Explain the Book of Abraham

[Paul Osborne]

I do not believe these are the writings of Abraham:

Who said they were writings of Abraham?

And why do you not believe this?

I don

[Paul Osborne]

And why do you not believe this?

Further, I do not believe that these writings have anything to do with the BofA, nor did Abraham write them, and he never held this papyrus in his hands.

Do you believe they are the writings of Abraham?

Why do you not believe this? Which papyrus are you refering to, in which Abraham held?

The Facsimiles were NOT a product of Abraham's hand. They were produced during Roman times. All of the papyrus had by the church today was not produced by Abraham and doesn't have any reference to Abraham or his story.

Gordon, do you believe that Abraham set his pen to this papyrus?

Paul O

[SlackTime]

Say Paul,

I don't know about Gordon, but I don't think Abraham ever had these scrolls in his possession. Of course I also don't think Isaiah ever had any of the manuscripts used in our Bibles in his possession either. And I'm positive that Christ never proof-read any of the Gospels.

If the papyrus scrolls actually contained the Book of Abraham (if the scrolls were not simply catalyst for the revelations now known as the Book of Abraham) then I expect that the scrolls were copies of copies owned by some late dynasty Egyptian that came to the Prophet Joseph. I really don't see why Abraham never setting pen to this particular piece of papyrus makes any difference. Should I throw out every book I own that the author never set pen to? If I did it would be every book in my library!

-Ed

[Paul Osborne]

Is this a man or a woman? I expect an answer, Gordon. You are the one that claims everything he said by the Holy Ghost was true and accurate. So, stand up to the plate and answer the question. If you can't do that, then I will assume you resign from the argument.

OK, from what I understand, JS did not translate the facsimile that you are using in its current form, and is not found in the BoA, hence not pertinent. If I'm wrong, then I'll have to look in to it. Second, if your basing your arguement upon what the figure looks like, then I must say it is rather weak.

Perhaps this will help, Gordon:

Times and Seasons

"Truth will prevail"

Vol. III. No. 14.] CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. MAY 16, 1842 [Whole No. 50

A FAC-SIMILE FROM THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM.

NO. 3.

EXPLANATION OF CUT ON FIRST PAGE

1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king; with a crown upon his head, representing the priesthood; as emblematical of the grand presidency in heaven; with the sceptre [scepter] of justice, and judgment in his hand.

2. King Pharaoh; whose name is given in the characters above his head.

3. Signifies Abraham, in Egypt; referring to Abraham, as given in the 9th No. of the Times and Seasons.

4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt; as written above the hand.

5. Shulem; one of the kings principal waiters; as represented by the characters above his hand.

6. Olimlah; a slave belonging to the prince.

Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of astronomy, in the kings Court.

[Paul Osborne]

The explanations Joseph Smith gave of the facimilies are wrong. Every person who offers a translation admits he didn't know what their literal meaning was. So in order for Egyptological support we have to do comparisions based on a deeper study that points out similarities. But there's no direct evidence he knew the literal meanings.

Dale,

Gordon is the first person I've encountered who takes the position he maintains in light of modern Egyptology. I'd like to see him back his position up with BYU scholars or current church leaders. As LDS, we follow a current prophet and move with the times. The early LDS members had some misunderstandings and these are rapidly being cleared up today. I wonder if Gordon is familiar with articles that have been published in the church periodical: Ensign.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Row 1: i.nTr.i sDrw m sp

Row 2: tpii nTr.i aA nbt pt tA

Row 3: dwAt mw.f aA

Row 4: ti anx bA Wsir SAs(nq)

"O God of those who sleep in death from the beginning of time. The great God, Lord of heaven, earth, the netherworld, and the great seas. Lo, the soul of Osiris Shoshenq will live."

OK.

First, did JS translate this actual facsimile, in the current form in which you show? Second, it speaks of the G-d Osiris, which we know does not exist, so it proves itself to be false.

EXPLANATION

Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.

Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.

Fig. 10. Also.

Fig. 11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen

I believe the Explanations given by Joseph Smith only from a spiritual point of view when he uses the Urim & Thummim. I'm not sure what the numbers are in Fig. 11. Let the world make of it what they will.

The church doesn't teach that the above Explanations are a literal translation of Facsimile No. 2. The Egyptian scribe who wrote these things upon the original Hypocephalus would not agree with Joseph Smith.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Paul: 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.

cdowis: please give us the source of this statement.

Paul: (gives a link to the following) Here is the report given by Reverend Caswall; City of the Mormons; 1843):

"Look down this way. This figure near the side is Jacob, and those are his two wives."

cdowis:  Rev Caswell is a very unreliable source of  information.

Rev Caswell is an eyewitness offering testimony that is consistent with the type of interpretations given by the prophet Joseph Smith. There isn

[Paul Osborne]

Paul, where are the answers to the mystery surrounding the last characters that are not decifier on the 2nd Facsimile?

You will need to be specific. I'm not sure what you are driving at.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

How can you deal with the facts?

WHAT FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN ME ANY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you refuse to accept the fact that the Egyptian language has been deciphered, then we just can't talk further.

Of course the Egptian language can be deciphered, I never said it couldn't! The whole problem lies with the fact that you choose to believe in fascimiles that JS did not translate from, that have been found to say things other than what JS stated them to be, and what they actually say we both know is FALSE!!!!!! THERE ARE NO G-DS OSIRIS & ANUBUS!!! THEY DON'T EXIST!!!!!!!!! So, whatever is found to be on the facsimiles that have Egyptian funeral text on them are incorrect. How you use them to prove the translation JS made of Abraham - someone almost the whole world accepts was a prophet that did indeed exist, and whom you and I know did so - to be wrong amazes me. You, nor I, or any person that is known to exist has posession of the actual facsimiles that JS translated from - there are your 'FACTS'!

HERE ARE SOME FACTS:

The BofA is not on these facts. Abraham didn't draw these facts. You are mistaken in thinking we don't have any of the actual Facsimiles. How can I help you when you keep biting the hand that feeds you? How would you draw a picture of Tinkerbelle and tell a story from Disney? Do they exist?

Paul O

[SlackTime]

Is it just me, or did anybody else have trouble following this

BTW Paul, Osiris (Sitting in the throne) looks kinda female to me (rounded hip, accentuatedly thin waist) especially when contrasted with the other two men (Horus and Anubis)

-Ed

[Paul Osborne]

Is it just me, or did anybody else have trouble following this

BTW Paul, Osiris (Sitting in the throne) looks kinda female to me (rounded hip, accentuatedly thin waist) especially when contrasted with the other two men (Horus and Anubis)

-Ed

Slack,

Osiris was king of the dead and maintained a mummified form in iconographic images. The canon of Egyptian art showed a figure in mummified form having a robe resembling mummy wrappings and the linkage of this legs and feet were close. As such - call him mummy man! How would you look if you were dressed as a mummy sittying on a throne?

Paul O

[USU78]

{snip}

{snip} Ma'at . . . literally ruled everything. She was . . . "Truth" or "Order." For the Egyptian believed that the universe was above everything else an ordered and rational place. It functioned with predictability and regularity; the cycles of the universe always remained constant; in the moral sphere, purity was rewarded and sin was punished. Both morally and physically, the universe was in perfect balance.

The Egyptian word for this balance was the Egyptian word for "truth," ma'at; this is perhaps the single most important aspect of Egyptian culture that you can learn. For once you really understand this concept, the whole of Egyptian culture begins to make sense. The order of the universe (ma'at ) functioned with unswerving accuracy; it was maintained by the goddess Ma'at. This meant that the concept of "truth" meant for the Egyptian the the rational and orderly working of the universe rather than its diverse phenomena. The Egyptian, then, believed that he or she understood how the universe operated; all phenomena could be explained by an appeal to this understanding of the rationality of the universe.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough how important this concept of ma'at is to subsequent history. This idea that the universe is rational and that the "truth" of the universe is the underlying rationality and order of the universe rather than its diverse phenomena, passed from the Egyptians to the Greeks. The Greeks called the underlying order of the universe, logos, or "meaning," "order," "pattern."

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/EGYPT/MAAT.HTM

Why cannot "Truth" or "Order" or maybe, "He in Whom is Truth," or maybe, "He Who Maintains the World in Order" be kennings for Pharaoh, the god-king, and his heir?

It is not at all unusual in ancient texts, in fact quite common as the Iliad attests, for the god or goddess to take on the person speaking on his or her behalf. Athena, for example, takes on the person of an advisor of Agammemnon who speaks Wisdom to the high king. Should we be surprised that a similar thing occur in Egypt in Christian times?

[cdowis]

>Rev Caswell is an eyewitness offering testimony that is consistent with the type of interpretations given by the prophet Joseph Smith. There isn

[Gordon]

Paul -

OK, I will try to explain, to the best that I can, everything that I understand regarding the BoA. As I stated earlier, I do not know everything that pertains to the subject, and not as much as you on this topic. I appreciate the time you have taken to converse, and I would like to get away from a hostile discussion - as you, yourself, have stated.

I will ask you some specific questions, and I hope you will only answer - if you have one - and not make any remarks of how I should already know it (or something to that affect).

From what I understand, JS purchased some papyrus, facsimiles, and mummies, which came to him. I do not know what he had heard about them prior, or what rumors where about - that can only be speculated without proof, so it cannot be used as fact, or as support of a specific stance (in my view, anyway). Through revelation, by the HG, he learned - and stated - that the papyrus contained the writings of Abraham, which he wrote while in Egypt, and that the mummies were royal, and one had been a king of Egypt. From them, he translated the papyrus which is now given to the world as the BoA. He also translated from the facsimiles - which I'm not sure if he stated were made by the hand of Abraham or not. We have the full translation he made of I, and parts of II and III.

Now, we don't know where the papyrus that JS actually translated from went, nor the facsimiles. Some suggest that they burned in the Chicago fire - which I don't know why they would have been there in the first place. Anyway, many years after JS translated them, they supposedly showed up in a museum - yet I haven't heard how they got there, or by whom, and where they had been prior. The actual papyrus that JS translated from was not among the finds - which is convenient for critics, because then we would be able to correctly translate what he had translated to see if they were the same, but that is not possible. What was there, were copies of facsimiles, and papyrus that JS did not translate from. These 'found' papyrus did not even have the same appearance to the papyrus JS translated, as he described them to be (the beautiful red and blue lettering). On the back of one of them, a map of Kirtland was drawn - which, I guess, is supposed to 'prove' they came from Kirtland....? How that proves anything, is beyond me? Also, facsimile #1 - or the copy of it - was torn at all the places that were different from the translation that JS made compared to the ones that have been found to contain Egyptian funeral text - also convenient. This somehow 'proves' JS simply added to those missing parts what he thought should go there. However, there is absolutely no proof, that this was the facsimile that JS translated from. This whole thing reminds me of the lost 116 pages...

Now, as to the other two facsimiles - namely the third, which you appear to have the most difficulty with. JS states that the figure who is seated is Abraham, and that the figure behind him is Pahraoh, with his name written above the head. You asked me what that name was, and I cannot answer, since I do not read Egyptian - nor have I studied what it reads. This, is where I will ask you: what does it read? JS also states that the figure in front of him is the prince of Pharaoh - a male (which you obviously disagree with). You asked whether or not I thought it was a male or female, well, I say it is male. JS states that the name is written above his hand - to which you also asked me to give. Again, I cannot, so tell me, please, what does it say?

Apparently, you have a hard time with this, because you feel the figure looks like a female - fair enough. Now, let me give you my take: do we know how old the prince is supposed to be? Could he be in his very early teens? If so, then he would not have gone through puberty yet, and would still have carried feminine features, which I would assume Egyptians would portray, as today's society would also portray him as such. I see him wearing the same clothing that the seated figure is wearing, and the seated figure clearly looks to be portrayed as a man. If you are referencing the supposed hips that the prince appears to have, I will point out that his feet are pointed towards the seated figure, while he is facing the opposite way. This would cause his body to be contorted, which I would think would be portrayed, making his mid-section to appear abnormal - or as you might view, to have hips.

As to the servant and the slave, tell me, why do you say they are not as JS claims? Is there something written above in facsimile III - found in the BoA - that suggests otherwise?

As to some of the other comments made by you, and other posters, regarding statements made by Church authorities, I must say that this does not matter to me. As you have stated, they are not perfect, and immune to being wrong. Nowhere has any statement been made as for it to be considered doctrine, nor have they been canonized, so, in my view, they are personal opinions. I will give an example: BY made some statements about the Adam-G-d theory, which latter prophets and apostles have disagreed with - namely JFS, and BRM. However, I feel they are made from opinion, rather than knowledge - or they actually might now the truth, but are trying to move away from it. I feel that some of their statements on this are false, and I disagree with them. I feel that BY knew something, which he was given a knowledge of, spoke to soon, and then realized it wasn't meant for the world (as he once stated, he felt one of his regrets was to speak about things before thinking). There are examples of the Lord giving a prophet truth, and then taking it away from the people (see the higher law given to Moses), and truth given with the command for it not to be revealed. Anyway, I feel that latter authorities try to repair damage - which I feel they don't need to. This I relate to any statements made to suggest that what JS stated was not actually the truth. If this is so, then why is the statement that what JS translated from was actually written by Abraham, himself, still canonized?

As to your comparison to the Hoffman forgeries, I ask: Did any church leader - involved - actually claim - at any time - that they were real?? Did they give any reason of their offer to purchase them that would suggest they thought they were real? As I see it, they were merely attempting to purchase something negative, to get it off the streets before it harmed anyone.

Finally, to the example of Isaac, which I will try again to show that it isn't the same as you suggest in your comparison to JS. Isaac had the constant company of the HG - which you and I have. That doesn't mean the HG is always revealing truth, or giving revelation. Isaac was fooled into thinking Jacob was Esau, and it was not by the HG. I understand how blessings are given today, and I would also assume that it would be the same then. However, the scriptures never state that Isaac called Jacob Esau after laying his hands on his head, nor closed in the name of Esau. As I pointed out, how the Lord blesses, is not dependant upon the one giving the blessing. I would assume - and there aren't any statements to contradict this - that the HG only flowed through Isaac while he gave the actual blessing. While Isaac gave it to Esau, the Lord gave it to Jacob.

This is different from the case of JS. JS stated something that is given as scripture, which could only have been stated through the power of the HG when that statement was actually being said. The two are clearly not the same. As to what I was trying to say earlier - which I wasn't clear enough on, is that for your examples to match, Isaac would have had to believe he was giving a blessing - any blessing, whether to Jacob or Isaac - when in actuality, he was not giving a blessing at all. This would have had to have been the case, for you to be able to compare it to JS believing he was translating autographed papyrus from Abraham, when he actually wasn't.

[Gordon]

Paul -

I forgot to add something. I believe the age of the papyrus JS translated from are exactly as he states. I do not see this as ignoring facts, as you suggest, because I do not believe that the documents which you are going off of are the originals. I believe they are as old as you claim, but I do not believe they are the ones JS translated from, and there is no actual evidence to show that they are.

[cdowis]

Gordon,

>I believe the age of the papyrus JS translated from are exactly as he states.

Do not confuse the writen text with the papyrus. JS never stated that this papyrus was actually written Abraham himself, but he merely recognized the text coming from ("by the hand of") Abraham.

>As to your comparison to the Hoffman forgeries, I ask: Did any church leader - involved - actually claim - at any time - that they were real?? Did they give any reason of their offer to purchase them that would suggest they thought they were real?

The church gave these manuscripts to experts who (mistakenly) authenticated them. Hoffman used very sophisticated techniques to fool even the experts. The church leaders were relying upon the opinions of those experts.

The government had more sophisticated techniques which then proved that the manuscripts were forgeries.

The aunties then criticize the church leaders because of this. They simply do not understand the role of the prophet. The Lord is not obliged to hold our hand in every matter. We are expected to work these things out for ourselves. Of course, this concept is beyond the comprehension of a certain group of individuals.

[Joseph Antley]

Which is something often overlooked. The Joseph Smith Papyri were not the originals, as in the originals that Abraham wrote on with his own hand. If I remember correctly, the Joseph Smith Papyri belonged to one Egyptian called Hor.

[Dale]

If I am right I understand the papyrus dates to the time of Christ. If there was a literal writing of Abraham on it it would be pretty unusual. It's possible but it would have to be a pretty unique use of funeral papyri to also preserve a writing of Abraham. More likely it was typical funeral papyri used as a catalyst to recieve a revelation of an old writing of Abraham.

The Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar use & date of production has been disputed. But nothing from a lost papyrus mentioning Abraham, or from this lost papyrus was ever used to create the Kirtland papers. The item they found useful in creating the documents was found in 1967. I really feel those LDS apologists who feel the source wasn't found in 1967 have an uphill battle trying to explain why the scribes were disinterested in the proposed actual source of the Book of Abraham. I am not sure why they would it defies common sense to create a grammar using the wrong source. Surely they saw Joseph Smith pointing to the surce & should have known which source Joseph Smith used while translating. Does this idea of the scribes were just trying to match up the wrong characters with the english text of the Book of Abraham work?

We have multiple scribes who witnessed Joseph translating copy Book of Breathings characters next to the english text of the Book of Abraham. Plus they labored for hours on creating a grammar using the source that Joseph Smith didn't use as his source for the Book of Abraham.

I could be wrong & there could be some reason behind the missing papyrus idea. People ought to ask FAIR to address these issues as quickly as possible. My question is are the pro-Book of Abraham missing papyrus talking points as useless as tits on a male pig. The babies are starving for food & they find no milk.

Other than my complaints about the missing papyrus arguments I am mostly satisfied with pro-Book of Abraham scholarship. I like the Book of Abraham. I just don't like apologetics answers that are so weak I immediately have doubts & questions about them.

Sincerely,

Dale

[Gordon]

Do not confuse the writen text with the papyrus. JS never stated that this papyrus was actually written Abraham himself, but he merely recognized the text coming from ("by the hand of") Abraham.

So, what you're saying, is that the papyrus that JS translated from were copies of the original that Abraham, himself, wrote upon?

Let me ask, did JS actually state this? Or are you merely coming up with an explanation to fit the pieces that don't make sense to you?

This would make an arguement different from the one I stand behind, and the one Paul does - only one can be right. I choose to go with what the prophet stated, and to my knowledge he stated that the one he translated was from the original one that Abraham wrote upon. I do not recall him only referencing the 'words', and not the text they were on, as Abraham's.

The church gave these manuscripts to experts who (mistakenly) authenticated them.  Hoffman used very sophisticated techniques to fool even the experts.  The church leaders were relying upon the opinions of those experts.

I do not know all the details about the Hoffman forgeries, so that is why I am asking questions.

As I asked before, did any church authority involved actually state they were real - even after the experts had said they were? Also, did any of them actually offer to buy them, or is it just assumed?

[Gordon]

The Joseph Smith Papyri were not the originals, as in the originals that Abraham wrote on with his own hand.

And do you have proof of this?

[Gordon]

Other than my complaints about the missing papyrus arguments I am mostly satisfied with pro-Book of Abraham scholarship. I like the Book of Abraham. I just don't like apologetics answers that are so weak I immediately have doubts & questions about them.

Dale -

Here's the problem I have: as I stated, the copies we currently have date much later than Abraham's time, but there is no proof that they are the ones JS translated from.

You say that this arguement is weak, but it's not. Just as in a court of law, one is innocent until proven guilty. You must PROVE that these documents are the ones JS used, and until then, YOUR arguement is weak. As I have asked, and not received an answer to, where did the documents that we have come from? Who brought them forth? Where were they all that time? No answers? - that's my point.

The item they found useful in creating the documents was found in 1967. I really feel those LDS apologists who feel the source wasn't found in 1967 have an uphill battle trying to explain why the scribes were disinterested in the proposed actual source of the Book of Abraham.

What document, and where did it come from? Besides, how would the scribes have known if it was the original or not?

We have multiple scribes who witnessed Joseph translating copy Book of Breathings characters next to the english text of the Book of Abraham.

We do? What where their names? What did they say? Did JS ever mention them being there?

[Paul Osborne]

It is not at all unusual in ancient texts, in fact quite common as the Iliad attests, for the god or goddess to take on the person speaking on his or her behalf. Athena, for example, takes on the person of an advisor of Agammemnon who speaks Wisdom to the high king. Should we be surprised that a similar thing occur in Egypt in Christian times?

It

[Guest Chaz]

Interesting. I just came on here to post something like this.

I still haven't seen aybody write away how incorrect the fascimmilies were.

[cdowis]

>We have multiple scribes who witnessed Joseph translating copy Book of Breathings characters next to the english text of the Book of Abraham. Plus they labored for hours on creating a grammar using the source that Joseph Smith didn't use as his source for the Book of Abraham.

John Tvedtnes has given an explanation of this in his mneumonic theory of the translation of the BOA. It is an alternative to the "missing papyrus" theory and makes it unnecessary (as I understand it).

[cdowis]

So, what you're saying, is that the papyrus that JS translated from were copies of the original that Abraham, himself, wrote upon?

Let me ask, did JS actually state this? Or are you merely coming up with an explanation to fit the pieces that don't make sense to you?

This would make an arguement different from the one I stand behind, and the one Paul does - only one can be right. I choose to go with what the prophet stated, and to my knowledge he stated that the one he translated was from the original one that Abraham wrote upon.

1. The papyrus were made centuries after the death of Abraham.

2. Your memory is flawed. Look it up, please.

JS recognized the writings of Abraham, but he did not say that papyrus contained the actual autographic writing of Abraham. You (along with many others, including myself) assumed that he said that.

Read carefully what he **actually** said. Just to help you, I have a copy of the BOA in printed form. In that book, it says "Written by the hand of Abraham". Obviously it was not written by him, but printed on a printing press.