Facsimile 3

[_Themis]

Perhaps they realize that to do so you have to make Joseph and God into dumb and dumber. Joseph being dumb enough to make it up and never think to ask God when he is claiming to do so on so many other issues. I wonder if he was not also claiming it here as well. You have God being dumber giving Joseph Abraham's story knowing he will attach it to the papyri and he will also have to give him explanations that are tailor made for the Egyptian facsimiles. Perhaps they think it is just to implausible.

Themis, you'll always have that misconception about God. God permitted the LDS Church to teach a false doctrine banning blacks from the priesthood for over a century. Don't you think he would have clued in one of the LDS prophets - over all the time - that it was a false doctrine and not waited till 1978 to do it?!?

Just another piece of evidence God wasn't involved. You still have to get over the idea that Joseph is asking God about so many other things but we can't have that here, and we also have to have God actually giving him Abraham's story and explanations for the facsimiles. You don't really have to have God telling them to ban blacks for it to be false doctrine. You just have to have them get it wrong on their own and for God to do nothing for over a century. The Book of Abraham God has to be more involved in making the mistakes. Opps.

[_Themis]

There isn't a missing papyrus argument for Joseph's translations of any of the fascilimies, is there?

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, this picture is different than the others because the pictures are labeled in Egyptian? So the implication is that, for example, we see a picture that looks like Osiris, and just in case anybody had any doubt about that, the Egyptians wrote "Osiris" next to him. The depiction and the label both faithfully made it into the wood carvings, which verifies that these elements were copied correctly. Then Smith called it a picture of Abraham.

Do I have that right?

there are missing pieces (lacunae) of Facsimiles 1 and 2. I believe 3 is the only one completely in tact, but I could be wrong.

That makes some sense, since facsimile 2 does have hieroglyphs, but that some were copied to fill in missing portions.

[_CaliforniaKid]

There isn't a missing papyrus argument for Joseph's translations of any of the fascilimies, is there?

Just to make sure I understand what you are saying, this picture is different than the others because the pictures are labeled in Egyptian? So the implication is that, for example, we see a picture that looks like Osiris, and just in case anybody had any doubt about that, the Egyptians wrote "Osiris" next to him. The depiction and the label both faithfully made it into the wood carvings, which verifies that these elements were copied correctly. Then Smith called it a picture of Abraham.

Do I have that right?

Close, but there's even a little more to it than that. Unlike the other Facsimiles, the Facsimile 3 explanation explicitly gives a translation of some of the text included in the woodcut.

"King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head. ... Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."

Kevin Barney has rightly pointed out that pictures can be adapted, recycled, and assigned different meanings. There's a lot of fudge-room with pictures. Not so much with text.

The Facsimile 3 explanation is the only canonized LDS scripture that purports to be a translation of specific ancient characters which are published alongside the translated text. This is thus the only completely unambiguous test-case of Joseph's translation abilities.

[Guest]

Just another piece of evidence God wasn't involved. You still have to get over the idea that Joseph is asking God about so many other things but we can't have that here, and we also have to have God actually giving him Abraham's story and explanations for the facsimiles. You don't really have to have God telling them to ban blacks for it to be false doctrine. You just have to have them get it wrong on their own and for God to do nothing for over a century. The Book of Abraham God has to be more involved in making the mistakes. Opps.

I don't see any difference. Joseph Smith was perfectly capable of getting this wrong all by himself. Joseph Smith obtained the papyri. God didn't hand it to him. Joseph Smith started the translation. God didn't ask him to do it. Seems to me Joseph Smith, was a very human, fallible creature and was driving this. But, I'm not going to argue this with you again. You are thoroughly convinced that Joseph Smith had to be God's sock puppet and I think that is ridiculous.

[_Themis]

Close, but there's even a little more to it than that. Unlike the other Facsimiles, the Facsimile 3 explanation explicitly gives a translation of some of the text included in the woodcut.

"King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head. ... Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."

Kevin Barney has rightly pointed out that pictures can be adapted, recycled, and assigned different meanings. There's a lot of fudge-room with pictures. Not so much with text.

The Facsimile 3 explanation is the only canonized LDS scripture that purports to be a translation of specific ancient characters which are published alongside the translated text. This is thus the only completely unambiguous test-case of Joseph's translation abilities.

Catalyst theory people seem to miss the significance of this.

[_Themis]

I don't see any difference. Joseph Smith was perfectly capable of getting this wrong all by himself. Joseph Smith obtained the papyri. God didn't hand it to him. Joseph Smith started the translation. God didn't ask him to do it. Seems to me Joseph Smith, was a very human, fallible creature and was driving this. But, I'm not going to argue this with you again. You are thoroughly convinced that Joseph Smith had to be God's sock puppet and I think that is ridiculous.

But you don't explain why he claims to ask God on other things but didn't on this, or did he claim it.

You have to go with God being ok with Giving Joseph a story he knows he will incorrectly attach to the papyri, and some like the explanations for the facsimiles. just don't work as a catalyst. Read CK explanation.

[_Shulem]

Thanks for the summary zeezrom. But is there more to it than that? Is there something unique, pivotal, or illustrative about this? The translator didn't do any better on the other fascilimies, did he? So what's the big deal about this one?

He didn't just misinterpret the pictures. He mistranslated the labels that accompany the pictures. And since the labels are published in the Facsimile 3 wood cut, there's no "missing papyrus" argument to be made here. It's 100% clear which text he's supposed to be translating.

In the name of Joseph Smith, Amen.

Paul O

[Guest]

I don't see any difference. Joseph Smith was perfectly capable of getting this wrong all by himself. Joseph Smith obtained the papyri. God didn't hand it to him. Joseph Smith started the translation. God didn't ask him to do it. Seems to me Joseph Smith, was a very human, fallible creature and was driving this. But, I'm not going to argue this with you again. You are thoroughly convinced that Joseph Smith had to be God's sock puppet and I think that is ridiculous.

But you don't explain why he claims to ask God on other things but didn't on this, or did he claim it.

I don't know what Joseph Smith you are talking about?!? Joseph Smith's theology and understanding was constantly evolving. So, if he were getting the complete picture everytime he spoke to God (as you pretend), God was sure changing his mind and repeating things an awful lot.

You have to go with God being ok with Giving Joseph a story he knows he will incorrectly attach to the papyri, and some like the explanations for the facsimiles. just don't work as a catalyst. Read CK explanation.

The facsimiles have nothing to do with anything. The annotations are Joseph Smith's speculations and obviously idiotic.

[_Shulem]

Close, but there's even a little more to it than that. Unlike the other Facsimiles, the Facsimile 3 explanation explicitly gives a translation of some of the text included in the woodcut.

"King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head. ... Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."

Kevin Barney has rightly pointed out that pictures can be adapted, recycled, and assigned different meanings. There's a lot of fudge-room with pictures. Not so much with text.

The Facsimile 3 explanation is the only canonized LDS scripture that purports to be a translation of specific ancient characters which are published alongside the translated text. This is thus the only completely unambiguous test-case of Joseph's translation abilities.

And I trust you will agree it is absolute proof that Joseph Smith translated incorrectly and was making things up as he went. It's a slam dunk against the truth claims of the LDS church. They cannot refute it or defend it -- not even Neal A. Maxwell coupled with John Gee and DCP can say anything to wiggle out of that mess. Nibley's comments about Facsimile No. 3 were of less value than a drunken man laying on a street curb trying to recite complicated mathematical formulas. When it came to defending the Facsimile No. 3 Hugh Nibley was a lying drunken man.

Paul O

[_Shulem]

Catalyst theory people seem to miss the significance of this.

I was a strong catalyst Book of Abraham defender while everyone else was still touting the missing scroll theory. But even I had to eventually face the truth. The catalyst theory is DOA.

Paul O