charity wrote:Without any malice toward you, either, trevor, you must be very naïve if you think you are going to find any faithful LDS speaking to any group on the basis that the Book of Mormon was written by a farm boy in his 20's. Or discussing in some academic setting how a group of individuals produced a 19th century work of fiction and got an ignorant but charismatic charlatan to market it for them.
A faithful LDS will be discussing a book put forward as the product of angelic visitation and revelations from God. And just where would that be?
Charity, this whole exchange is getting pretty damn tiresome. I have been presenting at academic conferences since 1998. I know a thing or two about them. Please don't presume to educate me on what is or is not possible in these fora, as you are quite ignorant about the matter. Academics are rather creative in how they choose to present things, and they are not limited to the scenarios you invent from a relatively uninformed position.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
charity wrote:The annual joint meeting of the American Academy or Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature (and affiliated organizations), just concluded in San Diego.
And lo and behold, look at one of the listings.
MONDAY 11/19, 1pm – 3:30pm (Location: 31 A – CC) Assyriology and the Bible Section (S19-55) John Gee, “An Egyptian Version of the Atrahasis?”
So Dr. Gee is not a respected scholar in his field and by his peers? Yeah, right.
I searched the whole program and couldn't find a listing for a Kevin Graham or a Brent Metcalfe. Did I miss something? Or maybe these people who like to take such pot shorts at Dr. Gee don't move in the same august circles as Dr. Gee and these society academicians.
Hi Charity,
It doesn't matter where John Gee has been invited to speak at, in regards to the translation of the Book of Abraham. It doesn't matter if John Gee is invited to speak in Cairo, Egypt, or if he is invited to speak on the moon. None of that is going to change the real important Fact that the Book of Abraham is a fake and phony translation from the Book of Breathing Papyrus ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text).
"And I've said it before, you want to know what Joseph Smith looked like in Nauvoo, just look at Trump." - Fence Sitter
It doesn't matter where John Gee has been invited to speak at, in regards to the translation of the Book of Abraham. It doesn't matter if John Gee is invited to speak in Cairo, Egypt, or if he is invited to speak on the moon. None of that is going to change the real important Fact that the Book of Abraham is a fake and phony translation from the Book of Breathing Papyrus ((also known as Shait en Sensen) "Breathing permit" for the priest Hor text).
Hi, Brackite. You might want to be careful with such claims. The fact that the Book of Abraham is being confirmed in content when compared to Abrahamic literure not availalbe in Joseph Smith's time is getting to be stronger and stronger evidence for authenticity. You don't want to have too many words to eat.
The Book of Abraham is not "being confirmed" in any sense whatsoever. Charity knows this, and she knows she has never successfully backed up this claim.
But since she has no integrity and a contempt for truth, she keeps repeating it.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
now if Joseph would have included the story of Angels mingling with mortal females, creating a new race of scary Giants --- now that would be a parallel.. why apologists wish to connect Joseph to these stories just because they are really really old is just dumb ! all this is really saying is Joseph Smith adopted really weird ideas, and he wrote them down just like ancient people who thought the world was flat.
dartagnan wrote:The Book of Abraham is not "being confirmed" in any sense whatsoever. Charity knows this, and she knows she has never successfully backed up this claim.
But since she has no integrity and a contempt for truth, she keeps repeating it.
You haven't heard of the Apocalypse of Abraham? I am amazed. You put yourself up here some kind of Book of Abraham expert and you don't even know about that. And then you impugn my integrity, when the fault is your own ignorance. Not very nice, Kevin.
dartagnan wrote:The Book of Abraham is not "being confirmed" in any sense whatsoever. Charity knows this, and she knows she has never successfully backed up this claim.
But since she has no integrity and a contempt for truth, she keeps repeating it.
You haven't heard of the Apocalypse of Abraham? I am amazed. You put yourself up here some kind of Book of Abraham expert and you don't even know about that. And then you impugn my integrity, when the fault is your own ignorance. Not very nice, Kevin.
OK, charity, tell us in your own words how the Apocalypse of Abraham confirms the Book of Abraham. Have you read the apocalypse? I have. Sure, there are some interesting parallels, but nothing earth-shattering. The differences are quite stark.
We gave both you and coggins the opportunity to prove your point about this a couple of months ago and you both failed miserably. All you did was run to MAD and copy some outdated arguments that have since been refuted. Then you both crawled away quietly. You couldn't substantiate anything then, and you're not doing it now either.
Again, the Book of Abraham is not "being confirmed" in any sense whatsoever.
Period.
Put up or shut up.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein