The Real Scoop On The Book Of Abraham

[JohnShultz]

The question was asked, why do I disagree with Schryver? Because Schryver's core assumptions are wrong. Goble's core assumptions are right. Goble has done something no other apologist has. He has started out where the evidence leads. While critics would disagree with his ultimate conclusions, even critics can agree with the facts that he concedes are the case, where he starts out. No other apologist has done that, and that is what had to be done to start getting some real results. When other apologists go where Goble has gone, and build on his work, then we will see some real apologetics rather than this poor excuse for scholarship that we have seen previously that amounts to nothing more than artful dodging for the sake of preserving faith.

[Damien the Leper]

Yes and no. I am seriously honored to be considered your friend, but I am not serious about my legs being made of clay.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I took the friend comment seriously but wasn't sure about the clay legs part. I was afraid I was being ignorantly insensitive.

[ERayR]

The question was asked, why do I disagree with Schryver? Because Schryver's core assumptions are wrong. Goble's core assumptions are right. Goble has done something no other apologist has. He has started out where the evidence leads. While critics would disagree with his ultimate conclusions, even critics can agree with the facts that he concedes are the case, where he starts out. No other apologist has done that, and that is what had to be done to start getting some real results. When other apologists go where Goble has gone, and build on his work, then we will see some real apologetics rather than this poor excuse for scholarship that we have seen previously that amounts to nothing more than artful dodging for the sake of preserving faith.

Your simple declaration is insufficient. Why is Goble correct while Schryver incorrect?

Whose definition of real apologetic s are you using and why is Schyryver's apologetic s not real?

Your imperious decree will not suffice.

[Brian 2.0]

Are there any non-LDS Egyptologists that believe that any of the fragments of our papyri that we have now are in any way connected to Abraham or his story?

If it's "semetic adaptation" (something I just learned from this thread) are their non-LDS experts that deal with that and can see the connection?

Do apologists here believe that non-LDS scholars and Egyptologists should be able to conclude based on the evidence that the facsimiles and/or text on the papyri have connection to the Book of Abraham?

I posted these some pages back but it keeps getting buried without an answer. Would love answers as I have often had these questions but never got any answers.

[Calm]

Oh, brother.

:bad:

Synchronized vomiting! Cool!

[Calm]

The side that agrees with him sees what he says as credible and the side that disagrees accuses him of not knowing what he is talking about, therefore expert seems subjective

Areas of Expertise: Ancient Egypt, Hebrew Bible, Pearl of Great Price.

Areas of Research: Dr. Muhlestein is the director of the BYU Egypt Excavation Project, and in association with this works on understanding the pyramid excavated there as well as the Graeco-Roman culture represented at the site, and the advent of Christianity in Egypt. In addition, Dr. Muhlestein’s research focuses on the texts and iconography of Egyptian religion, international contact between ancient Egypt and her neighbors, the Egyptian juridical process, Egyptian literature, and the overlap of the Biblical and Egyptian worlds, including the ancient and modern history of the Pearl of Great Price, among other things.

Languages: Exams passed in various phases of Egyptian, as well as Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, Phoenician, Moabite, Coptic, German, and French. Additionally, courses have been taken in Greek and Akkadian.

http://religion.byu.edu/kerry_muhlestein

[Calm]

though I'm not sure that if given the chance that I would shake his hand or kick him in both shins.

[DBMormon]

Are you suggesting that "expertise" is a function of whether people agree with someone or not rather than academic or professional credentials?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Am I an expert on Faith Crisis?

[omni]

I posted these some pages back but it keeps getting buried without an answer. Would love answers as I have often had these questions but never got any answers.

I think in this instance you can take the lack of responses as a "no" to your question.

[ERayR]

I posted these some pages back but it keeps getting buried without an answer. Would love answers as I have often had these questions but never got any answers.

Are there any non-LDS Egyptologists that believe that any of the fragments of our papyri that we have now are in any way connected to Abraham or his story?

I am unsure how this is of any importance to the Book of Abraham. There is evidence that there was considerable more at one time and very little evidence that the fragments we have were even connected to what was published..

If it's "semetic adaptation" (something I just learned from this thread) are their non-LDS experts that deal with that and can see the connection?

I don't see how this makes any difference unless you are saying that LDS experts are liars?

Do apologists here believe that non-LDS scholars and Egyptologists should be able to conclude based on the evidence that the facsimiles and/or text on the papyri have connection to the Book of Abraham?

Not necessarily but how is that relevant to the Validity of the Book of Abraham?

[Brian 2.0]

I am unsure how this is of any importance to the Book of Abraham

Peer review is important. In all aspects of academia.

I find it important because I'm watching these videos that the initial posts links to and the scholar seem very confident in the evidence that it shows Joseph Smith "hit the nail on the head" etc in his translations, especially in regards to the facsimiles. It's being presented as rather obvious fact. As someone who is trying to study out the BoA issue on a intellectual level, it would stand to reason that if the evidences are as strong as the videos show, then you should be able to find SOME non-LDS scholars that can come to the same conclusion.

If I'm going to take a new medication, I would love to hear that it's deemed safe to take by someone OTHER than the manufacturer of the drug (hence the FDA)

If I'm going to believe that a new car gets 45 mpg, I would love to hear that it can get that mpg from someone OTHER than the manufacturer of the car (hence the EPA)

I'm not saying that the drug or car manufactures are liars, I'm simply saying that if what they are saying is true I should be able to verify it from someone not directly associated with the company.

In the videos, the JS translations of the facsimiles are approached in a very academic way, saying that JS got it right. If that's true, then I should be able to verify that with someone not directly associated with the church (i.e. non-LDS Egyptologists). This is academia... it's call peer-review... and it happens all the time.

[volgadon]

The question was asked, why do I disagree with Schryver? Because Schryver's core assumptions are wrong. Goble's core assumptions are right. Goble has done something no other apologist has. He has started out where the evidence leads. While critics would disagree with his ultimate conclusions, even critics can agree with the facts that he concedes are the case, where he starts out. No other apologist has done that, and that is what had to be done to start getting some real results. When other apologists go where Goble has gone, and build on his work, then we will see some real apologetics rather than this poor excuse for scholarship that we have seen previously that amounts to nothing more than artful dodging for the sake of preserving faith.

You both are worng. There. =)

[volgadon]

Peer review is important. In all aspects of academia.

Somewhat of a chimera, honestly.

[MormonMason]

I posted these some pages back but it keeps getting buried without an answer. Would love answers as I have often had these questions but never got any answers.

That would be 'no' to both questions. In any case, with all the years I have been studying and researching this issue, it is a faith-based issue on both sides of the coin. The critics just don't think so but that exactly is what it is. There is not enough real evidence to solidly support either side. If we had the entirety of the papyri, that would be another story. But, we don't. Those who think that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are solidly damning evidence haven't studied them well enough. They differ in initial approaches. One looks like a copy of another rather than a conjointly dictated set of papers. The two approaches are not even consistent within themselves! Consistency would be expected if they were conjointly dictated papers. As to the text surrounding the first vignette, it has not a whit to do with the vignette itself. The first vignette is not a "standard" funerary vignette. The person on the lion couch is very much alive and not rising from the dead. The figure on the lion couch certainly is not being either buried or embalmed. Yet, burial is what the text surrounding the vignette discusses. Both hands are up in the air in supplication. A leg is up but neither leg is on the lion couch. It looks more like a struggle than either a resurrection or a burial. And, there is a remaining word in the extant portion of the original column on the original vignette that carries the sense of "sacrifice", "offering" or of "being fit for offering." That is not in keeping with the overall theme of the Book of Breathing. But, what remains is a Book of Breathing, complete with the warning at the beginning that is supposed to be at the end. As I said, both sides are dependent upon faith. The critics just don't see it that way. That's all I have time for at the moment.

[Brian 2.0]

Somewhat of a chimera, honestly.

Had to look it up...

Are you saying that me saying "peer review is important" is "an illusion or fabrication of the mind"

[Darren10]

Synchronized vomiting! Cool!

I got skills.

[volgadon]

Oh, and by the way, what about Semitic Adaptation of an existing source called the text in the Sensen Papyrus, not just the facsimiles. That is the fundamental flaw in the whole argument for semitic adaptation. Because Barney is willing to propose that for the facsimiles for adaptation. But people will not accept the idea that the KEP itself represents adaptation of an existing source called the Sensen TEXT. That is Goble's whole argument in the link that I provided of his Dual Entendre theory. He takes scholars to task for suggesting iconotropy for the facsimiles but for rejecting iconotropy for the ideograms in the text.

THis, IMHO, is where GOble goes wrong. There is a third option, and some important evidence which he neglects.

[volgadon]

Had to look it up...

Are you saying that me saying "peer review is important" is "an illusion or fabrication of the mind"

I'm saying that the notion of peer review that is trotted out is more a chimera than anything. Peer review is but one tool for quality control. That is it.

[Brian 2.0]

A leg is up but neither leg is on the lion couch. It looks more like a struggle than either a resurrection or a burial.

Thanks you for your honest response. And i believe you are well read on this. The video that I watched today talked about the "leg up" thing as evidence of a struggle as well... I did a VERY NON-SCIENTIFIC google search for "lion couch egypt" and found a handful of different Egyptian drawings and even photos of drawings that had the "leg up." Maybe I'm missing something

[Brian 2.0]

Peer review is but one tool for quality control. That is it.

Hence my question which I'm basically asking if this "tool" of quality control has ever been used on these factual claims being made in the video and had non-LDS Egyptologists agree.

[ERayR]

Peer review is important. In all aspects of academia.

Non-LDS are from a different group so are not necessarily peers or LDS are not necessarily peers of non-LDS. It all depends what groups one is describing. As far as religious affiliation they would not be peers. If one were speaking of academic affiliations the might be peers.

[Darren10]

Peer review is important. In all aspects of academia.

I find it important because I'm watching these videos that the initial posts links to and the scholar seem very confident in the evidence that it shows Joseph Smith "hit the nail on the head" etc in his translations, especially in regards to the facsimiles. It's being presented as rather obvious fact. As someone who is trying to study out the BoA issue on a intellectual level, it would stand to reason that if the evidences are as strong as the videos show, then you should be able to find SOME non-LDS scholars that can come to the same conclusion.

If I'm going to take a new medication, I would love to hear that it's deemed safe to take by someone OTHER than the manufacturer of the drug (hence the FDA)

If I'm going to believe that a new car gets 45 mpg, I would love to hear that it can get that mpg from someone OTHER than the manufacturer of the car (hence the EPA)

I'm not saying that the drug or car manufactures are liars, I'm simply saying that if what they are saying is true I should be able to verify it from someone not directly associated with the company.

In the videos, the JS translations of the facsimiles are approached in a very academic way, saying that JS got it right. If that's true, then I should be able to verify that with someone not directly associated with the church (i.e. non-LDS Egyptologists). This is academia... it's call peer-review... and it happens all the time.

Just like medication, if what you want goes against established pardigms than it is usually slow and difficult foto get others to see around it.

As for non-LDS scholars haivhng a say in semitic adaptations, all Kevin L. Barney did was lay out those who have worked on Semitic adaptations in the past and applied it to the Book of Abraham. One person Barney cited was the works of Hugo Gressman. I found ti difficult to binf any large amounts of biographical information on Gressman but he was German and a scholar whose works apparently had a significant impact in Europe on how the Bible should be studied. Here's a good link to Gressman: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6154_6577.pdf

What Barney cites from Gressman is significant in terms of biblical usage of Egyptian stories. Barney cites:

In his important study of this passage, Hugo Gressmann⁴⁴ suggested that Luke's account was based on a popular Jewish version, perhaps written in Hebrew, of an Egyptian story. Neither the Egyptian original nor the Jewish version of that original has survived; nevertheless, their existence can be inferred from other documents that do exist. The popular Jewish version can be deduced from seven late rabbinic splinters; these texts almost certainly do not derive directly from the Gospel of Luke. The Egyptian original is hypothesized based on the Demotic story of Setna, described below.⁴⁵ To analogize the relationship among these texts in genealogical terms, the Egyptian original is like a grandfather, and the popular Jewish version a father, to the account in Luke. The story of Setna is a kind of uncle to the Lucan account, and the seven rabbinic splinters are nieces and nephews of sorts.

(snip)

Once again we are able to see how the Egyptian story has been transformed in Semitic dress. The angels of the Lucan account appear to be an instrumentality substituted for Horus (or the falcon of Horus).⁴⁷ The "bosom of Abraham" represents Amnte, the Egyptian abode of the dead. And, most remarkably, Abraham is a Jewish substitute for the pagan god Osiris—just as is the case in Facsimiles 1 and 3. These relationships are summarized in a chart following the article.

[

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=40&chapid=168

Here Gressman connects the parable in Luke about a rich man anda beggar Lazarus to a well known Egyptian parable of the same story. Gressman also purported that much of Proverbs comes directly from Eyptian tales. This is solid reason to believe in the possibility that what Joseph Smith had was a Semitic adaptation to an authentic story of Abraham. So, to an Egyptologist, this would look like a common funerary service. However to a knowledgable Semitic story teller and / or a prophet of God, they may see it as an adaptation to tell a story of Abraham.

[Darren10]

Am I an expert on Faith Crisis?

LoL - Holy understatement of the century, Batman!!!

[Darren10]

Goble has done something no other apologist has. He has started out where the evidence leads.

Why does his evidence precede Joseph Smith's own diaries during the time period?

When other apologists go where Goble has gone, and build on his work, then we will see some real apologetics rather than this poor excuse for scholarship that we have seen previously that amounts to nothing more than artful dodging for the sake of preserving faith.

That's a great rallying cry in general but not for trained and experienced soldiers.

[Brian 2.0]

Non-LDS are from a different group so are not necessarily peers or LDS are not necessarily peers of non-LDS. It all depends what groups one is describing. As far as religious affiliation they would not be peers. If one were speaking of academic affiliations the might be peers.

I am speaking of academic affiliations.

I'm not asking about the theology of the BoA, doctrinal matters, or if the text is inspired scripture. I'm was referring to JS translations of the facsimiles. I'm talking about Egpytology. So I'm asking about the opinions of academic non-LDS peers on the matter.