The Real Scoop On The Book Of Abraham

[Darren10]

John, give up, its like talking to a brick wall. I have seen Weglund on the other board and he talks to critics with a condesending tone. I call it Mormonspeak.

Whoohoo, "Mormonspeak = kick yo' butt speak. I can live with that.

I know how you feel and your frustration they do not get it.

JohnShultz, Helen smart. We duuuummm.

I remember talking to a guy who had a Master in philosophy from BYU, he said it would mean the loss of his marriage and family if he accepted this material on the BOA. Funny though he did divorce his wife some years later and has remarried still involved in the LDS church.

You sure his divorce had nothing to do with his studying philosophy? (Juuuust askin')

Fac 3 has enough material readable on it to show it has nothing to do with Abraham.

What about facsimile 2? http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2005/02/can-you-spare-four-quarters-for-old.html

[ERayR]

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.

Anything to do with the Book of Abraham can not be divorced from its doctrinal connection. That narrows the peer group dramatically.

[wenglund]

One is only open minded if you agree with the critics.

I noticed that you didn't get any disagreement. That makes it all he more funny.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Brian 2.0]

Anything to do with the Book of Abraham can not be divorced from its doctrinal connection. That narrows the peer group dramatically.

So the Joseph Smith Papyri (Egyptian Papyri purchased by Joseph Smith), cannot be looked at by non-LDS Egyptologists to determine that they say?

You cannot look at these Egyptian writings as simply Egyptians writings? Even to simply determine the context of the text? You must look at them with the English Book of Abraham translations and doctrinal connections within them in order to understand what the Egyptian writing is? Are you really saying this?

[wenglund]

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.

The hot air from your post is over-heating my computer.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Am I an expert on Faith Crisis?

Is "faith crisis" an academic discipline or a profession?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MormonMason]

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

OK, I suppose I have a few moments more. The major difference between what later became Facsimile 1 and those other images you mention is that in all of them except what became Facsimile 1, both legs are on the couch even with one of them raised. I have never seen another one that has the priest figure standing between the lion couch and the legs of the fellow on the couch. That is what makes the difference between what looks like a struggle and either burial, embalmment or resuscitation. And, the figure partially on the couch is very much alive, rather than in a state of inaction (one or both arms at side) or rising from sleep on the couch (one arm at side and one arm elevated with palm to face). Another glaring difference is the fact that the person in the vignette that became Facsimile 1 is fully clothed and accessorized. He is neither nude nor wrapped or mummiform. And, there are enough traces to show that there never was an arm at the side or grasping a phallus, as common reconstructions like Parkinson's and others' often falsely attempt to show. It is all so very out of place for a Book of Breathing. In all the many copies I have seen, not a single one matches all the elements of the vignette that became Facsimile 1. It is so "other" in comparison. Even Ritner's attempts have a number of failings, not the least of which are his false claims regarding winged solar disks and so forth. Some of the critics positions are based upon postulated reconstructions of text rather than actual text, believe it or not. And, their position makes the assumption that the entire scroll was funerary and nothing else. This is why the effort to try to create a whole new way of doing math to calculate scroll length by extant scroll to try to demonstrate that there could be no room for another text. The critics' position is dependent upon it. Hence, there is a desperate need to have something that disallows for that because a large length of missing scroll is a potential game-changer in this question, particularly since combined eyewitness accounts and some other evidence based upon real-life scenarios with copies of funerary texts seem to support a length over 20 feet for the Horos scroll. A typical Book of Breathing with vignettes is just over five feet in length. The longest, most complex copy I have ever seen is just over 7 feet in length. This former would leave over 15 feet of scroll. Such a length of missing scroll would account for the whole of the evidence, including what can be determined from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Why? It is because if the Horos Book of Breathing and Abrahamic record were attached to one another with the Horos scroll at the front, it accounts for attempts to match characters from the Horos scroll to the translated Book of Abraham. Not knowing on their own where to draw the line between records, it would be assumed that the front of the scroll is where the record began. And, let's face it. Joseph Smith, as was the case with most everyone in America, were clueless about Egyptian at that early period. While I am not an apostle, being a prophet or apostle would make no one more or less expert on a given language, whether having the gift of translation or not. I once exercised the gift of translation many years before I actually learned languages. I was able to do so without knowing a lick about the text I translated, or where it began or ended in relation to other texts before I actually learned to read some of it. I was quite surprised by it actually when I was reading a Latin text to realize that I had translated it years before I learned to read it and before I had ever set my eyes upon an actual copy of the text. I wanted to understand the process and had asked the Lord to assist me at that time so many years ago. He never provided me with stones, however. Whether I still have the gift or not I do not know. I never tried again after that, feeling quite content to learn languages on my own and translate texts the old fashioned way. Perhaps I was only given the ability for a short while like was the case with Oliver Cowdery. I really have something that requires my attention elsewhere, so will have to end here for now. Sorry about the length of text without whitespace, but for some reason the site won't let me use my enter key to break it all up into paragraphs. I am wondering whether that has something to do with Windows 8 and Internet Explorer 10--or something else.

[Brian 2.0]

The major difference between what later became Facsimile 1 and those other images you mention is that in all of them except what became Facsimile 1, both legs are on the couch even with one of them raised.

Are you saying that the thin strip under the figure on the couch in fascimile 1 is "both legs raised" as in neither leg is touching the table, indicating a struggle? That's a very small gap between the leg and the table.

And in looking back a google I saw this image.

In that image both legs are up off the table. Does this not go against your statement "all of them" don't have it this way "except" Fascimile 1?

Sorry I'm re-reading your post, will have more thoughts in a second I'm sure. Just wanted clarity on this point.

[JohnShultz]

I'd like to thank you apologists for yet another thoroughly unproductive conversation. Thanks once again for demonstrating with such great eloquence why those of us on the outside of the lockstep lemming apologetic establishment are unable to even communicate simple ideas to you.

[Calm]

That's all I have time for at the moment.

Glad to see you back again.

[Calm]

Are you saying that the thin strip under the figure on the couch in fascimile 1 is "both legs raised" as in neither leg is touching the table, indicating a struggle? That's a very small gap between the leg and the table.

And in looking back a google I saw this image.

In that image both legs are up off the table. Does this not go against your statement "all of them" don't have it this way "except" Fascimile 1?

Sorry I'm re-reading your post, will have more thoughts in a second I'm sure. Just wanted clarity on this point.

If you look at this picture of the image, you will see contrary to the reconstructed image the Church uses, the priest is standing in between the man's legs and the couch:

The Church's image has the priest standing behind the couch and the man on the couch:

Edited February 22, 2013 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

I'd like to thank you apologists for yet another thoroughly unproductive conversation. Thanks once again for demonstrating with such great eloquence why those of us on the outside of the lockstep lemming apologetic establishment are unable to even communicate simple ideas to you.

Whatever you say, Ed.

[noel00]

"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."

LDS apologetics

[Brian 2.0]

If you look at this picture of the image, you will see contrary to the reconstructed image the Church uses, the priest is standing in between the man's legs and the couch:

The Church's image has the priest standing behind the couch and the man on the couch:

Now I get it. I couldn't understand what he was referring to in the video. The original seems to indicate that the man on the couch is on an angle if you will with his upperbody on the couch, but his legs are are off to the side (toward the viewer) an the priest is inbetween those off-the-table legs and the couch. I see it now.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[William Schryver]

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.

For my own part, I've decided to let Ed play his little sock puppet game without any further interruption. I've learned it's better, all things considered, to not begrudge some people their cherished delusions.

I will only note, in bowing out of this thread, that my primary thesis, as explained clearly in my presentation, is that the EA/GAEL is dependent on and informed by a pre-existing text of the already translated Book of Abraham. I present extensive textual evidence to support that thesis. Although I have seen many people do as Ed has done, and assert that my arguments have no merit, I have yet to see anyone actually address those arguments and the evidence adduced to support them. Funny how that works ...

[Brian 2.0]

OK, I suppose I have a few moments more. The major difference between what later became Facsimile 1 and those other images you mention is that in all of them except what became Facsimile 1, both legs are on the couch even with one of them raised. I have never seen another one that has the priest figure standing between the lion couch and the legs of the fellow on the couch. That is what makes the difference between what looks like a struggle and either burial, embalmment or resuscitation.

Got it now. I understand what you're saying.

And, the figure partially on the couch is very much alive, rather than in a state of inaction (one or both arms at side) or rising from sleep on the couch (one arm at side and one arm elevated with palm to face).

I've always had a difficult time with the both hands up because the original papyri is damaged in that location. So reconstructing it with both hands up is by no means a forgone conclusion as the right way to construct it. In fact, to your point that Fascimile 1 is the only one that has both hands up makes me even more skeptical that both hands up is the correct way to reconstruct it. All reconstructions, including both hands up, are simply conjecture and I would tend to support a reconstruction that fits with other similar drawings, but then still be skeptical with it.

Another glaring difference is the fact that the person in the vignette that became Facsimile 1 is fully clothed and accessorized. He is neither nude nor wrapped or mummiform.

I see that. I also don't see any others like that in my non-scientific google search.

And, there are enough traces to show that there never was an arm at the side or grasping a phallus, as common reconstructions like Parkinson's and others' often falsely attempt to show.

The papryi is so damaged at this portion that I feel there is more than enough room to reconstruct a version holding a phallus. But again, I don't give a ton of thought to reconstructions as they are simply that.

And, their position makes the assumption that the entire scroll was funerary and nothing else. This is why the effort to try to create a whole new way of doing math to calculate scroll length by extant scroll to try to demonstrate that there could be no room for another text. The critics' position is dependent upon it. Hence, there is a desperate need to have something that disallows for that because a large length of missing scroll is a potential game-changer in this question,

I think you overstate how a large or small scroll is so essential to the critics arguments. I think the arguments still stand whether or not there was a lot of scroll missing or a little amount of scroll missing. Even if there was just a couple feet of scroll missing you could argue that the Abraham text was on it. The arguments on the text and facsimiles that we do have are what is in consideration. And I don't see how a large scroll dismisses those arguments of the critics.

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.

I like the admission that it's a faith based issue, because that's what it really is, especially for the believers side. But I would argue that on the critics side, i wouldn't think they are choosing disbelief because of "faith." I think they choose disbelief because of probability. When they look at the evidence, even the evidence you provide, they don't see it as a 50/50 choice and you choose based on faith. They see the evidence stack up in the favor of disbelief. And while there is space for belief, the space is of a low enough probability to not grant it as truth. I wouldn't think faith comes into the equation for them, but simply probability assessment.

The questions come down to... do you see the Fascimiles as being slight variations on the funeral documents, or do you see the Fascimiles as being too different to classify them in the same category as funeral document?

You say it's a faith-based issue. Looking at the evidence on a purely intellectual level, do you see the evidence staking up in favor of belief? About 50/50? Or staking up in favor of disbelief? Obvious you have chosen belief on faith, but in trying to be objective about it can you not see why people choose not to believe based on the evidence? And how that can be a valid and honest choice?

Edited February 22, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[cinepro]

One aspect of this whole thing that I find fascinating is the fact that the "Book of Abraham" was canonized, and therefore it is a hill that the apologists will die on, so to speak. No ground can be given. There is a precedent for things having been canonized that were later removed from the scriptures (i.e. The Lectures on Faith), and I wonder how this conversation would be different if The Book of Abraham had never been classified as "scripture", or had been removed 100 years ago. Would it be so valiantly (and creatively) defended, or would it be quickly dismissed?

In other words, suppose The Book of Abraham weren't included in the PoGP, and members of the Church were trying to figure out what its "status" should be? Would the MI, Kerry Muhlestein and John Gee be just as strong in their defense? Or would we have a paper from Will showing how the entire endeavor was more of a language pet-project that Joseph embarked on, and any assumptions beyond that were the overestimations of those around him.

[canard78]

If someone claims to be a prophet who can translate ancient languages then fails to correctly translate a document written in an ancient, then that person is not really a prophet. It's pretty simple.

If it's any reassurance, I don't believe the original papyrus to be 'written by the hand of Abraham.' I don't believe that there was a literal translation of an original scripture. I believe if we had the full papyrus none of it would be translated by egyptologists as the writings of Abraham.

I'm comfortable with Joseph thinking he was translating when instead he was simply inspired. Similar to when he wrote the Book of Moses.

I'm comfortable with the idea that Abraham, Enoch and Moses never wrote/said the words in POGP, that Joseph wrote/said them.

With all that in mind, you might question why I still see him as a prophet or inspired. Because of the words in the book. They do fantastic job of restoring, distilling, summarising beautiful answers to the big questions.

In the NT and Book of Mormon we're taught how to live (charity, service, humility). In Books of Moses/Abraham we're taught why.

Why would Joseph (or God) need to ascribe these answers to ancient prophets rather than a modern one? Perhaps they needed the credibility of appearing to come from the great patriarchs. Given the religious 'received wisdom' in the 19thC it's entirely possible that for Joseph to say so would have been considered heretical. Even by his own followers. This also allows him to show these are ancient, but lost concepts. Which they are (Plato clearly 'got' the origin of the soul and the purpose of life and it's trials - See P.60-61 of the Givens' God Who Weeps).

We see something similar in King Follett. Mqny of Joseph's speculation about the origins/identity of God draw on his 'translation' of the bible, not a personal insight.

The D&C is, for the most part, revelations on practice and process. These are the words which depended on his credibility, not that of a prophet of the past.

[Darren10]

"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."

LDS apologetics

[Darren10]

"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."

LDS apologetics

Semitic Transformations from the Vignette to Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead to the Judgment (Psychostasy) Scene of the Testament of Abraham

Egyptian Context

Semitic Context

1. Osiris Abel

2. Anubis Dokiel

3. Horus Porouel

4. Thoth Enoch or an angel

5. Maat An angel

Semitic Transformations from Hypothetical Egyptian Original Underlying the Demotic Story of Setna to the Deducible Jewish Popular Version (from which the Lucan Account of the Rich Man and Lazarus Descends)

Egyptian Context

Semitic Context

1. Osiris Abraham

2. Amnte Bosom of Abraham

3. Horus (or falcon of Horus) Angels

Semitic Transformations from a Hypocephalus to the Apocalypse of Abraham

Egyptian Context

Semitic Context

1. A circular disk representing the upper world and the netherworld

Abraham is shown "the fulness of the whole world and its circle"

2. "O Mighty God, Lord of heaven and earth, of the hereafter, and of his great waters" [from Facsimile 2, left middle]

Abraham is shown "what is in the heavens, on the earth, in the sea, and in the abyss"

3. Four Sons of Horus

A. Hapy [baboon]

B. Imsety [man]

C. Duamutef [jackal]

D. Qebehsenuf [falcon]

Four fiery living creatures, each with four faces (via Ezekiel 1—2)

Lion [or ox]

Man

Ox [or lion]

Eagle

http://maxwellinstit...d=40&chapid=168

Explanation

1. The Angel of the Lord.
   
2. Abraham fastened upon an altar.
   
3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.
   
4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.
   
5. The idolatrous god of Elkenah.
   
6. The idolatrous god of Libnah.
   
7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.
   
8. The idolatrous god of Korash.
   
9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.
   
10. Abraham in Egypt.
    
11. Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.
    
12. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.
    

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/fac-1?lang=eng

Edited February 22, 2013 by Darren10

[wenglund]

I'd like to thank you apologists for yet another thoroughly unproductive conversation. Thanks once again for demonstrating with such great eloquence why those of us on the outside of the lockstep lemming apologetic establishment are unable to even communicate simple ideas to you.

You repeatedly and summarily dismiss opposing views and have voiced condemnations and resisted suggestions for mutual respect and open-mindedness and you have been unresponsive to challenges, and yet in your mind the apologists are to be thanked for the breakdown in communications. Funny guy!

Like Volgadon, though, I see your posting style as bearing a remarkable resemblance to Ed Goble's. Coincidence? If not, that would explain a lot. The sad thing is, I have gone out of my way in the past to be open to your theory, and in some respects I still am. I have also tried to help you keep your cool in online discussions so that you don't end up getting in your own way. But, you seem intent on bludgeoning and blaming and ultimately repelling, and that is your choice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 22, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

One aspect of this whole thing that I find fascinating is the fact that the "Book of Abraham" was canonized, and therefore it is a hill that the apologists will die on, so to speak. No ground can be given. There is a precedent for things having been canonized that were later removed from the scriptures (i.e. The Lectures on Faith), and I wonder how this conversation would be different if The Book of Abraham had never been classified as "scripture", or had been removed 100 years ago. Would it be so valiantly (and creatively) defended, or would it be quickly dismissed?

In other words, suppose The Book of Abraham weren't included in the PoGP, and members of the Church were trying to figure out what its "status" should be? Would the MI, Kerry Muhlestein and John Gee be just as strong in their defense? Or would we have a paper from Will showing how the entire endeavor was more of a language pet-project that Joseph embarked on, and any assumptions beyond that were the overestimations of those around him.

What if pigs could fly?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

One aspect of this whole thing that I find fascinating is the fact that the "Book of Abraham" was canonized, and therefore it is a hill that the apologists will die on, so to speak.

The thing I find fascinating in this argument is that it is the actual text of the book that is so amazing. How Joseph got it is totally irrelevant to me because of that. I'm not sure why we have to spend so much time defending it except the argument is interesting.

I do believe Joseph had papyri that he used to translate, whatever translate means in this context, whether it was an actual word for word translation or the impetus for revelation (ie reading about baptism for the dead in the Bible and then receiving additional revelation to expound on it). I personally don't believe what we have now is that document. But I don't doubt that the text of the book is totally inspired and profoundly true.

[Darren10]

Funny guy!

This kinda funny?

This kinda funny?

Or this kinda funny?

Like Volgadon, though, I see your posting style as bearing a remarkable resemblance to Ed Goble's. Coincidence?

I decided to focus on the baby and getting my wife a b-day present instead of reading John's post. Now it looksl ike I don't ave to at all. I know what Ed believes just by reading John Schultz.

/Yippy!!!

But, you seem intent on bludgeoning and blaming and ultimately repelling, and that is your choice.

[Darren10]

The thing I find fascinating in this argument is that it is the actual text of the book that is so amazing. How Joseph got it is totally irrelevant to me because of that. I'm not sure why we have to spend so much time defending it except the argument is interesting.

In the grand scheme of things I can agree with you to a point. My limitations is base, perhaps in part, on the fact tha I often view the resporaaton of the gospel of Jesus Christ in terms of historical events and/or movements. I see the Renaissance, Reformation, Church of England, Protestants, Pilgrims, the English Enlightenment, and the transation of the King James Version, vital for preparing the world to create a nation founded on the principles of freedom, particularly religious freedom. Also, said nation was vital to restore the gospel of the Son of God. In the specific situation ofthe Book of Abraham, I find it amazing how God can have texts prepared centuries previous to a modern-day prophet, have them end up with a mummy which was bought by Joseph Smith through inspiration. Big and small, God's hand is involved in human life and activity.