Explain the Book of Abraham

[Gordon]

The evidence shows that signs and characters relating to the papyrus now extant were translated by the prophet and have everything to do with the BofA projects.

What evidence proves that JS translated from funeral text? You HAVE TO show me EXACTLY where the documents JS translated from went to, for me to say it is FACT. You HAVE TO show me EXACTLY where the supposed originals that we have now came from, for it to be FACT. Merely pointing out similar - or exact - characters that are found in Egyptian funeral text does NOT prove ANYTHING to me.

Frankly, I couldn't sleep at night and deny the evidence when it is as clear as can be.

And I could not sleep if I were to deny what a prophet has said through revelation, and is given to the world as the mouth of the Lord.

How about a signed statement by Joseph Smith? Would that convince you?

No.

[Gordon]

The brethren involved in the acquisition of the forged documents did not use the gift of discernment in this particular affair. I

[Gordon]

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.

I can accept that.

If that is correct, then why would there be any argument as to the dating of the papyrus - why would it change anything?

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

Silly satement...I'm not 'pretending' any such thing, simply stating that that is how I had interpreted it.

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

Again with the word 'pretend'...silly...it just doesn't fit.

[Gordon]

What do you think was said? I'll be happy to intertain your assumptions.

Couldn't tell you. All I know, is that the man who translated it was correct, and obviously very learned - this being supported by the tranlation the Lord gave to JS.

[Gordon]

Thus, they had a copy from a portion of it which is what you see in your scriptures today. It

[Gordon]

Paul -

Do you think this fragment is from the actual BofA roll?

No.

Did Abraham draw this with his own sweaty hand?

No.

You want me to believe the characters on the illustration below are talking about Abraham in Egypt?

No.

I don't believe that this is what JS translated from - what prove is there otherwise?

[Gordon]

Demonstrate your case. I

[Lehi]

I don't really want to get involved in this, but I saw this on another board and tried it for myself.

The original was here http://www.xmission.com/%7Eresearch/about/abraham.htm

[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.

I admit I don't really know much about it.

If this is a copy of what JS tranlated, then what is the relevance?

[Gordon]

I do try to be nice, but I'm not going to keep repeating myself. The information to your questions are supplied in my previous posts. If you don't feel they are, go back and double check.

Let's call it a night.

I will go over all the posts, so as not to be accused of this again.

[Lehi]

I admit I don't really know much about it.

If this is a copy of what JS tranlated, then what is the relevance?

Because this is the breathing permit of Hor. Nothing to do with Abraham at all.

[Paul Osborne]

What I'm saying, is that I need to see where the papyrus and facsimiles that JS translated from went to - from A to B to C to D.  I cannot accept that nobody can tell me where they went, and that the ones that are supposed to be them, cannot be confirmed as to where they came from.

Gordon,

There simply are not enough hours in the day for me to go over all this stuff. I

[Paul Osborne]

I also cannot accept the meanings, given by the Egyptians and found today, that contradict what a prophet has said.

Gordon,

The church leadership doesn't deny that the translations offered by Egyptologists today are right. No leader of the church will tell you that there is really a king's name above the figure. It isn't doctrine and it's not taught. Why? Because it isn't true. There is something else going on here.

Perhaps you will find this clip to be helpful.

Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy.

Why doesn

[Paul Osborne]

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.

[Paul Osborne]

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,

As Christians, we would not want to think of our glorified Heavenly Father as a slave any more than the Egyptian priests would want to think of their glorified Anubis as a slave. There is no papyrus anywhere in the world that refers to Anubis as a slave. It is a mockery to even suggest that the Facsimile No. 3 is a literal translation. Doing so today would mock another man's religion and that goes against our Article of Faith. The church won't do that and neither will it teach it.

Your insistence that the translation of Facsimile No. 3 is a literal translation between text and illustrations is not keeping within the spirit of our 11th Article of Faith. There are remnants of Egyptian paganism on the earth and I highly doubt they would appreciate another religion making fun of their god.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

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?

Gordon,

I've spent years researching this work and know pretty much what my position is and how to express it. I've discussed this topic with hundreds of people on the Internet. You are the first person to tell me that my own position goes against my own position.

Perhaps you are confused?

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

What evidence proves that JS translated from funeral text? You HAVE TO show me EXACTLY where the documents JS translated from went to, for me to say it is FACT. You HAVE TO show me EXACTLY where the supposed originals that we have now came from, for it to be FACT. Merely pointing out similar - or exact - characters that are found in Egyptian funeral text does NOT prove ANYTHING to me.

Gordon,

The Kirtland Papers reveal that the First Presidency of the Church (including the prophet's own handwriting) recorded various translations of characters supplied from funerary text. These are the FACTS. Here is one example:

The notebook front cover of this small notebook apparently bears the initials of Frederick G. Williams (F.G.W.) of the First Presidency of the Church and the name of Williams. The contents of this notebook consists of hieroglyphs, English text, and sketches of Egyptian funerary images. Page one is in the handwriting of W.W. Phelps. Two specific royal Egyptian names are given in a brief transcription:

A Translation of the next page:

Katumin, Princess, daughter of On-i-tas King of Egypt, who

reigned began to reign in the year of the world, 2962.

Katumin was born in the 30th year of the reign of her

father, and died when she was 28 years old, which was the year 3020

The following is another example how funerary text was translated by the prophet. The front Cover of Manuscript No. 6 is signed by Joseph Smith Jr!

"Valuable Discovery of

hidden records that have

been obtained from the ancient

burial place of the Egyptians,

Joseph Smith Jr."

"Katumin, Princess, daughter of On-i-tos Pharaoh- King

of Egypt, who began to reign in the year of the

World 2962

Katumin was born in the 30th year of the reign of her

father, and died when she was 28 years old, which was

the year 3020."

Page 3

Finally, yet again I will post the prophet's own handiwork in hopes that you will recognize the hard FACTS when they are placed right before your eyes. Notice that the characters are taken directly from the fragment recovered in 1967. But, with the risk of sounding rude, I suspect you'll just deny the facts, as is your habit.

[Paul Osborne]

The brethren involved in the acquisition of the forged documents did not use the gift of discernment in this particular affair. I

[Paul Osborne]

What do you think was said? I'll be happy to intertain your assumptions.

Couldn't tell you. All I know, is that the man who translated it was correct, and obviously very learned - this being supported by the tranlation the Lord gave to JS.

Gordon,

Get creative and come up with some ideas of what may have been said based on an educated guess.

I recognize this may be rather difficult if YOU aren't aware of what the current theories were of that day. But give it shot!

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Thus, they had a copy from a portion of it which is what you see in your scriptures today. It

[Paul Osborne]

I don't believe that this is what JS translated from - what prove is there otherwise?

Gordon,

The Lion Couch scene and its corresponding text of the BofA prove that this roll was the BofA which is positively affirmed by Facsimile No.1. Those are the FACTS.

The official position of the church is:

[Paul Osborne]

Demonstrate your case. I

[Paul Osborne]

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.

I admit I don't really know much about it.

If this is a copy of what JS tranlated, then what is the relevance?

Gordon,

It is another FACT to prove my case! If you want to prove your position then you will need to supply facts to discount the ones I'm presenting. All you do is offer denials. It reminds me of how the LDS author of The Saga of the Book of Abraham combed through the facts but kept denying them. Here is an example of what I am talking about:

Saga of the Book of Abraham; Jay M. Todd, 1969

[cdowis]

After a discussion on the dating of the papyrus, Gordon asks the insightful question:

"why would there be any argument as to the dating of the papyrus - why would it change anything?"

Let's first take the big picture view of the problem.

We face an seemingly insolvable contradiction:

1. The papyrus does not contain the BOA.

2. The papyrus does contain the BOA.

We must them find a solution which reconciles these two statements.

Well, we can begin our quest by understanding that the papyrus does not actually represent the "sweaty hands" writing of Abraham. The dating of the papyrus is centuries after Abraham, and at best, it is a copy of his writings.

The dating makes a big difference in understanding what the papyrus represents. Does it represent the word-for-word record of the writings of Abraham, or something else.

Well, you know what happens when a text is copied and handed down after several centuries.

One theory on the translation of this papyrus involves the combination of the "Corrupt manuscript", and the mneumonic theory of the translation.

Let me explain.

The papyrus contains, not the actual record of Abraham, but a corrupted version which was passed down over the centuries -- similar to the Bible. The mneumonic theory is intriguing in that the actual text of Abraham's record is contained (hidden) in mneumonic form, as proposed by John Tvedtnes. This text then was used in corrupted religious rites by the Egyptians who had lost the original meaning of the text.

Abraham did not actually write the BOA in this form, but for various reasons, it ended up in this form.

Let me give an illustration.

Let us pretend that we want to create a mneumonic version (to make it easier to memorize) of the book of Matthew, we may have a simply phrase: "Mary had a little lamb, whose fleece was white as snow...." etc.

Each word in this sentence represents a portion of the text of the book. "Mary" represents the section on Mary, the Mother of Christ, "lamb" for the shepherds, etc. (this is a poor example, but be patient).

Over the centuries, the actual text (the book of Matthew) becomes lost, and only the mneumonic remains, and takes on a formulaic, religious meaning. It is used in rituals. Centuries later a prophet recognizes the underlying text of this formula, and gives us the full text of the book of Matthew.

Going back to the original problem, we then have a contradiction which has been resolved ==>>

The papyrus is not the Book of Abraham, and the papyrus IS the Book of Abraham.

And we get a nice bonus. The Egyptian Grammar is an essential part of the mneumonic theory. It provides a roadmap on how the BOA was "translated" (translated from the mneumonic form to the actual BOA text).

The whole thing is wrapped up in a tidy ribbon.

[Dale]

If the mneumonic idea is correct them the missing papyrus idea is incorrect. You can't look for a Book of Abraham on a missing part of the papyrus if everything points to a found source.

Which answer is correct & which one demonstably wrong?

The mneumonic idea is to me a catalyst revelation idea. How is that idea different than the pure catalyst revelation idea? Are they the exact same idea?

Sincerely,

Dale