Boa - Catalyst And Missing Papyrus Theories Both Deeply Flawed

[mfbukowski]

Ok.  But here's the deal.  If people are trying to find secondary intent in the Sensen document, I'm saying that people are not justified in ignoring the rules of interpretation already in the KEP and imposing their own rules for interpretation of this document for the concept of "secondary intent".  The KEP shows the rules of interpretation, and ignoring those rules and transforming the KEP into something that it is not are the whole problem to begin with.  When I say, interpreting it on its own terms, I mean according to the rules defined in the KEP documents.

OK that helps. But for me, I just see that as perpetuating the basic error by tacitly agreeing that the positivist approach applies to religious matters, that "evidence" actually matters in religious debate.

But my education is in secular philosophy, and oddly it is secular philosophers who seem to understand that point better. Those educated in "theology" seem to want to use the same criteria for "truth" that the positivists did, oddly enough.

It's an odd time we are traveling through when secular philosophers understand the strength of the religious approach better than many theologians who don't see the incredible strength, for their position, of the "godless" deflationary theory of truth.

 

It's pretty ironic.   

[volgadon]

Sorry but I don't need a bibliography of sources from which I can understand hieroglyphs.  I have a whole pile of Egyptian dictionaries sitting on my bookshelf as well as a ton of online sources.

Like the rest of the detractors, once again, you are a person that has decided to use the "peer reviewed"  "Egyptological" sledge hammer to say, hey, here is my rule.  And your interpretation doesn't follow my established rule.

I would suggest that these are not my interpretations at all.  I am reverse Engineering the KEP.  The rules of interpretation are from the KEP.  Go argue with the KEP.  Don't argue with me.  But that is why nobody else gets anywhere.  Because they continually argue with the system in the KEP.  This is why it doesn't do to sit here and argue with me over how you guys believe it out to be.  You are arguing with the evidence.  You are not arguing with me.  You are dismissing the evidence.  You are not dismissing my "theory."  My theory is merely an understanding of what the evidence presents.  So, if you don't like the evidence in the KEP, then go ahead and dismiss it.  But it won't get you any further along, while I will continue to have results.

 

You really can't keep congratulating yourself for accepting all the evidence when you clearly don't. Bcuzbcuz has raised some valid concerns which you have brushed away.

[pogi]

Well you need to understand that applies only to religious truth, not, say, scientific theories about disease.

 

Were that true scientifically, the best cure for ebola would be a bottle of Jack Daniels to make you happy.

 

I dunno, I could argue that it still holds true.  Scientific theories about disease will bring more peace, hope and joy over a Jack Daniels if I have ebola.  I'm just being a pragmatist

[Chaos]

There is too much sniping in this thread. The instigators will be removed from the thread if it continues.

[DragonLancer]

You really can't keep congratulating yourself for accepting all the evidence when you clearly don't. Bcuzbcuz has raised some valid concerns which you have brushed away.

 

Really?

 

It seems we have a disagreement.

Edited November 20, 2014 by DragonLancer

[mfbukowski]

As someone who has experienced/is experiencing a "faith crisis" I can say that this advice works nicely under some circumstances.  It's true that there will probably never been sufficient evidence to prove or disprove the church's truth claims 100%.  There rarely is for anything.    But that doesn't mean my evaluation of the evidences comes out at 50/50.  It's not a toss-up choice between belief or disbelief on certain issues.

 

"Planting the seed" and making your decision on the outcome of that "experiment" is a lot easier when you're evaluating the evidence to be around 50/50, or 33/33/33 if you're debating 3 choices, or 10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10/10 if you're debating 10 choices.  

 

But when you evaluate the evidence and it seems (to you) that the options have a 90/8/2 probability of being correct, and you do the "experiment" and you feel the 2% option is correct -- and that option is also the option you've been raised your whole life to believe is the correct one -- well... it's a lot harder to trust that experiment, and one can find themselves questioning the whole process of the experiment in the first place.  And then one often ends up going with the 90 choice... but keeps looking and evaluating the number as new evidence presents itself.

 

That's where I'm at at least.

 

I will say to counter myself to say that the "experiment" is nice on choices that don't have a definitive "right" or "wrong" answer (i.e. should i marry this person?  Should I take this job? etc).  And I know some view the chruch/gospel/God in that way.  "Should I attend and participate in the Mormon Church?" is a very different question than "Did a resurrected Jesus appear to a group of people in the Americas?"

Those two last questions I think are not different than the others, because the appearance of Christ in the Americas is totally UNKNOWABLE IN PRINCIPLE through evidence.

 

The historical belief is ITSELF a religious belief.  That's what I was trying to say earlier.

 

The idea that a person Jesus, died near Jerusalem 2000 years ago, and CAME BACK TO LIFE, is impossible to prove.  The idea that he was our "savior" is even more impossible to prove.   And the idea that this perhaps never-existent person came back to life, took away our sins, and then appeared thousands of miles away on a different continent is totally absurd if all we are going on is evidence.

 

Totally absurd.

 

We could have photographs and still question if that was "really Christ" or if it was taken "really in the Americas"- there would always be a basis for doubting the evidence.  No photographs could prove he "resurrected"- even a video could be faked if such a thing was even possible.  There are no "facts" here whatsoever- either you WANT to believe for your own reasons or you don't.

 

To me, if there is a 1% chance that something which is so important never happened, my mind fixes on that 1%.  A miss is as good as a mile.

 

I would not pay 10% of my income for life to an organization that was only 99% true.  Would you pay 10% to an organization based on the truth of Quantum Physics?   What about an organization to promote Darwinism?  What about a political party?  What non-religious beliefs do you have which are pretty certain to you?

 

Would you give them 10% of your income?   I wouldn't.  Not ever.   I am too much of a skeptic.

 

But the gospel of Jesus Christ fills my life with joy.  The fact that I believe that God himself has told me it is true is overwhelming.  There is absolutely nothing "logical" about it.

 

When I enter the temple, I feel the spirit of God.  When I perform ordinances there, it feels as if I am transported into heaven.  These beliefs give my life meaning.  I have a feeling of certainty that one day I will be again with my family.

 

Is it logical?  No.  Does it have to be?  No.  Am I on good philosophical ground to think that my position is "rational"?  Absolutely. I AM CONVINCED THAT THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE REST.   I know what evidence is, and I know what it can and cannot do.  Had I not studied philosophy as an atheist and seen the very limits of philosophy itself- I could never see this position as "rational". 

 

But having studied what I have studied I KNOW it is "rational" and can defend that position to the point of helping others to see that any other position is indeed "IRRATIONAL"

 

And not only do I give 10% of my income to this organization, I would gladly give all of it, if required to do so.

 

So no, to me there is no difference between "Should I join the Mormon church" and "Did a resurrected Jesus appear to a group of people in the Americas?"

 

Only Mormons believe that a resurrected Christ appeared in the Americas.  That is PART of being a Mormon, part of the faith itself.  The primary question is "should you be a Mormon" and then all the rest falls into place- not the other way around.

 

As I see it you have too much FAITH in "evidence", in that is what it is.  You are not skeptical enough!  You put faith in beliefs ("Evidence is relevant to religion") that are false.

 

There are no "facts" only interpretations.  Nothing you think is a "fact" "really is" a "fact".  All producers of "facts" have an axe to grind, there is no such thing as total objectivity of evidence for any theory.  It is all interpretations of someone with an axe to grind- a cause to believe in.

 

When I really GOT that, it changed my life.

[mfbukowski]

I dunno, I could argue that it still holds true.  Scientific theories about disease will bring more peace, hope and joy over a Jack Daniels if I have ebola.  I'm just being a pragmatist

The obvious answer is that in the long run of course you are right.

 

I am glad I have converted you. 

Edited November 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not trying to establish a pattern. of course I know them both and I agree there are plenty of factors involved. I have no interest whatsoever to say that atheists on the whole are better people than Mormon people, although anecdotally I'd say there are plenty in both camps that are great.

My only point is, that an atheist can be a good person just as well as a Mormon can be. God loves them both, and may favor them both in ways we simply don't understand.

And that is consistent with my point.

 

We each come uniquely wired, and we each have moral agency. That does not argue against the good that is or can be accomplished by religious faith. It may be that your Mormon neighbor, who you indicate is less benevolent than your atheist one, would be even less inclined toward benevolence were it not for the influence of religion in his life. Conversely, the benevolent nature of your atheist neighbor might be amplified were he to allow religious faith into his life.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[canard78]

I am done responding to comments on this thread about my theory.

However I am going to say this with regard to a seer stone and the hat.

If an astronomer is trying to detect a planet around a star by actually detecting its light, he has to do so by filtering out the light from the parent star that overwhelms the light coming from the planet.

If we listen to the spirit, we have to train ourselves filter out all the other voices and busy phenomena around us.

If you take a picture with an old school camera with film in it, you have to have a dark space within the camera with only a small hole to allow a small amount of light in through it to take the picture for a small instant of time. That enclosed dark space in the camera allows the picture to be taken without being overwhelmed by excess light from the surroundings.

If you develop a picture the old school way, you must do so in a dark room so the development process of your prints do not get overwhelmed by excess light.

Contrary to Brant Gardner's "seeing something in one's mind" theory of the seer stone, the only context that using a hat makes sense is to get rid of the excess light from ones surroundings.

In other words, if the seer stone puts out light to show images in a miraculous way, then it makes perfect sense to get rid of excess light around you so you can concentrate on the small amount of light emanated from the stone.

Not the only... He'd spent the previous few years sticking his face in stone-filled hat when treasure hunting. It was kind of his signature "I'm having a moment" move. So it could have been just as much for show to build the confidence of his peers and supporters as anything else.

That's not to say I believe Joseph made it up. I leave room for an inspired dictation. I just don't believe for one minute that he needed darkness to be able to see the faintly projected words emitting from this bog-standard pebble from the bottom of a well.

The (published) Book of Mormon seems to have produced in much the same way that the words of the D&C, JST, BoA and BoMoses were produced. They came from Joseph's head. Whether a divine influence was the prompt or source of those words is something I consider possible.

[pogi]

I am glad I have converted you.

 

I've been one for quite some time, I just didn't have a name for it.  For that I thank you.

 

There are no "facts" only interpretations.  Nothing you think is a "fact" "really is" a "fact".  All producers of "facts" have an axe to grind, there is no such thing as total objectivity of evidence for any theory.  It is all interpretations of someone with an axe to grind- a cause to believe in.

 

When I really GOT that, it changed my life.

 

Exactly! 

 

As I have said elsewhere -

 

When it comes to measuring truth, the tools at our disposal are the faculties with which we are endowed, including the senses and reason of man.  It is limited by our ability to gather information and process that information which we have gathered.  The gathering of information is accomplished through the natural senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.  

The processing of information is done through the faculties of the mind and reason.  The gathering and processing of information forms a person’s reality and defines that person.  Relative truth changes with a man’s experience.  Just as one man’s experience in life differs from another man’s experience, so does relative truth differ from one person to another.  

Because the human senses are easily deceived, fallible, and extremely limited in their scope, the amount of information that we can gather is so negligible when you consider the vastness of the universe and beyond.  We as mortal humans can only perceive of the tiniest fraction of the likely infinite number of variables that make up the entirety of space, matter, energy, and time.  

Think of the limits of space, matter, and energy alone that are within the reach of our faculties.  Many of us have not even been outside of our countries of origin.  I have only been to 10 or 12 of the western 50 United States.  90% or more of my knowledge is based completely on trust of the experiences of others.  For all I know, the eastern states do not even exist.  Until I can see, hear, smell, touch, and taste them for myself, I don’t have any real experiential knowledge of them, all I have is trust that they exist.  The evidence seems overwhelming in their favor, but if everybody told me that the world was flat, then I would probably believe that too.  They could show me pictures of the precise spot where the ocean drops off and tell me grand stories of brave sailors who went too far, never to return.  I wouldn’t need to fall off the end of the Earth to discover that the earth is flat…or would I?  You can see how easy it is to confuse trust for knowledge, and abundant evidence for truth.

   

What we are left with are a few of the variables that we have gathered within our reach in an endless sea of variables.  It is like we are limited to 3 pieces of a puzzle with a possible infinite number of pieces, and we are not even sure if what we are holding are even real puzzle pieces because we can’t know anything for 100% certainty, but they probably, hopefully are; that’s our best guess of what they are anyway.  This keeps me in my place in the grand scheme of things.  I don't need explanatory theories to believe.  We simply cannot see the big picture, and therefore have good reason to question even our best probabilities.  

That’s why I choose hope and happiness over anything else. We simply don't know.

 

[mfbukowski]

Not the only... He'd spent the previous few years sticking his face in stone-filled hat when treasure hunting. It was kind of his signature "I'm having a moment" move. So it could have been just as much for show to build the confidence of his peers and supporters as anything else.

That's not to say I believe Joseph made it up. I leave room for an inspired dictation. I just don't believe for one minute that he needed darkness to be able to see the faintly projected words emitting from this bog-standard pebble from the bottom of a well.

The (published) Book of Mormon seems to have produced in much the same way that the words of the D&C, JST, BoA and BoMoses were produced. They came from Joseph's head. Whether a divine influence was the prompt or source of those words is something I consider possible.

There you go again, getting it right. 

[mfbukowski]

I've been one for quite some time, I just didn't have a name for it.  For that I thank you.

 

 

Exactly! 

 

As I have said elsewhere -

 

When it comes to measuring truth, the tools at our disposal are the faculties with which we are endowed, including the senses and reason of man.  It is limited by our ability to gather information and process that information which we have gathered.  The gathering of information is accomplished through the natural senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.  

The processing of information is done through the faculties of the mind and reason.  The gathering and processing of information forms a person’s reality and defines that person.  Relative truth changes with a man’s experience.  Just as one man’s experience in life differs from another man’s experience, so does relative truth differ from one person to another.  

Because the human senses are easily deceived, fallible, and extremely limited in their scope, the amount of information that we can gather is so negligible when you consider the vastness of the universe and beyond.  We as mortal humans can only perceive of the tiniest fraction of the likely infinite number of variables that make up the entirety of space, matter, energy, and time.  

Think of the limits of space, matter, and energy alone that are within the reach of our faculties.  Many of us have not even been outside of our countries of origin.  I have only been to 10 or 12 of the western 50 United States.  90% or more of my knowledge is based completely on trust of the experiences of others.  For all I know, the eastern states do not even exist.  Until I can see, hear, smell, touch, and taste them for myself, I don’t have any real experiential knowledge of them, all I have is trust that they exist.  The evidence seems overwhelming in their favor, but if everybody told me that the world was flat, then I would probably believe that too.  They could show me pictures of the precise spot where the ocean drops off and tell me grand stories of brave sailors who went too far, never to return.  I wouldn’t need to fall off the end of the Earth to discover that the earth is flat…or would I?  You can see how easy it is to confuse trust for knowledge, and abundant evidence for truth.

   

What we are left with are a few of the variables that we have gathered within our reach in an endless sea of variables.  It is like we are limited to 3 pieces of a puzzle with a possible infinite number of pieces, and we are not even sure if what we are holding are even real puzzle pieces because we can’t know anything for 100% certainty, but they probably, hopefully are; that’s our best guess of what they are anyway.  This keeps me in my place in the grand scheme of things.  I don't need explanatory theories to believe.  We simply cannot see the big picture, and therefore have good reason to question even our best probabilities.  

That’s why I choose hope and happiness over anything else. We simply don't know.

 

Uh, clearly you are plagiarizing my material.

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding!   Yep- that is pretty much exactly the way I see it as well.

 

Maybe I take it one step farther- I don't even worry about anything being "out there" other than what we have personally experienced or been told about by others through language.  You'd have to be nuts to think that it was all "in our minds" - literally you would have to be psychotic.

 

But there is nothing we can "know" about anything independent of what our minds are capable of knowing.  So worrying about whether or not a statement "corresponds" to some unknowable "reality" outside our perceptions is a mistaken notion.

 

"What you see is what you get".  Obviously we make mistakes in perceptions occasionally- oh well.  But for all "practical" purposes experience IS reality.

 

So reality itself is a social construct- it is the pooled experience of mankind shared through language.

 

So if I experience God, that is just as real as a scientist looking through a telescope and experiencing Jupiter.  I speak of my experience of God and he speaks about his experience of Jupiter.  But perhaps he needs to learn the name for the "experience of God", as a feeling of peace, awe, etc. just as you would teach a little child what it feels like when God speaks to you.

 

Language is the only way we can communicate experience.  It doesn't work very well but it's all we've got.  But at least I know that you too experience what I CALL "blue" because you never call anything "blue" that I call "red".

 

So language gives us pooled experiences, and we all know that what we experience is similar because we agree on the definitions.  They are easy for red and blue.

 

But when you get to major abstractions like "free will"  or "The nature of God" or "Evolution" look out.  Those are all linguistic constructs, subject only to verbal interpretations.

 

"Intelligent Design" anyone??   That is good for a few hundred pages without any possible resolution!

[mfbukowski]

oops lost a post

 

Edited November 19, 2014 by mfbukowski

[BCSpace]

That is not a very reasonable theory for a variety of reasons. When it comes to embarrassing stories, all they had to do was to publish their own (like was done for the Battle of Qadesh), or the Egyptians in the Hellenistic Era who wrote counter histories of the Exodus (Moses was a rebel, the Israelities were lepers, etc.).

 

It's very reasonable especially if the story of Abraham's miraculous escape got out.  Then they would have to publish a version using many of the same pictorials in order to claim it was the authentic version and not really be able to make up their own from scratch because it would easily be seen as a fraud. At the very least, it presents a problem to BoA critics because they have not covered all possible bases by any means.

[pogi]

Uh, clearly you are plagiarizing my material.

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding!  

 

Ha, ha.  I actually copied and pasted this from one of the first posts I made on these forums.  This was before I even knew you were a pragmatist...before I knew I was. 

[omni]

I will concede that.  So what?

 

 

 

 

I thought it interesting.

 

 

And what evidence do you have that Isaiah and the boys were not "making it up"?

 

 

 

None whatsoever, but then again I've never that claim.

 

 

If the answer is "none" then I also have no quarrel with you, except you don't belong on this thread.  This thread is about religious beliefs, if you don't believe, there are other places to discuss that.

 

 

You're kidding right?  Please tell me you're kidding.

[SmileyMcGee]

yes, I can explain it

it's like they-DB Mormon is saying, although now it seems he ripped off someone else's research, 'I don't know what is true but I do know that you don't/can't know either'-I am saying that's silly. People can poke holes all they want but show us how intelligent they really are by making better sense of the evidence

Can you tell me why we should accept his or this case someone else's critiques? why shouldn't DB Mormon tell us what is true?

So you're not really saying that you have to present a competing theory, you just have use the evidence to explain why a particular theory is wrong...I agree if that's what you're saying. I think just saying a theory is wrong without providing an argument as to why is a worthless exercise...I think I just misunderstood what you were saying. Edited November 20, 2014 by SmileyMcGee

[mfbukowski]

I thought it interesting.

 

 

 

 

None whatsoever, but then again I've never that claim.

 

 

 

You're kidding right?  Please tell me you're kidding.

I was suggesting that this thread is not about that issue and to discuss it here was derailing the thread

[volgadon]

Really?

 

It seems we have a disagreement.

 

Certainly. "[Y]ou are a person that has decided to use the "peer reviewed"  "Egyptological" sledge hammer to say, hey, here is my rule.  And your interpretation doesn't follow my established rule." You can go on about being a martyr to the establishment, but here is the thing. You are claiming that ancient Egyptians re-purposed hieroglyphs for something that goes completely against everything known about hieroglyphs. It isn't a minor point of disagreement, it makes utterly no sense in an Egyptian context, and is foreign to it, secondary intent or no. You are basically rejecting the entire discipline on the strength of your interpretation of the KEP, so once we've done that, why accept anything about Egypt and Egyptian that doesn't match our whims? You may have some dictionaries and online sources, but bcuz has recommended solid resources that can't be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

[Gervin]

why accept anything about Egypt and Egyptian that doesn't match our whims?

Well, people believe that a Hebrew God was once worshiped in Mesoamerica among the Maya where religious societies based on Mosaic Law flourished and where great battles were fought against the unbelievers.  You might even find a few folk nowadays co-opting Mayan hieroglyphics to match their whims.  Perhaps.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, people believe that a Hebrew God was once worshiped in Mesoamerica among the Maya where religious societies based on Mosaic Law flourished and where great battles were fought against the unbelievers.  You might even find a few folk nowadays co-opting Mayan hieroglyphics to match their whims.  Perhaps.

No serious Book of Mormon scholar believes that the Maya are central to the Book of Mormon.  The last couple of major books by John L. Sorenson discuss the matter with great credibility, finding that the Nephite world centered on the state of Chiapas in southern Mexico, along the Grijalva River (= River Sidon, which must flow north).  If you want to find a people who based their religious beliefs and practices on the Mosaic Law, that might be a better place to look for them and to do ancient DNA comparisons.  So too, one might want to search for the earlier Jaredite civilization among the archeological remnants of the Olmec in Veracruz state.  The chronology of the rise and fall of these cultures matches those of the Book of Mormon peoples, which seems hardly likely purely by accident.

[volgadon]

Well, people believe that a Hebrew God was once worshiped in Mesoamerica among the Maya where religious societies based on Mosaic Law flourished and where great battles were fought against the unbelievers.  You might even find a few folk nowadays co-opting Mayan hieroglyphics to match their whims.  Perhaps.

 

A lovely little gotcha, except that I reject attempts like the tree of Life artifacts.

[Robert F. Smith]

That's essentially the problem I have with the approach.  Evidence does not interpret itself. 

 

........................................................... AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

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

............................................................AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. 

 

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

This reminds me of the guys on "Seinfeld" saying that mantra repeatedly, as though to call forth some magical forgiveness for straying much too close to a politically incorrect stance (they are desperate that no one see them for what they are).

 

In this case, however, the problem with leaving evidence to fend for itself is that practical reality requires that evidence be interpreted by various parties, both expert and ordinary -- in a courtroom, for example, where advocates and witnesses present their competing views, and then the jury retires to deliberate and decide what is most likely to have been the case in fact.  A flawed system to be sure, Mark, but the only viable one in legal disputes.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

We now accept that Abraham didn't write them with his own hand so JS must have meant something else, right? But JS and the people of the time believed that it was the writings of Abraham ... By His Own Hand. We may not accept it now, but they did.

You seem to miss my point, HappyJack.  The phrase "by his own hand" is virtually the same phrase which appears in the Pauline epistles, and no one believes that means that they are autograph copies -- except maybe some hayseed somewhere who just doesn't get it.  It really doesn't matter much what Joseph and his compadres believed at the time, but rather what the text actually says.  A test-based analysis is always superior to errant beliefs of yokels who have no experience in such matters.

 

What I mean is, even the church acknowledges that JS didn't translate the BoA in a traditional way as was once taught. That is why they are floating multiple theories about it. They don't know how it was done either but essentially accept that it wasn't JS translating the actual papyrus.

I am unfamiliar with any claim made by the LDS Church, now or in the past, that Joseph translated the BofA "in a traditional way."  All of us should know how traditional translations are rendered -- by someone who knows the source and target languages -- so I am astounded that you would suggest that Joseph did anything like that, or claimed to, or that the Church has made that claim.  Nonsense.

 

The heading to the Book of Abraham still reads as it has all along "translated from the papyrus by Joseph Smith," and "A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt," etc.  Nowhere did Mormons then or now believe or assert that Joseph did that by traditional means.  All of them accepted that he did so as a prophet and seer, as was the case for the Book of Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

Just so I'm clear, when you look at the explanations Joseph Smith gave for Facsimile 1, Facsimile 2 and Facsimile 3, you don't see any anachronisms?

Of course I do, just as I do when I read the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Homeric epic, and that includes available archeological data to be compared with such books.  Indeed, I have written a book about the difficulties or aporias which must constantly be dealt with in such books.  The field of apologetics was created to deal with such questions, and it is a major field of study in Christian and Jewish seminaries.

 

The oddest thing about the current state of BoA apologetics is that it makes the mummies and papyri totally spurious to the Book of Abraham.  In fact, if it would actually be much better if Chandler had never brought the mummies to Kirtland and the Book of Abraham had just been revealed.   They were just a very expensive sideshow that only created problems.  They certainly don't offer any information or add anything to the Book of Abraham; they just fooled early LDS into thinking Joseph could actually translate (and that's translate, not "translate") Egyptian hieroglyphics, and now they just make apologists write books and articles explaining why the Book of Abraham is still true in spite of it not appearing to have anything to do with the papyri outside of the creative thinking of people who want it to.

You at least appear to see that there is more than one meaning to the word "translate," and I always recommend that researchers consult the 1828 Webster's and the Oxford English Dictionary to see what the full semantic range was in Joseph's day.

 

Of course I disagree with you on the value of the facsimiles, which I maintain should be judged on their own merits, (1) which Joseph's explanations give to them, as well as (2) the standard interpretations which Egyptology provides.  Only then can one rigorously compare the two sets of explanations..

 

After all, there's no controversy over the "translation" of the Bible and the Book of Moses.  It just is what it is and you either accept it or you don't.

Actually not so, as I intimate above, but that is a book-length discussion which would derail this thread.