Referenced scholar in Book of Abraham Essay responds...

[_ldsfaqs]

So..... I'm still waiting for the "does not go well for the church" part?

The scholar clearly indicates that the indicated usage by the church is "possible".
He say's it's not generally found that way, but it's possible.

So, where is this damnation against the church?

by the way, I should point out how this is another classic example of the anti-mormon "cherry-pick" lying.
They find something for which there is still more study and evidence required, all the while ignoring all the BULLS EYES evidences that verify the Book of Abraham and Joseph's account that LDS scholars have also found.

The Book of Abraham is a work in progress when it comes to scholarship. No one with a brain would think everything is perfect yet in evidence.
But, there is far enough now for anyone objectively comparing what wasn't known to what is now know, and what anti-mormons used to say but can't for the facts and truth, that the Book of Abraham is clearly true. And, I knew this 20 years ago. Book of Abraham and otherwise scholarship has only quadrupled the evidences since then verifying the latter-day restoration is true.

More anti-mormon lying as usual.

[_Fence Sitter]

I suppose it is possible that the Lock Ness monster exist too and anyone saying it doesn't, is an anti Lock Ness liar.

[_Manetho]

So..... I'm still waiting for the "does not go well for the church" part?

The scholar clearly indicates that the indicated usage by the church is "possible".
He say's it's not generally found that way, but it's possible.

What do you mean, "indicated usage"?

Ritner's essay says:

With the Book of Abraham now confirmed as a perhaps well-meaning, but erroneous invention by Joseph Smith, the LDS church may well devote some reflection to the status of the text. The former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, since 2001 renamed the Community of Christ, avoids this issue by treating the Book of Abraham as speculative writing by Smith, not as a document of historical truth. In this decision they are clearly correct.

So if the LDS Church would stop claiming that the Book of Abraham is an ancient text, Ritner wouldn't have a problem with it.

[_kairos]

The author is saying if I walk into a pyramid and see a tomb the hieroglyphics may well be physically separated from the eg demotic writings and figures because of space limitations eg walls and altar panels etc. are in separate locations. I have witnessed that in the valley of the kings on " pyramid row" in Egypt.

The Mormon apologists say that argument can apply to scrolls of papyrus ie the figures separate from the writing- yep anything is possible but the apologists would have you think figure 1 in a scroll can legitimately be placed on page 100 as a natural course of composition. ritner shoots that down because it is simply BS.

the French lady prof is basically saying "anythings possible" not to piss off her friends who may for pete's sake include that dweeb fake Egyptologist john gee. she should choose her friends more carefully.

just musin
k

[Marcus]

Just bumping this thread because it pretty decisively debunks what Muhlestein said in the Deseret news interview, under discussion in this thread:
viewtopic.php?p=2786811#p2786811

[Philo Sofee]

This is a very good thread!