Analytics wrote:There isn't a missing papyrus argument for Joseph's translations of any of the fascilimies, is there?
Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, this picture is different than the others because the pictures are labeled in Egyptian? So the implication is that, for example, we see a picture that looks like Osiris, and just in case anybody had any doubt about that, the Egyptians wrote "Osiris" next to him. The depiction and the label both faithfully made it into the wood carvings, which verifies that these elements were copied correctly. Then Smith called it a picture of Abraham.
Do I have that right?
Close, but there's even a little more to it than that. Unlike the other Facsimiles, the Facsimile 3 explanation explicitly gives a translation of some of the text included in the woodcut.
"King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head. ... Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."
Kevin Barney has rightly pointed out that pictures can be adapted, recycled, and assigned different meanings. There's a lot of fudge-room with pictures. Not so much with text.
The Facsimile 3 explanation is the only canonized LDS scripture that purports to be a translation of specific ancient characters which are published alongside the translated text. This is thus the only completely unambiguous test-case of Joseph's translation abilities.
But you really have to hand it to the apologists, because they've managed to take control and frame the debate so everyone is ignoring these kinds of slam dunks. Instead, they've had the critics jumping through their hoops for the past decade over irrelevant issues such as forensic textual arguments (which no one is going to be able to prove anyway) regarding the KEP. Will's idiotic cipher theory and Gee's latest sequence argument are perfect examples as well. Most of the heated debating between apologists and critics on these forums has been about whether this "t" crosses over that letter or what was written first, etc. It is all a game of diversion, and for the most part it has worked beautifully for them because it has made the issue too boring for most people to even bother reading.
Folks like Schryver are constantly avoiding these slam dunks and have instead moved the debate into areas where Joseph Smith has a better chance (though still very poor) of getting something right, or at the very least, allow enough room for the apologetic mind to come up with "reasonable doubt" on an issue.
This is why I have decided to go ahead with my book. To stop letting them drive the agenda and start pounding on those slam dunk points that the apologists never address.
Tobin wrote:I don't know what Joseph Smith you are talking about?!? Joseph Smith's theology and understanding was constantly evolving. So, if he were getting the complete picture everytime he spoke to God (as you pretend), God was sure changing his mind an awful lot.
I agree that Joseph was making it as he went so we see an evolution(think first vision). If he was actually talking to God we would not see an evolution but just an increase of information. Again you are not helping yourself here and are still not explaining why Joseph would make it up and not ask God as he claimed to on other issues. Again he was claiming it for even the Book of Abraham as well. Big hints here that God wan'ts involved in any of it.
The facsimiles have nothing to do with anything. The annotations are Joseph Smith's speculations and obviously idiotic.
There goes the facsimiles and their explanations. At least you are making slow progress.
Kevin Graham wrote:But you really have to hand it to the apologists, because they've managed to take control and frame the debate so everyone is ignoring these kinds of slam dunks. Instead, they've had the critics jumping through their hoops for the past decade over irrelevant issues such as forensic textual arguments (which no one is going to be able to prove anyway) regarding the KEP. Will's idiotic cipher theory and Gee's latest sequence argument are perfect examples as well. Most of the heated debating between apologists and critics on these forums has been about whether this "t" crosses over that letter or what was written first, etc. It is all a game of diversion, and for the most part it has worked beautifully for them because it has made the issue too boring for most people to even bother reading.
Folks like Schryver are constantly avoiding these slam dunks and have instead moved the debate into areas where Joseph Smith has a better chance (though still very poor) of getting something right, or at the very least, allow enough room for the apologetic mind to come up with "reasonable doubt" on an issue.
This is a perfect description of Mormon apologetics in general. Everything they do is evasion, diversion, and misses the obvious stuff. It's an effective tactic and I'm glad you are not letting them get away with it.[/quote]
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Tobin wrote:I don't know what Joseph Smith you are talking about?!? Joseph Smith's theology and understanding was constantly evolving. So, if he were getting the complete picture everytime he spoke to God (as you pretend), God was sure changing his mind an awful lot.
I agree that Joseph was making it as he went so we see an evolution(think first vision). If he was actually talking to God we would not see an evolution but just an increase of information. Again you are not helping yourself here and are still not explaining why Joseph would make it up and not ask God as he claimed to on other issues. Again he was claiming it for even the Book of Abraham as well. Big hints here that God wan'ts involved in any of it.
BECAUSE HIS UNDERSTANDING WAS CONSTANTLY EVOLVING. That literally means he got things wrong and had to slowly, and deliberately learn (just like you and I do).
Themis wrote:
Tobin wrote:The facsimiles have nothing to do with anything. The annotations are Joseph Smith's speculations and obviously idiotic.
There goes the facsimiles and their explanations. At least you are making slow progress.
I've always maintained that. I've stated many times the papyri has NOTHING to do with the Book of Abraham.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
The facsimiles have nothing to do with anything. The annotations are Joseph Smith's speculations and obviously idiotic.
He didn't claim he was annotating he claimed he was translating by the power of God. If he couldn't do it - which you now agree - then that makes him a false prophet, period.
Keep believing this nonsense if that is what you really need to do, but please don't expect "apologetic logic" to pass around here.
Tobin wrote:BECAUSE HIS UNDERSTANDING WAS CONSTANTLY EVOLVING. That literally means he got things wrong and had to slowly, and deliberately learn (just like you and I do).
How does a report of an event evolve? Here's how:
I saw God. Whoops, I saw God and multitudes of angels. No, wait, I saw God and Jesus.
I went to pray because I knew there was no true church but I wanted to be forgiven. Scratch that. I didn't know which church was true, and asked which to join. There was no thought of repentance.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
The facsimiles have nothing to do with anything. The annotations are Joseph Smith's speculations and obviously idiotic.
He didn't claim he was annotating he claimed he was translating by the power of God. If he couldn't do it - which you now agree - then that makes him a false prophet, period.
Keep believing this nonsense if that is what you really need to do, but please don't expect "apologetic logic" to pass around here.
Kevin,
Listen to yourself. Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God. That means he literally could not read Egyptian Hieroglyphics. How could he have annotated anything if he couldn't read it and didn't know the language? The whole argument is stupid. His annotations are purely him speculating about what the facsimiles were based on his poor assumptions about the papyri (THAT HE COULDN'T READ).
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:BECAUSE HIS UNDERSTANDING WAS CONSTANTLY EVOLVING. That literally means he got things wrong and had to slowly, and deliberately learn (just like you and I do).
How does a report of an event evolve? Here's how:
I saw God. Whoops, I saw God and multitudes of angels. No, wait, I saw God and Jesus.
I went to pray because I knew there was no true church but I wanted to be forgiven. Scratch that. I didn't know which church was true, and asked which to join. There was no thought of repentance.
Yes, and my sister got in a car wreck about a month ago and she tells me a different story each time too. What our mind brings to the foreground and considers important in each telling is simply a result of us being human and imperfect.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Tobin wrote:BECAUSE HIS UNDERSTANDING WAS CONSTANTLY EVOLVING. That literally means he got things wrong and had to slowly, and deliberately learn (just like you and I do).
I can understand speculating in areas he might have wrong ideas about things already out there in his world, but you missed my hint about the first vision. It still doesn't explain why someone who is asking God about many things decides not to about something he would have to know he doesn't know anything about, and can't get wrong from ideas already circulating in society. He has to make it up, which is what he was doing with the while thing.
I've always maintained that. I've stated many times the papyri has NOTHING to do with the Book of Abraham.
Don't forget the explanations of them that are canonized in the Book of Abraham. They to will have to be thrown out as well.
Tobin wrote:Yes, and my sister got in a car wreck about a month ago and she tells me a different story each time too. What our mind brings to the foreground and considers important in each tellings is simply a result of us being human and imperfect.
Did your sister report that she hit one car, and then two, and then a multitude of cars?
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
