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?
What? You have the audacity to quote and defend Niblets for making assertions without a citation, but you ask for one? Consistency, man, consistency--it will improve you credibility.
SoHo wrote: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.
And this is an example of how narrow-minded critics can be.
That is a luxury of not being having your mind held hostage by a need to believe in Mormonism.
On this subject of Book of Abraham, in the secular world there is only one view which happens to seem narrow to you because it does not consider your need to believe.
New name: Boaz The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
Why? You just say that everytime you don't like it. It is a fine analogy. Your saying otherwise without further comment is worthless.
Last edited by W3C [Validator] on Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
Last edited by W3C [Validator] on Fri Sep 17, 2010 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
sock puppet wrote: But for the sake of REASON, let's not assume what Nibley did not provide so much as a cite for.
Okay, but Aristotle Smith said it was okay to appeal to expertise. Nibley knew a lot of stuff, you cannot deny that. Therefore when he publishes something, we must at least accept that he has done the minimal amount of research necessary to include it in his publication.
TD wrote:It is like saying, just because you see a figure who looks like Jesus dying on the cross, who has a crown of thorns on his head and a wound on his side, with Mary praying nearby, and a sign, "King of the Jews," over head, and the name Jesus underneath, it doesn't mean it is Jesus.
Oh, come on! How does this analogy apply in any way to what this thread is about? Did the papyrus have a sign saying, in English "Breathing permit of Hor -- Not related to the Book of Abraham."
sock puppet wrote: But for the sake of REASON, let's not assume what Nibley did not provide so much as a cite for.
Okay, but Aristotle Smith said it was okay to appeal to expertise. Nibley knew a lot of stuff, you cannot deny that. Therefore when he publishes something, we must at least accept that he has done the minimal amount of research necessary to include it in his publication.
No, we are not so obligated. That assumption will get you into trouble if you check some of Niblets' footnotes. I wouldn't put much stock in that.
Simon, I can't post right now because I've been drinking alcohol and board rules prohibit me from posting while drinking within 24 hours -- give or take a few hours -- Dr. Shades don't know any better.
So, sorry I can't reply, let alone read the posts effectively without slurring. But, I sure feel good! Got that warm burning in my bosom from the sweet white wine. That's better than holy ghost! Try it you'll like it.
