Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Kishkumen]

I just provided you with one from your own research, and you chose to wave it off.

[Shulem]

I just provided you with one from your own research, and you chose to wave it off.

I have not shrugged it off, BS

A 13 year age discrepancy (75 vs. 62) can hardly be construed as something to show that Smith was not concerned about ages but points to the idea that he made a mistake that went unchecked. Smith died only 2 years after the publication of the Book of Abraham and the papyrus and and translation project went on hold because he was tied up with the Nauvoo House and temple construction. Smith was very much concerned with the timeline, chronology, and the AGES of the patriarchs and important persons mentioned in those records. He told us the very ages in which the patriarchs were ordained and that's proof that he was interested in precise record keeping. The Book of Mormon follows the same consistent pattern and formula in keeping up with prophetic time! Smith followed the timeline given in the Adam Clarke Commentary and published various tables and description that break down epochs in the biblical record in order to tie it into his 6,000 year prophetic scheme.

[Kishkumen]

I just provided you with one from your own research, and you chose to wave it off.

I have not shrugged it off, BS

A 13 year age discrepancy (75 vs. 62) can hardly be construed as something to show that Smith was not concerned about ages but points to the idea that he made a mistake that went unchecked. Smith died only 2 years after the publication of the Book of Abraham and the papyrus and and translation project went on hold because he was tied up with the Nauvoo House and temple construction. Smith was very much concerned with the timeline, chronology, and the AGES of the patriarchs and important persons mentioned in those records. He told us the very ages in which the patriarchs were ordained and that's proof that he was interested in precise record keeping. The Book of Mormon follows the same consistent pattern and formula in keeping up with prophetic time! Smith followed the timeline given in the Adam Clarke Commentary and published various tables and description that break down epochs in the biblical record in order to tie it into his 6,000 year prophetic scheme.

It is your assumption that 62 is wrong. I agree that in certain contexts Joseph Smith was interested in numbers, but I don’t think that pertains in the same way in every context. He doesn’t provide any real anchoring dates in the Book of Abraham, and the one age he does provide does not agree with other places where he provides an age for Abraham. I don’t see that Smith is consistent in the way he treats numbers.

[Shulem]

It is your assumption that 62 is wrong.

No, it is not my assumption. You are wrong about that, Kish, and so was Joseph Smith when retelling a story in which he was already familiar having reference to other accounts that testify of the correct accounting that came down from the Jews and was maintained in the libraries of human learning. Notably it should be pointed out that Sarai was younger and in her 60's when she went down into Egypt. Could it be that Smith was confused with that? It's possible and it's also possible that the age in this case may have been corrected (edited) in a future publication under Smith's control.

Now Abram, having no son of his own, adopted Lot, his brother Haran's son, and his wife Sarai's brother; and he left the land of Chaldea when he was seventy-five years old, and at the command of God went into Canaan, and therein he dwelt himself, and left it to his posterity

And Abram was seventy and five years old — As Abram was now seventy-five years old, and his father Terah had just died, at the age of two hundred and five, consequently Terah must have been one hundred and thirty when Abram was born; and the seventieth year of his age mentioned Genesis 11:26, was the period at which Haran, not Abram, was born.

Thou art a fair woman to look upon — Widely differing in her complexion from the swarthy Egyptians, and consequently more likely to be coveted by them. It appears that Abram supposed they would not scruple to take away the life of the husband in order to have the undisturbed possession of the wife. The age of Sarai at this time is not well agreed on by commentators, some making her ninety, while others make her only sixty-five. From Genesis 17:17, we learn that Sarai was ten years younger than Abram, for she was but ninety when he was one hundred. And from Genesis 12:4, we find that Abram was seventy-five when he was called to leave Haran and go to Canaan, at which time Sarai could be only sixty-five; and if the transactions recorded in the preceding verses took place in the course of that year, which I think possible, consequently Sarai was but sixty-five;

So, the age of 75 is not a mistake from the historical records. Smith was the one in error for not following the accounting given in the records in this case.

I agree that in certain contexts Joseph Smith was interested in numbers, but I don’t think that pertains in the same way in every context.

Again, you're wrong. Joseph Smith was ALWAYS interested in numbers accept for the number of days it took for Lehi to sail to America because he couldn't recall *that* number from the missing 116 page manuscript which leaves our current edition wanting. Numbers, numbers, numbers! Joseph Smith was into numbers!

He doesn’t provide any real anchoring dates in the Book of Abraham, and the one age he does provide does not agree with other places where he provides an age for Abraham. I don’t see that Smith is consistent in the way he treats numbers.

The reason you don't "see" is because you're being stubborn and are blinded by your own craftiness and willingness to go up against Shulem in these matters. Just stop. You can't win. Yield to my wisdom, please.

I recommend this thread in which you can learn more about just how important numbers were to Joseph Smith:

FOURTH NEPHI THE BOOK OF NEPHI WHO IS THE SON OF NEPHI—ONE OF THE DISCIPLES OF Jesus Christ



PS. Sometimes it's fun to be provocative.

[Kishkumen]

You and I are looking at this from completely different angles, and nothing you say in your post persuades me. What does it mean to say that Joseph Smith was wrong about the age of a mythological Hebrew hero? Really!?!?

The correct question to ask is why 62 and what significance do numbers have in this context.

[Shulem]

You and I are looking at this from completely different angles, and nothing you say in your post persuades me. What does it mean to say that Joseph Smith was wrong about the age of a mythological Hebrew hero? Really!?!?

It matters not whether the character in question is mythological or not. Smith was wrong regardless of whether YOU think the character is mythological or not. Joseph Smith believed and taught that Abraham was a real character who lived in time during X BC and his accounting given in the Book of Abraham of this person is in error according to the records having come down from the Jews.

Again, whether mythological or not has nothing to do with adding or counting numbers. Why can't you see that? Open your eyes, please.

The correct question to ask is why 62 and what significance do numbers have in this context.

No, the correct question to ask is was Smith in error in recalling the age given in the Bible that is backed by other historical sources. Why can't you see that? You, my friend are attempting to complicate things in order to get out of bind in which YOU placed yourself in.

[Shulem]

The correct question to ask is why 62 and what significance do numbers have in this context.

Kish, please stop being so stubborn.

You have yet to address that Smith endorsed age 75 in his revised version of Genesis as recorded in both manuscripts in the handwriting of John Whitmer and Sidney Rigdon. But the Book of Abraham went awry and records 62 -- therein is the error.

Who can say why Smith elected to change the KJV age of 75 to 62 in the Book of Abraham? The JST was a thorough work wherein Smith ultimately blessed and confirmed the age of 75 in the inspired revision. Could it be that age 65 in the Book of Abraham was a scribal error of some kind? Or maybe Smith elected to mix it up? That's possible.

[Marcus]

....People do care about what I say and my Book of Abraham critical studies which have been on going....

Yes. We. Do.

Please continue, your analysis and thoughts are much appreciated.

[Shulem]

Yes. We. Do.

Please continue, your analysis and thoughts are much appreciated.

What apologetic response might the Church offer to justify the difference between Joseph Smith's so-called inspired revision of Genesis vs. the canonized Book of Abraham? The Book of Abraham study manual on the Church website has this to say:

Age 62

Event Abraham and his family left the land of Haran for the land of Canaan (see Abraham 2:14; note that Genesis 12:4 says that he was 75 years old when they left Haran).

There is no explanation for the discrepancy!

Interesting to note that the Book of Abraham on the Church website has a footnote to the same but no explanation or clarification of any kind is offered:

So I, Abraham, departed as the Lord had said unto me, and Lot with me; and I, Abraham, was ᵃsixty and two years old when I departed out of Haran.

_________________________________________________
14a sixty
Genesis 12:4
Old Testament

4 So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

As you can see, the Church does not want to talk about it. But I do and I will!

Why? Because I am the great and powerful Shulem! Isn't that right, BYP?




PS. What do Skousen and McGuire have to say about all this?

[Shulem]

Text of Abraham 2

2:14 Here Abraham is said to have been sixty-two when he left Haran. In the Genesis account (Genesis 12:4), he is said to be seventy-five. Ancient and medieval extra-biblical sources put Abraham at, variously, fifty-two, sixty, seventy, seventy-five, and eighty years old at the time of his departure.

"Ancient and medieval extra-biblical sources?"

What the hell are you talking about, Smoot? You dodo! I don't care about those. I care about what Joseph Smith revealed via the inspired translation of that verse in his 1830 revision. But you don't want to talk about that, do you? How about telling us what the JST says, you know, the inspired revision of the Book of Genesis in which God commanded Joseph Smith to revise and translate?

YOU, Smoot, are a chicken-liver wussy minded, punk.

Come to Discuss Mormonism so I can beat you up in front everyone, including my friend Kishy.

Hugs & kisses