Page 2 of 4
Re: how mopologists explain the Book of Abraham:
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:34 pm
by _Holy Ghost
The Kirtland Egyptian Papers nail the Book of Abraham as a man-made fabrication. The apologists attempt to say that the KEP came after the Book of Abraham was already produced. That is contrary to entries in History of the Church for the second half of 1835. The KEP was being worked on before the end of July 1835, and it wasn't until the end of September 1835 that Abraham's astronomy was 'revealed' to Joseph Smith.
The KEP does two things. It demonstrates the the papyrus found in 1967 is THE one Joseph Smith and scribes supposedly translated into being the Book of Abraham (even though as enabled by the Rosetta Stone, Egyptologists agree that there is nothing on the papyrus that matches up with the Book of Abraham story). The KEP proves it was a linguistic translation that Joseph Smith and scribes were attempting, taking characters in one language and creating corresponding text in English. That is, the KEP proves the Joseph Smith was trying to pass off the Book of Abraham as a translation as that term was then and now is ordinarily used and understood, just as Joseph entitled and introduced it:
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH
A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.
The problems with the Book of Abraham being what Joseph Smith claimed are legion. The problem posed by the KEP, as explained above, is just one--one that alone dooms Joseph Smith's claims for what the Book of Abraham is and its source.
The Book of Abraham is for those that take an honest look at it, the rabbit hole down which one starts to find all the wondrous realities.
Re: how mopologists explain the Book of Abraham:
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 3:50 pm
by _Shulem
Holy Ghost wrote:The Kirtland Egyptian Papers nail the Book of Abraham as a man-made fabrication.
Yes, it's man-made. Even Hugh Nibley admits it and tried to pin the blame on the "men of Kirtland" in their vain attempt to figure out how it was translated -- the work being purely speculative and exploratory.
It was the "men of Kirtland", indeed, the KEP was man-made as was the entire fabrication of the Book of Abraham.
Re: how mopologists explain the Book of Abraham:
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:02 pm
by _Shulem
Holy Ghost wrote:The KEP proves it was a linguistic translation that Joseph Smith and scribes were attempting, taking characters in one language and creating corresponding text in English.
It's the same thing with Facsimile No. 3. Nobody can deny it. It's not a matter of "missing papyrus" in order to appease the apologists and thwart the critics. We have absolute evidence with the Facsimile No. 3 Explanations which point directly to the Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in the registers.
It's a slam dunk! Joseph Smith made it all up. He couldn't translate Egyptian. He couldn't read Egyptian. He was lying.
Re: how mopologists explain the Book of Abraham:
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:00 pm
by _moksha
Lemmie wrote:The book of Abraham WAS offered up as an exact Egyptian translation, right up until the point when it was identified as NOT an Egyptian translation. That's when the alternate theories started.
When reality is insufficient, it is time for apologetics.
Re: how mopologists explain the Book of Abraham:
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:17 pm
by _I have a question
Today the Church officially portrays the Book Of Abraham thusly...
The Book of Abraham
Translated from the Papyrus, by Joseph Smith
A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 1?lang=engKiwi57 is a liar.
Re: how mopologists explain the Book of Abraham:
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:21 pm
by _Shulem
Lemmie wrote:The book of Abraham WAS offered up as an exact Egyptian translation
Book of Abraham wrote:TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS
A Translation of some ancient Records
TRANSLATED
FROM THE PAPYRUS
A Translation
of some ancient Records
1 + 1 = 2
Stupid damned Mormons
Re: how mopologists explain the Book of Abraham:
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:31 pm
by _Shulem
Book of Abraham wrote:TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS
Book of Mormon:
TRANSLATED
FROM THE GOLDEN PLATES
It's the very same thing.
Re: how mopologists explain the Book of Abraham:
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:22 pm
by _Holy Ghost
Shulem wrote:Even Hugh Nibley admits it and tried to pin the blame on the "men of Kirtland" in their vain attempt to figure out how it was translated -- the work being purely speculative and exploratory.
That's like putting the lipstick on the pig's anus. Chris Smith's piece on the KEP being the drafting for Abraham 1:1-3 shoots to ____ this notion. Oh, yea, unless the started with the 5th degree expansions (verbiage from Abraham 1:1-3) and then left room for and worked backwords to lesser and lesser expansions to then just the character. "Yea, that's the ticket."
Re: how mopologists explain the Book of Abraham:
Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:26 pm
by _Holy Ghost
Holding up the Book of Abraham to a Mormon apologist or GA has an effect very similar to holding up a cross and flicking holy water on a vampire, or dumping a pail of water on the wicked witch of the west--"I'm melting, melting."
Re: how mopologists explain the Book of Abraham:
Posted: Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:13 pm
by _Mormonicious
Lemmie wrote:I've often wondered how LDS reconcile certain facts and information, and yet still believe, and the commenter kiwi has given some interesting details:
Unconvinced wrote:The Rosetta Stone. It’s conflicting physical evidence that believers disregard that shows Joseph Smith wasn’t able to decipher or translate Egyptian hieroglyphic script at all.
Kiwi, to Unconvinced, wrote:I doubt that I know less about the Rosetta Stone than you do. For it to be “conflicting physical evidence,” we would need to have established the following:
1. The Book of Abraham would have to be offered to the Church as exactly a conventional translation.
2. The translation would have to be of some known Egyptian source - such as Joseph Smith Papyri I, XI and X.
3. It would then have to have been proven not to be.
Of those points, point 1 is flatly false.
Flatly. False.
Point 2 is and remains significantly controversial. All evidence in its favour is equivocal.
Therefore, point 3 - which is the only point that falls within the purview of a trained Egyptologist, such as Dr Robert Ritner - is moot.
Just one example.
Of how badly you handle questions of evidence? I don’t doubt it.
I don't think kiwi is quite as conversant in matters of evidence as he supposes himself to be.
The book of Abraham WAS offered up as an exact Egyptian translation, right up until the point when it was identified as NOT an Egyptian translation. That's when the alternate theories started.
