SteelHead wrote: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.
Uh...we were talking about the Book of Abraham, and then you wanted to change the subject to evidences and hits, and now you're changing the subject back to the Book of Abraham. Ok...
Those ideas are the dominant consensus among mainstream scholars.
"It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey." - Soren Kierkegaard
Brad Hudson wrote: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.
He did no such thing. When he's talking about pseudographia, he's talking about a specific literary tradition from a specific period of time -- over 1500 years before Smith said he had translated the Book of Abraham. And none of the writings he's talking about involve an alleged "translation" from one language to another that turned out to be completely and abosolutely wrong.
What you're doing is flat-out dishonest, but is within the finest "tradition" of Nibleyology.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
The Bible contains a mish mash of religious ideas influenced by cultures of the region. That it can be read to support ideas in the Book of Abraham, that were somewhat fringe at the time the Book of Abraham was produced is evidence of nothing, as most of those ideas were mainstream in other traditions. Creation ex materia vs ex nihilo and the popularity of the belief by a group of scholars has little bearing on the reality of either theories. That the Bible can be read to support a variety of readings should surprise no one.
Again I am arguing about the veracity of the Book of Abraham. That you try to tie it into biblical studies as some support of veracity to me is akin to trying use the Hobbit to prove the veracity of the Lord of the Rings.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
Nelson Chung wrote: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.
He did no such thing. When he's talking about pseudographia, he's talking about a specific literary tradition from a specific period of time -- over 1500 years before Smith said he had translated the Book of Abraham.
Yes, well Smith claimed to be restoring ancient traditions. In fact, one of Smiths' critics tried to connect him to hermeticism.
And none of the writings he's talking about involve an alleged "translation" from one language to another that turned out to be completely and abosolutely wrong.
This was already addressed by Bokovoy.
What you're doing is flat-out dishonest, but is within the finest "tradition" of Nibleyology.
I want to say the same thing about you, but I forgive you. God bless you!
"It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey." - Soren Kierkegaard
Did you read where Bokovoy noted that apologists who try to validate Abraham in Egyptian traditions using documents from coptic Christians are being dishonest?
If you want to make it an issue of biblical studies or whatever please produce an analog Egyptian docment from the time of Abraham +- 200 years that would show him being referenced by the Egyptians.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin
SteelHead wrote:Did you read where Bokovoy noted that apologists who try to validate Abraham in Egyptian traditions using documents from coptic Christians are being dishonest?
Yes and I agree with him 100%.
"It is so hard to believe because it is so hard to obey." - Soren Kierkegaard