DiscussMormonism.com

OK, I think I missed something...

Last I heard, most well informed apologists embraced the CT (catalyst theory), or maybe the MT, (mnemonic theory). I thought all but a handful of apologists still believe the Book of Abraham was translated from the actual writings (or a copy of the writings) of Abraham.

Am I mistaken? Who is still holding onto the, what shall we call it, AOWT, (Abraham's own writing theory)?

Further, is it now trying to be shown that Abraham (or someone) attached his writings onto a burial document in Egypt? This makes no sense to me... Or is the "written in his own hand" going to be removed from the Book of Abraham intro?

I am so confused... Can someone give a brief little overview of the latest? (I don't mean all the details but a simple update)?

Thanks a bunch!

~td~

I subscribe to the JDKD* theory.













*Joseph Didn't Know Dick

silentkid wrote:I subscribe to the JDKD* theory.


*Joseph Didn't Know Dick

OMG... this has kept me laughing for the last five minutes!

(I want to put about ten smilies here but Shades would be tempted to ban me. Well, not really but he may have a rise in blood pressure)!

The other day on MADB, David Bokovoy said that the Book of Abraham is Joseph Smith's reinterpretation of the papyri, not a translation of an ancient record. I would completely agree with that, except David believes the reinterpretation to have been inspired.

To me, that means the Book of Abraham is a 19th-century production. Game over.

Hi Runtu,

Thanks, wow, I have never heard of th RT (Reinterpretation Theory) before. So does David think the actual writing on the papyri was Abraham's? Is he going along with Gee and the MST (missing scroll theory)?

truth dancer wrote:Hi Runtu,

Thanks, wow, I have never heard of th RT (Reinterpretation Theory) before. So does David think the actual writing on the papyri was Abraham's?

No, he doesn't think the papyri have anything to do with Abraham. In some ways, this is just the catalyst theory revisited.

Is he going along with Gee and the MST (missing scroll theory)?

No, because he believes that, like section 7 of the D&C, this was a revelation, not a translation.

Hi TD and Runtu (my two favorite posters),

What acronymical theory does Smith's Papyri alphabet fall under?

And, by the way, do you know where the original is or where a facsimile may be obtained?

I never seem to get a straight answer when I ask this.



inc.

Inconceivable wrote:Hi TD and Runtu (my two favorite posters),

What acronymical theory does Smith's Papyri alphabet fall under?

The most common acronym I've seen is GAEL (Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language). The GAEL plus the JSP (Joseph Smith Papyri) make up the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. But then Chris Smith is probably the guy to ask.

My understanding is that proponents of the "missing scroll' theory deny that the GAEL have anything to do with the Book of Abraham.

And, by the way, do you know where the original is or where a facsimile may be obtained?

No idea. Again, Chris or Will might know.

I never seem to get a straight answer when I ask this.

inc.

Well, I'm not sure how much help I am here.

Seriously,

To see Smith's egyptian alphabet, wouldn't that be a simple pass/fail?

I mean, either it parallels the Rosetta Stone translation or it's ABLOC*?

Is this a fair assesment?







*a butt load of crap - theory

Inconceivable wrote:Seriously,

To see Smith's egyptian alphabet, wouldn't that be a simple pass/fail?

I mean, either it parallels the Rosetta Stone translation or it's ABLOCT?

Is this a fair assesment?

(a butt load of crap theory)

The apologists readily admit that the Egyptian Alphabet is, as you say, a butt load of crap. But they tell us that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with the GAEL, which was just Joseph's scribes trying their hand (unsuccessfully) at translating the Egyptian. If I understand the argument right, Chris Smith and Brent Metcalfe argue that the GAEL are the scribes' copies of Joseph's translation, which, if it's true, nullifies the missing scroll theory.