Throwing Joseph Smith under the bus...

[_bcspace]

There are more than two plausible explainations. The one I happened to put forward has an analog found in the JST. We don't have the orignial text, yet Joseph Smith restored the original meaning or words in the JST.

You do have the original text, which the LDS church keeps hidden. Just because what you do have (which is known to have been translated by Joseph Smith) doesn't make sense, your only out is to create an argument from silence on what was supposedly lost.

A critic would be subject to the same logical fallacy. Hence there is no argument against the Book of Abraham here.

The fact remains that what is known to exist is completely wrong.

I've already outlined a plausible explaination for that; one that is based in historical fact as to what the Egyptians did with their history.

Another plausible explaination is that Joseph Smith simply and plausibly assumed the papyri were the ones Abraham literally wrote on and that inspired his revelation.

How does one make an assumption regarding what is being translated as God's words, while also claiming to communicate with God?

Who claimed that God has answered which assumption, if any, is correct?

However, there is no evidence whatsoever that this particular bit of information came by revelation or that Joseph Smith claimed it did.

How convenient of you to place Joseph Smith as a prophet of God when it fits your argument, then paint him as a man acting alone when it doesn't.

That's why you'll never be swayed by physical evidence that the Book of Abraham is a work of scripture.

Intellectual dishonesty is ignorance of what a papyrus is used for, which is to aid the dead in the afterlife according to the pagan beliefs. Scrolls stuffed into a mummy were done so for one purpose, and not as some container to be unearthed later on to send a message. While ignoring the loss of the supposed Book of Joseph scrolls, the entire concept of placing weight on what was supposedly lost ignores what wasn't lost. What remains is wrong, and no matter how you attempt to spin it, there is no plausible explanation to explain how Joseph Smith claimed to translate a language into another language and got it completely wrong. This proves Joseph Smith was a fraud, which is the only plausible explanation.

By ignoring plausible explainations or at least refusing to consider them, one proves one's self to be highly irrational and nonscientific.

[_Buffalo]

By ignoring plausible explainations or at least refusing to consider them, one proves one's self to be highly irrational and nonscientific.

Like most mopologists, you confuse "plausible" with "highly unlikely but technically possible given infinite possibilities."

[Guest]

There are more than two plausible explainations. The one I happened to put forward has an analog found in the JST. We don't have the orignial text, yet Joseph Smith restored the original meaning or words in the JST.

You do have the original text, which the LDS church keeps hidden. Just because what you do have (which is known to have been translated by Joseph Smith) doesn't make sense, your only out is to create an argument from silence on what was supposedly lost.

A critic would be subject to the same logical fallacy. Hence there is no argument against the Book of Abraham here.

You make it sound as if by repeating yourself over and over you're making a point. The Pearl of Great Price is prefaced with "Revelations, Translations and Narrations." What part of "translations" are you missing?

The fact remains that what is known to exist is completely wrong.

I've already outlined a plausible explaination for that; one that is based in historical fact as to what the Egyptians did with their history.

You've only concocted a ruse in order to make your supposed point, which is wrong. A translation of a pagan document stuffed into a mummy can only be translated for what it actually said, and not what you claim is supposedly "inspired" to read something else. If I were to translate a book written in English into another language, it can only mean one thing, which is what it actually said. You make no sense whatsoever.

Another plausible explaination is that Joseph Smith simply and plausibly assumed the papyri were the ones Abraham literally wrote on and that inspired his revelation.

How does one make an assumption regarding what is being translated as God's words, while also claiming to communicate with God?

Who claimed that God has answered which assumption, if any, is correct?

Does your convoluted "logic" impress anyone? If God's word is being translated, there are no mistakes.

However, there is no evidence whatsoever that this particular bit of information came by revelation or that Joseph Smith claimed it did.

How convenient of you to place Joseph Smith as a prophet of God when it fits your argument, then paint him as a man acting alone when it doesn't.

That's why you'll never be swayed by physical evidence that the Book of Abraham is a work of scripture.

And once again you inject your hyperbole to imply you're making some sort of point. A translation is a translation, which is a concept you must reject to pound the square peg into the round hole.

Intellectual dishonesty is ignorance of what a papyrus is used for, which is to aid the dead in the afterlife according to the pagan beliefs. Scrolls stuffed into a mummy were done so for one purpose, and not as some container to be unearthed later on to send a message. While ignoring the loss of the supposed Book of Joseph scrolls, the entire concept of placing weight on what was supposedly lost ignores what wasn't lost. What remains is wrong, and no matter how you attempt to spin it, there is no plausible explanation to explain how Joseph Smith claimed to translate a language into another language and got it completely wrong. This proves Joseph Smith was a fraud, which is the only plausible explanation.

By ignoring plausible explainations or at least refusing to consider them, one proves one's self to be highly irrational and nonscientific.

Nonscientific? How does science play a part in this? Science would dictate a translation of a language would mean something based on the people who wrote it. Your "irrational" injection is laughable, as again you claim that a translation of a language can mean something other than what it actually says, which defines your intellectual dishonesty masked in a supposed educated opinion.

Since you can't seem to grasp the intent of your own argument BC, are you claiming that a "translation" of one language into another, can, based on an intellectually honest "scientific" platform, mean something other than what it actually states?

[_Fence Sitter]

Given the way plausible is being used here I think the Spaulding Manuscript is a "plausible" explanation of the how Book of Mormon was created.

[_canpakes]

The fact remains that what is known to exist is completely wrong.

I've already outlined a plausible explanation for that; one that is based in historical fact as to what the Egyptians did with their history.

bc, please clarify regarding the 'inspiration' theory. If what is being claimed is a translation yet is not actually based on the item supposedly being translated, why would any physical item (papyrus) be required to produce the Book of Abraham in the first place?

If the facsimile shown in the Book of Abraham is the 'wrong' piece and not responsible for the contents of the Book of Abraham, why would the facsimile shown have been translated so incorrectly by Smith regardless of the content?