Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm getting the additional memos.

Why aren't you?

Maybe through niche internet Mormonism, but I'm not seeing these conversations in church on Sunday. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Arguments about BoA theories get very complicated so I'm hesitant to wade into BoA discussions.

However, it seems clear that the BoA preface doesn't match the current church understanding of what it is or how it came about. Adjusting the preface would be perfectly reasonable. Joseph edited revelations regularly as understand or needs changed. That's why the church is considered to be a "living" church. In a church of continuing revelation there is no need to be shackled to old, incorrect understandings.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Maybe through niche internet Mormonism, but I'm not seeing these conversations in church on Sunday. 

The block meetings?  You expect everything to be covered comprehensively and completely in those 3 hours, every week?  That's not near enough time to cover it all.  It's a 24/7 kind of thing and what the Spirit has to say to us all at all times and in all places is a heck of a lot more important, and a lot more nourishing, than the tiddly little bits we get from fellow members during those 3 hours.

And it's your job to get yourself in tune with the Spirit so that you will always be ready to learn more at all times and in all places.

Didn't you at least get those memos that  briefly mentioned that concept ?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

The preface of the Book of Abraham contains the following description:

"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."

If the church admits that the current fragments we have are from funerary texts and do not mention Abraham's name, then how can it still consider the Book of Abraham as "writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus?"

 

The second sentence in the header only indicates what the “Translation” referred to in the first sentence says, which is that Abraham wrote the account by his own hand: “I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.” (Abraham 1:31). The “Translation” does not say that Abraham wrote upon papyrus, but the “Records” referred to in the first sentence, and from which the “Translation” was generated, were indeed papyrus.

[hope_for_things]

45 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The block meetings?  You expect everything to be covered comprehensively and completely in those 3 hours, every week?  That's not near enough time to cover it all.  It's a 24/7 kind of thing and what the Spirit has to say to us all at all times and in all places is a heck of a lot more important, and a lot more nourishing, than the tiddly little bits we get from fellow members during those 3 hours.

And it's your job to get yourself in tune with the Spirit so that you will always be ready to learn more at all times and in all places.

Didn't you at least get those memos that  briefly mentioned that concept ?

If there isn't time on Sunday to have serious discussions in 3hrs or how about 12 hrs for general conference, then I think we're wasting time.  

[rongo]

4 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

If the church admits that the current fragments we have are from funerary texts and do not mention Abraham's name, then how can it still consider the Book of Abraham as "writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus?"

Ouaga: 

If the Joseph Smith papyri (Book of the Dead, Book of Breathings, hypocephalus of Sheshonq, etc.) dating from the Ptolomaic period and belonging to the Soter family --- the papyri in their entirety --- really did contain authentic Abrahamic stories and traditions, would that invalidate your claims in the OP?

Hugh Nibley argued that there are several things that make the JSP unique (i.e., they were part of a milieu --- Egyptian funerary literature, but were commandeered and adjusted to transmit Abraham content as well). If that is the case, then can't it rightly be said that they contain "writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus?" Especially if they really did hark back to an original first-person account?

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

God told me. Hope that clears that up.

Haha easy enough...to each his/her own. 😀

[Ouagadougou]

57 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The second sentence in the header only indicates what the “Translation” referred to in the first sentence says, which is that Abraham wrote the account by his own hand: “I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.” (Abraham 1:31). The “Translation” does not say that Abraham wrote upon papyrus, but the “Records” referred to in the first sentence, and from which the “Translation” was generated, were indeed papyrus.

 

 

Th preface says:

"The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

 

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I can tell you about people who would. Instead of attacking on the preface being wrong they would claim it was sanitized and that we are seeking to hide our history.

But you see, the church is hiding its history, IMO, with the current preface. At least the history of the fragments we do have...

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

But that is not a proper understanding of English and that statement you would prefer is misleading.

Oh well. Thank you for your  $0.02

Does the average member and/or investigator, when he/she reads the preface to the Book of Abraham, realize that the current papyrus fragments we have now have nothing to do with Abraham?  I would think not.  Also, do they know that the source material of these fragments are actually thousands of years after Abraham even lived and are just a standard funerary text with NO mention of Abraham?  

IMO, the current preface is misleading and should at least reference or highlight the fragments that we do have, especially since the church admits it in its essay.  

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Ouaga: 

If the Joseph Smith papyri (Book of the Dead, Book of Breathings, hypocephalus of Sheshonq, etc.) dating from the Ptolomaic period and belonging to the Soter family --- the papyri in their entirety --- really did contain authentic Abrahamic stories and traditions, would that invalidate your claims in the OP?

Hugh Nibley argued that there are several things that make the JSP unique (i.e., they were part of a milieu --- Egyptian funerary literature, but were commandeered and adjusted to transmit Abraham content as well). If that is the case, then can't it rightly be said that they contain "writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus?" Especially if they really did hark back to an original first-person account?

Yes and in that context, to say those writings are the "writings of Abraham" is just another way of saying "the type (or archetype) of writings which Abraham wrote by his own hand, upon papyrus, while he was in Egypt".

[Ouagadougou]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

Ouaga: 

If the Joseph Smith papyri (Book of the Dead, Book of Breathings, hypocephalus of Sheshonq, etc.) dating from the Ptolomaic period and belonging to the Soter family --- the papyri in their entirety --- really did contain authentic Abrahamic stories and traditions, would that invalidate your claims in the OP?

Hugh Nibley argued that there are several things that make the JSP unique (i.e., they were part of a milieu --- Egyptian funerary literature, but were commandeered and adjusted to transmit Abraham content as well). If that is the case, then can't it rightly be said that they contain "writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus?" Especially if they really did hark back to an original first-person account?

No, because we know that the fragments we do have in our possession were used in facsimile 1, which is a failed translation; Non-LDS Egyptologists agree with that as well.  Read the link below:

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham final.pdf

Also, the existing fragments we have make no mention of Abraham...absolutely nothing, so people can wish to believe that the Book of Abraham was channeled through copies of copies, but JS claimed that the Book of Abraham was written by Abraham himself -- and that it was a translation.  What do non-LDS Egyptologists say about the Book of Abraham?

"With the Book of Abraham now confirmed as a perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith, the LDS Church may well devote some reflection to the status of the text. The former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, since 2001 renamed Community of Christ, avoids this issue by treating the Book of Abraham as speculative writing by Smith, not as a document of historical truth. In this decision they are clearly correct. Despite its inauthenticity as a genuine historical narrative, the Book of Abraham remains a valuable witness to early American religious history and to the recourse to ancient texts as sources of modern religious faith and speculation. The book still has its uses and significance, but not for the ancient world of Egypt and Abraham."

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham final.pdf

[Ouagadougou]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes and in that context, to say those writings are the "writings of Abraham" is just another way of saying "the type (or archetype) of writings which Abraham wrote by his own hand, upon papyrus, while he was in Egypt".

If the BoA is copies of copies of copies of his writings, then the church should admit to that in the preface (it already does in the essay).  

And why are there words like "pharaoh"even in th BoA, if Abraham is the real author?  

For example:

"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.

"Chaldea"

            Abraham, according to the BoA, lived in the "land of the Chaldeans" (1:1) which was governed by Pharaoh (1:8-20).   A place of sacrifice there had an Egyptian name, "Potiphar's Hill" (1:20).

            There are multiple anachronisms here.

            "Chaldeans" do not appear in history until the 12th century B.C., quite a few centuries after Abraham lived.   The earliest mention of them in historical records is in the 9th century B.C., in Assyrian records.   It was not until 721 B.C. that they established themselves, by seizing the throne of Babylon, ultimately establishing a Chaldean dynasty in Babylonia, which ruled from 625 to 539 B.C.   It is only afterthis that the term "Chaldea" or "land of the Chaldees" came to be used for "Babylon".

            This anachronism also occurs in Genesis (11:31), but, as noted above, no one has claimed that Genesis was written by Abraham or a contemporary of Abraham.

            There is no historical evidence that Egypt controlled any part of Mesopotamia at any time when Abraham might have lived.   Thus, it is a gross error to claim that Egyptian sacrifices were taking place in "Chaldea" at a sacrificial place with an Egyptian name.

"Egyptus"

            The BoA says that "Egyptus" was the wife of Ham (the son of Noah) and the mother of Pharaoh who established the first government of Egypt. (Abr 1:23).   The name "Egyptus" is obviously intended to be the source of the name of the country.   But here is the linguistic problem: the name "Egypt" is not Egyptian, but Greek ('Aigyptos'), and thus was not used for the name of the country until the Greeks had contact with it, long after Abraham's time.

            The Greek name is a corruption of an Egyptian name for the capital city of Memphis, 'Hat-kaptah'.   Perhaps the real name of Ham's wife was Hat-kaptah?   No, because Abr 1:23 says that "Egypt" is a "Chaldean" word (see previous section on "Chaldea"), and it means "forbidden".

            The Hebrew word for Egypt and the Egyptians is 'Mizraim,' which adds to the confusion, because the Bible says that Mizraim was a son of Ham (Gen 10:6, 13) and the ancestor not of the Egyptians, but of the Philistines.

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

 

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Arguments about BoA theories get very complicated so I'm hesitant to wade into BoA discussions.

However, it seems clear that the BoA preface doesn't match the current church understanding of what it is or how it came about. Adjusting the preface would be perfectly reasonable. Joseph edited revelations regularly as understand or needs changed. That's why the church is considered to be a "living" church. In a church of continuing revelation there is no need to be shackled to old, incorrect understandings.

As I point out above, if you adjust the preface you are adjusting what Joseph Smith said about the history.  You are in effect saying "we know better than he did."  That's easy for us to say here on the internet, but I wouldn't want to stand in front of the Q15 and be the one to argue that it needs to be changed.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Nope.  But as I stated:  

Based on the papyrus fragments we have today, wouldn't the correct/honest description be something like? 

"Writings of a funerary text for Horus (dated third century B.C.E.) that Joseph Smith channeled to be the words of Abraham."

Even if some of the fragments that were a funerary text were used, they should be listed in the preface as well, IMO.  

There is no mention whatsoever in the preface that some of the fragments (ones we have today) -- which are a funerary text dated third century B.C.E. -- were used as a source material/reference for channeling the Book of Abraham. If the fragments we DO have today were used, then they should be referenced.  Give Horus the credit he deserves...😀 

You are deeply confused, Uagadougou, or you just don't care about the obvious mistaken assumptions you have made -- creating a convenient straw man.  We have fragments today of various papyri possessed by Joseph Smith, but we do not have the majority of those papyrus fragments now, and we do not have a papyrus containing the Book of Abraham text.  There are various explanations offered for this fact:  (1) Anti-Mormons instantly argue that Joseph just imagined that he was translating the Book of Abraham from the Sensen Papyrus, (2) or the actual papyrus from which the Book of Abraham came is no longer among the fragments possessed by the Church, (3) or is hidden in the glued backing of the Sensen text of Horus.

You have conveniently jettisoned the fact that the large Jewish community in Egypt was busy copying, editing, and recopying earlier holy texts.  Naturally, if you are not interested in a factual appraisal, you will have no interest at all in my "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 .

[Ouagadougou]

40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are deeply confused, Uagadougou, or you just don't care about the obvious mistaken assumptions you have made -- creating a convenient straw man.  We have fragments today of various papyri possessed by Joseph Smith, but we do not have the majority of those papyrus fragments now, and we do not have a papyrus containing the Book of Abraham text.  There are various explanations offered for this fact:  (1) Anti-Mormons instantly argue that Joseph just imagined that he was translating the Book of Abraham from the Sensen Papyrus, (2) or the actual papyrus from which the Book of Abraham came is no longer among the fragments possessed by the Church, (3) or is hidden in the glued backing of the Sensen text of Horus.

You have conveniently jettisoned the fact that the large Jewish community in Egypt was busy copying, editing, and recopying earlier holy texts.  Naturally, if you are not interested in a factual appraisal, you will have no interest at all in my "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 .

 

Please explain how I am "deeply confused."  I will quote the church's own essay once again:

"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 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

"The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. "

Egyptologist Dr. Robert Ritner of the University of Chicago has said the following in his response to the church's essay:

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham final.pdf

IMO, the overwhelming majority of non-LDS Egyptologists would agree with his assessment, as do I at this point.  

I will read the assessment you provided as well.  But, from the majority of the fragments we DO have, we can conclude that that they did not come from Abraham and have nothing to do with Abraham -- the church even admits that.  

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[Robert F. Smith]

5 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Please explain how I am "deeply confused."  I will quote the church's own essay once again:

"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 Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies. These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."

"The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. "

Egyptologist Dr. Robert Ritner of the University of Chicago has said the following in his response to the church's essay:

https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham final.pdf

IMO, the overwhelming of non-LDS Egyptologists would agree with his assessment, as do I at this point.  

I will read the assessment you provided as well.  But, from the majority of ththe fragments we DO have, we can conclude that that they did not come from Abraham and have nothing to do with Abraham -- the church even admits that.  

I didn't say that the Church Essay was confused.  I said that you were confused.  You have taken a fairly straightforward Essay and turned it completely around, either because you don't understand it, or because you wish to create a straw man -- if so, you are making the Essay out to say things which it does not say through deliberate misinterpretation.

If it is simple misunderstanding of the Essay, then I recommend that you reread it carefully.  The hallmark of good scholarship is the ability to clearly express the views taken by either side in a debate.  If one's only objective is to attack, then of course, forget fairness and clarity.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

But you see, the church is hiding its history, IMO, with the current preface. At least the history of the fragments we do have...

I disagree. The preface does not mention the found fragments and was published for a long time before we got a few pieces of it.

What preface do you suggest? If we put that Joseph was a charlatan we are guessing. If we say it was a spiritual translation we are guessing. If we write an in-depth essay giving Joseph's preface and an explanation of some of what we do know about the papyri we do have it will confuse some members and our enemies will insist we wrote a long boring block of text few will read and hid the 'damning' stuff in it so no one would ever read it.

[notHagoth7]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

..."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)...

Instead, "pharoah" supposedly originally meant "great column."

As in, this promise.

And this promise.

And this reality....a pillar that was likely a cultural reminder of Arminius.

I also believe that Pharoah and Pharisees are cognates. (The Pharisees were rulers of the Jews.)

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

            "Chaldeans" do not appear in history until the 12th century B.C., quite a few centuries after Abraham lived.   The earliest mention of them in historical records is in the 9th century B.C., in Assyrian records.   It was not until 721 B.C. that they established themselves, by seizing the throne of Babylon, ultimately establishing a Chaldean dynasty in Babylonia, which ruled from 625 to 539 B.C.   It is only afterthis that the term "Chaldea" or "land of the Chaldees" came to be used for "Babylon".

 

            This anachronism also occurs in Genesis (11:31)...

            There is no historical evidence that Egypt controlled any part of Mesopotamia at any time when Abraham might have lived.   Thus, it is a gross error to claim that Egyptian sacrifices...

Since it appears in Genesis, why assume/assert it's an anachronism?

Just because the extant written word doesn't show evidence of Chaldean prior to the 12th century BC, that doesn't come close to meaning that this word was neither written nor spoken before then. Any idea how many records have vanished over the centuries? And how many spoken words there is zero record of - except in heaven?

(This non-dilemma reminds me of the Skousen/English discussion several days back.)

Absence of evidence ain't evidence of absence. Not even close.

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

"Egyptus"

            The BoA says that "Egyptus" was the wife of Ham (the son of Noah) and the mother of Pharaoh who established the first government of Egypt. (Abr 1:23).   The name "Egyptus" is obviously intended to be the source of the name of the country.   But here is the linguistic problem: the name "Egypt" is not Egyptian, but Greek ('Aigyptos'), and thus was not used for the name of the country until the Greeks had contact with it, long after Abraham's time.

            The Greek name is a corruption of an Egyptian name for the capital city of Memphis, 'Hat-kaptah'.   Perhaps the real name of Ham's wife was Hat-kaptah?   No, because Abr 1:23 says that "Egypt" is a "Chaldean" word (see previous section on "Chaldea"), and it means "forbidden".

            The Hebrew word for Egypt and the Egyptians is 'Mizraim,' which adds to the confusion, because the Bible says that Mizraim was a son of Ham (Gen 10:6, 13) and the ancestor not of the Egyptians, but of the Philistines.

As to whether the word "Egypt" is Greek and/or Egyptian and/or Chaldean, we gotta keep in mind loanwords: cultural elements (including language) derived from neighboring regions.

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Athena-Afroasiatic-Civilization-Fabrication/dp/0813512778/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489629259&sr=8-1&keywords=black+athena

So with "Egytp" you're actually creating a false trichotomy/strawman. The word can be of Greek, Chaldean, and Egyptian origin.

Etymology can be a fun/surprising thing sometimes. Agreed?

Edited March 16, 2017 by notHagoth7

[Ouagadougou]

21 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Instead, "pharoah" supposedly originally meant "great column."

As in, this promise.

And this promise.

And this reality....a pillar that was likely a cultural reminder of Arminius.

I also believe that Pharoah and Pharisees are cognates. (The Pharisees were rulers of the Jews.)

Since it appears in Genesis, why assume/assert it's an anachronism?

Just because the extant written word doesn't show evidence of Chaldean prior to the 12th century BC, that doesn't come close to meaning that this word was neither written nor spoken before then. Any idea how many records have vanished over the centuries? And how many spoken words there is zero record of - except in heaven?

(This non-dilemma reminds me of the Skousen/English discussion several days back.)

Absence of evidence ain't evidence of absence. Not even close.

As to whether the word "Egypt" is Greek and/or Egyptian and/or Chaldean, we gotta keep in mind loanwords: cultural elements (including language) derived from neighboring regions.

https://www.amazon.com/Black-Athena-Afroasiatic-Civilization-Fabrication/dp/0813512778/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1489629259&sr=8-1&keywords=black+athena

So with "Egytp" you're actually creating a false trichotomy/strawman. The word can be of Greek, Chaldean, and Egyptian origin.

Etymology can be a fun/surprising thing sometimes. Agreed?

These words are out of place, especially if JS was only using papyri as his source to translate from.  

When he used Pharaoh, for example, that wasn't a term used for thousands of years later in this context.  It seems the Bible might have been a source for his translation and not the papyri.  You just further highlight that those same anachronisms in the Bible are also listed in the BoA.  

 6 For their hearts were set to do evil, and were wholly turned to the god of Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah, and the god of Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt;

 

 

[Ouagadougou]

52 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree. The preface does not mention the found fragments and was published for a long time before we got a few pieces of it.

What preface do you suggest? If we put that Joseph was a charlatan we are guessing. If we say it was a spiritual translation we are guessing. If we write an in-depth essay giving Joseph's preface and an explanation of some of what we do know about the papyri we do have it will confuse some members and our enemies will insist we wrote a long boring block of text few will read and hid the 'damning' stuff in it so no one would ever read it.

I'm just suggesting they reference what the source document is (existing fragments we do have with the date listed as third century B.C.E.) in the preface and for facsimile 1.  Is referencing the actual papyrus fragments (as a funerary text) and their date such a difficult task to provide clarity?  

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Ouagadougou said:

I'm just suggesting they reference what the source document is (existing fragments we do have with the date listed as third century B.C.E.) in the preface and for facsimile 1.  Is referencing the actual papyrus fragments (as a funerary text) and their date such a difficult task to provide clarity?  

Judging by the number of papers written and back and forth on the topic? Yes, it appears to be a difficult task.  

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I didn't say that the Church Essay was confused.  I said that you were confused.  You have taken a fairly straightforward Essay and turned it completely around, either because you don't understand it, or because you wish to create a straw man -- if so, you are making the Essay out to say things which it does not say through deliberate misinterpretation.

If it is simple misunderstanding of the Essay, then I recommend that you reread it carefully.  The hallmark of good scholarship is the ability to clearly express the views taken by either side in a debate.  If one's only objective is to attack, then of course, forget fairness and clarity.

How have I turned it around?  The church is the one who turned it around (as they make mention in the essay), so why not list it as well in the preface?  The church's own essay contradicts the preface to the BoA, or at least doesn't paint the entire picture that the fragments we do have are dated third century B.C.E.; and they do not mention Abraham; and are a standard funerary text, which were used by JS to channel/translate some of the BoA, to include facsimile 1.  

[Ouagadougou]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Judging by the number of papers written and back and forth on the topic? Yes, it appears to be a difficult task.  

They did it in the intro to the BoM, so why not do the same thing to reflect the source fragments we do have for the BoA?  

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695226008/Debate-renewed-with-change-in-Book-of-Mormon-introduction.html

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Your change would make the assumption that the fragments that are missing are similar to the fragments we have today.  Your change would be made based on incomplete evidence.  Why not just take Joseph Smith at his word?

We can speculate all we want on what scrolls might be missing. But there is no evidence that these missing scrolls ever existed.  And besides, it really doesn't matter.  We have the facsimilies.  We have JS translate of the facsimilites.  JS's translation is bogus.  It is not even close.  Regardless of what JS has said, this is not a valid translation.  This is why many cannot take JS at his word.

Edited March 16, 2017 by sunstoned