Evidence for the Book of Abraham

[Dan Vogel]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 4:15 PM, Dan Vogel said:

No, claiming that JS thought he was translating the papyrus when he was not requires mindreading, because there is nothing else to support that assertion except wishful thinking and apologetic necessity. We conclude all the time that people are trying to deceive us based on the facts not supporting the claims. That’s what JS provided us when he produced the working papers. To say that JS naively thought he was actually translating each character is to (1) read his mind, and (2) cast doubt on all his revelations. However, if you posit that he intentionally deceived to help people believe what he sincerely believed were inspired writings, then I think that is the lesser miracle. 

 

Since with both think that the other is requiring "mindreading" just illustrates well the subjective character of all this. 

Both positions agree that JS claimed he translated the BOM from the Book of Breathings. That claim proved false, therefore JS deceived his followers. That does not require mindreading. Saying he believed he was translating when he really wasn’t requires mindreading because you have to know what JS thought. Denying the second position requires mindreading, but those proposing the first are under no obligation to do so. It’s merely an ad hoc escape from an unwanted conclusion. It’s apologetics, not a religious position.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Dan Vogel said:

Because you said: "Vogel does not understand the difference between science and reigion." It seems you are the one who doesn't know the difference.

Oh my!

Well I think they are different paradigms totally was different verification systems so that's enough of a difference for me.

By way of analogy, one is like deciding if you want to be a Republican or Democrat, libertarian or communist and which position is "true"and the other is like determining the boiling point of water. There's not much discussion possible about the boiling point of water is there?

And you seem to do a lot of discussing about the "truth" of the church don't you?

I mean of course you could be right if we could figure out a way to weigh God. He has a body after all.

But unfortunately he hasn't given us a whole lot of opportunity for objective evidence about that has he?

If that difference is not obvious to you there's not much I can tell you.

At this point I think my first assertion was right on the money.

Edited December 21, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mikwut]

Hi mfkowski,

Your missing my objection and I am certain it is me not you. Let me start simpler. If sentences don't represent or correspond to facts necessarily but deflate to a community agreement well then what are they? I still don't see it with the BoA. You have just reduced your theory to a spiritual witness, but that spiritual witness still has to correspond to truth or fact that the BoA is revelation, even if not a direct translation of the papyri, and that is correspondence not deflationary. Just a shift in cognitive function that is doing the representation. Our understanding which involves correspondence and agreement both tell us that. That's why Quine would never agree with how you are using deflationary theory.

mikwut

[CA Steve]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my!

Well I think they are different paradigms totally was different verification systems so that's enough of a difference for me.

By way of analogy, one is like deciding if you want to be a Republican or Democrat, libertarian or communist and which position is "true"and the other is like determining the boiling point of water. There's not much discussion possible about the boiling point of water is there?

I think a better analogy would be if a Republican were claiming a inaugural crowd size of over a million and a Democrat was saying it was only 3-600,000 , we could discuss the evidence that support the truth statements of each position.

Edited December 21, 2018 by CA Steve

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

Both positions agree that JS claimed he translated the BOM from the Book of Breathings. That claim proved false, therefore JS deceived his followers. 

Dan, I do not remember any claim by Joseph Smith about the "translation" process, so any conclusion you are making is based conjecture..
It may surprise you that  I agree it is a reasonable conclusion,  but disagree that it is the ONLY possible conclusion.  Your focus is on the translation process itself, but there is another issue remains largely unexplored == the text itself and the information it contains.

Why don't you go back to my post on Dr. Muhlestein's comments on the texts, and deal with those issues which you have given short shrift .  He is not only  an Egyptologist, but also an archeologist and historian, giving us some interesting insights into the text, as well as where Joseph got some things right. 

Now if he got two or three things right, is that merely luck?  A coincidence?  And the names of the gods == Hugh Nibley points out that these may fnot be their names at all, but the name of the House which adopted that god, such as Pharaoh and the crocodile god.

Edited December 21, 2018 by cdowis

[Dan Vogel]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh my!

Well I think they are different paradigms totally was different verification systems so that's enough of a difference for me.

By way of analogy, one is like deciding if you want to be a Republican or Democrat, libertarian or communist and which position is "true"and the other is like determining the boiling point of water. There's not much discussion possible about the boiling point of water is there?

And you seem to do a lot of discussing about the "truth" of the church don't you?

I mean of course you could be right if we could figure out a way to weigh God. He has a body after all.

But unfortunately he hasn't given us a whole lot of opportunity for objective evidence about that has he?

If that difference is not obvious to you there's not much I can tell you.

At this point I think my first assertion was right on the money.

You seem to make a habit of responding before you understand. If you had known the difference between science and religion, you wouldn't have tried to criticize me.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

You seem to make a habit of responding before you understand. If you had known the difference between science and religion, you wouldn't have tried to criticize me.

I have no clue what that means. If someone else can translate it into a coherent statement I'd like to try to understand it.

Suppose for a moment I actually do understand the difference. Why does that mean that I would not have criticized someone?

[mfbukowski]

10 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

That the Book of Abraham makes specific cosmological claims is not in question. The text makes very explicit claims.

I disagree on both points.  I'm very sympathetic to Pragmatism and the philosophies of Wittgenstein and Rorty. I'm genuinely curious how you are applying, in practice, your interpretation of these men. I'm simply questioning what appears to be an incredibly narrow reading.

My mother likes to think so. My wife remains unconvinced.

Take a look at this.

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-future-of-religion/9780231134941

[CA Steve]

14 hours ago, cdowis said:

Dan, I do not remember any claim by Joseph Smith about the "translation" process, so any conclusion you are making is based conjecture..
It may surprise you that  I agree it is a reasonable conclusion,  but disagree that it is the ONLY possible conclusion.  Your focus is on the translation process itself, but there is another issue remains largely unexplored == the text itself and the information it contains.

Why don't you go back to my post on Dr. Muhlestein's comments on the texts, and deal with those issues which you have given short shrift .  He is not only  an Egyptologist, but also an archeologist and historian, giving us some interesting insights into the text, as well as where Joseph got some things right. 

Now if he got two or three things right, is that merely luck?  A coincidence?  And the names of the gods == Hugh Nibley points out that these may fnot be their names at all, but the name of the House which adopted that god, such as Pharaoh and the crocodile god.

Everyone assumes that Joseph Smith wrote the Explanations to the Facsimiles from the Book of Abraham. We cannot, however, prove that he did. The earliest manuscripts of any of the Explanations are Book of Abraham manuscripts 5A and 6, both in the handwriting of Willard Richards. There is nothing in the documents that indicates authorship. While I am not saying that assuming that Joseph Smith wrote the Explanations is a bad assumption, it does need to be pointed out that it is an assumption and is not provable. If someone wanted to argue that Willard Richards wrote the Explanations, we could not prove it false. So one cannot, with certainty, use the Explanations of the Facsimiles as a source for Joseph Smith’s knowledge of Egyptian or lack thereof.

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, mikwut said:

Hi mfkowski,

Your missing my objection and I am certain it is me not you. Let me start simpler. If sentences don't represent or correspond to facts necessarily but deflate to a community agreement well then what are they? I still don't see it with the BoA. You have just reduced your theory to a spiritual witness, but that spiritual witness still has to correspond to truth or fact that the BoA is revelation, even if not a direct translation of the papyri, and that is correspondence not deflationary. Just a shift in cognitive function that is doing the representation. Our understanding which involves correspondence and agreement both tell us that. That's why Quine would never agree with how you are using deflationary theory.

mikwut

The question in all these cases is that we cannot check the "source " to see if language corresponds correctly to the source or not.

 We say that God has a body. How do we check God's body to make sure that that statement is true? How can we know if it "corresponds" to the statement or not?

 How do we know if anything you see corresponds to that invisible reality or not? How do we know that the photons entering our eyes Etc  Correspond to what is out there? How do we know they are not just the appearances of things as they are? Is it water or is it a mirage? We can only find out by further investigation looking at what the appearances later reveal, but in the end it's all only appearances.

  And then we have the added abstraction level of what the person intended to say versus  Our interpretation of what he  Said.

In the case of objects we simply have to ignore the fact that we cannot get to the ultimate reality and simply go by the way things appear.

We do not see quarks and photons-- if those are real -- we see tables and chairs.

Pragmatism sought to destroy the dichotomy between appearance and reality. What you see is what there is. There is no point in talking about an underlying reality when all we can verify is what we see or sense through extensions of our senses, like various devices used in science including even cyclotrons etc.  Ultimately those extend what we "see" and still it takes someone to read and interpret the results.  We have no machine that images "ultimate reality" because we don't even know what that is to make such a machine!!  Physicists still hunger for a "theory of everything" and I suggest that such a thing will never happen- or if it does it will be revised regularly showing that even what we thought was a "theory of everything" was not... quite... right afterall!   That is why science is constantly revising itself.   You are not going to find "ultimate reality" as an absolute understanding ever, never to be revised

 The good news is that pragmatism admits that there are other appearances about which we do not know anything except the feelings in our heart or dreams or visions.

 Surely we cannot accept these things as real without analysis.  But in a  Mormon context we have Alma 32 describing a pragmatic way to tell if  Spiritual matters are true

And again the decision about what is the correct for you is in your heart like determining your political party etc

For those who need the idea that there is "one true way" I would suggest that God teaches us each our own way to him as a tutor.

I know of people who were LDS then called to be in another church by the spirit, and they were influential in causing a strong link to be established between the CoJCLDS and their new church, and after this job was done, they felt the spirit calling them back to the LDS.!

If you are a drunk in the gutter and the only way to find Christ is through the Salvation Army do you think that God would tell you that the Salvation Army was the truth path?   For you at this time I am sure he would.

So yes following your heart I think is a good thing to allow God to teach you where to go.  Again these are how to find your path in life and finding what is important to you- this is not about weighing God to verify your beliefs that he has a body or looking for someone who has died and being resurrected before you accept the wonderful idea that we will all live again.

These are not empirical questions unless you count the feelings of your heart as "empirical evidence".   I actually do that but others do not.

At any rate it is clear that making decisions about the direction of your life and beliefs is not not like making decisions about the boiling point of water.

All the scientific evidence in the world will not prove that Jesus died to save OUR sins.  And so it is even with the Book of Abraham!   All the science in the world will not show us how to live better- which is what the BOA is ultimately about.

Facts about Abraham''s life will never change your life.  But if a story about Abraham that might itself be true or false might change your way of seeing things just as the parable of the prodigal son can 

I am surprised that no one criticises Christ for saying that there was a man who had a son...... etc

Obviously Jesus was lying right? 

We have to do some research to find out who that man was for the story to have meaning........  quick ..... get some scholars together!!! 

Luke 15- NIV

Quote

 

11 Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. 12 The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them.

 

Do we have evidence for this statement or is it deceptive? 

We have no problem seeing this as a parable but because he used the word "translate" then Joseph's stories are "deceptive"?

What if Jesus said "There was a man who translated the story of Abraham, and Abraham (did thus and so....)  would THAT be deceptive?

 

Edited December 21, 2018 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Everyone assumes that Joseph Smith wrote the Explanations to the Facsimiles from the Book of Abraham. We cannot, however, prove that he did. The earliest manuscripts of any of the Explanations are Book of Abraham manuscripts 5A and 6, both in the handwriting of Willard Richards. There is nothing in the documents that indicates authorship. While I am not saying that assuming that Joseph Smith wrote the Explanations is a bad assumption, it does need to be pointed out that it is an assumption and is not provable. If someone wanted to argue that Willard Richards wrote the Explanations, we could not prove it false. So one cannot, with certainty, use the Explanations of the Facsimiles as a source for Joseph Smith’s knowledge of Egyptian or lack thereof.

The point is that we do not know the mechanics of "translation", just as we can only speculate on the mechanics of translating the Book of Mormon, since JS never told anyone.

What is the relationship between the EAG, and the BOD.  Similar to the circumstances of the eight witnesses and  the BOM plates, Vogel pretends to know these things about he Book of Abraham..  His tales are very entertaining..

Anyway, I assume that JS used a scribe to actually write down the text.

Edited December 21, 2018 by cdowis

[mikwut]

Hi mfbukowski,

We actually have a lot of agreement. I think your confusing a lot of epistemology for ontology when not necessary above.  But be that as it may, I think I cringe a little when you seemingly use philosophical positions and authority as if they track cohesively with Mormon theology. Why not use theological language like simple trust in our spiritual sense rather than deflationary truth theory mingled with seemingly supportive postmodern pragmatism. That is an endless loop and what I meant by if Quine is utilizing it as support and you as a believing Mormon are using it as support someone either misunderstands or is misusing. Of course the devil is in the details but that is such time and effort the general fact demonstrates the silliness of why would revelation, pragmatic or correspondent work in such a way?  Either way it doesn't lend to clarity, or simplicity. Alma seems rather clear. But Alma speaks in trusting relationship with God, it doesn't speak to whether that same sense has the ability to discern historical facts.

I fear the reason you do so is because it becomes such a loop it appears as a defense. But in reality simplicity strips itself of such philosophical language. We don't need a truth name for our simple understanding being constructed to include understand facts. Facts aren't everything of course, but facts do exist at least to our cognitive functioning. We don't have to further analyze that because it is all we have, it's all or nothing - nihilism or truth of some kind or another. I can expect that if I put two apples in a basket and they remain untouched I can return to two apples in a basket. Even if the facts of the BoA include connection of dots that utilize our inner experience of being human I am ok with that because it is so basic to my cognitive functioning. It is a destruction of part of cognitive faculties to ignore part of them at the expense of another part of them.

I believe Theism can't avoid falsification, and let's just face it, without abandoning part of our built in cognitive structure (our rational fact analyzing structure) the BoA is a falsifier or as close as you can get thereto. This isn't a matter of paradigms or community circle of agreed upon myths or religious ideas. It is a matter of our rational faculties in whole. If the nihilists have abandoned our sense or intuition of the divine it's just as egregious to abandon part of our rationality such as basic facts on the other extreme.

mikwut

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, mikwut said:

Hi mfbukowski,

We actually have a lot of agreement. I think your confusing a lot of epistemology for ontology when not necessary above.  But be that as it may, I think I cringe a little when you seemingly use philosophical positions and authority as if they track cohesively with Mormon theology. Why not use theological language like simple trust in our spiritual sense rather than deflationary truth theory mingled with seemingly supportive postmodern pragmatism. That is an endless loop and what I meant by if Quine is utilizing it as support and you as a believing Mormon are using it as support someone either misunderstands or is misusing. Of course the devil is in the details but that is such time and effort the general fact demonstrates the silliness of why would revelation, pragmatic or correspondent work in such a way?  Either way it doesn't lend to clarity, or simplicity. Alma seems rather clear. But Alma speaks in trusting relationship with God, it doesn't speak to whether that same sense has the ability to discern historical facts.

I fear the reason you do so is because it becomes such a loop it appears as a defense. But in reality simplicity strips itself of such philosophical language. We don't need a truth name for our simple understanding being constructed to include understand facts. Facts aren't everything of course, but facts do exist at least to our cognitive functioning. We don't have to further analyze that because it is all we have, it's all or nothing - nihilism or truth of some kind or another. I can expect that if I put two apples in a basket and they remain untouched I can return to two apples in a basket. Even if the facts of the BoA include connection of dots that utilize our inner experience of being human I am ok with that because it is so basic to my cognitive functioning. It is a destruction of part of cognitive faculties to ignore part of them at the expense of another part of them.

I believe Theism can't avoid falsification, and let's just face it, without abandoning part of our built in cognitive structure (our rational fact analyzing structure) the BoA is a falsifier or as close as you can get thereto. This isn't a matter of paradigms or community circle of agreed upon myths or religious ideas. It is a matter of our rational faculties in whole. If the nihilists have abandoned our sense or intuition of the divine it's just as egregious to abandon part of our rationality such as basic facts on the other extreme.

mikwut

  As far as mixing contexts I plead guilty.

As far as not conforming to mormon theology I plead extra guilty.

But that is the whole point. I think we need something out of the matter  organized that philosophy is Including the difference between epistomology and ontology And form something new that is restoration asked.

Wittgenstein Never spoke of epistomology or Ontology in his later work.

All we have to talk about is human experience and that using The poor device of language.

Please excuse odd spellings etc  because this was dictated.

Edited December 22, 2018 by mfbukowski
typo- changed "contacts" to "context". Dang dictating sofware!

[mfbukowski]

Mikwut  said"

Quote

 

That is an endless loop and what I meant by if Quine is utilizing it as support and you as a believing Mormon are using it as support someone either misunderstands or is misusing. 

 

 Huh?

This is an edit to correct a formatting error showing me making Mitwut's comment and then answering myself apparently when I was answering Mikwut

Edited December 22, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mikwut]

I'm not sure what Wittgenstein has to do with the BoA. But he certainly spoke of epistemology, one wouldn't be off to say the almost entirety of his work was on doubt certainty and knowledge i.e. epistemology. His 1969 On Certainty was completely epistemological. 

By the endless loop I was meaning if you and I debated the deflationary theory of truth where I stepped into Quine's shoes I would never be able to reach a revelatory catalyst BoA yet you are arguing you could. As I said the Devil is in those details but just that fact demonstrates misuse, misunderstanding or deflationary truth isn't meaningful with a category understood as truth. An endless loop that would really be Mormons believe the BoA is true. Not the truth we were aiming for. Because your arguing against a propositional position of the BoA the seconded dilemma of Oppy's objection would kill.

Our sins being forgive, I sense the presense of a God who loves me, there is more to all this than just this are metaphysical categories that I myself subscribe but they are different categories than the natural historical question of Joseph Smith.

mikwut

Edited December 21, 2018 by mikwut

[CA Steve]

7 hours ago, cdowis said:

The point is that we do not know the mechanics of "translation", just as we can only speculate on the mechanics of translating the Book of Mormon, since JS never told anyone.

What is the relationship between the EAG, and the BOD.  Similar to the circumstances of the eight witnesses and  the BOM plates, Vogel pretends to know these things about he Book of Abraham..  His tales are very entertaining..

Anyway, I assume that JS used a scribe to actually write down the text.

So if we do not know the mechanics of "translation", of what use are arguments that attempt to place the text of the Book of Abraham on a portion of the papyri that we no longer have? 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, mikwut said:

I'm not sure what Wittgenstein has to do with the BoA. But he certainly spoke of epistemology, one wouldn't be off to say the almost entirety of his work was on doubt certainty and knowledge i.e. epistemology. His 1969 On Certainty was completely epistemological. 

By the endless loop I was meaning if you and I debated the deflationary theory of truth where I stepped into Quine's shoes I would never be able to reach a revelatory catalyst BoA yet you are arguing you could. As I said the Devil is in those details but just that fact demonstrates misuse, misunderstanding or deflationary truth isn't meaningful with a category understood as truth. An endless loop that would really be Mormons believe the BoA is true. Not the truth we were aiming for. Because your arguing against a propositional position of the BoA the seconded dilemma of Oppy's objection would kill.

Our sins being forgive, I sense the presense of a God who loves me, there is more to all this than just this are metaphysical categories that I myself subscribe but they are different categories than the natural historical question of Joseph Smith.

mikwut

Re  Wittgenstein: Philosophical Investigations Blue and Brown Books, Culture and Value.  Late W not early.  Contextual meaning.  Religious context vs science.  He sought to do away with all the mumbo-jumbo.   Read Culture and Value which deals a lot with religion.   I can throw quotes if you like.

We are not debating  Quine here.  I  don't even think I mentioned him- but look  at "Two Dogmas" and look at the shift it makes toward Pragmatism, as he says himself!

And what's this " deflationary truth isn't meaningful with a category understood as truth"  

Of course you are right but what's the point?  Truth is not  a category- yes of course but who said it was??  

 

I am basing my views on Dewey and Rorty- and later W- not sure why you are bringing up Quine.  Where did I say Quine says we could have a "revelatory catalyst" and why should I care?

[mfbukowski]

On 12/20/2018 at 8:26 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

I've been using this definition of paradigm for many years:

It's one thing to talk about Kuhn at a high-level of abstraction.  Quite another to actually be specific, quoting him directly on the points at issue, and supporting his points with real-world examples from the debates in which we engage.  I find his work to be very helpful and useful in focusing my attention in specific and practical ways.  So I quote him a lot.  I don't just drop his name and wave my hands about.  I get specific into the details of the structure of scientific revolutions.  This is relevant:

There is a huge difference between dismissing a rival paradigm and community on grounds that they are "not us" and stepping back and considering both paradigms and not only asking "Why us?" but doing so in a way that is both self-reflective and not completely paradigm dependent. 

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

That point point of paradigm dependence is specifically why I remain impressed that Thomas Kuhn and Alma 32 agree on the most relevant criteria for paradigm choice.  Testability, accuracy of key predictions (where part of what determines what is key is the door a person intends to open), comprehensiveness and coherence (that is, breath, depth, and interrelations and broad fit and connections), fruitfulness (that is, what is seen by one paradigm that may be completely overlooked by another), simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.  These points also illustrate where I disagree some with Mark.  They provide a means to engage in an ongoing process of reality testing.

And on the issue of paradigms being incommensurable, I accept Ian Barbour's observation that although proponents of rival theories inevitably talk through each other to a degree, adherents “of rival theories can seek a common core of overlap . . . to which both can retreat.”

And there is this:

This observation is the root of a lot of the anxiety about Kuhn.  We have people who claim to be completely logical and rational getting all emotional and dismissive and scornful about Kuhn when he observes and claims that they aren't completely rational and logical. The emotion and scorn, it happens, also gives the game away.

Kuhn has a chapter called "Progress through Revolutions" which I find relevant and helpful.  His second edition goes into more detail on the criteria for paradigm choice that are not paradigm dependent.  After Sunstone published an essay by Dan Vogel criticizing my use of Kuhn, I provided a reply, and along the way, asked the then editor, Don Wotherspoon, if he had read Kuhn.  He admitted that he had not, which, to my way of thinking, is rather significant in that context.

I highly recommend Ian Barbour's little book.   It's exceptionally clear, useful and relevant for those interested in Kuhn and the debates about his work, and his ongoing utility and relevance.

http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-2/Religion-Online.org Books/Barbour, Ian - Myths, Models and Paradigms-A comparative Stu.pdf

Also, there is this regarding Derrida, which, I notice fits nicely with Kuhn's notion of standard examples, that is, the specific experiments and stories we tell as controlling frameworks:

Madad Sarup, Post-Structuralism and Post Modernism (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1993), 51-52

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks Kevin great post as  usual. but  obviously  you got it wrong because Dan V said:

Quote

 Little wonder Kuhn is a favorite for Creationists, Flat Earthers, and every other pseudo-historian and scientist.

 

[mikwut]

Hi mfbukowski,

I have read a great deal of Wittgenstein.

I brought up Quine (could have been Ayer just the same) because they both defended the deflationary theory of truth. The reason they did was to rid the mystical. Sorry I thought you knew that.

mikwut

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Everyone assumes that Joseph Smith wrote the Explanations to the Facsimiles from the Book of Abraham. We cannot, however, prove that he did. The earliest manuscripts of any of the Explanations are Book of Abraham manuscripts 5A and 6, both in the handwriting of Willard Richards. There is nothing in the documents that indicates authorship. While I am not saying that assuming that Joseph Smith wrote the Explanations is a bad assumption, it does need to be pointed out that it is an assumption and is not provable. If someone wanted to argue that Willard Richards wrote the Explanations, we could not prove it false.

It is quite reasonable to assume that Joseph Smith actually provided the Explanations to the three illustrations (facsimiles) accompanying the Book of Abraham text.  We already know that Joseph used several scribes/secretaries in producing most of his revelatory product.  We do not need proof, which is something which historians seldom have enough of.  It is enough to claim reasonable cause or preponderance of evidence.  That still leaves a great deal unresolved, and plenty to discuss.

17 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So one cannot, with certainty, use the Explanations of the Facsimiles as a source for Joseph Smith’s knowledge of Egyptian or lack thereof.

Since Joseph did not need to actually know Egyptian language in order to "translate" or transmit the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham, one cannot use any such "translation" as evidence of Joseph's actual knowledge of Egyptian language.  When I translate ancient Egyptian, I utilize the methods of standard Egyptology, referring to modern Egyptian grammatical expositions and dictionaries.  For me it is an entirely academic endeavor.  For Joseph it was an entirely revelatory endeavor. To confuse the two is a category mistake, just as it is illogical to confuse science and religion.  They are entirely different endeavors.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks Kevin great post as  usual. but  obviously  you got it wrong because Dan V said:

Quote

Little wonder Kuhn is a favorite for Creationists, Flat Earthers, and every other pseudo-historian and scientist.

 

Is this an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, mikwut said:

Hi mfbukowski,

I have read a great deal of Wittgenstein.

I brought up Quine (could have been Ayer just the same) because they both defended the deflationary theory of truth. The reason they did was to rid the mystical. Sorry I thought you knew that.

mikwut

I think you meant metaphysical.

Yeah, that is what all deflationists want.

James sees religious experience as empirical. Read "Radical Empiricm"

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Is this an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

It's a bit scary, that's what it is !

And this person has credibility?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/20/2018 at 9:58 AM, Michael Sudworth said:

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

It seems an arbitrary distinction to pay attention to the spiritual message of the BoA and completely ignore the additional information provided in the book.

A great many people (including scholars) choose to value a particular work for its "spiritual" meaning and to completely disregard the time-bound context from which it comes.  The choice of either the one or the other, or to combine both, is an entirely individual choice.

There are people, for example, who do not consider the Bible or Book of Mormon to provide useful historical information, but who read them for spiritual inspiration.  Others take an opposite tack, and consider it crucial.  We need to respect those individual choices.

[mikwut]

mfbukowski,

Thanks for the dialogue. We aren't tracking. How did James come up? That was my earlier criticism, you aren't clear on what your even saying. Your just throwing philosophers names around. The discussion is the BoA. If I haven't understood you giving me books to read doesn't help. 

How about you just state with clarity, a few sentences without relying on another persons treatise to point to in the abstract, why you believe the BoA is a divine scripture?

mikwut