Dan still on about the Book f Abraham (BYU St Vol)

[hauslern]

I don't want to bother engaging Petersen on his own "obsession" with this board. My would probably be accused of hijacking the comments. From a Facebook friend who is helping me navigate How t Read Egyptian (Collier & Manley) "Egyptian didn't have a hieroglyph for the "L" sound. I think the "L" sound was either rare or weird in ancient Egyptian. The recumbent lion is really a combination of "r" and "w." This is a 2-consonant sign and they used it for the "L" sound in foreign names like "Ptolemy" and "Cleopatra" who were not Egyptians but Macedonians who had Greek names. This rarity of "L" in Egyptian always comes to mind when I read in facsimile no. 2 fig. 2 that Joseph says "called by the Egyptians Oliblish." I now know a number of scholars who because of the evidence want to see the contents as inspired not a translation.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

[Philo Sofee]

I couldn't help but notice the very first comment by "The Last Danite:"

I do notice how the grand chorus of criticism towards the Book of Abraham almost never deal with the actual text itself. The text feels ancient and is among the most theologically rich on Earth.

This is laughably false. Lets see him discuss Shulem's entire discussion of the entire chapter 1 on Egyptian beginnings and chronology. But it will never mean defenders won't always love their own strawmen instead of the actual discussions on the text of the Book of Abraham and why it actually only "feels ancient" (LOL!) instead of being ancient in reality.

Quite frankly, Tolkien's Middle Earth and Numenor feel vastly more ancient to me than the text of the Book of Abraham. I wonder if this defender could actually grasp how inane his point is. "It just feels ancient!" Therefore the Holy Ghost will sure testify to one that it is!

[jfro18]

I couldn't help but notice the very first comment by "The Last Danite:"

I do notice how the grand chorus of criticism towards the Book of Abraham almost never deal with the actual text itself. The text feels ancient and is among the most theologically rich on Earth.

This is laughably false. Lets see him discuss Shulem's entire discussion of the entire chapter 1 on Egyptian beginnings and chronology. But it will never mean defenders won't always love their own strawmen instead of the actual discussions on the text of the Book of Abraham and why it actually only "feels ancient" (LOL!) instead of being ancient in reality.

There is definitely way more focus on the translation since that shows without any question that this is a fraudulent document, but that being said I did an entire page on the *text* of the Book of Abraham because I knew that was an area apologists try to fall back to and, wouldn't you know it, the text tells us that it's a 19th century document without even needing the translation.

This is definitely a really ill-informed comment, but it's one you often see because there's no good way to deal with the translation itself.

[Moksha]

This is definitely a really ill-informed comment, but it's one you often see because there's no good way to deal with the translation itself.

What if apologists were to define translation as fiction writing?

[Fence Sitter]

I couldn't help but notice the very first comment by "The Last Danite:"

I do notice how the grand chorus of criticism towards the Book of Abraham almost never deal with the actual text itself. The text feels ancient and is among the most theologically rich on Earth.

This is laughably false. Lets see him discuss Shulem's entire discussion of the entire chapter 1 on Egyptian beginnings and chronology. But it will never mean defenders won't always love their own strawmen instead of the actual discussions on the text of the Book of Abraham and why it actually only "feels ancient" (LOL!) instead of being ancient in reality.

Quite frankly, Tolkien's Middle Earth and Numenor feel vastly more ancient to me than the text of the Book of Abraham. I wonder if this defender could actually grasp how inane his point is. "It just feels ancient!" Therefore the Holy Ghost will sure testify to one that it is!

David Bokovoy dealt directly with the text in his Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis -Deuteronomy and showed how it cannot be anything other than pseudepigrapha.

[Kishkumen]

I don't want to bother engaging Petersen on his own "obsession" with this board. My would probably be accused of hijacking the comments. From a Facebook friend who is helping me navigate How t Read Egyptian (Collier & Manley) "Egyptian didn't have a hieroglyph for the "L" sound. I think the "L" sound was either rare or weird in ancient Egyptian. The recumbent lion is really a combination of "r" and "w." This is a 2-consonant sign and they used it for the "L" sound in foreign names like "Ptolemy" and "Cleopatra" who were not Egyptians but Macedonians who had Greek names. This rarity of "L" in Egyptian always comes to mind when I read in facsimile no. 2 fig. 2 that Joseph says "called by the Egyptians Oliblish." I now know a number of scholars who because of the evidence want to see the contents as inspired not a translation.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

Interesting stuff, Noel. Aren’t these name interpretations Hebrewish and not Egyptian? I have stopped paying attention to the finer details of Book of Abraham material for some time.

[Philo Sofee]

I don't want to bother engaging Petersen on his own "obsession" with this board. My would probably be accused of hijacking the comments. From a Facebook friend who is helping me navigate How t Read Egyptian (Collier & Manley) "Egyptian didn't have a hieroglyph for the "L" sound. I think the "L" sound was either rare or weird in ancient Egyptian. The recumbent lion is really a combination of "r" and "w." This is a 2-consonant sign and they used it for the "L" sound in foreign names like "Ptolemy" and "Cleopatra" who were not Egyptians but Macedonians who had Greek names. This rarity of "L" in Egyptian always comes to mind when I read in facsimile no. 2 fig. 2 that Joseph says "called by the Egyptians Oliblish." I now know a number of scholars who because of the evidence want to see the contents as inspired not a translation.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... qus_thread

Interesting stuff, Noel. Aren’t these name interpretations Hebrewish and not Egyptian? I have stopped paying attention to the finer details of Book of Abraham material for some time.

Yes, you are on the right track here Kish. That there is any Hebrew at all in a supposed translation of an ancient document from Abraham's day is an anachronism, i.e., Hebrew didn't exist that far back in time, therefore having Hebrew in the translation os foolproof positive Joseph Smith is putting his own ideas into it, i.e. it is not a translation, it is Smith's creation.

[Shulem]

Yes, you are on the right track here Kish. That there is any Hebrew at all in a supposed translation of an ancient document from Abraham's day is an anachronism, i.e., Hebrew didn't exist that far back in time, therefore having Hebrew in the translation os foolproof positive Joseph Smith is putting his own ideas into it, i.e. it is not a translation, it is Smith's creation.

And what's more disgusting is how Peterson tells about getting his hard copy of A Guide to the Book of Abraham and then goes on to say how he likes this quotation from Elder Parley P. Pratt:

When we read the Book of Abraham with the reflection that its light has burst upon the world after a silence of three or four thousand years, during which it has slumbered in the bosom of the dead, and been sealed up in the sacred archives of Egypt’s mouldering ruins.

Note how Pratt said the record was three or four thousand years and slumbered silently in the mummies who were dead during all that time. That means the papyrus was on the order of three or four thousand years old as attested by Joseph Smith.

[Shulem]

Peterson,

You are a dumbass!

[hauslern]

Interesting about the role of Anubis
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1APs ... XtCaw/edit