Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

[rongo]

16 hours ago, rongo said:

Thoughts, Julie?

In my experience, this is how Book of Abraham conversations with critics goes:

1) Critics ridicule the BoA as a complete joke that real Egyptologists have roundly proven wrong. 

2) Apologists point out things, like the few I included above, that show that Egyptologists who deal with the BoA at all (however superficially), have not given certain key things any hearing at all (e.g., presentation scenes like Facsimile 3 have precedent for mortals being named gods, men and women being dressed as the opposite sex, etc.).

3) Complete radio silence from critics --- total ignoring.

4) Robert Ritner is waved around as if he is spell 135 from the Book of the Dead: "A spell for dismissing those who walk by day through plea to authority fallacy."

"But Robert Ritner --- The Robert Ritner --- says that it's a joke! It says Abraham is Osiris! And the Prince is Ma'at! What a joke! Did I mention and link to Robert Ritner?"

Edited March 18, 2017 by rongo

[Ouagadougou]

4 hours ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Oua:

I'm going to separate out these argument in a singular form--and attempt to engage a dialog as to the individuality of the points you pose, i hope that is agreeable with you.

How does the reference to facsimile #1 preclude the fact there are a number of eye witness accounts--both LDS and non-LDS ---which testify the volume of the original papyri--which was had in Nauvoo-- far exceeds the amount of extant papyri?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, that's cool.  Even if they found additional papyri, what is the argument that they would be from a different time period from the existing papyri we do have now?  Also, how would they prove JS's translation was correct with additional papyri, when it's apparent that he failed, IMO (based on the evidence we do have).  Would some additional "lost" papyri somehow giving him a passing grade?  Is the belief that these additional papyri would be from the time of Abraham and match JS's translation?

I personally would love to see additional papyri examined, but I, once again, don't think they would match any of JS's translations.   

[JulieM]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

Julie, what do you think about the explanations given by Nibley and others (quoting other Egyptological works) that Egyptian rituals and depictions often had people identify themselves with Egyptian gods?

I think this is all interesting to read, thanks for posting it, Rongo!

 

I'll admit this is a fairly new area of research for me and I'm trying to learn more about it (thus the numerous requests for references here).  I honestly hadn't ever heard anyone claim that the facsimiles had originated with Abraham or that he'd even had an influence over funerary texts until I read Ahab's post in this thread.  I thought he was joking, but when I saw he was serious, I was very interested to see what he (and then later others) had for references supporting this. I now know it's just another theory with nothing supporting it, but I still think it's interesting.

 

I'll keep doing more research on this topic and appreciate your thoughts and references.  I haven't read what Nibley wrote on this, but I know he wrote extensively and I enjoy reading his writings.

 

My honest, gut reaction to what took place with the Book of Abraham is that Joseph simply just got it wrong.  I think he did believe the scrolls contained the writings of Abraham and that the facsimiles were drawn by Abraham.  He even altered some of the facsimiles, iirc.  We now know that at least the scrolls we have, were not written by Abraham.  I think that all the theories, explanations and maybes are interesting to read, but I haven't found anything that conclusively shows anything other than that Joseph was just mistaken.

 

However, I do enjoy reading the Book of Abraham and think Joseph was inspired to write it.  I lean more towards the scrolls be a catalyst for Joseph than anything on the scrolls having to do with Abraham.  But, I'm interested in reading any sources or ideas others have here.  So, thanks again.

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by JulieM

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, dberrie2000 said:

As has already been pointed out--the translation has nothing in common with the characters in the left hand margin--and one character does not translate to 176 English words--as is the case of the extant copies.

Further--as Brian M. Hauglid points out--and, IMO-- is a very good argument--what is extant, as to the Book of Abraham text translation--is probably not an original--but a copy, IE--

 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/no-weapon-shall-prosper/thoughts-book-abraham

 

 

Thoughts on the Book of Abraham

 

Brian M. Hauglid

 

"At first glance, one could be tempted to surmise that these manuscripts represent the actual translation papers of the Prophet. And, of course, this is precisely what the critics against the Book of Abraham want us to believe. For the critics, the English text in these manuscripts, opposite the characters, clearly evidence the Prophet’s dictated translation of the hieratic characters. To bolster their case, the critics note that the Egyptian characters in these manuscripts come from one of the eleven fragments donated to the Church in 1967. Furthermore, this particular fragment, with the hieratic characters, was also once attached to another fragment that contains the representation of Facsimile 1. This leads them to Abraham 1:12, which says, “The representation at the commencement of this record,” concluding that Joseph Smith thought that the fragment, once attached to the Facsimile 1 fragment, contained the Book of Abraham. The coup de grace of their argument centers on modern Egyptologists translating the hieratic characters and finding that they do not translate to the Book of Abraham. In fact, Egyptologists argue that the papyri are merely a Greco-Roman Egyptian religious text resembling the ancient Book of the Dead.

 

So what is factual in these arguments? This is where things tend to get somewhat complicated. First, the hieratic characters in the three manuscripts do, in reality, come from one of the eleven fragments. Second, this fragment, from which the Egyptian characters were taken, was initially attached to the Facsimile 1 papyrus. And third, the hieratic characters do not translate to the Book of Abraham. In fact, except for the Facsimile 1 papyrus, nothing related to the Book of Abraham appears on any of the papyri fragments the Metropolitan Museum of Art returned to the Church.

 

While closely examining the Abraham manuscripts, one fact quickly became clear: all of the surviving manuscripts containing text of the Book of Abraham represent copies of earlier documents. This means that, unlike the Book of Mormon, we have no originally dictated manuscripts for the Book of Abraham.

 

We have a fairly good idea of how Joseph Smith worked when it came to receiving revelation and dictating it to a scribe. From the surviving originally dictated manuscripts of the Book of Mormon, we know that there was no paragraphing, sentence structure, or punctuation, because the text in the dictated manuscripts appears as one long sentence. Joseph Smith appears to have dictated the Book of Mormon text in a generally continuous fashion, rarely stopping. The text in the Abraham manuscripts, on the other hand, exhibits paragraphing, sentence structure, and punctuation that would be characteristic of text that had evolved beyond the dictation phase.

 

Another way to determine if handwritten text has been copied from an earlier manuscript is to study the errors. Sometimes when a scribe would copy text from an earlier manuscript to another sheet, the eye would see the same word twice and accidentally rewrite it. Often the scribe caught the error right away and crossed out the repeated word. Also, periodically, the scribe’s eye would see a word on one line and turn away and then, when returning to the page, focus on a different line, see the same word, and omit the text in between. Erasures or cross-outs can also be quite revealing. Once in a while the crossed-out or erased word or phrase will show that the scribe saw the word or phrase ahead of where the scribe actually was in the text. When this happened, the scribe would generally quickly catch it, cross it out, and put the word or phrase in its proper place. Errors such as those described above happen frequently enough in the earliest Abraham manuscripts to give strong evidence that all of them are copies of even earlier manuscripts that have not survived.

 

So if the few surviving Abraham manuscripts are not the originally dictated manuscripts, what are they? Why do the three 1835 manuscripts have the hieratic characters opposite paragraphs of English text from the book of Abraham? As mentioned above, most of the characters can be found on one of the fragments of papyri that belonged to Joseph Smith. How is this to be explained?

 

Is it possible that these manuscripts, though not originally dictated, represent the actual process Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham? I have thought much about this possibility, but this method is nowhere reinforced in other translation activities of the Prophet, particularly in his translation of the Book of Mormon."

 

If the extant translation is indeed a copy--the question has to be asked--were the characters in the left hand column even present in the original?

 

 

 

 

 

The original publication of the 1842 BoA had facsimile 1 on the cover and then proceeded with the text.  Additionally, Abraham 1: 12-13 makes reference to facsimile 1 as well.  

This shows that the BoA, IMO, illustrates that its primary source (Breathing Permit of Hor) is the same record that begins with facsimile 1.  

"When the papyri were recovered by the Church, it was immediately evident that the Hôr scroll was the source of Facsimile 1. There are also several 1835 manuscripts in the handwriting of Joseph Smith’s known scribes that juxtapose the translated Book of Abraham text with sequential characters from the scroll’s extant instructions column, ostensibly as the source from which the translation was derived.16 A few Mormon historians nevertheless maintain that the source from which Joseph Smith derived the Book of Abraham is not among the extant fragments, and was probably destroyed with that portion of the collection which burned in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. These authors have argued that the Hôr scroll was much longer in the nineteenth century than at present, and that the source text of the Book of Abraham may have followed the Document of Breathing on the now-lost inner portion of the scroll. In the view of these researchers, the Book of Abraham’s placement of Facsimile 1 “at the commencement of this record” should be interpreted to mean the beginning of the scroll rather than the record, and the juxtaposition of Breathing Document characters with the Book of Abraham’s English text in the handwritten manuscripts should not be understood to imply a translation relationship between the two.17"

Finally, JS never mentioned that his translation was a copy (or that he translated from copies of copies).  He mentioned that this was a translation of hieroglyphics (written by the hand of Abraham).  There was never a mention of copies from JS or the fact that the papyri were thousands of years after Abraham even lived.

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-Original-Length-of-the-Scroll-of-Hor.pdf

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-early-1842/1

[Darren10]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The CFR is an ironclad rule on this board, asking someone to put up or shut up.  Sometimes it is just necessary.

Insisting on retraction if a CFR is not provided is used ironcladidly here. I don't mind that Ahab was banned from this thread but nitHagoth is bring asked to retract his personal belief because notHagoth won't provide for a CFR on his/her belief. Is that really necessary. 

Relevant banned behaviors:

Quote

Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements

And...

Quote

• Mocking the beliefs of others
• Telling others how to behave or “net nannying” (Instead report objectionable content)

It's the persist use of the last one which I see constantly from some demanding a CFR which gets to me. 

But, I was told to stay out of this and so I shall. 

[Darren10]

seld-deleted/redundant

 

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

seld-deleted/redundant

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

seld-deleted/redundant

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

seld-deleted/redundant

 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Agggghhhhhhhh, I thought my posts were not posting...apparently they were. 

Edited March 18, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

However, I do enjoy reading the Book of Abraham and think Joseph was inspired to write it.  I lean more towards the scrolls be a catalyst for Joseph than anything on the scrolls having to do with Abraham.  But, I'm interested in reading any sources or ideas others have here.  So, thanks again.

 

Looking into the Book of Abraham is fascinating. As for sources explaining Joseph Smith's interpretations, I tend to stick to ideas which provide a historical background to support the ideas purported. Both my Barnes' link as well as Rongo's Rhodes' link do that.

As for the catalyst, while the corrections to the Bible, specifically, the Old Testament, became a catslyst for Joseph Smith to write the Book of Moses, and, as I see it, the golden plates were a catalyst to write thr Book of Mormon, I still tend to believe that the Book of Moses was a direct translation from the papyrus. Of course there's room for other ideas but this has always made the most sense to me. 

[dberrie2000]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Yeah, that's cool.  Even if they found additional papyri, what is the argument that they would be from a different time period from the existing papyri we do have now?  Also, how would they prove JS's translation was correct with additional papyri, when it's apparent that he failed, IMO (based on the evidence we do have).  Would some additional "lost" papyri somehow giving him a passing grade?  Is the belief that these additional papyri would be from the time of Abraham and match JS's translation?

I personally would love to see additional papyri examined, but I, once again, don't think they would match any of JS's translations.   

Hi Oua:

The fact there is additional papyri has never inferred correct translation, in any argument I have ever viewed. The point in question, in my mind, is--did the Book of Abraham text come from the missing papyri? It's possible it didn't, but still leaves that door open, as a possibility. You present the case as if it is a closed case. I disagree, and as long as that possibility remains--the door cannot be securely closed. And, even if the missing papyri was found empty of the Book of Abraham text contents--there are still other possibilities.

Since the papyri in question is thought to have been destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871--I don't believe we will be examining any of those papyrus scrolls in this life.

 

 

[Ouagadougou]

1 minute ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Oua:

The fact there is additional papyri has never inferred correct translation, in any argument I have ever viewed. The point in question, in my mind, is--did the Book of Abraham text come from the missing papyri? It's possible it didn't, but still leaves that door open, as a possibility. You present the case as if it is a closed case. I disagree, and as long as that possibility remains--the door cannot be securely closed. And, even if the missing papyri was found empty of the Book of Abraham text contents--there are still other possibilities.

Since the papyri in question is thought to have been destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871--I don't believe we will be examining any of those papyrus scrolls in this life.

 

 

I don't think there are any additional papyri (or that more will be found).  My point is that JS never mentioned copies of papyri or that they were from third century B.C. (and did not mention Abraham's name).  He stated it was a translation from Abraham himself--and that was/is a lie or mistake IMO.  I also think it is a closed case and the church is backed into a corner.  Why was there no mention for so long that the papyri were copies of copies or that there were possibly missing papyri?  It's because the Church believed JS had TRANSLATED the actual writings of Abraham himself.  Once it was revealed that his translation did not match the fragments we DO have in our possession--it was then when the church started to change its narrative and propose different theories.  The church even admits in its own essay that it's a failed translation (based on what we do have) and apologists just hang on to some theory that some other papyri might have existed.    

[JulieM]

50 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

As for the catalyst, while the corrections to the Bible, specifically, the Old Testament, became a catslyst for Joseph Smith to write the Book of Moses, and, as I see it, the golden plates were a catalyst to write thr Book of Mormon, I still tend to believe that the Book of Moses was a direct translation from the papyrus. 

I thought Joseph started translating the Book of Moses in 1830 (5 years before he bought the papyri).  Or am I off on my dates here ( just going from memory)?

[Darren10]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I thought Joseph started translating the Book of Moses in 1830 (5 years before he bought the papyri).  Or am I off on my dates here ( just going from memory)?

Haha. I actually have no idea but my understanding is that the Book of Moses is pure revelation given to Joseph Smith and what triggered that revelation was his correcting the Bible. So while, so far as we know, there was no "object" directly involved in the Book of Moses, it seems the process of translating the Bible is what opened up this revelation.

Edited March 18, 2017 by Darren10

[dberrie2000]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I don't think there are any additional papyri (or that more will be found).  

Then you wouldn't believe the testimony of numerous witnesses--both LDS and non-LDS--which described the papyri as much more extensive than what is to be had in the extant papyri.  I believe that comes with the territory--if you deny there isn't any more papyri than what is extant--then you can justify your position. The witnesses just don't lend to that position.

My point is that JS never mentioned copies of papyri or that they were from third century B.C. (and did not mention Abraham's name). 

Whether he mentioned copies or not--the translation we have is a finished and polished manuscript--characteristics original translations just do not usually possess.

What is your evidence the papyri which existed in Nauvoo--and is not extant--did not mention the name of Abraham?(possibly burned in the Chicago Fire at the Wood museum)

You can only make that conclusion about the extant papyri.

 

I also think it is a closed case and the church is backed into a corner.  

That seems to be the belief of some--and they are usually the ones which deny the numerous witnesses which bear testimony to the existence of papyri which were scrolls in a long length--as they saw them in Nauvoo--when they were displayed to the public. No scrolls exist today, that I am aware of.

 

 

 

[dberrie2000]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Why was there no mention for so long that the papyri were copies of copies or that there were possibly missing papyri?  It's because the Church believed JS had TRANSLATED the actual writings of Abraham himself. 

Hi Oua:

What is your evidence the Book of Abraham text is not the actual writings of Abraham? That's like claiming none of the NT epistles are the writings of Paul.

 

 Once it was revealed that his translation did not match the fragments we DO have in our possession--it was then when the church started to change its narrative and propose different theories.  

The "different theories" came as a result of fragments being found which did not relate to the translation. There was no need to promulgate theories until that time, as no papyri was extant. That the fragments did not match the translation is the very fact which is the basis for the possibility the Book of Abraham text came from the other scrolls which was in possession of Joseph Smith during the Nauvoo era. 

The church even admits in its own essay that it's a failed translation (based on what we do have) and apologists just hang on to some theory that some other papyri might have existed.

Please do give us a cite where the LDS church has stated the Book of Abraham text is a "failed translation".  The LDS church admits the extant fragments do not match the Book of Abraham text, and could not be the source of the Book of Abraham text--which means the missing papyri could possibly be the source of the Book of Abraham text.

[Ouagadougou]

9 minutes ago, dberrie2000 said:

Then you wouldn't believe the testimony of numerous witnesses--both LDS and non-LDS--which described the papyri as much more extensive than what is to be had in the extant papyri.  I believe that comes with the territory--if you deny there isn't any more papyri than what is extant--then you can justify your position. The witnesses just don't lend to that position.

 

Whether he mentioned copies or not--the translation we have is a finished and polished manuscript--characteristics original translations just do not usually possess.

What is your evidence the papyri which existed in Nauvoo--and is not extant--did not mention the name of Abraham?(possibly burned in the Chicago Fire at the Wood museum)

You can only make that conclusion about the extant papyri.

 

That seems to be the belief of some--and they are usually the ones which deny the numerous witnesses which bear testimony to the existence of papyri which were scrolls in a long length--as they saw them in Nauvoo--when they were displayed to the public. No scrolls exist today, that I am aware of.

 

 

 

There is no need to justify my position...like I said, based on the evidence we DO have, I believe the BoA is a complete fraud.  I am willing to bet that the vast majority of non-LDS Egyptologists would agree with that as well.  

This essay talks about how it would be completely possible for JS to use the existing papyri we do have to write the BoA:

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-Original-Length-of-the-Scroll-of-Hor.pdf

If you read what JS said about the BoA, once again, you will see that he claimed it was a translation from the hand of Abraham himself; that is false and not true (based on what we do have).  The fragments we do have are thousands of years after Abraham even lived.  I try to base my views of the BoA on existing/credible evidence we DO have today--not on something that might have been lost.  Why was there no mention of any additional "lost" papyri until so many years later?  It's because the church had to show their hand and create a theory as to why the translation was complete failure; they were/are in damage control mode at this point.  

"None 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"

This statement by the church above is the complete opposite of what JS claimed to have translated the writings of Abraham himself (see below the intro/preface/heading):

"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."

I'm sorry but this statement/description above is misleading, incorrect and not credible, especially since it contradicts the church's own essay, IMO.

 

[Ouagadougou]

16 minutes ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Oua:

What is your evidence the Book of Abraham text is not the actual writings of Abraham? That's like claiming none of the NT epistles are the writings of Paul.

 

The "different theories" came as a result of fragments being found which did not relate to the translation. There was no need to promulgate theories until that time, as no papyri was extant. That the fragments did not match the translation is the very fact which is the basis for the possibility the Book of Abraham text came from the other scrolls which was in possession of Joseph Smith during the Nauvoo era. 

 

Please do give us a cite where the LDS church has stated the Book of Abraham text is a "failed translation".  The LDS church admits the extant fragments do not match the Book of Abraham text, and could not be the source of the Book of Abraham text--which means the missing papyri could possibly be the source of the Book of Abraham text.

 I mentioned this in a previous post:

The original publication of the 1842 BoA had facsimile 1 on the cover and then proceeded with the text.  Additionally, Abraham 1: 12-13 make reference to facsimile 1 as well.  

This shows that the BoA, IMO, illustrates that its primary source (Breathing Permit of Hor) is the same record that begins with facsimile 1.  

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-early-1842/1

Also, look at several of the anacronisms in the BoA.  If JS used papyri from Abraham's time, then why would certain words be used in that translation that didn't come about until thousands of years later.

One such word, for example, is the word pharaoh.  

"The BoA uses the word "Pharaoh" as the name of rulers of Egypt (Abr 1:6, 20, 26) and says that the meaning of the word (1:20) is "king by royal blood."   The first ruler named "Pharaoh" is identified as a great-grandson of Noah (Abr 1:25).
         
"The linguistic problem is that the word "pharaoh" originally meant "great house."   It did not become a title for the king until the beginning of the New Kingdom (18th Dynasty), which began about 1567 B.C.   That usage is unknown in Palestine until after 1000 B.C.   According to Funk & Wagnall's New Standard Bible Dictionary, article "Pharaoh": "It is certain that in Abraham's time the kings of Egypt were not as yet called Pharaohs."   At no time in Egypt was the word used as the actual name of any king.   Of course, Genesis has the same anachronism (12:15), but no one has claimed that Genesis was written by Abraham or a contemporary of Abraham."

http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm

ttps://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N04_107.pdf

 

 

 

 

[rongo]

5 hours ago, JulieM said:

My honest, gut reaction to what took place with the Book of Abraham is that Joseph simply just got it wrong . . . I haven't found anything that conclusively shows anything other than that Joseph was just mistaken.

 

However, I do . . . think Joseph was inspired to write it.  I lean more towards the scrolls being a catalyst for Joseph than anything on the scrolls having to do with Abraham.

Therefore, what? You think Joseph just got it wrong, he was just mistaken, but you also think he was inspired to write it and that the scrolls were a catalyst for Joseph. A catalyst for what? Something that was mistaken and just wrong, but nonetheless inspired? 

I do enjoy reading the Book of Abraham

What do you enjoy reading in the Book of Abraham? I ask, because it doesn't appear from your comments at all that you enjoy reading it or find any value in it. I am genuinely interested in what value you find in it, and what you think it actually is (inspired as you described it). Do you think that it accurately conveys Abrahamic material, including events, doctrines, and people (despite the scrolls themselves containing none of this)?

 I haven't read what Nibley wrote on this, but I know he wrote extensively and I enjoy reading his writings.

I highly recommend that you do this. As I mentioned, it is obvious to me that critics of the Book of Abraham (including, Robert Ritner!), haven't really read what competent defenders of it have produced. Not really. And they certainly haven't dealt with it, other than to give it a very superficial waving away. 

Which of Nibley's writings have you most enjoyed?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Therefore, what? You think Joseph just got it wrong, he was just mistaken, but you also think he was inspired to write it and that the scrolls were a catalyst for Joseph. 

Yes, I believe this as many now seem to also believe (that I've discussed it with).  I think Joseph was mistaken about the papyri being written by Abraham. Prophets make mistakes and I simply believe he honestly made a mistake here and really did believe they were from Abraham.  This inspired him to pray about it and write the Book of Abraham, a history of the ancient world, which I do find interesting to read.

May I ask where I've ever posted that I don't find any value in what is in the Book of Abraham?

You asked which books I've read by Nibley. I own all of my parents old books and they loved Nibley.  I've used many of them to help me with lessons and talks I've had to give.  My favorite of his books is just short chapters with quotes on different topics.  I honestly feel that he was kind of quirky or thought outside of the box on some things and I love that.

Edited March 19, 2017 by JulieM

[Calm]

Rongo, I am wondering if you interpreted Julie's what he got wrong differently than .I did.  I am assuming she means he just got the source wrong, but the writings are in her view an actual history or religious history (as opposed to a modern history style).  She can correct me if I am wrong.  You can too.

Edited March 19, 2017 by Calm

[rongo]

I would be very interested in how Julie puts it (I don't want to put words in her mouth). I had asked what she thinks it's a catalyst of --- i.e., does she think the history in the Book of Abraham is actual history, despite her view that Joseph Smith's translation is totally wrong? That would surprise me, given her tone and what she's posted, but I'll certainly stand corrected on this if she says otherwise.  

I haven't seen anything from her statements that would indicate to me that she believes that the BoA is reliable, accurate, true history (that is, that really happened), but I'll let her clarify her own views. 

JulieM:

May I ask where I've ever posted that I don't find any value in what is in the Book of Abraham?

I don't find anything in your postings here or elsewhere that would indicate that you find actual value in it, save for your statement that you "find it interesting to read." Do you find value in it other than it being interesting reading? 

[JulieM]

55 minutes ago, rongo said:

JulieM:

I don't find anything in your postings here or elsewhere that would indicate that you find actual value in it, save for your statement that you "find it interesting to read." 

Can you quote where I've indicated that I "find no value in" the Book of Abraham?

Believing that the papyri had nothing to do with Abraham isn't the same as believing the BofA wasn't inspired or that it has no "actual value".

I asked for references to support a theory I've  never heard of until Ahab posted it (that the facsimiles and funery texts originated with Abraham).  I'm interested in reading all theories or opinions put forth (if there's evidence to back them up).

Edited March 19, 2017 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Darren10 said:

Haha. I actually have no idea but my understanding is that the Book of Moses is pure revelation given to Joseph Smith and what triggered that revelation was his correcting the Bible. So while, so far as we know, there was no "object" directly involved in the Book of Moses, it seems the process of translating the Bible is what opened up this revelation.

That's what I don't understand, why do we not use this translation of the Bible? I know I've been told why, but have forgotten. And I know that the Community of Christ has a copy of it and when visiting Nauvoo, I was able to purchase it. Why not use it then?