will2believe Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Anyways, the evidence that proves the BOA is a fruad comes from proffesioanl egyptologists, while the so called info in defense of the BOA comes from none other than the LDS church. Are you saying that no Egyptologists defend the BoA? And that the church itself is the source of the BoA defenses?
Milkyway71 Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Dont worry I have a copy of the triple combination. I have read it.Anyways, the fact that even LDS scholars agree that Smith's translations of them are not what they say in reality, supports the fact that it is a fraud in the first place.
Outshined Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Anyways, the evidence that proves the BOA is a fruad comes from proffesioanl egyptologists, while the so called info in defense of the BOA comes from none other than the LDS church. Hey, do me a favor; provide the name of some " proffesioanl egyptologists" who have "proven" the BOA to be a fraud.And The LDS Church has not provided any "defense" of the BOA that I am aware of.
Milkyway71 Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Anybody who can read egyption heirogliphics could tell u that the bOA is a fruad. And yes the only people offering any defense of it are the LDS church or those affiliated with the church.
Zakuska Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 It would be quite silly for some one not "affiliated" with the church to defend it now wouldn't it? Seems to me Margaret Barker is defending the Story of Lehi in the BOM with Middle Eatern Babylonian texts, Quite well, and shes not even LDS.
USU78 Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Finery, Milkway, just answer the question then:Why would anyone be offended by use of the symbol of Osiris, the Egyptian god of the resurrection, to represent the Christian, redeemed by the Master, and raised from the dead?
Milkyway71 Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Ah yes, she is if you are blind to acrchealogy.And besides that still has nothing to do with the BOA.
Milkyway71 Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Finery, Milkway, just answer the question then:Why would anyone be offended by use of the symbol of Osiris, the Egyptian god of the resurrection, to represent the Christian, redeemed by the Master, and raised from the dead? Why do you think? I for one am not very offended by it, but I can see how some could be. Egyption polthesitc gods have no place in Christianity.
USU78 Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Egyption polthesitc gods have no place in Christianity. You mean . . . like Isis holding Horus on her lap? Or don't you like depictions of the Madonna and Child?Or . . . like Isis rocking Horus in a cradle? Or don't you like Christmas creches?You said "Egyption polthesitc gods have no place in Christianity." Why not?
docrick Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Anybody who can read egyption heirogliphics could tell u that the bOA is a fruad. And yes the only people offering any defense of it are the LDS church or those affiliated with the church. Joseph couldn't read hieroglyphs. He never said the glyphs said what he translated. I for one don't see conclusive proof that this particular scroll in question is the exact scroll Joseph used. Just because someone put a picture of the Kirtland Temple on the back doesn't mean that this is the scroll Joseph used.Even if it were the scroll used the Lord could reveal the BofA (you should read it yourself and see for yourself if anything is wrong) any time he wanted. I have no problem believing the BofA is heaven inspired.You have a lack of faith.
will2believe Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Anybody who can read egyption heirogliphics could tell u that the bOA is a fruad. To defend this statement, you would have to show that none of the defenders of the BoA can read hieroglyphics. Are you sure you want to stake your credibility on that?
Paul Osborne Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Because it is actaully based on FACTS as opposed to the outlandish mormon attempt to explain away such damning evidence. Let's discuss the facts.All you seem to do is make accusations. Paul O
Paul Osborne Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 This is denial my friends. The Papyri has been found, the translations made by Smith do not match what they really say, not at all.These attempts to hide the truth are really just grasping for straws by the LDS church.Anyways, the evidence that proves the BOA is a fruad comes from proffesioanl egyptologists, while the so called info in defense of the BOA comes from none other than the LDS church. More accusations! The Jews did the same thing to Jesus before they crucified him. Did that make him a false Messiah?Paul O
Paul Osborne Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Dont worry I have a copy of the triple combination. I have read it.Anyways, the fact that even LDS scholars agree that Smith's translations of them are not what they say in reality, supports the fact that it is a fraud in the first place. The Jews didn't agree with the claims and interpretations given by Jesus, so they murdered him.Was that fair?Paul O
Paul Osborne Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Egyption polthesitc gods have no place in Christianity. You mean . . . like Isis holding Horus on her lap? Or don't you like depictions of the Madonna and Child?Or . . . like Isis rocking Horus in a cradle? Or don't you like Christmas creches?You said "Egyption polthesitc gods have no place in Christianity." Why not? Moses lifted up the brazen serpent!!!Was Moses a Christian? The God of Israel didn't seem to mind being represented as the Egyptian serpent - brazen - and on a pole.Jesus didn't mind being a Lion. Is that paganism?Paul O
Outshined Posted August 2, 2005 Posted August 2, 2005 Anybody who can read egyption heirogliphics could tell u that the bOA is a fruad. And yes the only people offering any defense of it are the LDS church or those affiliated with the church. Can you read them? Again, who are some of these professionals you're talking about?And show me the LDS Church's attempts to "defend" the BOA. I can't seem to locate it on their site.
Dale Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Most critics of the Book of Abraham are Fundementalist Christians who have as much religious bias as any believer in the Book of Abraham? Does having bias mean everything a friend or critic writes can be discounted? Tell the critics to rebut the methadology if it's so flawed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have never seen a critic satisfactarily rebut the case for the Book of Abraham. They mostly fixate on the facimilies, or the believed 1967 source but nothing dealing with Kerry Shirts type of research. Yes Joseph Smith's explanations of the facimilies are wrong. His ideas do accord with egyptology in some ways. I suggest the ways they do agree with egyptology can be read as suggesting his ideas wern't fallable but wern't just the speculations of a fraud. An uninspired fraud should have nothing in egyptology coming any way close to affirming the truth of any of his ideas. I am not sure Joseph smith was just a lucky guesser. Perhaps the critics could do us a favor dig up someone who is a modern prophet in their own thinking. Let's choose someone as smart as Joseph Smith. Put the facimilies in front of them & let them do an inspired translation. Then we can let Kerry Shirts do a study of the explanations to see whether egyptology has anything positive to say about what the person translated. And even if they admitted the translation had support some would blame it on demons. But Joseph Smith is supposed to be an idiot & they tell me egyptology does not support him anywhere. Another option is just to find a scholar willing to declare Kerry Shirts methodology flawed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Kerry,I am not volunteering you Kerry I am just not sure the critics can can find a person ignorant of egyptology to duplicate what Joseph Smith did. I am not sure they can prove egyptology has nothing positive to say about the Book of Abraham. I am not sure they have the ability to prove your methadology flawed.
Paul Osborne Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 I have never seen a critic satisfactarily rebut the case for the Book of Abraham. They mostly fixate on the facimilies, or the believed 1967 source but nothing dealing with Kerry Shirts type of research. Dale,I had a debate on another board sometime ago and was challenged quite heavily by a few thugs. One of them gave me a run for the money but I think I beat him up.It's really long, but you might find it interesting and learn some new stuff - after wading through the usual cut & pastes to get the conversation rolling. I was however challenged and a lot of points were brought up in attacking the Kerry Shirts/Paul Osborne views of Facsimile No. 2. All in all, I think it's worth scrolling though. Book of Abraham Debate Paul O
cdowis Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Milky,Are you familiar with the following topics of discussion:1. missing manuscript 2. mnemonic theory3. the corrupt manuscript theoryAre you willing and capable of having an intelligent discussion on these topics? This thread discusses the translation of the BOA, and each of these theories have been discussed.Are you familiar with the various facsimiles, and the meaning of the figures? Are you willing to discuss the description of JS to find out whether he was correct?In short, we welcome you to the discussion forum, and this thread, but we hope that you will be an intelligent contributor rather than a simple minded basher of the LDS religion.
Gordon Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Kerry:However, just so we are clear here, Joseph Smith is not infallible. What he described, or claimed is not necessary correct at all times, right? Just because Joseph said something does not mean that makes it accurate or the total truth and well understood. Yes? No, he wasn't, and I have never claimed, nor believed, that he was. I do not accept anything and everything that JS stated as complete truth either. What I AM saying, is that what JS said while acting in a prophetic nature or as the mouthpiece of the Lord IS concrete and infallible. The BoA is canonized, and given to the world as if from the Lord, himself, so what is stated within IS infallible also. What JS stated in regards to the BoA while receiving revelation and in his prophetic calling is true as well. Now, I have had it pointed out to me, that JS didn't specifically state that the document he had in possesion contained the writings that Abraham actually penned himself. However, he DID state that what was written, was, at some point, written by Abraham himself. Also, the revelations/translations he received regarding the facsimiles came from the Lord, so they are correct - regardless of what Egyptian funeral texts say (the Lord trumps Egyptian funeral texts).
Gordon Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Don't base your testimony in the Book of Abraham, or Joseph Smith Jr. on whether a missing papyrus existed, or not. I don't, I base it upon the witness I received from the HG that the BoM is from the Lord, and that JS was the prophet through whom He chose to restore the Gospel. I will not trust ANYTHING that Man offers which goes against that, period.Satisfying Book of Abraham evidences do exist.However, I'm not looking for them - never have been, never will.The source for the Book of Abraham was possibly found in 1967.I admit, that I really don't know much about this document, however, if it clearly 'proved' anything, more people would know about it. From what I have seen, it contains characters that are found in the Book of Breathings (which is supposed to 'suggest' that JS used them to write the BoA - how? I don't know. These are merely assumptions).What's your argument for the missing source? Can it withstand scrutiny?I'm not trying to defend that argument, only asking where the originals went...and/or where the 'supposed' originals that we have came from...Try using the basic arguments for the missing papyrus idea against a critic into the writings of Jerald & Sandra Tanner, or Charles Larson & you will lose.Again, I'm not looking to prove any argument, nor trying to look for evidence for or against the BoA. I merely try to get those who are critics to prove their case - which none have done (including Paul).
Gordon Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 I don't see why it is unfortunate that the topic was brought up in this thread. I can understand, however, that a discussion over this issue will derail the thread and it was only used as an example to make a point. I don't think the topic is unfortunate, but that the appeared suggestive nature of your post was incorrect, so unfortunate for you.
LadySundancer Posted August 3, 2005 Posted August 3, 2005 Because it is actaully based on FACTS as opposed to the outlandish mormon attempt to explain away such damning evidence. Well, Milkyway, I really hate to throw a rock in your window and drive the thread off topic but in your spare time would you be so kind as to:(1) Verify the authors of the Old Testament books attributed to Moses(2) Verify the authors of the 4 New Testament Gospels(3) Verify the authors of the Epistles attributed to Paul(4) Give me the exact location of the original texts of the entire Old and New TestamentI await your evidence.Lady Sundancer
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.