Kishkumen wrote:This whole Book of Abraham saga has to be one of the single most pointless and idiotic debacles in the history of apologetics. It beggars belief that a PhD bearing Egyptologist of Gee's raw intelligence and intensive training would squander his talents, education, and reputation on this utter nonsense. The actual benefit of making this crap argument is zero. Even if it did work, it would not forward knowledge on the subject of the Book of Abraham one bit. All that is gained by fabricating the existence of this text is the illusory chance that somewhere out there the ancient source text of Joseph Smith's 19th-century short story on Abraham might yet exist, or, better yet, is lost forever.
You would think that adults with even a modicum of scholarly knowledge about the Bible could deal with a 19th century prophet who saw God and talked with angels writing a book of scripture set in the deep past. But oh no! For some unfathomable reason, it is preferable to imagine some Hebrew living in Hellenistic Egypt writing it. Better that guy making up an Abraham story than Joseph. Why in the hell beats me, but evidently that is the line in the sand which shall not be crossed.
Kevin Graham wrote:True, though apologists have relied heavily on the rare exceptions where some papyri contain multiple stories from multiple authors; so of course this provides them with some "plausibility" that such is the case with the Joseph Smith papyri. The problem however, is that we have the beginning and end of the Horos scroll and it is clear both portions refer to the same thing (Facsimile 3 mentions Horos!)
You're right, Kevin, but that bit of trivia supplies no reason to believe that a pagan funerary text would also contain an account of Abraham learning 19th-century astronomy directly from God and telling us how an Egyptian king whose given name was Pharaoh tried to imitate Mormonism, but couldn't have the priesthood because the story of Noah's ark is actual history and the Egyptians came from Ham.
dblagent007 wrote:I think Andrew needs to set up a math test and if Gee can't pass it, then he is disqualified from making any further comments about the length of the scroll.
Amen. Andrew, start writing that test. Save Gee from further humiliation.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kevin Graham wrote: True, though apologists have relied heavily on the rare exceptions where some papyri contain multiple stories from multiple authors; so of course this provides them with some "plausibility" that such is the case with the Joseph Smith papyri. The problem however, is that we have the beginning and end of the Horos scroll and it is clear both portions refer to the same thing (Facsimile 3 mentions Horos!)
Relying on bizarre outliers and exceptions is the very foundation of LDS apologetics regarding Jospeh Smith's scriptural productions. There is always some shady bit of archaeology in an outdated footnote, a rare reading of a certain text of the Old Testament, or a plausible on the surface scenario regarding some ancient phenomenon. Unfortunately, all of these obscurantist pseudo-scholarly gymnastics are blown away once it finally hits you: Joseph Smith wrote them all.
It really is as simple as that.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Any body know what was going on in LDS church when it cannonized the Book of Abraham? In other words, why?
"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.
Kishkumen wrote:This whole Book of Abraham saga has to be one of the single most pointless and idiotic debacles in the history of apologetics. It beggars belief that a PhD bearing Egyptologist of Gee's raw intelligence and intensive training would squander his talents, education, and reputation on this utter nonsense. The actual benefit of making this crap argument is zero. Even if it did work, it would not forward knowledge on the subject of the Book of Abraham one bit. All that is gained by fabricating the existence of this text is the illusory chance that somewhere out there the ancient source text of Joseph Smith's 19th-century short story on Abraham might yet exist, or, better yet, is lost forever.
You would think that adults with even a modicum of scholarly knowledge about the Bible could deal with a 19th century prophet who saw God and talked with angels writing a book of scripture set in the deep past. But oh no! For some unfathomable reason, it is preferable to imagine some Hebrew living in Hellenistic Egypt writing it. Better that guy making up an Abraham story than Joseph. Why in the hell beats me, but evidently that is the line in the sand which shall not be crossed.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)
