Explain the Book of Abraham

[LadySundancer]

Hello Paul,

Unfortunately my week got away with me and I haven't taken time to reply on the other board. I'm interested in a statement you made here:

"How many points of evidence do gainsayers have to protest until they finally break down and say,

[Gordon]

Isn

[Paul Osborne]

Lady Sundancer,

There is no distance between my desire to know why Joseph Smith used these items and how they were used.

Paul O

[LadySundancer]

Lady Sundancer,

There is no distance between my desire to know why Joseph Smith used these items and how they were used.

Paul O

Paul,

Glad to catch you! I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that statement. Are you saying that you have confidence in the method of translation/revelation?

Lady Sundancer

[cdowis]

>because it says that the document that fell into the hands of JS were 'written by the had of Abraham'.

You are mistaken. You are putting your own words into the text.

"A translation of some **ancient records**, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.

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

To make it more clear, let us edit the second statement:

"(These ancient records contain) the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

Here is how you are interpreting this same statement:

"The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon (this) papyrus (which is in the possession of JS)"

It does not say that the "ancient record" and the "papyrus" are one and the same. Many have assumed that they are the same, but it does not say that.

Now you are pretending that JS supports only your interpretation, regardless of the facts surrounding the dating of the manuscript.

The first interpretation is equally plausible, and fits the facts.

Now you can decide what you will believe, but don't pretend there is only one way to interpret it -- your way.

[Paul Osborne]

Isn

[LadySundancer]

Here's another problem I have for anyone who'd like to share their perspective. How could the BoA be or represent the actual writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt when in the text, Abraham quotes God as referring to him as Abraham and his wife as Sarai when both their names were changed, according to the OT, after they departed Egypt. What I'm asking is how they could be the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt and only Sarai's name is represented accurately?

Paul, if you are still reading here, I'd also like to know how your thoughts on the Book of Abraham differ and/or are the same as that of Kerry Shirts. If the answer is too much to ask of you, I understand. I don't want to take up all your time here.

Thanks.

Lady Sundancer

[LadySundancer]

Paul,

Here's another essay question for you. :-)

If the Times and Seasons reported that those were the writings of Abraham in Egypt and...

The Official LDS Web Site supports that presentation...

Why are LDS apologist searching for alternatives? I'm trying to understand the reason for the research and theories.

IOW, what sparked all of this?

Lady Sundancer

(You do not have to write lengthy responses to me unless that is your style.)

[Paul Osborne]

Lady,

I have complete confidence in Joseph Smith. I believe his revelations are from the Lord. Allow me to quote from my website:

Joseph Smith was a true prophet and the BofA is a true story written by the hand of Abraham on papyrus long ago. The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith the lost story of Abraham by means of papyri that fell into the prophet's hands and by revelation through a seer stone, the original work of Abraham was restored. I also believe the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar created by Joseph Smith and his faithful assistants to be an inspired work and a partial restoration of an extinct language had by the ancients.

The papyrus had by Joseph Smith was not the original papyrus made by father Abraham and Joseph Smith did not translate hieroglyphic text using conventional means. The production of the book was miraculously brought about by spiritual means using symbolism coupled with inspiration as the driving force.

Before examining the symbolism of the Book of Abraham found throughout this site, it is crucial to understand that much of the process by which the Book of Abraham was restored could best be described in one word: Representationalism. The official Explanations of Facsimile No. 2 (Hypocephalus), provide a wonderful demonstration on how Joseph Smith used his keen ability to understand Egyptian imagery and religion on a conventional level, as a sign that he was inspired of God. Then, he transcended conventional Egyptology and revealed many wonderful things about Abraham's ministry. We are dealing with two spheres with different levels of context, one being conventional Egyptology and the other religion based on sacred revelations extracted from the symbolism of funerary papyri and other orthography.

God is able to make clean whatever he desires, as he did in St Peter's vision of the animals which were forbidden under Mosaic law (Acts 10:15); likewise, God in these last days has cleansed the Egyptian images for his own sake and glory and used them to bear witness of himself.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

It does not say that the "ancient record" and the "papyrus" are one and the same. Many have assumed that they are the same, but it does not say that.

Good point.

Besides, even if Joseph Smith said it was then that was his opinion. The Lord never said it.

Paul O

[LadySundancer]

Lady,

I have complete confidence in Joseph Smith. I believe his revelations are from the Lord. Allow me to quote from my website:

Joseph Smith was a true prophet and the BofA is a true story written by the hand of Abraham on papyrus long ago. The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith the lost story of Abraham by means of papyri that fell into the prophet's hands and by revelation through a seer stone, the original work of Abraham was restored. I also believe the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar created by Joseph Smith and his faithful assistants to be an inspired work and a partial restoration of an extinct language had by the ancients.

The papyrus had by Joseph Smith was not the original papyrus made by father Abraham and Joseph Smith did not translate hieroglyphic text using conventional means. The production of the book was miraculously brought about by spiritual means using symbolism coupled with inspiration as the driving force.

Before examining the symbolism of the Book of Abraham found throughout this site, it is crucial to understand that much of the process by which the Book of Abraham was restored could best be described in one word: Representationalism. The official Explanations of Facsimile No. 2 (Hypocephalus), provide a wonderful demonstration on how Joseph Smith used his keen ability to understand Egyptian imagery and religion on a conventional level, as a sign that he was inspired of God.  Then, he transcended conventional Egyptology and revealed many wonderful things about Abraham's ministry. We are dealing with two spheres with different levels of context, one being conventional Egyptology and the other religion based on sacred revelations extracted from the symbolism of funerary papyri and other orthography.

God is able to make clean whatever he desires, as he did in St Peter's vision of the animals which were forbidden under Mosaic law (Acts 10:15); likewise, God in these last days has cleansed the Egyptian images for his own sake and glory and used them to bear witness of himself.

Paul O

Paul,

Tell me if I'm reading you right. You are saying that Joseph Smith viewed the actual papyri through the lens of the U&T (if you will) and that in doing so, the Lord revealed something spiritually and not through literal translation? Kind of like seeing something in a spiritual way while looking at something concrete and tangible that appears to have little to do with the object being viewed?

Lady Sundancer

(Just so you know Paul, I'm not here to debate you. If I were I would have told you from the start. I'm trying to get into your head)

[Paul Osborne]

Here's another problem I have for anyone who'd like to share their perspective. How could the BoA be or represent the actual writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt when in the text, Abraham quotes God as referring to him as Abraham and his wife as Sarai when both their names were changed, according to the OT, after they departed Egypt. What I'm asking is how they could be the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt and only Sarai's name is represented accurately?

Lady,

I said this in another thread:

First, let's point out that the opening narrative (title page) for the BofA is NOT a record of the patriarch's original penmanship. The record of Abraham actually starts in 1:1. The name in the opening statement is attributed to the man we know best, by his proper name: Abraham. No one gives any thought to the name Abram when we talk about him in modern times. Not only that, the name "Abram" is only mentioned two times outside the book of Genesis in the entire Bible!! You won

[LadySundancer]

Paul!

I think I'm starting to understand. (Have you ever seen anyone on a message board write that?). Thank you for replying to me. I'm going to take time to think and reflect on what you've shared here. I'm still trying to wrap my head around all of this.

I'd still like to you to compare your perspectives and current thoughts on the Book of Abraham to Kerry's. I think I understand his, I want to know about yours.

I'll be logging off here now just so you know I'm not going to monopolize your time and thank you in advance, for any additional responses you're preparing for me.

Lady Sundancer

[Paul Osborne]

Paul, if you are still reading here, I'd also like to know how your thoughts on the Book of Abraham differ and/or are the same as that of Kerry Shirts. If the answer is too much to ask of you, I understand. I don't want to take up all your time here.

Thanks.

Lady Sundancer

Lady,

I can

[Paul Osborne]

Paul,

Here's another essay question for you. :-)

If the Times and Seasons reported that those were the writings of Abraham in Egypt and...

The Official LDS Web Site supports that presentation...

Why are LDS apologist searching for alternatives? I'm trying to understand the reason for the research and theories.

IOW, what sparked all of this?

Lady Sundancer

(You do not have to write lengthy responses to me unless that is your style.)

LDS scholars were not concerned with the interpretations given by Joseph Smith until modern Egyptology challenged them. Joseph Smith was up to something entirely different

[Paul Osborne]

Lady,

I liked your last comments.

Here is a list of some URLS you might like to peruse at your leisure:

Four Sons of Horus

The Crown of Light

The Lunar Crown

The Composite Scepter

The Eyes of God

Star Ship 1000

The Key of Power

The Dove of God

Abraham's Alter

Oliblish

Kolob

Throne of God

Star Cow

Power of God

Isis or Pharaoh?

Goddess Ma'at or Prince of Pharaoh?

Nobleman or servant?

Anubis or a Slave?

Osiris or Abraham?

Abraham fastened upon an altar

What of the text in the Facsimiles

The Papyrus Rolls

The Evidence of the Papyrus

Translating the Hieroglyphic Text (part I)

Charles M. Larson,

[Gordon]

"One of the mummies, on being unrolled, had underneath the cloths in which it was wrapped, lying upon the breast, a roll of papyrus, in an excellent state of preservation, written in Egyptian character, and illustrated in the manner OF OUR ENGRAVING, WHICH IS A COPY FROM A PORTION OF IT. The mummies, together with the record, have been exhibited..."(Parley P. Pratt)

Paul -

I do appreciate the extra info you are providing, but, as of yet, you have not provided any concrete proof. You still state that what you provide 'suggests' what you claim. I understand the remarks made by elder Pratt, but it doesn't explain where the original papyrus, nor the copy that they made of it went to. Besides, if we have the copy that they made, then what they printed it upon would not have been as old as the original, so it still doesn't support your argument.

I think this pretty much sums up the idea that our FACSIMILE in the Pearl of Great Price is a copy of the actual picture found on the BofA roll which contains the hieroglyphic record of Abraham.

OK...how does this support your stance that JS didn't translate the actual writings of Abraham?

I think you might enjoy looking at papyri on my website which I feel is the same one that Oliver Cowdery identified - and I believe he got his interpretations from the prophet. We can discuss any of the vignettes if you want to. I've taken a liking to doing just that. 

I have also remarked on this. I do not believe that the Egyptian funeral texts are the original and correct meanings of the characters. I feel that the Egyptians would have perverted the correct meanings to fit their own - there IS precedence of this happening throughout history.

[Paul Osborne]

"One of the mummies, on being unrolled, had underneath the cloths in which it was wrapped, lying upon the breast, a roll of papyrus, in an excellent state of preservation, written in Egyptian character, and illustrated in the manner OF OUR ENGRAVING, WHICH IS A COPY FROM A PORTION OF IT. The mummies, together with the record, have been exhibited..."(Parley P. Pratt)

Paul -

I do appreciate the extra info you are providing, but, as of yet, you have not provided any concrete proof. You still state that what you provide 'suggests' what you claim. I understand the remarks made by elder Pratt, but it doesn't explain where the original papyrus, nor the copy that they made of it went to. Besides, if we have the copy that they made, then what they printed it upon would not have been as old as the original, so it still doesn't support your argument.

Gordon,

1. Papyrus & mummy

2.

[Paul Osborne]

Gordon,

It all goes back to the fact that there is no king

[Paul Osborne]

I have also remarked on this. I do not believe that the Egyptian funeral texts are the original and correct meanings of the characters. I feel that the Egyptians would have perverted the correct meanings to fit their own - there IS precedence of this happening throughout history.

Demonstrate your case. I

[Gordon]

I feel that my previous posts have covered the subject of what I see in Facsimile No. 3. I believe the prophet used it to make a point. I don

[Paul Osborne]

Gordon,

How about you intertain me with your opinion about the fragment that was preserved by Brigham Young. Tell me what you know and understand regarding this fragment. Demonstrate why I shouldn't believe this is part of the collection of sacred writings which Joseph Smith was involved with.

Give me substance, not just, "it doesn't say it anywhere". All I get from you is denials.

I've thrown a lot of rocks at you. It's time to throw one at me. Please, take a shot!

[Paul Osborne]

I feel that my previous posts have covered the subject of what I see in Facsimile No. 3. I believe the prophet used it to make a point. I don

[Gordon]

Yes, Gordon, there are things written above the head that suggest otherwise. I think you know that from a conventional point of view. You choose your path and I'll choose mine. I live by my conscience.

What does it say above in the facsimile found in the BoA?

It makes no sense to turn a god into a slave.

No, but you could turn a slave into a G-d (just as you could turn a carpenter into the Messiah...).

[Gordon]

I'll take the liberty to cut and paste material from my website concerning these matters. I hope you don't mind me doing so. I'll just lay it out on the table and see how it goes. I've given it a lot of thought over the years.

Paul -

OK, you've really got me confused with this post, because it completely supports my stance, and goes against yours....where are you going with this?