Faithful theories of Book of Abraham from MA&D

[_zeezrom]

From http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... r-abraham/

There are several faithful theories of the production of the Book of Abraham:

1. The papyri, including but not limited to the Breathing Permit of Hor, accompanying the mummy provided a trigger for revelation of the Book of Abraham quite independent of what the papyri themselves say;

2. The papyri that are presently extant have encoded within their language the Book of Abraham;

3. The papyri are incorrectly translated by modern scholarship; and

4. The extant papyri are fragmentary and badly damaged, and the portions upon which one would find the text of the Book of Abraham have been lost to fire [i.e., the Great Chicago Fire], flood, or mischance.

Does it appear most apologists go with #1? If not, which one?

I've recently heard another theory (similar to #1): that Joseph may have only thought he was translating but really was not.

[_harmony]

I've recently heard another theory (similar to #1): that Joseph may have only thought he was translating but really was not.

Where did you hear that? And who did you hear it from?

[_zeezrom]

I've recently heard another theory (similar to #1): that Joseph may have only thought he was translating but really was not.

Where did you hear that? And who did you hear it from?

From a sort of NOMish person I know.

But on another thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12545&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=84
Ant: shoot me down if I'm wrong. It appears you were implying this:

Out of curiosity, how do you know that Joseph did not really believe that he was inspired to translate a record, and thus genuinely believed that his translation was correct?

Maybe you don't believe that but maybe some people do?

[_harmony]

From a sort of NOMish person I know.

So... not an apologist.

[_zeezrom]

From a sort of NOMish person I know.

So... not an apologist.

Oh, right.

But I consider him one because he is a TR holder... Oh, wait so are a lot of people around here....

So I guess apologists are pretty much TBM only? Do you know any apologists that are not TBM?

SilverKnight on MA&D is sort of an apologist for Joseph Smith's divine teachings but has some NOMness about him. There must be more out there. What about Bushman?

[_harmony]

SilverKnight on MA&D is sort of an apologist for Joseph Smith's divine teachings but has some NOMness about him. There must be more out there. What about Bushman?

Of course Bushman is an apologist. Hello? Church historian guy... if he wasn't an apologist, he'd be another Mike Quinn.

[_zeezrom]

Of course Bushman is an apologist. Hello? Church historian guy... if he wasn't an apologist, he'd be another Mike Quinn.

No, I mean I don't know if he is TBM.

[_Joseph Antley]

No, I mean I don't know if he is TBM.

Dr. Bushman is very much a TBM. I was privileged to hear him bear a powerful testimony not very long ago.

[_Themis]

Does it appear most apologists go with #1? If not, which one?

I've recently heard another theory (similar to #1): that Joseph may have only thought he was translating but really was not.

I'm not sure if most go with #1, but more are heading in that direction or heading in the direction of it being made up. That other theory doesn't sound any different than #1 unless you mean from a non-believing POV.

#1 makes God into a deceiver by making Joseph think he was translating the papyri

#2 This theory is born out of the problem with the other theory's, and has no evidnece to support it.

#3 This one is just lame. I think only the very ignorant would believe this one.

#4 This one is problematic since we do have the three facsimiles in the Book of Abraham, and we have Fac#1 with the existing papyri not to mention the KEP. There is to much evidence that does not support a missing papyri(and were still waiting on baited breath for Will's evidence) and lets face it, that theory is also born out of a need to dismiss the papyri we already have.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

The problem is found in the current header of chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham:

A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt.
—The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

Everyone took Joe's word on this supposed "translation" and it was canonized many years later.

Most of the members(chapel Mormons) are vaguely familiar with the papyrus. When they do read the header, they will read it literally, that there was a literal translation of real physical Egyptian papyrus. Most do not know that the original papyrus was rediscovered either.

The problem is there no proof of any original text from which this translation occurred and so the mo'pologetic contortions ensue because there are many who have a need to believe that the Book of Abraham is not a hoax by Smith.

So when someone like myself Googles upon the papyrus story, it all points to HOAX.

Mopologists will give new definitions to the word "translated" found in the header of the first chapter of the Book of Abraham. Reading the ridiculous defenses and excuses by mopologists makes you feel like there is even more BS that they are covering up. The slipper slope gets steeper and more slippery.

Sucks to be a defender, that is a certainty, left to defend the lies of Joe Smith that he told to cover-up and defend his infidelity, pedophilia, and dishonesty.