Themis wrote: Hope you have a great Christmas.
Thanks, I did.
Have a happy New Year, Themis.
Themis wrote: Hope you have a great Christmas.
Albion wrote:One issue in your above post. I was in the Salt Lake Tabernacle when Mouw made the comment you quoted. The man is entitled to speak for himself, of course, but he certainly did not speak for me or any other "evangelicals" I spoke with that evening. I personally found his statement unacceptable in the broad sense he mean it and only remained in my seat out of a realization that he was playing "nice" in the Mormon house.
..that and the fact I was more interested in the remarks of Ravi Zacharias. That you claim that it is false that Mormons charge that evangelicals believe they can sin all they want after being saved has about as much merit as taking comfort from Mouw's remarks as representing the view of all evangelicals.
You only have to read a history of my discussions with devout Mormons on the board to see how many times that charge has been made.
Have some evangelicals misrepresented Mormon beliefs...of course...do some Mormons constantly argue that Christian salvation is a licence to commit sin....of course....but to argue that, as you appear to me to do, that somehow those poor, innocent Mormons are just sitting there minding their business and those nasty Christians just won't leave them alone is just plain baloney.
Robert F Smith wrote:http://www.scribd.com/doc/117145206/A-BRIEF-ASSESSMENT-OF-THE-LDS-BOOK-OF-ABRAHAM.
SteelHead wrote:Classic case of the Sharpshooter fallacy.
Ignore the two hundred items that are completely wrong, these three hits prove we are right.
Robert F Smith wrote:http://www.scribd.com/doc/117145206/A-BRIEF-ASSESSMENT-OF-THE-LDS-BOOK-OF-ABRAHAM.
Themis wrote:I have had a chance to read your article. It covers the areas I thought it would, and doesn't mention the areas I thought it would. I noticed many years ago that LDS apologia was only engaging in dismissing the main areas of evidence , and in trying to build a case for the church focusing in very subjective areas of trying to see connections to antiquity in the text. It can be a good way to increase our knowledge when done for scholarly reasons as apposed to apologetic, since scholarly work is not interested in defending a position, and will try to look at all the possibilities.
Your article brings up many believed connections, but does not really get into whether certain ones really are a connections(ex chiasmus), and also doesn't spend any time trying to look at all possible pathways to antiquity for other believed connections. I realize you are calling this a brief assessment.
The biggest problem I see is you focus on believed connections from the text of the Book of Abraham, but ignore the best evidences we have to look at. You spend most of your time on fac 2 and parts of the text, and mention fac 1 once and I don't recall fac 3 even being brought up. This is understandable since fac 2 still doesn't translate into what Egyptology have suggested, but it is the most vague of the three. I mentioned fac 3 before but didn't get a response. Joseph didn't even come close to getting any of it right. Again if you get most things wrong you get an F.
Considering all the evidence I see no way to conclude Joseph was doing anything but making it up. All three fac fit exactly what they should. The papyri also exactly supports what the fac are used for. We even know who Egyptology identify on the lion couch. It's the same guy they identify in fac 3, and it's not Abraham.
SteelHead wrote:Classic case of the Sharpshooter fallacy.
Ignore the two hundred items that are completely wrong, these three hits prove we are right.