Understanding KEP and Book of Abraham issues

[_Drifting]

To the OP, in the 1830s and 1840s, JSJr the prophet claimed that the Book of Abraham text was taken as a linguistic translation from the papyri he bought in 1835 from Chandler, in Kirtland. In 1842, it was published as being the story of Father Abraham, himself having written the Egyptian on the papyri. This was later canonized as LDS scripture, twice.

Thanks to Champollion and finding the Rosetta Stone, ancient Egyptian writings have been able to be linguistically translated into English.

The KEP are 'work papers' of JSJr and scribes trying to 'translate' the Egyptian writings on the papyri. The combination of the existence and then contents of the KEP leaking out (LDS Church tried to keep the KEP existence under wraps), and the papyri being found in the 1960s in essence caught JSJr in his lie.

The KEP inextricably link the Book of Abraham text's opening paragraphs to the extant, found papyri fragments. It lines up Egyptian characters taken in order from that papyri with those paragraphs of the Book of Abraham text. (Scroll length is simply a diversionary tactic by mopologists, such as Gee; Chris and Andrew's efforts are dispelling of the mopologetic canard. The fact is, the KEP ties the Book of Abraham text paragraphs to the found papyri.)

Since those Egyptian characters on the papyri do NOT translate linguistically into the opening paragraphs of the Book of Abraham text, it shows that the Book of Abraham is not what JSJr claimed and represented it to be. It is not a translation of a story of Abraham, written by Abraham on that papyri, in ancient Egyptian.

That leaves the mopologists arguing that the papyri was merely a catalyst, to get JSJr tuned in to receive a divine revelation, part in 1835 and the rest in 1842. They have to also paint JSJr out to have been duped by the divine as to there being a 'translation' to avoid the fact that JSJr knowingly misled people as to how the Book of Abraham text came to be. Better in the mopologetic mindset to blame god for duping JSJr than admit that JSJr was duping his followers; as amazing as it is, they'd rather paint their god as a defrauder than to brush JSJr with that color.

Then there are the Facsimiles and their Explanations. Issues? No, these are slam dunks. These are the clear and irrefutable evidence the JSJr was either schizophrenic/delusional or a snake oil salesman.

Bump to try and put the thread back on track

[_Bob Loblaw]

To the OP, in the 1830s and 1840s, JSJr the prophet claimed that the Book of Abraham text was taken as a linguistic translation from the papyri he bought in 1835 from Chandler, in Kirtland. In 1842, it was published as being the story of Father Abraham, himself having written the Egyptian on the papyri. This was later canonized as LDS scripture, twice.

Thanks to Champollion and finding the Rosetta Stone, ancient Egyptian writings have been able to be linguistically translated into English.

The KEP are 'work papers' of JSJr and scribes trying to 'translate' the Egyptian writings on the papyri. The combination of the existence and then contents of the KEP leaking out (LDS Church tried to keep the KEP existence under wraps), and the papyri being found in the 1960s in essence caught JSJr in his lie.

The KEP inextricably link the Book of Abraham text's opening paragraphs to the extant, found papyri fragments. It lines up Egyptian characters taken in order from that papyri with those paragraphs of the Book of Abraham text. (Scroll length is simply a diversionary tactic by mopologists, such as Gee; Chris and Andrew's efforts are dispelling of the mopologetic canard. The fact is, the KEP ties the Book of Abraham text paragraphs to the found papyri.)

Since those Egyptian characters on the papyri do NOT translate linguistically into the opening paragraphs of the Book of Abraham text, it shows that the Book of Abraham is not what JSJr claimed and represented it to be. It is not a translation of a story of Abraham, written by Abraham on that papyri, in ancient Egyptian.

That leaves the mopologists arguing that the papyri was merely a catalyst, to get JSJr tuned in to receive a divine revelation, part in 1835 and the rest in 1842. They have to also paint JSJr out to have been duped by the divine as to there being a 'translation' to avoid the fact that JSJr knowingly misled people as to how the Book of Abraham text came to be. Better in the mopologetic mindset to blame god for duping JSJr than admit that JSJr was duping his followers; as amazing as it is, they'd rather paint their god as a defrauder than to brush JSJr with that color.

Then there are the Facsimiles and their Explanations. Issues? No, these are slam dunks. These are the clear and irrefutable evidence the JSJr was either schizophrenic/delusional or a snake oil salesman.

The bottom line is that Joseph Smith made certain claims that the church still affirms, and those claims are demonstrably false.

He said he could translate the papyrus. He couldn't.
He said the papyrus contained the record of Abraham. It didn't.
He said the facsimiles meant certain things. They don't.
He said the Book of Abraham reflected ancient wisdom about the stars and about Abraham's experiences. It doesn't.

What in essence we have with the Book of Abraham is this: Joseph got his followers to spend a huge amount of money to buy the mummies and papyrus. He was able to convince them that the papyrus was further validation of his prophetic calling. And, not least of all, he provided his mother with an income, which she made by charging people money to see the mummies and papyrus.

Whether my soul is in danger or Tobin is delusional is irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves

[_Drifting]

To the OP, in the 1830s and 1840s, JSJr the prophet claimed that the Book of Abraham text was taken as a linguistic translation from the papyri he bought in 1835 from Chandler, in Kirtland. In 1842, it was published as being the story of Father Abraham, himself having written the Egyptian on the papyri. This was later canonized as LDS scripture, twice.

Thanks to Champollion and finding the Rosetta Stone, ancient Egyptian writings have been able to be linguistically translated into English.

The KEP are 'work papers' of JSJr and scribes trying to 'translate' the Egyptian writings on the papyri. The combination of the existence and then contents of the KEP leaking out (LDS Church tried to keep the KEP existence under wraps), and the papyri being found in the 1960s in essence caught JSJr in his lie.

The KEP inextricably link the Book of Abraham text's opening paragraphs to the extant, found papyri fragments. It lines up Egyptian characters taken in order from that papyri with those paragraphs of the Book of Abraham text. (Scroll length is simply a diversionary tactic by mopologists, such as Gee; Chris and Andrew's efforts are dispelling of the mopologetic canard. The fact is, the KEP ties the Book of Abraham text paragraphs to the found papyri.)

Since those Egyptian characters on the papyri do NOT translate linguistically into the opening paragraphs of the Book of Abraham text, it shows that the Book of Abraham is not what JSJr claimed and represented it to be. It is not a translation of a story of Abraham, written by Abraham on that papyri, in ancient Egyptian.

That leaves the mopologists arguing that the papyri was merely a catalyst, to get JSJr tuned in to receive a divine revelation, part in 1835 and the rest in 1842. They have to also paint JSJr out to have been duped by the divine as to there being a 'translation' to avoid the fact that JSJr knowingly misled people as to how the Book of Abraham text came to be. Better in the mopologetic mindset to blame god for duping JSJr than admit that JSJr was duping his followers; as amazing as it is, they'd rather paint their god as a defrauder than to brush JSJr with that color.

Then there are the Facsimiles and their Explanations. Issues? No, these are slam dunks. These are the clear and irrefutable evidence the JSJr was either schizophrenic/delusional or a snake oil salesman.

The bottom line is that Joseph Smith made certain claims that the church still affirms, and those claims are demonstrably false.

He said he could translate the papyrus. He couldn't.
He said the papyrus contained the record of Abraham. It didn't.
He said the facsimiles meant certain things. They don't.
He said the Book of Abraham reflected ancient wisdom about the stars and about Abraham's experiences. It doesn't.

What in essence we have with the Book of Abraham is this: Joseph got his followers to spend a huge amount of money to buy the mummies and papyrus. He was able to convince them that the papyrus was further validation of his prophetic calling. And, not least of all, he provided his mother with an income, which she made by charging people money to see the mummies and papyrus.

Whether my soul is in danger or Tobin is delusional is irrelevant. The facts speak for themselves

He also stated (and the Church reaffirms) that Abraham himself wrote on the papyrus and this is demonstrably false.

[_Bob Loblaw]

He also stated (and the Church reaffirms) that Abraham himself wrote on the papyrus and this is demonstrably false.

Yes, that too. If the spirit is testifying of things that are demonstrably false, isn't that a clue that maybe it's not really the spirit talking to you?

[_Drifting]

He also stated (and the Church reaffirms) that Abraham himself wrote on the papyrus and this is demonstrably false.

Yes, that too. If the spirit is testifying of things that are demonstrably false, isn't that a clue that maybe it's not really the spirit talking to you?

Or that the spirit is just a myth...

[_Fence Sitter]

. And, not least of all, he provided his mother with an income, which she made by charging people money to see the mummies and papyrus.

I have read accounts that talked about how it was customary for people visiting Nauvoo to visit the prophet's mother to see the mummies and at the end they were expected to leave a 'tip' with Lucy for being allowed to see the mummies. Some of the accounts make the 'tip' part seem like a surprise sprung on the viewer at the end of the tour.

I consistently run into references that the Charlotte Hevan account proves the Hor scroll was very long. Here is a description by Charlotte

She (Lucy) receives a little pittance by exhibiting The Mummies to strangers. When we asked to see them, she lit a candle and conducted us up a short, narrow stairway to a low, dark room under the roof. On one side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King Onitus and his royal household, -- one she did not know. Then she took up what seemed to be a club wrapped in a dark cloth, and said "This is the leg of Pharaoh's daughter, the one that saved Moses." Repressing a smile, I looked from the mummies to the old lady. but could detect nothing but earnestness and sincerity on her countenance. Then she turned to a long table, set her candle-stick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read seven minutes from it as if it were English

If this is the correct quote, what it proves is that a long scroll was opened on a table, nothing more. You cannot infer the length of the scroll from that reference. Certainly the unrolled section was not longer than the table. Apologetic claims about the missing portion length run from a few feet to almost 40'-0". How long was this long table? Certainly not long enough for most of the missing scroll predictions, remember it is inside a house in an upstairs room up a narrow stairway. The table would have to be carried up those stairs or built out of pieces that could fit up the stairway. If the entire scroll was opened then the length of the scroll would be limited to the table, and if she only saw a portion of it she would have no idea how long the unwound portions was. We don't even know if the unrolled scroll covered the length of this long table whose length we also do not know. By the way the scroll she unrolled in this quote would have been the missing section from the Hor scroll because by the time of Nauvoo, Facsimile#1 and the fist two sections of the Hor scroll were already pasted onto backing paper and would no longer be part of a roll. We know this was not the Joseph scroll because further on in Charlotte's account she says:

Then in the same way she (Lucy) interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who -- the serpent, I mean -- was standing on the tip of his tail, with which his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear. I said, "But serpents don't have legs."

They did before the fall," she asserted with perfect confidence

Which is clearly a scroll of Joseph description or The Book of the Dead of Ta-Sherit-Min.

[_Sethbag]

Yes, so to you the natural explanation is that God must have been revealing the book to Joseph even though Joseph thought he was really translating the text on the scrolls, rather than that Joseph was making this up and telling people he was translating because it suited his needs and goals at the time?

Again, you assume Joseph Smith knew what he was looking at (or should have known). I believe there is no reason to suspect he initially had any idea what it was or should have. This would seem to be the most reasonable place to start. It boggles me that anyone would assume anything different from that? After all, what expertise did Joseph Smith have in this area at all?

None at all, which is our point. Which leads us to believe that Joseph was being deceitful in his representations to others that he could understand what was on the papyrus.

You seem to have this blind spot that utterly prevents you from seeing any possibility of Joseph being dishonest or deceitful. So when the evidence shows that Joseph couldn't really translate Egyptian, the only alternative that you can even conceive of in your mind is that God must have revealed it to him. You're stuck with bad answers because you refuse to engage meaningfully with all of the alternatives that examination of the evidences presents us.

You can see the ad hoc and unjustified nature of your explanation, right? What evidence have you got that direct revelation was the means of the Book of Abraham's "translation"?

1) Who taught Joseph Smith Egyptian Hieroglyphics? According to most accounts, Joseph Smith looked at the papyri and started right off translating them. Amazing that he could do that with no knowledge of the language.

Which is why the idea that Joseph was bullshitting his fellow church members and others in the community stands out to so many of us instantly. Dude, this is not rocket science.

2) Joseph Smith revealed the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. It would seem reasonable that Joseph Smith used the same method to reveal the Book of Abraham.

It does indeed seem reasonable. And all of this makes even more sense when you realize that in "translating" the Book of Mormon he was likewise bullshitting people.

Those that put forward the theory that he actually could read Egyptian Hieroglyphics need to show that he actually understood the language.

Please show me the critic on this board who believes Joseph really could read Egyptian characters. You won't be able to, of course, which makes comments like this even stupider than usual.

I believe there is NO evidence he could read Egyptian Hieroglyphics and so it is ridiculous to assume he translated by understanding the language. So the only thing he could tell us about them must have been REVEALED by God.

Is that really the only alternative? Either he could read Egyptian or else God let him think that he could read Egyptian but actually God just piped it straight into his mind? That's it to you?

How about the alternative that Joseph couldn't read Egyptian but told others he could, and made up his translation in order to impress them, solidify his prophetic bona fides, strengthen their faith, and perhaps even give him a vehicle in which to express certain religious notions he'd developed by reading about and thinking about the writings of some others of his day?

How is it that this possibility is so friggin obvious to everyone else in the world, but you simply cannot, or will not allow yourself to consider it?

[_Sethbag]

I have asked God. It's rather presumptuous of you to say I haven't or that I'm not willing to follow God. Speak for yourself, not me.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to complain about presumptuousness of others while whipping out the ultimate appeal to authority, ie: "God told me so, so there!"

Oh snap. I replied too quickly, without paying proper attention. I thought your post was actually Tobin, once again claiming that whatever he thinks Trump's whatever any of us think, because his thoughts are actually coming straight from God himself. Sorry about that.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Oh snap. I replied too quickly, without paying proper attention. I thought your post was actually Tobin, once again claiming that whatever he thinks Trump's whatever any of us think, because his thoughts are actually coming straight from God himself. Sorry about that.

No problem. My point was that I have had answers to prayers that directly contradict the answers to Tobin's prayers; Mind you, I am not making any statement as to the spiritual validity of either answer. Seems to me that both answers can't be right, but rather than make a judgment about Tobin's soul, I figure it's best to look at which answer corresponds with the evidence. It's no contest, as you have mentioned.

[_Cicero]

It isn't hard Cicero. Try talking to God some time and doing what he asks, it might even surprise you.

I did just try it, and God told me that I should start ignoring you.

Seriously, you act as if people on this board have never actually prayed before . . .