HiJolly Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kerry, is that you, posting as ScriptureLover? I luv my shirts! And I like your upcoming article/speech on King P and Prince P, et al. Although, I'm not so hard-core that I really got into it personally. HiJolly
Pahoran Posted July 26, 2005 Posted July 26, 2005 Jon Haugo wrote:First, I believe that this whole scenario fits a pattern of JS being a fraud. I think that when we weigh the evidence that there is a logical direction that it leads. Anyone who is impartial will come to that conclusion.To the contrary, that conclusion is entirely unavailable to "anyone who is impartial." The fact is that "anyone who is impartial" will realise that a great many conclusions are possible.The "fraud" conclusion is incontrovertible evidence of the partiality of the one reaching it.Edgar wrote:I believe the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham hinges on whether or not Joseph thought and taught the characters and facsimiles were written by the hand of Abraham and survived until the 1830s without being recopied by the hand of anyone else. The heading of the Book of Abraham indicates "The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. See History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 235, 236, 348-351"The poor fellow is entirely unaware of the fact that the phrase he so gleefully emphasises, presumably following Charlie "it's all over" Larson, is simply part of the title of the work. That is, the above excerpt ought to be rendered as:"The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called The Book of Abraham, Written By His Own Hand, Upon Papyrus."I recently purchased a book written by J. K. Rowling. She is its author, and thus, the ancient Egyptians would say that it was "written by her own hand." However, it happens that she has never touched or laid eyes upon my copy of Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince. A bunch of big machines printed (copied) it, along with millions of others. But my copy, just like all the others, is her work; she is its sole author.Just as Abraham is with his book.Now it happens that JKR has a website where she entertains questions about her books. On these, she is the sole authority, and her opinions are the "facts" of the matter.By contrast, it is entirely possible for Joseph to have been wrong about some aspect of the Book of Abraham, because he was not the author. He does not "own" the story; the document predates him, it has priority over his opinions about it, and can (and should) be studied independently of what he had to say about it.A number of people have mentioned the work of John Tvednes. I should point out that he no longer holds to the "mnemonic device" theory. But it may be worthwhile to consider why he came up with it in the first place. In examining some of the KEP's, he noticed something intriguing: in the columnar papers assumed by some to be a "translation in progress," the Egyptian characters are always grouped together in whole words--they are never broken up. Furthermore, in each case he was able to find embedded in the English text a valid translation of either the actual Egyptian word or its Hebrew phonetic equivalent.A fact that is incompatible with the conclusion that Jon thinks "anyone who is impartial" will reach.Regards,Pahoran
Paul Osborne Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give me the name of the king and I
will2believe Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 The poor fellow is entirely unaware of the fact that the phrase he so gleefully emphasises, presumably following Charlie "it's all over" Larson, is simply part of the title of the work. That is, the above excerpt ought to be rendered as:"The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called The Book of Abraham, Written By His Own Hand, Upon Papyrus." Pahoran, Hugh Nibley makes the same claim, but I have never been able to find any support for it. Maybe you can help me out here. Thanks in advance.
Gordon Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 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? Because the Lord said it was...how is this not good enough for you? Do you not have a witness of him by the power of the HG?...but you haven
Paul Osborne Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 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? Because the Lord said it was...how is this not good enough for you? Do you not have a witness of him by the power of the HG?Gordon,Please demonstrate a connection showing that these two figures are actually the king and price of Egypt. Don
Paul Osborne Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Gordon,Is this a man or a woman? I say it is a woman. Will you try and convince me that this person is really a man just because Joseph Smith said it is? It's a woman, Gordon - and I can back that up with facts and will do so if you insist that it's a man. Paul O
Paul Osborne Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Gordon,Do you want me to believe that the person drawn in this picture is really a slave? I believe it it Anubis, one of the mighty gods of ancient Egypt. I don't believe for one second that Abraham drew this figure and labled him a slave. Had he done that the king of Egypt would have likely put Abraham to death.You have some explaining to do.Paul O
Gordon Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 ...my case is based on reason, facts, and evidence. And this is how the Lord works...?I just can't think of a good reason why I should think the mummy was a king.A prophet of G-d isn't a good reason enough for you? Give a good reason why you think it wasn't....we are left to wonder if revelation played a part in identifying who the mummies were in ancient times.No we're not, unless you don't believe what the HG witnesses to you. Are we also left to wonder about the Plates of Brass?? We can't examine them either... Although none of the mummies are presently known to exist, assuming they were destroyed in the Chicago fire, we have no professional testimony to lead us to believe they were of a royal family.Professional testimony!? Why are you seeking for signs?Egyptologists have determined that they are the same age as the papyrus they bore upon their persons.How?This occurred closer to the Christian era, not in the famed Dynasties that get all the attention.So. Are you telling me that there were royalty closer to the Christian era?Why should we suppose the mummies were more ancient than the period dated by Egyptologists?How did they date them, if they didn't have access to them?One would expect a professional evaluation performed by experts in the 1800's to determine if the mummy was a king of Egypt. Why, if they thought JS was a fraud in the first place?The mummies in question had to have been from the Roman era and the papyri they bore was definitely made in Roman times. This is positively confirmed by specialists of our day.How?Evidence from several witnesses attests that the LDS church officially claimed the mummies were much older than we are wont to believe. Who, exactly, believes different from the early saints?Where are the royal insignia and documents to certify a king of Egypt was brought forth out of a royal tomb?You're assuming that the tomb was discovered and treated in the same manner in which one found today would be treated. It could have been dug up hundreds of years ago, by those who would not have taken the same care of it as would be expected. Or, the mummy might not have been buried in the traditional manner that you would expect from royalty. There are just as many reasons to why, as to why not.There is no credible evidence to suggest there was a king in the Mormon collection.As there is none of the plates...why does this concern you?Admittedly the saints including the prophet Joseph Smith were wrong about the mummiesAdmitted by whom?But this doesn't take away from the inspiration the prophet received in receiving the Book of Abraham...Of course it would! It would show that the revelation and inspiration was all wrong, and that JS was a fraud - which he isn't.
Paul Osborne Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Although Joseph Smith thought the text of this papyri contained the actual story of the BofA, again, he was wrong.Again, how?You have some explaining to do.No, that would be you.Gordon,I'm unable to read anything in these characters that pertain to the BofA. It appears that the writing that flanks the Facsimile are not the BofA at all. It's just not there, Gordon. Do you still want me to believe it is? Can you read the text? If not, do you know anyone other than me that can read the text?
Paul Osborne Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Gordon,Joseph Smith told his colleagues that the figure to the left was Jacob, the mighty patriarch, Israel. This was the testimony given to the press. Do you want me to believe this is actually Jacob? What do we do with the lovely hips? I never would have imagined that Jacob would have looked and dressed like a woman. Do you want me to drop all reason and intertain insanity just because you say that a prophet cannot be wrong? I won't do that. I need to sleep at night.Paul O
Paul Osborne Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 A prophet of G-d isn't a good reason enough for you? Give a good reason why you think it wasn't.When a prophet is wrong, a prophet is wrong. It
Paul Osborne Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 No, G-d wouldn't let a prophet be wrong WHILE receiving revelation from the HG.What about Isaac? Are you saying he didn't have the Holy Ghost when he blessed Jacob?Paul O
Gordon Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 You are getting off track and allowing your emotions to take over. Yes, because you keep insulting me.Just stick to the facts and quit warning me about my salvation being in jeopardy. As of my posting of that, you really hadn't given much in the way of facts that I could respond to, but rather gave me the run around, and stating how much I didn't understand. Also, I warned that your apparent attitude leads down a path that we should stay away from.But you will have to sort through the facts and leave off with the irrelevant self-righteous drivel, moreover the personal judgments of my character.Which is what I had been waiting for you to give me...some facts. If you want me to stop making comments on your character, then stop putting me down.I
Paul Osborne Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 What is the name, Gordon?The only think I will stand behind, is the fact that the BoA was translated from the writings of Abraham - the mummy is not of much consequence to me (I have already stated this). There is no king's name above the hand. Will you admit that? Don't just skip over it. I won't let you do that. I want you to tell me why Joseph Smith said there was a king's name above the head of the figure he said was a king. I insist that the name is not that of a king and neither is the mummy a king. Deal with the facts.Paul O
Paul Osborne Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 You are getting off track and allowing your emotions to take over. Yes, because you keep insulting me.Just stick to the facts and quit warning me about my salvation being in jeopardy. Stop being so emotional, please. You haven
Gordon Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 He seems to feel that the canonized BofA contained in our Pearl of Great Price was translated from the actual writings of Abraham and if that is true he should be able to produce the name from an expert witness who READS Egyptian. We will have to test the credibility of those involved in this argument by the handling of the facts in the face of reason. Are you serious!? How do you come up with these statements? When have I tried to state that I could produce, decipher, or read Egyptian anything!? Here, again, are statements made by you, that are incorrect, and meant to belittle...The Lord, prophet, and scripture state the BoA is translated from the writings of Abraham...how can I be any more clear on this? I have no intentions of translating anything, or suggesting that I can do so.
Joseph Antley Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 A prophet of G-d isn't a good reason enough for you? Give a good reason why you think it wasn't.When a prophet is wrong, a prophet is wrong. It
Gordon Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Please demonstrate a connection showing that these two figures are actually the king and price of Egypt. Again, why do I need to? You, apparently, are the one who is struggling with the issue, so you need to show that they do not.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.