The Book Of Abraham

[wenglund]

In regards to the text of the Book of Abraham, the conclusion that Joseph Smith could not, by revelatory means, correctly translate ancient texts, must of necessity rest on several premises:

1. A specified ancient text, and a specified portion of that ancient text, as the source document for Joseph Smith's revelatory "translation."

2. And, a specified segments of the Abraham text that were translated from specified characters on the specified portion of the presumed ancient text.

3. Contemporary Egyptology is the definitive judge of whether or not the specified segments of the Abraham text were translated correctly from the specified characters on the specified portion of that presumed ancient text.

At the very least, the first two premises are reasonably open to serious dispute. As for the third premise, while contemporary Egyptology is widely considered as authoritative, it is, itself, an evolving discipline, and is thus not definitive.

In short, people can reasonably rely on their own intelligence and the current wisdom of men when assessing the fragmentary data, and conclude that Joseph Smith did not correctly translate the Book of Abraham from the characters in the left-hand margin of the 1835 Abraham manuscripts.

And, people who put their faith in God, and this in conjunction with their own intelligence and current wisdom of men in assessing the fragmentary data, as well as a part of the process of growth in faith, may reasonably conclude that the Book of Abraham is a relatively accurate account of the record of Abraham written by his own hand on papyrus.

These same people may also rightly believe that what is essential to the restored gospel is the Christ-oriented message of the Book of Abraham.

In a sense, the fragmentary data serendipitously provides a test of faith that one may fail or pass depending upon where one places one's faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 16, 2012 by wenglund

[Xander]

In regards to the text of the Book of Abraham, the conclusion that Joseph Smith could not, by revelatory means, correctly translate ancient texts, must of necessity rest on several premises:

Actually it rests on only one: there is no reasonable evidence to support his claim that he could.

1. A specified ancient text, and a specified portion of that ancient text, as the source document for Joseph Smith's revelatory "translation."

Which has already been established beyond all reasonable doubt.

2. And, a specified segments of the Abraham text that were translated from specified characters on the specified portion of the presumed ancient text.

Actually the first premise is all that is needed to conclude Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian by any means, but this one is strongly supported just the same.

3. Contemporary Egyptology is the definitive judge of whether or not the specified segments of the Abraham text were translated correctly from the specified characters on the specified portion of that presumed ancient text.

Right, go ahead and knock Egyptology. One must wonder why John Gee bothered to get a PhD in Egyptology at all when according to apologists, we'll never really know what Egyptian means anyway.

At the very least, the first two premises are reasonably open to serious dispute

That is absolutely 100% false. There has only been a dispute created by a certain group of apologists. There is nothing reasonable about it. The dispute exists for no other reason than apologetic necessity. Period. And the record shows that the only people remotely persuaded by these arguments are other apologists who have that specific agenda in mind. Heck, you cannot even convince most believing members of this stuff. They just throw their hands up and fall back on the catalyst theory because the apologetic "disputes" are really that unreasonable.

As for the third premise, while contemporary Egyptology is widely considered as authoritative, it is, itself, an evolving discipline, and is thus not definitive.

And you would know this better than say, oh Robert Ritner, right? The fact is Nibley tried to obfuscate Egyptian so much because he wanted people to think it was really impossible to get to an absolute translation. This guy was translating "word for word" and then produced the gibberish as evidence that this stuff was incomprehensible and therefore we should'nt place our faith in the "arm of the flesh." Stunning move for a scholar and intellectual. But Ritner exposes Nibley's ignorance and apologetic agenda in his upcoming book. Of course, translating any language using a "word for word" technique will produce gibberish. And Nibley knew this.

In short, people can reasonably rely on their own intelligence and the current wisdom of men when assessing the fragmentary data, and conclude that Joseph Smith did not correctly translate the Book of Abraham from the characters in the left-hand margin of the 1835 Abraham manuscripts.

You don't get to make your objections "reasonable" through assertion. You have to show why they are reasonable, and so far the apologists have done no such thing.

And, people who put their faith in God, and this in conjunction with their own intelligence and current wisdom of men in assessing the fragmentary data, as well as a part of the process of growth in faith, may reasonably conclude that the Book of Abraham is a relatively accurate account of the record of Abraham written by his own hand on papyrus.

Not when Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the text written in Abraham's own hand. There is nothing reasonable about this.

In a sense, the fragmentary data serendipitously provides a test of faith that one may fail or pass depending upon where one places one's faith.

And the penny drops. Ultimately, this is what you're left with. A choice to follow the evidence and let one's ratiional mind accept the conclusions no matter where they lead, or a choice to defend LDS truth claims despite where the evidence leads us. I see no value in going with the latter. To me, if there is a God, then he gave us a brain for the purpose of deducing facts and determining truth using those same God-given cognitive faculties. To throw it all aside for the purposes of maintaining a predetermined belief system, seems to be an insult to the God who bestowed these gifts upon us. I don't see how God could ever fault me or anyone else for following the evidence to its most logical conclusion, even if that means the Church isn't true.

Edited January 16, 2012 by Xander

[wenglund]

Actually it rests on only one: there is no reasonable evidence to support his claim that he could.

Even if you were correct (you are not), this would be an argument from silence.

Which has already been established beyond all reasonable doubt.

To the non-dogmatic and rationally minded, it can reasonably be established either way.

Actually the first premise is all that is needed to conclude Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian by any means, but this one is strongly supported just the same.

It can reasonably be viewed as supportive.

Right, go ahead and knock Egyptology. One must wonder why John Gee bothered to get a PhD in Egyptology at all when according to apologists, we'll never really know what Egyptian means anyway.

Straw man. I wasn't knocking Egyptology.

That is absolutely 100% false.

Debatable, dogmatic assertion mascarading as fact.

There has only been a dispute created by a certain group of apologists.

This unwittingly condtradicts your previous statement.

There is nothing reasonable about it.

It would take someone who is reasonable to accurately make that determination. That would not be you.

The dispute exists for no other reason than apologetic necessity. Period.

Yet another dubious, dogmatic assertion.

And the record shows that the only people remotely persuaded by these arguments are other apologists who have that specific agenda in mind. Heck, you cannot even convince most believing members of this stuff. They just throw their hands up and fall back on the catalyst theory because the apologetic "disputes" are really that unreasonable.

Straw man and well poisoning.

And you would know this better than say, oh Robert Ritner, right?

No. Evidently you are jumping to false conclusions and failing to follow the line of discussion. Please try and pay better attention next time.

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The fact is Nibley tried to obfuscate Egyptian so much because he wanted people to think it was really impossible to get to an absolute translation.

Aside from being niave, this is tangential to my comments.

This guy was translating "word for word" and then produced the gibberish as evidence that this stuff was incomprehensible and therefore we should'nt place our faith in the "arm of the flesh." Stunning move for a scholar and intellectual. But Ritner exposes Nibley's ignorance and apologetic agenda in his upcoming book. Of course, translating any language using a "word for word" technique will produce gibberish. And Nibley knew this.

Your insipid spin on Nibley's actions and your biased plug of Ritner's book, is irrelevant to my comments. Again, please pay better attention.

You don't get to make your objections "reasonable" through assertion. You have to show why they are reasonable, and so far the apologists have done no such thing.

I wasn't objecting. I was open-mindedly allowing for a reasonable opposing point of view. In your knee-jerk reaction, you evidently jumped to yet another false conclusion. Once again, please try and be more thoughtful. Perhaps a basic course in reading comprehension may be of help.

Not when Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the text written in Abraham's own hand. There is nothing reasonable about this.

I will leave that for reasonable people to judge--which doesn't include you.

And the penny drops. Ultimately, this is what you're left with. A choice to follow the evidence and let one's ratiional mind accept the conclusions no matter where they lead, or a choice to defend LDS truth claims despite where the evidence leads us.

Straw man--either that or you have serious comprehension problems.

I see no value in going with the latter. To me, if there is a God, then he gave us a brain for the purpose of deducing facts and determining truth using those same God-given cognitive faculties. To throw it all aside for the purposes of maintaining a predetermined belief system, seems to be an insult to the God who bestowed these gifts upon us. I don't see how God could ever fault me or anyone else for following the evidence to its most logical conclusion, even if that means the Church isn't true.

You evidently don't correctly understand the test of faith, so it is little wonder that you flunked the test.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Loran Blood]

Aside from being niave, this is tangential to my comments.

This is correct. Ancient Egyptian, at least the hyerglyphic language of religious doctrine and ritual, is still, to a sustantial extent, poorly understood at the present time. The layers and levels of meaning (exoteric and esoteric) present in this language (as in so many other mystery religions on the ancient world, Christianity included) forclose any kind of the dogmatic once and for all assertions of meaning in many key areas that critics such as Kevin and other secular and EV critics of the BofA have deployed against it but which have failed precisely because, in any number of cases, alternative and, at the same time complimentary interpretations are, indeed, known to exist that are harmonious with Joseph's interpretations of them.

The destruction of the oh so certain claims about the knife in the hand of the priest above Abraham on the lion couch is just one case in point.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Xander]

Even if you were correct (you are not), this would be an argument from silence

No it isn't. It is an established fact. We know the source Joseph Smith used to produce the Book of Abraham. The only people who see it otherwise are the few apologists who need it to be so. That's it. You cannot even convince most members that you have a case on this issue. All the available evidence points to the Breathings text as the source. This has been established ad nauseum.

To the non-dogmatic and rationally minded, it can reasonably be established either way.

But since you're strictly dogmatic and irrational, you'll never be in a position to demonstrate this. Your position is entirely dogmatic and apologetic. It is the only reason you're event entertaining it.

Straw man. I wasn't knocking Egyptology.

Yes you are. When you tell me current Egyptological understandings cannot tell us with any degree of certainty that Joseph Smith provided false translations, then you are preaching a distruct of scholarship that no Egyptologist, aside from those employed by the LDS Church, would endorse.

This unwittintgly condtradicts your previous statement.

No it doesn't. You obviously do not understand the distinction between disputes and reasonable disputes. We already know you're going to dispute just for the sake of disputing. You did this in the other thread, claiming I misrepresented Gee's presentation before you ever saw it or even read the transcript. So you have no credibility as the open-minded anti-dogmatist that you like to pretend to be.

It would take someone who is reasonable to accurately make that determination. That would not be you.

Unfortunately for you, I have folks on your side of the fence who disagree. How many people on my side of the fence think you're reasonable?

I thought so.

Yet another dubious, dogmatic assertion.

No, it is an established fact as shown by the small number and type of people you've managed to persuade. So far there is little evidence you've been able to persuade anyone aside from a few folks on a message forum, usually operating behind pseudonyms, and usually in the name of tribal loyalty. Do you even have any idea how many LDS posters are tired of the bad apologetic arguments you endorse? Just yesterday another LDS poster, Katherine the Great, revealed her distaste for all BoA apologetic arguments. She's hardly the frst and she won't be the last.

No. Evidently you are jumping to false conclusions and failing to follow the line of discussion. Please try and pay better attention next time.

As I said before, I'm not the oone who has proven issues with basic comprehension. You are.

[Loran Blood]

We know the source Joseph Smith used to produce the Book of Abraham.

No, we quite patantly do not, and numerous people of fine intelligence and extensive education see the relevant evidence differently than you and your friends in both the anti-Mormon and neo-orthodox LDS culture.

The only people who see it otherwise are the few apologists who need it to be so. That's it.

And millions of other faithful LDS who have recieved a testimony for themselves of that work and in many cases (as an adjucnt to that testimony) have "studied it out in their minds" in a more strictly intellectual sense. Again, they have come to alternate and intellectually honest conclusions that are different than yours, and have substantive reasons for having done so.

You cannot even convince most members that you have a case on this issue. All the available evidence points to the Breathings text as the source. This has been established ad nauseum.

This is pure nonsense, and calls for a CFR, although I won't do it for the obvious reason that there are no empirical surveys of how many members do or do not accept the Church's claims regarding the BofA. Most serious, comitted, faithful, active members, one is probably safe in asserting, support all the standard works as "the word of God" and as historical where they claim to be historical.

But since you're strictly dogmatic and irrational, you'll never be in a position to demonstrate this. Your position is entirely dogmatic and apologetic. It is the only reason you're event entertaining it.

Ironic, to say the least.

When you tell me current Egyptological understandings cannot tell us with any degree of certainty that Joseph Smith provided false translations, then you are preaching a distruct of scholarship that no Egyptologist, aside from those employed by the LDS Church, would endorse.

I highly, highly doubt that Kevin knows anywher near enough about Egyptology to make this kind of dogmatic and apologetic (for his own position) assertion. Others with the relevant background and knowlege, however, who have looked closely at these issues, have made clear that this is not at all as simple as Graham claims.

Unfortunately for you, I have folks on your side of the fence who disagree.

One might, just might wonder on which side of the gospel fence these unnamed others really are, if they are trying to foist on the membership the Book of Breathings hypothosis of BofA origins, as that is not what Joseph Smith claimed, or the church claims, is the actual nature of those origins.

No, it is an established fact as shown by the small number and type of people you've managed to persuade.

Uh huh. Argumentum ad populum yet again. Very convincing, Kevin, especially as this approach is fairly standard in your style of argumentation.

So far there is little evidence you've been able to persuade anyone aside from a few folks on a message forum, usually operating behind pseudonyms, and usually in the name of tribal loyalty. Do you even have any idea how many LDS posters are tired of the bad apologetic arguments you endorse? Just yesterday another LDS poster, Katherine the Great, revealed her distaste for all BoA apologetic arguments. She's hardly the frst and she won't be the last.

And now Argumentum ad populum ad nauseum ad infinitum. Kevin, you've invented an entirely new catagory of logical fallacy, strung together like a great logical macromolucule of evidential irrelevance. To this, I must tip my hat, but none of this changes the fact that many, many people, of equal or greater greater intelligence and substantially greater education than you, have looked at the same evidence and found your particular thesis unconvincing. That's the reality, and not one more iota of argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad verecundiam, petitio principii, or ad hominem abusive is going to change the fact that, from a scholarly perspective, the evidence we have leaves the question wide open to interpretation and futher study.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Loran Blood

[wenglund]

No it isn't. It is an established fact. We know the source Joseph Smith used to produce the Book of Abraham. The only people who see it otherwise are the few apologists who need it to be so. That's it. You cannot even convince most members that you have a case on this issue. All the available evidence points to the Breathings text as the source. This has been established ad nauseum.

But since you're strictly dogmatic and irrational, you'll never be in a position to demonstrate this. Your position is entirely dogmatic and apologetic. It is the only reason you're event entertaining it.

Yes you are. When you tell me current Egyptological understandings cannot tell us with any degree of certainty that Joseph Smith provided false translations, then you are preaching a distruct of scholarship that no Egyptologist, aside from those employed by the LDS Church, would endorse.

No it doesn't. You obviously do not understand the distinction between disputes and reasonable disputes. We already know you're going to dispute just for the sake of disputing. You did this in the other thread, claiming I misrepresented Gee's presentation before you ever saw it or even read the transcript. So you have no credibility as the open-minded anti-dogmatist that you like to pretend to be.

Unfortunately for you, I have folks on your side of the fence who disagree. How many people on my side of the fence think you're reasonable?

I thought so.

No, it is an established fact as shown by the small number and type of people you've managed to persuade. So far there is little evidence you've been able to persuade anyone aside from a few folks on a message forum, usually operating behind pseudonyms, and usually in the name of tribal loyalty. Do you even have any idea how many LDS posters are tired of the bad apologetic arguments you endorse? Just yesterday another LDS poster, Katherine the Great, revealed her distaste for all BoA apologetic arguments. She's hardly the frst and she won't be the last.

As I said before, I'm not the oone who has proven issues with basic comprehension. You are.

In other words, "Nuh uh....I know you are but what am I"

What a waste of time. I will let the supposed throngs of people on my side who supposedly think you are reasonable deal with you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 17, 2012 by wenglund

[altersteve]

And the penny drops. Ultimately, this is what you're left with. A choice to follow the evidence and let one's ratiional mind accept the conclusions no matter where they lead, or a choice to defend LDS truth claims despite where the evidence leads us. I see no value in going with the latter. To me, if there is a God, then he gave us a brain for the purpose of deducing facts and determining truth using those same God-given cognitive faculties. To throw it all aside for the purposes of maintaining a predetermined belief system, seems to be an insult to the God who bestowed these gifts upon us. I don't see how God could ever fault me or anyone else for following the evidence to its most logical conclusion, even if that means the Church isn't true.

I entirely agree. But He probably wants us to use our God-given cognitive abilities correctly.

[altersteve]

All the available evidence points to the Breathings text as the source.

CFR

[wenglund]

CFR

There are several recent threads that respond to Kevin's dogmatic ascertion:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[altersteve]

There are several recent threads that respond to Kevin's dogmatic ascertion:

http://www.mormondia...riddle-me-this/

http://www.mormondia...-scroll-theory/

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you for the links.

My CFR still stands, though, Kevin.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All the available evidence points to the Breathings text as the source.

Oh the irony, Ill just respond to you by quoting you.

But since you're strictly dogmatic and irrational, you'll never be in a position to demonstrate this. Your position is entirely dogmatic and apologetic. It is the only reason you're event entertaining it.

[Xander]

My CFR still stands, though, Kevin.

The evidence is abundant and compelling, and the fact that you seem completely unaware of it is really not surprising. But it is sad. The evidence has been demonstrated ad nauseum over the years, showing beyond all reasonable doubt that Joseph Smith used this specific piece of Egyptian papyrus to produce the Book of Abraham. Of course people like Loran "these aren't the droids you're looking for" Blood will immediately insist there is zero evidence because this is just a rhetorical strategy he likes to use, designed to create doubt, keep struggling believers on the fence and reinforce an already established caricature that so many people on this forum accept: critics are ignorant liars who will never know more than an apologist.

Instead of hyperlink past exchanges covering this topic, I will start a thread detailing the evidence for this, probably this weekend.

I hope the responses will amount to something more than a slew of hyperlinks to irrelevant and outdated FAIR wiki pieces that the readers never really bothered to read in the first place. It really does get frustrating being the only person here doing any real research while all of my opponents sit back and google a bunch of apologetic articles written by who knows, throw them my way and then leave it at that. Loran Blood tried to claim I had no idea what I was talking about back in 2007, but after presenting my case, he fled to the MAD board using a different name to ask for help, claiming I was, "making very specialized claims that he really cannot support but which I cannot answer as competently as I would like because I'm not sure exactly what he's talking about."

Of course I always support my claims. But Loran was right about one thing. He certainly doesn't know what I'm talking about.

A person's arguments can be judged by the number of minds he wins over. I pointed out that this "missing papyrus" theory is only accepted by a select few. This is important, and has nothing to do with Loran's ability to cut and paste from a logical fallacy website. It shows that we can move beyond both sides asserting the other side is being unreasonable or dogmatic. The fact that a number of LDS apologists and scholars agree with what I have argued, is important when it comes down to the issue of what's really reasonable. If the tiny Gee/Schryver corner of the apologetic web cannot even convince those who have a vested interest in seeing the Book of Abraham vindicated, then this speaks volumes about how "reasonable" their arguments really are. The vast majority of Mormons know absolutely nothing about this stuff, but those who are somewhat informed usually fall back on the catalyst theory and then leave it at that. The minority who are trying to drag reasoning and evidence into their faith-based premise, are those fighting a losing battle. Those who hope to rely on apologetic arguments based on theoretical "possibilities."

I have Church members come to my home every other week, and this has been regular for years. I've yet to meet a single person who can tell me anything about the Book of Abraham papyrus that is remotely accurate. Just last week an old couple in their late 70's tried telling me Joseph Smith's translations were proven correct, simply because Michael Rhodes asserted something like this in his Encyclopedia of Mormonism article. A few months ago the sister missionaries couldn't tell me anything about the source for the BoA. Nothing. They just looked at each other expecting the other to come up with an answer to a very basic question, but they both came up blank. Another telling social experiment is to go to the Church's website and speak to a live missionary. Ask some basic questions about this subject and then see how long it takes for the representative to come up with a cut and pasted response from some Church manual. Ultimately they tell me to pray about it and then leave it at that.

And now here we are again on an apologetics forum, where one might expect participants to have some knowledge of the subject. Yet, Altersteve and Loran admit total ignorance as far as the evidence goes showing the source for the BoA. It certainly isn't because the evidence hasn't been presented.

So I will put something together this weekend and post it in new thread dedicated to that specific subject.

Edited January 17, 2012 by Xander

[Minos]

http://community.logos.com/forums/t/43080.aspx

7. If all else fails...

Play the man not the ball. Don't answer any of his points, but just call his entire argument 'moronic' without giving a shred of evidence why. If you repeatedly describe your opponent and his arguments in language that implies stupidity or simplicity, the others in the room will assume you know more and will begin to agree with you.

You might not think this technique works. But if it didn't, why would so many online flamers insist on using this technique every day? Exactly.

[wenglund]

In keeping with the questions posed in the OP, I think it high time we examine the content of the Book of Abraham. The first verse of Chapter 1 begins:

"In the land of the Chaldeans..."

According to the research of Brian Hauglid, in his book, "A Textual History of the Book of Abraham," this opening phrase is found in Phelp's Abraham manuscript (Ab1) and the Richards' Abraham manuscript (Ab5), as well as all the subsequent editions of the Book of Abraham, though it is not found in the other Abraham manuscripts.

Interestingly, too, this phrase is NOT found in any of the explanations in the five degrees of GAEL Part 1 or Part 2.

This suggests to me that the GAEL, then, was not used to produce this opening phrase of the Book of Abraham.

Granted, the word "Chaldees" is mentioned in the grammar portion of the GAEL 2nd degree, and the word "Chaldea" is given as part of an example within an explanation in the GAEL 3rd degree, though it was not given as an explanation, itself.

However, the phrase "in the land of the Chaleans" was provided as an explanation in EA OC, the 1st degree of Part 5, for the composite character with the sound, "Za Kie on hiash or Kal sidon hiash." It was not explained in EA JS, though the same composite character in EA WWP was given the explanation: "in the land of the Chaldees."

Why does this opening phrase shows up in two of the three EA's, though not in the GAEL, particularly given that the GAEL follows the EA's in the production sequence and the GAEL is dependent upon the EA's? And, from whence did the EA's derive this phrase? Perhaps I will answer these questions in a post to follow.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 19, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

What about the Book of Genesis? Does the record of Abraham contained therein begin with the phrase in question (i.e. "In the land of the Chaldeans...")?

The first mention of Abraham (or Abram) in the Old Testament is in Genesis 11:26 -28, which states:

²⁶And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

²⁷Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

²⁸And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

Well, the words "in the land" and "Chaldees" (as distinguished from "Chaldean") are mentioned towards the start of the Abrahamic narrative. However, the specific phrase in question is not the opening phrase of that narrative. This suggests to me that the opening phrase in the Book of Abraham was not derived from the Book of Genesis (more on this later), nor was it likely the source for relevant portions of the EA's and GAEL.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 19, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

The evidence is abundant and compelling, and the fact that you seem completely unaware of it is really not surprising. But it is sad. The evidence has been demonstrated ad nauseum over the years, showing beyond all reasonable doubt that Joseph Smith used this specific piece of Egyptian papyrus to produce the Book of Abraham. Of course people like Loran "these aren't the droids you're looking for" Blood will immediately insist there is zero evidence because this is just a rhetorical strategy he likes to use, designed to create doubt, keep struggling believers on the fence and reinforce an already established caricature that so many people on this forum accept: critics are ignorant liars who will never know more than an apologist.

Instead of hyperlink past exchanges covering this topic, I will start a thread detailing the evidence for this, probably this weekend.

I hope the responses will amount to something more than a slew of hyperlinks to irrelevant and outdated FAIR wiki pieces that the readers never really bothered to read in the first place. It really does get frustrating being the only person here doing any real research while all of my opponents sit back and google a bunch of apologetic articles written by who knows, throw them my way and then leave it at that. Loran Blood tried to claim I had no idea what I was talking about back in 2007, but after presenting my case, he fled to the MAD board using a different name to ask for help, claiming I was, "making very specialized claims that he really cannot support but which I cannot answer as competently as I would like because I'm not sure exactly what he's talking about."

Of course I always support my claims. But Loran was right about one thing. He certainly doesn't know what I'm talking about.

A person's arguments can be judged by the number of minds he wins over. I pointed out that this "missing papyrus" theory is only accepted by a select few. This is important, and has nothing to do with Loran's ability to cut and paste from a logical fallacy website. It shows that we can move beyond both sides asserting the other side is being unreasonable or dogmatic. The fact that a number of LDS apologists and scholars agree with what I have argued, is important when it comes down to the issue of what's really reasonable. If the tiny Gee/Schryver corner of the apologetic web cannot even convince those who have a vested interest in seeing the Book of Abraham vindicated, then this speaks volumes about how "reasonable" their arguments really are. The vast majority of Mormons know absolutely nothing about this stuff, but those who are somewhat informed usually fall back on the catalyst theory and then leave it at that. The minority who are trying to drag reasoning and evidence into their faith-based premise, are those fighting a losing battle. Those who hope to rely on apologetic arguments based on theoretical "possibilities."

I have Church members come to my home every other week, and this has been regular for years. I've yet to meet a single person who can tell me anything about the Book of Abraham papyrus that is remotely accurate. Just last week an old couple in their late 70's tried telling me Joseph Smith's translations were proven correct, simply because Michael Rhodes asserted something like this in his Encyclopedia of Mormonism article. A few months ago the sister missionaries couldn't tell me anything about the source for the BoA. Nothing. They just looked at each other expecting the other to come up with an answer to a very basic question, but they both came up blank. Another telling social experiment is to go to the Church's website and speak to a live missionary. Ask some basic questions about this subject and then see how long it takes for the representative to come up with a cut and pasted response from some Church manual. Ultimately they tell me to pray about it and then leave it at that.

And now here we are again on an apologetics forum, where one might expect participants to have some knowledge of the subject. Yet, Altersteve and Loran admit total ignorance as far as the evidence goes showing the source for the BoA. It certainly isn't because the evidence hasn't been presented.

So I will put something together this weekend and post it in new thread dedicated to that specific subject.

"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!"

Bill Watterson

(Read more: http://www.brainyquo...l#ixzz1jkrOsJcM)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 17, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

The first verse of Chapter 1 begins:

"In the land of the Chaldeans..."

Why does this openning phrase shows up in two of the three EA's, though not in the GAEL, particularly given that the GAEL follows the EA's in the production sequence and the GAEL is dependent upon the EA's?

Evidently, as a part of the transition from the EA's to the GAEL, Phelps made the decision to forego explaining the composite character in question, and instead only explain each of its respective dissected parts. (This same decision held true for the only other dissected composite character.)

Such a decision wouldn't make much sense were the innitial intent of the GAEL to be the modus operandi for translating the Book of Abraham, though it would make sense if the innitial intent was to create a new, highly compact language or "translate" documents to be produced in the then future.

And, from whence did the EA's derive this phrase?

There is reason to believe it was derived from a preexisting text of the first portion of the Book of Abraham. (See HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The second phrase in the first verse of the Book of Abraham is: "at the residence of my father."

The word "father" is plural in Ab1, but not any of the subsequent versions.

This phrase is not found in the EA's or the GAEL (though the phrase "man's first residence" does appear in the 1st degree of the EA's and the GAEL, though not in the other degrees of the GAEL), which suggests that neither of the EA or the GAEL could have been used, or were used to translate that portion of the Book of Abraham--which means, given what was stated above, that the GAEL was evidently not used to translate the first two phrases of the Book of Abraham.

What about the Book of Genesis?

Again, the first mention of Abraham (or Abram) in the Old Testament is in Genesis 11:26 -28, which states:

²⁶And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

²⁷Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

²⁸And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

While this phrase doesn't show up at the beginning of the Abrahamic record in the Book of Genesis, we are implicitly informed in these three verses that the land of the Chaleans is the land of Abraham's father(s).

This suggests to me that the second phrase (as well as the first) of the Book of Abraham was not derived from the Book of Genesis, but it (they) are consistent with each other.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 19, 2012 by wenglund

[Pahoran]

The evidence is abundant and compelling, and the fact that you seem completely unaware of it is really not surprising.

I think most of us know what the evidence amounts to.

But it is sad. The evidence has been demonstrated ad nauseum over the years, showing beyond all reasonable doubt that Joseph Smith used this specific piece of Egyptian papyrus to produce the Book of Abraham.

It's a long way short of "beyond all reasonable doubt." And the spiteful ideologue who wrote the quote found in my sig is the last person on earth I would rely upon to judge how "reasonable" something is.

I shall now snip a lot of angry venting about how inferior we all are for not agreeing with you about how "compelling" your arguments are.

I have Church members come to my home every other week, and this has been regular for years. I've yet to meet a single person who can tell me anything about the Book of Abraham papyrus that is remotely accurate. Just last week an old couple in their late 70's tried telling me Joseph Smith's translations were proven correct, simply because Michael Rhodes asserted something like this in his Encyclopedia of Mormonism article. A few months ago the sister missionaries couldn't tell me anything about the source for the BoA. Nothing. They just looked at each other expecting the other to come up with an answer to a very basic question, but they both came up blank. Another telling social experiment is to go to the Church's website and speak to a live missionary. Ask some basic questions about this subject and then see how long it takes for the representative to come up with a cut and pasted response from some Church manual. Ultimately they tell me to pray about it and then leave it at that.

Wow. You're so big and tough that you can beat up on old people and sister missionaries. Then you swagger in here bragging about it.

Well I'm convinced.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I shall now snip a lot of angry venting about how inferior we all are for not agreeing with you about how "compelling" your arguments are.

Wow. You're so big and tough that you can beat up on old people and sister missionaries. Then you swagger in here bragging about it.

Well I'm convinced.

Regards,

Pahoran

"I am not afraid of you Pahoran, Ill debate you any day."

Whoa. Lol.

This is getting silly, I think.

[Cold Steel]

I highly recommend Hugh Nibley's DVDs on the Pearl of Great Price. It should be available somewhere other than Amazon, which is selling the lectures for $175 (used). They were just like the course I took back in the 80s from the dear old guy.

If you have any doubts about the Book of Abraham, he goes a long way in dismissing them.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

(They're also available at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute. And I agree, it's a fantastic series.)

[altersteve]

(They're also available at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute. And I agree, it's a fantastic series.)

They're free?!