Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Shulem]

This particular issue also points to the reason why someone like Bokovoy would label the Book of Abraham as Pseudepigrapha. Skousen wants the text to be ancient scripture (in some way). Bokovoy would argue that it is modern scripture.

I think it's safe to say that Bokovoy and Skousen are very aware that the narrative in Book of Abraham chapter one is entirely based on the premise that Joseph Smith's IDEA of ancient Egypt was founded and began AFTER Noah's flood -- biblically dated at 2400 BC. Joseph Smith's Latter Day Saint church officially published the biblical dating in the Church periodical and ascribed to that timeline as definite and nonnegotiable. The modern Utah church today continues to publish that dating as set in stone and maintain that Egypt was founded after the flood. Nothing could be further from the truth! The Church is wrong!

So, what does John Gee and his lap-dog, Kerry what's-his-name, have to say about that?

Hey Gee, it sucks to be you. Woof, woof! I've lifted the curtain and exposed the charade. You, sir, are living a lie. You're going to be toast once the BYP picks this story up and runs with it. He is the most qualified person to take to the airwaves and sound the alarm! I have to believe that his notebook is enlarged and he will pump this out to your utter demise.

It's almost time to retire, John. You're almost there. Off into the sunset in disgrace. Turn out the lights the party is over -- we critics win!

[Kishkumen]

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.

I don't know that it was an error, and you haven't demonstrated that/how it is an error.

[Kishkumen]

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!

Yeah, surprising that there are not answers to every question. There are people who work on them. You could work on them. On the other hand, you could simply call it an error and move on. Or you could spend the rest of your life repeating that Joseph made a mistake and call him a liar. Which is an interesting contradiction on your part. But, rest assured that in Smith's case there are usually interesting and deliberate reasons behind these choices that people are able to dig up. Just because this one has not been solved yet does not mean that no one cares or is trying to cover something up. They may just not have a satisfying answer YET.

[Shulem]

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.

I don't know that it was an error, and you haven't demonstrated that/how it is an error.

75 (JST) vs. 62 (B of A) is a mathematical contradiction in terms. The inspired revision of the Bible Trump's the Times and Seasons version of the Book of Abraham. Smith likened his Geneses revision to include the Visions of Moses as canonical in nature. The published version of the Book of Abraham was not complete and was set aside for future work to include the translation and eventual publication of the Book of Joseph.

[Kishkumen]

75 (JST) vs. 62 (B of A) is a mathematical contradiction in terms. The inspired revision of the Bible Trump's the Times and Seasons version of the Book of Abraham. Smith likened his Geneses revision to include the Visions of Moses as canonical in nature. The published version of the Book of Abraham was not complete and was set aside for future work to include the translation and eventual publication of the Book of Joseph.

Yes, Shulem, we all know that 75 is not 62. What we do not know is why he put 62 in the Book of Abraham. That is a question in need of an answer, and you do not have a compelling answer to it. That's OK. Someone else will eventually come up with a good answer. Yours is not a good answer.

[Shulem]

75 (JST) vs. 62 (B of A) is a mathematical contradiction in terms. The inspired revision of the Bible Trump's the Times and Seasons version of the Book of Abraham. Smith likened his Geneses revision to include the Visions of Moses as canonical in nature. The published version of the Book of Abraham was not complete and was set aside for future work to include the translation and eventual publication of the Book of Joseph.

Yes, Shulem, we all know that 75 is not 62. What we do not know is why he put 62 in the Book of Abraham. That is a question in need of an answer, and you do not have a compelling answer to it. That's OK. Someone else will eventually come up with a good answer. Yours is not a good answer.

I don't feel a compelling need to come up with an answer to why Joseph Smith put 62 into the Book of Abraham rather than 75. Why should I? Am I his lawyer? I don't care why he did it but I do care that he did it! And that's proof positive that a contradiction in numerical terms exists in his so-called revelations and that raises a serious question for those who think God spoke through him.

I'm a critic not Joseph Smith's lawyer. Let the apologists come up with their silly answers and I'll shoot them down just as fast.

[Kishkumen]

I don't feel a compelling need to come up with an answer to why Joseph Smith put 62 into the Book of Abraham rather than 75. Why should I? Am I his lawyer? I don't care why he did it but I do care that he did it! And that's proof positive that a contradiction in numerical terms exists in his so-called revelations and that raises a serious question for those who think God spoke through him.

I'm a critic not Joseph Smith's lawyer. Let the apologists come up with their silly answers and I'll shoot them down just as fast.

Ah, good. OK. You are a critic. Not an apologist. Not a scholar. A critic. OK. I can accept that.

I will wait for scholars to figure out the 62 question. I will not ask a critic to do a scholar's work.

[Shulem]

Or you could spend the rest of your life repeating that Joseph made a mistake and call him a liar. Which is an interesting contradiction on your part.

The lie is that he pretended to translate the hieroglyphics on the papyrus. *That* was a lie. The mistake is that age 62 was included in that record rather than maintaining the age of 75 which is affirmed in the Bible and his prior revision of Genesis.

I would like to think that I differentiate between the two. So quit lumping everything into one and misrepresenting my critical analysis.

[Shulem]

I don't feel a compelling need to come up with an answer to why Joseph Smith put 62 into the Book of Abraham rather than 75. Why should I? Am I his lawyer? I don't care why he did it but I do care that he did it! And that's proof positive that a contradiction in numerical terms exists in his so-called revelations and that raises a serious question for those who think God spoke through him.

I'm a critic not Joseph Smith's lawyer. Let the apologists come up with their silly answers and I'll shoot them down just as fast.

Ah, good. OK. You are a critic. Not an apologist. Not a scholar. A critic. OK. I can accept that.

I will wait for scholars to figure out the 62 question. I will not ask a critic to do a scholar's work.

Fair enough. Thank you!

[Shulem]

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.

I don't know that it was an error, and you haven't demonstrated that/how it is an error.

It's not possible to be a different age at the same time. That is impossible. The Bible tells us that Abraham was 175 years old when he died. But what *if* the Book of Abraham said he was 162 years old when he died? Could both be true? Could both reflect accuracy in a story about the age of a man's death?

The short answer is, no. Absolutely not. The two accounts contradict each other and both can't be true. And if one is correct that means the other is not. Therefore, there is an error.