pogi Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 My problem with the BOA is that no one with real Authority will address the issue. We have what people trained in Egyptology sayWe have what the apologists sayWe have what the Church Leadership say (I am referring to what is written in the BOA) So for me, what apologists say means nothing. They do not have the authority from the church to speak on its behalf. If BKP for example, would come out and say that "The BOA is "X" and you need to get in line" I would respect that. I may not agree, but I would respect a firm stance on the topic. Like him or not, BRM told it like he saw it. That is leadership. Again, I don't agree with harldy anything he said, but I admired his courage to lay it out there for the world to see. The only issue at hand is if it is the word of God or not. On this point the Church Leadership is clear. The rest is irrelevant.
Anteojito Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 The only issue at hand is if it is the word of God or not. On this point the Church Leadership is clear. The rest is irrelevant. To you maybe. But it is not irrelevant to a lot of other people. I don't think it unreasonable for members to ask for clarification. The original 12 asked Jesus to clarify his teaching for them.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 Do you have a long conversation for every single one of the badly translated items in the 3 facsimiles? It's going to be a bit laborious to wade through that many chats about the candy aisle every time!What's your defence of Min, for example, in #2?I focused on on #3, because I thought it was the most criticized. I haven't really done my own investigation into #2, but I would love to do so. I've been a bit discouraged this past year, since my investigation into #3 has not been looked at by anyone, like Daniel Petetson, but has sat ignored.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 This can work so long as historicity is not needed for something to be "correct." But the minute we start care whether Adam, Nephi, Abraham, and Christ were real historic people - and in particular that the historic events attributed to them really happened - then the prophet starts to have a problem.However, the Book of Abraham facsimile criticism is not that people have failed to prove them to be correct, but that they have (supposedly) been proven false. I think the Christmas analogy offers an apt perspective in countering that criticism.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 But Ryan his analogy has a fatal flaw, because in your conception, as well as in mine, these symbols in the Sensen Papyrus have a history as being associated with Abraham. Joseph Smith's usage of them, therefore, is not new, but a restoration of something of ancient precedent.I believe he was saying a prophet thousands of years in the future could be aware of the precedent and how we use Christmas as a celebration of Christ's birth, even though science would not be able to see that meaning.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 My theory is that the Book of Abraham was written in English originally and that God sent a computer back in time and switched the font to Wingdings to hide it from the unbeliever. This strange font became the Egyptian language and if someone would just become fluent in Wingdings or would type it in and switch the font we could get an accurate translation of the Book of Breathings that would be the modern Book of Abraham though some of the punctuation may be off due to scribal errors.Note: This will only work on Windows 95 computers.But can you find any flaws in my OP?
The Nehor Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 But can you find any flaws in my OP? Yeah, I am personally offended by persuasive arguments done in dialogue form where fictional characters stand around shilling the author's ideas pretending they are not the author's puppets mouthing his ideas. I read Left Behind and I have read Ayn Rand and I find the method distasteful, sophomoric, and an insult to the intelligence of the reader. I find the whole concept to be flawed. It sometimes works when the characters are real but even then I find it hard to read Plato extolling Socrates while he disingenuously manipulates his friends annoying. I might have slipped hemlock in the guy's drink too.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 Yeah, I am personally offended by persuasive arguments done in dialogue form where fictional characters stand around shilling the author's ideas pretending they are not the author's puppets mouthing his ideas. I read Left Behind and I have read Ayn Rand and I find the method distasteful, sophomoric, and an insult to the intelligence of the reader. I find the whole concept to be flawed. It sometimes works when the characters are real but even then I find it hard to read Plato extolling Socrates while he disingenuously manipulates his friends annoying. I might have slipped hemlock in the guy's drink too.Ok, but what I'm trying to do is anticipate objections people might have and respond to those objections. Because, what I find often happens is people see what they think is a problem in what they are reading and it causes them to reject the argument instead of challenging the author and seeing if they have an answer.
The Nehor Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Ok, but what I'm trying to do is anticipate objections people might have and respond to those objections. Because, what I find often happens is people see what they think is a problem in what they are reading and it causes them to reject the argument instead of challenging the author and seeing if they have an answer. Okay, allow me to directly challenge a point. In the piece from your website I quoted earlier you make a chain of at least six (possible more) chained suppositions to support your idea. You have little (trying to be generous here) to no evidence supporting them. Now assuming that each of these have a 50% chance of being right (which is insanely generous) the odds of all of them being right is around 1.5%. How can you possibly expect anyone to take this kind of guesswork seriously?
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 Okay, allow me to directly challenge a point. In the piece from your website I quoted earlier you make a chain of at least six (possible more) chained suppositions to support your idea. You have little (trying to be generous here) to no evidence supporting them. Now assuming that each of these have a 50% chance of being right (which is insanely generous) the odds of all of them being right is around 1.5%. How can you possibly expect anyone to take this kind of guesswork seriously?It wasn't anything that would need to be proven, since it merely serves as an example demonstrating that human sacrifice during the lifetime of Abraham does not necessarily conflict with the historic record as some suppose it does. And, that human sacrifice during that period may even converge with secular history. In other words, what the human sacrifice argument against the Book of Abraham attempts to rule out is not as readily ruled out as some people imagine. The burden of proof is on them.
The Nehor Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 It wasn't anything that would need to be proven, since it merely serves as an example demonstrating that human sacrifice during the lifetime of Abraham does not necessarily conflict with the historic record as some suppose it does. And, that human sacrifice during that period may even converge with secular history.In other words, what the human sacrifice argument against the Book of Abraham attempts to rule out is not as readily ruled out as some people imagine. The burden of proof is on them. Well, I'm convinced. I mean conventional wisdom is that the Italian army did not feast on the bodies of their fallen enemies during World War II and instead ate pasta but what if they belonged to a cannibal cult working for the Illuminati who were covering it up and Mussolini was actually an undead ghoul reanimated by black rites to carry out their secret agenda? I mean, until evidence comes forward we can assume they were, in fact, ghoulish cannibals. The burden of proof falls on people saying there is no evidence that they were cannibals.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 Well, I'm convinced. I mean conventional wisdom is that the Italian army did not feast on the bodies of their fallen enemies during World War II and instead ate pasta but what if they belonged to a cannibal cult working for the Illuminati who were covering it up and Mussolini was actually an undead ghoul reanimated by black rites to carry out their secret agenda? I mean, until evidence comes forward we can assume they were, in fact, ghoulish cannibals. The burden of proof falls on people saying there is no evidence that they were cannibals.You are making the mistake I outline in the apologetic proof paradox.
The Nehor Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 You are making the mistake I outline in the apologetic proof paradox. Is that the one from the dialogue where Jake and Rich meet at a laundromat and discuss boxers vs. briefs and variations amongst hypocephali discovered from ancient Egypt and how that proves that Abraham's wife Sarah is actually Sebek, the crocodile god? Because I admit I only skimmed that one.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 Is that the one from the dialogue where Jake and Rich meet at a laundromat and discuss boxers vs. briefs and variations amongst hypocephali discovered from ancient Egypt and how that proves that Abraham's wife Sarah is actually Sebek, the crocodile god? Because I admit I only skimmed that one.No it's this one http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-apologetic-proof-paradox.html?m=1
The Nehor Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 No it's this one http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-apologetic-proof-paradox.html?m=1 So, if you can find a plausible yet unproven rationale it eliminates all burden of proof? If I am standing over a dead body with a knife in my hand and blood all over me I should be able to escape charges by pointing out that he might have accidentally brutally stabbed himself while shaving?
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 So, if you can find a plausible yet unproven rationale it eliminates all burden of proof? If I am standing over a dead body with a knife in my hand and blood all over me I should be able to escape charges by pointing out that he might have accidentally brutally stabbed himself while shaving?Your example uses inductive evidence in place of an alleged deductive proof.
canard78 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 If you didn't know it was "Min" you would think it was a stick figure of someone giving a sign in the present temple. That's an arm on the other side of his body, with his hand extended at waist height, with a hand held in "approximately" a fist, because I do not want to say the correct description. The other arm forms a square with, fancy that, a compass instead of a hand. Golly gee I wonder what that could mean?And that's exactly what it is.Joseph was re-defining what his eyes plainly saw. He called it "translation" because in his language, "translation" could mean a reinterpretation and a change into something else, or the explanation of the meaning or significance of a symbolThis is from Webster's 1828 dictionary, underlining added.Right... But it is Min. We know know that now. Joseph didn't back then. The facsimiles are the only original sources we have available to evaluate the quality of Joseph's translating ability. The prevailing evidence from those facsimiles are this: Joseph couldn't translate a thing. At least not in the prevailing sense of the word. Could he transpose/change/interpret the characters and images? Sure... But that's not really what he meant when he said he could translate and what we have been lead to understand for 150+ years. We both know that. I've no problem with people finding meaning in his spiritual riffing but I see little credibility in his abilities as a translator (in the prevailing sense of the word), based on the evidence available. There are broader implications. Are the rest of the words in the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon of a similar ilk? If Joseph couldn't translate then do we simply have several hundred pages of his spiritual interpretations of squiggly lines and shapes that gave him ideas as he went along. If we do... then I could work with that... but let's actually teach it as such and not perpetuate the myth that we have a direct translation of the ancient words of prophets. 1
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 But that's not really what he meant when he said he could translateThen what did he mean when he said he translated the Book of Moses? Was he trying to make us believe that his source material, the King James Bible, had the Book of Moses encoded in its letters and he deciphered them?
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 If we do... then I could work with that... but let's actually teach it as such and not perpetuate the myth that we have a direct translation of the ancient words of prophets.? If Joseph couldn't translate then do we simply have several hundred pages of his spiritual interpretations of squiggly lines and shapes that gave him ideas as he went along.Good. Work with this then from LDS.org: We do know some things about the translation process. The word translation typically assumes an expert knowledge of multiple languages. Joseph Smith claimed no expertise in any language. He readily acknowledged that he was one of the “weak things of the world,” called to speak words sent “from heaven.”1 Speaking of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Lord said, “You cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.”2 The same principle can be applied to the book of Abraham. The Lord did not require Joseph Smith to have knowledge of Egyptian. By the gift and power of God, Joseph received knowledge about the life and teachings of Abraham..... The book of Abraham was the last of Joseph Smith’s translation efforts. In these inspired translations, Joseph Smith did not claim to know the ancient languages of the records he was translating. Much like the Book of Mormon, Joseph’s translation of the book of Abraham was recorded in the language of the King James Bible. This was the idiom of scripture familiar to early Latter-day Saints, and its use was consistent with the Lord’s pattern of revealing His truths “after the manner of their [His servants’] language, that they might come to understanding.”18Joseph’s translations took a variety of forms. Some of his translations, like that of the Book of Mormon, utilized ancient documents in his possession. Other times, his translations were not based on any known physical records. Joseph’s translation of portions of the Bible, for example, included restoration of original text, harmonization of contradictions within the Bible itself, and inspired commentary.19Some evidence suggests that Joseph studied the characters on the Egyptian papyri and attempted to learn the Egyptian language. His history reports that, in July 1835, he was “continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arrangeing a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.”20 This “grammar,” as it was called, consisted of columns of hieroglyphic characters followed by English translations recorded in a large notebook by Joseph’s scribe, William W. Phelps. Another manuscript, written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, has Egyptian characters followed by explanations.21The relationship of these documents to the book of Abraham is not fully understood. Neither the rules nor the translations in the grammar book correspond to those recognized by Egyptologists today. Whatever the role of the grammar book, it appears that Joseph Smith began translating portions of the book of Abraham almost immediately after the purchase of the papyri.22 Phelps apparently viewed Joseph Smith as uniquely capable of understanding the Egyptian characters: “As no one could translate these writings,” he told his wife, “they were presented to President Smith. He soon knew what they were.”23 .....The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. Joseph Smith had published the facsimiles as freestanding drawings, cut off from the hieroglyphs or hieratic characters that originally surrounded the vignettes. The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1.26None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.27 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived. https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng And there is much more- I am not going to quote the whole article.
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Then what did he mean when he said he translated the Book of Moses? Was he trying to make us believe that his source material, the King James Bible, had the Book of Moses encoded in its letters and he deciphered them?Read the above post. You are re-inventing the wheel here.
mfbukowski Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) I mean if you are going to post on a BOA thread, for Pete's sake at least be familiar with what the church now teaches. Argue with that if you like, but clearly you should be at least familiar that this info exists. Oh and incidentally we no longer bar Blacks from the priesthood, nor do we practice polygamy any more. Newsflash! The church just did away with half the Book of Abraham blog industry and no one knows it. Very strange indeed. Edited February 10, 2015 by mfbukowski
The Nehor Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Your example uses inductive evidence in place of an alleged deductive proof.It is neither actually. It is facile fabrication. There is no evidence or proof in it which is analogous to what I was comparing it to, your string of unsupported suppositions.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 It is neither actually. It is facile fabrication. There is no evidence or proof in it which is analogous to what I was comparing it to, your string of unsupported suppositions.No. The knife, for instance, is inductive evidence. You didn't seem to be comparing the knife to my "unsupported suppositions," contra what you now claim. In fact, you were talking about being seen with a knife. Is that what you call an unsupported supposition?
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 Read the above post. You are re-inventing the wheel here.How so.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 10, 2015 Author Posted February 10, 2015 I mean if you are going to post on a BOA thread, for Pete's sake at least be familiar with what the church now teaches. Argue with that if you like, but clearly you should be at least familiar that this info exists.Oh and incidentally we no longer bar Blacks from the priesthood, nor do we practice polygamy any more. Newsflash!The church just did away with half the Book of Abraham blog industry and no one knows it. Very strange indeed.You don't understand the point I was making.
Recommended Posts