Explain the Book of Abraham

[Paul Osborne]

I respect greatly your honesty in presenting ALL the evidence and giving the only way it can conform to a Mormon answer.

Your honesty is refreshing and I really respect you.

Sincerely

Jon

Thank you, Jon. I do try to be honest

[Dale]

Hi,

I never have seen a critic successfully explain away evidences of the Book of Abraham. My testimony is Joseph Smith got things wrong. But I already know that stuff but what about Kerry Shirts case regarding the facimilies? And Kerry Shirts isn't the only one who has done research. It's the only successful approach to defending Joseph's translation of the facimilies I know of. If the critics want to cause us to doubt the evidence they have to discuss all the evidence not just the part that I agree with them was wrong. He got stuff right lets admit that.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Paul Osborne]

PAUL O: Posted July 23, 6:43am(?) you state:

I think the various stories you get out of Geneses were derived through the inspiration of a master writer who worked by the power of God through the means that were given him.

Your use of the words "various stories" and "master writer" has Mee wondering where P.O. is on the belief scale?

Dear Mee,

Please pick the one that you think best describes Moses, the greatest author of the O.T.:

[A] I think the various stories you get out of Geneses were not derived through the inspiration of a master writer who worked by the power of God through the means that were given him.

I think the various stories you get out of Geneses were derived through the inspiration of a master writer who didn

[Paul Osborne]

I never have seen a critic successfully explain away evidences of the Book of Abraham.

They try, but don't get too far.

12 Questions for Critics of the Hypocephalus

12 Answers by Critics of the Hypocephalus

Where did BYU boy run off to? He laughed at our prophet and scriptures and then runs off like a scared rabbit. Where is the fun in that? Come back BYU boy. I have something for you.

Paul O

[LadySundancer]

Aside to Paul: I've opened the thread.

[MorningStar]

I never have seen a critic successfully explain away evidences of the Book of Abraham.

They try, but don't get too far.

12 Questions for Critics of the Hypocephalus

12 Answers by Critics of the Hypocephalus

Where did BYU boy run off to? He laughed at our prophet and scriptures and then runs off like a scared rabbit. Where is the fun in that? Come back BYU boy. I have something for you.

Paul O

I think BYU Boy got in trouble.

[Dale]

Hi,

Hi,

I know BYU Boy is sincere but bad witnessing approaches using the Book of Abraham problem on us doesn't work on everyone. I really don't see the inescapeable case for fraud the critics see. I see some doubts & questions issues some are resolveable some are not at the present time. But I see plenty of room to continue enjoying the Book of Mormon as one of Joseph Smith's great prophetic achievements. If he were a deciever modern egyptology should support no aspect of the work period end of story. And if egyptology is helpful in defending the Book of Abraham I would challenge anyone to prove egyptology is being misused in defending & providing evidences of the Book of Abraham.

My glass is supposed to be empty. But instead I have a perpetually half full glass of water. Water quenches thirst either way. The critics have the obligation to prove any Egyptological knowledge does not exist that supports the Book of Abraham. So far I see the critics flee from the discussion of anything but what suits them.

Sincerely,

Dale

[rameumptom]

Hi,

Hi,

I know BYU Boy is sincere but bad witnessing approaches using the Book of Abraham problem on us doesn't work on everyone. I really don't see the inescapeable case for fraud the critics see. I see some doubts & questions issues some are resolveable some are not at the present time. But I see plenty of room to continue enjoying the Book of Mormon as one of Joseph Smith's great prophetic achievements. If he were a deciever modern egyptology should support no aspect of the work period end of story. And if egyptology is helpful in defending the Book of Abraham I would challenge anyone to prove egyptology is being misused in defending & providing evidences of the Book of Abraham.

My glass is supposed to be empty. But instead I have a perpetually half full glass of water. Water quenches thirst either way. The critics have the obligation to prove any Egyptological knowledge does not exist that supports the Book of Abraham. So far I see the critics flee from the discussion of anything but what suits them.

Sincerely,

Dale

Good points, Dale.

We see it is very easy in religion and politics to make caricatures and then exploit the caricatures.

An example of this is Kerry vs Bush. Kerry was seen as the sumo-intellectual, and Bush as the dumb Southerner who couldn't pronounce "nuclear." Then, when Kerry's Yale transcripts finally came out this year, we find he scored one point LOWER than Bush!

So, it is easy to concentrate on one or two issues and miss the big picture. Amazing how so many attack the LDS religion this way (as on the BoA), yet they have no problem with the inherent issues residing in the Bible. They can believe in Adam and the Fall, Noah and the Flood, Moses and the Red Sea, Jesus and the resurrection - all of which have archaeological and scientific problems - but can immediately swoop down on unresolved issues with LDS scripture and think they have destroyed the whole thing.

We state that not all the facts are in yet, but look at the evidences supporting it. They harp on the missing/questionable issues, and ignore the evidence for it. Why don't they do the same with the Bible, if they are so sincere?

Amazing!

[Gordon]

Not so fast, Gordon. In your effort to explain the Book of Abraham, which is the title of this thread, would you please anwer my original question?

DO YOU BELIEVE THE MUMMY WAS A KING OF EGYPT?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

If Yes, Why?

My effort to explain the BoA lies with the knowledge that I received of the BoM being the word of G-d, and JS being the prophet through whom the Lord restored the Gospel. JS, as a prophet and mouthpiece of the Lord, and in good standing in the Lord's sight, stated that the BoA is a translation of the writings of Abraham.

Now, I'm not sure how whether the mummy was, or wasn't, a king of Egypt is relevant to what is contained in the BoA. I do understand, though, that the statement he made of the mummy being indeed so, goes to support, or attack, his credibility - for those seeking one or the other.

So, I will say that if JS claimed the mummy was a king of Egypt - as the Lord's mouthpiece and in good favor with him - and never stated that he had been wrong on that, then yes, I would say it was.

[Joseph Antley]

Exactly -- we don't have to prove with physical evidence the Book of Abraham. We have a firm testimony in the prophet Joseph Smith and if we are to believe in his prophetic mission, we believe he translated the Book of Abraham.

[Gordon]

Neither was the Lord lying to Joseph Smith because the Lord never said the fragments were an original autograph although you say he did. The Lord allowed Joseph to believe something that wasn

[Dale]

I would say we do have some physical evidence that supports the Book of Abraham. We have studies that point out item by item where Joseph Smith's explanations of the facimilies have some support from modern egyptology. With his facimile explanations of the three facimilies his spiritual impressions wern't any way close to innerant. The critics seem to only rebut the flaws but not seriously deal with LDS studies on the same facimilies.We also have much ancient apocryphal lore regarding Abraham that has been published in support of the Book of Abraham.

The difficulty I have with the facimilie explanations is being able to teach critics they come close to Egyptian understandings in some ways but not in others. So Joseph Smith is way off but not way off in some of his thinking.

The big debate has to do with whether the source was found in 1967 & does not have the name of Abraham on it. One Book of Abraham manuscript has Book of Breathings characters next to the english text. Ed Ashment believes they were contemporary with the translation. John Tvedtnes, Hugh Nibley, MIchael Rhodes & John Gee feel they were added later. If they are correct then this 1967 for the source isn't a valid argument.

This Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar & Book of Breathings source argument belief is a hard thing to explain. FAIR has been neglegent in not adding a few more articles that answer a few of the more important arguments behind this belief. Paul Osbourne feels the opposite missing papyrus idea is untrue. I think it sad that considering John Tvedtnes is doing a FAIR talk & has in the past felt the Book of Breathings might have been a memory aid, a catalyst for recieving revelation about Abraham for him not to clarify where he stands today. I am so confused about the various theories I have doubts about the neccessity of believing in the missing papyrus solution. But disputes about what part of the papyrus was used I am impressed about much pro-Book of Abraham evidences. I only side with the critics where I feel they are right & Joseph Smith wrong.

Joseph Smith was wrong about thinking the mummy was a king. It's not a horror of horrors for me to conclude Joseph Smith got little help via revelation, or direct corrections from God where he was wrong. Applying the Barean test to that item of inspiration he wasn't inspired on that item.(Acts 17:11) With the facimilies I apply the same test & see some inspiration but not innerant inspiration in expressing his ideas of the characters he saw. The items were used to teach unrelated concepts which were pinned onto normal funerary illustrations.

The Book of Breathings was used to try & create a failed grammar. I heard they have found what looks like real egyptian words on it. Was it used in translation> Opinions differ. Some feel it was an exampple of reverse engineering done some time after the translation was done. Others feel it was used in translation. FAIR will need to address this issue more fully iin the future.

I know I am probably confusing others but basically those are all the issues. The critics think if they have Joseph Smith possibly wrong on key issues he was wrong about the whole Book of Abraham. But they havn't established he was wrong all the way through. They only establish he was wrong in part of his ideas. The rest he has been proven quite close to the truth. I assume that those who feel the source might have been missing have their reasons. So the outside critics fail to convince everyone.

It's not ever been true that the Book of Abraham has fallen. If everybody viewed it among LDS scholars as only the speculative writing of Joseph Smith then it would be over for the Book of Abraham. I am Community of Christ which takes that speculative writing idea popularly. I myself hold a minority view after reading the critics case & remaining unconvinced. Although I see it as some speculative writing on his part. The critics ought to lighten up on the Book of Abraham & the Prophet Joseph Smith. The book is one of Joseph Smith's cooler prophetic writings.

Sincerely,

Dale

[ScriptureLover]

Dale,

I appreciate your ideas here. What I need to do with you after I finish up Sunstone is get with you, and have you put all your views, questions, etc. together, and I can produce the DVD's dealing with your issues. Then perhaps some things can begin to get clear, yes? That would make it far more effective to understand the issues anyway. It might even be quite fascinating to get together and do some interviews for some DVD's talking, and working out your bothersome areas! That might be also very effective to get the dialogue going yes?! I'm willing if you are..............the first lunch is on me (hotdogs, as in my DVD, what else were you expecting? ).................

[Paul Osborne]

Not so fast, Gordon. In your effort to explain the Book of Abraham, which is the title of this thread, would you please anwer my original question?

DO YOU BELIEVE THE MUMMY WAS A KING OF EGYPT?

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

If Yes, Why?

My effort to explain the BoA lies with the knowledge that I received of the BoM being the word of G-d, and JS being the prophet through whom the Lord restored the Gospel. JS, as a prophet and mouthpiece of the Lord, and in good standing in the Lord's sight, stated that the BoA is a translation of the writings of Abraham.

Now, I'm not sure how whether the mummy was, or wasn't, a king of Egypt is relevant to what is contained in the BoA. I do understand, though, that the statement he made of the mummy being indeed so, goes to support, or attack, his credibility - for those seeking one or the other.

So, I will say that if JS claimed the mummy was a king of Egypt - as the Lord's mouthpiece and in good favor with him - and never stated that he had been wrong on that, then yes, I would say it was.

Gordon,

I also have a testimony of the prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham is true

[Paul Osborne]

Neither was the Lord lying to Joseph Smith because the Lord never said the fragments were an original autograph although you say he did. The Lord allowed Joseph to believe something that wasn

[Paul Osborne]

By the way, why do you say that the Lord never said that the fragments were original writings of Abraham?

Because the Lord never said it. Show me where he did. Identify the fragments, utterences, and demonstrate the connection between them.

Paul O

[Gordon]

I

[Gordon]

Joseph Smith was mistaken...He thought they were original autographs of Abraham...He was wrong. That was his idea, not God

[Gordon]

Because the Lord never said it. Show me where he did. Identify the fragments, utterences, and demonstrate the connection between them.

Show you? Try reading the beginning of the BoA, where it clearly states just that.

Aren't the scriptures the word of the Lord? If it is stated in his scripture, then isn't that coming straight from his mouth??

Here we have statements of the Lord saying that the BoA is translated directly from the writings of Abraham, while, nowhere, does the Lord state otherwise, and yet you choose to believe the latter...strange.

[Paul Osborne]

Because the Lord never said it. Show me where he did. Identify the fragments, utterences, and demonstrate the connection between them.

Show you? Try reading the beginning of the BoA, where it clearly states just that.

Aren't the scriptures the word of the Lord? If it is stated in his scripture, then isn't that coming straight from his mouth??

Here we have statements of the Lord saying that the BoA is translated directly from the writings of Abraham, while, nowhere, does the Lord state otherwise, and yet you choose to believe the latter...strange.

Gordon,

I

[Paul Osborne]

Because the Lord never said it. Show me where he did. Identify the fragments, utterences, and demonstrate the connection between them.

Show you? Try reading the beginning of the BoA, where it clearly states just that.

Aren't the scriptures the word of the Lord? If it is stated in his scripture, then isn't that coming straight from his mouth??

Here we have statements of the Lord saying that the BoA is translated directly from the writings of Abraham, while, nowhere, does the Lord state otherwise, and yet you choose to believe the latter...strange.

"And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record" (Abraham 1:12)

Gordon, give me one good reason why I should believe this FRAGMENT is an original autograph of Abraham and contains the text of the BofA?

All you keep telling me is that the BofA is true, Joseph was a prophet, and God confirmed these things

[Paul Osborne]

I

[Paul Osborne]

Gordon,

It just depends on how you look at things. Isaac believed something that wasn

[Paul Osborne]

I can't see any other excuse for not helping me to see your point of view, but for the fact that you simply do not know what to say, and are afraid to admit such.

Gordon,

I

[ScriptureLover]

OH!!!!!!

I KNOW!!! I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Kerry desperately waving his hands about, jumping up and down in the back of the room for the professor's attention)..I KNOW THE NAME IN THE HIEROGLYPHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!