Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[_SteelHead]

Again it proves nothing...... That a set of synthesized religious ideas not uncommon to the time and region (look at Assyrian) may have some application to the genesis account when looking for said parallels is supposed to mean something?

[Guest]

I don't think I can let my mind delude myself to make this assumption. It allows me to discard what ever I don't like as Joseph's input. I couldn't be honest and do this. I am not sure what you think he got right. I see he got almost everything wrong, and there is a good thread on the dangers of parallelisms. We get an F when we get most things wrong on a test.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=28161

I think Brad presents good reasons why we should be very skeptical of this.

***Pops head up. Looks for shadow. Sees shadow. Predicts 50 more years of Book of Abraham B.S.***

This is an example of parallelomania gone wild. Go to the wiki. Read what Pseudographia is. It's falsely attributing a document to an author. Wow. It's not an "Abrahamic Tradition." Find me an "Abrahamic tradition" of completely mistranslating from one language to another. How many of the Pseudographia listed in, oh, I don't know, the freaking wiki article on the subject were phony translations from one language to another?

What Smith did falls within an even longer tradition of "making stuff up."

Sheesh.

Yeah, I'll take the world's authority on Pseudepigrapha over your wiki definition, thanks Billy.

[_nc47]

Again it proves nothing...... That a set of synthesized religious ideas not uncommon to the time and region (look at Assyrian) may have some application to the genesis account when looking for said parallels is supposed to mean something?

This isn't about parallels. See if I can break this down.

1. God created the world out of pre-existing chaos,not out of nothing.
2. There is a plurality of gods.
3. The gods met in a council.

Joseph Smith time: fringe ideas.
Now, after archaeological discoveries: Dominant scholarly consensus on what the Bible teaches.

[Guest]

1. Common to dozens of religions.
2. Common to dozens of religions.
3. Common to dozens of religions.

All 3 have been topics of discussion amongst Rabbis for a while based on the language of genesis. It is not revolutionary.

Fringe but existant.

No such consensus.

[_Res Ipsa]

Yeah, I'll take the world's authority on Pseudepigrapha over your wiki definition, thanks Billy.

I must have missed the part where the world's leading expert on pseudographia placed the Book of Abraham within that tradition? Could you cite that for me? Where in the definition does the expert say that a fake translation in the 1800's falls within a tradition identified as occurring during within a few hundred years around 0 CE?

Double Sheesh.

[_nc47]

1. Common to dozens of religions.
2. Common to dozens of religions.
3. Common to dozens of religions.

All 3 have been topics of discussion amongst Rabbis for a while based on the language of genesis. It is not revolutionary.

Fringe but existant.

No such consensus.

You obviously aren't familiar with Biblical studies.

[_nc47]

Yeah, I'll take the world's authority on Pseudepigrapha over your wiki definition, thanks Billy.

I must have missed the part where the world's leading expert on pseudographia placed the Book of Abraham within that tradition? Could you cite that for me? Where in the definition does the expert say that a fake translation in the 1800's falls within a tradition identified as occurring during within a few hundred years around 0 CE?

Double Sheesh.

You missed his definition entirely in your zeal to present your authoritative wiki definition.

[Guest]

No, come on. Where does he "bless" the Book of Abraham as an example of pseudographia? You're doing the standard mopologist thing of cherry picking quotes to make it appear that your claim is backed up by non-LDS experts, when it is not.

[_SteelHead]

I am familiar enough to understand that analysis of theology and wording of the Bible when cross applied to other religious traditions is insufficient to show that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Abraham is an "inspired by god" production.

That it doesn't rise to the bar of showing the Book of Abraham as an inspired work seems to be a missaplication of the field of biblical studies to show something that it can't.

[_nc47]

No, come on. Where does he "bless" the Book of Abraham as an example of pseudographia? You're doing the standard mopologist thing of cherry picking quotes make it appear that your claim is backed up by non-LDS experts, when it is not.

I never claimed he "blessed" the Book of Abraham. Read more carefully, Billy Bob. (His talk had to do with the Book of Mormon). He asserted that it was legitimate to write in the name of Abraham and other ancient figures, and that the writings were what constituted pseudepigrapha.