Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[_SteelHead]

Interesting how what you term as impossible is acceptable to only you and less than a score of Mormon Egyptologists/scholars. To the rest of the field...... well to quote Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

As to delivering, what would you like me to deliver? The huge majority of items in the facsimiles according to the best researchers have nothing to do with what Joseph said they did. The just don't translate to the story of Abraham. Min with his phallus. The incorrect genders. The copied bits into the lacunea. King Pharaoh. The anachronisms. Shulem. etc etc etc.

Deliver..... I do not pretend to be an Egyptologist, but I do pretend to be able to read and reason. UPS delivers. I suggest: http://www.amazon.com/The-Joseph-Smith- ... ert+ritner

The preponderance of evidence does not support your thesis. The fact that there are a couple of items that are slightly similar does not outweigh the preponderance of things that are wrong. It is an example of a texas sharpshooter fallacy.

I am not the one claiming a divine source for the translation of the papyri. You are. The onus is yours to deliver.

[_Robert F Smith]

Interesting how what you term as impossible is acceptable to only you and less than a score of Mormon Egyptologists/scholars. To the rest of the field...... well to quote Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

As to delivering, what would you like me to deliver? The huge majority of items in the facsimiles according to the best researchers have nothing to do with what Joseph said they did. The just don't translate to the story of Abraham. Min with his phallus. The incorrect genders. The copied bits into the lacunea. King Pharaoh. The anachronisms. Shulem. etc etc etc.

Deliver..... I do not pretend to be an Egyptologist, but I do pretend to be able to read and reason. UPS delivers. I suggest: http://www.amazon.com/The-Joseph-Smith- ... ert+ritner

The preponderance of evidence does not support your thesis. The fact that there are a couple of items that are slightly similar does not outweigh the preponderance of things that are wrong. It is an example of a texas sharpshooter fallacy.

I am not the one claiming a divine source for the translation of the papyri. You are. The onus is yours to deliver.

My paper was based on secular standards of scholarship, not "a divine source," thus indicating to me that you did not actually read it.
I delivered and you didn't. That shows us where your a priori position lies. And recommending the deeply flawed and anti-Mormon Ritner book is merely a copout. You could try assessing the debate in an evenhanded and fairminded way, rather than with the wave of a hand.

Who are these "best researchers" you claim to cite? I cited "best researchers" as well, and I don't see you fairly considering their conclusions.
Just as I should have expected, you condemn Joseph before the fact, with no true assessment of the issues. Are you so afraid of specifics?

[_SteelHead]

I read the paper Robert, it is full of naked assertions, and stretching. References to undisclosed sources and full of words like "likely".

If I get time I might pick it apart, but my main beef is that no matter the parallels between what emerged as the translation via Joseph and other elements, the translation provided by Joseph is not present in the papyrus. It just isn't there. The only element actually present in the papyrus themselves that bare even a slight resemblance to the actual translation is the canopic jars, but even that is a stretch.

When one examines the facsimiles and the Joseph Smith provided translation for the facsimiles, which is claimed to be divine in nature, the preponderance is errors.

[_Themis]

I am not sure what you are actually saying here. Could you be more specific?

Again, I am not sure what you are actually saying here. The one specific item you mention, chiasmus, is not even discussed by you, except by insinuating doubt.

It means you are ignoring the main evidences, and focusing in very subjective areas you hope can be used to convince people Joseph was right. I gave chiasmus as an example.

I am not sure what your phrase "believed connections" means, and the lower register of the only illustration I provided should seem to you surprisingly like Fac 3.

Your article has been deleted, and I have no idea what I should see as surprisingly like fac 3.

On what basis do you make the claim that "Joseph didn't even come close to getting any of it right"? Have you actually kept up with the Book of Abraham debate, and read books and articles from both sides of the controversy? Again, you neglect specific comments on particular issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

If we look at fac 3 we see Joseph made 6 identifications(5 of them for individuals) as well as a general statement of what is happening in fac 3. Not one of them is correct according to Egyptology.

Just what evidence did you actually consider in concluding that Joseph was "making it all up"? Given the kind of evidence I assembled, this would be impossible.

I have no idea what evidence you think is so great that it would even be likely, let alone impossible. I think you have a very biased views here. I noticed this with some of your posts, and the latest with Ritner's book being anti-Mormon. I suppose to defend your positions you will need to at some point attack one of the main experts of Egyptology who is the most knowledgeable regarding Joesph's papyri.

[Guest]

Here is one of my core problems (in pictures).

Robert you would have me believe that this:

(Book of Abraham)

came from this:




& That it possesses the following properties:
1. A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.
2. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham,
3. written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)

I'll stick to facsimile one for this round.

Facsimile 1:

is supposed to contain the history of this:

5 My fathers, having turned from their righteousness, and from the holy commandments which the Lord their God had given unto them, unto the worshiping of the gods of the heathen, utterly refused to hearken to my voice;

6 For their hearts were set to do evil, and were wholly turned to the god of Elkenah, and the god of Libnah, and the god of Mahmackrah, and the god of Korash, and the god of Pharaoh, king of Egypt;

7 Therefore they turned their hearts to the sacrifice of the heathen in offering up their children unto these dumb idols, and hearkened not unto my voice, but endeavored to take away my life by the hand of the priest of Elkenah. The priest of Elkenah was also the priest of Pharaoh.

8 Now, at this time it was the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to offer up upon the altar which was built in the land of Chaldea, for the offering unto these strange gods, men, women, and children.

9 And it came to pass that the priest made an offering unto the god of Pharaoh, and also unto the god of Shagreel, even after the manner of the Egyptians. Now the god of Shagreel was the sun.

10 Even the thank-offering of a child did the priest of Pharaoh offer upon the altar which stood by the hill called Potiphar’s Hill, at the head of the plain of Olishem.

11 Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time, who were the daughters of Onitah, one of the royal descent directly from the loins of Ham. These virgins were offered up because of their virtue; they would not bow down to worship gods of wood or of stone, therefore they were killed upon this altar, and it was done after the manner of the Egyptians.

12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

13 It was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

14 That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics.

Now here are the problems.

For years while the original papyrus were lost Egyptologist said that this:

if ever found would look like (missing the head of Anubis):


Why is that? Because of a scads of these:

There are tons of them. They are analogous and all contain scads of similarities.

And sure enough when the original papyrus that Joseph possessed was found it looked like:


Now these original has been analyzed and translated and the following can be said about it:
1. A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.
~OK, with caveats. From Egypt, but nowhere near the time frame of Abraham.

2. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham,
~No way. There is no mention of Abraham nor the narrative quoted above in this papyrus (or in any of the papyrus for that matter).

3. written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)
~No way. Dates way too recent via various dating methodologies.

Now, which is more likely? That Joseph Smith took this:

And made it look like this:

And then created a story around it involving Abraham, as no one in the US at the time could discredit him.

Or that this:


Is actually one of the many of these:



More like (see much more probable rendition top left):


and that this translation:

is actually more correct?

Other problems:
The lion couches were used for the preparation of the dead, not for human sacrifice. The names of the gods are made up (yes I have read your paper on the gods names), they are not the name of Egyptian gods, nor the name of any other deities in the region. The names of the gods represented in the canopic gods are known: "They represent the four sons of the god Horus, who are: (fig. 5) Qebehseneuf — receives the intestines, (fig. 6) Duamutef — receives the stomach, (fig. 7) Hapy — receives the lungs, and (fig. 8) Imsety — receives the liver."

You can in no way prove that this:


is actually:

as the image is simply not there, nor any Abraham narrative. While there are tons of these:

[_SteelHead]

Themis,
I made a copy of the paper MR. Smith provided if you would like it. HTML copy, not the pdf, so it is not formatted quite as nicely.

[_Robert F Smith]

Your article has been deleted, and I have no idea what I should see as surprisingly like fac 3.[/qukote]

Themis,
I made a copy of the paper MR. Smith provided if you would like it. HTML copy, not the pdf, so it is not formatted quite as nicely.

Yes, it appears that someone deeply fearful of my article hacked Scribd.com and deleted most of it. However, I appreciate you making a copy available to Themis. Thanks.
I have uploaded it again, and you can find it at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham.
The striking parallel with fac 3 is on page 20 -- until an anti-Mormon deletes it again.

[_Robert F Smith]

I read the paper Robert, it is full of naked assertions, and stretching. References to undisclosed sources and full of words like "likely".

If I get time I might pick it apart, but my main beef is that no matter the parallels between what emerged as the translation via Joseph and other elements, the translation provided by Joseph is not present in the papyrus. It just isn't there. The only element actually present in the papyrus themselves that bare even a slight resemblance to the actual translation is the canopic jars, but even that is a stretch.

When one examines the facsimiles and the Joseph Smith provided translation for the facsimiles, which is claimed to be divine in nature, the preponderance is errors.

I note that you cite no sources or specific examples of your claims. You seem not to understand what a substantive argument or refutation consists of, nor what a scholarly discussion is like. The reason, I suspect, is that you know very well that you cannot carry on a rational discussion about the Book of Abraham, and have no idea what a preponderance of evidence might be -- either way.
If you tried presenting these sorts of empty claims before a judge, you'd be laughed out of court.

[Guest]

Robert,
You ever tried to type a wall of text on a cellphone? Empty claims? I am not the one arguing that some where in the papyrus is a story about Abraham. You are.

Laughed out of court....

Try this one:

b) words nearly identical to the Egyptian in fac 2:9-10 (ApocAbr 12:10), which one
9
Egyptologist has told me privately also parallels the ritual Demotic words in SetneKhamwas I:3:12-13.

Un attributed here say. That is of value.

As to the use of Hebrew words:

Wikipedia:

Joseph Smith ostensibly translated the majority of the Book of Abraham text in July and a few days in November 1835 and did some minor revisions in March 1842.[6] By October, he had also begun

By November 1835 Joseph and Co. had:
http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-conte ... N02_43.pdf

When he returned to Kirtland on November 20, he brought home,
Joseph Smith tells in his Journal, "a quantity of Hebrew books, for the benefit
of the school," which included a Hebrew Bible, Lexicon and Grammar
let us notice, a Greek Lexicon

Should I think it strange that he was able to throw in some Hebrew?

[_Robert F Smith]

On what basis do you make the claim that "Joseph didn't even come close to getting any of it right"? Have you actually kept up with the Book of Abraham debate, and read books and articles from both sides of the controversy? Again, you neglect specific comments on particular issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

If we look at fac 3 we see Joseph made 6 identifications(5 of them for individuals) as well as a general statement of what is happening in fac 3. Not one of them is correct according to Egyptology.

Since you are able to receive a copy of my paper from SteelHead, you should be responding specifically to my description of the illustration on p. 20, so that you can explain how you reconcile blatant Semitic use of Egyptian iconography for their own purposes. How is it that Semites/Canaanites have no qualms about such use? A 9th century BC king of Ammon (in Transjordan) likewise wears the Osiris crown. Siimilarly for use by 5th century BC Aramaic-speaking peoples in Egypt drawing a lion-couch scene and placing the dedication on it in Aramaic square letters (=post-Exilic Hebrew letters) and using an Aramaic word for "god."

Just what evidence did you actually consider in concluding that Joseph was "making it all up"? Given the kind of evidence I assembled, this would be impossible.

I have no idea what evidence you think is so great that it would even be likely, let alone impossible. I think you have a very biased views here. I noticed this with some of your posts, and the latest with Ritner's book being anti-Mormon. I suppose to defend your positions you will need to at some point attack one of the main experts of Egyptology who is the most knowledgeable regarding Joesph's papyri.

Perhaps you would like to point out examples of my biases.
As to Ritner being anti-Mormon, you ought to take a look at Ritner's very intemperate statements in Larry E. Morris, “The Book of Abraham: Ask the Right Questions and Keep On Looking,” FARMS Review, 16/2 (2004),355-380, online at http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=561.
I have also been present when Professor Ritner was in control of his emotions and made a proper presentation -- at UCLA I attended a lecture by him delivered to the faculty and students in the Dept of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. I even bought a copy of his published dissertation there and had him autograph it.

I am not sure what you are actually saying here. Could you be more specific?

Again, I am not sure what you are actually saying here. The one specific item you mention, chiasmus, is not even discussed by you, except by insinuating doubt.

It means you are ignoring the main evidences, and focusing in very subjective areas you hope can be used to convince people Joseph was right. I gave chiasmus as an example.

I am not sure what your phrase "believed connections" means, and the lower register of the only illustration I provided should seem to you surprisingly like Fac 3.

Your article has been deleted, and I have no idea what I should see as surprisingly like fac 3.

See above.

On what basis do you make the claim that "Joseph didn't even come close to getting any of it right"? Have you actually kept up with the Book of Abraham debate, and read books and articles from both sides of the controversy? Again, you neglect specific comments on particular issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

If we look at fac 3 we see Joseph made 6 identifications(5 of them for individuals) as well as a general statement of what is happening in fac 3. Not one of them is correct according to Egyptology.

See above, and note that the three illustrations (facsimiles) accompanying the Book of Abraham are merely adjuncts to the main text of the book, which is not the Sensen text (Book of Breathings).
And see FAIR Wiki for text and answers that cannot be destroyed by the anti-Mormons (who continually delete legitimate text in Wikipedia).

Just what evidence did you actually consider in concluding that Joseph was "making it all up"? Given the kind of evidence I assembled, this would be impossible.

I have no idea what evidence you think is so great that it would even be likely, let alone impossible. I think you have a very biased views here. I noticed this with some of your posts, and the latest with Ritner's book being anti-Mormon. I suppose to defend your positions you will need to at some point attack one of the main experts of Egyptology who is the most knowledgeable regarding Joesph's papyri.

Just who is this "main expert" whom you claim to be "most knowledgeable"?
I cited plenty of major Egyptologists, none of whom you can refute.
Calculating the statistical likelihood of Joseph getting so many correct identifications means that it would be impossible for him to have just made it all up. That is why anti-Mormons such as the late Wesley P. Walters and the late D. J. Nelson tried to explain Joseph's correct identifications by appealing to knowledge he could have acquired in books available in the early 19th century (Walters in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 16:39 n. 58, detailing sources theoretically available to Joseph; and 30 n. 2, citing Bales and Jensen; Nelson in J. W. Fitzgerald, H. M. Marquardt, and D. J. Nelson, “Discrimination: Is It of God?” [1976], 92).
Also speaking of Joseph Smith, James H. Breasted said that that “it would have been impossible for any American scholar to know enough about Egyptian inscriptions to read them before the publication of Champollion’s grammar.”