Robert F Smith wrote:I'd also like to know why you feel that a thread on the Book of Mormon is automatically converted to a thread on the Book of Abraham just when the going gets tough for you.
I am unaware it's getting tough. You have yet to provide what I would call verifiable. You have even been shown apologists who disagree with you. Doesn't sound very verifiable to me. It would also be nice if you would be more honest then trying to score points, when it was you trying to score a point with me by accusing me of being unwilling to give specifics on the Book of Abraham, and now trying to score a point by me bringing some up.
You ought to get together with Themis on this. He gives a grade of "F" to Joseph and likewise claims that he got nearly everything wrong. I'd like to know on what scholarly basis you guys make such specious claims.
It's not hard to find how scholars have translated the facsimiles and extant papyri. I am not aware of any LDS egyptologists that has disagreed with their translation in any significant way. I hear that Ritner has come out with a book detailing what the entire papyri we have means.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Dec 23, 2012 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have spent more time on apologetic sites then ones critical of LDS claims. It's understandable that Joseph and company would get it wrong since they had no knowledge of what should be there. It's interesting that Experts tell us that another bird would be a part of it and not a second hand. They have no reason to make it up, and they successfully told us where the problems were on fac 1 before the papyri was rediscovered. Now since we know another bird should be there, we can take a closer look at what we do have
Notice the bottom has nice straight lines for fingers, but the top one is very different. It really does look like the tapering off of a wing. It doesn't have the nice long straight lines of the fingers we see in the bottom one. Also the bottom 4 fingers all stop at the same length. We don't see this for the top. Why be so exacting on the one and sloppy on the other. I think that supports what the experts tell us, and we know the missing section was most likely missing with Joseph Smith, since two good pieces of evidence support this.
Back in 1975, for example, I sent a detailed analysis of Fac 2 to a number of anti-Mormons in which I noted the many tight agreements between what Joseph identified and standard Egyptology. It was greeted with a powerful silence, and that has been the case ever since: Anti-Mormons make a point of ignoring the facts in such matters, substituting bluster for actual discussion.
You are going to have to do better then this by showing what you are talking about. Also, I have no idea who you are talking about, and I care more about what the experts would say about it. The only silence I see is dealing with how much Joseph Smith got wrong. It's easy to see what is claimed that Joseph got wrong. He identified the wrong people in fac 3 as another example.
SteelHead wrote:Going gets tough for us? You've still to produce any strong markers for the Book of Mormon. All you have done is bluster.
You probably ought to go back to the early part of this thread in which I showed that BrianH Mittens had made false statements about Grant Palmer, and that Grant Palmer had made false statements about the Book of Mormon. I dealt in specifics. You have not refuted any of that. Nor has anyone else on this thread. The going clearly got too tough.
As to the Book of Abraham.... Seriously? There is no scholarship that supports the LDS version.
You and Themis can maintain this fiction if you wish, but real scholarship shows such anti-Book of Abraham statements to be false, as I did fairly recently on another blog -- “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/117145206/A-BRIEF-ASSESSMENT-OF-THE-LDS-BOOK-OF-ABRAHAM. The situation on the Book of Mormon has its analog in the Book of Abraham. You and Themis substitute bluster and specious statements in place of actually engaging in real discussion.
Robert F Smith wrote: Back in 1975, for example, I sent a detailed analysis of Fac 2 to a number of anti-Mormons in which I noted the many tight agreements between what Joseph identified and standard Egyptology. It was greeted with a powerful silence, and that has been the case ever since: Anti-Mormons make a point of ignoring the facts in such matters, substituting bluster for actual discussion.
Robert,
Would you mind posting this detailed analysis?
Sorry, I don't have that long study digitized in complete form. However, in my reply to SteelHead just now, I do provide a substantive assessment (Chris Smith referred to it as the online publication of a book). My detailed commentary on the Book of Abraham will be out next year.
Robert F Smith wrote:[ Sorry, I don't have that long study digitized in complete form. However, in my reply to SteelHead just now, I do provide a substantive assessment (Chris Smith referred to it as the online publication of a book). My detailed commentary on the Book of Abraham will be out next year.
Thank you. I look forward to your commentary.
Any idea why the download function does not seem to work in your link?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Let me state clearly at the onset my conviction that the questionable traces above the head of the Osiris figure are actually the remains of his right hand; in other words, Joseph Smith was correct in his understanding of the drawing at this point.
and this.
To summarize the overall results of this investigation so far: the conclusions reached by Deveria in 1859, based on his personal examination of copies of Facsimiles 1-3 of"The Book of Abraham," anticipate in detail most of the observations of the seven Egyptologists who-along with one Semiticist, John (Punnett) Peters-contributed to F.S. Spalding's 1912 inquiry,72 as well as the Egyptologists who have discussed the Joseph Smith "Breathing Permit" since 1967. Taking account of the occasional breakthroughs which have significantly advanced or refined our understanding of these documents, the consistency of the results attained by three "generations" of Egyptologists, working intermittently and more or less independently over a period of nearly a century and a half, is striking.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Let me state clearly at the onset my conviction that the questionable traces above the hear of the Osiris figure are actually the remains of his right hand; in other words, Joseph Smith was correct in his understanding of the drawing at this point.
and this.
To summarize the overall results of this investigation so far: the conclusions reached by Deveria in 1859, based on his personal examination of copies of Facsimiles 1-3 of"The Book of Abraham," anticipate in detail most of the observations of the seven Egyptologists who-along with one Semiticist, John (Punnett) Peters-contributed to F.S. Spalding's 1912 inquiry,72 as well as the Egyptologists who have discussed the Joseph Smith "Breathing Permit" since 1967. Taking account of the occasional breakthroughs which have significantly advanced or refined our understanding of these documents, the consistency of the results attained by three "generations" of Egyptologists, working intermittently and more or less independently over a period of nearly a century and a half, is striking.
Thank you for reminding us of this very useful article. I have several of Bell's works in my personal library, and I am glad to see that he was not bowled over by his association with the rabid anti-Mormons at IRR.
I communicated some time ago with Mariam Ayad on her excellent article in that same volume on the chiastic inscription of Aminirdis I at Medinet Habu.
Fence Sitter wrote:Thank you. I look forward to your commentary.
Any idea why the download function does not seem to work in your link?
What happens when you try to download at scribd.com? Do you select pdf or txt? Do you sign on with Facebook or other?
I select pdf and click download. I don't sign on at all (which is probably the problem) with anything as the link you provided takes me directly to your article.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Robert F Smith wrote:You probably ought to go back to the early part of this thread in which I showed that BrianH Mittens had made false statements about Grant Palmer, and that Grant Palmer had made false statements about the Book of Mormon. I dealt in specifics. You have not refuted any of that. Nor has anyone else on this thread. The going clearly got too tough.
Not sure why we are supposed to defend or refute those statements. Again I see black and white thinking that we believe everything negative about LDS claims and believe nothing positive about LDS claims. I will think for my self.
You and Themis can maintain this fiction if you wish, but real scholarship shows such anti-Book of Abraham statements to be false, as I did fairly recently on another blog -- “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/117145206/A-BRIEF-ASSESSMENT-OF-THE-LDS-BOOK-OF-ABRAHAM. The situation on the Book of Mormon has its analog in the Book of Abraham. You and Themis substitute bluster and specious statements in place of actually engaging in real discussion.
I am willing to have real discussion, but I am not sure you have been. by the way It would be wise not to assume statements said by any you deem critical of the church should apply to me. That said I will read your article, but I will not be around much for the next week due to things like Christmas. Hope you have a great Christmas.
