Does it even matter if the Book of Abraham isn't a correct translation?

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Dang dude.

You nailed it!  Can I steal that? ...

You can certainly borrow it, with attribution.   I haven't made a very big secret of my real name around here.  If you've ever visited my blog, you certainly know it (or can find it out: Greatgourdini.wordpress.com).  (Of course, if you do steal it, how'm I gonna know? )

Stolen or with attribution, may you use it in good health.

Edited January 5, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[salgare]

On 1/4/2016 at 5:07 PM, mfbukowski said:

2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You can certainly borrow it, with attribution.   I haven't made a very big secret of my real name around here.  If you've ever visited my blog, you certainly know it (or can find it out: Greatgourdini.wordpress.com).  (Of course, if you do steal it, how'm I gonna know?  ;))

Stolen or with attribution, may you use it in good health.

 

Dang lawyers anyway

 

hope all is well with ya

Edited January 5, 2016 by salgare

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You can certainly borrow it, with attribution.   I haven't made a very big secret of my real name around here.  If you've ever visited my blog, you certainly know it (or can find it out: Greatgourdini.wordpress.com).  (Of course, if you do steal it, how'm I gonna know? )

Stolen or with attribution, may you use it in good health.

Of course I would give you attribution!

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Dang lawyers anyway

 

hope all is well with ya

[canard78]

On 2 January 2016 at 8:39 PM, Calm said:

If what you mean is he misunderstood the source of what he was giving us, that it was something else besides the papyri, but the actual source whatever it was the Word of God as are other scriptures, I see that as an acceptable solution.

 

On 2 January 2016 at 8:40 PM, JLHPROF said:

No.

If it is true, it is true, regardless of source.

Out of interest, would you feel the same way about the gold plates? If the gold plates were actually a record of, say, Aztec royalty, would it still be ok that Joseph dictated something "true" but entirely different to the source?

That's effectively what seems to have happened in the case of BoA. I'm wondering if that situation would be acceptable for the rest of restoration scripture?

[JLHPROF]

15 hours ago, canard78 said:

 

Out of interest, would you feel the same way about the gold plates? If the gold plates were actually a record of, say, Aztec royalty, would it still be ok that Joseph dictated something "true" but entirely different to the source?

That's effectively what seems to have happened in the case of BoA. I'm wondering if that situation would be acceptable for the rest of restoration scripture?

Yes.

The contents of scripture matter more than the source.

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2016 at 2:55 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

 

This assertion not self-evident.

Edited to add:

The board software is behaving weirdly. The bottom portion of my post appears as strike-through text. This was not intended by me, and there doesn't seem to be anything I can do to fix it.

Accordingly, please disregard the strike-through and pardon the distraction.

 

The software has been redesigned to reflect that the content of your posts should customarily be disregarded.

[consiglieri]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

Dear Robert,

I hit the quote button but nothing of what you said got quoted.  Likely because it was all in the quote box already.

Suffice it to say that I have great respect for you, but the evidence indicates pretty conclusively to me that to hold out hope for some additional papyrus that was not preserved and which contains the contents of the Book of Abraham is whistling past the graveyard.

The Book of Abraham itself references Facsimile 1.

And the KEP translates figures from the fragments that have survived into text that is in the Book of Abraham.

That is why I discarded the "missing papyrus theory" some years back.

Regards!

[consiglieri]

On ‎1‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 2:33 PM, cinepro said:

Maybe I was meant to be a Scientologist, because when it comes to faith, God tests my faith much more with the emotion and reasoning in Scientology than with the CoJCoLdS.

My faith would be stronger if the papyrus actually contained the Book of Abraham.

Or at least a sentence.

Or at least a name.

I'm not asking for a lot, here!

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/5/2016 at 4:14 PM, consiglieri said:

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

Suffice it to say that I have great respect for you, but the evidence indicates pretty conclusively to me that to hold out hope for some additional papyrus that was not preserved and which contains the contents of the Book of Abraham is whistling past the graveyard.

The Book of Abraham itself references Facsimile 1.

Of course it references the first facsimile (as I stated), and there is material which references the second facsimile.  That you find such referencing conclusive evidence of something (what?) is fine, but you have not read those references closely enough.  Had you done so, it would raise very serious questions for you, e.g., what does the text say fac 1 shows?  1:13, "It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans" -- Abe is describing something other than the late Egyptian facsimile we have!!  He is referring to an illustration from north Mesopotamia/north Syria, not Egypt.  Moreover, the context of Abraham 1 is North Syrian, not Egyptian.  Scholarship requires close scrutiny of texts.

And the KEP translates figures from the fragments that have survived into text that is in the Book of Abraham.

KEP appears to translate, but in fact does no such thing.  Indeed, the available KEP documents were all part of an attempt to create a “cipher-key” for encipherment-by-substitution of portions of Joseph Smith’s revelations then being prepared for publication as the 1835 D&C.*  How do we know this?  William Schryver has shown conclusively that William W. Phelps began this cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and he was the “dominant force” in continuing that effort – which utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations (D&C 76 and 88).  The conclusion of Schryver is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham via revelation – the same way he received the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses.**

That is why I discarded the "missing papyrus theory" some years back.

.............................................................  
That would require assumptions that (1) different texts cannot appear on the same papyrus, and that (2) there was no room on the Breathing Papyrus for additional material -- blatantly false assumptions.

Notes:

*  David J. Whittaker, “Substituted Names in the Published Revelations of Joseph Smith,” BYU Studies 23/1 (Winter 1983):103-112; Christopher C. Smith misses the point in his “The Inspired Fictionalization of the 1835 United Firm Revelations,” Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies, 1/1 (Apr 2011):15-31.

**   Schryver, “The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,” paper delivered at the 2010 Conference of FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research), vimeos available online at http://vimeo.com/user439270/videos/sort:oldest .  Cf. May 27, 1835 letter of Phelps to his wife, and the July 17, 1835 History of the Church entry.

Edited January 7, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[volgadon]

I hold to a variation of the missing papyri theory where the missing portion is not very large. The extant papyri are not the narrative of the BoA, but they are absolutely integral to how the book would have been read anciently. I'm being intentionally cryptic, but if anyone understands the most important elements of apocalypses/ascension texts and what is conspicuously missing from our current book, they will get where I'm going with this.

[salgare]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

KEP appears to translate, but in fact does no such thing.  Indeed, the available KEP documents were all part of an attempt to create a “cipher-key” for encipherment-by-substitution of portions of Joseph Smith’s revelations then being prepared for publication as the 1835 D&C.*  How do we know this?  William Schryver has shown conclusively that William W. Phelps began this cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and he was the “dominant force” in continuing that effort – which utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations (D&C 76 and 88).  The conclusion of Schryver is that Joseph Smith received the Book of Abraham via revelation – the same way he received the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses.**

The link you gave to William's FAIR conference talk is bad.

I know the intellectuals on the critic side of the fence would love to see the book/s that were to follow.  Is there any news on this front?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, volgadon said:

I hold to a variation of the missing papyri theory where the missing portion is not very large. The extant papyri are not the narrative of the BoA, but they are absolutely integral to how the book would have been read anciently. I'm being intentionally cryptic, but if anyone understands the most important elements of apocalypses/ascension texts and what is conspicuously missing from our current book, they will get where I'm going with this.

Ah the secret decoder ring theory hey? 

[volgadon]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ah the secret decoder ring theory hey? 

Better known as the Ovaltine theory.

[Gray]

It matters to orthodox Mormons, but it really shouldn't.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, consiglieri said:

My faith would be stronger if the papyrus actually contained the Book of Abraham.

Or at least a sentence.

Or at least a name.

I'm not asking for a lot, here!

No it wouldn't

Then it would not be "faith" at all.

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No it w general? nuldn't

Then it would not be "faith" at all.

Then why do we need Fair or apologetics ?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Then why do we need Fair or apologetics ?

To provide an opposing explanation to criticisms.  Not to provide fact in place of faith.

Faith will always be needed until everything is revealed beyond debate.  In the meantime, the same mortal reasoning that can be used to generate criticisms can be used to generate reasonable explanations.

But people still have to exercise faith and choose whether the criticism carries sufficient weight to throw something away.

[Sanpitch]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

To provide an opposing explanation to criticisms.  Not to provide fact in place of faith.

Faith will always be needed until everything is revealed beyond debate.  In the meantime, the same mortal reasoning that can be used to generate criticisms can be used to generate reasonable explanations.

But people still have to exercise faith and choose whether the criticism carries sufficient weight to throw something away.

And the reason for faith is when there is a lack of evidence.  You'll be much more blessed if you have faith without evidence because...because...  I forget, why are you blessed for having faith without evidence?

Edited January 7, 2016 by Sanpitch

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, salgare said:

The link you gave to William's FAIR conference talk is bad.

I know the intellectuals on the critic side of the fence would love to see the book/s that were to follow.  Is there any news on this front?

Can't locate it in Google Docs now, so the vimeos are your only option.  Sorry.

Haven't heard anything on publication yet.

[salgare]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Can't locate it in Google Docs now, so the vimeos are your only option.  Sorry.

Haven't heard anything on publication yet.

Thanks Robert

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/5/2016 at 4:15 PM, consiglieri said:

My faith would be stronger if the papyrus actually contained the Book of Abraham.

Or at least a sentence.

Fac 2:1 "signifying the first creation" (= adjacent Egyptian words in Fac 2:10-11 sp tpy "the First Occasion, Creation"), is correctly identified by Joseph, according to modern Egyptology (both the words and the symbol).

Fac 2:6 "earth in its four quarters" is correctly identified by Joseph, according to modern Egyptology.

Or at least a name.

Abe 3:13 Shinehah is correctly identified by Joseph as Egyptian for "sun," since the Egyptian šn-sign “represented the orbit of the sun,” and nḥḥ “eternity (dynamic).”

Fac 2:1 Kolob can be either Semitic Qlb/Qrb "the Near One" (Ps 119:151), a divine epithet; or the deity ^dKa-la-bu ‘the god Kolob’,” in the Pantheon Babylonicum.

Fac 2:3 "power and authority" is correctly identified by Joseph, according to modern Egyptology (the wЗś-scepter).

Fac 2:4 "firmament" (= Hebrew raukeeyang) is correctly identified by Joseph, according to modern Egyptology.  S. A. B. Mercer long ago said "the Prophet made a good guess, if it be not simply a coincidence." 

Fac 2:5 Kae-e-vanrash is correctly identified by Joseph, since it is proto-Hebrew *Ke-‘eban-raš "“The-very-capstone, keystone"; also, Hathor is correctly identified as the sun here.

I'm not asking for a lot, here!

Please see my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 8 online August 18, 2014, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham , for these and other such astonishing correct interpretations, with documentation for each.  Of course, with Mercer, one can attribute it all to "a good guess" or "coinicidence."

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

And the reason for faith is when there is a lack of evidence.  You'll be much more blessed if you have faith without evidence because...because...  I forget, why are you blessed for having faith without evidence?

No, that's not what faith is.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is not for when there is a lack of evidence for a belief.  Faith is recognizing the evidences for things you don't know for sure.

[Sanpitch]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

No, that's not what faith is.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith is not for when there is a lack of evidence for a belief.  Faith is recognizing the evidences for things you don't know for sure.

And what does that possibility mean.  I've run across that statement many times and never could find a logical meaning.

[Calm]

23 hours ago, salgare said:

The link you gave to William's FAIR conference talk is bad.

Try this:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-meaning-of-the-kirtland-egyptian-papers-part-i