Olishem

[_Tobin]

So your position is that the Book of Abraham was inspired from God, but that Joseph Smith falsely claimed the source to be the papyrus?
That doesn't work either. It fails the historical test, and is chock-full of anachronisms and historical inaccuracies.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I really find it interesting that you seem to know so much about the history and what is true and not true about Abraham and the time he lived in (of which we don't know a great deal). I would love to hear what insights about Abraham and documentation about that period you would like to provide to counter the Book of Abraham?

Anyway, what I stated is one way that the Book of Abraham can make sense looking at the facts - that is to understand this is an origin story about Abraham and not a translation of the actual Egyptian hierography and adaptions they would have obviously made to fit their theology and myths over time (which would have been rather useless to the Church). by the way - I did not say the papyrus was not the impetus for this sleigh ride since clearly it was. I just believe people (including Joseph Smith) have made some rather bad assumptions and statements about the Book of Abraham and the source material.

I also did not state that the Book of Abraham is not historical or helpful. It may be both (as yet undetermined). It certainly gives us an insight into the sacrifice of Isaac that we didn't have before. What a terrible trial the Lord placed upon Abraham when you consider that he too was to be offered as a human sacrifice. Here you have the Lord asking Abraham to do one of the things he would have found to be the most repugnant in the world (and undoubtedly associated by him with the worship of false Gods) and yet, he agrees to go ahead with this terrible thing asked of him by the Lord. If these are the types of trials the Lord has in store for me, I do not think I will be equal to them.

[_Buffalo]

So your position is that the Book of Abraham was inspired from God, but that Joseph Smith falsely claimed the source to be the papyrus?
That doesn't work either. It fails the historical test, and is chock-full of anachronisms and historical inaccuracies.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I really find it interesting that you seem to know so much about the history and what is true and not true about Abraham and they time he lived in (of which we don't know a great deal). I would love to hear what insights about Abraham and documentation about that period you would like to provide to counter the Book of Abraham?

Anyway, what I stated is one way that the Book of Abraham can make sense looking at the facts - that is to understand this is an origin story about Abraham and not a translation of the actual Egyptian hierography and adaptions they would have obviously made to fit their theology and myths over time (which would have been rather useless to the Church). by the way - I did not say the papyrus was not the impetus for this sleigh ride since clearly it was. I just believe people (including Joseph Smith) have made some rather bad assumptions and statements about the Book of Abraham and the source material.

I also did not state that the Book of Abraham is not historical or helpful. It may be both (as yet undetermined). It certainly gives us an insight into the sacrifice of Isaac that we didn't have before. What a terrible trial the Lord placed upon Abraham when you consider that he too was to be offered as a human sacrifice. Here you have the Lord asking Abraham to do one of the things he would have found to be the most repugnant in the world and yet, he agrees to go ahead with it. If these are the types of trials the Lord has in store for me, I do not think I will be equal to them.

One great big red flag: the combined books of Moses and Abraham talk about the decedents of Canaan being cursed with black skin and banned from the priesthood. That was a popular 19th century idea used to justify slavery. However, the Canaanites were not black but an olive-skinned Semitic people, and they intermarried with the Hebrews. One of Judah's wives was a Canaanite.

Other anachronisms/errors (quickly pasted from http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_8.html):

Chaldea — This name occurs in Abraham 1:1, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 30, and 2:4. The Chaldeans appeared in the ninth century B.C.E. in the land south of present-day Iraq (Babylonia), and, apparently, migrated from Syria2. If the Chaldeans appeared in the 9th century B.C.E., and Abraham lived prior to 1500 B.C.E., then the reference to the "Chaldeans" in the Book of Abraham is an anachronism of 700 years or more — a pretty big anachronism.

Egyptus — Abr. 1:23: "The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden." Stephen E. Thompson: "First, Egyptus is not a Chaldean word, but Greek, and does not mean 'forbidden' in any language. The Greek "Egyptus" apparently derives from Egyptian hwt-k3-pth, "the house of the ka of Ptah," which was the name of a temple of Ptah in Memphis. During the New Kingdom, this term came to designate the town of Memphis, the capital of Egypt, in which the temple was located. Also there is some evidence that foreigners referred to the country of Egypt by this term as is attested in a Mycenaean Linear B tablet from Knossos, which is usually dated to around 1375 BC, i.e., 125 years after Abraham, as a man's name, presupposing that it was already a name for Egypt. Note also that the text (Abr. 1:22-25) implies that Egypt derived its name from an eponymous ancestor, Egyptus. Given the facts concerning the origin of the word Egyptus, however, this cannot represent historical reality."6

etc etc

[_lulu]

First, let's establish the historicity of Abraham.

[_Tobin]

One great big red flag: the combined books of Moses and Abraham talk about the decedents of Canaan being cursed with black skin and banned from the priesthood. That was a popular 19th century idea used to justify slavery. However, the Canaanites were not black but an olive-skinned Semitic people, and they intermarried with the Hebrews. One of Judah's wives was a Canaanite.

You are mixing up books again. The book of Moses is not the Book of Abraham. And let's see, does the Bible mention a curse on Canaan?

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Oh my, it does indeed.

Other anachronisms/errors (quickly pasted from http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_8.html):

"The Egyptians seemed to be, on the whole, a comparitively peaceful, gentle society." - LOL, that is complete rubbish. Let's consider how these peaceful people of the Middle Kingdom attacked and conquered Nubia or the Sinai? Or the battles fought during the expansion of the New Kingdom like the Battle of Kadesh and so on. And this is your source making absurd assertions like this. I'd be embarrassed to cite such a source.

Chaldea — This name occurs in Abraham 1:1, 8, 13, 20, 23, 29, 30, and 2:4. The Chaldeans appeared in the ninth century B.C.E. in the land south of present-day Iraq (Babylonia), and, apparently, migrated from Syria2. If the Chaldeans appeared in the 9th century B.C.E., and Abraham lived prior to 1500 B.C.E., then the reference to the "Chaldeans" in the Book of Abraham is an anachronism of 700 years or more — a pretty big anachronism.

The Bible states this as well.

Genesis 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

Egyptus — Abr. 1:23: "The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden." Stephen E. Thompson: "First, Egyptus is not a Chaldean word, but Greek, and does not mean 'forbidden' in any language. The Greek "Egyptus" apparently derives from Egyptian hwt-k3-pth, "the house of the ka of Ptah," which was the name of a temple of Ptah in Memphis. During the New Kingdom, this term came to designate the town of Memphis, the capital of Egypt, in which the temple was located. Also there is some evidence that foreigners referred to the country of Egypt by this term as is attested in a Mycenaean Linear B tablet from Knossos, which is usually dated to around 1375 BC, i.e., 125 years after Abraham, as a man's name, presupposing that it was already a name for Egypt. Note also that the text (Abr. 1:22-25) implies that Egypt derived its name from an eponymous ancestor, Egyptus. Given the facts concerning the origin of the word Egyptus, however, this cannot represent historical reality."6

Why? Are you claiming that you proof that Ham is a historical figure? Or Noah? Please.. and so what if Aegyptus is of ancient Greek mythology. Are you stating that all Greek myths and beliefs all originated in Greece or do not have some historical (or other cultural roots)?

Buffalo, most of the criticisms take the form of taking a wrecking ball to the Book of Abraham and Bible that makes similar claims and you may feel it is necessary to do so. However, in the process, your wrecking ball also destroys the Bible as well. And I don't know if most Christians would be comfortable with that. As I said before, if you DO that, there is no point to examining the Book of Abraham in the first place.

[_lulu]

Buffalo, . . . And I don't know if most Christians would be comfortable with that.

Is it Buffalo's job to make Christians comfortable?

[_Tobin]

Buffalo, . . . And I don't know if most Christians would be comfortable with that.

Is it Buffalo's job to make Christians comfortable?

No, but there is no point in Bible either for the non-religious. I'm sure it is interesting as any piece of fiction, but beyond that you are wasting your time even discussing it and we might as well be discussing the historical significance of the Lord of the Rings.

[_Morley]

No, but there is no point in Bible either for the non-religious. I'm sure it is interesting as any piece of fiction, but beyond that you are wasting your time even discussing it and we might as well be discussing the historical significance of the Lord of the Rings.

This is so very not true.

[_Buffalo]

You are mixing up books again. The book of Moses is not the Book of Abraham. And let's see, does the Bible mention a curse on Canaan?

Genesis 9:22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
Genesis 9:25 And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

Oh my, it does indeed.

The POGP states explicitly that part of the curse was a skin of blackness, and no priesthood. The Book of Moses was produced identically to the Book of Abraham, in your view, remember. But both together put forth this idea.

The Bible never talks about priesthood or skin color of the Canaanites.

LOL, that is complete rubbish. Let's consider how these peaceful people of the Middle Kingdom attacked and conquered Nubia or the Sinai? Or the battles fought during the expansion of the New Kingdom like the Battle of Kadesh and so on. And this is your source making absurd assertions like this. I'd be embarrassed to cite such a source.

You're purposefully misrepresenting the claims of the source.

Genesis 11:31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Why? Are you claiming that you proof that Ham is a historical figure? Or Noah? Please.. and so what if Aegyptus is of ancient Greek mythology. Are you stating that all Greek myths and beliefs all originated in Greece or do not have some historical (or other cultural roots)?

Buffalo, most of the criticisms take the form of taking a wrecking ball to the Book of Abraham and Bible that makes similar claims and you may feel it is necessary to do so. However, in the process, your wrecking ball also destroys the Bible as well. And I don't know if most Christians would be comfortable with that. As I said before, if you DO that, there is no point to examining the Book of Abraham in the first place.

Does not follow. The claims of the Book of Abraham and the LDS Church are worth examining independently of the historicity of the Book of Genesis.

[_Tobin]

Does not follow. The claims of the Book of Abraham and the LDS Church are worth examining independently of the historicity of the Book of Genesis.

Oh phooey. IF God, Jesus Christ, Abraham, and other things the LDS Church and Book of Abraham are based on are not true and based in reality, there is no reason to examine them.

For example, if there was no Abraham historically, the Book of Abraham and Old Testament is obviously a work of fiction. There is nothing more that we need to state about it.
Let's look at another example: If there was no actual Jesus Christ, Christianity and the New Testament is a work of fiction and obviously that would make Mormonism and the Book of Mormon a fiction as well. Again, nothing more to state about it at that point.

Clearly this is the game you wish to play Buffalo. As I've said before though, there is nothing useful for us to discuss. You will always fall back to nuclear arguments such as there is no evidence of a god, the claims of the Bible being a work of fiction and non-historical, or some other derivative of this kind to attack Mormonism.

[_lulu]

Does not follow. The claims of the Book of Abraham and the LDS Church are worth examining independently of the historicity of the Book of Genesis.

Oh phooey.

There may be reasons to examine the "claims of the Book of Abraham and the LDS church independent of the historicity of the Book of Abraham."

Such an examination might tell one much about Joseph Smith, the creation of Mormonism and religions in general.

However, when that discussion starts to ask questions like, would the Book of Abraham cause us to shift the periodization of the Patriarchs? Then I'll call phooey. If you want to talk about Abraham's epoch, let's start with the historicity of Abraham.

Otherwise, you've done nothing other than circled up for a jerk.