Joseph Smith & a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph

[_zerinus]

Define specifically what you mean, within the context of the Book of Abraham, by the terms "true" and "genuine".

The caption printed at the beginning of the book answers that question:

"A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

That statement is true. The only observation I need to make is that "written by his own hand" does not mean that Abraham literally, physically wrote on that particular item on that particular piece of papyrus. It means that it originated from him. He was the true and original author of it. Who later wrote or copied that particular piece, and when, and how long after the original one was written by Abraham, and after how many copies had been made, at the present time we do not know.

[_I have a question]

Define specifically what you mean, within the context of the Book of Abraham, by the terms "true" and "genuine".

The caption printed at the beginning of the book answers that question:

"A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

That statement is true. The only observation I need to make is that "written by his own hand" does not mean that Abraham literally, physically wrote on that particular item on that particular piece of papyrus. It means that it originated from him. He was the true and original author of it. Who later wrote or copied that particular piece, and when, and how long after the original one was written by Abraham, and after how many copies had been made, at the present time we do not know.

But it is clear, and confirmed by the Church, that Joseph did not sit down and convert the characters on the papyrus into their equivalent English words. Which is the commonly held understanding of what is meant by the term "translation".
It is clear, and confirmed, that when you sit down and convert the characters on the papyrus into their equivalent English words, they do not "translate" into the Book of Abraham. They translate into something completely different.

For your statement to be "true" you need to change the meaning of all the active words in that paragraph. In fact, when taken at face value, that phrase is demonstrably the opposite of "true". It is completely "false" by any objective evidentiary intellectually honest way of looking at it.

You even make your "true" statement "false" by confirming that "written by his own hand upon papyrus" needs to mean "written by his own hand upon some papyrus other than this papyrus I'm translating, but I don't mean translating I mean something other than translating" for you to reach the conclusion you want to get to. So for you it's "mostly true" and "a little bit false". Brilliant.

What makes your finite position even worse, is that it hasn't even been concluded that Abraham was in fact real.

The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age, along with the exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that does not relate to any period in actual history.

By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.

Link

But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way of a testimonial truth, right?

[_Shulem]

For Shulem:

I don’t believe we know enough about these figures and characters, or Egyptologists know enough about them, or have discovered enough information about them to be able to say with certainty what they represent or have always represented, or whether their meaning and significance have always been the same or undergone changes and transformations over the course of their history. What I do know with absolute certainty is that Joseph Smith was a true prophet who was able to receive revelation from God, and that the Book of Abraham that he translated is a true and genuine record. Therefore I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and accept what he said on faith, and believe that when everything that there is to be known on the subject is known or revealed, that he will be vindicated in his claims. You have learned a little bit about Egyptology and think you know everything. You don’t. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

That's an utterly preposterous position to take and proves your ignorance and unwillingness to embrace the subject matter to its logical and mathematical conclusion. You've thrown everything into the air hoping Mormon god fixes it so when it lands it comes down just like you want. It demonstrates the power of the cult in getting you to deny reality and embrace that which is obviously untrue. You lie to yourself and you lie to everyone else. You are an absolute liar of the worst kind.

Isis has always been Isis since the beginning of Egyptian time, long before so-called Abraham walked the earth. She was Isis since predynastic times and was Isis during the last dynasty of Egypt up until Cleopatra's reign. Her name, position, and iconography in the Egyptian pantheon was firmly fixed from dynasty to dynasty and it is proven in the written records. To say otherwise is to deny the record and pervert the house of the Egyptian gods, firmly established upon the foundation of Osiris and Isis being parents to a race of gods. That is the Egyptian religion -- on papyrus, on tomb walls, on the monuments. It is a matter of record and fact. The idea of Isis being the queen mother god of Egypt is just as firm as the idea of Jesus Christ being the Son of God and Savior of the world. Isis is and always has been Isis. Joseph Smith came along and couldn't recognize her. He saw the rough figure on the papyrus and didn't know who the person was. He took a guess and made things up to provide an illustration to his story. He was wrong, dead wrong. Had anyone in ancient Egypt desecrated Isis like Joseph Smith they would have been thrown into jail or worse. To blaspheme the gods was not tolerated at any time in ancient Egypt.

In conclusion: Isis is Isis and always has been and always will be. Nothing that Joseph Smith said can change that and you are a fool to think so and your church wickedly publishes blasphemous statements about the ancient Egyptian religion. Your church has committed sacrilege against Egypt's divine parents. Shame on the Mormon church.

[_Shulem]

Therefore I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and accept what he said on faith

Exactly. That is what the church today teaches: "Doubt your doubts". And herein, you admit you have DOUBTS! You doubt Joseph Smith got it right when he labeled Isis as a king of Egypt with a king's name written in the writing above the head. You question Joseph Smith's translation because deep down you know it's really Isis, a queen of heaven, a goddess who has a VAGINA, the divine mother of Horus.

Yes, zerinus, doubt your doubts and close your eyes to the truth. The Mormon cult owns you and you must obey them because you are a fool.

[_Shulem]

You have learned a little bit about Egyptology and think you know everything. You don’t. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I KNOW beyond a shadow of doubt that the person in Facsimile No. 3 in which Joseph Smith labeled a prince is really Maat, a divine goddess in Egyptian mythology. But Joseph Smith, the ignorant translator that couldn't read Egyptian and knew next to nothing of their ancient civilization labeled her as a prince, a mere mortal boy. Joseph Smith in his ignorance committed sacrilege to the Egyptian pantheon by taking Maat and stripping her of her divine status and making a mockery of the temple.

Maat had her rightful place throughout dynastic Egypt and is portrayed on the monuments and in the records just as Isis is. Her position in ancient Egypt is sure. There is nothing Joseph Smith can do to try and change that.

You zerinus, are a liar, just like Joseph Smith. I rebuke you in the name of Isis and Maat and let the chips fall where they will for you. You discredit the human race with your folly.

[_Shulem]

or undergone changes and transformations over the course of their history

You mean like a VAGINA turning into a PENIS? Joseph Smith in his error affixed penises to Isis and Maat and made a mockery of the Egyptian pantheon and temple.

Shame on the Mormon church!

[Guest]

The only observation I need to make is that "written by his own hand" does not mean that Abraham literally, physically wrote on that particular item on that particular piece of papyrus. It means that it originated from him. He was the true and original author of it. Who later wrote or copied that particular piece, and when, and how long after the original one was written by Abraham, and after how many copies had been made, at the present time we do not know.[/color]

If you bothered to read Philo's paper and listen to the evidence (statements made by Joseph Smith and others who knew him) presented in this thread you would have come to the realization that Joseph Smith and the saints claimed that some of the mummies were up to 4,000 years old, thus contemporary to the time of Abraham & Joseph. Thus, apostate Egyptians possessed Abraham's so-called blasphemous papyrus scrolls and took them into the tombs. The narrative given by the early saints claims the papyrus were original to the time of Abraham and Joseph, drawn by their own hands, their own sweat upon the Egyptian paper. Original autographs of their day.

However, the Mormon prophet was wrong about them just as President Kimball, the First Presidency, and the Quorum of the Twelve (and the GHOST) were wrong about the forged documents they purchased from Mark Hoffman.

Mormons are fools. So choke on that.

[_I have a question]

Zerinus,

1828 edition of Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language**: Word definitions commonly used in the time of the Restoration of the Church.

https://www.LDS.org/si/objective/doctri ... s?lang=eng
Websters 1828 dictionary is linked to (by the Church) as a resource for us to understand what people of that era understood specific words to mean. So, of course, I entered the word "translate".

Here is what we get:

Translate
TRANSLA'TE, verb transitive [Latin translatus, from transfero; trans, over, and fero, to bear.]

1. To bear, carry or remove from one place to another. It is applied to the removal of a bishop from one see to another.

The bishop of Rochester, when the king would have translated him to a better bishoprick, refused.

2. To remove or convey to heaven, as a human being, without death.

By faith Enoch was translated, that he should not see

death. Hebrews 11:15.

3. To transfer; to convey from one to another. 2 Samuel 3:10.

4. To cause to remove from one part of the body to another; as, to translate a disease.

5. To change.

Happy is your grace,

That can translate the stubbornness of fortune

Into so quiet and so sweet a style.

6. To interpret; to render into another language; to express the sense of one language in the words of another. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language more than two hundred years before Christ. The Scriptures are now translated into most of the languages of Europe and Asia.

7. To explain.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Translate

So when Joseph used the term "translate" in connection with the papyrus and The Book of Abraham, he would have understood that to mean he was rendering the words on the papyrus into English ones. In other words, how "translate" is commonly understood today.

What a great resource the Church has given us.

[_Shulem]

The only observation I need to make is that "written by his own hand" does not mean that Abraham literally, physically wrote on that particular item on that particular piece of papyrus.

The famous painting of the Mona Lisa was painted by the hand of Leonardo da Vinci. There is no question about that. The early Mormons (including Joseph Smith) claimed that the books of Abraham and Joseph consisting of images and writing were painted and written by none other than the early patriarchs, by their own hands.

Honestly, I take Joseph Smith and those who testified about what he said at their word. As far as zerinus, he's grasping on a faith straw and doubting.


Drawn by the very hand of Leonardo da Vinci

[_Shulem]

Who later wrote or copied that particular piece, and when, and how long after the original one was written by Abraham, and after how many copies had been made, at the present time we do not know.

References, please.

The early Mormons and those associated with the papyrus never said any such thing but implied the opposite in everything they said and demonstrated. You're making stuff up, zerinus, out of thin air. Then you have the audacity to state "we do not know" about things that you wished happen but are only figments of your imagination. You're right about one thing, you don't know and you have no evidence to present!