Actually, to the contrary, it makes him a revelator (goes with being a prophet - just FYI).
Which is why I said false prophet. Call him a false revelator if you want, but the fact is the evidence proves he lied. He couldn't produce valid translations via revelation.
The whole premise that Joseph Smith translated pagan Egyptian papyri is ludicrous.
And yet that is precisely what he claimed he did.
As I've pointed out on multiple occasions, the papyri was merely the impetus for this revelation to take place.
Yes, because it contained the Egyptian text he purported to translate.
There is no reason to suspect Egyptian papyri would contain anything about Abraham
Agreed, but that is precisely what Joseph Smith claimed. In fact he claimed this particular document was written by Abraham himself.
They would purely be Egyptian in origin and contain Egyptian myths. The facts bear that out.
Which is why Joseph Smith is a false prophet.
The mistake apologists (and critics) make is they rely on Joseph Smith's knowledge about the papyri and subsequent statements. There is no reason to do so since he obviously did not have the expertise (or knowledge) to ascertain what the papyri were.
I've already addressed this straw man but it seems you don't know how to let go of it. No one has ever said Joseph Smith's "knowledge" was the means by which he purported to translate the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri. I asked you to produce a single example from critics (or apologists) who ever said this. Instead of backing up your claim you ignore my response and just repeat the same nonense, as if this, in some weird way, gives Joseph Smith a free pass on his failed translations.
There is nothing desparate about it. It is simply a logical assertion
What is? You're not speaking with any degree of coherence now.
IF the Book of Abraham is inspired and a true representation of Abraham's writings, then the Egyptian papyri could not possibly be the source.
More importantly, since the Egyptian papri could not possibly be used to produce a Book of Abraham, then Joseph Smith could not have been a true Prophet.
What Joseph Smith must have seen were the long lost original writings of Abraham and revealed them to us.
But there is no reason, aside from apologetic desperation, to propose "long long original writings." We already know that the source for the Book of Abraham is the scroll of Hor. All the evidence points to this as the source. Wherever we turn, whether historical statements or textual evidence in the KEP, the primary focus was on this document. A portion of that scroll was even canonized as the "commencement" of the record of Abraham. Now you can believe whatever convoluted theory you need to believe in order to maintain faith, but the fact is Joseph Smith never said any of these things you're coming up with. He never said he wasn't really translating, or that he was providing only "speculative annotations," etc. That's apologetic rhetoric you're trying to inject into the narrative as if we're just supposed to take it for granted. Joseph Smith made it perfectly clear the Book of Abraham was translated from Egyptian papyri. And you alread admitted to us that it is absurd to think it could have come from Egyptian papyri.
This should be perfectly acceptable to any LDS since they already believe Joseph Smith revealed the Book of Mormon in much the same way.
On the contrary, the Church teaches that the Book of Mormon narrative was literally on the plates Smith claimed to have translates, just as the Book of Abraham narrative was literally written on the Egyptian papyri in his possession.