Egyptian Alphabet And Grammar - Any Way To Distance Joseph Smith From It?

[Glenn101]

The only bogus thing is to make the claim that the documents recovered by the church is the ones Joseph must have used in his translation. Anyone who will take the time to research the whole story will know that the papyri rediscovered in 1967 are only a fraction of those that were originally obtained by the church.

This has been pretty much demolished by available evidence.

The evidence for other papyri is very strong. That has hardly been demolished. Nor the probability that the Book of Abraham was translated from one of the scrolls that was destroyed in the Chicago fire. Also there is evidence that the Book of Abraham was originally much longer than the one published in the Pearl of Great Price.

Critics show the Breathing Permit of Hor and show how ridiculous is the tenet that the Book of Abraham could have been derived from such a short document, and they are right. No one in their right mind would believe that. I surely don't. And Joseph Smith, whatever one may think of him, was not a fool.

Glenn

Edited June 8, 2013 by Glenn101

[ERayR]

This has been pretty much demolished by available evidence.

What is this proof by edict?

[Kenngo1969]

What is this proof by edict?

Yeah. Pretty much. Thanks fer playin'!

[crixus]

The evidence for other papyri is very strong. That has hardly been demolished

But that isn't the argument. The argument isn't whether or not we have all of the Egyptian materials that were at Joseph Smith's disposal. The question is whether or not any of this missing material was the source for the Book of Abraham.The only reason to believe this is apologetic, but it doesn't account for all the available evidence, from eye-witness accounts to manuscripts, pointing directly toward the Breathings text as the source. Heck, even the translation itself points to the Facsimile which we know was at the "commencement" of the Book of Breathings papyrus.

Nor the probability that the Book of Abraham was translated from one of the scrolls that was destroyed in the Chicago fire.

Again, there is no probability there at all. What is your evidence? All Gee has done is manipulate the evidence in order to support his theory that there must have been a ton of missing materials.

Also there is evidence that the Book of Abraham was originally much longer than the one published in the Pearl of Great Price.

No there isn't. According to Joseph Smith, the second installment of the Book of Abraham was translated during the few weeks just before publication. But even if you are right about this, it still doesn't change the fact that the text was translated from materials we now have. Materials that have absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or the story line Joseph Smith attached to it.

Critics show the Breathing Permit of Hor and show how ridiculous is the tenet that the Book of Abraham could have been derived from such a short document, and they are right. No one in their right mind would believe that. I surely don't. And Joseph Smith, whatever one may think of him, was not a fool.

There is ample reason to believe this is precisely how Joseph Smith understood Egyptian. 17th century Jesuit scholar, Athanasius Kircher, was a leading authority on the subject of the Egyptian language, and his understanding prevailed up until the mid 19th century, before Champollion’s work on the Rosetta Stone became widely known.

Kircher called hieroglyphics “this language hitherto unknown in Europe, in which there are as many pictures as letters, as many riddles as sounds, in short as many mazes to be escaped from as mountains to be climbed.” By way of example, the simple hieroglyphic texts now known to mean “Osiris says” were translated by Kircher as follows: “The treachery of Typhon ends at the throne of Isis; the moisture of nature is guarded by the vigilance of Anubis.”

Then we have the 1881 interview with David Whitmer who spoke on the translation of the Book of Mormon. According to Whitmer, “Frequently one character would make two lines of manuscript, while others made but a word or two words."

So clearly this is what Joseph Smith believed.

But I'm glad you agree it is idiotic.

[Glenn101]

Then we have the 1881 interview with David Whitmer who spoke on the translation of the Book of Mormon. According to Whitmer, “Frequently one character would make two lines of manuscript, while others made but a word or two words."

So clearly this is what Joseph Smith believed.

But I'm glad you agree it is idiotic.

Which part of the extant papyri have any writings in red ink?

Glenn

[crixus]

Wow. Did you really just ask that?

This "we don't have rubrics" argument is a very old one, and has been refuted ever since Larsen first published color photos of the papyri. What do you think about Nibley's misrepresentation of these documents?

Edited June 10, 2013 by crixus

[canard78]

How new?

- I thought exactly the same. I was thinking... "what, like in the last 2-3 days?" I spend far too much time with my head in all of this.

[Calm]

Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham in the most literal way.

CFR please.

Still waiting, if I missed it, please point it out. Thank you.

[crixus]

CFR please.

Still waiting, if I missed it, please point it out. Thank you.

Seriously?

"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

http://www.lds.org/s...gp/abr?lang=eng

Now which the definitions for "translation" do you think Joseph Smith had in mind here?

Given Joseph Smith's background as a man who could provide "literal" translations of ancient documents, the onus is on the apologist who wants to say that he meant something completely different when translating Egyptian documents.

I mean think about this. Look at the list of definitions provided by Kevin Christensen. Which one of them fit in these references?

"I commenced the translation of some of the characters." - July 6-8 1835

"This afternoon recommenced translating the ancient records" - Oct 3-7 1835

"spent the day in translating the Egyptian records." - Nov 19, 1835

There are probably a dozen other examples of Joseph Smith referencing his attempt to translate the papyri. Joseph Smith said he literally translated these documents. It is really beyond me where apologists think they're going with this argument about revelation being his tool. None of this changes the fact that Joseph Smith claimed to have produced a valid translation. It doesn't matter how he claimed to have done it. What matters is that the end product can be tested to see if his translations were legit. They have been tested, and they show he could not provide valid translations as claimed.

Edited June 10, 2013 by crixus

[Calm]

All my CFRs are serious. I am always looking for new info. Thank you for providing the info though I had expected something else from the way that you said it. I thought you had something where JS stated he literally translated using the term "most literal way" or something close which would have been new for me. I follow your reasoning, don't have a problem with it in case you were wondering.

Edited June 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[bcuzbcuz]

Joseph Smith claimed, several times, that he "translated" the Egyptian funeral script (Book of the Dead), into the Book of Abraham. The main jist of the apologist reasoning heard here is that the papyri were not "translated" at all, but were "revelated". That would explain why NOthing on the papyri talks anything about Abraham or has any part of its text that relates what we see in the "Book of Abraham".

Do we have any statement made by Joseph Smith, anywhere, or sections from the History of the Church, written in evidence that Joseph ever said he was receiving "revelation" in order to decifer the papyri? Did Joseph Smith ever use his seer stone(s), his hat, or the Urim and Thummin to "translate" the papyri? What tools has Joseph said he used to "translate" the papyri?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How does this change the fact that the Book of Abraham is largely lifted from the Bible?

But it is not. see how easy that was.

Kevin Graham is that you?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Joseph Smith claimed, several times, that he "translated" the Egyptian funeral script (Book of the Dead), into the Book of Abraham.

Actually he never once claims this. Nice narrative though.

[crixus]

Actually he never once claims this. Nice narrative though.

So Joseph Smith never claimed to have translated the papyri, despite the plethora of references where he says precisely that?

Just out of curiosity, what in your opinion, do you think he did claim?

Edited June 10, 2013 by crixus

[bcuzbcuz]

Actually he never once claims this. Nice narrative though.

I'm not sure what to make of your statement. It neither reflects fact nor available evidence, and yet you state it nevertheless. Does your statement reflect knowledge or opinion or merely holding your hands over your ears and repeating "nah..nah..nah..nah..I can't hear you!"?

We can hear you, and we don't like your attitude.

~Mods

[Calm]

So Joseph Smith never claimed to have translated the papyri, despite the plethora of references where he says precisely that?

That's not what you said above. What was stated was:

Joseph Smith claimed.....he "translated" the Egyptian funeral script (Book of the Dead), into the Book of Abraham

So do you have a quote where Joseph Smith first identifies it as an Egyptian funeral script named Book of the Dead? We can start there.

[crixus]

He refers to this document quite explicitly in the text of the Book of Abraham. You know, there is a reason why the published version of the Book of Abraham contained a photo of the beginning of this document.

[Calm]

He refers to this document quite explicitly in the text of the Book of Abraham.

And he calls it "what" so explicitly?

[Calm]

He refers to this document quite explicitly in the text of the Book of Abraham. You know, there is a reason why the published version of the Book of Abraham contained a photo of the beginning of this document.

Photo or facsimilie?

[bcuzbcuz]

That's not what you said above. What was stated was:

So do you have a quote where Joseph Smith first identifies it as an Egyptian funeral script named Book of the Dead? We can start there.

Of course, you're right. Joseph Smith never called it an Egyptian funeral script nor the Book of the Dead, because he didn't know that's what they were. I only used those references so that anyone reading my input would understand and not misconstrue which papyri I was talking about. How foolish I was. When someone wants to mislead, all avenues are open. The question remains, though, when did Joseph Smith ever claim to be doing anything except translating the papyri/Book of the Dead/funeral script/Book of Abraham/writings that no longer exist?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Of course, you're right. Joseph Smith never called it an Egyptian funeral script nor the Book of the Dead, because he didn't know that's what they were. I only used those references so that anyone reading my input would understand and not misconstrue which papyri I was talking about. How foolish I was. When someone wants to mislead, all avenues are open. The question remains, though, when did Joseph Smith ever claim to be doing anything except translating the papyri/Book of the Dead/funeral script/Book of Abraham/writings that no longer exist?

You are making the classic assumption that what we have now is all that JS had. There is eye witness testimony that there was much more than what we have.

[Calm]

You are making the classic assumption that what we have now is all that JS had.

he appears to be including "writings that no longer exist" so perhaps not.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So Joseph Smith never claimed to have translated the papyri, despite the plethora of references where he says precisely that?

Just out of curiosity, what in your opinion, do you think he did claim?

Which Papyri are we talking about here? The stuff that is refered to as the Book of the dead? The small amount that is left? That the critics constantly try to paint as the Papri that JS "thought" he was translating? Or are we talking about the "missing scrolls? I hold to that opinion.

Are you Kevin Graham? Serious question.

[Calm]

When someone wants to mislead, all avenues are open.

If you are assuming that someone here wants to mislead rather than clarified or be precise in language, you should be clearer about whom you are accusing.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

he appears to be including "writings that no longer exist" so perhaps not.

Ok. My bad.