Book of Abraham Preface is Misleading

[Darren10]

24 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

And I respect your beliefs.  I would have to agree with what non-LDS Egyptologists say about the BoM and the translation of the facsimiles.  

“To sum up, then, these three fac-similes of Egyptian documents in the ‘Pearl of Great Price' depict the most common objects in the mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith's interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian Writing and civilization.”

- James H. Breasted, Ph. D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago; quoted in F.S. Spalding, Joseph Smith, Jr., As A Translator, 1912, pp. 26-27

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith's impudent fraud.... Smith has turned the Goddess [in Facsimile No. 1] into a king and Osiris into Abraham.”

- Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford professor of Egyptology, printed in Joseph Smith Jun. As a Translator, by F.S. Spaulding, p. 8

"In addition, Facsimile 1 is specifically referenced in the text of the Book of Abraham (1:12): “that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.” That initial representation is Fig. 4 of Facsimile 1: “The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and the Pharaoh.” Further links appear in Abraham 1:13-14, which describe the bedstead “altar” and foreign gods (actually canopic jars) in Facsimile 1, Figs. 5-9. From these clear internal references, the LDS church is wrong to question whether the vignette/ facsimile “and its adjacent text must be associated in meaning.” It is simply unacceptable to argue, as the new LDS posting does, that Facsimile 1 may not be relevant since “it was not uncommon for ancient Egyptian vignettes to be placed some distance from their associated commentary.” The Abraham text states clearly that the representation was not at some distance, but “at the commencement of this record.” There is only one such representation included by Smith “at the commencement” of the Book of Abraham. If he actually knew what he was doing, surely he would have copied the correct illustration (which is keyed perfectly — and repeatedly— to the text)."

"There can be no reasonable dispute that Smith linked the image of Facsimile 1 to the Egyptian papyrus that he —in his own words— “translated.” As the original papyrus of Facsimile 1 has survived and is in fact the “Breathing Permit” of an Egyptian priest Hôr, the Hôr papyrus is without question the text that Smith used for his translation that produced the Book of Abraham. The same conclusion is proved by Facsimile 3, a now- lost section of the same papyrus that contains the name of the priest Hôr, mistranslated by Joseph Smith as “Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.” From Smith’s words here, it is undeniable that he thought he was translating the Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in the normal meaning of the word “translate,” just as one would translate Greek or Hebrew characters."

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

 

 

Here is a fascinating look into the "mistranslation" of the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1098&index=10

In short, this essay outlines how in ancient times, Hebrew story tellers would take Egyptian hieroglyphs and adapt them to tell a Semitic story. They would use the Egyptian symbols but instead of representing Egyptian characters and ideas, they would represent Semitic characters and ideas. Therefore, to an Egyptologist, translating them to a Semitic story would seem erroneous. A quick look at the tables at the bottom on the article gives you a great insight as to the main point of the article.

Edited to add: You may be interested in the table section called "Semitic Transformations from Hypothetical Egyptian Original Underlying the Demotic Story of Setna to the Deducible Jewish Popular Version (from which the Lucan Account of the Rich Man and Lazarus Descends)" where Osiris from the "Demotic story of Setna" was turned into Abraham in its Semitic version.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Here's one of the latest great posts from Jeff Lindsey regarding the Book of Abraham: http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2016/12/another-cool-aspect-of-book-of-abraham.html

Quote

We have established that Abraham's identification of Yahweh with "the angel of his presence" was consistent with the earliest Israelite traditions, and also with the earliest Christian traditions. But if we assume, as the critics of the Book of Abraham do, that Joseph Smith created this remarkable document by applying his fertile imagination to the sources he had at hand, how did he come up with this strange designation for Yahweh? The only Biblical source for the phrase would have been Isaiah 63:9, but we have seen that this verse gives no hint that Yahweh was equated with "the angel of his presence". This conclusion can only be drawn when the Greek text is compared with the Hebrew. However, the Septuagint was not translated into English until 1851, so again we are at a loss to find a source for the Prophet. Consider also that we have not been able to find even a single case where Joseph Smith used this title to refer to Yahweh, aside from this solitary passage in the Book of Abraham. Therefore, we are forced to conclude that Joseph Smith was inconceivably lucky in his choice of words, or in fact the Patriarch Abraham chose these words to describe his God.

A bull's eye on a unique title, "Angel of his presence" to mean Jehovah?

You read and you decide...I'm  cool like that  .

[Ouagadougou]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Good point.  But that includes both facsimiles 1 and 2.  Perhaps you could take the current preface to the Pearl of Great Price and propose an edited version for the Brethren to consider, and present it here on this board so that we will understand just what you think it should say.

But you just said this about me in a different post:

"If you place his premises in logical order, and follow that with his conclusion, you can see that his logic is awful.  I can only conclude that he is either deficient in his reasoning, or he is deliberately pettifogging.  This would be true of any argument about any issue anywhere on the planet.  There are minimum standards to be expected in any discussion."

I'll accept the good point! 😀

From the Pearl of Great Price Intro:

"The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois."

Change to:

"The Book of Abraham.  An inspired translation of writings that have nothing to do with Abraham, which were translated from a funerary text (dated third century B.C.E.) for Horus, and do not mention Abraham's name." 

I don't think the brethren would be happy with my edited version. 😀

Edited March 16, 2017 by Ouagadougou

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Here is a fascinating look into the "mistranslation" of the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1098&index=10

In short, this essay outlines how in ancient times, Hebrew story tellers would take Egyptian hieroglyphs and adapt them to tell a Semitic story. They would use the Egyptian symbols but instead of representing Egyptian characters and ideas, they would represent Semitic characters and ideas. Therefore, to an Egyptologist, translating them to a Semitic story would seem erroneous. A quick look at the tables at the bottom on the article gives you a great insight as to the main point of the article.

http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1098&index=10

Yes, and Abraham is one such Hebrew who used Egyptian hieroglyphs to tell his story and then Egyptians after him, including some pharaohs that he taught, adapted some of Abraham's writings to tell their stories.

The central figure sitting on the throne in  the hieroglyphs of Abraham's story, for example, could be used to represent Horus, instead of our Father in heaven.  Or it could also be used to represent Abraham, himself.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I thought maybe you were LDS, enough to say we believe he taught ancient Egyptians while he was in Egypt.  We do teach that he did, don't cha know.

I must have forgotten.

Can you provide the references that talk about how Abraham taught the ancient Egyptians and provided them the texts for their funeral scrolls? CFR. I really don't remember anything like that in church teachings but I'm willing to be corrected.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I must have forgotten.

Can you provide the references that talk about how Abraham taught the ancient Egyptians and provided them the texts for their funeral scrolls? CFR. I really don't remember anything like that in church teachings but I'm willing to be corrected.

Read the Book of Abraham, again.

Maybe you'll notice it this next time.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

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

"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

A blathering stretch of a conclusion based on the following quote from the Church essay provided in the Introduction of the paper: “The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity.” Ergo the Book of Abraham is a “confirmed… invention” and “the LDS church posting suggests discomfort with its own conclusions and reasoning.”

Really? LOL This guy is a flake, and you swallow it hook, line and sinker! Please put up some half-way decent material for a change,

[dberrie2000]

35 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

Hi Ouag--

I don't find anything within that reference to indicate the LDS church agrees the Book of Abraham text came from extant papyri, quite to the contrary:

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus.³² Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

I would like to add another comment, if I could. The extant fragments we have of the papyri are those thought to be either what was left from the transfer of the larger body of papyri by the St Louis museum to the Wood Museum in Chicago, or those in the possession of some papyrus through personal acquirement.

The greater body of the papyri was thought to have burned with the Wood Museum in 1871, in the Great Chicago Fire. It is thought by some--we only have about 15% of the original papyri, which is extant today.

Also--it is believed by some we only have about 25% of the original translation which Joseph Smith translated from the papyri.

Edited March 16, 2017 by dberrie2000

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Read the Book of Abraham, again.

Maybe you'll notice it this next time.

Please provide the reference from my CFR. Thanks.

 

[Darren10]

11 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

But you just said this about me in a different post:

"If you place his premises in logical order, and follow that with his conclusion, you can see that his logic is awful.  I can only conclude that he is either deficient in his reasoning, or he is deliberately pettifogging.  This would be true of any argument about any issue anywhere on the planet.  There are minimum standards to be expected in any discussion."

I'll accept the good point! 😀

From the Pearl of Great Price Intro:

"The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois."

Change to:

"The Book of Abraham.  An inspired translation of writings that have nothing to do with Abraham, which were translated from a funerary text (dated third century B.C.E.) for Horus, and do not mention Abraham's name." 

I don't think the brethren would be happy with my edited version. 😀

"I don't think the brethren would be happy with my edited version." - Of course not. That would presume you know more than them...you DO know more than them, don't you?

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Please provide the reference from my CFR. Thanks.

 

I am offering up the entire Book of Abraham as my reference.  Not just a little snippet from it. Look closely at facsimile 3 while you read and study the entire book. Overlook nothing.

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I think those who suggest a change to the Preface should show what, exactly, the new Preface might look like.  Here's my take:

Original:

Cinepro Special Edition:

Also, remove Facsimilies #2 and #3 and their attendant "translations."

Too confusing, especially for the OP. To what does the inspired Dictation refer: Joseph, the scribes or the product? “Possibly” would certainly not be pedantic enough, and “originally found in Egypt” (considering how Joseph came across them) is a misstatement. But more of an effort than the OP can afford, apparently. I think he’s trying to channel William E. McLellin, but alas, “I’m trying to think but nothin’s happenin’”

Edited March 16, 2017 by CV75

[bcuzbcuz]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

You cited enough info there to help you see at least some of what I can see. Some pharaohs of ancient Egypt had some kind of text and Abraham was likely influenced by some of their writings, but those, as you suggest, were not then the "standard" funerary text that Abraham developed.

Also consider how Abraham was given info from God about the heavens which he shared with the Egyptians.  It's not as if the Egyptians learned all that they knew all by themselves.

I think you're reverse engineering your thesis on Abraham's influence of funerary texts. Yes, we know that groups of people, even after the "exodus of Moses", were of Jewish descent in Egypt. They wrote their names in a quarry. But your response lacks any of the details I asked for. Show where Abrahams name and traditions are documented in any funeray text from the Middle Kingdom or up to the Coptic era. Please.

And your closing comment " It's not as if the Egyptians learned all that they knew all by themselves.", are you serious?? Sarcasm? Attempt to change subject? I don't know. You tell me. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Ouagadougou said:

But you just said this about me in a different post:

"If you place his premises in logical order, and follow that with his conclusion, you can see that his logic is awful.  I can only conclude that he is either deficient in his reasoning, or he is deliberately pettifogging.  This would be true of any argument about any issue anywhere on the planet.  There are minimum standards to be expected in any discussion."

I'll accept the good point! 😀

We are discussing two very different issues here.  You made a valid point (which I improved), with which I have no problem.  Do you see why?

Quote

From the Pearl of Great Price Intro:

"The Book of Abraham. An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri. The translation was published serially in the Times and Seasons beginning March 1, 1842, at Nauvoo, Illinois."

Change to:

"The Book of Abraham.  An inspired translation of writings that have nothing to do with Abraham, which were translated from a funerary text (dated third century B.C.E.) for Horus, and do not mention Abraham's name." 

I don't think the brethren would be happy with my edited version. 😀

Really doesn't matter who would or would not be happy with your new version.  The only question is, Does it provide a valid summary of the facts, and it doesn't.  You could have edited it to read as follows:

"The Book of Abraham.  An inspired translation of writings of Abraham, which had been transmitted (redacted) down through time into the 3rd century B.C.  Joseph Smith translated the writings of Abraham from a papyrus of that date which we no longer possess, although we do have a fragmentary funerary papyrus upon which two of the facsimiles were found.  Indeed, it is possible that the Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham was located on a portion of that very fragmentary papyrus."

Or you could have presented the LDS position on the matter in a number of other valid, factual ways.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I am offering up the entire Book of Abraham as my reference.  Not just a little snippet from it. Look closely at facsimile 3 while you read and study the entire book. Overlook nothing.

Sorry, Ahab but that doesn't cut it. I'd like an answer to the CFR. Giving me the entire text of Abraham and a facsimile isn't a useable reference. Please provide the references that make your point (even if there are multiple references I will read them all) and then also please explain how facsimile answers the question.

I get the feeling you're trying to avoid this CFR

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If you place his premises in logical order, and follow that with his conclusion, you can see that his logic is awful.  I can only conclude that he is either deficient in his reasoning, or he is deliberately pettifogging.  This would be true of any argument about any issue anywhere on the planet.  There are minimum standards to be expected in any discussion.

His facts are fake, his reasoning is fake, and his conclusions are fake.  it is true that this is a modern trend in social media, and so may be acceptable in some quarters.  I present a logical and factual discussion 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 .

When we have discussed this same issue earlier on this board, I have repeatedly pointed out that the actual heading to the BofA has not been altered, even though the introduction (preface) to the Pearl of Great Price has.  I would have expected that such an issue would be discussed with some care.  Instead we get instant polemic based on fake facts.  You don't find that annoying, stemelbow?

 

 

Well I for one don't get what you are arguing against.  The first line after your abstract says it well:

Quote

There are in my opinion, several sound empirical reasons for considering the LDS Book of Abraham as a translation of an ancient document, whether as a pseudepigraphon from late antiquity, or as an authentic document transmitted and redacted by the Jewish community from as early as the Middle Bronze Age.

Sorry about the spacing.  It's just doing that when I copy.

I don't see any reason to object to the notion that the preface should be changed for accuracy reasons in your whole piece.  It was an enjoyable read, by the way.  I think it true it's possible the stories told in the BoA came from an ancient source, whatever that source is.  But that doesn't seem to address the concerns raised in this thread. 

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

A blathering stretch of a conclusion based on the following quote from the Church essay provided in the Introduction of the paper: “The veracity and value of the book of Abraham cannot be settled by scholarly debate concerning the book’s translation and historicity.” Ergo the Book of Abraham is a “confirmed… invention” and “the LDS church posting suggests discomfort with its own conclusions and reasoning.”

 

Really? LOL This guy is a flake, and you swallow it hook, line and sinker! Please put up some half-way decent material for a change,

A flake?  

"Ritner is widely known for his work on Egyptian religious practices, language, medicine, literature, magic, and political history. Within the Mormon studies community, Ritner is known for confirming the conclusions of other Egyptologists who have investigated the Joseph Smith papyri. Ritner has concluded that the Book of Abraham is a "well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith."^[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_K._Ritner

How many other non-LDS Egyptologists agree or would agree with his position?  Probably the overwhelming majority, IMO. Are they all flakes as well? 

You should focus on the topic instead of personal attacks on others.  

[Ouagadougou]

28 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We are discussing two very different issues here.  You made a valid point (which I improved), with which I have no problem.  Do you see why?

Really doesn't matter who would or would not be happy with your new version.  The only question is, Does it provide a valid summary of the facts, and it doesn't.  You could have edited it to read as follows:

"The Book of Abraham.  An inspired translation of writings of Abraham, which had been transmitted (redacted) down through time into the 3rd century B.C.  Joseph Smith translated the writings of Abraham from a papyrus of that date which we no longer possess, although we do have a fragmentary funerary papyrus upon which two of the facsimiles were found.  Indeed, it is possible that the Egyptian text of the Book of Abraham was located on a portion of that very fragmentary papyrus."

Or you could have presented the LDS position on the matter in a number of other valid, factual ways.

I think your version would provide much more clarity than what is in there now.  

What about the preface to the Book of Abraham? 

[Ouagadougou]

1 hour ago, dberrie2000 said:

Hi Ouag--

I don't find anything within that reference to indicate the LDS church agrees the Book of Abraham text came from extant papyri, quite to the contrary:

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus.³² Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

I would like to add another comment, if I could. The extant fragments we have of the papyri are those thought to be either what was left from the transfer of the larger body of papyri by the St Louis museum to the Wood Museum in Chicago, or those in the possession of some papyrus through personal acquirement.

The greater body of the papyri was thought to have burned with the Wood Museum in 1871, in the Great Chicago Fire. It is thought by some--we only have about 15% of the original papyri, which is extant today.

Also--it is believed by some we only have about 25% of the original translation which Joseph Smith translated from the papyri.

Yes, facsimile 1, did, as the church essay states:

"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. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. Joseph Smith had published the facsimiles as freestanding drawings, cut off from the hieroglyphs or hieratic characters that originally surrounded the vignettes. The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1.26

https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&old=true

[Ahab]

23 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

I think you're reverse engineering your thesis on Abraham's influence of funerary texts. Yes, we know that groups of people, even after the "exodus of Moses", were of Jewish descent in Egypt. They wrote their names in a quarry. But your response lacks any of the details I asked for. Show where Abrahams name and traditions are documented in any funeray text from the Middle Kingdom or up to the Coptic era. Please.

And your closing comment " It's not as if the Egyptians learned all that they knew all by themselves.", are you serious?? Sarcasm? Attempt to change subject? I don't know. You tell me. 

Reverse engineering?  Is that what you call it when God tells us through one of his prophets about something that happened in ancient history?

LDS believe that through a testimony from God to us that we can know about things from the past, or for the present, or future. And in this case that God has told us that Abraham taught some ancient Egyptians what God told him in the past. Some of which he wrote, and which they in turn also wrote down.  Things like ancient Egyptian funerary texts, like in the Book of Abraham.

So yes, based on a testimony from God to us, God has told us that the ancient Egyptians didn't learn all that they knew on their own.  God told Abraham some things and he shared some of those things with some ancient Egyptians, which is how those ancient Egyptians  learned some of what they knew.

Are you getting the idea, yet?  

We're not forced to play your game of following events in time linearly, from the past to the future, because God can tell us through his prophets things that happened in the past, today.

And you can take it for whatever it is worth to you, personally.

 

[Ahab]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sorry, Ahab but that doesn't cut it. I'd like an answer to the CFR. Giving me the entire text of Abraham and a facsimile isn't a useable reference. Please provide the references that make your point (even if there are multiple references I will read them all) and then also please explain how facsimile answers the question.

I get the feeling you're trying to avoid this CFR

The Book of Abraham is, contrary to your opinion, a very usable reference, and you can either use it or not use it to your heart's content.

The discussion between you and me is now over.

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The Book of Abraham is, contrary to your opinion, a very usable reference, and you can either use it or not use it to your heart's content.

The discussion between you and me is now over.

I've been following your discussion with HJW, and I'd like to see your references too for your assertion here. 

You most likely know the rules of the board, and understand that you either need to supply specific references (not an entire book!) or withdraw what you stated.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I've been following your discussion with HJW, and I'd like to see your references too for your assertion here. 

You most likely know the rules of the board, and understand that you either need to supply specific references (not an entire book!) or withdraw what you stated.

Did you see where I mentioned facsimile 3, specifically?  This thread is about what the entire book is and the entire book is the best reference for what the book is.  With different specifics addressed in different parts of the book.

Not liking the reference offered doesn't equate to not getting offered the reference.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Did you see where I mentioned facsimile 3, specifically? 

Ok, please explain (clearly and specifically) what is in facsimile 3 that proves it "originated with Abraham" (as you stated).

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Ok, please explain (clearly and specifically) what is in facsimile 3 that proves it "originated with Abraham" (as you stated).

Facsimile 3 depicts Abraham teaching the Egyptians. The Book of Abraham depicts what Abraham knew back then. The Book of Abraham also depicts the standard funerary texts of ancient Egyptians, although critics don't agree that Joseph translated the texts correctly.

Any other questions you have about the Book of Abraham can be addressed by the Book of Abraham, itself, although there is no guarantee that you will correctly understand what the Book of Abraham is.