For Paul -- The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham

[_Simon Belmont]

I challenge Simon to prove the Book of Abraham was written by Abraham without using self induced emotional epiphanies, a.k.a. warm fuzzies.

Nothing can be proven, Polygam-Porter. All we have is evidence which draws us to a conclusion. So, what you are asking is just as impossible as what I am asking: prove that it the Book of Abraham was not written by Abraham.

Proving Mormon factual claims to the secular world will always be futile because feelings fail in the face of facts --at least in the real world.

Which is why I do not accept that you "feel" duped by the Church.

[_Simon Belmont]

That would be because they aren't what the Book of Abraham says they are. I don't know of anyone with any expertise who thinks that Joseph's Smith's explanations of the facsimiles are in any way correct.

The point is, is that the symbolism used in the Facsimiles could represent a wide array of stories.

As has been pointed out, an unnamed German dissertation from many years ago isn't exactly convincing.

Perhaps not, and the reference I read did not cite any sources because it was a reply to Ashment.

This is kind of silly. According to Nibley, Anubis is either represented himself, or by a priest wearing an Anubis-head mask, resurrecting the deceased person. The Book of Abraham has no Anubis head or mask but instead has a bare-headed priest with a knife about to sacrifice a living person.

Then why does Paul think it is Anubis?

To summarize:

1. The figure stands in the position of Anubis and wears Anubis's clothing.
2. Some figures show the head of Anubis, while others show the priest wearing a mask representing Anubis.
3. Nevertheless, this figure doesn't have to represent Anubis.

Clear enough?

Clear enough... I do not know what your point is. It is very possible that it is not Anubis, but simply a priest.

This might make some remote sense if Nibley is correct in saying that the facsmiles "tell the widest variety of stories," but he has provided nothing other than a passing reference to an unnamed dissertation.

But there is nothing to say that they could not tell the story that is in the Book of Abraham.

In what way is embalming someone "regarded as a form of sacrifice"?

I can't help you there, I'm afraid.

There is no incision involved. The knife the priest in Facsimile 1 holds was added by Joseph Smith. No incision, no sacrifice.

Where do you get this information from?

Except he provides no modern research and no examples of even slightly different stories.

Again, it was probably a quick reply (I don't know the entire background).

[_Aristotle Smith]

There is no incision involved. The knife the priest in Facsimile 1 holds was added by Joseph Smith. No incision, no sacrifice.

Where do you get this information from?

Simon, do a little homework first. This is the papyrus for facsimile #1 as the church now owns it:



Notice anything missing? That's right, no knife. Joseph Smith "restored" it.

Here's how most Egyptologists think it should be restored:



By the way, before the papyri were found again in the 1960's all Egyptologists were agreed that something was wrong with facsimile #1. They said that the standing person was wrong and there should not be a knife. When the papyri were found they were vindicated 100%. This leads most people to believe that Egyptologists know what they are talking about and Joseph Smith did not.

[_zeezrom]

There is no incision involved. The knife the priest in Facsimile 1 holds was added by Joseph Smith. No incision, no sacrifice.

Where do you get this information from?

Uh oh....

Are we seeing a crack in the armor?

I wouldn't have noticed had you said, "You need to check your sources" or "You can't back that up" or "CFR" or something.

Asking that question shows a very slight amount of open mindedness.

Good luck on your journey, my friend. And keep the open mind.

[_Simon Belmont]

Asking that question shows a very slight amount of open mindedness.

Good luck on your journey, my friend. And keep the open mind.

Being a philosopher, I am very open minded. I never claimed to be an expert on this subject.

[_Simon Belmont]

Notice anything missing?

A lot, actually. The papyrus is in a poor condition.

That's right, no knife. Joseph Smith "restored" it.

No knife, no nothing. How are we to determine whether there was a knife, an empty hand, or a banana in the priest's hand?

[_SoHo]

Notice anything missing?

A lot, actually. The papyrus is in a poor condition.

That's right, no knife. Joseph Smith "restored" it.

No knife, no nothing. How are we to determine whether there was a knife, an empty hand, or a banana in the priest's hand?

Two thousand years from now when someone finds a picture of a duck in a sailor outfit and a character standing next to him with no head - chances will be that the original was a mouse.

[_Aristotle Smith]

Notice anything missing?

A lot, actually. The papyrus is in a poor condition.

That's right, no knife. Joseph Smith "restored" it.

No knife, no nothing. How are we to determine whether there was a knife, an empty hand, or a banana in the priest's hand?

And it doesn't strike you at all interesting that the papyri vindicate exactly what the Egyptologists said? That the standing figure and the knife were out of place?

And how are we to determine what was there? How about talking to people who study this stuff for a living (Egyptologists)?

But you are probably right, it probably was a banana.

[Guest]

And it doesn't strike you at all interesting that the papyri vindicate exactly what the Egyptologists said? That the standing figure and the knife were out of place?

And how are we to determine what was there? How about talking to people who study this stuff for a living (Egyptologists)?

But you are probably right, it probably was a banana.

Apparently we are to believe that this one time the artist decided to go out on a limb and try something a little different...it just so happens that the missing parts of the papyri (the parts joe had to fill in himself) were the different parts...if only the papyri hadn't been damaged in those exact places where the picture deviated from the common imagery....

[_thews]

And it doesn't strike you at all interesting that the papyri vindicate exactly what the Egyptologists said? That the standing figure and the knife were out of place?

And how are we to determine what was there? How about talking to people who study this stuff for a living (Egyptologists)?

But you are probably right, it probably was a banana.

Apparently we are to believe that this one time the artist decided to go out on a limb and try something a little different...it just so happens that the missing parts of the papyri (the parts joe had to fill in himselft) were the different parts...if only the papyri hadn't been damaged in those exact places where the picture deviated from the common imagery....

Stop making sense screech. Remember, Simon Blowhole has an "open mind".