Philo Sofee wrote:I would rather see if he actually finds any evidence refuting you, but he won't because he can't and he knows it. It's why he ignores it and says child inanities such as "dumb comment," and some such.
Well, in some ways I feel kind of guilty for taking advantage of a novice and stringing him along. You know as well as I do that he must be seething in his chair and is overwhelmed. The Holy Ghost is not putting words of wisdom in his mouth and left him high and dry.
Philo Sofee wrote:I would rather see if he actually finds any evidence refuting you, but he won't because he can't and he knows it. It's why he ignores it and says child inanities such as "dumb comment," and some such.
Well, in some ways I feel kind of guilty for taking advantage of a novice and stringing him along. You know as well as I do that he must be seething in his chair and is overwhelmed. The Holy Ghost is not putting words of wisdom in his mouth and left him high and dry.
This has been a breeze.
And you know as well as I do that neither one of us feels a smidgin bad for teaching truth.......
The child pretends he knows it all. I say slap the silly out of him with evidence. We shall then return and report.....
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Shulem wrote:I find it just as easy to believe that Joseph Smith identified one of the mummies as a king of Egypt . . .
Fair enough, I am willing to concede that Joseph Smith may have identified the mummies to be of Egyptian royalty; that proves what? And how does that affect his translation of the Book of Abraham one way or another?
. . . as he did when he falsely identified Isis as a king of Egypt in Facsimile No. 3.
The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are utter rubbish.
That is your opinion. There are two issues here: firstly, how does the identification of the mummies as of Egyptian royalty affect the credibility of his translation of the Book of Abraham one way or another? Secondly, I have already stated my views regarding the translation of the facsimiles, and there is nothing more to add to that. Do you really want me to go back and copy and paste it here for you again?
This is what I had said in an earlier post about the facsimiles:
zerinus wrote:
Shulem wrote:Zerinus, would you like to discuss the details of Facsimile No. 2, the Hypocephalus and how Joseph Smith didn't know how to translate, he having simply made up everything about it out of thin air? Would you like to debate that and defend your prophet? Just make a thread and send me an invite. But I don't think you will because you're a coward and you know your prophet was wrong.
I accept the translation that Joseph Smith made of it (as far as he intended to make it) to be correct. There is nothing more to add to that. If you disagree with that translation, then I think you are wrong and he is right. I think Joseph Smith knew something that you don't know. What else is there left for me to say about that?
And I have nothing more to add to it, so quit asking.
zerinus wrote:This is what I had said in an earlier post about the facsimiles:
zerinus wrote:I accept the translation that Joseph Smith made of it (as far as he intended to make it) to be correct. There is nothing more to add to that.
Zerinus then goes on to add something more to that...
If you disagree with that translation, then I think you are wrong and he is right. I think Joseph Smith knew something that you don't know. What else is there left for me to say about that?
And I have nothing more to add to it, so quit asking.
You know the moon isn't really made of cheese, right?
How do you know Josephs intentions? How do you know that Joseph didn't know something you don't know?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
The Book of Abraham is utterly indefensible. There isn't even a good apologetic for it. Anybody that has tried to defend it on this board has had their position torn to shreads and they are made to look childishly ridiculous by their own arguments.
Exhibit A - Zerinus
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:The Book of Abraham is utterly indefensible. There isn't even a good apologetic for it. Anybody that has tried to defend it on this board has had their position torn to shreads and they are made to look childishly ridiculous by their own arguments.
Exhibit A - Zerinus
From the sidelines again...
In zerinus defense, let's remember that he's outnumbered here. I've been there and it's no easy task. That said, the topic cannot move forward when he's unwilling to actually engage what is being offered to him and persists in responding with dismissive statements that obstruct the exchange of ideas.
It's a no go from the get go.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
If there were an equal number of people arguing zerinus' position as arguing against it, it still wouldn't change anything. This is unequivocally a case where he is factually wrong. He isn't out-numbered, he is out-thought.
I have a question wrote:The Book of Abraham is utterly indefensible. There isn't even a good apologetic for it. Anybody that has tried to defend it on this board has had their position torn to shreads and they are made to look childishly ridiculous by their own arguments.
Exhibit A - Zerinus
The answer is still the same. There is no “evidence” that “disproves” the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. The fact that today’s Egyptologists think the facsimiles mean something different from what Joseph Smith believed they meant, does not make him wrong and the Egyptologists right. It means that he knew something that the Egyptologists don’t. Get that into your head and quit asking. I can copy and save this reply to my PC, and repost it for you every time If that is what you really want. Would you like me to do that? I am quite happy to do it if that would help get it into your head any better.
Last edited by Guest on Sat Jul 29, 2017 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
