Laying to rest another Abraham parallel

[_Runtu]

Go back and read the thread again Runtu. Smiths opponents here leveled his arguments for what they were: attempts to force rather unambiguous ancient parelless and rabbinic support for those parellels into a standard, formatted, and fixed anti-Mormon tmeplate that assumes a priori that the Book of Abraham and all things Mormon are fraudulent. That argument does not stand up to critical scrutiny, as this thread makes perfectly clear, despite Smiths yeoman effoert to make it appear so.

Honestly, the same old mantra: he's just forcing the issue because he already believes the Book of Mormon to be a fraud. Yeah, sure, Chris Smith is one of those evil anti-Mormons.

That's all you have, Cogs?

[_Coggins7]

The evidence is that Smith did not misread the texts (unless the rabbi's did, as Metcalf must claim to make a necessary course correction here), but that Smith either knew things about ancient religious doctrines and religous miliius that no one else at the time knew, or the laws of probabilty were voided in his favor to a degree unimaginable.

[_Runtu]

The evidence is that Smith did not misread the texts (unless the rabbi's did, as Metcalf must claim to make a necessary course correction here), but that Smith either knew things about ancient religious doctrines and religous miliius that no one else at the time knew, or the laws of probabilty were voided in his favor to a degree unimaginable.

Actually, no, that wasn't Chris's point. Joseph's reading corresponds to a typical Biblical reading, which Chris suggested was anachronistic. It wasn't something Joseph got right despite the overwhelming odds against it. As Chris put it, Joseph's was "obviously just a revision of Genesis 12:15."

[_CaliforniaKid]

All Smith does is recycle the same semantic and textual quibbles over and over and over again. The weight of the evidence is utterly on the apologetic side. I've read the entire thread, and nothing has changed. This was only a snippet. Smith's argument was suitably dismantled by some others there as well. lts about a three or four page thread.

Smith dismisses the clear meaning of ancient texts and of known rabbinic commentary in favor of his own eclectic revisonism. If any of this had actually been settled folks, the debate wouldn't be going on at all. Each side approaches the evidence with its own bias and with very impergfect historical evidence. However, as usual, the critic finds he needs to retreat deeper and deeper and deeper into the splitting of finer and finer hairs as time goes on. to keep their case afloat. That's what we see in most of these arguments.

Cogs, have you been using the Random Complaint Generator again? :-P

[_Runtu]

Cogs, have you been using the Random Complaint Generator again? :-P

No mention of acid-dropping left-wing moral relativists, so, maybe he's off his game. ;)

[_Coggins7]

Actually, no, that wasn't Chris's point. Joseph's reading corresponds to a typical Biblical reading, which Chris suggested was anachronistic. It wasn't something Joseph got right despite the overwhelming odds against it. As Chris put it, Joseph's was "obviously just a revision of Genesis 12:15."

Joseph's reading corresponds to the readings of ancient texts dealing with Abraham that Joseph did not have and no one understood at that time. Those ancient texts and a nuber of rabbinic commnetaries support Josehp's readings, not the critics' claims about a 19th century orgin for the Book of Abraham.

And that's where the rubber meets the proverbial road, and where Smith's straw grasping breaks down.

[_Runtu]

Actually, no, that wasn't Chris's point. Joseph's reading corresponds to a typical Biblical reading, which Chris suggested was anachronistic. It wasn't something Joseph got right despite the overwhelming odds against it. As Chris put it, Joseph's was "obviously just a revision of Genesis 12:15."

Joseph's reading corresponds to the readings of ancient texts dealing with Abraham that Joseph did not have and no one understood at that time. Those ancient texts and a nuber of rabbinic commnetaries support Josehp's readings, not the critics' claims about a 19th century orgin for the Book of Abraham.

And that's where the rubber meets the proverbial road, and where Smith's straw grasping breaks down.

So, you just wave off Chris's post because Joseph got other things right? The problem for you is that Joseph's reading corresponds mostly to the Bible and to stuff he was reading at the time. I think your thread over on the other board has the potential to be interesting. I've already posted Paul O's list of parallels with the AofA, but you don't seem particularly interested. Have you read the Apocalypse of Abraham? Does it seem to you to correspond with the Book of Abraham? In what ways?

[_Coggins7]

So, you just wave off Chris's post because Joseph got other things right? The problem for you is that Joseph's reading corresponds mostly to the Bible and to stuff he was reading at the time. I think your thread over on the other board has the potential to be interesting. I've already posted Paul O's list of parallels with the AofA, but you don't seem particularly interested. Have you read the Apocalypse of Abraham? Does it seem to you to correspond with the Book of Abraham? In what ways?

Are you even conservant with these issues Runtu? Joseph got an astounding number of thngs right, over and over and over again, and they are things he could not have known at all, let alone in the detail in which he presents them. You are ignoring, as Smith does, the actual weight of evdience to preserve your own predjudices.

I've read all lthe available Abraham literature extent, except perhaps that not availabe to any but professional scholars, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls, pretty much everything available in the area of Jewish Pseudipigrapha, New Testament Apocrapha, early Christian gnostic works, everything I can get my hands on. The funny thing is, in very many places and in a number of ways, much of this matterial weaves together a single fabric that supports Joseph's restoration of the true Church and what that church tarught in various times and in various places in the past.

The critics have no answer to the weight of this evidence except to split hair after hair after hair attempting to make evdience go away that simply won't because its just too inherant in and too much an integral part of the ancient religious world from which these texts come.

Smith is just another brick in the wall here. He has not made his case.

At the very least Bill Hamblin, Schryver, and others their have argued Smtih to a standstill and the ball is out of the court. lHe has not made his case and has not refuted conclusively any of the coutner arguments made there.

[_Runtu]

Are you even conservant with these issues Runtu? Joseph got an astounding number of thngs right, over and over and over again, and they are things he could not have known at all, let alone in the detail in which he presents them. You are ignoring, as Smith does, the actual weight of evdience to preserve your own predjudices.

No, Cogs, I've never run across any of these issues before. Not once in 15 years of studying and debating these issues. What Joseph got "right" are interesting parallels. What he got wrong are myriad and obvious.

I've read all lthe available Abraham literature extent, except perhaps that not availabe to any but professional scholars, as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls, pretty much everything available in the area of Jewish Pseudipigrapha, New Testament Apocrapha, early Christian gnostic works, everything I can get my hands on. The funny thing is, in very many places and in a number of ways, much of this matterial weaves together a single fabric that supports Joseph's restoration of the true Church and what that church taught in various times and in various places in the past.

If you've read all this stuff, why can't you come up with a concise explanation of the things Joseph got right?

The critics have no answer to the weight of this evidence except to split hair after hair after hair attempting to make evdience go away that simply won't because its just too inherant in and too much an integral part of the ancient religious world from which these texts come.

It's not splitting hairs to argue that the evidence is rather one-sided. If the evidence is so much in your favor, let's have it and discuss it.

Smith is just another brick in the wall here. He has not made his case.

No, Joseph hasn't made a good case at all, though I'm surprised to hear you admit it. ;)

At the very least Bill Hamblin, Schryver, and others their have argued Smtih to a standstill and the ball is out of the court. lHe has not made his case and has not refuted conclusively any of the coutner arguments made there.

I suppose that's in the eye of the beholder.

[_CaliforniaKid]

It's unfortunate that many of my threads over there these days seem to either get totally ignored or to degenerate into snipefests. People make snide comments, and I find myself ever less-inclined to restrain myself from responding in kind. And then I feel like an asshole. It's really not in my nature to be an asshole, but the sarcasm brigade over there brings out the worst in me, I'm afraid.

This is exactly why I should not be posting on MADB anymore.