Explain the Book of Abraham

[Paul Osborne]

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

cdowis,

That was a nice post - it gave me a chuckle. giggles

I wonder what the mneumonic idea does for characters that were copied from the roll and placed upside down in the Fig. 14 register of the Hypocephalus. It's what I call the anything goes theory.

Sensen - "Will be given in the own due time of the Lord" (BofA Explanation Fig. 14)

It's not like I haven't explored this idea, because, I have. Jospeph Smith could have looked at the Sensen characters and given us at least a whole paragraph of the BofA - from any chapter! Hold up a sign and give an interpretation. That's about what happened. The Kirtland Papers demonstrate that quite clearly. But it seems that no one wants the Kirtland papers. No one except of course for Joseph Smith and those who helped him with the project - to say nothing of Brigham Young who preserved it; and now Paul Osborne who appreciates a good thing when he sees it.

Here are some brief thoughts on my website:

Hidden Messages in the Book of the Dead?

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

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

Dale,

Can you read this?:

[Dale]

Paul I can't read it. I do know it has nothing to do with Abraham or his story if translated as conventional egyptian. I assume it's part of your case for the 1967 found source. I don't recoginze the characters but all look familiar to me.

I try & be fair to advocates of the missing papyrus idea. I do however am quite unsatisfied with some of the popular arguments for a missing source. If they can't satisfy John Tvedtnes then they might just be suggesting an imaginative solution. I know John Gee is sincere but sincere arguments can be wrong.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Paul Osborne]

Paul I can't read it. I do know it has nothing to do with Abraham or his story if translated as conventional egyptian. I assume it's part of your case for the 1967 found source. I don't recoginze the characters but all look familiar to me.

I try & be fair to advocates of the missing papyrus idea. I do however am quite unsatisfied with some of the popular arguments for a missing source. If they can't satisfy John Tvedtnes then they might just be suggesting an imaginative solution. I know John Gee is sincere but sincere arguments can be wrong.

Sincerely,

Dale

Dale,

Yeah, the characters are from the Kirtland Papers via the papyrus.

Perhaps you can help me, Dale. I am unable to think of a single piece of physical evidence to suggest that a missing roll is the true answer to the controversy. Can you think of a single item?

Further, I am unable to think of a single thing that could convince me that the papyrus roll wasn't a funerary record in light of the knowledge we have today through modern Egyptology. Why should I believe in the missing roll theory when there is nothing to show a conventional translation took place?

Furthermore, I know of no statement from an LDS Church President that would lead us to believe there is a missing roll with the real BofA on it. Do you?

Last but not least, I know of no LDS General Authority that has spoken out against the validity of the Kirtland Papers; do you?

I have a strong case in showing that funerary papyrus was the souce and the Kirtland Papers are an important part of Jospeh Smith's revelatory process in producing the BofA. On the other hand, those who feel otherwise have nothing but one denial after another - no evidence, no facts, no nothing to support their cause. They need to give me a good reason to believe in the missing roll. They need to provide something that is compelling - something that will make me forget all the real facts that are before my eyes. They need to give me something that will make me deny my concience and reject sound reason as I understand sound reason.

The bottom line is: The evidence to show that a missing roll is the real answer is missing. So, we have the case of the missing evidence!!

Paul O

[thesometimesaint]

Paul Osbourne:

What is your understanding of http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml#joseph

[Paul Osborne]

Paul Osbourne:

What is your understanding  of http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml#joseph

I've read Jeff's site twice. I've challenged him on some of the issues. He refuses to speak to me.

Yes, there is missing papyri. The untranslated BofJ was finer quality then the BofA. Descriptions were made of the papyri by various people but Joseph Smith was the one who identified what was what and he translated various parts of the records. The Kirtland Papers bear witness to that fact and the mark of the First Presidency confirm it.

Red rubrics do exists on the existing fragments had today. We have some beautiful fragments that were returned to the church. I will note that the fragment that was brought across the plains by Brigham Young has been shown to be an actual part of the collection that was returned to the church in 1967. So, everything that the church touched was funerary papyrus.

Jeff Lindsay doesn't want to discuss it. That's fine by me. The bottom line: The papyrus bearing the Lion Couch scene is officially referred to as FROM the BofA. Anyone who says otherwise is in opposition to the official position of the church. They may well like to say that it's NOT from the BofA.

Paul O

[LadySundancer]

Hello Paul,

Just a quick message to thank you for posting the series of links for me. I will go through them as time permits. I think I understand your position and I have to admit, as a non-LDS believer who does not accept the LDS scripture as "god breathed", I think you're idea is a reasonable way for LDS believers to view the Book of Abraham.

Thank you,

Lady Sundancer

[Paul Osborne]

The issue is not whether there is anything "wrong with that" or unreasonable.  The issue is whether Caswall is telling us what JS actually said, or whether someone else gave that interpretation.

Based on his lack of credibility, we cannot be certain that he ever spoke with JS.  Yes, he probably saw the papyrus, and someone gave him some of the interpretation.  He may even have gotten some of it right (e.g. the four corners of the earth).

But without independent verification, I would certainly not put Caswall on the witness stand.  He would be laughed out of the courtroom.  With his proven hatred of JS, and his proven desire to make him look foolish, even to the point of "embellishing" his account (lying), he is not a credible witness.

Sorry about that.  But Caswell is a LIAR and we CANNOT TRUST him.  That is "WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT". 

The whole thing about "Jesus holding back the dog", and "Jacob's ladder" sounds like Caswall putting words into JS mouth.  He mixed the actual interpretation with his own words.  ("I wonder why the ladder only comes up to the waist").

The aunties make a poor choice of witnesses, and Caswall is among the worst.

cdowis,

I waited several days before responding to this post in effort to cool my head.

I don

[Paul Osborne]

Hello Paul,

Just a quick message to thank you for posting the series of links for me. I will go through them as time permits. I think I understand your position and I have to admit, as a non-LDS believer who does not accept the LDS scripture as "god breathed", I think you're idea is a reasonable way for LDS believers to view the Book of Abraham.

Thank you,

Lady Sundancer

LadySundancer,

If I had a nickel for every nonmember of the church that has told me this I

[Dale]

Paul the Red Rubrics argument is flawed. I feel they need to re-write or abandon the argument because it's unconvincing.

Although I believe their may have been a missing section of the Book of Abraham papyrus I can't say what was & what was not supposed to be on it. And the focus of the Kirtland papers was not as far as I know was nothing from a missing source.

When I brought up a need to rebut Ch. 11 of By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus I was told his arguments & book was unimportant. It was important enough for I think two reviews but not enough to merit any further response. Yet instead of John Gee, or Michael Rhodes confronting attacks on LDS Intellectual approaches to the papyrus they try & convince me a section of the papyrus was the source. I am not sure they don't have an up hill battle trying to seperate Joseph Smith from all responsibility for the EAG which uses the found source. They don't appear to be advancing beyond the Book of Abraham projects basic arguments.

The strong argument & it's not that strong is that the EAG is seen by several scholars as an example of reverse engineering. The use of Book of Breathings characters next to the english text of Book of Abraham looks like they were creating a grammar using the english text. It doesn't matter when the EAG was produced, or the characters added in the BOA manuscript as long as they felt it was useful in creating the EAG.

Doesn't look to me like they thought there was just some relationship between the Book of Breathings text & the BOA but rather a whole lot of relationship existed. The copying in the wrong place idea makes no sense as a tool to convince me of the missing source idea. What if they copied in the right place?

I don't see missing papyrus advocates as asking tough questions to even look for possible errors in their arguments. They mostly repeat others.

Sincerely,

Dale

[thesometimesaint]

Paul Osborne:

I'm sorry to hear that Jeff won't debate you. You both bring up fascinating ideas. The debate would be interesting to read.

I'm definitely no expert in Egyptian, or the papyrii. All I've done is read the Book of Abraham. I tend to believe that we don't have what JS translated from. But I like your idea that JS gave it a whole new meaning.

[Paul Osborne]

Paul Osborne:

I'm sorry to hear that Jeff won't debate you. You both bring up fascinating ideas. The debate would be interesting to read.

I'm definitely no expert in Egyptian, or the papyrii. All I've done is read the Book of Abraham.

[Dale]

Paul a thing I like about you is you try & be thorough. You try & spend a lot of time making sure people understand your thinking. I am not sure John Gee & Michael Rhodes have thought everything through on the missing papyrus thing. I don't feel it's a good thing to not acknowledge doubts & questions. We can then work on resolving concerns if possible, or not.

We don't have much to explain on the Book of Abraham issue. We can admit errors on Joseph Smith's part as well as point out truth in his ideas based on egyptology.

[cdowis]

>That was a nice post - it gave me a chuckle.

Lacking the ability to refute with facts and logic, one laughs and spews forth with mockery.

I find your laughter a profound compliment.

>If this were the case it would lend itself totally unreadable except to those who could decipher secret hieroglyphic messages within regular hieroglyphic passages.

This is not a

[cdowis]

Dale points out

>If the mneumonic idea is correct them the missing papyrus idea is incorrect.

I think the "missing papyrus" theory is a dead end, and is gradually being abandoned.

>The mnemonic 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?

Tvedtnes incorporates the Egyptian Grammar into the theory, as well as the papyrus itself. The papyrus has a basis for the actual BOA, and not just a "vision", or secret code.

Tvedtnes's theory does not "spiritualize" away the problem. He deals with it head on, comes to grip with the issues, and, IMO, gives at least a reasonable explanation.

I would add that it is probably the only theory which lends itself to scientific testing. The theory can be refuted thru an experiment, where an attempt can be made to duplicate the results.

[Paul Osborne]

I will let you judge for yourself.  Please read the Nibley citation I provided previously, where Nibley deals with Caswall

[Paul Osborne]

Paul a thing I like about you is you try & be thorough. You try & spend a lot of time making sure people understand your thinking. I am not sure John Gee & Michael Rhodes have thought everything through on the missing papyrus thing. I don't feel it's a good thing to not acknowledge doubts & questions. We can then work on resolving concerns if possible, or not.

We don't have much to explain on the Book of Abraham issue. We can admit errors on Joseph Smith's part as well as point out truth in his ideas based on egyptology.

Dale,

The Kirtland Papers deal with the heart of the BofA papyrus. The characters therein were dealt with personally by the prophet Joseph Smith. I doubt we have all of the Kirtland Papers. I know we don

[Paul Osborne]

I would add that it is probably the only theory which lends itself to scientific testing. The theory can be refuted thru an experiment, where an attempt can be made to duplicate the results.

Have any tests been presented to LDS Egyptologists for critical review?

I think the theory falls flat!

Paul O

[cdowis]

In the interest of full disclosure, the following is a post by a skeptic which pretty much summarizes his feelings on this theory:

Tvedtnes theory is pseudo science at best and garbage at worst.  Basically, he

has this idea that different characters in Egyptian served as key words to

remind the person translating text of the rest of the passage.  Example:  A

character stands for the word "rabbit".  Than we see an entire paragraph that

talks about rabbits.

The problem with the theory is severalfold:  First, the translation given

according to Smith's Alphabet and Grammar isn't a correct one, according to

Egyptologists. (in other words even the one word wasn't translated correctly)

Second, if we go by this reasoning we would have to accept the idea that

characters which stand for the word "a" or "the" served as keys for

understanding the meaning of an entire paragraph.  Third, Egyptologists who

have been told about it reject it.

Egyptologist Klaus Baer was asked about this theory and was extremely

skeptical.  Baer felt that any association claimed in this fashion was random

and/or forced.

Most of the LDS folks who defend the authenticity of the BoA tend to ignore

Tvedtnes theory and base their arguments on other grounds.  The theory is

simply too hard to defend and is one of the least supportable of all.

The purpose of the test is to answer Baer's question on whether this is simply a random event.

Egyptologists are unnecessary for the test.

The papyrus represents a "short text" which correlates with the "long text" of the BOA. Tvedtnes' analysis shows 100% correlation between the BOA and the Book of the Dead.

So, the question is whether this correlation is accidental. The test is whether we can take two random texts and duplicate the results.

The test is straightforward and quite simple. Two individuals will each

select a text, but not tell the other person what it is until the end of the

test.

Person B selects a short text (representing the funerary text) of approx 25 - 30 words and the other person selects a long text (representing a chapter or two in the BOA.

Person A task is to take sections of the longer text, and divide it up into sentences and paragraphs. IOW, he will correlate each paragraph or grouping of words in the long text by an identifying number which represents a

word in the unknown short text. The two texts are then revealed to the whole

world -- along with the numbering of the texts, and we can see if there is a

good correlation between them.

The result is somewhat subjective -- does text A grouping correspond to the individual words in text B. This will show whether Tvedtnes's mnemonic grouping of the two texts was deliberate (a "translation" by JS) or just a random event.

This test has actually been conducted already in alt.religion.mormon, and some of the details examined.

Judge the results for yourself.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.re...c%2Btest&hl=en&

[Paul Osborne]

Dale,

The Mnemonic Device theory has some serious problems. It

[cdowis]

Paul,

If this were so obvious, Baer and the other Egyptologists would have certainly pointed this out.

May I suggest that you give yourself a couple of days to cool off, and try it again.

[Paul Osborne]

Paul,

If this were so obvious, Baer and the other Egyptologists would have certainly pointed this out.

May I suggest that you give yourself a couple of days to cool off, and try it again.

Your rejection of my presentation and fact base does not intimidate me in the least. How you handle the facts is your business - and your problem too.

So you want me to try again?

Feel free to cut and paste my statements that YOU think are wrong and I will foward them to an Egyptologist and ask for a critique.

Paul O

[ScriptureLover]

Paul Osborne:

For example: Ramsess the Great could write about a great victory in Kadesh when in fact it was a mere stalemate. But the written word could produce reality in the minds of the Egyptians.

The Egyptians were so concerned with writing that it could literally become alive! That’s why in some instances hieroglyphs of dangerous creatures where sometimes mutilated or cut in two so they couldn't live and attack the mummy.

Kerry:

This is VERY reminiscent of the Jewish Kabbalistic ideas of the importance of the Word. I hadn't quite made that connection before reading how you put it here Paul. Thanks. That gives me some ideas for more DVD's.............

[Paul Osborne]

I hadn't quite made that connection before reading how you put it here Paul. Thanks. That gives me some ideas for more DVD's.............

Sell away!

Paul O

[Zeitgeist]

The Chinese had similar thoughts about written words. This is however beside the point. I wonder how these similarites with Jewish Kabbalistic ideas are anything more than that. Paul is keeping it within the context of the culture of the Egyptians, where the documents come from. Can you tell me how these are connected?

Cdowis, I am intrigued by your experiment and read through the post. I have to admit I am not sure what it is suppossed to show regarding the Book of Abraham papyri. Can you help me out?

Zeitgeist