Book of Abraham

[Clear]

Watchmen said : “Let's go back to the OP. “ (post #60)

Watchmen,
That train has already left the station and your original claim itself is still in trouble.

YOU have been asked to explain to forum members why YOUR interpretation of the bird in the facsimile is correct when so many other Egyptologists disagree with your interpretation of egyptian. Why is your interpretation of this egyptian correct and the other egyptologists wrong?

Secondly, you have yet to explain to readers how Joseph Smith restored so much of the early Christian Theology back to modern consciousness without source materials for all of it and without revelation.

We've spent 60 posts so far and you've not yet supported your O.P.s claimed "interpretation" and you have not dealt with the second question. Simple denial of restoration towards early theology is all you have attempted. This hasn't helped your position since since readers have already seen many, many examples of early Christian theology returned to modern religious consciousness.

You have not even tried to show the many examples of early Christian doctrines are not authentic early Christian doctrines.

AFTER you answer these questions, then perhaps we can discuss the third issue as to why you think that your theory of interpretation of Egyptian applies to a Hebrew redaction, which is another problem you have not yet addressed.


Clear
ειτζτζσεω

 

[Prestor John]

Let's go back to the OP. Let me ask this: Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that demonstrates Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles are correct?

If you read Clear's comments you would know that Egyptologists today do not all agree on the interpretation of the facsimile.

Therefore, there is no evidence for or against Joseph Smith's interpretation.

 

[Clear]

Prestor John said : " If you read Clear's comments you would know that Egyptologists today do not all agree on the interpretation of the facsimile.
Therefore, there is no evidence for or against Joseph Smith's interpretation "

Hi Prestor John :

To elaborate a bit, my point regarding redaction and mixing of symbols was NOT that there is no data or examples of Hebrew redactions using Egyptian symbology or Egyptian sources to support Joseph Smiths claims, there certainly is. And, there is more and more piling up with more and more discoveries of ancient textual witness of multiple kinds, sources and from differing eras.

My point is that one cannot prove or disprove a historical document by isolating a document into a foreign context and then remarking that it doesn’t fit the foreign context. It’s like a pagan, pointing out that the bible can’t be correct because it incorrectly describes his pagan religion.

There certainly IS historical data supporting Jewish and Christian redactors using Egyptian symbology just as there are wonderful examples of Jewish adoptions of prior Egyptian stories and Egyptian textual traditions. For examples, the parallels between the Instructions of Amenemope and portions of Proverbs or the redaction of Egyptian traditions pressed into Semitic usage such as the story of the Rich man and Lazarus of Luke (16:19-31) having earlier Egyptian versions. Such borrowing between middle eastern cultures was common and occurred in many directions between many cultures.

Yet again, one has to ask how Joseph Smith could possibly have known to correctly choose egytian as the choice for such redactions so many decades before the archaeologists and historians discovered the same literary connections? How does a "fake" continue to outdistance the history of the learned historians in this way?

The examples of cross-pollenation of religious traditions that scholars are now able to offer us (e.g. Tvedness, Haugled and Gee studies) did not exist in Joseph Smiths day. For other examples of cross cultural redactions, we had to wait for ancient textual discoveries to take place and thus, to “catch up” with Joseph Smiths. The Theban Cache discoveries offer multiple additional examples :

Gr. 574 / PGM IV (1227-64) offers a typical example of an Egyptian ritual which borrows from Judeo-Christian theology and places it squarely into egyptian usage, saying “”Hail God of Abraham; hail god of Isaac; hail god of Jacob, Jesus the Christ, the holy one of the Spirit, the son of the Father who is below (or above) the seven which are under the seven, Iao Saboath, may your power chastise N until you cast out this unclean demon…” (...then the Egyptian ritual begins, which is clearly not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition). The point is that there is a mixing of religious traditions, (e.g. "God of Abraham" with Egyptian theology and their gods and their ancient worldviews).

This mixing caused some consternation among religionists. Origen (who was Egyptian and lived in Egypt most of his life, [“Origen” = born of Horus] complained that “…many of those who call upon the divine powers use ‘the God of Abraham’ in their speeches, even feigning friendship with God’s righteous one through the name because they mention the words ‘the God of Abraham’ althought they have not learned who Abraham is. The same must be said about Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel; which names, although confessedly Hebrew, are frequently introduced by those Egyptians who profess to produce some wonderful result by means of their knowledge.” (contra Celsum 1:22)

An example of this mixing of religious tradition Origen complains about is seen in PGM 459-89 where the author mixes Zeus, Jehovah and other gods : “”I call upon thee who created earth and bones…Eternal eye, spirit of spirts, god of gods, the lord of the spirits, the fixed planet, Jehovah, obey my voice. I call upon thee, the leader of the gods, high-thundering Zeus, king Zeus, my lord, lord Jehovah, I am he who calls upon thee….” Later the specific mixing of Abraham is brought into this mix : ‘…blessed is my lord, the god of Abraham, barbarauo nausiph, (sic) high minded one, eternally living one, who posseses the crown of all the world, son of the Opet who sails to the underworld, soul of souls, Jehovah, dread of dread, god of gods, serpents of serpents, …”

P Leiden I 384 illustrate the similarity of text and multiliguism of scribes, even with a single portion of text. While the ritual involves a lion couch (which serves as an altar) and a mummy (as shown in it's accompanying vignette), Anubis enjoins that they are to be “linked” with Abraham. Since this is a love ritual one can see why Origen complained that the Egyptians were contaminating Judeo-Christian symbols with Egyptian rituals inappropriately. It is clear that the text mentions “Abraham who is upon (or taking)..”, and thus this yet another example of mixing and redacting of Abrahamic traditions in Egyptian religious texts. The facsimile finds itself in the same pattern of comments, vignette and further comments that Joseph Smith placed his vignette into.

In yet another example from PGM IV (at 2145-2240) a non Judeo-Christian ritual, instructions are given “On a laurel leaf, write in myrrh and the blood of someone who died violently and set it under the lamella: ‘Abraham, thou art he who reveals all things before hand. May the spirit be equipped.”

There are multiple other similar redactions mixing Egyptian and Semitic traditions and symbols and hieratic symbols. PDM xiv 224-31 (similar to P. Mag 8/4-11, and others that became available only in the later decades AFTER Josephs example of redaction). And the elements that are being discovered parallel Smiths claims. For example, P. Oslo I 1 also has the hebrew Abraham in association with women who are ritually burned “because of their virtue”, in yet another parallel to Josephs Smiths version of Abraham 1:11.

There are Egyptian versions of the Prayer of Jacob, mentioning Abraham, Jehovah, etc. PSI I29 similarly mixes these traditions of “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (by name) and “the power of Jehovah” into Egyptian theology.

Thus, the point was NOT that there was no data supporting Smiths version or the use of his mixture of Egyptian and Hebrew symbology. Such mixing was going on all of the time anciently. The point is that to prove a hebrew redaction of egyptian symbolism is true or false, one must leave it inside it's normal context and see if it fit's the claim. One cannot take it out of context to test it.

The scholars did not know these specific things when Joseph Smith used them and historians had to wait for later decades until they were discovered and available to us.

The other comment is that in such mixed redactions, one cannot simply point out that they are not "pure egyptian" in meaning and thus prove the use is incorrect. Such redactions are NOT "pure egyptian" and the expection that such redactions don't meet expectations of armchair theologians shows a defect in armchair theolgians, rather than a problem with early texts.

I hope this clarifies my point. I know that most readers do not live in any historical world, especially "egyptian religious history". But this is the point. Neither did the uneducated Joseph Smith, and yet, he dives deeply into these historical unknowns and comes out with incredible amounts of impossibly correct textual witnesses which he produces without adequate sources. How did he do it without revelation when even a group of the best historians in the world at that time could not have done it?


Clear
ειτζφινεω

 

[Watchmen]

If you read Clear's comments you would know that Egyptologists today do not all agree on the interpretation of the facsimile.

Therefore, there is no evidence for or against Joseph Smith's interpretation.

So you admit there's no evidence supporting Smith's interpretation. Thank you.

 

[Watchmen]

Prestor John said : " If you read Clear's comments you would know that Egyptologists today do not all agree on the interpretation of the facsimile.
Therefore, there is no evidence for or against Joseph Smith's interpretation "

Hi Prestor John :

To elaborate a bit, my point regarding redaction and mixing of symbols was NOT that there is no data or examples of Hebrew redactions using Egyptian symbology or Egyptian sources to support Joseph Smiths claims, there certainly is. And, there is more and more piling up with more and more discoveries of ancient textual witness of multiple kinds, sources and from differing eras.

My point is that one cannot prove or disprove a historical document by isolating a document into a foreign context and then remarking that it doesn’t fit the foreign context. It’s like a pagan, pointing out that the bible can’t be correct because it incorrectly describes his pagan religion.

There certainly IS historical data supporting Jewish and Christian redactors using Egyptian symbology just as there are wonderful examples of Jewish adoptions of prior Egyptian stories and Egyptian textual traditions. For examples, the parallels between the Instructions of Amenemope and portions of Proverbs or the redaction of Egyptian traditions pressed into Semitic usage such as the story of the Rich man and Lazarus of Luke (16:19-31) having earlier Egyptian versions. Such borrowing between middle eastern cultures was common and occurred in many directions between many cultures.

Yet again, one has to ask how Joseph Smith could possibly have known to correctly choose egytian as the choice for such redactions so many decades before the archaeologists and historians discovered the same literary connections? How does a "fake" continue to outdistance the history of the learned historians in this way?

The examples of cross-pollenation of religious traditions that scholars are now able to offer us (e.g. Tvedness, Haugled and Gee studies) did not exist in Joseph Smiths day. For other examples of cross cultural redactions, we had to wait for ancient textual discoveries to take place and thus, to “catch up” with Joseph Smiths. The Theban Cache discoveries offer multiple additional examples :

Gr. 574 / PGM IV (1227-64) offers a typical example of an Egyptian ritual which borrows from Judeo-Christian theology and places it squarely into egyptian usage, saying “”Hail God of Abraham; hail god of Isaac; hail god of Jacob, Jesus the Christ, the holy one of the Spirit, the son of the Father who is below (or above) the seven which are under the seven, Iao Saboath, may your power chastise N until you cast out this unclean demon…” (...then the Egyptian ritual begins, which is clearly not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition). The point is that there is a mixing of religious traditions, (e.g. "God of Abraham" with Egyptian theology and their gods and their ancient worldviews).

This mixing caused some consternation among religionists. Origen (who was Egyptian and lived in Egypt most of his life, [“Origen” = born of Horus] complained that “…many of those who call upon the divine powers use ‘the God of Abraham’ in their speeches, even feigning friendship with God’s righteous one through the name because they mention the words ‘the God of Abraham’ althought they have not learned who Abraham is. The same must be said about Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel; which names, although confessedly Hebrew, are frequently introduced by those Egyptians who profess to produce some wonderful result by means of their knowledge.” (contra Celsum 1:22)

An example of this mixing of religious tradition Origen complains about is seen in PGM 459-89 where the author mixes Zeus, Jehovah and other gods : “”I call upon thee who created earth and bones…Eternal eye, spirit of spirts, god of gods, the lord of the spirits, the fixed planet, Jehovah, obey my voice. I call upon thee, the leader of the gods, high-thundering Zeus, king Zeus, my lord, lord Jehovah, I am he who calls upon thee….” Later the specific mixing of Abraham is brought into this mix : ‘…blessed is my lord, the god of Abraham, barbarauo nausiph, (sic) high minded one, eternally living one, who posseses the crown of all the world, son of the Opet who sails to the underworld, soul of souls, Jehovah, dread of dread, god of gods, serpents of serpents, …”

P Leiden I 384 illustrate the similarity of text and multiliguism of scribes, even with a single portion of text. While the ritual involves a lion couch (which serves as an altar) and a mummy (as shown in it's accompanying vignette), Anubis enjoins that they are to be “linked” with Abraham. Since this is a love ritual one can see why Origen complained that the Egyptians were contaminating Judeo-Christian symbols with Egyptian rituals inappropriately. It is clear that the text mentions “Abraham who is upon (or taking)..”, and thus this yet another example of mixing and redacting of Abrahamic traditions in Egyptian religious texts. The facsimile finds itself in the same pattern of comments, vignette and further comments that Joseph Smith placed his vignette into.

In yet another example from PGM IV (at 2145-2240) a non Judeo-Christian ritual, instructions are given “On a laurel leaf, write in myrrh and the blood of someone who died violently and set it under the lamella: ‘Abraham, thou art he who reveals all things before hand. May the spirit be equipped.”

There are multiple other similar redactions mixing Egyptian and Semitic traditions and symbols and hieratic symbols. PDM xiv 224-31 (similar to P. Mag 8/4-11, and others that became available only in the later decades AFTER Josephs example of redaction). And the elements that are being discovered parallel Smiths claims. For example, P. Oslo I 1 also has the hebrew Abraham in association with women who are ritually burned “because of their virtue”, in yet another parallel to Josephs Smiths version of Abraham 1:11.

There are Egyptian versions of the Prayer of Jacob, mentioning Abraham, Jehovah, etc. PSI I29 similarly mixes these traditions of “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (by name) and “the power of Jehovah” into Egyptian theology.

Thus, the point was NOT that there was no data supporting Smiths version or the use of his mixture of Egyptian and Hebrew symbology. Such mixing was going on all of the time anciently. The point is that to prove a hebrew redaction of egyptian symbolism is true or false, one must leave it inside it's normal context and see if it fit's the claim. One cannot take it out of context to test it.

The scholars did not know these specific things when Joseph Smith used them and historians had to wait for later decades until they were discovered and available to us.

The other comment is that in such mixed redactions, one cannot simply point out that they are not "pure egyptian" in meaning and thus prove the use is incorrect. Such redactions are NOT "pure egyptian" and the expection that such redactions don't meet expectations of armchair theologians shows a defect in armchair theolgians, rather than a problem with early texts.

I hope this clarifies my point. I know that most readers do not live in any historical world, especially "egyptian religious history". But this is the point. Neither did the uneducated Joseph Smith, and yet, he dives deeply into these historical unknowns and comes out with incredible amounts of impossibly correct textual witnesses which he produces without adequate sources. How did he do it without revelation when even a group of the best historians in the world at that time could not have done it?


Clear
ειτζφινεω

Again, no evidence supporting Smith's "translation." Lets take the images one at a time. Smith mistakenly identifies the God of fertility as God the Father. Do you have any explanation for this mistake?

 

[Prestor John]

So you admit there's no evidence supporting Smith's interpretation. Thank you.

Like I said - You have some huge blinders on buddy.

You only see what you want to see and shut everything else out as hard as you can. Your eyes must hurt from squeezing them so tight!

Any doubts I had about you are gone now.

Again, no evidence supporting Smith's "translation." Lets take the images one at a time. Smith mistakenly identifies the God of fertility as God the Father. Do you have any explanation for this mistake?

How is God the Father not the God of fertility?

 

[Clear]

Watchmen said " Again, no evidence supporting Smith's "translation." Lets take the images one at a time. Smith mistakenly identifies the God of fertility as God the Father. Do you have any explanation for this mistake?" (post #65)

Watchmen : If you have no retort other than "again, no evidence" ("Broken record" indeed) then you have ceded the arguments due to lack of rational and logical data. Your original claim has not survived a single one of the three questions your opening claim was subject to.

1) You have already ceded that you do not know what the meanings of facsimile #1 are.
As we started to look at your translation beginning with the first element in order, you do not know the meaning of even the first symbol. (the bird) The claim that you don’t know what it means “but neither does Joseph Smith” is an irrational and illogical basis for argument, especially if you are still claiming prestige as a “successful” lawyer and an “award winning writer”. Nothing suggests any of these claims you made were correct.

2) You have ceded through lack of any alternative that that revelation is the mechanism whereby Joseph Smith restored so much early Christian theology.
This creates a huge problem for your claim since it supports the prophetic characteristic you seek to challenge.

3) You have ceded by lack of both knowledge and alternative, that you don’t know what a Hebrew redaction of Egyptian would mean to its’ author or his audience.
This is another obstacle for your claim since you have not even addressed the issue of what a facsimile would mean to either the author or audience of a Hebrew redactor. All you did was attempt a low level “cut and paste” of someone elses’ thoughts on Egyptian.

4) In post 61 you suggest a "reset" of your argument. However, I would have repeated the same questions that have you in you current predicament. Now, in post 65, you are attempting to abandon your claim of the OP and “jumping ship” to a different claim. Running away doesn't help your present claim.

Look at facsimile #1, there is no “God the Father” in the facsimile. If you now want to abandon your original claim or change the subject then it is simply another abandonment of your opening argument. This necessity of “jumping ship” away from your original claim is evidence that you now realize that your O.P. could never stand its own test of credibility, much less test the credibility of historical issues you had no real education in.

While readers have been exposed to vast amounts of data and principles of early Judeo-Christian religion that Smith restored to religious consciousness in multiple examples, you have simply repeated the claim that Joseph Smith made mistakes (broken record indeed….) in egyptian, but not offering the meanings for a hebrew redaction (which is what the record claims to be). At at the same time, you have no alternative to how he did what he did without revelation despite deep desire to prove him wrong. You have been good evidence FOR Smith as a revelator.

Watchmen, if you really don’t have any real expertise in logic and rational thought and in historical principles, the only purpose for a continuing a discussion would be to allow you to vent some anger. It will not help you come to a rational, and logical, and historically accurate personal conclusion.

In any case, I hope you find some happiness in your spiritual journey.

Clear
ειειτωτζω

 

[Clear]

Hi Prestor John :

I agree that a hebrew redactor would have viewed God as the Father of untold millions and thus, would have been the God of fertility. He was " The Lord of Spirits", the "Father of millions", etc.

However, I think the idea of an ancient hieroglyph with an "erect penis" (as watchmen described it), may have a different personal meaning to Watchmen who has no historical background and who may be thinking on different levels.

Again, the problem is that if the symbol and its' meaning are taken out of historical context and put into the mind of a teenager, then the symbol takes on far different connotations due to the bias and maturity level and education of the person making personal meaning. If watchmen or anyone else is thinking "bathroom stalls" and that is the context of the symbol and its personal meaning to that person, then this is different than the meaning for the context of a hieroglyph (hiero = sacred / glyph = symbol) to a procurator of a museum who understands some ancient history and ancient language.

I also wish you a good spiritual journey as well Prestor John

Clear

 

[Watchmen]

Like I said - You have some huge blinders on buddy.

You only see what you want to see and shut everything else out as hard as you can. Your eyes must hurt from squeezing them so tight!

Any doubts I had about you are gone now.

How is God the Father not the God of fertility?

Oh boy. You don't get it. You live in perpetual denial. You are one of the worst things about the church. Blind. Lack of proof. And criticism of others when you're called out on it. Pathetic. You think I've got blinders on? Take a look in the mirror, buddy. Everyone on these boards is looking at your post right now and laughing at you. You wanted to embarrass me? You embarrass yourself.

 

[Watchmen]

Hi Prestor John :

I agree that a hebrew redactor would have viewed God as the Father of untold millions and thus, would have been the God of fertility. He was " The Lord of Spirits", the "Father of millions", etc.

However, I think the idea of an "erect penis" (as watchmen described), may have a different personal meaning to Watchmen who has no historical background and who may be thinking on different levels.

Again, the problem is that if the symbol and its' meaning are taken out of historical context and put into the mind of a teenager, then the symbol takes on far different connotations due to the bias and maturity level and education of the person making personal meaning. If watchmen or anyone else is thinking "bathroom stalls" and that is the context of the symbol and its personal meaning to that person, then this is different than the meaning for the context of a hieroglyph (hiero = sacred glyph = symbol) to a procurator of a museum who understands some ancient history and ancient language.

I also wish you a good spiritual journey as well Prestor John

Clear

Clear, you are always kind. You are a credit to your people. Thank you.

 

[Prestor John]

Oh boy. You don't get it. You live in perpetual denial. You are one of the worst things about the church. Blind. Lack of proof. And criticism of others when you're called out on it. Pathetic. You think I've got blinders on? Take a look in the mirror, buddy. Everyone on these boards is looking at your post right now and laughing at you. You wanted to embarrass me? You embarrass yourself.

...nice try, I guess? ...eh...but not really.

Clear, you are always kind. You are a credit to your people. Thank you.

You say this while ignoring everything he posted.

I am always kind until someone gives me a reason not to be.

Do you need a hug, big guy?

 

[Scott C.]

Let's go back to the OP. Let me ask this: Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that demonstrates Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles are correct?

My two cents as one who knows nothing about Egyptology... I'm pretty certain that LDS scholars can't the prove the validity of the Book of Abraham. The best they can do at this point in time, based on current science, is demonstrate that others have not disproven the book. As a Mormon, my belief in the existence of God, the validity of the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Abraham are not driven by science. They are driven by spiritual evidence and personal experience. It's interesting to read the presentation of evidence contrary to my beliefs and then read how LDS scholars refute that evidence, whether it be the Book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon, Church History, or the creation of the world and where Adam and Eve fit in the puzzle. I may adjust some of my paradigm or interpretations based on scientific findings which seem accurate. But, I'm confident that research has not and will not disprove my core beliefs concerning the basics of the gospel and it's restoration. So, I wait and watch as more information is revealed from heaven and from science and enjoy the journey, while feeling continually that my faith is well placed and will come out on top in the end.

 

[Clear]

Scott C. said : My two cents as one who knows nothing about Egyptology... I'm pretty certain that LDS scholars can't the prove the validity of the Book of Abraham. The best they can do at this point in time, based on current science, is demonstrate that others have not disproven the book. As a Mormon, my belief in the existence of God, the validity of the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Abraham are not driven by science. They are driven by spiritual evidence and personal experience. It's interesting to read the presentation of evidence contrary to my beliefs and then read how LDS scholars refute that evidence, whether it be the Book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon, Church History, or the creation of the world and where Adam and Eve fit in the puzzle. I may adjust some of my paradigm or interpretations based on scientific findings which seem accurate. But, I'm confident that research has not and will not disprove my core beliefs concerning the basics of the gospel and it's restoration. So, I wait and watch as more information is revealed from heaven and from science and enjoy the journey, while feeling continually that my faith is well placed and will come out on top in the end.


I like Scott Cs’ take on the situation.


Restoration as a stand alone principle
While it is incredibly easy to show Joseph Smith restored multiple principles and discrete doctrines that existed in early Judeo-Christian religion to modern consciousness because we have so much early Judeo-Christian literature that describes early doctrines that parallel those of the restoration movement, I think Scott C is correct that even basic principles such as the existence of God cannot be proven to another person and in the same vein, no historical text of religious faith can be proven in any absolute fashion.

Methods of Restoration and return to early Judeo-Christian theology
Still, even though one can prove restoration of specific doctrines and traditions, one cannot then prove Joseph Smith accomplished restoration of these many doctrines and traditions through the medium of revelation (i.e. as a “prophet”). Scholars of early Judeo-Christian theology and texts are also performing a level of restoration of ancient principles and doctrines. They however are doing it through scholastic study as a method of discovery of early Judeo-Christian theology. What they are doing, parallels Smiths efforts. While their method is slow and tedious and piece-meal in it’s progression. Joseph Smiths method was a relative deluge and all at once and in a mature form. How was Joseph able to accomplish what he did, in the speed and sheer volume of material and in the mature form is the question.


Other theories
One can generate other theories besides revelation as to how this was done. I myself attempted other theories as a non-mormon, when first studying LDS theology.
The problem with such theories is that they created their own set of incredible difficulties.

For example, I can theorize that Joseph stole the books of Abraham and Moses with its multiple parallels to early Judeo-Christian traditions from another person. However, this creates the problem of how the other person produced it at an even earlier period. I then must have another theory to explain how THAT person did it. That theory doesn’t get me anywhere. Someone still did something impossible.

Or, I can theorize that Joseph somehow had a copy of the Apocalypse of Abraham and various Jewish epigraphs, enoch, the eastern canons, hermas, and a hundred other early Judeo-Christian texts from which he restored doctrines.

However, I then have created the problem of explaining how he acquired these documents decades before their known discovery.
Only a few examples of these documents had been discovered in the early 1800s. And only very few of those had been translated into English. Only a few of those had been printed in Europe. And only a few of those had been brought to American in the large and educated centers of population. And only a few of those would have made it to the smaller communities such as where Joseph Smith lived. And only a few of those (if any) would have been available for purchase for the young Joseph Smith in Palmyra. How much money could he have to procure such a library that it would have taken even if could exist in the early 1800s?

My point is that I still had to create theories of how he acquired what was available and see if this pittance of material could have supported the vast amount of material he restored that parallels known texts nowadays. This also means I must also create another supporting theory as to how he acquired them at a young age and also produced mature, logical and coherent descriptions of early Judeo-Christian doctrines without any of these source books or notes every being found. Where does he hide this vast library of books? (The modern 2 volume Charlesworth alone is almost 2000 small print pages). How does he take such a theoretical library with him from place to place as he had to move about? These are only a few of the questions an alternative theory must answer.

I also must theorize that he was some sort of genius who could read them in their languages at a time before some of them were translated into English. Does he have some world class scholars who are in league with him? How does he coordinate his partners in crime as well as the library it would take?


The increasing complexity and weight of supporting theories
At some point, the multiple levels of theorizing becomes so complicated that they become more incredible than the simple theory of revelation as a source of restoration of early traditions, doctrines and texts..

Since one cannot prove to another person, the base principle of the existence of God, I do not expect that we can prove these more complicated religious points. For example, I do not think one can prove the restoration of vast amount of early Judeo-Christian principles, doctrines, traditions and practices happened through revelation from that God who himself is unproveable to another person. However, I've never seen anyone offer a better theory.

I also think Scott Cs’ very sensible “bottom line” is correct. If one who believes in and has faith that God will direct them feels inspired by the spirit of God to believe and do a certain thing, then this is what one should do, and then be willing to adjust their initial paradigm as they gain better data and better understanding.

Clear
ειεισενεω

 

[Watchmen]

...nice try, I guess? ...eh...but not really.

You say this while ignoring everything he posted.

I am always kind until someone gives me a reason not to be.

Do you need a hug, big guy?

You continue to be a poor example for your faith. Shameful.

 

[Watchmen]

My two cents as one who knows nothing about Egyptology... I'm pretty certain that LDS scholars can't the prove the validity of the Book of Abraham. The best they can do at this point in time, based on current science, is demonstrate that others have not disproven the book. As a Mormon, my belief in the existence of God, the validity of the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Abraham are not driven by science. They are driven by spiritual evidence and personal experience. It's interesting to read the presentation of evidence contrary to my beliefs and then read how LDS scholars refute that evidence, whether it be the Book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon, Church History, or the creation of the world and where Adam and Eve fit in the puzzle. I may adjust some of my paradigm or interpretations based on scientific findings which seem accurate. But, I'm confident that research has not and will not disprove my core beliefs concerning the basics of the gospel and it's restoration. So, I wait and watch as more information is revealed from heaven and from science and enjoy the journey, while feeling continually that my faith is well placed and will come out on top in the end.

Before we get to the Book of Abraham in its entirety, let's just start with the facsimiles. Do you have any evidence suggesting Smith's interpretation of the facsimiles are correct? Thanks Scott!

 

[Scott C.]

Before we get to the Book of Abraham in its entirety, let's just start with the facsimiles. Do you have any evidence suggesting Smith's interpretation of the facsimiles are correct? Thanks Scott!

Do I personally have any scholarly evidence of this? No. I don't delve into that subject area and have no expertise whatsoever.

 

[Prestor John]

You continue to be a poor example for your faith. Shameful.

Aw, the ad hominem attack. The act of the desperate.

Since you consider all "Mormons" to be brainwashed and delusional - I'll take this as a compliment.

Before we get to the Book of Abraham in its entirety, let's just start with the facsimiles. Do you have any evidence suggesting Smith's interpretation of the facsimiles are correct? Thanks Scott!

What I don't get is why you are still here asking questions since you don't read or even really respond to the answers given.

You continue to be a poor example of a sentient life-form.

 

[Clear]

Prestor John said to watchmen : “ What I don't get is why you are still here asking questions since you don't read or even really respond to the answers given. “ Post #77

Hi Prestor John : Since it isn't honest logic or rational thought to present an idea for scrutiny, but then avoid that scrutiny by refusing to read any criticisms, I think the answer does not lie in logic but in emotional motivations. As I mentioned earlier, individuals are not always responding because of logical and rational reasons and all of us have some emotional undertones and motives.

As you can see from forum examples, pretensions to honest discussion are simply exhausting and inefficient. For example, watchmens' last post suggests we return to interpretations which have been demonstrated to be in error. (e.g. the "ba"/bird.) Discussions based on pretending an error is correct don't enlighten and their conclusions are irrelevant to historical reality.

While I agree that watchmens’ admission that he is not reading the posts which disagree with him removes any motive for discussion with him, still, if we simply allow a thread to devolve into name-calling, it will not inject logic and good data and rational thinking into a discussion regarding an illogical, irrational, non-historically based premise.

Having said this, Since watchmen admits tacitly that he cannot support his interpretation of even the first object in his claim, and since he tacitly admits he has no alternative other than revelation for what Joseph correctly restored, and since he tacitly admits that he does not have any data for facsimiles as Hebrew redactions (thus his data doesn’t apply to the facsimile if it references a Hebrew redaction), then there is no reason for me to remain involved in the thread either.

So, having made my points regarding the many examples of specific restoration of early Judeo-Christian theology and having given examples as to why the opening post doesn’t apply to a Hebrew redaction of Egyptian in the first place, I will bow out of this thread.

I honestly and truly hope that watchmen and yourself and Scott C find happiness and satisfaction in your spiritual journeys.

See you sometime Prestor John

Clear
ειτωδρσιω

 

[Prestor John]

Prestor John said : “ What I don't get is why you are still here asking questions since you don't read or even really respond to the answers given. “ Post #77

Hi Prestor John : Since it isn't honest logic or rational thought to present an idea for scrutiny, but then avoid the scrutiny by refusing to ready any criticism, I think the answer does not lie in logic but in emotional motivations. As I mentioned earlier. We are not always responding because of logical and rational reasons and all have some emotional undertones and motives. As you can see from forum examples, pretensions to honest discussion are simply exhausting and inefficient. For example, the last post wants to return to interpretations which have been demonstrated to be in error. (e.g. the "ba"/bird.) Discussions based on pretending an error is correct don't enlighten and their conclusions are irrelevant to historical reality.

While I agree that watchmens’ admission that he is not reading the posts which disagree with him removes any motive for discussion with him, still, if we simply allow a thread to devolve into name-calling, it will not inject logic and good data and rational thinking into a discussion regarding an illogical, irrational, non-historically based premise.

Having said this, Since watchmen admits tacitly that he cannot support his interpretation of even the first object in his claim, and since he tacitly admits he has no alternative other than revelation for what Joseph correctly restored, and since he tacitly admits that he does not have any data for facsimiles as Hebrew redactions (thus his data doesn’t apply to the facsimile if it references a Hebrew redaction), then there is no reason for me to remain involved in the thread either.

So, having made my points regarding the many examples of specific restoration of early Judeo-Christian theology and having given examples as to why the opening post doesn’t apply to a Hebrew redaction of Egyptian in the first place, I will bow out of this thread.

I honestly and truly hope that watchmen and yourself and Scott C find happiness and satisfaction in your spiritual journeys.

See you sometime Prestor John

Clear
ειτωδρσιω

Yeah, it's sad.

Seeya around bro.

 

[Watchmen]

Watchmen said : “Let's go back to the OP. “ (post #60)

Watchmen,
That train has already left the station and your original claim itself is still in trouble.

YOU have been asked to explain to forum members why YOUR interpretation of the bird in the facsimile is correct when so many other Egyptologists disagree with your interpretation of egyptian. Why is your interpretation of this egyptian correct and the other egyptologists wrong?

Secondly, you have yet to explain to readers how Joseph Smith restored so much of the early Christian Theology back to modern consciousness without source materials for all of it and without revelation.

We've spent 60 posts so far and you've not yet supported your O.P.s claimed "interpretation" and you have not dealt with the second question. Simple denial of restoration towards early theology is all you have attempted. This hasn't helped your position since since readers have already seen many, many examples of early Christian theology returned to modern religious consciousness.

You have not even tried to show the many examples of early Christian doctrines are not authentic early Christian doctrines.

AFTER you answer these questions, then perhaps we can discuss the third issue as to why you think that your theory of interpretation of Egyptian applies to a Hebrew redaction, which is another problem you have not yet addressed.


Clear
ειτζτζσεω

No Clear. I've asked for evidence that Smith's translation of the facsimile is accurate and 60 posts in we have none. A lot of ramblings about aide issues, but no evidence that Smith's translation was correct.