Throwing Joseph Smith under the bus...

[_Hades]

So glad that bcspace has conceded that Joseph's word is in no way reliable.

So, don't take Joseph's word at face value. Bcspace does give good advice at times.

[_bcspace]

I don't think Buffalo or Hades know what the words are.

[_Buffalo]

I don't think Buffalo or Hades know what the words are.

I think we don't accept that ordinary statements made by Joseph Smith can be, with integrity, twisted around to mean something totally out of step with the words he used. It's amazing how apologists have turned every other statement from Joseph Smith into a code that in no way relates to the actual words he used.

[_bcspace]

There are more than two plausible explainations. The one I happened to put forward has an analog found in the JST. We don't have the orignial text, yet Joseph Smith restored the original meaning or words in the JST. Another plausible explaination is that Joseph Smith simply and plausibly assumed the papyri were the ones Abraham literally wrote on and that inspired his revelation. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that this particular bit of information came by revelation or that Joseph Smith claimed it did.

So what we are left with in regards to this issue is only one plausible explaination against the Book of Abraham and several others for the Book of Abraham. So to make an argument based on the one against without acknowledging the ones for is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

[_Buffalo]

There are more than two plausible explainations. The one I happened to put forward has an analog found in the JST. We don't have the orignial text, yet Joseph Smith restored the original meaning or words in the JST. Another plausible explaination is that Joseph Smith simply and plausibly assumed the papyri were the ones Abraham literally wrote on and that inspired his revelation. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that this particular bit of information came by revelation or that Joseph Smith claimed it did.

So what we are left with in regards to this issue is only one plausible explaination against the Book of Abraham and several others for the Book of Abraham. So to make an argument based on the one against without acknowledging the ones for is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Using techniques I've learned from mopologists, I'm going to decipher the true meaning of your code, which is this:

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
[2.1] Alif Lam Mim.
[2.2] This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil).
[2.3] Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them.
[2.4] And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the hereafter.
[2.5] These are on a right course from their Lord and these it is that shall be successful.
[2.6] Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe.
[2.7] Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them.
[2.8] And there are some people who say: We believe in Allah and the last day; and they are not at all believers.
[2.9] They desire to deceive Allah and those who believe, and they deceive only themselves and they do not perceive.
[2.10] There is a disease in their hearts, so Allah added to their disease and they shall have a painful chastisement because they lied.
[2.11] And when it is said to them, Do not make mischief in the land, they say: We are but peace-makers.
[2.12] Now surely they themselves are the mischief makers, but they do not perceive.
[2.13] And when it is said to them: Believe as the people believe they say: Shall we believe as the fools believe? Now surely they themselves are the fools, but they do not know.
[2.14] And when they meet those who believe, they say: We believe; and when they are alone with their Shaitans, they say: Surely we are with you, we were only mocking.
[2.15] Allah shall pay them back their mockery, and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on.
[2.16] These are they who buy error for the right direction, so their bargain shall bring no gain, nor are they the followers of the right direction.
[2.17] Their parable is like the parable of one who kindled a fire but when it had illumined all around him, Allah took away their light, and left them in utter darkness-- they do not see.
[2.18] Deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they will not turn back.
[2.19] Or like abundant rain from the cloud in which is utter darkness and thunder and lightning; they put their fingers into their ears because of the thunder peal, for fear of death, and Allah encompasses the unbelievers.
[2.20] The lightning almost takes away their sight; whenever it shines on them they walk in it, and when it becomes dark to them they stand still; and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have taken away their hearing and their sight; surely Allah has power over all things.
[2.21] O men! serve your Lord Who created you and those before you so that you may guard (against evil).
[2.22] Who made the earth a resting place for you and the heaven a canopy and (Who) sends down rain from the cloud then brings forth with it subsistence for you of the fruits; therefore do not set up rivals to Allah while you know.

[_Drifting]

So what we are left with in regards to this issue is only one plausible explaintion against the Book of Abraham and several for.

No, that's what you have.

The explanation against the Book of Abraham is supported by every single professional Egyptologist who has ever examined it.
Is supported by every single piece of papyri discovered in Egypt.
Is supported by the nonsense that is contained within the Book of Abraham itself.

The only support for it is your personal (warm fuzzy) testimony of it.

[_Buffalo]

Yes, often absent from Book of Abraham discussions is all the historical errors in the Book of Abraham.

[_malkie]

There are more than two plausible explainations. The one I happened to put forward has an analog found in the JST. We don't have the orignial text, yet Joseph Smith restored the original meaning or words in the JST. Another plausible explaination is that Joseph Smith simply and plausibly assumed the papyri were the ones Abraham literally wrote on and that inspired his revelation. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that this particular bit of information came by revelation or that Joseph Smith claimed it did.

So what we are left with in regards to this issue is only one plausible explaination against the Book of Abraham and several others for the Book of Abraham. So to make an argument based on the one against without acknowledging the ones for is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

I must have missed something here.

How do we know that what Joseph Smith restored was the original meaning by some means - other than Joseph Smith saying so?

If we don't have the original text, how can we know? Is there some corroborating evidence somewhere?

[_sock puppet]

So what we are left with in regards to this issue is only one plausible explaintion against the Book of Abraham and several for.

No, that's what you have.

The explanation against the Book of Abraham is supported by every single professional Egyptologist who has ever examined it.
Is supported by every single piece of papyri discovered in Egypt.
Is supported by the nonsense that is contained within the Book of Abraham itself.

The only support for it is your personal (warm fuzzy) testimony of it.

Probably more like the only support is the heels-dug-in defending JSJr and LDS canon, no matter how ridiculous.

[_thews]

There are more than two plausible explainations. The one I happened to put forward has an analog found in the JST. We don't have the orignial text, yet Joseph Smith restored the original meaning or words in the JST.

You do have the original text, which the LDS church keeps hidden. Just because what you do have (which is known to have been translated by Joseph Smith) doesn't make sense, your only out is to create an argument from silence on what was supposedly lost. The fact remains that what is known to exist is completely wrong.

Another plausible explaination is that Joseph Smith simply and plausibly assumed the papyri were the ones Abraham literally wrote on and that inspired his revelation.

How does one make an assumption regarding what is being translated as God's words, while also claiming to communicate with God?

However, there is no evidence whatsoever that this particular bit of information came by revelation or that Joseph Smith claimed it did.

How convenient of you to place Joseph Smith as a prophet of God when it fits your argument, then paint him as a man acting alone when it doesn't.

So what we are left with in regards to this issue is only one plausible explaination against the Book of Abraham and several others for the Book of Abraham. So to make an argument based on the one against without acknowledging the ones for is the height of intellectual dishonesty.

Intellectual dishonesty is ignorance of what a papyrus is used for, which is to aid the dead in the afterlife according to the pagan beliefs. Scrolls stuffed into a mummy were done so for one purpose, and not as some container to be unearthed later on to send a message. While ignoring the loss of the supposed Book of Joseph scrolls, the entire concept of placing weight on what was supposedly lost ignores what wasn't lost. What remains is wrong, and no matter how you attempt to spin it, there is no plausible explanation to explain how Joseph Smith claimed to translate a language into another language and got it completely wrong. This proves Joseph Smith was a fraud, which is the only plausible explanation.