's life. Perhaps alienward has a different version of the Book of Abraham that covers his time in Egypt. Perhaps alienward is simply blowing smoke and assuming his audience is too lazy to do something as difficult as read the text. Perhaps he is simply unable to agree with Dr. Peterson on any matter and must therefore take the opposite position, regardless of how irrational. Perhaps we could do a test. Dr. Peterson could posit that the sky is blue and the grass is green, then see if alienward responds with the alternate proposition that they are obviously yellow and red.

[Dale]

Hi,

Perhaps Alienward is a victim of bad apologetics. There's so much circulating in regards to the Book of Abraham it's hard not to run into it.

Sincerely,

Dale

--------

Hi,

Paul Juan Castillos quote effective handles without embarrassment the conclusion the Book of Abraham has been mistranslated. There's still more room for belief in it. I myself believe in it because of the amazing internal evidences that have been collected in support of the Book of Abraham. So to me instead of my water glass being empty I have a glass half full of water. Critics want us to pretend the Book of Abraham has fallen when the research that's been done say's otherwise. Before the world wants to believe in the Book of Abraham they want to add to Gods truth's man's criteria for truth. Unless they have a Book of Abraham that totally agrees with modern Egyptology.

Sincerely,

Dale

[alienward]

First, I'd like to thank Alienward for motivating me to reread the first two chapters of Abraham (an activity which he apparently refuses to do, instead quoting someone's summary commentary - perhaps a look at the actual text of the Book of Abraham would prevent AW from sticking his foot in his mouth in the future).  It turns out that Dr. Peterson is precisely correct.  The entire first two chapters of the Book of Abraham take place outside of Egypt - in Ur, Canaan, the road towards Egypt, but not actually in Egypt itself.  At that point, the text leaves the biographical story of Abraham and discusses astronomy, the premortal existence and the creation.  We never again return to the story of Abraham's life.  Perhaps alienward has a different version of the Book of Abraham that covers his time in Egypt.  Perhaps alienward is simply blowing smoke and assuming his audience is too lazy to do something as difficult as read the text.  Perhaps he is simply unable to agree with Dr. Peterson on any matter and must therefore take the opposite position, regardless of how irrational.  Perhaps we could do a test.  Dr. Peterson could posit that the sky is blue and the grass is green, then see if alienward responds with the alternate proposition that they are obviously yellow and red.

Dude, what part of the Ensign quote

[Paul Osborne]

alienward,

The Mormon Church is not vested in the writing of a school teacher found in the "I have a Question" section of the Enzign. Who are you trying to kid?

You are wrong about the locality of the sacrificial scene. That proves you haven't read the BofA very carefully. This is such a hoot! What a blast! I love it!

Go read it again, dude.

Then, come back and check the box.

I alienward was wrong and stuck my foot in my mouth.

[ ] yes

[ ] no

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Go read the book and then come back and say, "I alienward was wrong", and repeat it three times.

You

[A Random Catholic]

Beside Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, there were four Chaldean chiefs (perhaps kings) who were in league with the king of Egypt:

1. Elkenah

2. Libnah

3. Mahmackrah

4. Korash

If you can cite an original source that states this, and there isn't a major problem* with it, you can baptize me yourself.

*: Off the top of my head, potential major problems:

Joseph Smith may have had the original source.

Nobody really has a clue how the names would be transliterated, but (after 18 pages of linguistic gobbledygook that I'm not qualified to analyze ) Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, and Korash are quite plausible.

An original source (or sources) that do indeed contain proper nouns that could plausibly be pronounced "Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, and Korash," and we see (after 18 pages of Egyptological gobbledygook that I'm not qualified to analyze) that they refer to Chaldean kings allied with Pharoah in the day of Abraham.

That's about it, actually.

[alienward]

The Mormon Church is not vested in the writing of a school teacher found in the "I have a Question" section of the Enzign. Who are you trying to kid?

That

[Dale]

Hi,

Actually "No" the reference to the facimilie was an interlopation by either Joseph Smith or an ancient Egyptian who had the record in his possession. The pictures complemented the story so were adopted from the Book of the Dead to tell illustrate a true story of Abraham hidden upon papyrus.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Paul Osborne]

[X] yes

[ ] no

Oh how sweeet. Thank you for making my day.

Paul O

[Guest Just Curious]

Are the copies of the papyrus the church now owns anywhere on the internet for individuals to see and review them? Should be fairly easy with digital photography and all nowadays..

[VEL]

Are the copies of the papyrus the church now owns anywhere on the internet for individuals to see and review them? Should be fairly easy with digital photography and all nowadays..

Maybe someone else knows if they're on the web but you can also get them in Charles M. Larson's book "By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus." You can request a free copy from http://irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhohordr.html

Plus $2 S&H

[Guest AdaraCatriona]

I am finding this thread fascinating as this particular topic is my current 'object of passion'.

As a not quite exmo but surely not believing I used to justify these accusations that the PoGP was 'hooey' by saying to myself 'just because the world needs everything to be a literal translation doesn't mean thats how the lord works'

I had concocted in my mind the theory that the Lord just needed to get those messages to us so he just used any old paper that was lying around and made our dear prophet see what he needed to see that we might hear what we needed to hear'

The problem lies in two things: 1. Church teaches it as literal translation and 2. I don't believe JS was a prophet so the lord didn't (IMO) make him see anything.

[YH8]

I am finding this thread fascinating as this particular topic is my current 'object of passion'.

As a not quite exmo but surely not believing I used to justify these accusations that the PoGP was 'hooey' by saying to myself 'just because the world needs everything to be a literal translation doesn't mean thats how the lord works'

I had concocted in my mind the theory that the Lord just needed to get those messages to us so he just used any old paper that was lying around and made our dear prophet see what he needed to see that we might hear what we needed to hear'

The problem lies in two things: 1. Church teaches it as literal translation and 2. I don't believe JS was a prophet so the lord didn't (IMO) make him see anything.

What about 1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Does this have any relevance for you?

BTW, if you have taken to cynical descriptions of Joseph Smith (a la "our dear prophet"), my guess is you are not very likely to be thinking reasonably about things LDS.

[Guest AdaraCatriona]

What about 1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Does this have any relevance for you?

BTW, if you have taken to cynical descriptions of Joseph Smith (a la "our dear prophet"), my guess is you are not very likely to be thinking reasonably about things LDS.

Actually no it doesn't. At one time it did. but now it doesn't.

When I said our dear prophet I was not being nasty. I was being serious as to what my thought process was at that time.

Reason (like everything else in life) is subjective so although you may not find me within the realm of reason derived from YOUR frame of reference, it does not make me or my thinking unreasonable.

Just because we don't agree doesn't mean one of us is wrong - it just means we dont' agree. Is that a concept you can wrap your mind around? Right/Wrong Good/Bad Nice/Mean any Either/Or you come up with is always going to be subjective. Even if 90% of the world leans to one side of an either/or situation chances are 100 years ago or 100 years from now it was/will be very different.

However as a Latter Day Saint your 'measuring stick' should not be the standards of others or of society at large but rather the Gospel of Jesus Christ and thats just fine. I just don't agree with you.

[YH8]

What about 1 Corinthians 1:27 - But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Does this have any relevance for you?

BTW, if you have taken to cynical descriptions of Joseph Smith (a la "our dear prophet"), my guess is you are not very likely to be thinking reasonably about things LDS.

Actually no it doesn't. At one time it did. but now it doesn't.

When I said our dear prophet I was not being nasty. I was being serious as to what my thought process was at that time.

Reason (like everything else in life) is subjective so although you may not find me within the realm of reason derived from YOUR frame of reference, it does not make me or my thinking unreasonable.

Just because we don't agree doesn't mean one of us is wrong - it just means we dont' agree. Is that a concept you can wrap your mind around? Right/Wrong Good/Bad Nice/Mean any Either/Or you come up with is always going to be subjective. Even if 90% of the world leans to one side of an either/or situation chances are 100 years ago or 100 years from now it was/will be very different.

However as a Latter Day Saint your 'measuring stick' should not be the standards of others or of society at large but rather the Gospel of Jesus Christ and thats just fine. I just don't agree with you.

Glad to hear you aren't being cynical about things LDS.

Turning post-modern, huh? Good luck.

[Guest AdaraCatriona]

What is post modern?

Are YOU being cynical when you say good luck or should I say thank you?

[YH8]

What is post modern?

Are YOU being cynical when you say good luck or should I say thank you?

Post-modernism is a philosophical school of thought that basically espouses the idea that all truth is relative or everything is true and of equal value; no absolute truth. [ironically, claiming that there is no absolute truth is a claim of absolute truth.]

My wishes of good luck, weren't really cynical, but sorta, I suppose. While it has some positive qualities, I don't think post-modernism is conducive to healthy living and thinking.

[Guest AdaraCatriona]

Post-modernism is a philosophical school of thought that basically espouses the idea that all truth is relative or everything is true and of equal value; no absolute truth. [ironically, claiming that there is no absolute truth is a claim of absolute truth.]

My wishes of good luck, weren't really cynical, but sorta, I suppose. While it has some positive qualities, I don't think post-modernism is conducive to healthy living and thinking.

Thank you for clarifying. Then the answer to your initial question is "No I'm not going post modern"

And I'll take your slightly cynical well wishes graciously because I do believe firmly in the second greatest commandment.

[YH8]

Reason (like everything else in life) is subjective so although you may not find me within the realm of reason derived from YOUR frame of reference, it does not make me or my thinking unreasonable.

Just because we don't agree doesn't mean one of us is wrong - it just means we dont' agree. Is that a concept you can wrap your mind around? Right/Wrong Good/Bad Nice/Mean any Either/Or you come up with is always going to be subjective. Even if 90% of the world leans to one side of an either/or situation chances are 100 years ago or 100 years from now it was/will be very different.

However as a Latter Day Saint your 'measuring stick' should not be the standards of others or of society at large but rather the Gospel of Jesus Christ and thats just fine. I just don't agree with you.

THis sounds pretty Post-Modern, to me.

[Guest The Headless Laban]

Hi,

Actually "No" the reference to the facimilie was an interlopation by either Joseph Smith or an ancient Egyptian who had the record in his possession. The pictures complemented the story so were  adopted from the Book of the Dead to tell illustrate a true story of Abraham hidden upon papyrus.

Sincerely,

Dale

This is just a tiny stretch, don't you think?

[Paul Osborne]

I am finding this thread fascinating as this particular topic is my current 'object of passion'.

I hope you take the time to peruse through my webiste. There is nothing quite like it on the entire Internet. I will take you places you have not been before - and you will learn quite a bit, I promise you that.

Symbolism of the Book of Abraham

Paul O