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

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Then why do we need Fair or apologetics ?

I don't.  I am here to help people not learn anything.

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Try this:

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

Thank you Calm!

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Try this:

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

Thanks, Calm.  Too bad the transcript is gone.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/5/2016 at 11:56 PM, 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?

But that is not what "effectively" happened in the case of the BofA.  I have seen no rational demonstration of that, but just the opposite.

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, Sanpitch said:

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

Very simple.

Take the Book of Mormon.  It is an evidence for Joseph's unwitnessed visions that provide a boost to faith in his story and calling.  Does it prove or make Joseph's story absolute fact, removing faith?  No.  Is it an evidence that the unseen visions happened?  Sure, to the point that millions have seen an increase in faith and joined Mormon religions.

Faith is evidences of the unseen, not proof of fact.  When a blessing is given and a person recovers that is it an evidence.  Not full proof of fact, but an evidence.  When the ice froze out of season allowing the exodus from Nauvoo or gulls appeared to eat crickets, or quail flew into a camp that was starving, all evidences that bring faith, regardless of provable fact.

[Sanpitch]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Very simple.

Take the Book of Mormon.  It is an evidence for Joseph's unwitnessed visions that provide a boost to faith in his story and calling.  Does it prove or make Joseph's story absolute fact, removing faith?  No.  Is it an evidence that the unseen visions happened?  Sure, to the point that millions have seen an increase in faith and joined Mormon religions.

Faith is evidences of the unseen, not proof of fact.  When a blessing is given and a person recovers that is it an evidence.  Not full proof of fact, but an evidence.  When the ice froze out of season allowing the exodus from Nauvoo or gulls appeared to eat crickets, or quail flew into a camp that was starving, all evidences that bring faith, regardless of provable fact.

OK, thank you.  I'll have to maul or mall that over for a while.

[volgadon]

Mull.

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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."

 

 

I was actually referring to the text of the papyrus rather than the facsimiles, but thanks for the recap, Robert.

I always liked the canopic jars (i.e., four sons of Horus) representing the earth in its four quarters.

Not bad, I think.

But when we get to trying to match up words in the BOA text with possible corollaries in ancient languages, I tend to be less impressed.

 

[canard78]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But that is not what "effectively" happened in the case of the BofA.  I have seen no rational demonstration of that, but just the opposite.

We have only three cases where the known source and the direct translation of that source are both available for evaluation. They all reside in the Book of Abraham (the three facsimiles). 

What at the original Egyptian document says and what Joseph claims it says is entirely different. 

On the the only examinable example of Joseph's translation abilities he fails to render the meaning of the original document. 

[consiglieri]

30 minutes ago, canard78 said:

We have only three cases where the known source and the direct translation of that source are both available for evaluation. They all reside in the Book of Abraham (the three facsimiles). 

What at the original Egyptian document says and what Joseph claims it says is entirely different. 

On the the only examinable example of Joseph's translation abilities he fails to render the meaning of the original document. 

I think the Church essay on the Book of Abraham has conceded the point that Joseph's translation failed to render the meaning of the original document.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

But when we get to trying to match up words in the BOA text with possible corollaries in ancient languages, I tend to be less impressed.

I am able to match up lots of words in the BofA text with corollaries in ancient languages, so I am not sure what you mean to say here.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

I think the Church essay on the Book of Abraham has conceded the point that Joseph's translation failed to render the meaning of the original document.

Perhaps you could quote the Church essay in which that is actually stated.  CFR

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

We have only three cases where the known source and the direct translation of that source are both available for evaluation. They all reside in the Book of Abraham (the three facsimiles). 

What at the original Egyptian document says and what Joseph claims it says is entirely different. 

On the the only examinable example of Joseph's translation abilities he fails to render the meaning of the original document. 

Since we have several different efforts at representing the Book of Mormon characters, your statement is false.

Moreover, at point after point, Joseph's claims for the Book of Abraham facsimiles match those of modern Egyptology (as I point out above to consigliere).

Finally, assertion is not the same as factual evidence.  I cite my sources.  I find that those making these types of claims cannot cite backup.

[canard78]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since we have several different efforts at representing the Book of Mormon characters, your statement is false.

Moreover, at point after point, Joseph's claims for the Book of Abraham facsimiles match those of modern Egyptology (as I point out above to consigliere).

Finally, assertion is not the same as factual evidence.  I cite my sources.  I find that those making these types of claims cannot cite backup.

The Book of Mormon characters are not remotely comparable to the facsimiles. While the characters you reference may or may not be taken directly as copies from the gold plates, there is not a direct translation of those characters so no opportunity to evaluate his translation skills on that one.

As to the second part Robert... wishful thinking.

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Thanks, Calm.  Too bad the transcript is gone.

Yes, I don't know why that is.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

 

Quote

 

Robert F. Smith said:

Since we have several different efforts at representing the Book of Mormon characters, your statement is false.

Moreover, at point after point, Joseph's claims for the Book of Abraham facsimiles match those of modern Egyptology (as I point out above to consigliere).

Finally, assertion is not the same as factual evidence.  I cite my sources.  I find that those making these types of claims cannot cite backup.

 

The Book of Mormon characters are not remotely comparable to the facsimiles. While the characters you reference may or may not be taken directly as copies from the gold plates, there is not a direct translation of those characters so no opportunity to evaluate his translation skills on that one.

As to the second part Robert... wishful thinking.

You continue to make the same blatant error, completely unaware that Book of Mormon characters having a direct translation have long existed, and that an Egyptologist with a PhD thinks the translation correct.  You are free to consult an Egyptologist of your choosing in order to verify the published claim:  Benjamin Urrutia,  “The Name Connection,” New Era, 13/6 (June 1983):39, citing Nancy C. Williams,  After One Hundred Years (Independence, Missouri: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Co., 1951), plate between pages 102–103.

These types of negative claims are nearly always generic and unsupported by any documentation.

[canard78]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You continue to make the same blatant error, completely unaware that Book of Mormon characters having a direct translation have long existed, and that an Egyptologist with a PhD thinks the translation correct.  You are free to consult an Egyptologist of your choosing in order to verify the published claim:  Benjamin Urrutia,  “The Name Connection,” New Era, 13/6 (June 1983):39, citing Nancy C. Williams,  After One Hundred Years (Independence, Missouri: Zion’s Printing and Publishing Co., 1951), plate between pages 102–103.

 

These types of negative claims are nearly always generic and unsupported by any documentation.

Can I check I'm not missing anything?

In an article in the New Era, Benjamin Urrutia reproduces a single character that Nancy Williams added to a biography, written in 1951, of Frederick Williams and his wife.

In that book she reproduces an image that, according to her, Williams said that Joseph told him was the character representing "Mormon" on the gold plates.

Urrutia then compares this character to the Egyptian characters for "Mor" and "mon." 

Is that the full extent of the example of Joseph translation of the original BoM material.

You seemed pretty indignant that I was unaware of an example of Joseph's Book of Mormon translation ability that could be evaluated against the original source. If this single character is all there is then I'm a bit underwhelmed. I'd assumed there would be more than just a single character reproduced in a one-off magazine for teenagers.

Links:

New Era article: https://www.lds.org/new-era/1983/06/the-name-connection?lang=eng

Scan of After 100 Years (no plate included in this copy): https://familysearch.org/patron/v2/TH-300-46223-433-3/dist.pdf?ctx=ArtCtxPublic

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

Can I check I'm not missing anything?

In an article in the New Era, Benjamin Urrutia reproduces a single character that Nancy Williams added to a biography, written in 1951, of Frederick Williams and his wife.

In that book she reproduces an image that, according to her, Williams said that Joseph told him was the character representing "Mormon" on the gold plates.

Urrutia then compares this character to the Egyptian characters for "Mor" and "mon." 

Is that the full extent of the example of Joseph translation of the original BoM material.

You seemed pretty indignant that I was unaware of an example of Joseph's Book of Mormon translation ability that could be evaluated against the original source. If this single character is all there is then I'm a bit underwhelmed. I'd assumed there would be more than just a single character reproduced in a one-off magazine for teenagers.

Links:

New Era article: https://www.lds.org/new-era/1983/06/the-name-connection?lang=eng

Scan of After 100 Years (no plate included in this copy): https://familysearch.org/patron/v2/TH-300-46223-433-3/dist.pdf?ctx=ArtCtxPublic

 

Because you know nothing about Egyptian hieratic, and because you are indignant that you were caught in a false statement, you then automatically and falsely describe more than one character as a "single character."  You then go on to belittle the publication as one for teens, never responding to the substantive fact that you were wrong there and in the remainder of your original comments.  Perhaps that is your version of how scholarship proceeds, canard, but it smacks of anger and impatience.  You could learn a great deal about the facts surrounding the Book of Mormon, if you were willing to accept factual evidence -- regardless of the source.

[canard78]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Because you know nothing about Egyptian hieratic, and because you are indignant that you were caught in a false statement, you then automatically and falsely describe more than one character as a "single character."  You then go on to belittle the publication as one for teens, never responding to the substantive fact that you were wrong there and in the remainder of your original comments.  Perhaps that is your version of how scholarship proceeds, canard, but it smacks of anger and impatience.  You could learn a great deal about the facts surrounding the Book of Mormon, if you were willing to accept factual evidence -- regardless of the source.

I haven't rejected it. I've simply said I'm underwhelmed by it. 

Forgive me for mixing up "character" and "name."  It's still only a single name that we have to evaluate. 

If it is indeed a true replication of what Joseph said and Williams transcribed and recalled then you're right that I was unaware of this small example of an original source of a single word in the BoM. Give yourself a medal or something. 

The fact that this translation is so obscure and relatively unknown makes me question why it has been ignored. NHM gets wheeled frequently as a "slam dunk" (to use a Jeff Lindseyism). Why has this one had such a low profile.

This is all a bit of a red herring anyway to the actual earlier point that the Joseph translation of the Abraham facsimiles are not accurate or reflective of what they actually represent. 

[stemelbow]

19 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I haven't rejected it. I've simply said I'm underwhelmed by it. 

Forgive me for mixing up "character" and "name."  It's still only a single name that we have to evaluate. 

If it is indeed a true replication of what Joseph said and Williams transcribed and recalled then you're right that I was unaware of this small example of an original source of a single word in the BoM. Give yourself a medal or something. 

The fact that this translation is so obscure and relatively unknown makes me question why it has been ignored. NHM gets wheeled frequently as a "slam dunk" (to use a Jeff Lindseyism). Why has this one had such a low profile.

This is all a bit of a red herring anyway to the actual earlier point that the Joseph translation of the Abraham facsimiles are not accurate or reflective of what they actually represent. 

How could anyone know that that which was copied by Frederick G. Williams was the character used for Mormon?  I get that it's possible, but other than that, there really isn't much there. 

I don't think you need to conceded anything here. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

I haven't rejected it. I've simply said I'm underwhelmed by it. 

Forgive me for mixing up "character" and "name."  It's still only a single name that we have to evaluate. 

I suppose that you could say that if you believe "Mormon" is a single name like "Bob" or "Jerry."  However, Mormon folklore has it that it is composed of two separate words:  Joseph Smith, Times & Seasons, 4/13 (May 15, 1843):194, stating that Mormon is an Egyptian name meaning literally “more-good”; J. M. Sjodahl, “Meaning of the Word ‘Mormon’,” Improvement Era, 30 (March 1927):433-444; cf. Truman Madsen, Defender of the Faith: The B. H. Roberts Story (1980), 291-292.

If it is indeed a true replication of what Joseph said and Williams transcribed and recalled then you're right that I was unaware of this small example of an original source of a single word in the BoM. Give yourself a medal or something. 

Belittling me wasn't really necessary.  Instead, you ought to be more humble and make less absolute statements about matters which you do not understand and have not made an effort to study.

The fact that this translation is so obscure and relatively unknown makes me question why it has been ignored. NHM gets wheeled frequently as a "slam dunk" (to use a Jeff Lindseyism). Why has this one had such a low profile.

The Mormon community at large is not a vast intellectual enterprise, and most Mormons know little of such specialized subjects -- including you.  That should be no surprise, and should bring no opprobrium from you or me.  The notion of "slam dunks" is inappropriate for science, whether from Jeff Lindsey or from you.  NHM is merely one of vast array of considerations.  That you consider it primary in some way merely demonstrates how poorly informed you are.

This is all a bit of a red herring anyway to the actual earlier point that the Joseph translation of the Abraham facsimiles are not accurate or reflective of what they actually represent. 

No, it is not a red herring, and is merely part of a much larger corpus of evidence of the Egypticity of the Book of Mormon.  Moreover, as I have stated above (and demonstrated in detail in the paper I cited), the Book of Abraham facsimiles are accurately interpreted by Joseph Smith, such that scholars have felt moved to allow that Joseph made some good guesses or coincidental hits.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to debate those hard issues, canard, rather than making blanket statements which are false.

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

a "slam dunk" (to use a Jeff Lindseyism).

CFR please.  I have only found him using "slam dunk" for absolute claims by critics against the church truth claims.  I would like to see any usage by him for what might be evidence for the Book of Mormon etc, as appears to be implied in your comment he uses on a regular basis.

[canard78]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR please.  I have only found him using "slam dunk" for absolute claims by critics against the church truth claims.  I would like to see any usage by him for what might be evidence for the Book of Mormon etc, as appears to be implied in your comment he uses on a regular basis.

Lunch, Shanghai, 2013. In fact several lunches during our ex-pat time in the same ward together.

Jeff Lindsay's a personal friend. I hadn't intended the reference to be disparaging but I can see, in the context I used it, how it might come across like that.

Having checked both his website and his blog you're right that it is often used to characterise the approach of church critics rather than evidence in favour of the church. From memory of our conversations he used to use it in both contexts but it was a few years ago so I could be wrong. There are a few examples of him using it on his blog in reference to supporting evidence too: 1, 2, 3, 4 

I'd be happy to edit the original comment if you feel it mis-characterises Jeff and the impressive work he's done.

[Calm]

No problem, good to know.  I think people tend to be less careful in accuracy in casual conversations than when publishing something.  Using "proof" rather than "evidence" and such things do annoy me so I tend to be overly aware of such.

[canard78]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I suppose that you could say that if you believe "Mormon" is a single name like "Bob" or "Jerry."  However, Mormon folklore has it that it is composed of two separate words:  Joseph Smith, Times & Seasons, 4/13 (May 15, 1843):194, stating that Mormon is an Egyptian name meaning literally “more-good”; J. M. Sjodahl, “Meaning of the Word ‘Mormon’,” Improvement Era, 30 (March 1927):433-444; cf. Truman Madsen, Defender of the Faith: The B. H. Roberts Story (1980), 291-292.

You could say the same of the name Robert which (you'll probably already know) comes from the Germanic name Hrodebert meaning "bright fame", derived from the Germanic elements hrod "fame" and beraht "bright". 

"Robert" is still one word/name though. 

Either way... whether Mormon is a double-barrel name (like "Sarah-May") or one name (like "Sarahmae") still doesn't really extend the source material for the Book of Mormon beyond the example you've cited. 

You mentioned Mormon had a claimed meaning that could be rendered as "more good." The characters on the other hand in the New Era article are "mor" (love) and "mon" (established forever). Is "more" and "established forever" synonymous in Egyptian? And what about "good" and "love?"

As you've correctly pointed out, I'm not a student of Egyptian so I'm asking it as a genuine question.

Quote

Belittling me wasn't really necessary.  Instead, you ought to be more humble and make less absolute statements about matters which you do not understand and have not made an effort to study.

Your approach and language can be belittling and/or condescending too at times Robert.

Given I've been participating on this board for over four years and have been involved in a range of conversations I think you'll hopefully be aware that I have made some very comprehensive studies of Mormon historicity and origins and have made a lot of effort to get a broad understanding of the issues and evidences. 

Quote

The Mormon community at large is not a vast intellectual enterprise, and most Mormons know little of such specialized subjects -- including you.  That should be no surprise, and should bring no opprobrium from you or me.  The notion of "slam dunks" is inappropriate for science, whether from Jeff Lindsey or from you.  NHM is merely one of vast array of considerations.  That you consider it primary in some way merely demonstrates how poorly informed you are.

More of the belittling/patronising tone Robert? After complaining about mine in the same post?

I was simply asking why this hadn't got a higher profile in the apologetic community if it was such strong evidence? I've been seeking evidences both for and against the Book of Mormon for many years so please don't misrepresent my approach or put words in my mouth. 

You're right though that I know only what I've read from others on Egyptian characters. I don't read them myself. I represent the level of knowledge the vast majority of the membership will ever get to on topics like Egyptian. This is what you've got to work with. I'm the kind of person you need to learn to communicate with. If you have to hide in your ivory towers of intellectualism then you're fighting a losing battle. 

I stand by the point made though. There are lots of strong evidences for the Book of Mormon. I've acknowledged that plenty of times. Not conclusive proof, but a compelling body of evidence. I'm not yet sure what to make of this single example of the Book of Mormon translation and would ideally be able to read more on it. At the moment it's a brief passing reference and I'm yet to find any further work to flesh it out further. Can you reference anything?

You seemed outraged that I'd make the claim that there's no examples of the original source material for the Book of Mormon that can be evaluated against the translation made. Given I can only find this referenced once, is it any surprise to you that I hadn't heard of it before?