Book of Abraham and the Latest Apologetics

[_Ray A]

Hey, Ray ... how's the curse treating you so far?

It's been treating me excellently for the last 23 years, Will. Drop by and have a beer sometime, when you're in Oz.

[_Danna]

Could an apologist pleeeeease explain one thing for me. FAIR is no help, and I have asked this many times, yet am always ignored. A frequent apologetic response is that critics should actually read the Book of Abraham rather than nit-pick over its origin. OK. I have read the Book of Abraham. I once read it to confirm that JSjr would clarify and correct an anachronism in the Old Testament, only to be sharply disappointed.

The Book of Abraham is grossly inaccurate regarding the history of the Chaldeans. They simply did not exist at the same time as Abraham. As a people, or a place. The original reference to Chaldea as the origin of Abraham, in the Old Testament, is a scribal gloss - a scribe's attempted clarification of the identity of Ur. Abraham predated Chaldea and the Chaldeans by about 1000 years.

I know there is scholarly debate as to the location of Abraham's Ur and Haran and other locations mentioned. Fine. But that does not solve the question as to why Abraham in the Book of Abraham discusses a people, place, customs, and language that were not to exist for another millenium.

The logical answer to this is that Joseph took an anachronism from the Bible (an anachronism which was also repeated in non-biblical historical material) and transferred it, in uninspired fashion, into the Book of Abraham and magnified it by elaborating. Is there an apologetic alternative?

OK.

Could someone then explain why this is a stupid question not worthy of response? Am I missing something? Am I off-topic in some way I am too dense to fathom - I know that Book of Abraham origin debate has predominated, but it was a broad OP. And I am routinely ignored when I attempt to start threads on this topic. Maybe this is so obviously stupid that I cannot see it. I would appreciate someone taking the time to tell me to piss off at least.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Danna,

Abraham was a prophet and seer. He could see into the future. He was just a man and may not have gotten everything right. Scriptures are not a history book but are to help people find the gospel. We still have a lot to learn about the ancient days. You can't rely on modern technology to give us an accurate picture of the past. Abraham was inspired to help us overcome evil, he was not trying to teach us about his community. Don't let these types of inconsistencies detract from the message. Satan is trying to confuse you so you will not believe. Your testimony will come after the trial of your faith, so just believe and it will all make sense. The church is true and it will all be clear when Christ returns. Stop picking at nits. God's ways are not man's ways. If you had the spirit you would not be so contentious. Ask God with real intent and you will know the church is true, nothing else matters. You need to be more humble so you can understand. Expand your paradigm.

Does this help?

I'm pretty sure any apologetic response will be a combination of the above.

~td~

[_Some Schmo]

I have my doubts that Joseph Smith even knew which Egyptian text corresponded to the Book of Abraham. We know he didn’t when it came to the Book of Mormon. Oh, sure, he knew that the big pile of plates contained the Book of Alma somewhere inside it, but he couldn’t have pointed to a page and said, “There’s Alma’s discourse on faith.”

Similarly, he knew that the scroll contained the Egyptian text of a Book of Abraham. But this long scroll probably contained several texts, and I don’t believe it was deemed necessary for him to know which was which. All he was assigned to do was to be the medium through which the text got rendered into modern English.

ROTFLMAO

This is what it's come down to? Basically, Joe just needed any old artifact in order to start receiving revelation of dead prophet's diaries? I suppose if he were alive today, he could look at a dug up Coke can and know what the original CEO of Pepsi thought about world peace?

Holy crap... that's hilarious. And Will actually thinks anyone should take him seriously...? Too funny. Oh my, I feel sooooo behind in keeping up with the latest "arguments" (like I've *ever* followed this extraordinary nonsense before - looks like I haven't missed a thing).

Oh yes Will... everyone else is stupid/behind in the arguments because we don't believe in Joe Smiths magical "translation" powers. *cue eerie music*

[_Dr. Shades]

I feel compelled to remark that, in my estimation, Kevin Graham has evolved into probably the single most tragic apostate case I have come across in my years of paying attention to such things.

That's only because he disagrees with you.

If he agreed with you, you'd still think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[_harmony]

Could an apologist pleeeeease explain one thing for me. FAIR is no help, and I have asked this many times, yet am always ignored. A frequent apologetic response is that critics should actually read the Book of Abraham rather than nit-pick over its origin. OK. I have read the Book of Abraham. I once read it to confirm that JSjr would clarify and correct an anachronism in the Old Testament, only to be sharply disappointed.

The Book of Abraham is grossly inaccurate regarding the history of the Chaldeans. They simply did not exist at the same time as Abraham. As a people, or a place. The original reference to Chaldea as the origin of Abraham, in the Old Testament, is a scribal gloss - a scribe's attempted clarification of the identity of Ur. Abraham predated Chaldea and the Chaldeans by about 1000 years.

I know there is scholarly debate as to the location of Abraham's Ur and Haran and other locations mentioned. Fine. But that does not solve the question as to why Abraham in the Book of Abraham discusses a people, place, customs, and language that were not to exist for another millenium.

The logical answer to this is that Joseph took an anachronism from the Bible (an anachronism which was also repeated in non-biblical historical material) and transferred it, in uninspired fashion, into the Book of Abraham and magnified it by elaborating. Is there an apologetic alternative?

OK.

Could someone then explain why this is a stupid question not worthy of response? Am I missing something? Am I off-topic in some way I am too dense to fathom - I know that Book of Abraham origin debate has predominated, but it was a broad OP. And I am routinely ignored when I attempt to start threads on this topic. Maybe this is so obviously stupid that I cannot see it. I would appreciate someone taking the time to tell me to piss off at least.

Your question is one of the largest piles of elephant dung in the living room, Danna. Everyone on one side is waiting to see if anyone on the other side will even acknowledge the smell, let alone the size of the pile. It doesn't appear that Will, the chief champion of the Book of Abraham currently on the board, is willing to pay any attention to a legitimate question. He'd rather argue length of a papyrus that ultimately had absolutely nothing to do with the Book of Abraham at all. It's safer to do that. He has no direction as yet from his more learned collegues, and so discussing your question might require that he actually put his faith at risk. And that's not going to happen.

[_Kevin Graham]

But, for the record, Kevin Graham has fallen so far behind in terms of Book of Abraham issues that he might as well write a book on it.

Unfortunately for you, you're unable to provide an example of any aspect of the controversy in which I'm supposedly "behind." For goodness sake, you are still harping on Abr 1:12 and the alleged "accidental" dittograph, same as you were two years ago. I wrote extensively in response to your idiotic arguments when you first made them back then and I see no reason to repeat them when you're clearly not up to the task of addressing criticism.

So what's new since then?

Nothing has changed. We see your sad situation comprised of empty promises of forthcoming refutations and your inability to engage the debate, same as it was two years ago.

I've just pumped out a dozen old threads where you were manhandled in the past and you still refuse to address them. But hey, keep claiming you're so far ahead of the one who schooled you to begin with, OK? You're clearly resentful of the fact that you had to be educated on this subject by someone who has since left the wandering herd at MAD.

You've had your balls cut off since posting here, because you cannot address the arguments. You don't even want to try. You have to complain because I don't treat off-the-cuff internet posts as professional articles. Unlike you, I don't have to focus on spelling and perfect grammar to impress others in a web forum.

[_Kevin Graham]

when I was in my mid-twenties (I turn 51 in a few weeks) I occasionally chatted about Hofmann's "non-existent McClellin collection"; but unlike LDS apostle Dallin Oaks and now deceased general authority Hugh Pinnock, I never tried to sell it.

ROFL!

Check, and mate.

Will is a glutton for punishment.

[_harmony]

Kevin, what do you think of Danna's question about the Chaldeans?

[_beastie]

Could an apologist pleeeeease explain one thing for me. FAIR is no help, and I have asked this many times, yet am always ignored. A frequent apologetic response is that critics should actually read the Book of Abraham rather than nit-pick over its origin. OK. I have read the Book of Abraham. I once read it to confirm that JSjr would clarify and correct an anachronism in the Old Testament, only to be sharply disappointed.

The Book of Abraham is grossly inaccurate regarding the history of the Chaldeans. They simply did not exist at the same time as Abraham. As a people, or a place. The original reference to Chaldea as the origin of Abraham, in the Old Testament, is a scribal gloss - a scribe's attempted clarification of the identity of Ur. Abraham predated Chaldea and the Chaldeans by about 1000 years.

I know there is scholarly debate as to the location of Abraham's Ur and Haran and other locations mentioned. Fine. But that does not solve the question as to why Abraham in the Book of Abraham discusses a people, place, customs, and language that were not to exist for another millenium.

The logical answer to this is that Joseph took an anachronism from the Bible (an anachronism which was also repeated in non-biblical historical material) and transferred it, in uninspired fashion, into the Book of Abraham and magnified it by elaborating. Is there an apologetic alternative?

I suspect their answer would be something along the lines of what they answer in regards to the gross anachronisms present in the Book of Mormon, in regards to Mesoamerica. They deal with these anachronisms in two main fashions:

1) loose translation - due to the difficulties, and sometimes impossibilities, of word-to-word translation of a foreign language, translators sometimes unwittingly insert anachronisms in their text

2) discoveries are yet to be made - conclusions about ancient cultures must be viewed as tentative, due to the "soft science" aspect of history and archaeology. As scholars continue their study, more evidence will tend to support the Book of Abraham. Often the apologists even claim that this trend already exists, and engage in parallelomania to support this assertion.