Riddle Me This...

[Xander]

If the Book of Abraham was taken from some mysterious papyrus that no one can seem to identify, then why is it that virtually all historic and textual evidences alluding or pointing to the Joseph Smith Papyri, always refer to extant material?

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers contain transcribed characters from extant papyri,and even copied images from those irrelevant "scraps." The now canonized Book of Abraham (Abr 1:12-16) refers to the Book of Breathings text quite explicitly. But why are there no testimonies describing images, animals or colors that are missing from the extant papyri?

The point here is simple. The more “missing” papyri Gee proposes to have existed, the more significant the surviving portions become, because logic dictates that if these “missing” portions were of significance (i.e. contained the record of Abraham), then we’d have at least one testimony describing their contents; contents that cannot be attributed to the extant portions. But we don't have any of that. Instead, we have numerous detailed descriptions of the papyri portions which apologists insist are just fragments of the entire collection; fragments that are irrelevant to the Book of Abraham.

From Cowdery's detailed descriptions to the casual descriptions by passing tourists, everything seems to point to the materials that have survived since 1835. So if we go ahead and grant Gee's claim that Joseph Smith had dozens of feet of (now missing) papyrus, then why is it that all eye witness testimony over the course of a decade, always seems to point to the extant portions which apologists insist had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham? It isn't enough to prove there was missing material. One has to show why the Book of Abraham would have had anything to do with that "missing" material at all. From what I can tell, the only reason to assume this is theological and circular.

And even if we go ahead and grant Nibley his premise that the Book of Abraham manuscripts were a product of creative scribes (for which there has yet to be presented a shred of evidence) and had nothing whatsoever to do with Joseph Smith's input or knowledge, then how does this argument from imaginative plausibility really help apologists? What are the chances that so many of Joseph Smith's contemporaries, closest friends and hired scribes, had no idea which papyrus referred to the Book of Abraham, given the fact that Joseph frequently showed the papyri collection as a community exhibit, offering translations and explanations upon request? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Edited November 13, 2011 by Xander

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.boap.org/

[Xander]

http://www.boap.org/

Seriously?

[wenglund]

If the Book of Abraham was taken from some mysterious papyrus that no one can seem to identify, then why is it that virtually all historic and textual evidences alluding or pointing to the Joseph Smith Papyri, always refer to extant material?

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers contain transcribed characters from extant papyri,and even copied images from those irrelevant "scraps." The now canonized Book of Abraham (Abr 1:12-16) refers to the Book of Breathings text quite explicitly. But why are there no testimonies describing images, animals or colors that are missing from the extant papyri?

The point here is simple. The more “missing” papyri Gee proposes to have existed, the more significant the surviving portions become, because logic dictates that if these “missing” portions were of significance (i.e. contained the record of Abraham), then we’d have at least one testimony describing their contents; contents that cannot be attributed to the extant portions. But we don't have any of that. Instead, we have numerous detailed descriptions of the papyri portions which apologists insist are just fragments of the entire collection; fragments that are irrelevant to the Book of Abraham.

From Cowdery's detailed descriptions to the casual descriptions by passing tourists, everything seems to point to the materials that have survived since 1835. So if we go ahead and grant Gee's claim that Joseph Smith had dozens of feet of (now missing) papyrus, then why is it that all eye witness testimony over the course of a decade, always seems to point to the extant portions which apologists insist had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham? It isn't enough to prove there was missing material. One has to show why the Book of Abraham would have had anything to do with that "missing" material at all. From what I can tell, the only reason to assume this is theological and circular.

And even if we go ahead and grant Nibley his premise that the Book of Abraham manuscripts were a product of creative scribes (for which there has yet to be presented a shred of evidence) and had nothing whatsoever to do with Joseph Smith's input or knowledge, then how does this argument from imaginative plausibility really help apologists? What are the chances that so many of Joseph Smith's contemporaries, closest friends and hired scribes, had no idea which papyrus referred to the Book of Abraham, given the fact that Joseph frequently showed the papyri collection as a community exhibit, offering translations and explanations upon request? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Seriously?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Yes, seriously. Apologists have been dodging this issue since forever it seems. The fact is there is overwhelming evidence to support the view that the extant papyri is what Joseph Smith used to produce the Book of Abraham. There is no evidence to support the claim that the source is missing. Proving something isn't missing isn't enough. You have to give us a good reason to dismiss the ton of evidence that strongly suggests the source for the BoA is among the extant papyri. And yes, the evidence is overwhelming. So much so that LDS scholars immediately agreed with the "critics" as soon as the papyri were rediscovered in the late 60's. Nibley, Clark, Crapo, and even the Improvement Era, referred to these documents as those used by Joseph Smith in his translation of the Book of Abraham. It was only after they found out that the translations didn't vindicate the Prophet, that they suddenly began to shift their ground and seek out other hypothetical explanations that could somehow serve to save Joseph Smith's credibility. The "critics" have the advantageous position of being able to accept the evidence for what it tells us, without having to constantly shift our ground to save faith.

Hugh Nibley's obtuse reaction to the evidence that even his own students knew to be true,

"Within a week of the publication of the papyri students began calling my attention, in fact, within a day or two, I think it was Witorf [?], called my attention to the fact that, the very definite fact that, one of the fragments seemed to supply all of the symbols for the Book of Abraham. This was the little "Sensen" scroll. Here are the symbols. The symbols are arranged here, and the interpretation goes along here and this interpretation turns out to be the Book of Abraham. Well, what about that? Here is the little "Sensen," because that name occurs frequently in it, the papyrus, in which a handful of Egyptian symbols was apparently expanded in translation to the whole Book of Abraham. This raises a lot of questions. It doesn't answer any questions, unless we're mind readers" (Speech given by Hugh Nibley, University of Utah, May 20, 1968).

"...the presence on the scene of some of the original papyri, including those used by the Prophet in preparing the text of the Book of Abraham and the Facsimiles with their commentaries, has not raised a single new question, though, as we shall see, it has solved some old ones."(Improvement Era, May, 1968, p54)

Richley Crapo:

"In December of 1967, I was able to examine the original papyri in the vaults of the BYU library and obtain one of the first released sets of photographic copies.... A more careful examination of these revealed the startling fact that one of the papyri of the Church collection, known as the Small Sen-Sen Papyrus, contained the same series of heiratic symbols, which had been copied, in the same order, into the Book of Abraham manuscript next to verses of that book! In other words, there was every indication that the collection of papyri in the hands of the Church contained the source which led to a production of the Book of Abraham. It was naturally this document which I immediately began to translate" (Book of Abraham Symposium, LDS Institute of Religion, Salt Lake City, April 3, 1970, p. 27).

James R. Clark:

"I have in my possession a photostatic copy of the manuscript of the Prophet Joseph Smith's translation of Abraham 1:1 to 2:18. This manuscript was bought by Wilford Wood in 1945 from Charles Bidamon, son of the man who married Emma after the death of the Prophet. The original of this manuscript is in the Church Historian's Office in Salt Lake City. The characters from which our present book of Abraham was translated are down the left-hand column and Joseph Smith's translation opposite, so we know approximately how much material was translated from each character" (Pearl of Great Price Conference, December 10, 1960, 1964 ed., pp. 60-61)

The point is that this isn't just a "critical" view and it shouldn't be characterized as such. It doesn't take an anti-Mormon bias to understand these documents for what they are.

[Mortal Man]

If the Book of Abraham was taken from some mysterious papyrus that no one can seem to identify, then why is it that virtually all historic and textual evidences alluding or pointing to the Joseph Smith Papyri, always refer to extant material?

All of the historic evidence alluding to the missing papyrus was stored with the missing papyrus. Thus, it all disappeared together.

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers contain transcribed characters from extant papyri,and even copied images from those irrelevant "scraps." The now canonized Book of Abraham (Abr 1:12-16) refers to the Book of Breathings text quite explicitly. But why are there no testimonies describing images, animals or colors that are missing from the extant papyri?

William Schryver has proven that the missing papyrus was far too thin to be seen by human eyes. So it stands to reason that nobody noticed it.

The point here is simple. The more “missing” papyri Gee proposes to have existed, the more significant the surviving portions become, because logic dictates that if these “missing” portions were of significance (i.e. contained the record of Abraham), then we’d have at least one testimony describing their contents; contents that cannot be attributed to the extant portions. But we don't have any of that. Instead, we have numerous detailed descriptions of the papyri portions which apologists insist are just fragments of the entire collection; fragments that are irrelevant to the Book of Abraham.

We know that Chicago burned down as a result of vast quantities of highly flammable papyrus entering the city from the Joseph Smith collection. Therefore, we can be confident that the missing portions were of significance.

From Cowdery's detailed descriptions to the casual descriptions by passing tourists, everything seems to point to the materials that have survived since 1835. So if we go ahead and grant Gee's claim that Joseph Smith had dozens of feet of (now missing) papyrus, then why is it that all eye witness testimony over the course of a decade, always seems to point to the extant portions which apologists insist had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham? It isn't enough to prove there was missing material. One has to show why the Book of Abraham would have had anything to do with that "missing" material at all. From what I can tell, the only reason to assume this is theological and circular.

The vanishingly thin BoA papyrus was wound into a tight theological circle, which no one could see to unwind. Hence, they never discovered it to be the true source text.

And even if we go ahead and grant Nibley his premise that the Book of Abraham manuscripts were a product of creative scribes (for which there has yet to be presented a shred of evidence) and had nothing whatsoever to do with Joseph Smith's input or knowledge, then how does this argument from imaginative plausibility really help apologists? What are the chances that so many of Joseph Smith's contemporaries, closest friends and hired scribes, had no idea which papyrus referred to the Book of Abraham, given the fact that Joseph frequently showed the papyri collection as a community exhibit, offering translations and explanations upon request? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

The missing papyrus, missing translation manuscript, missing EAG exemplar, missing Katumin exemplar, missing historical references, missing Spalding manuscript, missing plates and missing Watson letter will all come forth in the due time of the Lord.

[SouthBayMC]

Mortal Man, Your wit is classic. Good Stuff.

[wenglund]

Yes, seriously. Apologists have been dodging this issue since forever it seems.

I don't recall having ever been asked this question until I saw it today. Could you provide and extant example (irony intended) prior to today where I have dodged this issue?

Here is your question again:

If the Book of Abraham was taken from some mysterious papyrus that no one can seem to identify, then why is it that virtually all historic and textual evidences alluding or pointing to the Joseph Smith Papyri, always refer to extant material?

To be honest, your question is so vague as to be somewhat incoherent to me. So, before attempting an answer, would you be so kind as to clarify if by "extant material" you are referring to the extant portions of the Joseph Smith Papyri?

And, when you speak of "virtually all historic and textual evidence," do you include in your list the two KEP notebooks (one marked "Valuable Discovery"), and facsimiles 2 and 3? What do also you include in your list?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

The missing papyrus, missing translation manuscript, missing EAG exemplar, missing Katumin exemplar, missing historical references, missing Spalding manuscript, missing plates and missing Watson letter will all come forth in the due time of the Lord.

Speaking of non-extant and/or missing papyri, watch what happens when this:

Somehow goes to this:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Not sure why you're having trouble with what I said. By extant material, I am of course referring to the Joseph Smith Papyri that have survived and are today owned by the Church. This, as opposed to the "missing scroll" that John Gee and William Schryver have exerted so much energy trying to establish. Attempts have been made by both to support the claim that a "long scroll" is missing, and blatant misrepresentations of the historical record have been used to support it. My point isn't simply that there is scant evidence and little reason to believe much of the papyri is really missing. My point is also the fact that so much of the evidence points directly to that "tiny portion" of "scraps" that we have today. From Cowdery's published descriptions, to the descriptions offered by passing visitors, we always seem to get descriptions that can easily be found on the "tiny collection" of what still exists today. This in and of itself weighs against the missing scroll theory. It also weighs against the assumption that the missing scroll, assuming it existed, was of any significance to Joseph Smith.

[ldsfaqs]

I would like to know Xander why some "fragments" with a facsimile or two (which are a dime a dozen) and some doodling on them somehow translates into the entire BOA Scroll?

Further, why would you think Joseph would write ON the actual BOA?

The found fragments clearly by the facts are simply Joseph's doodle facsimiles, the copies he used to develop some of his thoughts on what was happening in the pictures.

Further, why would these fragments end up in a museum which was clearly donated from someones collection who had died if they were the ACTUAL fragments from the ACTUAL BOA??? hmmmm? Clearly, these fragments were simply some of the materials Joseph gave away, having nothing to do with the actual BOA.

[Xander]

I would like to know Xander why some "fragments" with a facsimile or two (which are a dime a dozen) and some doodling on them somehow translates into the entire BOA Scroll?

I'll present the three whammies for starters:

#1. The Book of Abraham refers specifically to this text (Abr 1:12-14) when it draws our attention to Facsimile 1 at the commencement of the record. This logically suggests that the record of Abraham is what follows after Facsimile 1. Remember that Facsimile 1 has been canonized and can be seen in virtually every published copy of the Pearl of Great Price.

#2. The Book of Abraham manuscripts produced in Autumn-Winter of 1835 contain Egyptian characters that were taken, in sequence, from the BoB, and placed before their corresponding English translations. Where this papyrus contains gaps, there were attempts to restore them (the only testimony that refers to this practice implicates Joseph Smith, not the scribes) . This further suggests that the BoB was the source used to produce the Book of Abraham.

#3. The Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, which we know Joseph Smith desired to create as early as 1835 and as late as 1843, contains more than a dozen characters from this same papyrus roll which the apologists inisist have nothing to do with the Book of Abraham.

Just because the papyri were glued to backing paper, some of which contained drawn maps of Kirtland and plans for the Temple, doesn't mean the papyri were insignificant. I can't remember which apologist first thought of this dismissive tactic, but he wasn't thinking straight. The fact that someone went through the trouble of trying to preserve them in such a way, suggests quite the opposite; that they were of importance.

Further, why would you think Joseph would write ON the actual BOA?

He didn't. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

The found fragments clearly by the facts are simply Joseph's doodle facsimiles, the copies he used to develop some of his thoughts on what was happening in the pictures.

There is no evidence to support your gross misrepresentation here.

Further, why would these fragments end up in a museum which was clearly donated from someones collection who had died if they were the ACTUAL fragments from the ACTUAL BOA??? hmmmm? Clearly, these fragments were simply some of the materials Joseph gave away, having nothing to do with the actual BOA.

Again, you're ignoring all the evidence and entertaining wild apologetic fantasies that have no support. Joseph Smith never "gave away" the papyri. He died, remember? The materials remained with his mother, who then passed them on down to Joseph's wife, who then sold them to Able Combs in 1856. It would help your case if you had actual facts backing up your rhetoric. I recommend perusing the wiki article on the papyri. To say these were of no significance is ridiculous because Facsimile 1 was among them, the same "fragment" that appears in all its glory right at the beginning of every published version of the Book of Abraham. You know, the same Book of Abraham that explicitly references this "fragment" at the beginning. Can you address this evidence that undermines your presuppositions? Seriously now, why would the Church publish irrelevant fragments and then pretend they had something to do with the Book of Abraham, if, according to you, they do not?

Edited November 13, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

Not sure why you're having trouble with what I said. By extant material, I am of course referring to the Joseph Smith Papyri that have survived and are today owned by the Church.

Great, that answers my first question.

Now, would you please answer my second question--particularly in regards to the examples I listed?

Oh, and I am still waiting for you to point me to extant evidence that I have dodged this question prior to today.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 13, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Attempts have been made by both to support the claim that a "long scroll" is missing, and blatant misrepresentations of the historical record have been used to support it.

Actually, here is what is reported on FAIRwiki: "Yale-trained Egyptologist, Dr. John Gee, believes that Joseph Smith originally had five papyrus scrolls (one of which was the hypocephalus) Of these five scrolls, only eleven fragments of two scrolls have survived. The "Scroll of Hor" (the Egyptian Book of Breathings) from where we get Facsimile 1 (and almost certainly Facsimile 3—which didn't survive) is incomplete."

It goes on to quote Dr. Nibley as saying: "We are told that papyri were in beautiful condition when Joseph Smith got them, and that one of them when unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House.^[3]"

Do you deny that only fragments of 2 out of the five scrolls are extant?

Do you deny that the portion of the papyrus containing Facsimile 2 is missing?

Do you deny that the portion of the papyrus that likely contained Facsimile 3 is missing?

Could you please point me to where on the extant papyri I may find the numerous characters copied into the two notebooks (Egyptian Mss. # 6 & 7) as well as Egyptian Mss. #8 and #9?

Across what proportion of the two rooms in the Mansion House would you estimate the extant papyri would cover?

(See more below)

My point isn't simply that there is scant evidence and little reason to believe much of the papyri is really missing.

In contravention to your point, and in addition to what I mentioned above, and will also mention below, I would direct the interested reader to the current discussion on the Scroll Length.

My point is also the fact that so much of the evidence points directly to that "tiny portion" of "scraps" that we have today. From Cowdery's published descriptions, to the descriptions offered by passing visitors, we always seem to get descriptions that can easily be found on the "tiny collection" of what still exists today.

According to The Cleveland Whig (March 25th, 1835), in an article regarding Chandler's exhibit, the following description was given of several of the papyri: "No. 1...There was found deposited in the arms of the old man referred to above, a book of ancient form and construction, which, to us, was by far the most interesting part of the exhibition. Its leaves were of bark, in length some 10 or 12 inches, and 3 or 4 in width. The ends are somewhat decayed, but at the centre the leaves are in a state of perfect preservation....There is also another book, more decayed, and much less neatly written -- its character and import involved in like mystery."

Are you supposing these descriptions easily fit the extant papyrus?

Later, in the Painsville Telegraph (march 27, 1835) this was recorded regarding the papyri: "There was found with this [female] person a roll or book, having a little resemblance to birch bark; language unknown. Some linguists however say they can decipher 13-36, in what they term the epitaph; ink black and red; many female figures....No. 2...female; supposed age 40....found with a roll as No. 1, filled with hieroglyphics, rudely executed...No. 3...Male, very old, say 80, had a roll of writing as No. 1 & 2..."

Can all three of these rolls be easily accounted for with the extant papyrus? Do the extant papyrus contain both red and black ink? Do the extant papyri fragments contain many female figures?

In the Autobiography of Sarah Studevant Leavitt, the entry dated Sept. 1, 1835, was mentioned: "We went into the upper rooms, saw the Egyptian mummies, the writing that was said to be written in Abraham's day, Jacob's ladder being pictured on it..."

Could you point me to where in the extant papyri I might find Jacob's ladder pictured?

Here is this recorded in the History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.25, p.348 - 351, dated Dec. 31, 1835 (this is likely and extract taken from a letter written by Cowdery): "On opening the coffins, he discovered that in connection with two of the bodies, was something rolled up with the same kind of linen, saturated with the same bitumen, which, when examined, proved to be two rolls of papyrus, previously mentioned. Two or three other small pieces of papyrus, with astronomical calculations, epitaphs, &c, were found with others of the mummies." Here we have indication of two rolls and two or thre other small pieces of papyrus."

Can all these things easily be accounted for in the extant papyri? What about the astronomical calculations and epitaphs?

In a more complete rendering of the Cowdery letter in the Messenger and Advocate of Dec., 1835, Mr. Chandler certified that "The papyrus, covered with black or red ink, or paint, in excellent preservation, are very interesting." Cowdery goes on to explain: "The language in which this record is written is very comprehensive, and many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking. The evidence is apparent upon the face, that they were written by persons acquainted with the history of the creation, the fall of man, and more or less of the correct ideas of notions of the Deity. The representation of the god head--three, yet in one, is curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the writers views of that exalted personage. The serpent, represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of, and near a female figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper.... Enoch's Pillar, as mentioned by Josephus, is upon the same roll...The inner end of the same roll, (Joseph's record,) presents a representation of the judgment: At one view you behold the Savior seated upon his throne, crowned, and holding the sceptres of righteousness and power, before whom also, are assembled the twelve tribes of Israel, the nations, languages and tongues of the earth, the kingdoms of the world over which satan is represented as reigning. Michael the archangel, holding the key of the bottomless pit, and at the same time the devil as being chained and shut up in the bottomless pit. But upon this last scene, I am able only to give you a shadow, to the real picture."

Could you show me where I might find all of this on the extant papyri?

This in and of itself weighs against the missing scroll theory. It also weighs against the assumption that the missing scroll, assuming it existed, was of any significance to Joseph Smith.

????

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 14, 2011 by wenglund

[BCSpace]

#1. The Book of Abraham refers specifically to this text (Abr 1:12-14) when it draws our attention to Facsimile 1 at the commencement of the record. This logically suggests that the record of Abraham is what follows after Facsimile 1. Remember that Facsimile 1 has been canonized and can be seen in virtually every published copy of the Pearl of Great Price.

But remember also that the ancient Egyptians also have a history of erasing history that's embarrasing or less than complimentary of the existing rulers and since this is a depiction of a victory of Jehovah over their gods and religion, it would not be suprising at all that the meaning of this picture set has been change over time to represent something more mundane and benign.

Edited November 14, 2011 by BCSpace

[thesometimesaint]

Xander:

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-11-number-1-2010/egyptian-papyri-and-book-abraham-some-questions-and-answers

[William Schryver]

Xander:

If the Book of Abraham was taken from some mysterious papyrus that no one can seem to identify, then why is it that virtually all historic and textual evidences alluding or pointing to the Joseph Smith Papyri, always refer to extant material.

Simply put, this is not a true statement.

It is a bluff based on long-standing myths.

Most of these myths are shattered by my arguments/evidence concerning the fact that the EA/GAEL is dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

Others of these myths are brought into question by my arguments/evidence that the original length of the scroll of Hor was ~5 meters.

The "Xander Bluff" relies upon the fact that most people are just not very well versed in the issues and/or the source material.

Nevertheless, I have long since learned that it is not purposeful to engage in discussion with someone whose argument of choice is the argumentum ad hominem. I therefore refer readers to the recent excellent and very informative threads concerning the dependency of the EA/GAEL on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham, as well as the current thread concerning the original length of the scroll of Hor.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If the Book of Abraham was taken from some mysterious papyrus that no one can seem to identify, then why is it that virtually all historic and textual evidences alluding or pointing to the Joseph Smith Papyri, always refer to extant material?

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers contain transcribed characters from extant papyri,and even copied images from those irrelevant "scraps." The now canonized Book of Abraham (Abr 1:12-16) refers to the Book of Breathings text quite explicitly. But why are there no testimonies describing images, animals or colors that are missing from the extant papyri?

The point here is simple. The more “missing” papyri Gee proposes to have existed, the more significant the surviving portions become, because logic dictates that if these “missing” portions were of significance (i.e. contained the record of Abraham), then we’d have at least one testimony describing their contents; contents that cannot be attributed to the extant portions. But we don't have any of that. Instead, we have numerous detailed descriptions of the papyri portions which apologists insist are just fragments of the entire collection; fragments that are irrelevant to the Book of Abraham.

From Cowdery's detailed descriptions to the casual descriptions by passing tourists, everything seems to point to the materials that have survived since 1835. So if we go ahead and grant Gee's claim that Joseph Smith had dozens of feet of (now missing) papyrus, then why is it that all eye witness testimony over the course of a decade, always seems to point to the extant portions which apologists insist had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham? It isn't enough to prove there was missing material. One has to show why the Book of Abraham would have had anything to do with that "missing" material at all. From what I can tell, the only reason to assume this is theological and circular.

And even if we go ahead and grant Nibley his premise that the Book of Abraham manuscripts were a product of creative scribes (for which there has yet to be presented a shred of evidence) and had nothing whatsoever to do with Joseph Smith's input or knowledge, then how does this argument from imaginative plausibility really help apologists? What are the chances that so many of Joseph Smith's contemporaries, closest friends and hired scribes, had no idea which papyrus referred to the Book of Abraham, given the fact that Joseph frequently showed the papyri collection as a community exhibit, offering translations and explanations upon request? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

I have asked before; maybe I will get lucky this time. Since you believe yourself to be an expert on this issue and are an outright enemy to the LDS Church…what are you trying to convert people too? Atheism;, Evangelical-ism; what?

Matthew 23: 27

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have asked before; maybe I will get lucky this time. Since you believe yourself to be an expert on this issue and are an outright enemy to the LDS Church…what are you trying to convert people too? Atheism;, Evangelical-ism; what?

Matthew 23: 27

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

You are wasting your time. He is not trying to convert you to anything he is only interested in the "truth".

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

You are wasting your time. He is not trying to convert you to anything he is only interested in the "truth".

Knowing of him personally, I doubt it.

[Freedom]

Can somebody translate his argument into english for me? Is it that what we have today is all there ever was and that there is no evidence that Joseph had anything more than what survived the fire?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Can somebody translate his argument into english for me? Is it that what we have today is all there ever was and that there is no evidence that Joseph had anything more than what survived the fire?

He did live in Brazil for a long time, now he lives in Georgia and here we speak the Queen's English.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Freedom]

He did live in Brazil for a long time, now he lives in Georgia and here we speak the Queen's English.

Are you referring to the extant?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Are you referring to the extant?

Of course it is KJV language like "Yonder".

[Xander]

Just dropping in to say I'm posting from phone. On the road and will be returning this weekend.

In the meantime, I strongly suggest some of the folks here check out the dictionary for the term "extant." I promise I didn't make it up. It is typical nomenclature in text critical scholarship, so I'm sorry it went over so many heads. And in case you're wondering, nomenclature is an English word too. Tchau for now.