I Agree Completely...

[_Eyepatch]

I agree completely...it is so frustrating to have to deal with the Hydra-like quality of Book of Abraham apologetics. There are so many "possible" scenarios THAT JUST DON'T MATTER. The existing text, canonized, is sufficient for anyone who is being honest to form the conclusion that the Book of Abraham is man-made. So frustrating.

[_bcspace]

I agree completely...it is so frustrating to have to deal with the Hydra-like quality of Book of Abraham apologetics. There are so many "possible" scenarios THAT JUST DON'T MATTER. The existing text, canonized, is sufficient for anyone who is being honest to form the conclusion that the Book of Abraham is man-made. So frustrating.

The "evidence" given so far that the Book of Abraham is man made is only based on possible senarios. So I would agree that no one has shown with any reasonable doubt that it's not what it claims to be.

[_Tchild]

I agree completely...it is so frustrating to have to deal with the Hydra-like quality of Book of Abraham apologetics. There are so many "possible" scenarios THAT JUST DON'T MATTER. The existing text, canonized, is sufficient for anyone who is being honest to form the conclusion that the Book of Abraham is man-made. So frustrating.

Not only are the claims supernatural, they are ambigious. Try to get an apologist to define the process of "translation". Is it "tight", is it "loose"..or both, shifting and changing depending how it assists the apologetic rationales? was it "by the power of God", or some intangible unexplainable derivative from God? Was the "translation" by God, but not God himself, some agent not quite perfect, but getting help from God...and on and on and on.

The frustration is trying to "prove" or falsify the "translations". The problem is, the ambiguity and lack of definitions make that task impossible and merely add you, the skeptic, to the circle jerk of Mormon supernaturalism and self serving ambiguity.

Pausing to sip a cold beer usually stops the insanity.

[_bcspace]

The frustration is trying to "prove" or falsify the "translations". The problem is, the ambiguity and lack of definitions make that task impossible and merely add you, the skeptic, to the circle jerk of Mormon supernaturalism and self serving ambiguity.

So you thought there was a circle jerk you could join but was disappointed when you found out there wasn't one?

[_Some Schmo]

The frustration is trying to "prove" or falsify the "translations". The problem is, the ambiguity and lack of definitions make that task impossible and merely add you, the skeptic, to the circle jerk of Mormon supernaturalism and self serving ambiguity.

So you thought there was a circle jerk you could join but was disappointed when you found out there wasn't one?

Ohhhh! I get it now! You have a serious reading comprehension problem! It all makes sense now!

I always wondered why your posts never fit the comments you quoted (or tended to have any common sense in them whatsoever, for that matter).

[_bcspace]

Ohhhh! I get it now! You have a serious reading comprehension problem! It all makes sense now!

I always wondered why your posts never fit the comments you quoted (or tended to have any common sense in them whatsoever, for that matter).

Just responding to your logic. Garbage in, garbage out.

[_Some Schmo]

Ohhhh! I get it now! You have a serious reading comprehension problem! It all makes sense now!

I always wondered why your posts never fit the comments you quoted (or tended to have any common sense in them whatsoever, for that matter).

Just responding to your logic. Garbage in, garbage out.

CFR that you need garbage in to garbage out.

And your response was to Tchild's post, not mine. And Tchild's post was not garbage, so you were wrong on that count as well. That doesn't surprise me now though, given what I've discovered about your lack of reading comprehension.