What Are The Main Arguments Against The Book Of Abraham

[cinepro]

The main argument I see against the Book of Abraham is that in one respect its production has in some instances become a stumbling block for vulnerable saints, distracting their attention away from the intended purpose and value of the book and the gospel it illuminates, causing them to pridefully rely on man rather than the ways of God in godly matters. 

 

In another respect, an argument for the Book of Abraham is that its production and content has acted as a refiners fire, focusing the attention of inclined members more intently on the purpose and value of the book and the gospel it illuminates, causing them to humbly rely more and more on God in godly matters.

 

In short, the Book of Abraham, as with many elements of the restored gospel, is a purposeful trial of faith that results in either weakening or strengthening depending upon the inclination and temperament, etc., of the saints being tested, separating the wheat from the tares so to speak as prophesied.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You can close the thread.  Wade has just explained the biggest problem with the Book of Abraham better than anyone else could. 

 

Because if a so-called "believing LDS" could write that in a sincere effort to support the Book of Abraham, I think we can all turn the lights off move on.  There's nothing more to say.

Edited October 13, 2014 by cinepro

[wtrdog]

You can close the thread.  Wade has just explained the biggest problem with the Book of Abraham better than anyone else could. 

 

Because if a so-called "believing LDS" could write that in a sincere effort to support the Book of Abraham, I think we can all turn the lights off move on.  There's nothing more to say.

 

 

Also consider this in the context of Wade's response in the "follow the prophet" thread.  According to him, personal revelation is the same as personal pride.   So God creates an intentional faith trial which relies on personal revelation to sort out.  But then God prevents anybody from actually receiving personal revelation, it's really just a form of spiritual dependence on leaders.  But the leaders are the ones that told us BOA was a literal translation, blah blah blah.  This is what's known as a race condition, an infinite loop of insanity.

[wenglund]

 

Also consider this in the context of Wade's response in the "follow the prophet" thread.  According to him, personal revelation is the same as personal pride.  

 

I said no such thing. You have wrongly put words into my mouth. Please stop.

 

So God creates an intentional faith trial which relies on personal revelation to sort out.  But then God prevents anybody from actually receiving personal revelation, it's really just a form of spiritual dependence on leaders.  But the leaders are the ones that told us BOA was a literal translation, blah blah blah.  This is what's known as a race condition, an infinite loop of insanity.

 

Actually, this is what's known as a straw man.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 13, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

You can close the thread.  Wade has just explained the biggest problem with the Book of Abraham better than anyone else could. 

 

Because if a so-called "believing LDS" could write that in a sincere effort to support the Book of Abraham, I think we can all turn the lights off move on.  There's nothing more to say.

 

I am going to resist returning in spades the uncharitable mockery, and simply say that my comment was intended to provoke productive thought, not end it. Public discussions of issues such as this often spin uselessly in circles or meander counterproductive in large part because people aren't asking the right questions or because they are focused on symptoms rather than causes or because they fail to consider certain illuminating perspectives. Peeling quickly back the flesh and fat and opening up to the meat and bones and heart of the matter, ought not put an end to the surgical dialogue, but ought to better enable it to precede productively.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ttribe]

JS asked questions about everything including mundane daily tasks of others and then provided the individual with revelation. I find it ironic that we are told to pray to get a spiritual witness and get questions answered but then when we pray and don't get answers we're told we shouldn't be praying about that particular thing. This is foolishness. If I need to know something about the workings of God, and I pray about the BoAbraham and the mode of revelation, I cannot understand why this would be an inappropriate prayer. It's not like I'm praying for my sports team to win or my boss to get fired.

 

Or for help finding your keys...oh, wait....

[Robert F. Smith]

I am not certain if one can classify David Bokovy's approach to the Book of Abraham as critical since he believes it to be scripture, but certainly for those scholars who are defending the translation as deriving from what is/was actually written on the Joseph Smith papyri, David's suggestion that it then must be a pseudepigraphic text authored by either an Egyptian of Jewish scribe, would be criticism, at least to some. I do think David's observation below should be seriously considered as part of the discussion when talking about Book of Abraham issues since he points out that the text we have today cannot have been written by Abraham himself.

 

Authoring the Old Testament by David Bokovoy pg 165

Excellent points, Steve.  However, my reading of Bokovoy's fine book likewise leads to the conclusion that the biblical Abraham story (and indeed all the Primary History of the Bible) must be pseudepigraphic.  Can a pseudepigraphon be Scripture?  Apparently so.

[CA Steve]

Excellent points, Steve.  However, my reading of Bokovoy's fine book likewise leads to the conclusion that the biblical Abraham story (and indeed all the Primary History of the Bible) must be pseudepigraphic.  Can a pseudepigraphon be Scripture?  Apparently so.

In order for such texts to be scripture do they have to be based on some sort of historical past or can purely mythical events function as scripture? I am not talking about parables or stories created to illustrate examples, but more in reference to such books like the Book of Mormon, Moses and Abraham which create an intricate storyline. I also realize there is no clear line, as in the example of Job, which may be based on a real person but with some mythical events mixed in.

 

Even if Abraham is the creation of Judean scribes a millennium after he was supposed to have lived, would his story still be scripture for us today?

 

Are those who would take such an approach "critics"?

 

Even if current leadership teaches a literal Abraham, is there room in the church for people who don't and can those people express such opinions in public? I know this is what David is doing but I wonder if his views were to gain any lay support would they be tolerated?

Edited October 14, 2014 by CA Steve

[Robert F. Smith]

In order for such texts to be scripture do they have to be based on some sort of historical past or can purely mythical events function as scripture? I am not talking about parables or stories created to illustrate examples, but more in reference to such books like the Book of Mormon, Moses and Abraham which create an intricate storyline. I also realize there is no clear line, as in the example of Job, which may be based on a real person but with some mythical events mixed in.

 

Even if Abraham is the creation of Judean scribes a millennium after he was supposed to have lived, would his story still be scripture for us today?

We might want to place the scribal transmission in the contexts of (1) translation of languages and (2) the redaction/editing of various received documents.  We could apply that across the board.

 

We could take as one example, the various Flood stories known from Sumer and Akkad, and in other traditions, which are clearly an integral part of the biblical tradition, from long before there was a biblical Hebrew tradition.  That well-known biblical tradition is very late.  So why should we privilege it as the most accurate and authoritative?  For Abraham, for example, we could not have a Classical Hebrew tradition.  Abraham did not even speak Classical Hebrew, but rather either early Aramaic or Amorite.  Any record created by Abraham is naturally going to be changed through time, including changes and updates to any illustrations.

 

................................................................

Edited October 20, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[DragonLancer]

Here is my blog with my theory:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/

 

Here are some of my articles:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/p/some-background-on-my-stance-on-book-of.html

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/03/karduniash-and-chalsidonhiash-reed.html

 

I believe I have real evidence and real results.

 

Ed Goble

[Anteojito]

The introduction of the BOA states that it is

 

"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."

 

I guess we can tip toe around the wording, but to me it seems clear that the Church's position is that the BOA is a translation of the papyri, and not a product of a catalyst.

 

Another reason is that in Chapter 1 verse 14 it states"

 

 "That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics."

 

To me it seems clear that the text is referring to the facsimiles, which have been translated by trained Egyptologists. The text and the facsimiles are tied together.

 

There are problems with the text too. For example in Chapter 1, verses 23-24 it states:

 

 23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

 24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

 

A quick Google search will show how the name Egypt came to be, but it was not from Ham's daughter.

 

The same goes for the "gods" Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, and Korash, all mentioned in the text and on the first facsimile. There is no evidence that these gods were ever a part of the Egyptian Culture.

 

To me, the whole issue about catalyst vs. direct translation is just a way to divert attention from the issues with the text.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Anteojito

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................   

 

There are problems with the text too. For example in Chapter 1, verses 23-24 it states:

 

 23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

 24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

 

A quick Google search will show how the name Egypt came to be, but it was not from Ham's daughter.

A quick Google search should also tell you that Latin Aegyptus, Greek Aiguptos, Amarna cuneiform Khikuptah, and “Gypsy,” all mean “Egypt,” and derive ultimately from the ancient Egyptian name for Memphis and for Egypt itself, Ht-kЗ-Pth "Temple of Ptah" (cf. Gen 10:6, Ps 78:51 Ham = Egypt).  However, KEP variants for Egyptus include Zeptah, which is ancient Egyptian "Daughter of Ptah."

 

Now, Ptah is the parallel for Noah in that, as the Blacksmith-God of Thebes (Hephaistos-Vulcan), he is the equivalent of the Phoenician Craftsman-God Khousor, which is Ugaritic Kothar, Kothar-wa-Khasis, "The-Very-Skillful-and-Intelligent-One," and the same as the Sumero-Akkadian Noahs: Utnapishtim (in Gilgamesh Epic), Atra-Hasīs, and Ziusudra   Thus, not only is Zeptah the daughter of Ptah, but she is also named Sibtu/Sambethe, the Sibyl, a daughter-in-law of Noah, who came into Egypt after the Deluge, according to the Sibylline Oracles, Prologue:33; I:289, III:809,823-827, who discovered Egypt when still under water, and her eldest son became the first Pharaoh.  The very same story is told later of Hermes Triplex in the Hermetic Corpus.  Ring a bell?

 

The same goes for the "gods" Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, and Korash, all mentioned in the text and on the first facsimile. There is no evidence that these gods were ever a part of the Egyptian Culture.

.......................................................................'

Why would you automatically assume that they are Egyptian words?  The text has them presiding as gods during human sacrifices in Asia Minor, not Egypt.  A Semitist instantly recognizes the names Elkenah and Libnah as Semitic words, and Elkenah as a Canaanite and Hittite god.  And there is much more that you missed.  What seems transparent to you turns out to be a bit more complex, and requires actual familiarity with the ancient Near East, i.e., the way in which gods of one nation were considered as the same as gods of other countries -- under different names.

Edited October 20, 2014 by Robert F. Smith