"don't embarrass yourself by asking about metallurgy..."

[_Chap]

Chap, those are interesting questions. I would say that the act of coming up with a culturally significant story in connection with the recovery of some ancient artifact is itself an ancient tradition. I don't think there is any connection between what Joseph Smith produced and the history of an Abraham who lived in the second millennium BCE.

Me neither (underline). But I am curious to understand Tobin's position properly, and I don't think I can do so without those questions being answered.

[_Kishkumen]

Me neither (underline). But I am curious to understand Tobin's position properly, and I don't think I can do so without those questions being answered.

Although Tobin can, and undoubtedly will, answer for himself, my guess is that he doesn't attach much importance to the historical claim, which is probably rather beside the point.

[_Themis]

I rather think that it is the case that, at least in the first instance, religious claims need to have an air of plausibility, otherwise why ask God about them in the first place? The air of plausibility has to be connected to the unverifiable stretch in such a way as to prompt the inquiry in the first place.

I agree. The problem I see with Tobin's go ask God is not just that there is no plausibility to prompt asking, but that most here have asked many times over many years and God has not shown up. For tobin the HG does not count and is not a good way to determine truth(something I agree with). Tobin being a former believer has also never been successful in getting God to show up. In fact his only experience in which he thinks God did show up was as an atheist. I can only conclude seeking God does not work, and the only chance we have is being a non-believer, although would having the same experience create the same interpretation?

[_Themis]

DELETED. I may try again later. I still do not understand what Tobin is claiming in his Book of Abraham post.

Can anybody else help?

It is confusing what he is trying to say, but I think he may believe(with no evidence to back it up and probably a ton against) that the Egyptians were ripping off the original story by Abraham, even though they have created their own meaning. If we go by what kish brings up about plausibility there is no reason to accept this hypothesis.

[_Tobin]

Me neither (underline). But I am curious to understand Tobin's position properly, and I don't think I can do so without those questions being answered.

Although Tobin can, and undoubtedly will, answer for himself, my guess is that he doesn't attach much importance to the historical claim, which is probably rather beside the point.

That is correct. I attach no importance to Joseph Smith ability to translate (or supposed ability to translate). He had no ability to do so whatsoever and none existed at that time. All the evidence that has come to light shows that his attempts at understanding the Egyptian language were comical and anything that would be told to us about the origin of the papyrus would have to be by God. As a result, the Book of Abraham should be read as seperate text and the papyrus (and facsimiles) should be ignored. In fact, since the facsimiles are clearly wrong (and Egyptian), they should be removed from the Book of Abraham text and not used.

[_Tobin]

DELETED. I may try again later. I still do not understand what Tobin is claiming in his Book of Abraham post.
Can anybody else help?

It is confusing what he is trying to say, but I think he may believe(with no evidence to back it up and probably a ton against) that the Egyptians were ripping off the original story by Abraham, even though they have created their own meaning. If we go by what kish brings up about plausibility there is no reason to accept this hypothesis.

It isn't confusing and makes perfect sense if you think about it. Assume for a second that Abraham did exist and went to Egypt and wrote down an account. Assume all of that is true. Why would the Egyptians (pagans) over the centuries preserve any of that? They would have quickly corrupted, changed and altered the account to fit their stories and mythos. They would have corrupted the depictions to fit their pantheon, beliefs, and practices. And that is what we have before us. A purely Egyptian papyrus with no bearing upon the original text.

Now, along came Joseph Smith and wants to know what is behind these papyrus. The Lord shows him the original story as he translates. He assumes that is what is before him. Bear in mind he has no ability to read or understand Egyptian. He wrongly assumes that the papyrus were actually written by Abraham and that the uncorrupted depictions lie before him. That however is not the case.

[_Chap]

It isn't revelation. It is an origin story and depictions written by Abraham. They were adapted (changed) by the Egyptians to reflect their stories and mythos. The Egyptians were pagans and had no reason to maintain Abraham's account nor his depictions. If any part of the original survived in the copy, it would be virtually unrecognizable from the original other than perhaps some major themes like the altar in the depiction.
The mistake apologists and Joseph Smith made is they believe a number of false premises here:
1) Joseph Smith had an ability to read or understand Egyptian. He did not and whatever he could discern from the papyrus had to be shown him by God.
2) That the papyrus was written by Abraham or was a true copy of what Abraham had written and depicted. That is complete non-sense and there is no reason the pagan Egyptians would do so.
3) That the Lord had a duty to inform Joseph Smith about what he was looking at. That is also false. The Lord didn't give the papyrus to Joseph Smith and Joseph Smith needed to ask the questions and drive the translation. Being human and making understandable, but poor assumptions, is part of our nature and what Joseph Smith is guilty of here.
4) Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and therefore perfect. Hardly. He often thought a lot of himself and his abilities to translate and identify places. The Lord was often chastising him for his pride and arrogance. Also, many of his practices were uninspried (such as looking at seer stones). The Lord used Joseph Smith despite those failings to achieve his purposes.

Here is my attempt to get further in understanding Tobin's position. I think I need specific answers to these questions:

1. Which parts, if any, of the Book of Abraham as presently canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, contain the "origin story and depictions written by Abraham"? If there are parts of the present canonized Book of Abraham that are not from Abraham, where do those parts come from?

2. How were those parts, if any, which contain the "origin story and depictions written by Abraham" transmitted to Joseph Smith - by revelation from God? If not, how?

3. What is the role of the papyrus in the transmission to Joseph Smith of the "origin story and depictions written by Abraham"? Was it necessary to that transmission taking place, and if so how?

Please, honestly, could you respond specifically and separately to those three particular questions? I am genuinely puzzled, and what you have posted so far does not give me enough information to make sense of your point of view.

[_schreech]

Now, along came Joseph Smith and wants to know what is behind these papyrus. The Lord shows him the original story as he translates. He assumes that is what is before him. Bear in mind he has no ability to read or understand Egyptian. He wrongly assumes that the papyrus were actually written by Abraham and that the uncorrupted depictions lie before him. That however is not the case.

So your god was powerful enough to reveal the true meaning of the writings on the papyrus which was lost over time to joseph but didn't have the foresight to rectify joe's incorrect assumptions about the what was actually written on the scrolls? Really?...Your god seems like a bit of a doofus.

Also, are you saying that your god made joe feel like he was translating egyptian (because that is what he thought he was doing) instead of just making it clear that he was revealing, to joseph, a story loosely based on what was written on the papyrus?...not only is he a doofus but your god seems like kind of a douche...

[Guest]

1. Which parts, if any, of the Book of Abraham as presently canonized in the Pearl of Great Price, contain the "origin story and depictions written by Abraham"? If there are parts of the present canonized Book of Abraham that are not from Abraham, where do those parts come from?

The Book of Abraham is from the original story as written down by Abraham. Those originals no longer exist. The depictions are corrupted and almost purely Egyptian in origin and should not be used with the Book of Abraham.

2. How were those parts, if any, which contain the "origin story and depictions written by Abraham" transmitted to Joseph Smith - by revelation from God? If not, how?

They were translated by exactly the same process the Joseph Smith used with the Book of Mormon. He possessed no ability to understand or read reformed Egyptian and he possessed none here. Any conjectures he made about the papyrus should be completely disregarded. Just as I disregard his conjectures about where the Book of Mormon took place (or who the Book of Mormon descendant may or may not be).

3. What is the role of the papyrus in the transmission to Joseph Smith of the "origin story and depictions written by Abraham"? Was it necessary to that transmission taking place, and if so how?

None. It is merely the impetus. As I've said, if any of it has any bearing on the original, it would be so corrupted as to be unrecognizable. Maybe major themes such as a throne or an altar in the depiction may have survived the alterations, but that is of little significance and the depictions should not be used.

Please, honestly, could you respond specifically and separately to those three particular questions? I am genuinely puzzled, and what you have posted so far does not give me enough information to make sense of your point of view.

I have no idea why you are confused. It makes perfect sense. Now, you may not believe there was original that was corrupted by the Egyptians. But that is entirely your prerogative.

[_Tobin]

Now, along came Joseph Smith and wants to know what is behind these papyrus. The Lord shows him the original story as he translates. He assumes that is what is before him. Bear in mind he has no ability to read or understand Egyptian. He wrongly assumes that the papyrus were actually written by Abraham and that the uncorrupted depictions lie before him. That however is not the case.

So your god was powerful enough to reveal the true meaning of the writings on the papyrus which was lost over time to joseph but didn't have the foresight to rectify joe's incorrect assumptions about the what was actually written on the scrolls? Really?...Your god seems like a bit of a doofus.
Also, are you saying that your god made joe feel like he was translating egyptian (because that is what he thought he was doing) instead of just making it clear that he was revealing, to joseph, a story loosely based on what was written on the papyrus?...not only is he a doofus but your god seems like kind of a douche...

Wrong. Joseph Smith was entirely responsible for what happened and I attribute any mistaken impressions (and assumptions) to him. It is human nature to assume we know more than we really do and that gets in the way of us really understanding what is going on.