has l-dsinc submitted the papyrus to egyptologists?

[_Buffalo]

Simon, can you point to a single Egyptologist that fully supports Joseph Smith's translation of the papyri?

John Gee.

Great. Now which independent Egyptologist supports Smith's translation?

[_Buffalo]

Silly Joseph, the papyrus was a funerary text but embedded in it was code within every second, third or forth syllable was deciphered to bring about the hidden meaning as found in the Book of Abraham. Egyptologists are not going to recognize the Book of Abraham when all they can see is a funerary document. The actual facsimilies and the seer stone are used to help decipher the key to break the code. I mean sheesh your always so negative about these things.

That reminds me of this:

[_jon]

Great. Now which independent Egyptologist supports Smith's translation?

John Gee doesn't support Joseph Smith's translation from an Egypotologists point of view - he can't because he doesn't believe that the Church has the right papyri. Instead he is supporting it as a Church member from a 'testimony' and 'faith' point of view.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Were there any facsimiles found in LDS scriptures prior to 1968?

[_Buffalo]

Great. Now which independent Egyptologist supports Smith's translation?

John Gee doesn't support Joseph Smith's translation from an Egypotologists point of view - he can't because he doesn't believe that the Church has the right papyri. Instead he is supporting it as a Church member from a 'testimony' and 'faith' point of view.

What does he think about the facsimiles?

[_jon]

Were there any facsimiles found in LDS scriptures prior to 1968?

Doh! You've sunk John Gee's battleship...

[_Wisdom Seeker]

This was a thread I started when I heard a new theory being told by a BYU religion professor.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=18263

[_Simon Belmont]

Great. Now which independent Egyptologist supports Smith's translation?

I see. So you can discount something based on the source, but I cannot.

You anti-Mormons never play fair. It's easy to win when you make up the rules as you go along, isn't it.

[Guest]

Great. Now which independent Egyptologist supports Smith's translation?

I see. So you can discount something based on the source, but I cannot.

You anti-Mormons never play fair. It's easy to win when you make up the rules as you go along, isn't it.

Is this your way of not admitting that no independent Egyptologist supports Smith's translation? That the only one you could find that sort of supported it (but not really) is a Mormon apologist?

By the way, there's a big difference between objecting to a website you don't like that merely posts links or republishes the evidence of others vs a using an apologist as a source.

[_Themis]

[quote="Buffalo]Great. Now which independent Egyptologist supports Smith's translation?[/quote]

Actually even John Gee admits that the papyri we have including the facimiles do not tranlsate into an Abraham story from an egyptological POV.