Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah and Korash ...Really?

[_Darth J]

So I guess that stupid Joseph, even though Egyptian was already in the process of being translated, very bad conman that he was, decided to write up the Book of Abraham which clearly has no relation to the temple "revelations" so no one would even see that relationship as justifying their existence, knowing full well that the papyri he left behind would later be translated by competent Egyptologists, even though he had already been burnt in the Anthon affair by making the same "mistake".

And he did all this because of his incredibly stupidity knowing that all future ages would see him as the con man he was; and that none of his theological ideas have any merit on their own.

Is that about what you (plural) are saying?

Gee, that's a stumper. Was Joseph Smith trying to make people think he could actually translate and understand ancient Egyptian? Did he have Chandler write up a certificate saying that Joseph Smith gave the most accurate translation of Egyptian characters that Chandler had ever seen? Was this certification quoted in the History of the Church? Did Joseph Smith say that "Mormon" is Egyptian for "more good"? Did Joseph Smith make the following statement?

Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O the earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.]

So, yeah, it's anyone's guess whether Joseph Smith wanted to give people the idea that he really could translate and understand Egyptian.

[_Droopy]

Yep. Just another amazing coincidence.

Frightening, isn't it?

If there were sources available to Joseph Smith that parallel the substance of the Book of Abraham, no reasonable person can infer that he read them. Parallels can only be used by apologists in favor of the Church's truth claims, never against. Just because!

But the parallels that exist well outstrip the materials available, and didn't become available until long after his death.

There's no record of Joseph Smith availing himself of the King James Bible while purporting to translate the Book of Mormon, either. So the only reasonable inference is that the ancient Nephite prophets were familiar with the English translation of the Bible that happened hundreds of years after they are supposed to have existed.

Actually, the only logical inference necessary is that Joseph phrased the text of the Book of Mormon in a manner compatible with the biblical verse and language use within within a religious context common in his age.

And he owned a copy of The Works of Flavius Josephus, Philosophy of a Future State, and the King James Bible---all of which, shall we say, inform the Book of Abraham.

That's a tautologial argument. You don't know that the works of Josephus and the King James Bible inform the text Book of Abraham. You know that there are correlations, similarities, and connections, but you have no evidence grounding any claim of the causal connections between them.

I snipped the rest of your Grahamesque snark.

[_Runtu]

That's a tautologial argument. You don't know that the works of Josephus and the King James Bible inform the text Book of Abraham. You know that there are correlations, similarities, and connections, but you have no evidence grounding any claim of the causal connections between them.

I snipped the rest of your Grahamesque snark.

I dunno, Loran. The textual dependency of the Book of Abraham on the KJV and Josephus is fairly clear and unidirectional. I think it's fascinating that you insist on a unidirectional dependency of the KEP on the Book of Abraham based on ... what?

[_BrianH]

I am not running away from anything.

Does this mean you have finally responded to the thread asking you questions in the Terrestrial Forum?

*hunts in terrestrial forum*

Nope. Guess not.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I was referring to the former accusation used to mask the failure to answer my original question here in this thread ...just like YOU are doing right now.

Keep running.

-BH

.

[_Themis]

I was directing that question more at mfb. What I mean is that, for some Mormons, like David Bokovoy, the translation is not "correct," but the theological product is still inspired of God. I'm just wondering why mfb seems to disagree.

Never could quite get around God being deceptive excuse.

[Guest]

Yep. Just another amazing coincidence.

Frightening, isn't it?

Yes. I've been thinking about writing a story about an orphan boy in England who is whisked away to a wizard's school. Any similarity to anything anyone may have read somewhere else is purely coincidence.

If there were sources available to Joseph Smith that parallel the substance of the Book of Abraham, no reasonable person can infer that he read them. Parallels can only be used by apologists in favor of the Church's truth claims, never against. Just because!

But the parallels that exist well outstrip the materials available, and didn't become available until long after his death.

Perhaps I was being too subtle. Notwithstanding the assertions of FAIR and the Maxwell Institute, there is nothing in the substance of the Book of Abraham that was not available to Joseph Smith.

There's no record of Joseph Smith availing himself of the King James Bible while purporting to translate the Book of Mormon, either. So the only reasonable inference is that the ancient Nephite prophets were familiar with the English translation of the Bible that happened hundreds of years after they are supposed to have existed.

Actually, the only logical inference necessary is that Joseph phrased the text of the Book of Mormon in a manner compatible with the biblical verse and language use within within a religious context common in his age.

Because when the seer stone showed him what was written on the golden plates, he frequently saw the message, "Insert King James Bible verses here." And it sort of begs the question of why we needed the Book of Mormon at all, since it was just reiterating what was already in the Bible.

And he owned a copy of The Works of Flavius Josephus, Philosophy of a Future State, and the King James Bible---all of which, shall we say, inform the Book of Abraham.

That's a tautologial argument.

No, it isn't. That isn't what a tautology is. It is inductive reasoning.

You don't know that the works of Josephus and the King James Bible inform the text Book of Abraham. You know that there are correlations, similarities, and connections, but you have no evidence grounding any claim of the causal connections between them.

You're right. It is equally plausible that the Book of Abraham informed the King James Bible and Josephus. Who's to say what the direction of dependency is? Sort of like the Freemasons, who borrowed their signs and tokens from Mormon temple rituals.

I snipped the rest of your Grahamesque snark.

It just stands to reason that anyone who isn't persuaded by your arguments by assertion is either Kevin Graham, or a leftist, or both.

[_Darth J]

I was directing that question more at mfb. What I mean is that, for some Mormons, like David Bokovoy, the translation is not "correct," but the theological product is still inspired of God. I'm just wondering why mfb seems to disagree.

Never could quite get around God being deceptive excuse.

But surely you agree that Mopologists understand what was being revealed to Joseph Smith better than Joseph Smith did.

[_Stormy Waters]

So why is it when you challenge the belief system of the Mormons and they don't respond they are 'cowards', but you're free to run from every challenge to your own belief system? By your own standards you're a coward.

You are confused. I am not running away from anything. I am trying to get Mormons to run or at least try to crawl TOWARDS meeting my challange to simply provide us with some evidence that will confirm that their "prophet" supposedly translated what is universally recognized among qualified Egyptologists and other experts as a copy of the "Book of Breathings" into what Mormons call the "Book of Abraham" and in particular, as a case in point that they show us some reason to think that their "prophet" properly identified the canopic idol deities in Fac #1 CORRECTLY.

Refusing to allow the usual LDS tactic of generating rabbit trails that lead away from topics that they themselves know will prove the fakery of their "prophet", is not the same thing as running away from a topic -especially when that topic is IRRELEVANT. It is, instead, simply a determined effort to hold on to the topic that I introduced here.

My personal beliefs on other matters are as totally and completely IRRELEVANT to the topic of this topic as any tangent regarding YOUR beliefs regarding the Pophul Vuh or the 2011 World Series.

-BH
.

I'm not confused. You have a double standard. You expect Mormons to answer your challenge, while ignoring all challenges to your own beliefs. I can't say I blame you though, defending the Bible is a real bitch. I sure as hell wouldn't want to try to defend the BS in it.
Keep running coward.

[_Droopy]

Yes. I've been thinking about writing a story about an orphan boy in England who is whisked away to a wizard's school. Any similarity to anything anyone may have read somewhere else is purely coincidence.

Interesting. I've been thinking about writing a novel about a young, middle class boy from the suburbs who was whisked away to law school and ended up with hockey mask on this face waiting in the bushes to attack drunk, skinnydipping teenagers with a machete. Great minds think alike, Darth.

Perhaps I was being too subtle.

You're not known for subtlety, Darth.

Notwithstanding the assertions of FAIR and the Maxwell Institute, there is nothing in the substance of the Book of Abraham that was not available to Joseph Smith.

False, and let's not pretend you're even close to educated enough on the matter to make it worth anyone's time allowing you to make that crystal clear.

Because when the seer stone showed him what was written on the golden plates, he frequently saw the message, "Insert King James Bible verses here." And it sort of begs the question of why we needed the Book of Mormon at all, since it was just reiterating what was already in the Bible.

You're quite startling ignorance of what is actually in the Book of Mormon drops the jaw. But this is hardly a new development, and appears rife in other areas in which to love to dispense your light and knowledge.

And he owned a copy of The Works of Flavius Josephus, Philosophy of a Future State, and the King James Bible---all of which, shall we say, inform the Book of Abraham.

Droopy:

That's a tautologial argument.

No, it isn't. That isn't what a tautology is. It is inductive reasoning.

You didn't make the argument in standard form, but it contains a proposition - that the King James Bible and Josephus inform - that is, the Book of Mormon was derivative of, those texts. That claim assumes something that has not been demonstrated, and hence implies a tautological argument that has not been made, but is distinctly implied.

You're right. It is equally plausible that the Book of Abraham informed the King James Bible and Josephus. Who's to say what the direction of dependency is?

You have no real idea what logical thought is, do you (at least not at any refined level of nuance or sophistication)? None of these texts need be dependent upon the other. They only need to be related to each other in their concepts, ideas, motifs, symbols, and message. And they are.

It just stands to reason that anyone who isn't persuaded by your arguments by assertion is either Kevin Graham, or a leftist, or both.

Kevin Graham is both.

[_Darth J]

Yes. I've been thinking about writing a story about an orphan boy in England who is whisked away to a wizard's school. Any similarity to anything anyone may have read somewhere else is purely coincidence.

Interesting. I've been thinking about writing a novel about a young, middle class boy from the suburbs who was whisked away to law school and ended up with hockey mask on this face waiting in the bushes to attack drunk, skinnydipping teenagers with a machete. Great minds think alike, Darth.

And I have been thinking about writing a book about a redneck religious fanatic who has no original thoughts, but merely posts walls of purple text on message boards to dress up banal observations, babbles on and on about right-wing talking points, and acts as a cheerleader for apologetic ideas whose validity he accepts without question.

Perhaps I was being too subtle.

You're not known for subtlety, Darth.

But then there are those who are known for subtelty qua subtelty,

Notwithstanding the assertions of FAIR and the Maxwell Institute, there is nothing in the substance of the Book of Abraham that was not available to Joseph Smith.

False, and let's not pretend you're even close to educated enough on the matter to make it worth anyone's time allowing you to make that crystal clear.

Yes, if there is one thing that has been shown time and again on this board, it's that I have no idea what standard Mopologist answers are. Maybe you would like to demonstrate your education by copying and pasting another Maxwell Institute article that you uncritically accept without comment or analysis?

Because when the seer stone showed him what was written on the golden plates, he frequently saw the message, "Insert King James Bible verses here." And it sort of begs the question of why we needed the Book of Mormon at all, since it was just reiterating what was already in the Bible.

You're quite startling ignorance of what is actually in the Book of Mormon drops the jaw. But this is hardly a new development, and appears rife in other areas in which to love to dispense your light and knowledge.

No, "your."

Droopy, other than God being explicitly against infant baptism, please list your favorite 5 truths found in the Book of Mormon that are not in the Bible:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

No, it isn't. That isn't what a tautology is. It is inductive reasoning.

You didn't make the argument in standard form, but it contains a proposition - that the King James Bible and Josephus inform - that is, the Book of Mormon was derivative of, those texts. That claim assumes something that has not been demonstrated, and hence implies a tautological argument that has not been made, but is distinctly implied.

Again, no, that is not what a tautology is. You have no real idea what logical thought is, do you (at least not at any refined level of nuance or sophistication)? None of these texts need be dependent upon the other. They only need to be related to each other in their concepts, ideas, motifs, symbols, and message. And they are.

You're right. It is equally plausible that the Book of Abraham informed the King James Bible and Josephus. Who's to say what the direction of dependency is?

You have no real idea what logical thought is, do you (at least not at any refined level of nuance or sophistication)? None of these texts need be dependent upon the other. They only need to be related to each other in their concepts, ideas, motifs, symbols, and message. And they are.

Thus giving rise to a reasonable inference that Joseph Smith drew upon these sources when compiling the Book of Abraham. Thank you for refuting your own assertion about my supposed "tautology."

It just stands to reason that anyone who isn't persuaded by your arguments by assertion is either Kevin Graham, or a leftist, or both.

Kevin Graham is both.

Oh, what apostate isn't a leftist?