Critics ignore the real 800 pound Book of Abraham Gorilla in the room

[_William Schryver]

Let me begin by saying that you're a first class idiot who can't think his way out of a paper bag, Loran.

Quality argumentation.

Critics really, really need to begin setting certain limits on their claims, regardless of how they feel about the Church per se, about the state of their own evidence. They really need to begin defining much better the boundaries between fact, theory, hypothesis, and pure guesswork.

Believe me, Loran, I hope hope hope that the critics don't take your advice, as wise as it is. I'm quite content to let them pat each other on the back in forums such as this. Not only is it an almost-endless source of amusement, but so long as they persist in reassuring themselves that the debate is over, they will continue to fall further behind. Because, you see, not only is the debate not over -- it's just barely begun.

[_Droopy]

Let me begin by saying that you're a first class idiot who can't think his way out of a paper bag, Loran.

Typical Could have come from KG himself.

Having said that, my remarks had nothing whatsoever to do with the evidences of critics. They have to do with the evidences found in your own Book of Abraham. You would rather throw the whole of Egyptology, Egyptian history and archaeology straight out the window than put the development of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon into cultural context and realize that your whole entire religion is based on the fraud of Joseph Smith and others.

It would probably be better, since you can think your way out of a paper bag, while I cannot, to cease engaging in circular argumentation of this kind and stick to the details of the discussion at hand.

Egyptologists can read the characters as you presumably can read the words in this post.

Which, of course, is logically irrelevant if the materials from which they are reading were not the source of the Book of Abraham, and all the evidence we have indicates that it very probably is not.

Instead of coming to terms with that fact, people like you would rather attempt to distort Egyptian history

Instead of plowing ahead with more tautological argument, it would probably be better for you to seriously hit Nibley's The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, so that you could at least appear to be competent with regard to the LDS side of the issue. Egyptian history (to the extent we understand it), if by that one means its religion, theology, cosmology, and religious philosophy, is not the place for critics to charge headlong for evidence against the Book of Abraham.

Indeed, as Nibley remarked, one could, with sufficient study, pretty much recreate the modern Temple endowment from ancient Egyptian sources (one could also do this, with perhaps less utility, from a combination of ancient early Christian sources, including early Christian Gnostic ritual texts, Mandaean ritual texts, and the mysteries as taught by Cyril in the fourth century).

I snipped the rest of the circular rama lama ding dong.

[_Jersey Girl]

Let me begin by saying that you're a first class idiot who can't think his way out of a paper bag, Loran.

Quality argumentation.

Would Loran's lyrics better suffice?

[_Jersey Girl]

More idiocy:

Egyptologists can read the characters as you presumably can read the words in this post.


Which, of course, is logically irrelevant if the materials from which they are reading were not the source of the Book of Abraham, and all the evidence we have indicates that it very probably is not.

You don't have the Facsimilies with Joseph's commentary on them?

[_Droopy]

Let me begin by saying that you're a first class idiot who can't think his way out of a paper bag, Loran.

Quality argumentation.

Critics really, really need to begin setting certain limits on their claims, regardless of how they feel about the Church per se, about the state of their own evidence. They really need to begin defining much better the boundaries between fact, theory, hypothesis, and pure guesswork.

Believe me, Loran, I hope hope hope that the critics don't take your advice, as wise as it is. I'm quite content to let them pat each other on the back in forums such as this. Not only is it an almost-endless source of amusement, but so long as they persist in reassuring themselves that the debate is over, they will continue to fall further behind. Because, you see, not only is the debate not over -- it's just barely begun.

Well, to be frank, I hadn't thought about it in precisely that way, although I do realize that debate isn't only about the critical play of logical argument and explication of evidence, but also the tactics or strategies of debate. The response to one's adversary setting his own hair on fire should not necessarily be with a bucket of water.

How did that old Disco song go, "Burn Baby Burn"?

[_Droopy]

More idiocy:

Egyptologists can read the characters as you presumably can read the words in this post.


Which, of course, is logically irrelevant if the materials from which they are reading were not the source of the Book of Abraham, and all the evidence we have indicates that it very probably is not.

You don't have the Facsimilies with Joseph's commentary on them?

Sorry Jersey Girl, this argument is decades old and decades refuted.

[_Jersey Girl]

More idiocy:

Egyptologists can read the characters as you presumably can read the words in this post.


Which, of course, is logically irrelevant if the materials from which they are reading were not the source of the Book of Abraham, and all the evidence we have indicates that it very probably is not.

You don't have the Facsimilies with Joseph's commentary on them?

Sorry Jersey Girl, this argument is decades old and decades refuted.

Really? Then why do apologists still attempt to spin new ways to defend it?

[_Droopy]

Because critics keep digging it out of its grave, sowing it together, and trying to pawn it off as something other than a dead body.

[_dartagnan]

Indeed, Professor Gee is persuaded that evidence in the extant fragments can inform us quite reliably of the total length of the scroll of Hor. And, after employing his equation to the evidence, he is currently arguing for a scroll length several times that of the extant fragments.

Gee has lost all credibility. He has a history of fabricating evidence to suit his pet theories. Nobody takes him seriously anymore except himself. But I guess that explains why you like him so much; you do the same thing.

There is actually a lively and growing debate about just how “incorrect” Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles really are.

No there isn't.

Of course, no one on this board reads Egyptological journals, so they aren’t aware of the discussion being had there concerning the way Ptolemaic-era Egyptians would have used and interpreted the classic vignettes from the Book of the Dead; therefore they aren’t even in a position to consider the implications of that debate on the questions surrounding the Joseph Smith Papyri.

List the Egyptological journals that vindicate Joseph Smith's erroneous interpretations.
Come on, let's see if you will run from three threads in a row. Put up or shut up. It is a waste of everyone's time.

And contrary to the “bombastic certitude” expressed by several “experts” here and there, the jury is still very much out when it comes to that issue.

No it isn't.

[_antishock8]

In all actuality, the real 800 pound Gorilla in the room isn't the missing textual material. The real problem for any critic of the Book of Abraham is the manner in which the Book of Abraham appears to have restored numerous aspects of First Temple Judaism; the ancient, pre-Babylonian exile religion of the Israelites that included the themes and motifs of celestial ascent, plurality of gods, the Great Angel (Yahweh, son of El), an anthropomorphic God who could appear directly to human beings, the heavenly hosts ("sons" of God in the heavenly realms), and a coming messiah.

Further are the quite astonishing parallels between the picture of Abraham we have in the Book of Abraham and that we now have through the discovery of ancient documents that Joseph simply did not have, and no one even suspected existed. Of course, numerous other ancient texts, including, most importantly, the Enoch literature (especially 1 Enoch), a variety of ancient Pseudopigraphal texts, and a fascinating corpus of early Christian documents, including Christian Gnostic texts, supply us with amply evidence that what Joseph claimed to have restored was hardly anthying new, either in the early Christian or ancient Judaic context.

Lost, forgotten, suppressed, and stamped out yes, but hardly any concoction of Joseph's imagination.

It would be helpful if you bulletized/enumerated your points rather than make a vague reference to them. For example, you might say:

"The real problem for any critic of the Book of Abraham is the manner in which the Book of Abraham appears to have restored numerous aspects of First Temple Judaism:

1) They used to lie on lion couches in the fist temple.

2) They used to have jackal-headed priests administer human sacrifices in the first temple.

3) Monkeys would fly out of everyone's asses as represented by a flying bird... In the first temple."

By enumerating your points you help clarify your points, stay on track, and give the casual reader an idea as to what thought you're attempting to convey. As it stands, you simply appear to be waving your arms around a bit, calling people names, and talking out of your ass.

V/R,

AntiShock8