Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[_Themis]

Well, yes, Themis,
There is a long Egyptian tradition of liturgical & ritual texts found in Pyramids, on Coffins, and later in ordinary burials on papyri. The "Breathing Certificate" (Sensen) is part of that tradition.

You do have a knack of making assumptions of arguments one is not making.

That Breathing Certificate does contain three vignettes, and perhaps you will be willing to admit that we are in agreement that the Breathing Certificate is not the Book of Abraham Papyrus.

The breathing permit or BoB is the source of where the Book of Abraham is claimed to come from. We see the evidence very clearly with fac 1 being part of it, the Kep evidence also supports this. Experts like Rhodes tells us fac 3 would come at the end of the BoBhttp://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_3

I also agree that the anti-Mormons have always adopted the view that the Breathing Certificate is the Book of Abraham, "a very poor theory born of desperation."

While I don't know any anti-Mormons personally, they would be correct that it is apart of the BoB or Bpoh for reasons already stated many times in this thread.

Moreover, the anti-Mormons have virtually adopted the "catalyst" theory only so that they can denounce it.

Again I don't know any anti's, but this still makes no sense.

You say "many." Perhaps you could list those "many" for us. I haven't met anyone who actually accepts the "catalyst" theory.

I may be wrong, but I thought Don Bradley may be under that persuasion, but then he is not much of an apologists due to his wanting to do scholarly work. Here is an interesting thread
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56004-boa-reverse-translation/
Is that you in that thread. Apparently you have meet someone who does, but maybe you consider him to be an anti.

Since there was enough room on the original Breathing Certificate for the Book of Abraham, some anti-Mormons have in desperation claimed that there was not enough room available.

That is certainly not agreed on, and the evidence for it being very long is vague at best. I believe Chris smith and MM are doing some great work here, but then you probably think they are anti.

One "impression" which you get entirely wrong is the notion that the rituals described are "funerary." In fact,, the rituals in the long tradition leading up to documents like the Breathing Certificate were performed by the living in Egyptian temples. Egyptians prepared themselves for resurrection by enacting those rituals and by putting right principles into effect in their lives so that they could pass the final judgment and have eternal life.

Funerary is just a general term being used.

[Guest]

I see that you continue to fear actually responding to my paper, if you even bothered to read it . . . You clearly do not know that Jews lived in Egypt for thousands of years, nor that major documents such as the Septuagint (LXX) Greek version of the Bible were created by Jews in Egypt, nor that temples like Solomon's were built in Egypt (more than one), nor that we have a lion couch scene from Egypt which refers to Abraham. Since you do not understand the cross cultural nature of the civilizations we are discussing (or at least I am), you come at the issues not even able to spell "Semitic" correctly (semantic). How can you carry on a meaningful discussion when your instant anti-Mormon instinct tells you to deny anything and everything that a Mormon says -- even if it is true?

I have commented on some of your article, and said I don't find most very compelling for the Book of Abraham being an accurate translatuion. We both know we cannot discuss everythin in one thread, and certainly not in one post. Feel free to priovide one you think is good, and we can go from there.

Now I would remind you again(and it is getting tiring), you are making assumptions of arguments I am not making. I already said I am aware of cross cultural influences and don't have a problem with it, or Semitic people living in Egypt. It's not really relevant to the arguments I am making about the Book of Abraham. Thanks for the correction. I don't claim to be a great speller(especially since the spell checker I have is terrible), especially in a forum, but I see no need for the ad hominem. Maybe that is all you are left with since you still ignore what I have been arguing.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/23325-abraham-and-the-lion-couch/

If you are so interested in evidences, why don't you discuss them? I find that anti-Mormons do not discuss, and that (like a lynch mob) they are not interested in evidence.

Again I don't know any anti's, but then I have commented a number of times in this thread your unwillingness to discuss the evidences I have brought up about what experts say about the Book of Abraham and papyri.

So as long as Ritner is doing the "hit piece" that's all right with you
Yes, of course Ritner cribs from LDS translations. I don't mind that, but we ought to comment on it, and we ought to call attention to Ritner's failure to conduct himself like a gentleman (John A. Wilson and Klaus Baer did their work without being nasty and vicious).

We at least agree that your link was to a hit piece on Ritner. by the way I am not arguing that Ritner is not biased, but certainly not any more then say Gee, and probably a lot less. He could certainly be more diplomatic, but that is hardly a crime.

I guess you missed my point which is that the Book of Abraham is not the Breathing Certificate, even though it may be on the same papyrus. You also seem to have missed the point that the facsimiles are merely illustrations employed by late copyists to take the place of some earlier illustrations. Again, you do not seem to understand how gods and persons were cross-identified in the ancient world, probably because you were afraid to read my paper.

Sorry but you still ignore the fact we have fac 1 on the BoB, the Book of Abraham which mentions it is the beginning of the Book of Abraham record, and the Kep which shows hieroglyphs with certain passages of the Book of Abraham and that many of these hieroglyphs show up on the BoB fragments we do have. Try again. As to copyist, you show no evidence that this was done here, but simply assert. Feeel free again to provide one pice you think supports your agruments from your article, but I would also ask that you start to address what the experts have said about the issue

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

Three guys are now the one "main expert"? Changing your story.

Seriously? Please try and be civil and honest. It would make for a better discussion.

I cited standard Egyptology showing that the anti-Mormon claims are false. I knew that you would try to weasel out of coming to grips with that fact.

Must have missed it, or was it something not really relevant?

Do the math yourself, but be fair about it. My paper has plenty of meat in it to use for the basis of your stats.

I will take this as you don't know the math.

Again, when I show your approach to be false, you change the subject and throw in a non sequitur. Walters and Nelson show that counting and studying correct identifications is important -- because they exist. Walters was a friend of mine, even though he was an anti-Mormon, and he at least made an effort to be honest.

I was being honest, and responding to your post, so I hardly see how it is changing the subject, especially since I have responded to the core issues as I at least see them. This part of your post seemed to suggest some would look for available information that Joseph could have known. I made a joke because I see this as the right thing to do, and should be done before making claims of not being able to have known.

Again, the great fear you have of coming to grips with my paper is showing here. Even a first-grader knows that a teacher must grade fairly. You never quite got that message?

Obviously we can't go over the whole paper here, or even most of it all at once. I have responded to some of it, but feel free to start with one thing at a time. I would also ask you respond to the main issues here of Joseph getting it mostly wrong based on what the experts have said about there understanding of the facsimiles and the extant papyri. I think you have consistently avoided this.

[_Themis]

Robert,

Themis is of the attitude that there is nothing to this but smoke and mirrors.

Having read many apologetic articles over the years, I do see them employing smoke and mirrors as the main defense of LDS truth claims, but then you also don't agree with many of them. Feel free to make an argument, but then you have argued a catalyst type theory in the past.

He sees no connection between the ancient Egyptians and ancient Israel and does not believe Joseph Smith, with the help of God, could translate or reveal the original writings of Abraham.

I do see connections, but then it's not relevant to the issue, and I have no problem with Joseph, with the help of God, being able to translate the papyri. The problem is the evidence is massively against him getting an accurate translation of the papyri. Bob has still avoided this area where experts have commented on it.

[_Themis]

Bob,

I forgot to include this link which shows the catalyst theory as well
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri

I find it a bit bizarre that you would try to suggest critics as inventing it, especially when I caught you in a thread linked in an above post. I cannot help but think you are being dishonest here.

[_Molok]

I also agree that the anti-Mormons have always adopted the view that the Breathing Certificate is the Book of Abraham, "a very poor theory born of desperation."

No. The "anti Mormon" position is that Joseph Smith claimed the Breathing Certificate is the Book of Abraham, and that he was lying about that.

[_Themis]

No. The "anti Mormon" position is that Joseph Smith claimed the Breathing Certificate is the Book of Abraham, and that he was lying about that.

Also the position of critics, experts(except for some LDS ones), and even some members(As I have shown). For some of the believing members, I think they may not think Joseph was lying. Even some critics may think Joesph was just fooling himself as humans are known to do all to often. Experts have told us that fac 1 and 3 in the Book of Abraham are normal for the BoB, and when we rediscover some of the papyri we find fac 1 vintage on the BoB. Even the Book of Abraham text(abr 1:12) says the vintage of fac 1 is the start of the Book of Abraham record. We also see that Joseph and company put hieroglyphs from some of the fragments from the BoB on documents with corresponding text from the Book of Abraham. I have no idea why I should not except such good evidence for the claimed source of the Book of Abraham, especially when little to no evidence exists to say otherwise.

[_Robert F Smith]

Robert,

Themis is of the attitude that there is nothing to this but smoke and mirrors. He sees no connection between the ancient Egyptians and ancient Israel and does not believe Joseph Smith, with the help of God, could translate or reveal the original writings of Abraham. This is the common approach of the Mormon critic where they fail to see the relevance and importance of what is being discussed and revealed here.

I very much view the papyri as you do.

First, they were copies - not originals as the critics state Mormons must assume.

Second, how closely these copies reflected the original writings is of little import since we don't now possess the whole papyri. Because God revealed the Book of Abraham and translations, God would have been able to restore the original writings and meanings behind the original depictions Abraham made. I think you have pointed out how good Joseph Smith, with God's help, was able to do this. This is what Themis believes is the catalyst theory because he sees no connection between these copies and the originals instead of realizing they are copies and were susceptible to assimilation by the surrounding culture.

Taken together you have the critics view of the matter. They start by representing that Joseph Smith should have been perfect in his knowledge and understanding of these papyri instead of like most fallible human beings would have to figure it out with God's help. They often repeat non-sense arguments like Joseph Smith said they were literally written by Abraham and Joseph or they post a strawman argument such as Joseph Smith must have been given a comprehensive understanding of Egyptian Hierography inorder to translate and proceed to show that he possessed no such knowledge (even though everyone knows he claimed to translate only by the gift and power of God).

It has been my experience that the critics aren't interested in anything that undermines their operating premise that Joseph Smith was a fraud and couldn't translate anything with the help of God. It is really a failure of their own faith in God and unwillingness to seek the truth and speak with God to get a better understanding of the matter. As a result, they are dismissive of anything that indicates something extraordinary happened here and refuse to educate themselves about the matter.

Well stated, Tobin. Thanks.

[_Robert F Smith]

Well, yes, Themis,
There is a long Egyptian tradition of liturgical & ritual texts found in Pyramids, on Coffins, and later in ordinary burials on papyri. The "Breathing Certificate" (Sensen) is part of that tradition.

You do have a knack of making assumptions of arguments one is not making.

I can only go by what you actually say, and you spoke only of a funerary Book of the Dead tradition which is a common error among those who don't know Egyptology.

That Breathing Certificate does contain three vignettes, and perhaps you will be willing to admit that we are in agreement that the Breathing Certificate is not the Book of Abraham Papyrus.

The breathing permit or BoB is the source of where the Book of Abraham is claimed to come from. We see the evidence very clearly with fac 1 being part of it, the Kep evidence also supports this. Experts like Rhodes tells us fac 3 would come at the end of the BoBhttp://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_3

Once again you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth: You appear to make a pseudo-source out to be the real source so that you can then conveniently shoot it down. The problem which you do not face is that in ancient Egypt, more than one literary work was often placed on the same papyrus. You assume that the Breathing Certificate contained only one document, never imagining that when the Book of Abraham refers to an illustration at the beginning it is referring to an illustration accompanying a different work (the Breathing Certificate).

I also agree that the anti-Mormons have always adopted the view that the Breathing Certificate is the Book of Abraham, "a very poor theory born of desperation."

While I don't know any anti-Mormons personally, they would be correct that it is apart of the BoB or Bpoh for reasons already stated many times in this thread.

Repeatedly stating something is not evidence that it is so. Anyone can make a claim . Proving assertions is another matter, which you have not done.

Moreover, the anti-Mormons have virtually adopted the "catalyst" theory only so that they can denounce it.

Again I don't know any anti's, but this still makes no sense.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

You say "many." Perhaps you could list those "many" for us. I haven't met anyone who actually accepts the "catalyst" theory.

I may be wrong, but I thought Don Bradley may be under that persuasion, but then he is not much of an apologists due to his wanting to do scholarly work.

Bradley is a very smart young man (even though he has a grown son -- also very smart), and I have tremendous respect for his work. He takes these matters seriously. However, that is not the "many" you asserted.

Here is an interesting thread
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56004-boa-reverse-translation/
Is that you in that thread. Apparently you have meet someone who does, but maybe you consider him to be an anti.

You mean where I say "I know of no reason to posit absurd hypotheticals in which the Book of Mormon plates would not translate into the Book of Mormon more or less as we know it. Nor that the Book of Abraham papyrus would not contain the Book of Abraham. "
Not sure what you are suggesting here. Meeting someone in person is very different from meeting him online. Perhaps you could be more specific. My sentence on the Book of Abraham is merely tautologous.

Since there was enough room on the original Breathing Certificate for the Book of Abraham, some anti-Mormons have in desperation claimed that there was not enough room available.

That is certainly not agreed on, and the evidence for it being very long is vague at best. I believe Chris smith and MM are doing some great work here, but then you probably think they are anti.

Chris and I suppose MM (even though I haven't met him) are quite serious also, and don't go in for cheap tricks. However, they are wrong on their calculations on the length, as should become apparent to all soon.

One "impression" which you get entirely wrong is the notion that the rituals described are "funerary." In fact,, the rituals in the long tradition leading up to documents like the Breathing Certificate were performed by the living in Egyptian temples. Egyptians prepared themselves for resurrection by enacting those rituals and by putting right principles into effect in their lives so that they could pass the final judgment and have eternal life.

Funerary is just a general term being used.

True enough, but the misnamed "Book of the Dead" is from a very specific era, and does not (as once supposed) merely accompany the dead in the afterlife, but is a kind of "Book of Common Prayer" or liturgy for all Egyptians, who recited the various chapters or spells in this life. They hoped that, by identifying with resurrected god Osiris,they too might rise with the just to eternal life. Does that remind you of anything?

[_Themis]

I can only go by what you actually say, and you spoke only of a funerary Book of the Dead tradition which is a common error among those who don't know Egyptology.

I already stated that I used the word funerary in a general sense, and yes experts only see Egyptian funerary or religious documents in what we have. Again go by what I say.

Once again you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth: You appear to make a pseudo-source out to be the real source so that you can then conveniently shoot it down. The problem which you do not face is that in ancient Egypt, more than one literary work was often placed on the same papyrus. You assume that the Breathing Certificate contained only one document, never imagining that when the Book of Abraham refers to an illustration at the beginning it is referring to an illustration accompanying a different work (the Breathing Certificate).

Here we see you are guilty again of not reading what I say. I have already said I am aware of variations of Egyptian vintages or documents. I have no problem that Egyptians would create variations or have other material on the same or others rolls. I have argued that the roll we find the BoB on is the same role the Book of Abraham is claimed to be on, and I have shown evidence for which you have still avoided, not to mention the evidences regarding all three fac. We just don't see any evidence that there is an Abraham story anywhere on any of the fragments, and that Joseph got the fac wrong. Joseph wasn't even done with the Book of Abraham text, so given how much papyri you would need, it's a little more then surprising we would even get one scrap of it or about Joseph.

Repeatedly stating something is not evidence that it is so. Anyone can make a claim . Proving assertions is another matter, which you have not done.

We both know I did provide evidences for the source roll that the Book of Abraham is claimed to be on.

Bradley is a very smart young man (even though he has a grown son -- also very smart), and I have tremendous respect for his work. He takes these matters seriously. However, that is not the "many" you asserted.

I have already shown you to be wrong, and shown that you knew you were wrong.

You mean where I say "I know of no reason to posit absurd hypotheticals in which the Book of Mormon plates would not translate into the Book of Mormon more or less as we know it. Nor that the Book of Abraham papyrus would not contain the Book of Abraham. "
Not sure what you are suggesting here. Meeting someone in person is very different from meeting him online. Perhaps you could be more specific. My sentence on the Book of Abraham is merely tautologous.

Your post admits that meeting someone can be done either in person or online. The differences are not really relevant. You used the word meet without any qualifications you now want to add. I am satisfied that I have proven my point that the theory was not an invention of critics, and that some believing members do believe in that theory.

Chris and I suppose MM (even though I haven't met him) are quite serious also, and don't go in for cheap tricks. However, they are wrong on their calculations on the length, as should become apparent to all soon.

Time will tell.

True enough, but the misnamed "Book of the Dead" is from a very specific era, and does not (as once supposed) merely accompany the dead in the afterlife, but is a kind of "Book of Common Prayer" or liturgy for all Egyptians, who recited the various chapters or spells in this life. They hoped that, by identifying with resurrected god Osiris,they too might rise with the just to eternal life. Does that remind you of anything?

There are lots of resurrected Gods. It's a common story. Resurrection and reincarnation are common religious ideas in many religions ancient and modern.

by the way still waiting for you to respond about why Egyptologists are wrong in their understandings of the fac, especially fac 3. Why is Hor even in this fac if it is supposed to be Abraham in Egypt teaching astronomy?

[_SteelHead]

That is one of my contentions also. What Robert sees as definitive hits via parallels I see as almost universal commonalities in a variety of religions.

The bird as a spirit or HG in the facsimiles...... Meh, birds have been seen as potent, omens, or spirits in so many religions as to be meaningless. So for fac 1 ...meh...., and it probably wan't even present in fac 2.



vs



The resurrection themes, again common.

The 4 gods, well a partial hit (but common with other uses of 4 corners of the earth by Joseph Smith), but the names of the gods are all wrong.

Scarab beetles: http://www.insects.org/ced1/beetles_rel_sym.html

But the mis-identification (and quite often mis identification of gender which seems pretty obvious) of every single human, demigod, or other humanoid figure in the facsimiles seems pretty condemning. Min with his phallus............. Is actually the ever virile Elohim?