Shulem wrote:Now, need I mention Facismile No. 3 for an example or, have I done that ample times? The point is, the writing surrounding the orginal Facsimile No 1 was indeed the Abrahamic source for Joseph Smith's translation. Also, the writing in Facsimile No. 3 is the source of the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. The writing of Facsimile No. 3 is NOT lost and it's not 100 feet long. We can see it clearly and know what it really says. Sadly, for Mormons, Joseph Smith had no idea how to properly translate. So he made it all up and Mormons bought it, hook, line, and sinker!
Paul O
Now I know Paul keeps on and on about Facsimile no. 3. But there is a good reason for that. It is sitting there in front of us, and Egyptologists can easily read what the writing on it says. The text of Facsimile 3 is completely straightforward stuff, as are the images, repeated on many funerary scrolls.
Yet Joseph Smith's detailed explanation of who the people are, and what the labels over their heads mean, and what is going on in the scene, are all completely wrong.
Game over, really.
Last edited by Guest on Tue May 15, 2012 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
jskains wrote:You also ignore scroll length accounts simply because it's convenient to make them as small as possible to ignore any possibility other than the Church is a fraud.
Or, alternatively, you accept unreliable, evolving, hearsay-within-hearsay stories told decades after the fact to cling to any possibility other than the Church is a fraud.
jskains wrote:... You also ignore scroll length accounts ...
No he doesn't. He evaluates them very carefully (see his post above). But he concludes that the ones used to argue for very long scrolls are not worth very much.
Sorry that upsets you.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Now you have a clearer appreciation of why scrolls have to be imagined to be incredibly long, that there are giant missing pieces, and if we only had those missing pieces we would find the document Joseph Smith actually translated.
William Schryver and John Gee have constructed their apologetics to get around this exact problem. Unfortunately, they don't have anything solid going for their arguments.
So, yes, game over in terms of anything other than the catalyst theory, which is what Paul O. once argued before he left the LDS Church.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
jskains wrote:You also ignore scroll length accounts simply because it's convenient to make them as small as possible to ignore any possibility other than the Church is a fraud.
Or, alternatively, you accept unreliable, evolving, hearsay-within-hearsay stories told decades after the fact to cling to any possibility other than the Church is a fraud.
You mean like that supposed Egyptologist??
JMS
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds - Albert Einstein
Kishkumen wrote:So, yes, game over in terms of anything other than the catalyst theory, which is what Paul O. once argued before he left the LDS Church.
Uh, no.. Game isn't over, but nice try.
JMS
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds - Albert Einstein
Maybe God took the missing scroll back to heaven so that we would have to have faith.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
DarkHelmet wrote:Maybe God took the missing scroll back to heaven so that we would have to have faith.
Or perhaps they were damaged or stolen?
Here is the real problem. WE CAN'T ASK JOSEPH SMITH!!!!
How many times has anyone wondered forever why someone did something, and finally asked them, and they told you and someone went "Wow, I didn't consider that?"
JMS
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds - Albert Einstein
Now you have a clearer appreciation of why scrolls have to be imagined to be incredibly long, that there are giant missing pieces, and if we only had those missing pieces we would find the document Joseph Smith actually translated.
William Schryver and John Gee have constructed their apologetics to get around this exact problem. Unfortunately, they don't have anything solid going for their arguments.
So, yes, game over in terms of anything other than the catalyst theory, which is what Paul O. once argued before he left the LDS Church.
(my bold emphasis added)
The wonderful point about Facsimile 3 is that we indubitably have in front of us a readable version of an Egyptian document Joseph Smith actually translated.
And every damn' thing he said was wrong (Like Smith's 'Pharaoh' was Isis, and so on). Not much room for catalyst theory there.
I can quite understand why Paul goes on and on 'hammering in the nail' on this one.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Darth J wrote: Or, alternatively, you accept unreliable, evolving, hearsay-within-hearsay stories told decades after the fact to cling to any possibility other than the Church is a fraud.
You mean like that supposed Egyptologist??
JMS
At what point in his training in Egyptology do you feel that Gee was educated as to whether a childhood reminiscence attributed to Joseph F. Smith decades after the fact, and repeated and expanded by Hugh Nibley, was reliable and accurate?
