Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Moksha]

Do you honestly think that McGuire is stoopid enough to think that Egypt was founded by a woman who offboarded Noah's ark in 2400 BC only to wander a great distance in order to discover a new land called Egyptus Egypt

She said, "Ah hereby declare this land underwater to be Aegypt and ah order it to be pumped dry by some Hebrew or Nubian slaves. Ah has spoken!"

[Kishkumen]

Dear Kish,

Being thoughtful, interesting, and intelligent doesn't get someone off the hook for lying. McGuire is a faithful Mormon whose interest is to see people join his church and embrace Mormon scripture and revelation. Mormon scripture also includes chapter one of the Book of Abraham which surely McGuire knows is a false narrative in *how* and *when* Egypt was founded. Do you honestly think that McGuire is stoopid enough to think that Egypt was founded by a woman who offboarded Noah's ark in 2400 BC only to wander a great distance in order to discover a new land called Egyptus Egypt?

I think McGuire is a liar. Let him come here and prove otherwise. I'll squeeze him...

I don’t think he is a liar. He is a guy caught between the truth of his convictions and the demands of the surrounding culture.

[Shulem]

I don’t think he is a liar. He is a guy caught between the truth of his convictions and the demands of the surrounding culture.

Kish,

Nobody is going to squeeze McGuire for having faith in the timing of when Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BC because the chronology and timeline is historically accurate. But this business of Egyptus wandering down through Sinai in 2300 BC in order to discover Egypt and begin dynastic history thereat is absolutely false! The moment McGuire defends that rubbish is when he admits to being a liar.

Isn't that right, Ben?

[Moksha]

She said, "Ah hereby declare this land underwater to be Aegypt and ah order it to be pumped dry by some Hebrew or Nubian slaves. Ah has spoken!"

Not that I am doubting the accuracy of this quote, but why didn't she call on the Atlanteans or add mazel tov at the end of her pronouncement?

[Kishkumen]

Kish,

Nobody is going to squeeze McGuire for having faith in the timing of when Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BC because the chronology and timeline is historically accurate. But this business of Egyptus wandering down through Sinai in 2300 BC in order to discover Egypt and begin dynastic history thereat is absolutely false! The moment McGuire defends that rubbish is when he admits to being a liar.

Isn't that right, Ben?

You are really missing the point. Foundation narratives are mythological, not historical. Does the Book of Abraham contain the date 2300 BC?

[Shulem]

Kish,

Nobody is going to squeeze McGuire for having faith in the timing of when Lehi left Jerusalem in 600 BC because the chronology and timeline is historically accurate. But this business of Egyptus wandering down through Sinai in 2300 BC in order to discover Egypt and begin dynastic history thereat is absolutely false! The moment McGuire defends that rubbish is when he admits to being a liar.

Isn't that right, Ben?

You are really missing the point. Foundation narratives are mythological, not historical. Does the Book of Abraham contain the date 2300 BC?

No, I am not missing any points, period. I get it! I'm a Goddamn expert in this! I've been through all of this and have sifted it for decades! Read the thread posted therein and connect the dots and put it together. You got brains, use them!

Now, how old was Mahalaleel when he was "ordained" and what is the timeline Smith used in his revelations and his rework of Genesis as it relates to the Book of Abraham and statements Smith made in various publications? So many pieces and so much to unpack.

Trust Shulem.

[Kishkumen]

Now, how old was Mahalaleel when he was "ordained" and what is the timeline Smith used in his revelations and his rework of Genesis as it relates to the Book of Abraham and statements Smith made in various publications? So many pieces and so much to unpack.

Trust Shulem.

I thought this would be your answer. I am not as confident as you that Smith must have had a fixed timeline in mind.

For example, you write:

11. Abram age 75 begins his journey to Canaan (Book of Abraham says age 62)

So what importance should we place on chronology when he does not follow known chronologies or explain why he diverges from other well-known chronologies? If he does not provide dates in the text, are we simply to assume that he felt the chronology was important? Why?

[Shulem]

For example, you write:

11. Abram age 75 begins his journey to Canaan (Book of Abraham says age 62)

So what importance should we place on chronology when he does not follow known chronologies or explain why he diverges from other well-known chronologies? If he does not provide dates in the text, are we simply to assume that he felt the chronology was important? Why?

Kishy,

Who can say why Smith elected to change the KJV age of 75 to 62 in the Book of Abraham? The JST was a thorough work wherein Smith ultimately blessed and confirmed the age of 75 in the inspired revision. Could it be that age 65 in the Book of Abraham was a scribal error of some kind? Or maybe Smith elected to mix it up? That's possible.

Smith stuck with the biblical timeline and framework given in the Bible. The chronology was ever maintained in his theology and the 6,000 years is the very basis in which he builds his dating system which virtually agrees with the Jewish Bible.

Your little example in unlodging my mountain of evidence is futile. I am not moved at all. Dude!

[Kishkumen]

Kishy,

Who can say why Smith elected to change the KJV age of 75 to 62 in the Book of Abraham? The JST was a thorough work wherein Smith ultimately blessed and confirmed the age of 75 in the inspired revision. Could it be that age 65 in the Book of Abraham was a scribal error of some kind? Or maybe Smith elected to mix it up? That's possible.

Yes, or it could be there for other reasons, and it may indicate that consistency in an overall timeline was not as important to him as you seem to think.

Human lifespan can have its own meaning outside of lining up an overall chronology.

Moreover, just because Smith's chronology was incorrect or inconsistent does not indicate he was lying, as you so often assert.

Smith stuck with the biblical timeline and framework given in the Bible. The chronology was ever maintained in his theology and the 6,000 years is the very basis in which he builds his dating system which virtually agrees with the Jewish Bible.

Yeah, I am not seeing evidence of great consistency outside of that basic 6,000-year timeline, though. Does the Book of Abraham even name the Pharaoh his Abraham dealt with? Other than his Pharaoh, and the founding Pharaoh, who are the other pharaohs and how much time exists between them?

The title Pharaoh seems to be a lot more important to him than the identities of individual pharaohs. Egyptus, like Romulus, is just an eponymous naming strategy tying the founder to the foundation. There is almost no individuality here. That in itself is extremely interesting.

Your little example in unlodging my mountain of evidence is futile. I am not moved at all. Dude!

Shrug. That makes two of us. I appreciate your work, but your expressions of hubris are more than a little off-putting.

[Shulem]

Kishy,

Who can say why Smith elected to change the KJV age of 75 to 62 in the Book of Abraham? The JST was a thorough work wherein Smith ultimately blessed and confirmed the age of 75 in the inspired revision. Could it be that age 65 in the Book of Abraham was a scribal error of some kind? Or maybe Smith elected to mix it up? That's possible.

Yes, or it could be there for other reasons, and it may indicate that consistency in an overall timeline was not as important to him as you seem to think.

Please, provide a single scrap of evidence from the annals of Church History and the various accounts that would remotely suggest or hint that Smith may have not been concerned with an overall timeline as being extremely important to his theology and prophecies.

Put up or shut up.

You see, I quote Joseph Smith all time and others who knew him. I would like to think that I'm into Joseph Smith; figuratively, that is.

Still luv ya Kish, but you ain't gonna win this one. Over my dead body! I'll fight to the death! And you know I will.