Apostasy's A Bummer

[_Themis]

Every time you examine one of these criticism of the Book of Abraham, you find something similar. Bad assumptions, uninspired reading (or just plain dismissal of the Bible), or some other non-sense is going on. I have a hard time taking these critics seriously any more.

No one does, Tobin, at least anyone who takes serious thinking seriously and approaches the subjects at hand with at least a reasonable quantity of good faith and an open, creative, exploratory mind (imagination, in other words).

You definitely need to have a good imagination to try and get around the facts. Some though who also have a good imagination don't think it is a good idea to use it to get around reality.

[_Shulem]

You definitely need to have a good imagination to try and get around the facts. Some though who also have a good imagination don't think it is a good idea to use it to get around reality.

Take the facts of Fascsimile No. 3 for example. Droopy has not been able to offer up a proper king's name (neither could Hugh Nibley and DCP). Joseph Smith might have added one in his Explanations but he opted to keep it open. He did however offer up the name Shulem wich is also supposed to be in the Egyptian writing. But it's not and what does DCP and John Gee have to say about that? Not much.

So, we see how the failed translations of Fascimile No. 3 prove Joseph Smith couldn't read Egyptian and he was just making up names. How does that bode with all the names he made up in the Book of Mormon and the D&C? I think we can conclude that Joseph Smith was consistent in making things up and pretending to translate. His track record is horrible and he was caught lying just as soon as modern Egyptology came around the corner to prove Joseph a false translator.

I have no doubt in my mind that Joseph Smith was a false translator. He was a total fraud. I know that with every sensible part of my being. I guess you could say I have a testimony! And that testimoy isn't based on fuzzy feelings and warm thoughts that everyone gets when they think about things to stir them up. No. It's based on facts and genuine raw data -- proved using scientific methods. There is nothing LDS apologists can say to counter this. All they can do is rant and rave and gnash their teeth against the revealed scientific truth. Mormons have a way of denying truth and protecting their cause even though it has been shown to be positively false. Being a faithful Mormon can be bummer.

Paul O

[_Tobin]

I was not aware that the Bible was Egyptian, and I don't see how you have addressed what buffalo said.

Where did the concept of human sacrifice come from in the Bible? Why did God propose it to Abraham? If it was so shocking and unprecedented, why did Abraham not immediately revolt and reject the command? It seems like this didn't happen in a vacuum and I see no response on the other side.

You are poorly regurgitating a bad apologetic. I will let someone else say it better then I could.

Actually, it is your poor understanding of the Bible itself that is the problem. The Chaldean word comes from the Greek word xaldaioi found in the Septuagint. However, when we look for the cuneiform of the city being discussed as the Hebrew Ur of Chaldees, then why isn't it properly identified as Urim? Also, it is ridiculous to assert that groups and tribes did not possess their identity for thousands of years in the old world. On what basis is that assertion valid? The Jews have retained their identity for thousands of years and exist in the modern era. I also noticed that you regurgitated a bunch of material but failed to address the main points I hightlighted:

1) How was there a famine in both Ur and Haran?
2) And you completely ignore the time period and Egyptian influence in Ur which both clearly indicate that we aren't talking about Urim in Mesopotamia

[_Buffalo]

Where did the concept of human sacrifice come from in the Bible? Why did God propose it to Abraham? If it was so shocking and unprecedented, why did Abraham not immediately revolt and reject the command? It seems like this didn't happen in a vacuum and I see no response on the other side.

Human sacrifice was fairly common among the Hebrews up until the 6th century BC, and common among their Semitic neighbors. It was not found among the Egyptians of the time, however.

[Guest]

Where did the concept of human sacrifice come from in the Bible? Why did God propose it to Abraham? If it was so shocking and unprecedented, why did Abraham not immediately revolt and reject the command? It seems like this didn't happen in a vacuum and I see no response on the other side.

Human sacrifice was fairly common among the Hebrews up until the 6th century BC, and common among their Semitic neighbors. It was not found among the Egyptians of the time, however.

CFR - and by the way, the events described didn't occur in Egypt itself. By your own admission, human sacrifice was occuring in this very region under discussion.

[_Buffalo]

There is no evidence of human sacrifice in Egypt during Abraham's time frame. But I was thinking of the anachronistic 19th century cosmology (influenced by incorrect notions from Newton and Thomas Dick), and the 19th century ideas about the Canaanites, and the anachronistic reference to the Chaldeans. Oh, and also the mistaken idea that Pharaoh was someone's given name.

I noticed you avoided noting that God proposed that Abraham perform a human sacrifice in the Bible itself. Like I said, the criticisms of the Book of Abraham are uninspired and follow a similar vein of dismissing the Bible as well.

Now, let's tackle the Chaldean criticism, which is so much baloney. The bad assumption is Ur of the Chaldees was located in Mesopotamia. The Book of Abraham makes it clear it was not. It was under Egyptian influence and in the same ecological zone as Haran and was experiencing a famine. The other bad assumption is the Chaldeans just suddenly appeared out of thin air. Another example of poor thinking on the critics part. The Kassites (Chaldeans) moved into southern Mesopotamia and weren't from there originally. Every time you examine one of these criticism of the Book of Abraham, you find something similar. Bad assumptions, uninspired reading (or just plain dismissal of the Bible), or some other non-sense is going on. I have a hard time taking these critics seriously any more.

I'm sorry, how does this counter the historical fact that the Chaldeans were not a people in any time Abraham could have existed?

[_Shulem]

Don't waste your time talking Egyptian history with Tobin. Let him think whatever he wants. He already knows the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are totally untrue. We are halfway there to converting him on the side of science which has also shown the text of the Book of Abraham to be just as false and made up by a storyteller. Give him time. He's a stubborn one.

Now, he might ask how has science proven the text to be false. Let him figure it out on his own. When he finally does, it will be more rewarding to him personally.



Paul O

[_Buffalo]

Human sacrifice was fairly common among the Hebrews up until the 6th century BC, and common among their Semitic neighbors. It was not found among the Egyptians of the time, however.

CFR

Did you miss the constant exhortations in the Old Testament trying to get people to stop sacrificing their Children to Moloch?

In any case, see The Better Angles of Our Nature by Steven Pinker, p.134

[_Tobin]

I'm sorry, how does this counter the historical fact that the Chaldeans were not a people in any time Abraham could have existed?

Really? When did the Chaldeans come into existence exactly? CFR Did they just spontaneously appear out of thin air?

[_Tobin]

CFR

Did you miss the constant exhortations in the Old Testament trying to get people to stop sacrificing their Children to Moloch?

In any case, see The Better Angles of Our Nature by Steven Pinker, p.134

Again ,by your own admission, human sacrifice was occuring in this region. We aren't talking about events in Egypt.