I note with interest that I answered your question, but you totally ignored mine. Why is it that you will not respond to my challenge to simply provide some evidence and reasons that will support the claims of your organization? Why can you not even TRY to answer my questions?
Could it be that you ignore the fundamental question of this thread every time I ask it because you yourself recognize that you have no answer?
BH>>I will answer your question if you will answer the original question posed here in this thread.
First my answer: Your question begins with the mere assumption that there ever WAS a "Book of Abraham" to begin with! But it is that very assumption that is ultimately in question here and as such your question requires us to commit the fallacy of circular reasoning. But even a minimal familiarity with the document in question (as well as the controversy created by Mormons surrounding the document) will inform you that the universally recognized "Breathing Permit" and other papyrus documents from which Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the "Book of Abraham", is, in fact, a portion of the Book of Breathings, which in turn is a portion of the Egyptian mythological religion documented in the well-known Egyptian "Book of the Dead". The original document records the ritual embalming of the deceased person named on the "permit" according to the tenets of the Egyptian religion and when competed was believed to confer upon the deceased the rights and magical powers to transit various stations in the afterlife. Both the Book of Breathings and the larger Book of the Dead are among the most well-known and easily recognized documents in all of Egyptian antiquity. Thus, the document itself most certainly IS a well known and even a very important portion of the Egyptian religion.
LDST>Is it your assertion that the piece of literature known as the Book of Abraham, as published in The Pearl of Great Price, by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, takes place against an Egyptian cultural back drop?
Your answer to this question is important. You see, you can refute the origin of the Book of Abraham, but you can't deny it's existence as a piece of literature, at the very least.
You continue to miss the whole point here, T. The original document we are discussing most certainly exists. There is no disputing that. The FACT is, the original document that no doubt exists is universally recognized (outside the LDS church and even by most Mormons INCLUDING YOU) as a pagan "Breathing Permit" associated with the mythological religion of Egypt. The problem is, you CLAIM, but have not shown any actual reasons to think that this papyrus really IS "the Book of Abraham", or any portion of it. We have every necessary and sufficient to know that it is, in fact, just another "Breathing Permit" - one of many that have been recovered from Egyptian archaeological sites. The example we are considering is the four canopic idols your "prophet" identified as Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash in his "Book of Abraham" translation. But ...so far you have not shown us any reasons to believe your claim that he was RIGHT. In fact you have consistently ignored my many direct requests that you begin to get in the game here and actually provide us with some evidence in support of your claim.
So, have I got it right - You believe that the Book of Abraham takes place and an Egyptian cultural context and placement is evident?
No ...you do not have it right at all. What emerges from an Egyptian cultural context on this Egyptian papyrus is a "breathing permit", NOT the so-called "Book of Abraham". We still have seen exactly no evidence or reasoning whatsoever to indicate that this papyrus containing a common BREATHING PERMIT somehow really does ALSO contain some supposed "additional knowledge" representing some portion of what Mormons alone imagine is "the Book of Abraham" in this scroll. In particular, we have yet to see you provide any reason to think that the names of the idols in question in any way include the names that Smith gave them, while claiming to have received these names as part of his supposed "revelation from God".
BH>>Whether it is also somehow the "Book of Abraham" remains the ultimate question here and leads me back to the original question I have been asking you here and which you have avoided thus far.
LDST>Bad boy! I am currently holding a copy of the Book of Abraham in my hands. It exists.
You are the bad boy here, H-man. You keep avoiding the issue. And you apparently need to learn to read English. If you do, you should be able to grasp the fact that I am not disputing that the so-called "Book of Abraham" exists. The question HERE in this debate, the question you consistently refuse to even attempt to answer is, WHY should we think this "Book of Abraham" was correctly translated from what is otherwise universally recognized as nothing more than just another example of a common "breathing permit" derived from the funeral practices found in the religious rituals of 1st century AD Egyptians. In particular (and as an example), why should we think that Smith identified the canopic idols correctly?
I keep asking you and you keep ignoring the question.
Does it not bother you that you have to run from such simple, obvious questions as you have been doing???
-BH
.