Explain the Book of Abraham

[Paul Osborne]

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

Indeed they are interrelated because these are the components involved in making the final product. The debate centers around how these components were used, designed, and ultimately produced. The theory you suggest doesn

[cdowis]

>Well, if it [corrupted manuscript] does, it

[Dale]

The only difficulty with a corrupted transmission idea is the original text of Abraham has been lost. We have a restoration by revelation of the original text but we can't demonstrate the original had any relationship to Abraham. This idea can even be interpreted as saying the egyptians had a story of Abraham & used it as a catalyst to develop their own corrupt sacred stories.

The catalyst idea is simpler because it's an admission no relationship existed between papyrus actual content & restored text. The characters were objects of meditation from which ideas related to the content of the Book of Abraham were recieved.

I still use the missing papyrus idea but only as a theory some believe in. I prefer this idea because I prefer a literal story upon the papyrus. But intellectually I don't see the irrefutable position some think it is.

All three ideas are important enough to mention but only to understand the various theories on how the Book of Abraham was produced.

[Gordon]

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

I thank-you for taking the time to answer my questions. I feel that I understand your stance. While I obviously do not share some of your opinions, I think we agree on alot of it.

I do believe, however, that you do not know everything about this subject, and while you seek proof to support some of the arguments you disagree with, you also lack some proof to support your arguments. I read in the link you provided, where you said that the figure behind the one who is seated is 'either' Isis or Hathor - you don't know, do you? On your website, you also stated that the writing above the hand is 'undeterminable', again, you don't know what name is given. The assumptions that you make, is a point that I brought up very early in this discussion. I cannot go off of assumptions and opinions when it comes to the Gospel - it appears that you are OK with this, though.

Again, either that scene depicts Abraham discussing astrology, and the Egyptian text is false, or the Egyptian text is correct, and the explanation given by JS is false, making it so that we have an absolute incorrect statement in scripture, which is given by the Lord, ordained through the HG, and supported by all the modern prophets...

[Gordon]

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

I agree with the statement made by cdowis. The proof with this argument lies with the explaination given by JS from the Lord, which makes the Egyptian text false - period. The only way that this isn't proof, is if JS wasn't a prophet - or you do not accept him as one.

Just as you ask for proof, you lack proof in certain areas of your arguments.

[Paul Osborne]

I thank-you for taking the time to answer my questions. I feel that I understand your stance. While I obviously do not share some of your opinions, I think we agree on alot of it.

Indeed, our exchange has been beneficial.

I do believe, however, that you do not know everything about this subject, and while you seek proof to support some of the arguments you disagree with, you also lack some proof to support your arguments.

Yes, I

[Paul Osborne]

The proof with this argument lies with the explaination given by JS from the Lord, which makes the Egyptian text false - period.  The only way that this isn't proof, is if JS wasn't a prophet - or you do not accept him as one.

Gordon,

The church doesn

[Gordon]

I refer to imagery rather than positive identification through text.

That's what I'm looking for, though.

It is undeterminable to the layman but not to an Egyptologist ...

And what name do they give, as it shows in the facsimile found in the BoA (you may have already answered, so forgive me if this is redundant)?

Have you examined the many images we have of Isis in Egyptian art preserved in tombs and papyri, to say nothing of the countless statues in museums?

No, are they exact?

Or it could be the paradigm you have set up to determine your conclusion is faulty.

Is this your way of not answering me? Because, as of yet, you have not addressed this.

If you really think the language above the figure is a king

[Gordon]

The church doesn

[Paul Osborne]

And what name do they give, as it shows in the facsimile found in the BoA (you may have already answered, so forgive me if this is redundant)?

Isis

No, are they exact?

No, of course not. Isis doesn

[Paul Osborne]

Unless you can quote me a prophet - speaking prophetically, in the name of the Lord - who says something along this line, I'm afraid it won't mean too much to me.

Gordon,

Go right ahead and keep believing that she is a man. If you want to think a king

[USU78]

Unless you can quote me a prophet - speaking prophetically, in the name of the Lord - who says something along this line, I'm afraid it won't mean too much to me.

Gordon,

Go right ahead and keep believing that she is a man. If you want to think a king

[Paul Osborne]

Unless you can quote me a prophet - speaking prophetically, in the name of the Lord - who says something along this line, I'm afraid it won't mean too much to me.

Gordon,

Go right ahead and keep believing that she is a man. If you want to think a king

[USU78]

Paul said:

The Lord is a God of order, not chaos which is what seems to be the end result of some LDS apologetic reasoning that I

[USU78]

Paul:

Finally, if you want to make the goddess a king you will have to be consistent with the entire representation of Facsimile No. 3. Find a way to turn Anubis into a slave using conventional Egyptology.

Why should this be troubling? Wasn't Joseph, who was Pharaoh's visier, a slave, expropriated by Pharaoh from Potiphar? Where is the evidence that he was ever granted freeman status?

Frankly, the evidence is quite the opposite: Joseph's descendents were slaves; Joseph's relatives' descendents were also slaves.

Yet Joseph was the # 2 man in Egypt, according to some.

So why can't a Nubian slave, a competent, perhaps brilliant member of Pharaoh's staff (depicted however, as belonging to one of Pharaoh's staff -- perhaps as Joseph really belonged to Potiphar), be imbued with the spirit of Anubis such that he can be iconographically depicted as Anubis?

What does it mean to be imbued with Anubis' spirit? You know much more about Anubis' qualities than I. Anubis is said to be "the son of Osiris and Nephthys, and to have swallowed his father Osiris. He is the protective god of the Valley of the Kings at Thebes. As a nature god his father being the sun he may represent the twilight."

If Anubis' function, at least in part, is that of protector, where else would he be but bringing up the rear, assuring no attack against Pharaoh and the crown prince in our facsimile. It may be that our slave has some kind of protective function, and this is what's intended by the artist.

[Paul Osborne]

Why should this be troubling? Wasn't Joseph, who was Pharaoh's visier, a slave, expropriated by Pharaoh from Potiphar? Where is the evidence that he was ever granted freeman status?

No. Joseph was released from bondage and given the kings seal. He was the vizier of all Egypt and only the king was greater than Joseph. Further, Joseph was a mortal man but Anubis was considered an immortal god.

Frankly, the evidence is quite the opposite: Joseph's descendents were slaves; Joseph's relatives' descendents were also slaves

That

[USU78]

Why should this be troubling? Wasn't Joseph, who was Pharaoh's visier, a slave, expropriated by Pharaoh from Potiphar? Where is the evidence that he was ever granted freeman status?

No. Joseph was released from bondage and given the kings seal. He was the vizier of all Egypt and only the king was greater than Joseph. Further, Joseph was a mortal man but Anubis was considered an immortal god.

Not sure what difference it makes that Joseph is mortal whereas Anubis is immortal. Moreover, I'm not sure why it makes all that much difference in the story that Joseph is made 2nd to Pharaoh: when he was made 2nd to Potiphar, he still remained a slave.

And I don't see anything in Genesis 41:

39 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, Forasmuch as God hath shewed thee all this, there is none so discreet and wise as thou art:

40 Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou.

41 And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt.

42 And Pharaoh took off his ring from his hand, and put it upon Joseph

[Paul Osborne]

It is, after all, quite a Christian concept, and if we accept that this is a Christian document, why couldn't a Christian concept, the brotherhood of all mankind and the redeemability of all mankind, be depicted in it artistically?

It