Isn't the Book of Abraham issue the same as the Kinderhook issue?

[_asbestosman]

edit - my views are not 'a-priori' (if I understand correctly how you're using the term). They are based on the actual evidence (the BOB does not translate into the Book of Abraham).

Perhaps I'm misusing the term. In conditional probability I use the term a priori to speak of P(A) before one calculates P(A|B) which can be calculated as P(B|A) * P(A) / P(B) by Bayesian analysis.

So it appears I have misused the term we have not used Bayes' formula in our discussion. However, if one simply removes "a-priori" my point

If I claim an alien just visited my house, and gave me a text related to extraterrestrial planets and beings, would you find it worth your time to look for evidences of the truthfulness of the text? Or would my claim regarding the 'production' of the text be enough to warrant your dismissal of it?

Depends in part on how much effort it would be for me to examine it and what I think hangs in the balance. While I find extraterrestrials to be unlikely, I still consider it interesting enough to look now and then. Of course with many purported cases of this sort of stuff I certainly can't examine them all so it becomes necassary for me to ask which ones are most interesting to study further.

Still, I figure that as long as critics are examining the Book of Abraham, they may as well examine the text too. Similarly I would imagine that I may as well examine your text if I go through the trouble of examining your home for forensic evidence of extraterrestrials--or of your handwriting on the papers.

[_asbestosman]

I don't think he lied. He may have been mistaken, or mahbe critics are mistaken about the papyrus.

You mean, maybe the egyptologists are mistaken? :O

No although I suppose it possible too. I meant that perhaps we are looking at the wrong text or perhaps the egyptologists are correct, but that the text was a corrupted form of the original like how the JST came about, or perhaps something else.

[_Who Knows]

Still, I figure that as long as critics are examining the Book of Abraham, they may as well examine the text too. Similarly I would imagine that I may as well examine your text if I go through the trouble of examining your home for forensic evidence of extraterrestrials--or of your handwriting on the papers.

But why? If you examine the physical evidence, and decide that this purported alien visit did not happen - why would you then decide it's worth the effort to examine the text of the document for supposed 'parallels'? Especially given the subjective nature of the possibility of parallels?

The opposite could be said for the Book of Mormon. We aren't left with gold plates to examine the process of the translation. Additionally, we have witnesses to the gold plates, which provides some evidence of their existence. Thus, we are left to examine the text of the Book of Mormon - which is what is going on now.

We can skip all that with the Book of Abraham since we know that the production story of the Book of Abraham doesn't pan out.

I meant that perhaps we are looking at the wrong text or perhaps the egyptologists are correct, but that the text was a corrupted form of the original like how the JST came about, or perhaps something else.

I suppose anything is possible. But is it likely?

A dumb and dumber quote comes to mind. Mary tells Lloyd that their chances of 'hooking up' are a million to one. And Lloyd responds 'so you're telling me there's a chance'. :)

[_asbestosman]

But why? If you examine the physical evidence, and decide that this purported alien visit did not happen - why would you then decide it's worth the effort to examine the text of the document for supposed 'parallels'? Especially given the subjective nature of the possibility of parallels?

Because the best evidence may be the text itself. As long as we're investigating something I may as well look at all the significant parts. I believe the police routinely do this even when they are certain they have the criminal, they will still interview others as part of the routine investigation. Why ignore the text unless it really takes too much effort to examine once you've already committed to examining everything else?

I meant that perhaps we are looking at the wrong text or perhaps the egyptologists are correct, but that the text was a corrupted form of the original like how the JST came about, or perhaps something else.

I suppose anything is possible. But is it likely?

I wouldn't know, but it seems I find it much more likely than you do. Hey, if one accepts talking donkeys, burning bushes that don't get consumed, truning water to wine, walking on water, and being raised from the dead, then I don't see what's so unlikely about the other things. Faith and all that.

[_Who Knows]

Because the best evidence may be the text itself. As long as we're investigating something I may as well look at all the significant parts. I believe the police routinely do this even when they are certain they have the criminal, they will still interview others as part of the routine investigation. Why ignore the text unless it really takes too much effort to examine once you've already committed to examining everything else?

But where do you stop? We know the text doesn't translate. Sure, you can keep investigating, and search for subjective parallels, but that's not going to convince an unbeliever - it'll merely, possibly, satisfy a believer.

Also, part of looking at the the 'production' of the Book of Abraham includes looking at the text. Does it translate?

I wouldn't know, but it seems I find it much more likely than you do. Hey, if one accepts talking donkeys, burning bushes that don't get consumed, truning water to wine, walking on water, and being raised from the dead, then I don't see what's so unlikely about the other things. Faith and all that.

I see what you're saying. I just have a problem when faith conflicts with 'science' - which in this case it does.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here.