Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[Kishkumen]

What a dodo you are. Did you learn that in dodo school?

[Kishkumen]

Would "make up a bogus story about the papyri" be equally as valid or would one take precedence over the other?

If, like Shulem, you want to go with the polemical approach, it is fine.

[Kishkumen]

You said you needed a scholar to weigh in. But now, you're willing to let a lawyer set the bar? Why do you assume a lawyer could make a decision on your opinion as an historian or scholar? The inconsistencies in your argument here are immense.

Good lawyers tend to be careful, exacting, and logical readers. RI has proven to be precisely that over time. He has no compunction about telling me when he thinks I am wrong. He doesn’t cut the LDS Church much slack either. There are many reasons why I find his take on this most valuable.

And no, RI made some considerable errors in this discussion in his assessment of the definition of repurposing, please read the comments so that you understand this.

Oh, I read them. If I found them at all convincing, I would have bothered responding to them.

Your personal attacks even as others continue to make arguments on the points are sounding more and more desperate. Please just stick to the discussion at hand and leave your personal biases aside. The scholarly approach would be far more appreciated than these repeated jabs at motive and intent.

Personal biases are all over this thread. Shulem is the most biased voice on this thread. At least he admits it.

[Kishkumen]

If the Book of Abraham is pseudepigraphy which "involves a kind of intentional deceit by an author. This is when an author writes a work claiming to be written by someone else (Abraham?) "My definition of forgery is a writing that claims to be written by someone (a known figure Abraham) who did not in fact write it" (Smith did) Ehrman p.24 Forged.

Lets face it Smith was caught in a bind. He had a reputation of translating ancient writing (Book of Mormon) and his supporters had forked out a lot of money by todays standards. He had the Bible and Josephus as sources. He did not know then that scholars would argue that Abraham was fiction, camels had not been domesticated yet. (See Finkelstein, The Bible Unearthed, pp.36-47)

There are different ways of speculating about Joseph Smith’s motivations. This is certainly one of them. I can see its appeal. I don’t think it is the only way of understanding or interpreting the situation.

[Shulem]

And no, RI made some considerable errors in this discussion in his assessment of the definition of repurposing, please read the comments so that you understand this.

Yep, RI made what seems was a hasty assessment and what seems even more so a hasty retreat!

I've carefully provided the legal definitions, construction, and use of the word repurpose which is a modern term invented not long ago. It wasn't a word used in Smith's day and age.

The prefix "re" means again or to repeat something and when applied to "purpose" it points out that a new definition of terms is being created by one who is doing the creating. It is a willful action -- one that has intent and purpose.

So, if RI thinks he can pull a rabbit out of a hat, let him come back to the thread and show us that rabbit.

What say ye, RI? Are you going to reinvent the dictionary? Is that legal?

[Shulem]

Repurpose is a perfect word for what Smith did with the papyri.

Would "make up a bogus story about the papyri" be equally as valid or would one take precedence over the other?

In order to repurpose something the person who is doing the repurposing has to be willfully and knowingly making a change and creating something new out of whatever existing material or idea they are working with. Joseph Smith does not meet that criteria or definition except in the case of repurposing Anubis in Facsimile No. 3. Smith claimed the scroll was an autograph of Abraham and contained information about his life and that he only could translate the hieroglyphics (a dead language) and thus convert the text from Egyptian to English. Hence we see there was no repurposing the text from Smith's point of view -- the idea that he did is ludicrous.

[Shulem]

Your personal attacks even as others continue to make arguments on the points are sounding more and more desperate. Please just stick to the discussion at hand and leave your personal biases aside. The scholarly approach would be far more appreciated than these repeated jabs at motive and intent.

Kish is attempting to deflect and distract by taking our eye off the ball and rousting up contention among us when such is not needed.

All we need is the facts and a clear definition of terms. The bluster and nonsense Kish raises is nothing but wind. There is little if any scholarly approach coming from him.

[Shulem]

Would "make up a bogus story about the papyri" be equally as valid or would one take precedence over the other?

If, like Shulem, you want to go with the polemical approach, it is fine.

Look at you, a fancy word I had to look up.

I'll stick with the dictionary which tells me what words mean. You don't have to. That's your business. You've lost the argument. It's over Kish. So beat it.

[Kishkumen]

Look at you, a fancy word I had to look up.

I'll stick with the dictionary which tells me what words mean. You don't have to. That's your business. You've lost the argument. It's over Kish. So beat it.

A dictionary is a good starting point for understanding what words mean. Sure. If all you’ve got is quoting the dictionary, then you don’t have much.

Too bad.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Repurpose is a perfect word for what Smith did with the papyri.

Would "make up a bogus story about the papyri" be equally as valid or would one take precedence over the other?

I mean, if we’re nailing down the ‘right word’ to describe what he did with the papyri then I’d suggest he “abused” what I understood to be a sacrosanct religious artifact.

- Doc