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

[_asbestosman]

Probability(Book of Abraham is not true)=.99
...the Book of Abraham is the one we get to examine scientifically and can be most confident about

Then I reject your second probability premise of the implications. I think that's part of what apologists are studying whether its about missing papyrus or whatever other theory they have.

In other words, you think that the Book of Abraham not being true implies little about Joseph Smith's prophethood?
I think it implies lots. It is like a particle accelerator test of a big theory. The test fails so it falsifies the theory (Joseph Smith is a prophet)
We don't assume the big theory to conclude that the result must be wrong-- do we?

Part of the issue is in what you are defining as the Book of Abraham. I don't see why missing papyrus can't have something to do with it. But yes, maybe it was a corrupted version that was transmitted to us just as with JST of the Bible and therefore the papyrus being translated differently won't have as big an implication as you imagine.

That science is done differently comes as no suprise to me. I sometimes wish I could perform an experiement of the sort where we could demonstrate prayer works in a double-blind test. Unfortunately God doesn't seem willing to let us do that sort of thing what with the Templeton Foundation already trying and all.

[_asbestosman]

So what does that leave us with? A 1% chance (if my calculations are correct).

You know, even if I only have a 1% chance of dying in an automobile accident if I don't wear a seatbelt, I think I'll still wear one.

Yeah, I know Pascal's Wager has problems, but I wanted to say something almost smart in reply without going into the sticky details of how hard it is to determine which factors are revelant as well as how relevant they are when combined. Not to mention how difficult it would be for us all to agree with Who Knows' probability estimates.

[_Who Knows]

So what does that leave us with? A 1% chance (if my calculations are correct).

You know, even if I only have a 1% chance of dying in an automobile accident if I don't wear a seatbelt, I think I'll still wear one.

Yeah, I know Pascal's Wager has problems, but I wanted to say something almost smart in reply without going into the sticky details of how hard it is to determine which factors are revelant as well as how relevant they are when combined. Not to mention how difficult it would be for us all to agree with Who Knows' probability estimates.

Heehee. That's kind of what i was trying to do - you started with a 90% probability that the Book of Mormon was true.

[_asbestosman]

Heehee. That's kind of what I was trying to do - you started with a 90% probability that the Book of Mormon was true.

Ah, well I never intended my estimates to be convincing to others. I was just trying to let others see my reasoning even if they reject some of my estimates.

[_Who Knows]

I'm curious what you mean by 'probability'. Do you mean something like this: The Book of Mormon is true, therefore Joseph Smith was a prophet, therefore it's probable that the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith claimed it is.

Yes, something like that.

It's funny - Schryver (and other apologists) accuse critics of focusing on the production of the Book of Abraham, while not adequately dealing with the actual text of the Book of Abraham.

I tried to tell him my reasoning, but he never gave a response. Let's see if the following works:

Probability that texts based on fraudulent sources are fraudulent = .90
Probability that the Book of Abraham was produced fraudulently = .90
Therefore, the probability that the text of the Book of Abraham is bogus = .81

Therefore, there is no need to address the text of the Book of Abraham, as it's probable that it's fraudulent.

(Yes, this is sort of an inverse to your reasoning ABMan - and most other LDS).

[_asbestosman]

It's funny - Schryver (and other apologists) accuse critics of focusing on the production of the Book of Abraham, while not adequately dealing with the actual text of the Book of Abraham.

I find that reasonable just as I rejected Tarski's second premise. I think critics would do best to focus on the message found in the PoGP. I think that has more significance as to the truth value of the Book of Abraham and hence of Joseph Smith's prophethood.

Therefore, there is no need to address the text of the Book of Abraham, as it's probable that it's fraudulent.

(Yes, this is sort of an inverse to your reasoning ABMan - and most other LDS).

While that's logical, I certainly would not agree with your high a-priori estimate that the Book of Abraham was produced fraudlently. Indeed I think that's one of the questions for which we should examine the text--if nothing else to compare it to the purported source of translation.

[_Who Knows]

While that's logical, I certainly would not agree with your high a-priori estimate that the Book of Abraham was produced fraudlently. Indeed I think that's one of the questions for which we should examine the text--if nothing else to compare it to the purported source of translation.

If I didn't find it probable that it was fraudulent, searching for parallels might be a fruitful exercise.

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?

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).

[_SatanWasSetUp]

It's funny - Schryver (and other apologists) accuse critics of focusing on the production of the Book of Abraham, while not adequately dealing with the actual text of the Book of Abraham.

I find that reasonable just as I rejected Tarski's second premise. I think critics would do best to focus on the message found in the PoGP. I think that has more significance as to the truth value of the Book of Abraham and hence of Joseph Smith's prophethood.

The problem is, if the production was fraudulent, it damages the credibility of the messenger. If Joseph Smith simply presented it as his theological theories, then we could simply focus on the message and weigh the book on that alone. But he claimed it to be a translation of Egyptian scrolls, and if it turns out he lied, we have a theological theory coming from a guy who lied about the source. Why would he lie, and why would we now take his theological theories seriously?

[Analytics]

Why would he lie, and why would we now take his theological theories seriously?

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

[_Who Knows]

Why would he lie, and why would we now take his theological theories seriously?

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