Skousen & McGuire apologetics on the Book of Abraham.

[hauslern]

How did Smith "repurpose" facsimile 1. We know there were parts missing. There are no fibers in the glue above the standing figure or around the arm outwards. (Klaus Baer). Smith inserts a knife in the arm and copies the head from the reclining figure on top of the standing figure. Smith repurposes this scene as an attempted sacrifice of Abraham. Smith obviously did not seem to know about process called mummification. I wonder if the facsimile still had the head of the standing figure would Smith repurpose it by chiseling out the head of Anubis?
The common Egyptian interpretation is that this is a mummification scene. Smith did not know. Like the forgeries of Paul's letters, Paul did not write them, someone else did. Abraham did not write the Book of Abraham Smith did.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1P1l ... HNVYg/edit

[hauslern]

Interesting thoughts of Ehrman
""One final technique used by some forgers involves s "discovery narrative" If a book shows up this week claiming to have been written two hundred years ago, one might  well wonder where it has been all this time. Forgers sometimes begin or end their writing by describing what has led to the book's disappearance and discovery. For example , an author might begin a book explaining that he had a dream and in a dream he was told to dig a deep hole on the south side of the oak tree in the field across the stream from his farm. When he dug the hole, he found and ancient wooden box. Inside the box was a deteriorating manuscript. He has now copied this manuscript out by hand and this is it, a revelation given directly by Christ to the apostle James and hidden from the world until now" Ehrman Forged p.35

[Marcus]

Interesting thoughts of Ehrman
""One final technique used by some forgers involves s "discovery narrative" If a book shows up this week claiming to have been written two hundred years ago, one might  well wonder where it has been all this time. Forgers sometimes begin or end their writing by describing what has led to the book's disappearance and discovery. For example , an author might begin a book explaining that he had a dream and in a dream he was told to dig a deep hole on the south side of the oak tree in the field across the stream from his farm. When he dug the hole, he found and ancient wooden box. Inside the box was a deteriorating manuscript. He has now copied this manuscript out by hand and this is it, a revelation given directly by Christ to the apostle James and hidden from the world until now" Ehrman Forged p.35

That's a great quote. in my opinion, Smith was (sneakily, dishonestly) smart to never let anyone find any gold plates. Look at the trouble people have trying to explain what he did with artifacts that actually exist. The mental gymnastics are absurd.

[Marcus]

I am wondering if the apologist foray into defining what Smith did with the papyri as "re-purposing" is a step toward defining Smith's [whatever?!] with the gold plates as "repurposing."

Can you imagine what that could do to the historicity argument?

[Res Ipsa]

I am wondering if the apologist foray into defining what Smith did with the papyri as "re-purposing" is a step toward defining Smith's [whatever?!] with the gold plates as "repurposing."

Can you imagine what that could do to the historicity argument?

It would do absolutely nothing. Just as it does absolutely nothing to the Book of Abraham’s historicity.

[Moksha]

I have friends who collect Roman coins. I have other friends who find collecting ancient coins highly objectionable. And this is among my academic associates.

Some might be into the Ministry of Silly Walks and others might take pleasure in whimsical dances.

If Joseph was correctly purposing the papyri, Mormons would be known for their tomb construction and mummification process to ensure a successful journey to the Celestial Kingdom. The Brethren would wear the headgear of the Egyptian Gods, with Dallin Oaks decked out in the undesecrated outfit of Anubis.

[Moksha]

I'm sticking to the data and story at hand which apparently you can't handle. I zero in like a laser on the very point and the only thing that matters: We are talking about Joseph Smith's intentions and purpose in translating the papyri -- from Egyptian to English.

Your Honor, There was no crime. Trump simply repurposed the Constitution in an attempt to make himself an unelected dictator.

[Marcus]

I am wondering if the apologist foray into defining what Smith did with the papyri as "re-purposing" is a step toward defining Smith's [whatever?!] with the gold plates as "repurposing."

Can you imagine what that could do to the historicity argument?

It would do absolutely nothing. Just as it does absolutely nothing to the Book of Abraham’s historicity.

Lol. I thought about formulating a response, but seriously, this is just an inane comment.

[drumdude]

It would do absolutely nothing. Just as it does absolutely nothing to the Book of Abraham’s historicity.

Lol. I thought about formulating a response, but seriously, this is just an inane comment.

I’m struggling to understand Res here as well. Joseph linked the papyrus to the book and undoing that link destroys the historicity argument. Unless someone knows of any instance in recorded human history where someone produced an authentic ancient text out of thin air with the help of God, I think we are safe to say it’s not historical without some actual mechanism for it to be.

[Res Ipsa]

Lol. I thought about formulating a response, but seriously, this is just an inane comment.

I’m struggling to understand Res here as well. Joseph linked the papyrus to the book and undoing that link destroys the historicity argument. Unless someone knows of any instance in recorded human history where someone produced an authentic ancient text out of thin air with the help of God, I think we are safe to say it’s not historical without some actual mechanism for it to be.

Thanks for asking. You are correct about what destroys the historicity argument for the Book of Abraham. The label that you or I or Marcus or Skousen or McGuire choose to describe what Smith did changes nothing. It's the facts that counts, not the labels. Getting tied up in knots over the label "repurpose" simply distracts from the facts that show the material on the scrolls is not what Smith claimed it was.

Should LDS apologists lose their minds and claim that Joseph Smith repurposed a fictional story on non-existent plates, use of the word would not change the overwhelming evidence against historicity one iota.

With such strong evidence on the critic's side, spending effort splitting hairs over a label that changes nothing is a waste of time.