Book of Abraham

[Watchmen]

Yeah, it's sad.

Seeya around bro.

No answer or evidence has been given that demonstrates Smith's interpretation is correct. Certainly not from you.

 

[Watchmen]

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.

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.

You started with th ad hominem. And I don't think all Mormons are delusional. I love Katzpur. Scott is a good guy, and Clear is good natured. Some of my best friends are Mormon. The problem is you. Your holier than thou attitude. You swoop in, ride the coat tails of Clear, and fail to present an original thought. Mormons, for the most part are wonderful. You are not.

 

[Prestor John]

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.

Don’t act as though you actually read anything Clear shared.

The Egyptologists you referenced were taking the facsimiles out of context because they looked at them as purely Egyptian, when they are actually Semitic redactions using Egyptian symbolism.

Clear shared many examples of crosspollination of religious language and symbols in the Middle East including Semitic redactions using Egyptian symbolism.

He also shared many examples of Joseph Smith being correct about the religious practices and history of ancient peoples in the Middle East, of which his contemporaries mocked him. However, he has since been proven accurate decades before these things were ever “discovered”.

You have no case because you have provided no reason for why anyone should rely on the interpretations you have provided, when not all Egyptologists agree on those interpretations.

No answer or evidence has been given that demonstrates Smith's interpretation is correct. Certainly not from you.

Did anyone claim that there was such evidence?

You cannot place any fault on us when we made no claim to that evidence.

We rely on revelation and we believe that the evidence will come at a future time, even though we are fairly convinced that a lot of supporting evidence has already been discovered.

Needless to say, but you have done such a terrible job at trying to debunk Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the facsimiles that we feel even more inclined to believe in them.

You failed on a large scale.

You started with [the] ad hominem.

True, yet there is a big difference between what I said and what you have said.

My comments concerning you were in reference to your attitude on this thread and what you have said in this discussion. Basically, an ad hominem is not always a fallacy if it is relevant to the discussion.

You refused to read Clear’s comments and you rejected very simple logical premises. You did these things over and over throughout this discussion and I am somehow wrong or unjustified in pointing that out?

Your ad hominem attacks (about my being a “poor example” of my faith) had nothing to do with the discussion, which makes them fallacies.

And I don't think all Mormons are delusional. I love Katzpur. Scott is a good guy, and Clear is good natured.

Whether you like someone or not does not change the fact that you believe them to be delusional.

In your opinion, anyone who believes in the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith is in “perpetual denial” and they are “the worst things about the church”.

You would need to include Katzpur, Scott and Clear in these categories because they all believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that his interpretations of the facsimiles were correct.

Some of my best friends are Mormon.

Irrelevant. You still consider them to be delusional.

The problem is you.

Yes, I understand that I am a problem for you because I won’t tolerate your BS like other members would.

I will call you out when you are being illogical, immature or belligerent. I just will. Some members of the Church may disagree with my doing that, but our Savior did it repeatedly throughout His ministry, so is it wrong for me to follow His example?

Your holier than thou attitude.

You believe my disagreeing with you and exposing the holes in your arguments makes me think that I am “holier than thou”?

I guess you would consider anyone who disagrees with you to also be acting that way?

I think you might be projecting.

You swoop in, ride the coat tails of Clear, and fail to present an original thought.

I felt that Clear was presenting the facts very well, yet I feel that he failed by not addressing your belligerence. Although I understand that that is not his style.

How can you accuse me of not presenting any “original thoughts” when all you did was quote a couple Egyptologists and assumed your argument was infallible? (When not all Egyptologists agree)

Unlike other members of the Church, I will not pass up the opportunity to point out your hypocrisy here. Our Savior does not like hypocrites. He called them out often during His ministry.

Mormons, for the most part are wonderful. You are not.

Another irrelevant ad hominem.

What does your liking me or not have to do with your argument against Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the facsimiles?

 

[Watchmen]

Don’t act as though you actually read anything Clear shared.

The Egyptologists you referenced were taking the facsimiles out of context because they looked at them as purely Egyptian, when they are actually Semitic redactions using Egyptian symbolism.

Clear shared many examples of crosspollination of religious language and symbols in the Middle East including Semitic redactions using Egyptian symbolism.

He also shared many examples of Joseph Smith being correct about the religious practices and history of ancient peoples in the Middle East, of which his contemporaries mocked him. However, he has since been proven accurate decades before these things were ever “discovered”.

You have no case because you have provided no reason for why anyone should rely on the interpretations you have provided, when not all Egyptologists agree on those interpretations.

Did anyone claim that there was such evidence?

You cannot place any fault on us when we made no claim to that evidence.

We rely on revelation and we believe that the evidence will come at a future time, even though we are fairly convinced that a lot of supporting evidence has already been discovered.

Needless to say, but you have done such a terrible job at trying to debunk Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the facsimiles that we feel even more inclined to believe in them.

You failed on a large scale.

True, yet there is a big difference between what I said and what you have said.

My comments concerning you were in reference to your attitude on this thread and what you have said in this discussion. Basically, an ad hominem is not always a fallacy if it is relevant to the discussion.

You refused to read Clear’s comments and you rejected very simple logical premises. You did these things over and over throughout this discussion and I am somehow wrong or unjustified in pointing that out?

Your ad hominem attacks (about my being a “poor example” of my faith) had nothing to do with the discussion, which makes them fallacies.

Whether you like someone or not does not change the fact that you believe them to be delusional.

In your opinion, anyone who believes in the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith is in “perpetual denial” and they are “the worst things about the church”.

You would need to include Katzpur, Scott and Clear in these categories because they all believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that his interpretations of the facsimiles were correct.

Irrelevant. You still consider them to be delusional.

Yes, I understand that I am a problem for you because I won’t tolerate your BS like other members would.

I will call you out when you are being illogical, immature or belligerent. I just will. Some members of the Church may disagree with my doing that, but our Savior did it repeatedly throughout His ministry, so is it wrong for me to follow His example?

You believe my disagreeing with you and exposing the holes in your arguments makes me think that I am “holier than thou”?

I guess you would consider anyone who disagrees with you to also be acting that way?

I think you might be projecting.

I felt that Clear was presenting the facts very well, yet I feel that he failed by not addressing your belligerence. Although I understand that that is not his style.

How can you accuse me of not presenting any “original thoughts” when all you did was quote a couple Egyptologists and assumed your argument was infallible? (When not all Egyptologists agree)

Unlike other members of the Church, I will not pass up the opportunity to point out your hypocrisy here. Our Savior does not like hypocrites. He called them out often during His ministry.

Another irrelevant ad hominem.

What does your liking me or not have to do with your argument against Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the facsimiles?

None of what you posted demonstrates that Smith's interpretation is correct. Have you read Rough Stone Rolling?

 

[Prestor John]

None of what you posted demonstrates that Smith's interpretation is correct?

I'm not trying to prove that it is correct.

Nothing you have shared proves that Joseph Smith's interpretation is incorrect.

Have you read Rough Stone Rolling?

I actually haven't. Is it a good read?

 

[Watchmen]

I'm not trying to prove that it is correct.

Nothing you have shared proves that Joseph Smith's interpretation is incorrect.

I actually haven't. Is it a good read?

Rough Stone Rolling is a good read.

Thanks for admitting you're not trying to prove Smith's interpretation of the facsimiles was correct. After all, that'd be a futile effort.

 

[Prestor John]

Rough Stone Rolling is a good read.

What did you find particularly "good" about it?

Thanks for admitting you're not trying to prove Smith's interpretation of the facsimiles was correct. After all, that'd be a futile effort.

I agree that it would be a futile effort, but not for the reasons you have in mind. I think it would be futile for me to try to prove the truthfulness of the Prophet's interpretation of the facsimiles to you because;

1.) I have no background in such historical research.

2.) God has not commanded that I (or anyone) try to "prove" the truthfulness of the Prophet's interpretation of the facsimiles.

3.) No amount of supporting evidence would convince you of the truthfulness of the Prophet's interpretation because of your bias.

I also lack incentive to try because;

1.) Nothing you have shared disproves the Prophet's interpretation of the facsimiles.

2.) Whether or not you are convinced of the truthfulness of the Prophet's interpretation of the facsimiles has no bearing on whether or not his interpretation of the facsimiles is accurate.

3.) The witness of the Spirit of the Lord has already convinced me of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the truth that was restored through Him.

Basically, I see no reason to try to prove the truthfulness of the Prophet's interpretation of the facsimiles to you because I don't care if you doubt it.

Your opinion on the matter is not worth anything to me.

 

[Clear]

Hi Prestor John : I don't want to seem like I am taking sides, but I think, since the original O.P. has long ago collapsed and died an ignominious death, we are starting to beat a dead horse.

Watchmens' premise in the Opening Post (OP) was : "If Joseph Smith was a prophet, why do modern Egyptologists disagree with his translation of the papyri?" he concludes " We need go no further than the facsimile to see he was incorrect." That's it.

If you remember, the OP did not even stand the scrutiny of the first question as to why it's own interpretation was correct since the Egyptologists disagreed with the OP interpretation and they did not know which of their own conflicting interpretations were correct. None of them agreed. Watchmens own interpretation was incorrect.
Why not take the collapse of the original OP as enough satisfaction?

Even the OPs' conclusion that "We need go no further than the facsimile to see he was incorrect." was shown to be in deep error, since, as we did go "further" the greater data demonstrated hat showed Joseph WAS correct in the correct restoration of thousands of points of ancient Judeo-Christian religion.
Why not take this win of objective examples of how the OP conclusion was incorrect as enough satisfaction?

We reviewed the impossible depth of detail Joseph restored to modern religious consciousness. If you remember, I detailed many, many, examples taken from just the first chapter of Josephs version of Abraham in post #3. The conclusion of the OP (which you dislike) was completely destroyed.
Why not take this win of superior data over inaccurate and poor data and be satisfied?

The third question as to how Joseph did these things without revelation also was unanswerable by watchmen throughout the discussion. This was a wonderful tacit admission that he himself had no other alternative than revelation.
Why not be satisfied with his admission that he had not other alternative but to tacitly admit to revelation?

If you look at posts #36, 37 and 38, it took three entire posts just to summarize the data, and examples of logical and objective examples that supported Joseph Smiths' many, many correct restorations that had been described just to that point. This destroyed the Idea that one need "look no further". The OP had already been destroyed before that point and further examples were simply beating of an already dead horse.
Why not take whatever satisfaction you need from the victory and go home happy?

Even the multiple attempts by watchmen to subtly abandon the original OP which was "If Joseph Smith was a prophet, why do modern Egyptologists disagree with his translation of the papyri? We need go no further than the facsimile to see he was incorrect." are a recognition by watchmen himself that the original OP does not work. The desire to shift the original OP to one where the LDS must prove a point instead of the OP proving it's point indicates the original OP was dead and had to be replaced if the discussion was to survive.
Why not leave the discussion, having won the debate decisively?

Post #63 even explained not only why the Egyptologists disagreed with each other, but it showed Joseph was correct to mix Egyptian and Hebrew as a redaction. It took years for historians to find multiple examples of this specific mixing and to realize Joseph was correct to have done this specific mixing. It also explains why such redactions cannot BE proven by LDS, nor all the Egyptologists in the world using strict Egyptian translation to prove it either true OR false.
A story means what the author wants it to mean, neither more nor less. If the story and author was a hebrew redactor, then Joseph was correct regarding this specific claim.
Why not take this win as well and simply be satisfied?

My point is, the data and rational use of the mounting historical data have already destroyed the original OP and it's premise and it's conclusion.

If this is a boxing match between ideas, then the fight has long been over and the LDS claims come away untouched by the OP. Why not allow the other side a single symbolic punch in your direction? I think the LDS can admit that neither they nor anyone else can prove in any absolute way even that the sun rose this morning. Nor can they prove in any absolute fashion to anyone else, that God exists or that Jesus is our redeemer. I do not think these things can be proveable to another person by discussions in this way. No one, not even the best egyptologists can prove the specific interpretation of any egyptian facsimile of size in existence.

IN any case, I hope you find happiness in your journey.

Clear
ειδρακσεω

 

[Prestor John]

Hi Prestor John : I don't want to seem like I am taking sides, but I think, since the original O.P. has long ago collapsed and died an ignominious death, we are starting to beat a dead horse.

Watchmens' premise in the Opening Post (OP) was : "If Joseph Smith was a prophet, why do modern Egyptologists disagree with his translation of the papyri?" he concludes " We need go no further than the facsimile to see he was incorrect." That's all.

If you remember, the OP did not even stand the scrutiny of the first question as to why it's own interpretation was incorrect. Not only did the Egyptologists disagree with the OP interpretation, but they did not know which of their own conflicting interpretations were correct. None of them agreed. Watchmens interpretation was incorrect.
Why not take the collapse of the original OP as enough satisfaction?

Even the OPs' conclusion that "We need go no further than the facsimile to see he was incorrect." was show to be in deep error, since, as we did go "further" the greater the data that showed Joseph WAS correct in the correct restoration of thousands of points of ancient Judeo-Christian religion.
Why not take this win of objective examples of how the OP conclusion was incorrect as enough satisfaction?

We reviewed the impossible depth of detail Joseph restored to modern religious consciousness. If you remember, I detailed many, many, examples taken from just the first chapter of Josephs version of Abraham in post #3. The conclusion of the OP (which you dislike) was completely destroyed.
Why not take this win of superior data over inaccurate and poor data and be satisfied?

The third question as to how Joseph did these things without revelation also was unanswerable by watchmen throughout the discussion. This was a wonderful tacit admission that he himself had not other alternative than revelation.
Why not be satisfied with his admission.

If you look at posts #36, 37 and 38, it took three entire posts just to summarize the data, and examples of logical and objective examples that supported Joseph Smiths' many, many correct restorations that had been described just to that point. This destroyed the Idea that one need "look no further". The OP had already been destroyed before that point and further examples were simply beating of an already dead horse.
Why not take whatever satisfaction you need from the victory and go home happy?

Even the multiple attempts to subtly abandon the original OP which was "If Joseph Smith was a prophet, why do modern Egyptologists disagree with his translation of the papyri? We need go no further than the facsimile to see he was incorrect." The abandonment of this OP and the desire to shift to one where the LDS must prove a different point is yet another tacit recognition that the original OP was not viable. It was dead.
Why not leave the discussion, having won the debate decisively.

Post #63 even explained not only why the Egyptologists disagreed with each other, but it showed Joseph was correct to mix Egyptian and Hebrew as a redaction. Thus it explains why such redactions cannot BE proven by LDS, nor all the Egyptologists in the world using strict Egyptian translation to prove it either true OR false. A story means what the author wants it to mean, neither more nor less. If the story and author was an egyptian redactor, then Joseph was correct.
Why not take this win as well and simply be satisfied?

My point is, the data and rational use of the mounting historical data have already destroyed the original OP and it's premise and it's conclusion. If this is a boxing match between ideas, then the fight is over and the LDS claims come away untouched by the OP. Why not allow the other side a single symbolic punch in your direction? I think the LDS can admit that it cannot be cannot proven in any absolute way that the sun rose this morning. Nor can they prove in any absolute fashion to anyone else, that God exists or that Jesus is our redeemer. I do not think they are meant to be proveable by discussions in this way. No one can prove the specific interpretation of any egyptian facsimile in existence.

IN any case, I hope you find happiness in your journey.

Clear
ειδρακσεω

You're reading too much into this.

I tend to respond to anyone if they quote me. I just do. I also don't really have the energy right now to tackle this other thread I'm on, but I am on my computer right now so...

I guess I'm responding out of boredom and laziness.

 

[Clear]

Prestor John :

I understand and I apologize if I have sounded too judgmental in my point that the LDS point has been won and the OP is dead.

I think this new challenge from watchmen that the LDS need to "prove" a point that no one can prove either way as of yet (though Codex Sylvestrus as an example, leans towards Smiths regarding the "bird" as a heavenly being), due to lack of historical contexted information is simply a case of "teasing the dogs to make them bark."

Please be at peace on these issues.

Clear

 

[Watchmen]

What did you find particularly "good" about it?

I agree that it would be a futile effort, but not for the reasons you have in mind. I think it would be futile for me to try to prove the truthfulness of the Prophet's interpretation of the facsimiles to you because;

1.) I have no background in such historical research.

2.) God has not commanded that I (or anyone) try to "prove" the truthfulness of the Prophet's interpretation of the facsimiles.

3.) No amount of supporting evidence would convince you of the truthfulness of the Prophet's interpretation because of your bias.

I also lack incentive to try because;

1.) Nothing you have shared disproves the Prophet's interpretation of the facsimiles.

2.) Whether or not you are convinced of the truthfulness of the Prophet's interpretation of the facsimiles has no bearing on whether or not his interpretation of the facsimiles is accurate.

3.) The witness of the Spirit of the Lord has already convinced me of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the truth that was restored through Him.

Basically, I see no reason to try to prove the truthfulness of the Prophet's interpretation of the facsimiles to you because I don't care if you doubt it.

Your opinion on the matter is not worth anything to me.

The Church itself has said it appears it's not a literal translation.

Your bias is apparent. Your points demonstrate the only reason you believe is because the prophet said so.

If there was actual evidence I would reconsider my position.

 

[Watchmen]

Hi Prestor John : I don't want to seem like I am taking sides, but I think, since the original O.P. has long ago collapsed and died an ignominious death, we are starting to beat a dead horse.

Watchmens' premise in the Opening Post (OP) was : "If Joseph Smith was a prophet, why do modern Egyptologists disagree with his translation of the papyri?" he concludes " We need go no further than the facsimile to see he was incorrect." That's it.

If you remember, the OP did not even stand the scrutiny of the first question as to why it's own interpretation was correct since the Egyptologists disagreed with the OP interpretation and they did not know which of their own conflicting interpretations were correct. None of them agreed. Watchmens own interpretation was incorrect.
Why not take the collapse of the original OP as enough satisfaction?

Even the OPs' conclusion that "We need go no further than the facsimile to see he was incorrect." was shown to be in deep error, since, as we did go "further" the greater the data that showed Joseph WAS correct in the correct restoration of thousands of points of ancient Judeo-Christian religion.
Why not take this win of objective examples of how the OP conclusion was incorrect as enough satisfaction?

We reviewed the impossible depth of detail Joseph restored to modern religious consciousness. If you remember, I detailed many, many, examples taken from just the first chapter of Josephs version of Abraham in post #3. The conclusion of the OP (which you dislike) was completely destroyed.
Why not take this win of superior data over inaccurate and poor data and be satisfied?

The third question as to how Joseph did these things without revelation also was unanswerable by watchmen throughout the discussion. This was a wonderful tacit admission that he himself had no other alternative than revelation.
Why not be satisfied with his admission that he had not other alternative but to tacitly admit to revelation?

If you look at posts #36, 37 and 38, it took three entire posts just to summarize the data, and examples of logical and objective examples that supported Joseph Smiths' many, many correct restorations that had been described just to that point. This destroyed the Idea that one need "look no further". The OP had already been destroyed before that point and further examples were simply beating of an already dead horse.
Why not take whatever satisfaction you need from the victory and go home happy?

Even the multiple attempts by watchmen to subtly abandon the original OP which was "If Joseph Smith was a prophet, why do modern Egyptologists disagree with his translation of the papyri? We need go no further than the facsimile to see he was incorrect." are a recognition by watchmen himself that the original OP does not work. The desire to shift the original OP to one where the LDS must prove a point instead of the OP proving it's point indicates the original OP was dead and had to be replaced if the discussion was to survive.
Why not leave the discussion, having won the debate decisively?

Post #63 even explained not only why the Egyptologists disagreed with each other, but it showed Joseph was correct to mix Egyptian and Hebrew as a redaction. It took years for historians to find multiple examples of this specific mixing and to realize Joseph was correct to have done this specific mixing. It also explains why such redactions cannot BE proven by LDS, nor all the Egyptologists in the world using strict Egyptian translation to prove it either true OR false.
A story means what the author wants it to mean, neither more nor less. If the story and author was a hebrew redactor, then Joseph was correct.
Why not take this win as well and simply be satisfied?

My point is, the data and rational use of the mounting historical data have already destroyed the original OP and it's premise and it's conclusion.

If this is a boxing match between ideas, then the fight has long been over and the LDS claims come away untouched by the OP. Why not allow the other side a single symbolic punch in your direction? I think the LDS can admit that neither they nor anyone else can prove in any absolute way even that the sun rose this morning. Nor can they prove in any absolute fashion to anyone else, that God exists or that Jesus is our redeemer. I do not think these things can be proveable to another person by discussions in this way. No one, not even the best egyptologists can prove the specific interpretation of any egyptian facsimile of size in existence.

IN any case, I hope you find happiness in your journey.

Clear
ειδρακσεω

I still think modern Egyptologists disagree with Smith's translation, but you're right, Clear. I did shift the OP from why do they disagree to prove Smith was right. Not much difference, but a difference nonetheless.

 

[Orontes]

I still think modern Egyptologists disagree with Smith's translation, but you're right, Clear. I did shift the OP from why do they disagree to prove Smith was right. Not much difference, but a difference nonetheless.

Hello,

I have been reading through posts in this thread. Not all posts, but some. I don't follow the above. Is the OP of the thread still being put forward, or was the thesis changed? If it was changed, what is the assertion now?

 

[Orontes]

I have seen no reply to my post. While I don't understand the predicate use "disagree to prove" in "why do they disagree to prove Smith was right." So, the OP has failed then?

 

[Watchmen]

I have seen no reply to my post. While I don't understand the predicate use "disagree to prove" in "why do they disagree to prove Smith was right." So, the OP has failed then?

The question in the OP was why do modern Egyptologists disagree with Smith. The follow-up question was what evidence is there that Smith was correct. Unlike in Smith's time, we now have an understanding of ancient Egyption language, and that understanding suggests Smith was wrong. Even the Church's recent essay admits it may not be a "literal translation."

 

[Prestor John]

The Church itself has said it appears it's not a literal translation.

Source?

Also, when did anyone claim that it had to be a literal translation?

Your bias is apparent. Your points demonstrate the only reason you believe is because the prophet said so.

Really? I don't remember saying that. I remember mentioning something about the Holy Spirit...

Do you have physical evidence that proves everything that you believe in?

If there was actual evidence I would reconsider my position.

No you wouldn't You would ignore it, like how you ignored Clear's sharing of supporting evidence.

 

[Prestor John]

The question in the OP was why do modern Egyptologists disagree with Smith. The follow-up question was what evidence is there that Smith was correct. Unlike in Smith's time, we now have an understanding of ancient Egyption language, and that understanding suggests Smith was wrong. Even the Church's recent essay admits it may not be a "literal translation."

The OP was destroyed. Egyptologists do not all agree on the interpretation of the facsimiles, therefore there is no proof that Joseph Smith's interpretation was incorrect.

You have not shared anything that suggests that Joseph Smith's interpretation was wrong.

The Book of Abraham not being a "literal translation" is not the Church admitting that Joseph Smith's interpretation of the facsimiles were wrong.

You keep jumping to conclusions with no supporting evidence.

 

[Watchmen]

Source?

Also, when did anyone claim that it had to be a literal translation?

Really? I don't remember saying that. I remember mentioning something about the Holy Spirit...

Do you have physical evidence that proves everything that you believe in?

No you wouldn't You would ignore it, like how you ignored Clear's sharing of supporting evidence.

The Chuch's essay on the topic says it may not be a literal translation. Are you not aware of the essay?

No one claimed it had to be a literal translation, but it's not even close. That's the problem.

Why are you going on about "physical evidence"?

I invited you to provide evidence and you wouldn't/couldn't.

If you reviewed my history, you'd k ow I ised to be a staunch supporter of the Church. I've encountered information that makes me question Joseph Smith, including his "translation" of the papyri. If you have evidence his "translation" is correct then by all means share it for consideration.

 

[Watchmen]

The OP was destroyed. Egyptologists do not all agree on the interpretation of the facsimiles, therefore there is no proof that Joseph Smith's interpretation was incorrect.

You have not shared anything that suggests that Joseph Smith's interpretation was wrong.

The Book of Abraham not being a "literal translation" is not the Church admitting that Joseph Smith's interpretation of the facsimiles were wrong.

You keep jumping to conclusions with no supporting evidence.

Agreement is not necessary to prove something is correct or incorrect.

I have quoted from Egyptologists who disagree with Smith. No one, including Clear, has provided any evidence that Egyptologists agree with Smith's translation of the facsimiles.

The Church admitting that Smith's translation does not necessarily mean he was wrong, but it's a huge backtrack and CYA (much like they've done on other issues).

I'm not "jumping to conclusions." I've read what modern Egyptologists have to say on the topic and I trust them - not Smith's unsupported version.

 

[Prestor John]

The Chuch's essay on the topic says it may not be a literal translation. Are you not aware of the essay?

I am aware of what you are referencing and I do not believe it says what you have claimed. Therefore, in order for you to better explain your position, you should have provided the source.

But don't worry. I will pick up your slack. The article can be found here: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

You will notice that the article does not make the claim that the Book of Abraham was "not a literal translation". It claims that since "The book originated with Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith translated beginning in 1835. Many people saw the papyri, but no eyewitness account of the translation survives, making it impossible to reconstruct the process."

"We do know some things about the translation process. The word translation typically assumes an expert knowledge of multiple languages. Joseph Smith claimed no expertise in any language. He readily acknowledged that he was one of the “weak things of the world,” called to speak words sent “from heaven.” Speaking of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Lord said, “You cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.” The same principle can be applied to the book of Abraham. The Lord did not require Joseph Smith to have knowledge of Egyptian. By the gift and power of God, Joseph received knowledge about the life and teachings of Abraham.

"On many particulars, the book of Abraham is consistent with historical knowledge about the ancient world. Some of this knowledge, which is discussed later in this essay, had not yet been discovered or was not well known in 1842. But even this evidence of ancient origins, substantial though it may be, cannot prove the truthfulness of the book of Abraham any more than archaeological evidence can prove the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt or the Resurrection of the Son of God. The book of Abraham’s status as scripture ultimately rests on faith in the saving truths found within the book itself as witnessed by the Holy Ghost." (You would have known this if you had read Clear's comments)

Now the portion of interest,

"Neither the Lord nor Joseph Smith explained the process of translation of the book of Abraham, but some insight can be gained from the Lord’s instructions to Joseph regarding translation. In April 1829, Joseph received a revelation for Oliver Cowdery that taught that both intellectual work and revelation were essential to translating sacred records. It was necessary to “study it out in your mind” and then seek spiritual confirmation. Records indicate that Joseph and others studied the papyri and that close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation. As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.”

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri."

What the Church admitted was:

- no one knew the method of translation

- the same principle applied to the translation of the Book of Mormon could be applied to the Book of Abraham.

- there was a possibility that the Book of Abraham was "not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be".

Claiming a possibility that it may not be a literal rendering is not the same as saying that it was not.

The idea that it could not be a literal rendering does not mean that the Book of Abraham is not scripture or that Joseph Smith's interpretation of the facsimile was incorrect.

The first sentence of the article still reads, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture."

No one claimed it had to be a literal translation, but it's not even close. That's the problem.

I will share again a portion from the article, "It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri."

If the scroll that the Book of Abraham was translated from was destroyed, whose to say what is or is not "close"?

If the interpretation of the facsimile was not a "literal translation" (as you admitted no one claimed) then how could anyone judge Joseph Smith's interpretation of it?

If (as the article claimed as a possibility) "the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation" and "catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham" then what does it really matter what the papyri says?

Why are you going on about "physical evidence"?

Do you always answer questions with a question?

I invited you to provide evidence and you wouldn't/couldn't.

Clear did and you ignored it. Wouldn't you just ignore me too?

If you reviewed my history, you'd [know I used] to be a staunch supporter of the Church.

Irrelevant.

I've encountered information that makes me question Joseph Smith, including his "translation" of the papyri.

If what you have shared on this thread is this "information" you encountered, then it sounds like you were looking for any shallow reason to leave the Church.

If you have evidence his "translation" is correct then by all means share it for consideration.

If we do not even know the method of translation, how could I provide what you are asking for?

Nevertheless, what Joseph Smith wrote about the ancient world has since been proven to be consistent with historical knowledge that was not discovered until after his death.

You can ignore it all you want, but that does not make it any less true.