Missing Apologetics

[_Danna]

The Book of Abraham has already been thoroughly debunked. Why do we need to pile on?

As I said, I get a bit obsessed. I have just been interested in attempts to 'prove' the historicity of the book through content analysis, and what it means from both theist and secular viewpoints. Thus, ongoing attempts to claim accurate content unknown to Joseph Smith and tie into BAR material and Jewish/Islamic tradition. Thus and Thus supporting the Catalyst theory which is not falsifiable

This was a big issue in my family, I need to keep up to date and I have slacked off a bit lately.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

The Book of Abraham has already been thoroughly debunked. Why do we need to pile on?

As I said, I get a bit obsessed. I have just been interested in attempts to 'prove' the historicity of the book through content analysis, and what it means from both theist and secular viewpoints. Thus, ongoing attempts to claim accurate content unknown to Joseph Smith and tie into BAR material and Jewish/Islamic tradition. Thus and Thus supporting the Catalyst theory which is not falsifiable

This was a big issue in my family, I need to keep up to date and I have slacked off a bit lately.

I know. I was just joking around. It's just funny that the Book of Abraham has been as disproven as something can be, and apologists still defend it. In some ways you have to respect them. It's like the little Division II football team that is getting clobbered by USC 70-0 in the third quarter, but they're still playing hard, not giving up. I feel bad when Pete Carrol leaves the starters in and runs up the score.

[_bcspace]

We also determined that Ur of Chaldees could mean anything from Basra to Turkey.

In other words, the writer of the Book of Abraham had no idea what he was talking about. Surprise, surprise.

More likely, Book of Abraham critics are stymied in their attempts to pin down a strawman.

[_Danna]

I know. I was just joking around. It's just funny that the Book of Abraham has been as disproven as something can be, and apologists still defend it. In some ways you have to respect them. It's like the little Division II football team that is getting clobbered by USC 70-0 in the third quarter, but they're still playing hard, not giving up. I feel bad when Pete Carrol leaves the starters in and runs up the score.

LOL! I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about! But I get the gist. I think. (ignoramus globus-pedis)

The apologetic approach is to treat the Book of Abraham reference as if it were the equivalent of the Bible anachronism, a parenthetical attachment of little importance. But Joseph Smith could not keep himself from elaborating on the Chaldeans, he had to comment on their customs, geography and language. If it was important enough to give translations of and into 'Chaldean' then surely it would have been important enough to give an accurate name for the people, place, and language.

To cap it off, there is this little beauty of a quote, demonstrating Joseph's proficiency in Chaldean:

...as a Chaldean might exclaim: Beram etai elauh beshmayauh gauhah rauzeen: (certainly there is a God in heaven to reveal secrets;) GEN. SMITH'S VIEWS ON THE GOVERNMENT AND POLICY OF THE U. S., TIMES AND SEASONS, Vol 5, No 10. MAY, 15 1844

[_Danna]

More likely, Book of Abraham critics are stymied in their attempts to pin down a strawman.

Then you would be able to explain why Joseph used the word 'Chaldees' to describe Ur. And why he used the word 'Chaldean' to describe the people, Chaldea to describe the area, and 'Chaldean' to describe the language?