Explain the Book of Abraham

[Milkyway71]

Indeed it is.

[LadySundancer]

Well the question I should be asking you is where is your evidence proving the BOA is not a fraud, or the BOM is true? Or better yet teh J smith was actually WAS a prophet?

Understood. Please show me any post I've made here where I have asserted that the Book of Abraham is not a fraud, that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet? And tell me why you think I would?

Lady Sundancer

[Milkyway71]

Easy, anyone who would actually defend the BOA is with out a doubt a mormon, hence they believe J smith is a prophet of God that the BOM is God's word and that the LDS church is the only true church.

AKA Mormon testimony cliche......

[LadySundancer]

Easy, anyone who would actually defend the BOA is with out a doubt a mormon, hence they believe J smith is a prophet of God that the BOM is God's word and that the LDS church is the only true church.

AKA Mormon testimony cliche......

Your reasoning skills have failed you, Milkyway. Nowhere on this thread or on this board will you see that I have "defended" the Book of Abraham. I have simply asked you questions.

I am not now nor have I ever been a Mormon. I do not believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, I do not believe the Book of Mormon is true, nor do I believe the Book of Abraham is god breathed scripture.

Now where is your evidence to support the following:

(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 Testament

Lady Sundancer

[Milkyway71]

I do alpologize my friend,

But anyways I cant provide u with the info you seek, but the lack of evidence for the complete infallibilty of the Bible is not comparable to the Evidence WE DO HAVE concerning the fraudulant natrure of the BOA.

[LadySundancer]

I do alpologize my friend,

But anyways I cant provide u with the info you seek, but the lack of evidence for the complete infallibilty of the Bible is not comparable to the Evidence WE DO HAVE concerning the fraudulant natrure of the BOA.

You need to figure out, Milky, that the "my evidence is bigger than your evidence" doesn't cut it in opposing LDS theology. You say here that we do have evidence concerning the fraudulent nature of the Book of Abraham.

Milky....you do realize that we have no evidence that Christ rose? Think about that for awhile. Think about it hard and long before you start pushing at LDS here for sooner or later someone like me will put the shoe on the other foot and you will realize that you do not have original copies of the OT and NT, you have no evidence to verify ANYTHING on the list I offered you and you have no evidence that the Savior was resurrected or even lived except the Bible you have and again, you have little or no evidence that it is verifiable by outside sources.

Your faith is what you decide upon.

Lady Sundancer

[LadySundancer]

And a hush falls over the thread...

[LadySundancer]

Milkway,

Does any part of you get what I'm driving at here? It's perfectly okay if you think the Book of Abraham and the whole lot of LDS theology is wrong/fraud/ whatever. It is not okay for you to shove lack of evidence in their face to disprove their scriptures when if one were to ask you to supply evidence for your faith and your beliefs, as I did, you can't do it either???

Do you get it?

Lady Sundancer

[Zakuska]

Oh how, I love the Dancers in this place!

[cdowis]

Milky, ignoring my request, states the following:

>The translations made by smith are not the real translations at all. Therefore J smith has been proven fraudulent.

The mnemonic theory has shown that the translation was indeed correct, according to the definition of "translation" as discussed in this thread.

Now, are you going to tackle the issues, or just continue making empty statements.

Do you understand the mnemonic theory? Do you understand the nature of translation, as it occurred in LDS history (specifically the Joseh Smith Translation of the Bible)?

[Paul Osborne]

I

[rameumptom]

My understanding is that ScriptureLover (aka Kerry Shirts) gave an awesome talk on evidences for the BoA at the recent Sunstone Symposium. It will be available soon on DVD (or a recent facsimile of the presentation, anyway)

There are evidences for the BoA. There are questions regarding the papyri and the Kirtland papers. But there isn't an all or nothing here. An honest person will see that there are unanswered questions regarding the papyri, etc. But an honest person will also notice the incredible "hits" Joseph Smith had on many of the BoA issues.

Whether the papyri was a catalyst, used as mnemonics, had a second layer of symbolism that Joseph found, or some other reason - somehow Joseph was able to gain ancient perspective and stories from the experience that can't easily be explained as a "lucky guess."

[cdowis]

>I am of the opinion that Joseph Smith was mistaken...etc

Very insightful. I think JS was mistaken on things which did not affect doctrine or his prophetic calling -- BOM geography, and the nature of the BOA papyrus are two examples.

[USU78]

Egyption gods are false gods and represent the pagan religion of Isreals captors.

This is doing nothing but running us around in circles. Stay put for a minute, y'hear?

Now, you assert Egyptian iconography and symbology have no place in Christian discussions. I point out the presence of Egyptian iconography and symbology being used, even today, by Christians. You respond by saying the above.

What to do? I could point out other pagan symbology and practices that've crept into Christian thought, art and practices, like the cross (a stylized ankh). We may not have much use for such things as LDS Christians, but we understand the thought behind the symbol. How will our friend respond to that, I wonder?

OK: here goes. Must we all become XXIst Century iconoclasts to satisfy milkyway's sensibilities about the presence of the pagan in Christianity? Or is it only Mormon use of pagan symbology, not other Christians' use of pagan symbology, that offends him? If this last is the case, then our friend is being but a bigot.

I do not believe that of him. I believe he can and will rise to the occasion and address the issue head on.

I, accordingly, reform my original question: Must the use of Egyptian symbology, including but not limited to Osiris to represent the Christian as he journeys through death, resurrection, and, ultimately, into G-d's presence, be banned from any and all Christian discourse? Why?

[Paul Osborne]

I would also point out that it

[Nisfor]

like the cross (a stylized ankh)

In regards to the "cross as ankh" symbology...

Unless I'm mistaken, the ankh symbolized "life" - possibly "eternal life" - but the symbol related "life" with "procreation" - the lower bar symbolized the male's reproductive organ and the circle on top the female's. When these came together it led to "procreation" - and thus the continuation of "life".

It's somewhat a stretch to consider that God just happened to have the Roman use crucifiction so that later Christ's followers could wear crosses that coincidentally were similiar to the Egyptian "life" symbol. It's like the argument that ancient Indians (both of the Asian and American varieties) used the swastika as a "pre-cursor" to the Nazi's use of the similar figure. No - I think it's pretty obvious that the Nazi's appropriated and "re-interpreted" the figure. The same thing most probably happened with the use of the cross and ankh. Or maybe it's all *really* that ancient Egyptians had a "corrupted through Ham" version of "the gospel" and knew all about Jesus and the crucifiction - even before the Jews knew all the details of "the Gospel" to this degree.

It's also somewhat interesting that many "Christian" religions tend to "de-emphasize" women's roles in religion - taking the circle off the top of the ankh, so to speak. Or that "Christian" religions are so down on sex - but if the cross is based on the ankh - they're basically displaying giant stylized penises on the tops of their churches, and wearing stylized penis necklaces - some of them even with Jesus hanging off of it.

Personally, I think that the cross as a symbol of Christianity is based almost 100% on the fact that *Jesus was crucified on a cross* and that any similarity to the ankh is entirely coincidental.

[noel00]

I would like to add my two cents worth as I see it in regard to the BOA.

Fac 1 and the BOB seemed to have been attached once , along side each other. The name of the deceased (Hor) appears on both pieces. The fibres and backing paper match up. So they were alongside each other. This to me presents a problem for the "still missing" theory. Ab 1:14 talks about the fac at the beginning of the book. If there was a scroll in "red ink" why did notthe scribes use the symbols from the BOB rather than the BOA which surley would still have been around then? As I understand it Nibley's theory was that the scribes were trying to work out the process.

The manuscripts of the BOA have egyptian symbols juxtaposed at intervals alongside the words of the BOA. Some of them are invented (Baer). These inventions match the gaps in the papyri. If the gap was there then in the BOB, why not there also be a similar gap with Fac 1. This is the Fac that scholars have questioned the restorations made.

I find a problem with the catalyst theory. In his history he talks about translating and working with papyri. He had studied hebrew, he knew the process.

[cdowis]

>I find a problem with the catalyst theory. In his history he talks about translating and working with papyri. He had studied hebrew, he knew the process.

He also "translated" the Bible. We are proposing that he used a similar process to translate the BOA, rather than the BOM translation process. The EAG was a fndamental tool in that translation process.

[Zakuska]

Coincidental?

Well since Christ is interpreted as the water of Life the giver of eternal life and that is what the part of the ankh that has been removed originally represented. I find it highly doubtful that it is a mere coincidence.

[urroner]

The picture of Christ carrying a lamb on his shoulders is very paganistic. I believe the original conception of that image comes directly from either Greek or Roman mythology. I believe it was either Apollor or Hermes.

[Zakuska]

And don't forget the women wiping his feet with oil tears and their hair?!

[ScriptureLover]

Milkyway:

Well the question I should be asking you is where is your evidence proving the BOA is not a fraud, or the BOM is true? Or better yet teh J smith was actually WAS a prophet?

Kerry:

When dealing with ancient scriptures, history, etc., proof is never on the agenda. Proof is literally IMPOSSIBLE to acquire, as it is a very personal thing. When one asks for proof of something, others are rest assured it's a waste of time to try because no matter what is presented, proof is never found through OTHERS. Proof is simply your own decision as to when there is enough evidence available for you to start believing in something.

[ScriptureLover]

rameumptom:

My understanding is that ScriptureLover (aka Kerry Shirts) gave an awesome talk on evidences for the BoA at the recent Sunstone Symposium. It will be available soon on DVD (or a recent facsimile of the presentation, anyway)

Kerry:

You heard that?! Well, rumor or not, it is what others have told me. If I come along and say yeah man I absolutely gave a fabulous presentation, then it'd make me look arrogant, even if it is true......

It is now available on DVD. The problem is my darn email is kaput, broke down, missing in action, not working, which really sorta burns my little britches ya know? I will have to wait until after I get back from the FAIR conference before getting it worked on because I am so dadgum swamped making DVD's of my Sunstone, as well as the other BofAbr DVD's which I have produced, so I can please the good folks at FAIR.

Man am I a good guy or what?

SL.......

[Paul Osborne]

Fac 1 and the BOB seemed to have been attached once , along side each other. The name of the deceased (Hor) appears on both pieces. The fibres and backing paper match up. So they were alongside each other. This to me presents a problem for the "still missing" theory. Ab 1:14 talks about the fac at the beginning of the book. If there was a scroll in "red ink" why did notthe scribes use the symbols from the BOB rather than the BOA which surley would still have been around then?

May I point out that it doesn

[Gordon]

Im comparing it to any fraud.

I doubt you're still around, but I'll respond anyway.

For you to call the BoA a fraud, you have to compare it to something specific, something similar, that would show the other version as incorrect. Simply saying you are comparing it to any fraud is a false argument. It would be as if I compared someone using anothers' identity to someone trying to pass off phony bills to prove the first to be a fraud...doesn't make sense, does it? I'm asking you, what, exactly, are you comparing the BoA to, that would show it to be a fraud.

The translations made by smith are not the real translations at all.

How, and by what, are you making this claim? I could simply state that solar energy doesn't come from the sun, but what would I have to support that statement? Simply declaring something isn't enough - show me some support of your statement.