Book of Abraham == the New View

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- Good. So we agree there is a fact, even if you consider it to be "trivial"

2- Detailed facts about my origin are only "definitions" about HJW if you change the standard definition of "definition". I am not defined by my birth or parents. They are merely facts that are a part of my existence. But either way, this seems to be very different than the argument you were making about Abraham. You seemed to be arguing that it was a fools errand to claim he was not real because language and symbol considered him real, like the unicorn. Yet if he never existed, the facts, trivial as they may be, would not support him as a "real" person like HJW is a real person. Abraham could have existed, he could not have existed, he could be an amalgam of many interpretations of stories people heard over the years and attributed to a mythologized, fictional person. We don't know that for sure. But your tangent about there being "no facts" has been proven false, even by yourself.

3- I agree. We are people who require interpretation. But that doesn't mean there is no reality or fact.

4- We can disagree. Thanks for the conversation.

Sigh. People who do not live in reality are in the funny farm. I am no in the funny farm.

Your homework is to write the Rorty quote on the board 500 times or until it sinks in.

[HappyJackWagon]

59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sigh. People who do not live in reality are in the funny farm. I am no in the funny farm.

Your homework is to write the Rorty quote on the board 500 times or until it sinks in.

No thanks. That presumes that you're the teacher. I don't accept that

 

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No thanks. That presumes that you're the teacher. I don't accept that

 

That's good. 

[Calm]

16 hours ago, cdowis said:

We agree that you don't understand what I am saying..  "Common sense" is that a fork is a fork, and that is a fact, not a subjective interpretation.

Bottom line ==>>  facts can exist independently as an objective reality, not always as  just a subjective interpretation.  A fork is a fork, and that is common sense.

Fork in the road, a fork to dig compost, or a fork to eat with.

Is the pink thing in the link a fork or not?

http://www.ebay.com/p/?iid=291626334676&ul_noapp=true,true&ul_ref=http%3A%2F%2Frover.ebay.com%2Frover%2F1%2F711-117182-37290-0%2F2%3Fmtid%3D1588%26kwid%3D1%26crlp%3D53601919689_324272%26itemid%3D291626334676%26targetid%3D186358912089%26rpc%3D0.09%26rpc_upld_id%3D89628%26device%3Dt%26mpre%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2Flike%2F291626334676%3Flpid%3D82%26chn%3Dps%26adtype%3Dpla%26googleloc%3D1026998%26poi%3D9029892%26campaignid%3D239125209%26adgroupid%3D14978428809%26rlsatarget%3Dpla-186358912089%26gclid%3DCj0KEQiAx7XBBRCdyNOw6PLHrYABEiQAJtyEQ_8UvfHlUojgMKPWY4J-eEeWUqLZ9ob3ob-3-7niibAaAs_M8P8HAQ%26srcrot%3D711-117182-37290-0%26rvr_id%3D1125195940328,http%3A%2F%2Frover.ebay.com%2Frover%2F1%2F711-117182-37290-0%2F2%3Fmtid%3D1588%26kwid%3D1%26crlp%3D53601919689_324272%26itemid%3D291626334676%26targetid%3D186358912089%26rpc%3D0.09%26rpc_upld_id%3D89628%26device%3Dt%26mpre%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2Flike%2F291626334676%3Flpid%3D82%26chn%3Dps%26adtype%3Dpla%26googleloc%3D1026998%26poi%3D9029892%26campaignid%3D239125209%26adgroupid%3D14978428809%26rlsatarget%3Dpla-186358912089%26gclid%3DCj0KEQiAx7XBBRCdyNOw6PLHrYABEiQAJtyEQ_8UvfHlUojgMKPWY4J-eEeWUqLZ9ob3ob-3-7niibAaAs_M8P8HAQ%26srcrot%3D711-117182-37290-0%26rvr_id%3D1125195940328&chn=ps&lpid=82,82

Edited November 17, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

Is this a fork?

[Calm]

Or this?

I am so going to use this idea for a candelabra.

Edited November 17, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

Fork or table?

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Biblical scholars are very good at using tools to determine the time frame for when the biblical accounts were written.  Its not impossible at all, they have methodical methods that are employed, and accepted by the biblical scholarly community.  

 

The problem I see with those tools and the scholars that employ them is that the texts are the only the products of the authors with God having no input or influence. Those tools do not explain some things.

We can use the Book of Mormon for example. No scholar has been able to explain why the Book of Mormon is couched mostly in Early Modern English. There is also no explanation for why some of the verses that are supposedly quoting Isaiah are direct quotes while others are variants, many of which have support from other texts, such as the Septuagint.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Fork in the road, a fork to dig compost, or a fork to eat with.

Is the pink thing in the link a fork or not?

http://www.ebay.com/p/?iid=291626334676&ul_noapp=true,true&ul_ref=http%3A%2F%2Frover.ebay.com%2Frover%2F1%2F711-117182-37290-0%2F2%3Fmtid%3D1588%26kwid%3D1%26crlp%3D53601919689_324272%26itemid%3D291626334676%26targetid%3D186358912089%26rpc%3D0.09%26rpc_upld_id%3D89628%26device%3Dt%26mpre%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2Flike%2F291626334676%3Flpid%3D82%26chn%3Dps%26adtype%3Dpla%26googleloc%3D1026998%26poi%3D9029892%26campaignid%3D239125209%26adgroupid%3D14978428809%26rlsatarget%3Dpla-186358912089%26gclid%3DCj0KEQiAx7XBBRCdyNOw6PLHrYABEiQAJtyEQ_8UvfHlUojgMKPWY4J-eEeWUqLZ9ob3ob-3-7niibAaAs_M8P8HAQ%26srcrot%3D711-117182-37290-0%26rvr_id%3D1125195940328,http%3A%2F%2Frover.ebay.com%2Frover%2F1%2F711-117182-37290-0%2F2%3Fmtid%3D1588%26kwid%3D1%26crlp%3D53601919689_324272%26itemid%3D291626334676%26targetid%3D186358912089%26rpc%3D0.09%26rpc_upld_id%3D89628%26device%3Dt%26mpre%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2Flike%2F291626334676%3Flpid%3D82%26chn%3Dps%26adtype%3Dpla%26googleloc%3D1026998%26poi%3D9029892%26campaignid%3D239125209%26adgroupid%3D14978428809%26rlsatarget%3Dpla-186358912089%26gclid%3DCj0KEQiAx7XBBRCdyNOw6PLHrYABEiQAJtyEQ_8UvfHlUojgMKPWY4J-eEeWUqLZ9ob3ob-3-7niibAaAs_M8P8HAQ%26srcrot%3D711-117182-37290-0%26rvr_id%3D1125195940328&chn=ps&lpid=82,82

Not to mention  those odd American and Spanish Forks and the difference between lifting a fork and a fork lift.

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The problem I see with those tools and the scholars that employ them is that the texts are the only the products of the authors with God having no input or influence. Those tools do not explain some things.

We can use the Book of Mormon for example. No scholar has been able to explain why the Book of Mormon is couched mostly in Early Modern English. There is also no explanation for why some of the verses that are supposedly quoting Isaiah are direct quotes while others are variants, many of which have support from other texts, such as the Septuagint.

Glenn

Is see this kind of thinking all the time on these discussion boards.  Many people accept the findings of scholarly disciplines in almost every other field, but when it comes to Biblical scholarship, they completely discount the findings without any substantive basis for doing so.  

Your personal lack of satisfaction with some of the explanatory theories about BoM origins doesn't mean the scholarly work being done on the Bible isn't good scholarship.   Scholars outside Mormon circles largely aren't interested in this topic, and scholars on the inside are often trying to build a case the matches their preconceived theological paradigms, and that isn't good scholarship.  

[Ed Goble]

On 11/16/2016 at 0:39 PM, Thinking said:

Changing the premise doesn't change the truth value of something. It can, however, create alleged possibilities.

The Book of Abraham has gone from...

Abraham actually wrote what was on the papyrus.

to

Somebody copied Abraham's writings onto the papyrus.

to

The papyrus was a catalyst.

to

The actual papyrus from which the BoA was translated is missing.

to

The text is secret code for what the real message is.

Not at all.  There is representationalism going on in a dynamic usage of symbols in a way that they were not used previously, where someone decided to use symbols in a new way, and apply those symbols for use with the already-existing text of the Book of Abraham.  In other words, Abraham wrote a book, and somebody decided to adapt some symbols for use with it.  This is not a secret code per se, where the symbols contains information.  But rather, there are arrangements or linkages between the symbols and the meanings attached to them from the standpoint that people used certain aspects of symbols that contained common themes or linkages that relate to what they were trying to represent with those symbols.  The symbols do not contain the information.  The symbols contain attributes that nicely harmonize with what they are being used to represent.  They do not inherently contain the information that they are being used to represent.  There is a big distinction between (1) the idea of encoding information in a symbol and (2) the idea of a symbol being used for some thing in such a way where the information for the interpretation for the symbol in a certain context is found in a dependency, external to that symbol.  Please understand the distinction between those two concepts.  If you don't understand that distinction, read this again about ten times until you understand that distinction.  What kind of language do I need to use to get people on this message board to understand this distinction?

Edited November 18, 2016 by Ed Goble

[Glenn101]

On 11/18/2016 at 11:27 AM, hope_for_things said:

Is see this kind of thinking all the time on these discussion boards.  Many people accept the findings of scholarly disciplines in almost every other field, but when it comes to Biblical scholarship, they completely discount the findings without any substantive basis for doing so.  

Your personal lack of satisfaction with some of the explanatory theories about BoM origins doesn't mean the scholarly work being done on the Bible isn't good scholarship.   Scholars outside Mormon circles largely aren't interested in this topic, and scholars on the inside are often trying to build a case the matches their preconceived theological paradigms, and that isn't good scholarship.  

I did not connect the two. As I noted, I assume that God is in the picture and had a hand in the production of the Book of Mormon and the Bible. To me that throws a curve ball at any scholarship that deasl with Biblical texts or the Book of Mormon. How does a scholar detect the input of a person that knows all of the languages, all of the history, knows both past and present? I do not completely discount the work of Biblical scholars, but I do have a substantive reason having some questions.

If a person does not accept that God had anything to do with the original texts of the Bible or the Book of Mormon, that is their prerogative. It will be a long time before we all get on the same page.

Your last assertion is a bit over the top. Most of the LDS scholars that I read are very conservative in their work on the Book of Mormon. Some of their findings are serendipitous. For example, Royal Skousen was not researching Book of Mormon grammar when he stumbled on the extensive Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. It came about while he was working on his  Book of Mormon Critical Text Project. Nothing preconceived there.

No one was even contemplating finding chiasmus in the Book of Mormon until Jack Welch attended a lecture in Germany and learned of that poetic art form and its Hebraic roots. Nothing preconceived there.

 

If you feel that there is poor scholarship there, please point it out. Blanket assertions are just blanks.

 

Glenn

Edited November 20, 2016 by Glenn101
Unpreconceiving.

[rodheadlee]

On 11/14/2016 at 2:10 PM, hope_for_things said:

The Abraham story is no less myth than the stories of Greek Gods, and to me that doesn't mean its uninspiring.  Its certainly not in the same category as mythical stories about George Washington, who we know existed in modern times.  

I'm surprised to have this comment from you Calm.  Why is it important to you that Abraham was an actual real live person and not just a character in a story?  Surely you see the power of parables and allegory in the scriptures.  

So you think the Abrahamic Covenant is a myth? The resurrection of Israel as a country is a coincidence? 

Edited November 21, 2016 by rodheadlee

[hope_for_things]

On 11/19/2016 at 11:25 PM, Glenn101 said:

I did not connect the two. As I noted, I assume that God is in the picture and had a hand in the production of the Book of Mormon and the Bible. To me that throws a curve ball at any scholarship that deasl with Biblical texts or the Book of Mormon. How does a scholar detect the input of a person that knows all of the languages, all of the history, knows both past and present? I do not completely discount the work of Biblical scholars, but I do have a substantive reason having some questions.

God being in the picture is fine, I don't disagree.  You are willing to discount scholarship in preference for the words of human religious leaders that are subject to flaws, influenced by culture, bias, erroneous traditions, etc.  To me, this is similar to someone saying that they prefer the uneducated ramblings of an essential oils sales person, to the actual science coming from the medical community.  

I would also say that you can find some good spiritual advice from religious leaders, I'm not discounting their ability to guide people spiritually at all.  What they can't do is they can't tell you about history, biblical criticism, archaeology, or anthropology.  Don't expect their answers to be reasonable or informed on subjects that they have no training on.  

On 11/19/2016 at 11:25 PM, Glenn101 said:

For example, Royal Skousen was not researching Book of Mormon grammar when he stumbled on the extensive Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon. It came about while he was working on his  Book of Mormon Critical Text Project. Nothing preconceived there.

No one was even contemplating finding chiasmus in the Book of Mormon until Jack Welch attended a lecture in Germany and learned of that poetic art form and its Hebraic roots. Nothing preconceived there.

Their built in bias is towards finding these kinds of connections in the first place, and their personal theology absolutely influenced their writings.  I've read enough of both Skousen and Welch to know that they don't approach their studies as objective observers.  They are employed by and committed to their theological paradigms.  

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

God being in the picture is fine, I don't disagree.  You are willing to discount scholarship in preference for the words of human religious leaders that are subject to flaws, influenced by culture, bias, erroneous traditions, etc.  To me, this is similar to someone saying that they prefer the uneducated ramblings of an essential oils sales person, to the actual science coming from the medical community.  

You do not seem to grasp my point.  If God is the source of differing parts of the scriptures and the dictators/writers/scribes mostly acting as mouth pieces, that places an unknown quantity into any resulting text.

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Their built in bias is towards finding these kinds of connections in the first place, and their personal theology absolutely influenced their writings.  I've read enough of both Skousen and Welch to know that they don't approach their studies as objective observers.  They are employed by and committed to their theological paradigms.  

That comes across as a bit prejudiced. Granted Royal Skousen is a believing LDS scholar as is Jack Welch. But please detail how a possible built in bias can account for the presence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon? How can a built in bias account for the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon? Are you disputing either of those?

 

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

You do not seem to grasp my point.  If God is the source of differing parts of the scriptures and the dictators/writers/scribes mostly acting as mouth pieces, that places an unknown quantity into any resulting text.

God could be the source of some material, and humans are the source of other material.  How do you distinguish between the God parts and the human parts?  I don't see the humans acting as mouth pieces, thats how people see mediums in a seance, I just don't see God working like that with individuals.  You get the human elements with the inspiration all blended together, sometimes more God inspired and other times more human.  

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

That comes across as a bit prejudiced. Granted Royal Skousen is a believing LDS scholar as is Jack Welch. But please detail how a possible built in bias can account for the presence of Early Modern English in the Book of Mormon? How can a built in bias account for the presence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon? Are you disputing either of those?

There have been many articles about the Chiasums over the years and I've read enough to know that I'm not convinced.  Not all believing Mormon scholars even find them compelling let along non-Mormon scholars.  

Early Modern English is probably a stronger case for accidental discovery because I don't see this as even a strong point from an apologetic perspective. I'll be honest I haven't read a whole lot on this issue so I'm speaking without diving very deep on this topic.  I have a hard time imaging that any external scholars would find this a convincing analysis, but we'll have to see as this is fairly new still.  

[Glenn101]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

God could be the source of some material, and humans are the source of other material.  How do you distinguish between the God parts and the human parts?

That was my point.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

There have been many articles about the Chiasums over the years and I've read enough to know that I'm not convinced.  Not all believing Mormon scholars even find them compelling let along non-Mormon scholars.  

Not convinced about what? That the chiasmus are not their or what? I do believe that your own bias is showing here because Jack Welch has collaborated with non-LDS scholars in publishing a book "Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim, Germany: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981), with a preface by Dr. Noel Freedman. In the preface Dr. Freedman said "the phenomenon itself can be described or defined rigorously, so that it is verifiable and often self-evident; while in this sense it is part of a deliberate pattern of composition." Chiasms in Book of Mormon were treated in that work. Google is your friend.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

That was my point.

Not convinced about what? That the chiasmus are not their or what? I do believe that your own bias is showing here because Jack Welch has collaborated with non-LDS scholars in publishing a book "Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structures, Analyses, Exegesis (Hildesheim, Germany: Gerstenberg Verlag, 1981), with a preface by Dr. Noel Freedman. In the preface Dr. Freedman said "the phenomenon itself can be described or defined rigorously, so that it is verifiable and often self-evident; while in this sense it is part of a deliberate pattern of composition." Chiasms in Book of Mormon were treated in that work. Google is your friend.

Glenn

I just don't find the logic convincing.  The Earl Wunderli and other essays in Dialogue Journal got me thinking and I found the critiques more compelling than the responses to those critiques.  Also, I mentioned that not all believing scholars find Chiasmus compelling and there is an ongoing debate about their significance within Mormon circles. Count me as one who doesn't find them as compelling evidence of ancient origins.  

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I just don't find the logic convincing.  The Earl Wunderli and other essays in Dialogue Journal got me thinking and I found the critiques more compelling than the responses to those critiques.  Also, I mentioned that not all believing scholars find Chiasmus compelling and there is an ongoing debate about their significance within Mormon circles. Count me as one who doesn't find them as compelling evidence of ancient origins.  

I am not looking at this or any other aspect of the Book of Mormon as compelling evidence. I look at what is the more probable. Since I am not a statistician I cannot compute levels of probability, so I have to use a comparative method. At least one thing the chiasms do is add a layer of unexpected complexity to the Book of Mormon.

How many texts were produced in the eighteen hundred's that contained intention and complex chiasms? How much was known about the subject? How likely was Joseph Smith to have heard and studied the art form? Was his own literary attainments sufficient for him to produce such literature? I'm just talking probabilities here.

Actually I am chagrined that I even brought this up. I keep forgetting that Joseph was a Stupid Genius.

 

Glenn

 

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I am not looking at this or any other aspect of the Book of Mormon as compelling evidence. I look at what is the more probable. Since I am not a statistician I cannot compute levels of probability, so I have to use a comparative method. At least one thing the chiasms do is add a layer of unexpected complexity to the Book of Mormon.

How many texts were produced in the eighteen hundred's that contained intention and complex chiasms? How much was known about the subject? How likely was Joseph Smith to have heard and studied the art form? Was his own literary attainments sufficient for him to produce such literature? I'm just talking probabilities here.

Actually I am chagrined that I even brought this up. I keep forgetting that Joseph was a Stupid Genius.

 

Glenn

Chiasmus in the 19th century is not unheard of. It's not exactly the most complex pattern. It's essentially a format of ideas in A-B-C-D-E-D-C-B-A. It's really not all that complicated. Here's a brief article about chiasmus in Huckleberry Finn. http://tunemyheart.net/ant/?p=1072

I would bet that many of us have written simplified forms of chiasmus as we've prepared lessons, papers, or talks without even thinking about it

A- Introduction- state a topic

 B- the first main sub-topic

  C- the 2nd subtopic

    D- 3rd subtopic

      E- All topics combine into theme

    D- 3rd subtopic tied into overall theme

   C- 2nd subtopic tied back to overall theme

 B- First subtopic tied back to overall theme

A- Restating of the main topic and how it was addressed.

 

I'm obviously not a chiasmus expert but a lot of this looks like standard organization patterns of speech and writing.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Chiasmus in the 19th century is not unheard of. It's not exactly the most complex pattern. It's essentially a format of ideas in A-B-C-D-E-D-C-B-A. It's really not all that complicated. Here's a brief article about chiasmus in Huckleberry Finn. http://tunemyheart.net/ant/?p=1072

I would bet that many of us have written simplified forms of chiasmus as we've prepared lessons, papers, or talks without even thinking about it

A- Introduction- state a topic

 B- the first main sub-topic

  C- the 2nd subtopic

    D- 3rd subtopic

      E- All topics combine into theme

    D- 3rd subtopic tied into overall theme

   C- 2nd subtopic tied back to overall theme

 B- First subtopic tied back to overall theme

A- Restating of the main topic and how it was addressed.

 

I'm obviously not a chiasmus expert but a lot of this looks like standard organization patterns of speech and writing.

HappyJack, I believe that you doing a bit of reductionism here. I am no expert in this matter either, but there is a reason that literary scholars are studying this form of poetry in detail. It is true that simple chiasms are produced by accident in quite a few cases. Complex multi-level chiasms are a different matter altogether. There are scholars that are researching chiasms in the Bible, and the debate there is ongoing as to whether certain passages are chiastic or forced into a chiastic sequence to fit a person's preconceptions, much like the debate among Book of Mormon scholars. The debate is not whether they are there, but what significance do they play in the text itself.

Maybe following some of the debates excluding the Book of Mormon might help us to understand just what we are debating.

Glenn