Explain the Book of Abraham

[Gordon]

Um, not quite. There is nothing saying because its in scripture that it is infallible.

If its scripture, then it comes from the Lord (which all scripture does), and that is infallible.

Even the BofM declares it possible to have mistakes within the pages of scripture.

Where?

Besides, mistakes in grammar, spelling, and punctuation do not make what is contained within incorrect.

[Gordon]

I don

[ScriptureLover]

Gordon to Paul:

Let me ask you, do you believe that the documents that JS had in his posession were any sort of copies of what Abraham actually penned?

Kerry:

I don't, no. I shall let Paul answer for himself. The papyri simply date way too late for Abraham to have ever even touched them, let alone wrote on them. The story has been handed down (as all records have) and copied. What we have is an authentic story of Abraham, but not written directly with his own ball point Bic

[LadySundancer]

Oh how, I love the Dancers in this place!

How many Dancers are there, Zak? A little stridency is called for at times, don't you think?

Lady Sundancer

[Paul Osborne]

OK, so if I understand you correctly, then you agree with the explanations given by JS of the facsimiles, yes?

Yes, from a certain point of view; the explanations are inspired.

You also believe the BoA text to be correct as well, yes?

Yes, the story revealed through the prophet is a restoration.

However, you don't believe that the documents JS had were the originals, or that Abraham actually penned those, yes?

No, they weren

[Nisfor]

So... basically you're arguing that Joseph Smith "re-interpreted" Egyptian mythology to fit into his worldview - whether it was "historically" accurate or not?

I don't see how this is any more "real" than the argument that the ankh is "really" a proto-Christian cross.

This is like the argument that the Asian yin-yang symbol is "really" a Christian symbol of the "eternal battle between Jesus and Satan" - "I mean, look at it - Jesus is the white side and the devil is the dark side! Case closed!" In reality, it has nothing to do with Christianity at all, and the actual meaning is glossed over to pull out the shallow similarities that the "re-interpreter" wants to fulfill.

[ScriptureLover]

Nisfor:

So... basically you're arguing that Joseph Smith "re-interpreted" Egyptian mythology to fit into his worldview - whether it was "historically" accurate or not?

I don't see how this is any more "real" than the argument that the ankh is "really" a proto-Christian cross.

This is like the argument that the Asian yin-yang symbol is "really" a Christian symbol of the "eternal battle between Jesus and Satan" - "I mean, look at it - Jesus is the white side and the devil is the dark side! Case closed!" In reality, it has nothing to do with Christianity at all, and the actual meaning is glossed over to pull out the shallow similarities that the "re-interpreter" wants to fulfill.

Kerry:

ALL of this is GOOD points. However, we are talking about symbolism here, and symbols do not retain their original meanings alone and exclusively, but are added thereunto in meaning through time. One symbol can acquire and have and be used for dozens of different and contradictory meanings among cultures, yet still remain powerful, useful, and meaningful to all who use it.

Symbols can be updated, just as scripture can, and knowledge can. They are timeless. The cross and Ankh are two very excellent examples of this.

[Nisfor]

So the only "meaning" that is important is "the meaning that you want it to mean"?

It's OK that the BoA isn't historically "true" - as long as it teaches what Joseph Smith wanted to teach?

This is sounding just as bad to me as the "faith is really nothing more than convincing yourself that what you believe has to be right - no matter what!" argument.

[ScriptureLover]

Not necessarily. Obviously other cultures take symbols from each other and apply what THEY want to mean to those symbols. (The Cross is a perfect example. It had NOTHING to do with Christ until the Christians took it for their own meaning and spiituality)

If Joseph Smith is going to get away with anything, he had better STICK to how the specific culture he is translating, used the symbols, in this case Egypt. It won't do if Joseph Smith makes points of comparison and connection with ancient Babylonian, Aztec, or Mayan symbols if they are SUPPOSED to be what the Egyptians said they meant to theirselves.

The idea, the point is, did Joseph interpret the symbols AS THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS DID? That is how I approach the facsimiles. I find some quite powerful and beautiful connections.

Best,

Kerry

[cdowis]

The scenes and texts within the papyrus were religious spells to the pagan Egyptians. The prophet took of these materials and used them to glorify the God of Israel for a higher purpose. The Egyptians hear the message of the true gospel as it is taught in the spirit world

[Paul Osborne]

cdowis,

I

[Paul Osborne]

The idea, the point is, did Joseph interpret the symbols AS THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS DID? That is how I approach the facsimiles. I find some quite powerful and beautiful connections.

I'm with you on that, Kerry. You and I have an appreciation because we have taken the time to look into it. I wonder if our friend, Milkyway, has even bothered to look into square one?

Where are you Milkey?

How about you read the following URLS and come back and tell me how wrong they are from a spiritual point of view. I'm up to the challenge. So far no Egyptologist has taken me on, perhaps you are more skillful then they?

I'll be right here waiting for you. If you like, we can start new threads for each topic. I want to be thorough. If you want to prove my prophet is a fraud you will have to demonstrate that by building a case and proving your points. Otherwise, you're just shooting blank bullets.

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

Paul O

[Gordon]

I don't, no. I shall let Paul answer for himself. The papyri simply date way too late for Abraham to have ever even touched them, let alone wrote on them. The story has been handed down (as all records have) and copied. What we have is an authentic story of Abraham, but not written directly with his own ball point Bic

I understand this, but what I'm asking, is if you think what JS had was a copy of what Abraham actually wrote?

[Gordon]

The scenes and texts within the papyrus were religious spells to the pagan Egyptians. The prophet took of these materials and used them to glorify the God of Israel for a higher purpose. The Egyptians hear the message of the true gospel as it is taught in the spirit world

[noel00]

So far as I can understand both Osbourne and Kerry say that the Fac was late dated and was for a particular person called Hor. How does this equate to a story about Abraham being sacrificed on a Lion Couch? So some funerary ritual reproduces some event that involved Abraham being sacrificed, and use it for ever after as something that was not refering to abraham but to the person for whom the scene was created (hor)?

[Dale]

It doesn't literally relate at all. Joseph Smith was wrong in literally seeing it as an illustration for the Book of Abraham. It was adopted as an illustration. The big issue is was there a missing actual writing of Abraham on the same scroll or was the papyrus merely used to speculate about Abraham? Was it used as a springboard to Joseph Smith recieving while mistranslating the papyrus a real history of Abraham? So what I understand as the belief of advocates of the catalyst idea is that it's a speculation but a lot of the ideas arn't speculative. The non-speculative ideas are supported by modern egyptology.

I understand there is another lion couch scene that does for some odd reason mention Abraham. That might indicate some egyptian might not have been opposed to misusing the lion couch scene to think about Abraham. In a religion where such a Bible story would have been supressed it would have been one ingenious way to preserve a story.

I would be interested in knowing how many persons worked on such scrolls. I could see an individual working alone with producing the papyrus without supervisors as having the time to mix in a story about Abraham. But if he had a team of supervising helping him I think that could end the missing papyrus option. A person has to have a realistic opportunity along with the motive to take such a rish. They would have killed him if they caught him. The motive would have been religious belief in the story.

With the catalyst idea God taught him the story irrespective of the literal meaning of the papyrus. God didn't lie. He just allowed Joseph Smith to misunderstand the meaning of the papyrus without correction.

[cdowis]

>I

[Paul Osborne]

As I understand, this is the catalyst theory.  Where we differ in our theories is that in the corrupted manuscript/mnemonic theory the "religious spells" papyrus was were based on the original BOA "short form" or mnemonic which had been handed down. 

Over the centuries the original meaning of the text was lost because the original "long form" had been lost.  The Egyptians knew that it was an important religious text, so they used it in their (apostate) religion ceremonies.

A modern example is the "Ave Maria" taken from from the Bible and used in (apostate) religious practices today.  The Lord assisted JS in discerning the original meaning of the text, where we find in the EAG as the key to the translation.

The translation of the papyrus or Book of the Dead is completely irrevelant to the BOA text itself.

Let

[Paul Osborne]

Is there any actual proof that the name above the character is not the name of a king/pharoah? Also, is the matter of the prince not clearly looking like a male your opinion? Or does the writing above the hand clearly proof it is not?

Gordon,

There is no king's name. The characters in question are females.

Question on decisions, about the king's name

Puzzled, Is there a response to this website?

Paul O

[Dale]

I am not suggesting John Gee give up on the missing papyrus idea on my or anybody elses sayso. I would like to see him presented with some tough questions critical of the missing papyrus idea & see whether he seems lost in his answers.

[Paul Osborne]

I would be interested in knowing how many persons worked on such scrolls. I could see an individual working alone with producing the papyrus without supervisors as having the time to mix in a story about Abraham. But if he had a team of supervising helping him I think that could end the missing papyrus option. A person has to have a realistic opportunity along with the motive to take such a rish. They would have killed him if they caught him. The motive would have been religious belief in the story.

THANK YOU DALE!

Indeed, Dale is being reasonable. First, let

[Paul Osborne]

The Book of the Dead was simply a corrupted ritual based on the original BOA mnemonic.

Bear in mind this only a theory in defending the BofA translations. You have no proof.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Quite frankly the mnemonic theory has largely been ignored. Gee is so hot on the lost manuscript idea, beating his head against the wall, that no one is giving it further study. It is now almost impossible to find the original article.

I can understand your frustration and sympathize with you.

But take heart - the Internet will change the way business is done. This is a day of information and knowledge. No longer will things be kept up secret in the storerooms of the great universities. All men can now come to knowledge and great professors will have to make room for the common man. This is a day of learning and knowledge will cover the earth as the sea covers the ocean bed.

Paul O

[Dale]

I am not sure one individual had time alone with two scrolls interlopating stories of Abraham & Joseph in within funeral papyri. Possible but such is a matter of faith not egyptology. I am not against matters of faith. I believe in a lot of miracelous things myself.

The missing papyrus idea if it's going to survive needs to be better defended than it is. John Gee's arguments have not advanced beyond the Book of Abraham project arguments. It would be more impressive if they picked a part critics of the missing papyrus arguments a bit more.

[cdowis]

>Bear in mind this only a theory in defending the BofA translations. You have no proof.

First, the corrupted manuscript theory shows a definite relationship among the physical papyrus, the EAG and the BOA. They all tie together.

Second, the theory seems to stand up to scrutiny, including a simple informal scientific test.

I do not find your arguments very convincing, based as they are upon very broad assumptions and generalizations. It seems that you pretend to know a great deal on what is possible and impossible among the Egyptians over *several centuries*, with absolutely no exceptions. I simply do not accept the certitude that you display on what the Egyptians may or may not do.

Now, it appears to me that the catalyst theory simply makes everything go away with "poof". I do not see where the physical papyrus nor the EAG fit into this theory at all.

What is the relationship between the figures and the BOA? As I understand the theory, JS looks at *something*, calls it the record of Abraham, and it has noting to do with Abraham even though the figures on the papyrus are included in the BOA.

Perhaps I do not understand this theory well enough to judge it and you can clarify these points.