The Nehor Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 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?No, you are awful at analogies. The unsupported supposition was the claim that it was an accidental suicide matching the unsupported suppositions in your work. The knife is analogous to the evidence suggesting you are wrong which you ignore. Ironically you fixate on the knife in my analogy.
Hermit53 Posted February 10, 2015 Posted February 10, 2015 Throughout all three pages I have yet to see a reason why, if this was written by his own hand, he used the name God gave him many years AFTER he left Egypt and even 13 years after Ishmael was born? Shouldn't the name in the manuscript have read ABRAM, and not Abraham?
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) No, you are awful at analogies. The unsupported supposition was the claim that it was an accidental suicide matching the unsupported suppositions in your work. The knife is analogous to the evidence suggesting you are wrong which you ignore. Ironically you fixate on the knife in my analogy.Hi, The Nehor. I always enjoy hearing from you. In this case, you can help your argument if you go back to the beginning of this discussion and follow it through, keeping track of what is being said. This should help you revise your analogy. Edited February 11, 2015 by Mormon Puzzle Pieces
The Nehor Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 Hi, The Nehor. I always enjoy hearing from you. In this case, you can help your argument if you go back to the beginning if this discussion and follow it through, keeping track of what is being said. This should help you revise your analogy. Too late, I checkmated your king based on analogy 2A of this thread and I win.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 Throughout all three pages I have yet to see a reason why, if this was written by his own hand, he used the name God gave him many years AFTER he left Egypt and even 13 years after Ishmael was born? Shouldn't the name in the manuscript have read ABRAM, and not Abraham?Hi, Hermit53. I'm really glad you brought this up. The name by which he was known when the events in Egypt occurred is not as relevant as the name by which he was known when he compiled together his record. I suspect Abraham passed his record down through his immediate family, who knew him as "Abraham" (and maybe also knew him as "dad" and "grandpa"), so for their sake and for the sake of future generations, I think it would make sense to call it the Book of Abraham.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 Too late, I checkmated your king based on analogy 2A of this thread and I win. You moved your white bishop to a black square.
The Nehor Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 You moved your white bishop to a black square. Racist. 1
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 Racist. Hey this is post-1978. There are black bishops too.
Robert F. Smith Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 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 problem with your theory, anteojito, is that you have no authority to say it. Where does that leave us? Does that raise the ante?
mfbukowski Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 The problem with your theory, anteojito, is that you have no authority to say it. Where does that leave us? Does that raise the ante?Not to mention it just being plain wrong. https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng
cinepro Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 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? Just so everyone is on the same page, let's remember that this is the preface to the Book of Abraham: The Book of Abraham Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith 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. As a further clue to the nature of the papyrus (and the illustration known as "Facsimile 1"), this is verse 12 in Chapter 1: 12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.----------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 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. I'm not sure what the Book of Moses "translation" has to do with the Book of Abraham "translation". If Joseph had been given a source with an ancient, unknown language on it and claimed that it had the writings of Moses on it, and then proceeded to dictate the Book of Moses while claiming he was "translating" said source, then it would be similar. But obviously that wasn't the case with the Book of Moses. Keep working on those analogies though. Eventually you'll get one right!
CMZ Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 So for me, what apologists say means nothing. They do not have the authority from the church to speak on its behalf. Apologists don't need authority from the Church to offer their views. And you are not bound to accept their views. But that doesn't mean everything they say is false.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 Just so everyone is on the same page, let's remember that this is the preface to the Book of Abraham:You use the word "the" as though the preface has never undergone any changes. It has. Would you like to learn more about it?As a further clue to the nature of the papyrus (and the illustration known as "Facsimile 1"), this is verse 12 in Chapter 1:[chuckles] Yes, the book is full of clues. I'm not sure what the Book of Moses "translation" has to do with the Book of Abraham "translation".Clearly. Maybe you should learn some more about it.If Joseph had been given a source with an ancient, unknown language on it and claimed that it had the writings of Moses on it, and then proceeded to dictate the Book of Moses while claiming he was "translating" said source, then it would be similar.In all seriousness, I would like a *respectful* discussion on this, with you. I address all these things in my solution. I hope you'll read it before making more false assumptions about what I know.Keep working on those analogies though. Eventually you'll get one right!I'm really a nice guy. There's no reason to be rude. If you take the time to understand my analogies, you might like them.
Mormon Puzzle Pieces Posted February 11, 2015 Author Posted February 11, 2015 Apologists don't need authority from the Church to offer their views. And you are not bound to accept their views. But that doesn't mean everything they say is false.Hear here!
DragonLancer Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 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. Wrong. The KEP is a key that can be reverse-engineered.
Anteojito Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 The problem with your theory, anteojito, is that you have no authority to say it. Where does that leave us? Does that raise the ante?I have no authority to say what? My opinion?
cinepro Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) I will give anyone $10 if they can start a thread that gets Mormon Puzzle Pieces into a debate (on any topic) with Wade Englund. If anything, it should be done for science, as I predict it will create the first discussion board thread of infinite length where both participants are convinced they are profoundly illuminating their side of the subject, when in fact no usable information is ever shared. Edited February 11, 2015 by cinepro 1
The Nehor Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I will give anyone $10 if they can start a thread that gets Mormon Puzzle Pieces into a debate (on any topic) with Wade Englund. If anything, it should be done for science, as I predict it will create the first discussion board thread of infinite length where both participants are convinced they are profoundly illuminating their side of the subject, when in fact no usable information is ever shared.Can we get Dragonlancer to referee? It would be a perfect expression of modern art. 1
cinepro Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) You use the word "the" as though the preface has never undergone any changes. It has. Would you like to learn more about it? I sure would. Here is the first time The Book of Abraham was published, in the Times and Seasons in 1842: Times and Seasons - 1842 The introduction to that initial publication reads as follows: A TRANSLATION Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus The introduction I quoted (from the Church's current publication of the Book of Abraham) reads as follows: Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith 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. So yes, please tell me more about how it has changed over the years. I'm sure there's a lot to learn! I'm especially interested in the history behind the comma that was taken out after the word "hands". What do you know about that, and what does that tell us about the origin of the Book of Abraham? Edited February 11, 2015 by cinepro
Uncle Dale Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 I sure would. Here is the first time The Book of Abraham was published, in the Times and Seasons in 1842: Times and Seasons - 1842 The introduction to that initial publication reads as follows: The introduction I quoted (from the Church's current publication of the Book of Abraham) reads as follows: So yes, please tell me more about how it has changed over the years. I'm sure there's a lot to learn! I'm especially interested in the history behind the comma that was taken out after the word "hands". What do you know about that, and what does that tell us about the origin of the Book of Abraham?Purported, eh?When Mother Lucy used to open up the china cabinet and take out the papyrus relics, I don't think she told the awe-struck viewers that they were only seeing the purported handwriting of the Patriarch Abraham.No doubt the Times and Seasons report passed through the hands of some junior editor before reaching the type-setter.UD
Anteojito Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Not to mention it just being plain wrong. https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=engThe essay is a good start and I applaud the church for putting them out. I think it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Are we supposed to take the essays as the last and final word on the topic? Edited February 11, 2015 by Anteojito
cinepro Posted February 11, 2015 Posted February 11, 2015 The essay is a good start and I applaud the church for putting them out. I think it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Are we supposed to take the essays as the last and final word on the topic? If the BoA were a house, the essays would be like a fresh coat of paint. As long as the problems aren't structural, then no further improvements will be necessary. 1
mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) You said this:My problem with the BOA is that no one with real Authority will address the issue. Then I showed you the quote, now you say this:The essay is a good start and I applaud the church for putting them out. I think it still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.Are we supposed to take the essays as the last and final word on the topic?What is it that you want? Edited February 12, 2015 by mfbukowski
Rivers Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 You said this:Then I showed you the quote, now you say this:What is it that you want?He wants Pres. Monson to provide a written revelation from God giving us all the answers to the Book of Abraham.Unfortunately it appears that it is up to the scholars to provide us with possible explanations.
Anteojito Posted February 12, 2015 Posted February 12, 2015 He wants Pres. Monson to provide a written revelation from God giving us all the answers to the Book of Abraham.Unfortunately it appears that it is up to the scholars to provide us with possible explanations."He wants Pres. Monson to provide a written revelation from God giving us all the answers to the Book of Abraham." That would work for me. You know something like D&C 113. Seems like God did not mind answering questions back the good ole days.
Recommended Posts