Evidence for the Book of Abraham

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, mikwut said:

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

 3 words

God told me

James got it right, don't know why you brought up Quine in the first place. He has nothing to do with the discussion

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by mfbukowski

[cdowis]

16 hours ago, CA Steve said:

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? 

That is the catalyst theory  -- the papyrus was merely a catalyst for a revelation.

Edited December 22, 2018 by cdowis

[CA Steve]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

  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.

Even for those defending the Book of Abraham there isn't a  consensus about whether or not it was entirely revelatory, entirely scientific or a mixture of both. Clearly the GAEL & the EA were scientific endeavors as is the question of the relationship of the Egyptian documents to the actual Book of Abraham. I have no issue with those that believe that the Book of Abraham was produced entirely through a revelatory process, but the discussion that weighs the evidences  for such a claim is a scientific one in which both sides engage.

[CA Steve]

22 minutes ago, cdowis said:

That is the catalyst theory  -- the papyrus was merely a catalyst for a revelation.

Can you explain how a missing portion of the papyri is necessary to the catalyst theory?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Even for those defending the Book of Abraham there isn't a  consensus about whether or not it was entirely revelatory, entirely scientific or a mixture of both. Clearly the GAEL & the EA were scientific endeavors as is the question of the relationship of the Egyptian documents to the actual Book of Abraham. I have no issue with those that believe that the Book of Abraham was produced entirely through a revelatory process, but the discussion that weighs the evidences  for such a claim is a scientific one in which both sides engage.

I see nothing scientific about the GAEL, etc..  Champollion and his contemporaries, on the other hand, had already begun the systematic, scientific effort to decipher ancient Egyptian long before Joseph and his associates even considered back-engineering an already finished revelatory product.  They failed simply because they did not use the scientific method.

We see an even starker example in the Book of Mormon, which (like the fabled Brass Plates) had been engraved in Egyptian.  Joseph had certainly not made any effort to understand the Egyptian cursive which he had copied from the BofM plates.  We do have the Caractors document, and a couple more glyphs.  But that's it.  No science at all.

[aussieguy55]

 I suppose one could be   explanation could be   Fac 3. The "Prince" and the "Slave"  are holding onto the "waiter " because he is angry that"Abraham'" complained about the service. Does anyone have evidence that  in this facsimile Abraham is discussing astronomy. Did Smith have access to information or legends in  Josephus's   writings  "“For whereas the Egyptians were formerly addicted to different customs, and despised one another’s sacred and accustomed rites, and were very angry one with another on that account, Abram conferred with each of them. … He communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for, before Abram came into Egypt, they were unacquainted with those parts of learning; for that science came from the Chaldeans into Egypt, and from thence to the Greeks also” (Antiquities of the Jews 1.8.2).""

Edited December 22, 2018 by aussieguy55
less smartarse

[CA Steve]

53 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

 I suppose one could be   explanation could be   Fac 3. The "Prince" and the "Slave"  are holding onto the "waiter " because he is angry that"Abraham'" complained about the service. Does anyone have evidence that  in this facsimile Abraham is discussing astronomy. Did Smith have access to information or legends in  Josephus's   writings  "“For whereas the Egyptians were formerly addicted to different customs, and despised one another’s sacred and accustomed rites, and were very angry one with another on that account, Abram conferred with each of them. … He communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for, before Abram came into Egypt, they were unacquainted with those parts of learning; for that science came from the Chaldeans into Egypt, and from thence to the Greeks also” (Antiquities of the Jews 1.8.2).""

In 1835 Oliver Cowdery wrote a letter to William Frye in which Oliver described the contents of the Ta-sherit-Min scroll like this:

Quote

The representation of the Godhead--three--yet in one, is curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the writer's views of that exalted personage. The serpent represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of and near a female figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper, or a writing substance; and must go so far towards convincing the rational mind of the correctness and divine authenticity of the holy scriptures, and especially that part which has been assailed by the infidel community, as being fiction, as to carry away with one mighty sweep the whole atheistical fabric, without leaving a vestige sufficient for a foundation stone. Enoch's pillar as mentioned by Josephus, is upon the same roll.

https://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/Letters-cowdery.html

 

Chris Smith, commenting on this in his paper for the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, observed:

Quote

In his letter to William Frye, Cowdery interpreted one vignette from the Ta-shere-min papyrus by appeal to Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews  Cowdery was likely reading Josephus as the project proceeded and offered insights into the ancient histories of Egypt and Israel. Josephus, for example, refers to Egypt as Mestre (apparently a Greek rendering of the Hebrew name for Egypt Mizraim ) and the Egyptians as Mestreans.  The GAEL calls Egypt Ah=meh=strah and the Egyptians Ah meh strahans, apparently Egyptianizations of the names from Josephus. Thus Smith likely absorbed this suggestion from Cowdery, then, added his own prophetic touch.

The Dependence of Abraham 1:1-3 on the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar Pg 46

[mikwut]

mfbukowski,

I told you why I brought up Quine he is a defender of deflationary truth which you were claiming also.

Thank you for answering. So if God told you I can only assume it occurred through spiritual means/sense, right? But that isn't deflationary that is correspondent. You believe your spiritual witness or sense told you something that corresponds to truth from truth itself, God. That isn't deflationary.

Given your spiritual sense corresponds to truth how does your cognitive ability to discern and understand facts not so correspond to a reality?

[Dan Vogel]

On ‎12‎/‎21‎/‎2018 at 1:57 AM, mfbukowski said:

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 9:48 PM, 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?

Let me break it down for you.

 

You said: “Vogel does not understand the difference between science and reigion [religion].”

 

When I responded, you said: “The fact that it is not a translation is irrelevant to its spiritual value.”

 

Since my position doesn’t contradict yours, why would you criticize me and make it seem like it does?

 

I have made it clear that I cannot say the BOA is not inspired in some way. I have only argued that it is not a translation of the Book of Breathings or another record that Gee and Muhlestein imagine was appended on the same roll of papyrus.

 

Also, I have only argued against a simplistic version of the catalyst theory that attempts to read JS’s mind by asserting that he incorrectly believed he was translating the papyri when he wasn’t. The two references to Facsimile 1 in chapter 1 need to be accounted for and the Egyptian Alphabets, Grammar, and explanations of the Facsimiles need to be accounted for in any serious theory.

 

So why are you continuing to criticize me without responding to my true position?

 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Dan Vogel
BOM>BOA

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Dan Vogel said:

Let me break it down for you.

 

You said: “Vogel does not understand the difference between science and reigion [religion].”

 

When I responded, you said: “The fact that it is not a translation is irrelevant to its spiritual value.”

 

Since my position doesn’t contradict yours, why would you criticize me and make it seem like it does?

 

I have made it clear that I cannot say the BOM is not inspired in some way. I have only argued that it is not a translation of the Book of Breathings or another record that Gee and Muhlestein imagine was appended on the same roll of papyrus.

 

Also, I have only argued against a simplistic version of the catalyst theory that attempts to read JS’s mind by asserting that he incorrectly believed he was translating the papyri when he wasn’t. The two references to Facsimile 1 in chapter 1 need to be accounted for and the Egyptian Alphabets, Grammar, and explanations of the Facsimiles need to be accounted for in any serious theory.

 

So why are you continuing to criticize me without responding to my true position?

 

I think you meant "BOA" in the bolded portion, above.

[Dan Vogel]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see nothing scientific about the GAEL, etc..  Champollion and his contemporaries, on the other hand, had already begun the systematic, scientific effort to decipher ancient Egyptian long before Joseph and his associates even considered back-engineering an already finished revelatory product.  They failed simply because they did not use the scientific method.

Robert,

 

The old theory of Nibley of “back-engineering,” which has been continued by Gee and Muhlestein is a fantasy unsupported by the documents. See my videos.

[Dan Vogel]

3 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

 I suppose one could be   explanation could be   Fac 3. The "Prince" and the "Slave"  are holding onto the "waiter " because he is angry that"Abraham'" complained about the service. Does anyone have evidence that  in this facsimile Abraham is discussing astronomy. Did Smith have access to information or legends in  Josephus's   writings  "“For whereas the Egyptians were formerly addicted to different customs, and despised one another’s sacred and accustomed rites, and were very angry one with another on that account, Abram conferred with each of them. … He communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for, before Abram came into Egypt, they were unacquainted with those parts of learning; for that science came from the Chaldeans into Egypt, and from thence to the Greeks also” (Antiquities of the Jews 1.8.2).""

aussieguy55: As mentioned several times in my videos, Cowdery mentions Josephus in his description of the Ta-sherit-Min papyrus, which he associated with the record of Joseph. This was mentioned in Cowdery’s letter to William Fry, dated 22 Dec. 1835. Joseph Smith identified the papyri as the records of Abraham and Joseph in July 1835, but didn’t dictate the first two chapters until November. The part about astronomy in chapter 3 was dictated in Nauvoo in March 1842. The explanations of the Facsimiles also date to 1842. The unfolding of astronomy, which form the basis for the Nauvoo explanations, date to October 1835 in the Egyptian Grammar. The hypocephalus had been associate with astronomy immediately. If he wasn’t already familiar with Josephus, I sure he became so between July and October 1835.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Dan Vogel said:

Robert,

 

The old theory of Nibley of “back-engineering,” which has been continued by Gee and Muhlestein is a fantasy unsupported by the documents. See my videos.

Dan,
How interesting... I find it ironic that your engineering of the eight witnesses  narrative is itself " a fantasy unsupported by the documents"  which has been continued by such notable publications as Chick Publications -- a comic strip. XX

Your credibility has proven to  be  questionable, so pleeze give us the sources and documentation rather than some vague time reference in an unnamed video.  Was it in Chick Publications?  👀

XX  No longer published.

Edited December 23, 2018 by cdowis

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Dan,
How interesting... I find it ironic that your engineering of the eight witnesses  narrative is itself " a fantasy unsupported by the documents"  which has been continued by such notable publications as Chick Publications -- a comic strip. 

Your credibility has proven to  be  questionable, so pleeze give us the sources and documentation rather than some vague time reference in an unnamed video.  Was it in Chick Publications?  👀

Thankyousoverymuch.

How?  Why?  Or, is this just a deflection using an ad hominem attack?

Edited December 23, 2018 by ttribe

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

How?
Read my post. 

Why? 
Read my post.

Or, is this just a deflection using an ad hominem attack?
Read my post for a specific example among several others.  My objective is to finally draw him out in a discussion instead of his obdurate silence on these issues  -- nothing personal, just an observation.

Why don't YOU ask him about his sources for the entertaining tale on the eight witnesses and their experience withe the plates?  Instead of blathering away ASK HIM and judge for yourself how he comes off.

Just curious, why not question Vogel on his comment regarding Nibley and Muhlestein? Very interesting.......

 

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by cdowis

[ttribe]

39 minutes ago, cdowis said:

How?
Read my post. 

Why? 
Read my post.

Or, is this just a deflection using an ad hominem attack?
Read my post for a specific example among several others.  My objective is to finally draw him out in a discussion instead of his obdurate silence on these issues  -- nothing personal, just an observation.

Why don't YOU ask him about his sources for the entertaining tale on the eight witnesses and their experience withe the plates?  Instead of blathering away ASK HIM and judge for yourself how he comes off.

Just curious, why not question Vogel on his comment regarding Nibley and Muhlestein? Very interesting......

That was quite the response...I'm "blathering" by asking for more information?  That's...ummm...weird.

I didn't find anything useful in your "post" that I should rely on, hence my questions.

As to your remark about why I'm not questioning Vogel, two things: 1) By happenstance I just happened to catch your comment first; and 2), I don't think I'm under any obligation to be "fair" in my questions.  It's the Internet, not a court of law, and I'm just an observer who happened to speak up because I thought your tone sucked...still does, actually.

[sunstoned]

2 hours ago, cdowis said:

Dan,
How interesting... I find it ironic that your engineering of the eight witnesses  narrative is itself " a fantasy unsupported by the documents"  which has been continued by such notable publications as Chick Publications -- a comic strip. XX

Your credibility has proven to  be  questionable, so pleeze give us the sources and documentation rather than some vague time reference in an unnamed video.  Was it in Chick Publications?  👀

XX  No longer published.

Actually, Dan is one of the few on this thread that is addressing the realities of the BoA situation. 

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

 

 

Have you viewed Dan's videos?  He covers the history surrounding the BoA quite well.  

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

..........The old theory of Nibley of “back-engineering,” which has been continued by Gee and Muhlestein is a fantasy unsupported by the documents. See my videos.

Hi Dan,

My comments were not in reply to you, but in response to the notion of some Mormons and non-Mormons that some of the KEP were examples of simplistic comparison of Egyptian writing on the papyri with an already extant BofA English text.  Someone appears to have thought that there might be some relationship, and "reverse engineering" an understanding of Egyptian in that way may have been the motivation.  At least that is the claim some people have made.  Our late friend Wes Walters even had Joseph translating holes in the papyrus (JETS, 16:43; cf. Baer in Todd, Saga, 386).   John Wilson, Klaus Baer, and Fawn Brodie each claimed that the BofA was derived from the Book of Breathings, though they simultaneously maintained the contrary to be the case!   Whether that is a "fantasy" as you claim, it is clearly not based on a scientific approach to translation.

Indeed James Breasted rightly believed that “if Joseph Smith could read ancient Egyptian writing, his ability to do so had no connection with the decipherment of hieroglyphics by European scholars.”  Referring to the Grammaire égyptienne by Champollion, published from 1836 through 1841, he added that “it would have been impossible for any American scholar to know enough about Egyptian inscriptions to read them before the publication of Champollion’s grammar.”  John Wilson agreed, stating that “nobody in the United States could read Egyptian in 1835.”

I consider it a myth that any of the KEP constitute an effort to translate or prepare a translation-key to the Book of Abraham, and John Gee shares that view (Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 13-42,177).  Moreover, William Phelps began this cipher-key work before the arrival of the Egyptian papyri and mummies in Kirtland, and he was the dominant force in continuing that effort – which utilized an already extant, complete Book of Abraham text along with significant portions of already extant revelations -- D&C 76 and 88 (cf. May 27, 1835 letter of Phelps to his wife, and the July 17, 1835 History of the Church entry). 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[cdowis]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Have you viewed Dan's videos?  He covers the history surrounding the BoA quite well.  

Your point?  I am familiar with his assumptions.

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Actually, Dan is one of the few on this thread that is addressing the realities of the BoA situation. 

He has videos on the BOA so he has alot to say about his conclusions.

Edited December 23, 2018 by cdowis

[cdowis]

12 hours ago, ttribe said:

That was quite the response...I'm "blathering" by asking for more information?  That's...ummm...weird.

I didn't find anything useful in your "post" that I should rely on, hence my questions.

As to your remark about why I'm not questioning Vogel, two things: 1) By happenstance I just happened to catch your comment first; and 2), I don't think I'm under any obligation to be "fair" in my questions.  It's the Internet, not a court of law, and I'm just an observer who happened to speak up because I thought your tone sucked...still does, actually.

If you finds my comments "not useful" and offensive, just join the club and put me on ignore.  

Hopefully you will find  this post  useful.

[ttribe]

45 minutes ago, cdowis said:

If you finds my comments "not useful" and offensive, just join the club and put me on ignore.  

Hopefully you will find  this post  useful.

Given this approach, do you believe your apologetics efforts are effective?

[Vance]

17 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

 I have only argued that it is not a translation of the Book of Breathings . . .

I agree.

17 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

or another record that Gee and Muhlestein imagine was appended on the same roll of papyrus.

Sorry, but you can not "know" that there wasn't more material appended to that roll.  You can only "know" that it currently does not exist.

Unless you can supernaturally see into the past.

 

[Vance]

On 12/20/2018 at 4:47 PM, Dan Vogel said:

. . . JS claimed he translated the BOM from the Book of Breathings.

I would like to see a statement from JS, where he claimed to translate the BOA from "the Book of Breathings".