Could the Books of Jasher and Josephus Have Helped Joseph Fabricate the Book of Abraham?

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No doubt the case. 
 

I was referring to ethnic heritage, reflected in the name Kwaku. Sorry if I misspoke. 
 

As I indicated, I have just become aware of Kwaku. 

I've been aware of him for a couple of years.  Though not his channel -- and I had not previously taken note of his name.

I was a bit startled at the pronunciation "quack-oo". That would be because of a favorite SF novel series in which there is a sentient race of feathered beings called "Kwakoo" are featured, the name being pronounced that way in the Aubible audiobook. So he seemed to be being called a large, feathered alien.

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I listened to both Kwaku and RFM's arguments at the time they came out.  I really have no desire to revisit either of them again.

Quote

fact, I thought RFM so thoroughly thrashed and embarrassed Kwaku

I am not the one dismissing an argument without presenting any evidence for that dismissal besides a vague memory that one person thrashed another. 

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I've been aware of him for a couple of years.  Though not his channel -- and I had not previously taken note of his name.

I was a bit startled at the pronunciation "quack-oo". That would be because of a favorite SF novel series in which there is a sentient race of feathered beings called "Kwakoo" are featured, the name being pronounced that way in the Aubible audiobook. So he seemed to be being called a large, feathered alien.

Being aware of the correct pronunciation, I found it singularly amusing to hear Radio Free Mormon pronounce it “quack-oo.” 
 

To his credit, RFM promptly apologized in a follow-up video for the mispronunciation and appears to have taken Kwaku’s ribbing in stride. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I don't think he is trying to put on a scholarly robe, so criticizing him for that lack is a little out of place, wouldn't you think? As you say, he's appealing to his own generation. Is there something wrong with that?  I find this style to be on the same level as Spongebob Squarepants, and so it's not particularly compelling to me. But it's more accessible to some segments of the population who are bored to tears by scholarliness.

He is also part of the YouTube channel "Saints Unscripted", formerly known as "3 Mormons". See a representative video of theirs HERE. Saints Unscripted also had a show wherein a member of this board told about his journey away from the Church, and his return: An Ex Ex-Mormon's Story

It takes many cooks to prepare a banquet. Do we only want sober, scholarly and tedious discourse, or can we lighten it up a bit with some humor occasionally?  Paul H. Dunn once said that some people discuss the Gospel as if they had been raised on dill pickles and lemons. As if that were a bad thing?  

So what good are shallow arguments for entertainment purposes really worth when it comes to substantive critiques of something?  I would say that its nothing more than confirmation bias ego stroking.  How is that helping members of the church to become more like Jesus?  Is this building bridges of understanding and empathy towards our fellow brothers and sisters?  Is this transforming individuals and helping them to become better people?  I would say no.

Perhaps a good description for this kind of content would be apologetic pornography.  

[Fair Dinkum]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Would you be kind enough to summarize one or two of the most important points.  My experience with podcasts Bill Reel has been connected to is there is an apparent lack of commitment to truth and accuracy and respect for the work (comes across as a means to an end rather than an interest in history and those involved).  An easy and obvious example is his complaint of Elder Holland's claim of using a specific Book of Mormon where Reel states "Elder Holland claims to hold the very copy of the book of Mormon that Bethsheba, Hyrum Smith’s wife...". (There were other issues with his claims, but this is the easiest one to identify and explain).

It has been pointed out to him in more than one conversation I am aware of that Bathsheba (spelling of her name is incorrect as well) was not Hyrum's wife, but his cousin's wife...and yet an easily fixed error remains.  If that little effort is repeatedly and intentionally ignored, then it is obvious that every detail claimed needs to be checked and doublechecked before accepting.  

I would like to see if there is anything significant enough to merit the effort in this case.

Ok I actually have nothing to do (due to this virus thing) so I've gone back and revisited  Kwaku's argument. 

Kwaku asserts that the Book of Abraham is true because there are two unique stories found in the Book of Abraham that are not found in the Bible suggesting that Joseph Smith could only have included these stories by way of translation of the Book of Abraham. These two stories not found in the Bible are:  01. The story found in the Book of Abraham that Abraham was Sacrificed on an Alter by a Priest of Pharaoh for refusing to worship idols and 02. That Abraham brought the knowledge of Astronomy to Egypt.  Kwaku's argument is strengthened due to the fact that these stories only become known in books translated after the death of Joseph Smith....or at least that's his argument.  So obviously if Joseph included these same claims in the Book of Abraham before these books were widely available and translated it is confirmation that he was a both a prophet and a translator of ancient writings of Abraham.

RFM exposes the flaw in Kwaku's argument by pointing out that Kwaku only sighted references that supported his argument and failed to point out that Joseph Smith did have available other sources like the Book of Jasher and the History of Josephus that did included these same stories that we find in the Book of Abraham and then asserting that there were no sources available to Smith for these two stories. This is why RFM asks if Kwaku was knowingly being a deceiver or only deceiving by way of ignorance of the available sources .

Church History references several accounts were Joseph Smith had access to and used the History of Josephus as a reference during the time that the Book of Abraham was being produced.  RFM then refers to footnote 46 in the church essay on the Book of Abraham which says that Joseph did have access to both the Book of Jasher and the History of Josephus.  However RFM admits that this footnote is in error.  The Book of Jasher wasn't published in English until 1840, making it impossible for Smith to have access to its contents, right ?  Well not exactly.  The process that brought us the Book of Abraham was done over a 7 year period. Commenced in 1835 and completed in 1842.   The question then becomes one of when did Smith translate the portion of the Book of Abraham that contain the Sacrifice story. 

We know that the first chapter of the Book of Abraham contains the story of the sacrifice and that this portion of the book was commenced in 1835...long before Joseph could have had access to the Book of Jasher.  Score one for Smith the prophet.  But wait, were there other sources for the Sacrifice story prior to 1840 that were available to Smith?  The answer is yes and we now know that Smith actually had this source in his possession.   So now its time for a drum roll please because this source seems to be recurring source material for a lot of Joseph's work during this period of time. So what was this source? None other than "Adam Clark's Bible Commentary" the same source Smith used for the JST Bible.  In other words the source material for the sacrifice story found in the Book of Abraham came from Adam Clark's Bible commentary and not from the Book of Jasher. 

Both stories thought to be unique to the Book of Abraham and unavailable to Smith were in fact not only available to Smith but included in books we now know to be in his possession.

So as to Bro. Lloyd's Question:

"Could the Book's of Jasher and Josephus Have Helped Joseph Fabricate the Book of Abraham?"  The simple answer is No they couldn't because The Book of Jasher was not published into English until 5 years after Joseph Smith had translated the first chapter of the Book of Abraham.  But Adam Clark's Bible Commentary and the History of Josephus definitely were available to Joseph Smith and definitely "could" have helped Joseph fabricate the Book of Abraham.  Which is why I always defer to the question on the authenticity of the Book of Abraham being what the church claims it is as a matter of faith.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Kwaku asserts that the Book of Abraham is true

Does he actually say that or does he talk about evidence? He says he is defending its authenticity at the beginning, I suppose that could be interpreted as asserting it is true, but I see myself as defending claims yet I never insist the only possible conclusion must be ______.
 

 From my listening he is saying there were no sources at the time Joseph was translating (have to check the Clarke commentary to see if this is accurate)and then dealing with just the two RFM brought up in a manner he described as getting “lost in the reference”.

Quote

So obviously if Joseph included these same claims on the Book of Abraham before these books were translated it is confirmation that he was a both a prophet and a translator of ancient writings of Abraham.

It is evidence, but not proof as coincidence could be the actual reason.  

I will need to go back and see if Kwaku’s language is as absolute as you are painting it.  So far I am not seeing it.  I am more interested now to check the Clarke reference so I may or may not get back to this point.

——-

Kwaku did not claim Joseph did not have access to Josephus.  Instead Kwaku referenced and quoted or paraphrased iJosephus, iirc his argument was what Joseph said was not consistent with what Josephus said, possibly described it as the opposite. Iirc it was saying Abraham taught math, but I was phasing our around then. 
 

Quote

None other than "Adam Clark's Bible Commentary" the same source Smith used for the JST Bible.  In other words the source material for the sacrifice story found in theBook of Abraham came from Adam Clark's Bible commentary and not from the Book of Jasher. 

This could be a valid point if the sacrifice story is similar. Kwaku made a point about types of sacrifices (manner of Egyptians, etc.)  Need to check it  

——-

So Kwaku’s argument that the Book of Jasher could not be a source is accurate apparently from your summary. 
 

The validity of Josephus argument likely depends on how similar one sees the stories.  I may grab the text so I don’t have to keep referring to Kwaku’s comments  

The Adam Clarke commentary is a new argument which Kwaku didn’t address yet, if he intends to.  He may not have an argument with that. 
 

 What he did have an argument with was the vague referencing without details (“lost in the reference”) to Jasher and Josephus making it appear they supported the claim when they didn’t.  So I am not seeing him getting trashed here, but rather if your paraphrase is accurate, there is agreement with him over the Jasher argument, not really engaging his Josephus argument which was about details, and then moving on to a new argument with Clarke’s commentary...of which we have no knowledge of Kwaku’s position to say it was trashed.  

Edited April 10, 2020 by Calm

[Stargazer]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So what good are shallow arguments for entertainment purposes really worth when it comes to substantive critiques of something? 

It didn't seem like a shallow argument to me. It seemed like a rational argument presented with humor. Sophmoric humor, perhaps, but humor nonetheless. To quote another poster here, "You must be a lot of fun at parties."

By some lights, Jesus's parables constitute nothing more than entertaining stories -- he gave them out so that only those who were truly listening heard what he was truly saying. Not saying that Kwaku is speaking in parables -- far from it -- but he does seem to be using humor to teach something of value.  E.g. The argument against the church that he is refuting is a false argument.

Quote

I would say that its nothing more than confirmation bias ego stroking. 

Really?  Explaining how the Book of Jasher's publication history militates against Joseph Smith using it as a source, in disputing a claim to the contrary, does not strike me as confirmation bias. It strikes me as refutation.  

Quote

How is that helping members of the church to become more like Jesus?  Is this building bridges of understanding and empathy towards our fellow brothers and sisters?  Is this transforming individuals and helping them to become better people?  I would say no.

I think you are asking for too much. I think the intent of the video is to refute an anti-Mormon claim against the church. Not to teach a Sunday School lesson.

And how would you know that what he is saying doesn't help people in some way that rises to the level of becoming better people? Maybe it doesn't help you, I get that. I also get it that you don't like him, his manner of speech, and possibly also don't like the substance of what he is saying. Which you're free to do, of course.

Quote

Perhaps a good description for this kind of content would be apologetic pornography.  

But perhaps you are just being offensive.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Stargazer

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

So what good are shallow arguments for entertainment purposes really worth when it comes to substantive critiques of something?  I would say that its nothing more than confirmation bias ego stroking.  How is that helping members of the church to become more like Jesus?  Is this building bridges of understanding and empathy towards our fellow brothers and sisters?  Is this transforming individuals and helping them to become better people?  I would say no.

Perhaps a good description for this kind of content would be apologetic pornography.  

Does being entertaining make an argument shallow? Sounds like you think so. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So what good are shallow arguments for entertainment purposes really worth when it comes to substantive critiques of something?  I would say that its nothing more than confirmation bias ego stroking.  How is that helping members of the church to become more like Jesus?  Is this building bridges of understanding and empathy towards our fellow brothers and sisters?  Is this transforming individuals and helping them to become better people?  I would say no.

Perhaps a good description for this kind of content would be apologetic pornography.  

 

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It didn't seem like a shallow argument to me. It seemed like a rational argument presented with humor. Sophmoric humor, perhaps, but humor nonetheless. To quote another poster here, "You must be a lot of fun at parties."

By some lights, Jesus's parables constitute nothing more than entertaining stories -- he gave them out so that only those who were truly listening heard what he was truly saying. Not saying that Kwaku is speaking in parables -- far from it -- but he does seem to be using humor to teach something of value.  E.g. The argument against the church he is refuting is a false argument.

Really?  Explaining how the Book of Jasher's publication history militates against Joseph Smith using it as a source, in disputing a claim to the contrary, does not strike me as confirmation bias. It strikes me as refutation.  

I think you are asking for too much. I think the intent of the video is to refute an anti-Mormon claim against the church. Not to teach a Sunday School lesson.

And how would you know that what he is saying doesn't help people in some way that rises to the level of becoming better people? Maybe it doesn't help you, I get that. I also get it that you don't like him, his manner of speech, and possibly also don't like the substance of what he is saying. Which you're free to do, of course.

But perhaps you are just being offensive.

Bear in mind that it was RFM (and, by extension, Bill Reel) who came gunning for Kwaku in the first place, branding him “a deceiver” in the title to the podcast episode. Alas, such disagreement-by-defamation has become Reel’s modus operandi in the last several years. 
 

Kwaku said he hadn’t even planned to respond but that members of his audience were clamoring for him to do so, so he obliged. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Maureen]

If the Book of Abraham was published in 1842 and the Book of Jasher was available in English in 1840, then by my way of thinking, it could have been used in the Book of Abraham.

M.

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Does he actually say that or does he talk about evidence? He says he is defending its authenticity at the beginning, I suppose that could be interpreted as asserting it is true, but I see myself as defending claims yet I never insist the only possible conclusion must be ______.

Pretty much the same thing right?

 

Quote

It is evidence, but not proof as coincidence could be the actual reason.  

Yes coincidence can always be used as an argument...but it loses it's credibility as an argument once you realize that Smith had access to books that contain the two stories and we have evidence that Smith used these same source books as material for some of his other works.

Quote

I will need to go back and see if Kwaku’s language is as absolute as you are painting it.  So far I am not seeing it.  I am more interested now to check the Clarke reference so I may or may not get back to this point.

ok

Quote

——-

Kwaku did not claim Joseph did not have access to Josephus.  Instead Kwaku referenced and quoted or paraphrased iJosephus, iirc his argument was what Joseph said was not consistent with what Josephus said, possibly described it as the opposite. Iirc it was saying Abraham taught math, but I was phasing our around then. 

Putting on my Secular Hat: We know from Smith's other works that he liked to riff off of other material.  Many of the stories in the BoM "could" have had there origins in the Bible. We now know that Smith did use Adam Smith's Bible Commentary as source materila for his JST, the same could be said for Swedenbourg or Thomas **** in the PoGP.  Smith like to take someone else's original idea and then expound upon it.  I think that is what we have here with these two stories.  Smith has taken the stories and then expanded them into the BoA.  Ok hat off.

Quote

This could be a valid point if the sacrifice story is similar. Kwaku made a point about types of sacrifices (manner of Egyptians, etc.)  Need to check it  

See my remarks above...same secular argument.

Quote

So Kwaku’s argument that the Book of Jasher could not be a source is accurate apparently from your summary. 

Yes the Book of Jasher was not available to Smith in 1835 when the first chapter of the BoA was translated.

Quote

The validity of Josephus argument likely depends on how similar one sees the stories.  I may grab the text so I don’t have to keep referring to Kwaku’s comments  

The Adam Clarke commentary is a new argument which Kwaku didn’t address yet, if he intends to.  He may not have an argument with that. 

I don't think there is any good apologetics around this reality.  This is why in my humble opinoion it all comes down to ignoring these thing and making it a matter of faith

Quote

 What he did have an argument with was the vague referencing without details (“lost in the reference”) to Jasher and Josephus making it appear they supported the claim when they didn’t.  So I am not seeing him getting trashed here, but rather if your paraphrase is accurate, there is agreement with him over the Jasher argument, not really engaging his Josephus argument which was about details, and then moving on to a new argument with Clarke’s commentary...of which we have no knowledge of Kwaku’s position to say it was trashed.  

Kwaku's a great kid, I admire his energy but his argument don't stand up to the facts that are available and I don't think you can prove the authenticity of the BoA like he is attempting to do. It all comes down to a question of faith.  Logically, the BoA could have been written by the keen imagination of Joseph Smith, but to accept it as scripture, requires faith.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Calm]

I scavenged this off of another site, haven’t checked it yet for accuracy, will later.

Clarke’s commentary:

Quote

Be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace - This was an ancient mode of punishment among the Chaldeans, if we may credit the tradition that Abram was cast into such a fire by this idolatrous people because he would not worship their idols.

This in contrast to

Quote

8 Now, at this time it was the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to offer up upon the altar which was built in the land of Chaldea, for the offering unto these strange gods, men, women, and children.

9 And it came to pass that the priest made an offering unto the god of Pharaoh, and also unto the god of Shagreel, even after the manner of the Egyptians. Now the god of Shagreel was the sun.

10 Even the thank-offering of a child did the apriest of Pharaoh offer upon the altar which stood by the hill called Potiphar’s Hill, at the head of the plain of Olishem.

11 Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time, who were the daughters of Onitah, one of the royal descent directly from the loins of aHam. These virgins were offered up because of their virtue; they would not bbow down to worship gods of wood or of stone, therefore they were killed upon this altar, and it was done after the manner of the Egyptians.

12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

13 It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

14 That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics.

15 And as they lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life, behold, I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God, and the Lord ahearkened and heard, and he filled me with the vision of the Almighty, and the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately bunloosed my bands;

So while it is a source for the idea of sacrificing of Abraham for not believing (is that an unusual idea?), the method is significantly different.  I need to go check my Traditions book for info about type of sacrifice. 

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Maureen said:

If the Book of Abraham was published in 1842 and the Book of Jasher was available in English in 1840, then by my way of thinking, it could have been used in the Book of Abraham.

M.

The Book of Abraham was written over a number of years. The relevant part was written in 1835. 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Pretty much the same thing right?

Nope.

Evidence is not the same as proof.  Evidence increases the probability of an argument, proof resolves it once and for all.  Big difference, especially if one is a defendant in a trial.

Serious scholars and careful apologists do not claim their arguments prove the truth of the Gospel, etc. That is for the Spirit. What the arguments do is leave the possibility of the scriptures, gospel, etc being true open or persuasive enough for someone to seek out the Spirit for confirmation. 
 

Even if the Book of Abraham is proven authentic in that it was written by Abraham, etc, it does not prove it a revelation of God though it narrows the possibilities down dramatically. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Calm

[Fair Dinkum]

24 minutes ago, Maureen said:

If the Book of Abraham was published in 1842 and the Book of Jasher was available in English in 1840, then by my way of thinking, it could have been used in the Book of Abraham.

M.

Yes you are correct.  Except for the Book of Jasher to have been the source for the sacrifice story would require Smith would have had to have access to it in 1835 when he wrote the first chapter of the BoA which contains the sacrifice story. So it's much more plausible, as an argument, for a book known to be in Smith possession to have been the souce for that particular story...that book being Adam Clark's Bible Commentary which we know was in Smith possession and also does contain that story.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Fair Dinkum]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I scavenged this off of another site, haven’t checked it yet for accuracy, will later.

Clarke’s commentary:

This in contrast to

So while it is a source for the idea of sacrificing of Abraham for not believing (is that an unusual idea?), the method is significantly different.  I need to go check my Traditions book for info about type of sacrifice. 

Yes I've address this in my remarks above.  Smith takes a seed idea from a source in his possession and then expands it into his own narrative.  An argument could be made from all of Smith known works for this argument. The ideas of each of these sources can be found in Smith's work.  each predate Smith. Thomas ****, Swedenborg, Adam Smith, the Bible etc  whether one buys into that argument comes down to a matter of faith.

[Fair Dinkum]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nope.

Evidence is not the same as proof.  Evidence increases the probability of an argument, proof resolves it once and for all.  Big difference, especially if one is a defendant in a trial.

 

My point being that Kwaku is making an assertion that the Book of Abraham is what it claims to be and is then defending that assertion by laying out his argument.  Much of his argument didn't hold up to examination with the facts.  Some including his assertion that the Book of Jasher was not available did prove to be correct.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Calm]

Josephus:

Quote

1. Now Abram having no son of his own, adopted Lot, his brother Haran’s son, and his wife Sarai’s brother; and he left the land of Chaldea, when he was seventy five years old: and at the command of God went into Canaan, and therein he dwelt himself, and left it to his posterity. He was a person of great sagacity, both for understanding all things, and persuading his hearers, and not mistaken in his opinions. For which reason he began to have higher notions of virtue than others had; and he determined to renew and to change the opinion all men happened then to have concerning God. For he was the first that ventured to publish this notion, that there was but One God, the Creator of the Universe: and that as to other [Gods], if they contributed any thing to the happiness of men, that each of them afforded it only according to his appointment, and not by their own power. This his opinion was derived from the irregular phenomena that were visible both at land and sea; as well as those that happen to the sun, and moon, and all the heavenly bodies, thus: “If [said he] these bodies had power of their own, they would certainly take care of their own regular motions: but since they do not preserve such regularity, they make it plain that in so far as they co-operate to our advantage, they do it not of their own abilities, but as they are subservient to him that commands them: to whom alone we ought justly to offer our honour and thanksgiving.” For which doctrines when the Chaldeans and other people of Mesopotamia raised a tumult against him, he thought fit to leave that country; and at the command, and by the assistance of God, he came and lived in the land of Canaan. And when he was there settled, he built an altar, and performed a sacrifice to God....

Now after this, when a famine had invaded the land of Canaan, and Abram had discovered that the Egyptians were in a flourishing condition, he was disposed to go down to them: both to partake of the plenty they enjoyed, and to become an auditor of their Priests, and to know what they said concerning the Gods: designing either to follow them, if they had better notions than he; or to convert them into a better way, if his own notions proved the truest....

He also made him a large present in money; and gave him leave to enter into conversation with the most learned among the Egyptians. From which conversation, his virtue and his reputation became more conspicuous than they had been before.

2. For whereas the Egyptians were formerly addicted to different customs, and despised one anothers sacred and accustomed rites, and were very angry one with another on that account; Abram conferred with each of them, and confuting the reasonings they made use of, every one for their own practices, he demonstrated that such reasonings were vain, and void of truth. Whereupon he was admired by them, in those conferences, as a very wise man, and one of great sagacity, when he discoursed on any subject he undertook; and this not only in understanding it, but in persuading other men also to assent to him. He communicated to them Arithmetick; and delivered to them the science of Astronomy. (28) 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.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/ant-1.html

I need to doublecheck what Kwaku’s claim is with this, I may have misremembered him as saying it didn’t referenced astronomy. If so, he was wrong.

Wish it was in text. I hate podcasts for this reason, so much harder to check things. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

My point being that Kwaku is making an assertion that the Book of Abraham is what it claims to be and is then defending that assertion by laying out his argument.  Much of his argument didn't hold up to examination with the facts.  Some including his assertion that the Book of Jasher was not available did prove to be correct.

My understanding is Kwaku in his arguments is pointing to specifics that are later found as opposed to a general idea, type of sacrifice and not just being sacrificed. 
Taking a break, will try and come back to this tonight. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Calm

[Fair Dinkum]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

My understanding is Kwaku in his arguments is pointing to specifics that are later found as opposed to a general idea, type of sacrifice and not just being sacrificed. 
Taking a break, will try and come back to this tonight. 

It's ok, we've gone way too far into the weeds anyway.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I scavenged this off of another site, haven’t checked it yet for accuracy, will later.

Clarke’s commentary:

This in contrast to

So while it is a source for the idea of sacrificing of Abraham for not believing (is that an unusual idea?), the method is significantly different.  I need to go check my Traditions book for info about type of sacrifice. 

Kwaku talks about this in his second video. He notes that Abraham said in the Book of Abraham that he was to be sacrificed “after the manner of the Egyptians.” That was a rather complicated ritual that involved binding, spitting, decapitation, stamping, followed by placing the remains in a furnace. Thus, the account in the Book of Abraham harmonizes with other ancient writings that have Abraham being sacrificed by fire. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Maureen said:

If the Book of Abraham was published in 1842 and the Book of Jasher was available in English in 1840, then by my way of thinking, it could have been used in the Book of Abraham.

M.

But the the opening chapters of the Book of Abraham were already translated — in 1835 — before Jasher became available — in 1840. 
 

Even Radio Free Mormon concedes Kwaku’s point on Jasher, albeit grudgingly.  

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Does being entertaining make an argument shallow? Sounds like you think so. 

Nope. Bill Maher does it all the time and he kills it.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Does he actually say that or does he talk about evidence? He says he is defending its authenticity at the beginning, I suppose that could be interpreted as asserting it is true, but I see myself as defending claims yet I never insist the only possible conclusion must be ______.
 

 From my listening he is saying there were no sources at the time Joseph was translating (have to check the Clarke commentary to see if this is accurate)and then dealing with just the two RFM brought up in a manner he described as getting “lost in the reference”.

It is evidence, but not proof as coincidence could be the actual reason.  

I will need to go back and see if Kwaku’s language is as absolute as you are painting it.  So far I am not seeing it.  I am more interested now to check the Clarke reference so I may or may not get back to this point.

——-

 

In all fairness, one thing that made me cringe about Kwaku is that he titled his first video “Proving the Book of Abraham Is True” (See the link in one of my prior posts above). 
 

I’m of the same mind as you that we can’t really prove matters of faith, that the best we can hope to do is support them with good evidence so as to keep the question open so that others might one day seek a spiritual manifestation. 
 

Kwaku is young yet. Hopefully he will come to recognize this fairly soon. 

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Kwaku talks about this in his second video. He notes that Abraham said in the Book of Abraham that he was to be sacrificed “after the manner of the Egyptians.” That was a rather complicated ritual that involved binding, spitting, decapitation, stamping, followed by placing the remains in a furnace. Thus, the account in the Book of Abraham harmonizes with other ancient writings that have Abraham being sacrificed by fire. 

Human Sacrifice

There is evidence of human sacrifice in ancient Egypt during the 1st Dynasty, for the rulers and rich of the time. This possibly came from Predynastic times, but no strong evidence has been found to prove this. The labels of King Aha and Djer. are pictures of men that may be being ritually killed, yet the people buried with the rulers do not seem to have been killed in that fashion - they were most likely poisoned before being buried with the rulers and nobles. There is also a possibility that predynastic people may have cannibalized others to gain their power, but without evidence this can not be proved - it may have just been a dramatic way of showing the strength and power of the king! Other than the killing of prisoners of war, no other evidence for human sacrifice, neither as offerings to the gods nor in the form of retainer sacrifice, has been found. Since the Egyptians gave up the practice during the Old Kingdom, they seemed to have come to object to the practice through the rest of their history.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/humansac.htm

Predynastic is around 5500 - 3100 BC, 1st Dynasty is around 3100-2900 BC and Abraham was around 2000 BC.

M.