Why the Recent Translations Have Not Proven "Abraham" a Hoax!

2,251 Views | 78 Replies | Last: 19 yr ago by El Sid
ibmagg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There have been so many comments on this subject and "Liam" was going to give the explanation but his new job has not afforded him the opportunity so I will give you the answers that you have been waiting for.

In the summer of 1835 members of the Church purchased from Michael Chandler 4 mummies and two or more papyrus scrolls that had been discovered in Egypt by a man named Antonio Lebolo. The Prophet Joseph Smith showed little interest in the mummies but was fascinated by the papyri. Through the use of the Urim and Thummim and with W.W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdrey as scribes, Joseph began to translate "some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found one of the scrolls contained the writing of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc.--a more full account of which will appear in its place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth."

In the Prophet Joseph's journal entry of 10/01/1835, The Prophet recorded that "during the research, the principles of astronomy as understood by Father Abraham and the ancients unfolded to our understanding." Oliver Cowdrey reported that "when the translation of these valuable documents will be completed, I am unable to say; neither can I give you a probable idea how large volumes they will make; but judging from their size, and the comprehensiveness of the language, one might reasonably expect to see sufficient to develop much of the mighty acts of the ancient men of God, and of his dealing with the children of men when they saw him face to face." In 1838 Anson Call visited the Prophet in Far West, Mo. Joseph invited him in and said "sit down and we will read to you from the translations of the Book of Abraham." (Sorry, interuption; back in 15 min.) Oliver Cowdrey then read until he was tired when Thomas Marsh read, making all together about TWO HOURS. I was much interested in the work." The Book of Abraham and the three facsimiles, as we now have them in our "Pearl of Great Price", were published in the "Times and Seasons" in March 1842. Nearly a year later, in the Feb.1, 1843 issue, "Times and Seasons" editor John Taylor encouraged the Saints to renew their suscriptions to the paper adding: "We would further state that "we had the promise of Br. Joseph, to furnish us with further extracts from the Book of Abraham."

The history of the papyri after the death of the prophet is sketchy. The Egyptian relics were kept by Lucy Mack Smith until her death and were then sold by Emma Smith Bidamon to a Mr. A. Combs. Combs sold two of the mummies with some papyri to the St. Louis Museum in 1856 and in 1863 they were sold to the Chicago Musuem (later renamed the Woods Musuem). It has generally been assumed that all of the papyri were destroyed in the great Chicago fire in 1871. In 1967, however it was announced that Dr. Aziz Atiya, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Utah had found 11 papyrus "fragments", including Facsimile 1, in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. Not being a Latter-day Saint himself (he was a Coptic Christian) but somewhat familiar with Latter-day Saint culture and the Pearl of Great Price, Dr. Atiya recognized Facsimile 1 and made contact with Church leaders, who eventually acquired the papyrus fragments.

Committed latter-day Saints and critics of the faith alike were intrigued with what would come of the find. The latter group exulted that once and for all the Book of Abraham could be exposed as a figment of Joseph Smith's fertle imagination. The translation of the eleven fragments and the facsmile by trained Egyptologists revealed parts of the ancient Egyptian Book of Breathings, an excerpt of the larger Book of the Dead, which are actually funeral texts, material associated with the burial and future state of the dead. In other words, the fragments presumably had nothing to do with the person and work of Abraham. The late H. Donl Peterson, professor of ancient scripture at BYU and dedicated student of the book of Abraham, replied: "The Book of Abraham and Joseph papyri were described as "Beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation." The eleven fragments recovered from the Metropolitan Musuem of Art in New York City DO NOT FIT THAT DESCRIPTION AT ALL! What was discovered was Facsimile 1 and some fragments UNRELATED to the published account of the present Book of Abraham. They were part of the original scrolls once owned by Joseph Smith but NOT directly related to the Abrahamic text. The partial text of the Book of Breathings returned to the Church in 1967 was NOT the text for the Book of Abraham."

Professor Peterson said that the book of Abraham "was not finished. In fact, it was hardly begun. The Book of Abraham was a LENGTHY record...Oliver Cowdrey spoke of VOLUMES necessary to contain it. Only two short installments were published during Joseph Smith's lifetime, although more was promised. Had not Joseph Smith's last 16 months been so turbulent, no doubt more of the translation would have been forth coming, as he had promised. We have but a SMALL fraction of a rather lengthy record."

"Is the Book of Abraham true?" Elder Bruce R. McConkie asked. "Yes, but it is not complete; it stops almost in midair. Would that the Prophet had gone on in his translation or revelation, as the case may be."

Hope this explains thing for some of you.



IBMAGG

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 7/15/2006 1:17p).]

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 7/15/2006 1:21p).]
ibmagg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is now finished.
Aggie4Life02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ibmagg = king of wishful thinking



Apollos.ws
think.learn.know
ibmagg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you are going to give me a title, I prefer emperor.
Modano
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There is one big, big problem with this analysis. ( There is actually more than one problem, but this one problem is a clear and deadly"silver bullet." )

As ibmagg has correctly described, every Egyptologist who has looked at the papyri has quickly identified them as the Book of breathings. This is a funerary text, and this particular text was written for an important Egyptian named Horace.

The Book of Abraham contains three drawings taken directly from the papyri. These drawings are commonly referred to as Facsimiles 1, 2 and 3.


FACSIMILE 1


FACSIMILE 3

Facsimile 3 is most important.

Joseph Smith gave the following explanation for Facsimile 3:
quote:
Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh's throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.

Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince. Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king's court.

So, according to Joseph Smith, this drawing shows the Abraham of the Bible sitting on the egyptian throne and explaining astrology.

BIG PROBLEM!!!

Egyptologists can read Facsimile 3, and they tell us that it is part of the same funerary text. More importantly, this drawing refers to Horace - the important person who is the subject of all the papyri we have.

In other words, Joseph Smith's drawing directly links the papyri which still exist to the papyri he interpreted. Facsimile 3 refers to Horace. The papyri refer to Horace. There is simply no question that they are linked.

So, there is little doubt that we have some if not most of the papyri used by Joseph Smith, and we have no doubt that the interpretation was untrue.

The Book of Abraham is the single most imoprtant piece of evidence against the LDS faith. Joseph Smith's preservation of Facsimile 3, and his comments about what he supposed it meant, lead to the inescapable conclusion that he got the Book of Abraham incredibly wrong.

[This message has been edited by Modano (edited 7/15/2006 3:47p).]
Modano
How long do you want to ignore this user?


So, if the pieces which are missing do indeed contain some a bit of red ink as described, this fact has no impact on the rest of the document.

Facsimile 3 refers to Horace. The papyri we have refer to Horace. There can be no doubt that we have the papyri that were in Joseph Smith's hands, and there is no doubt that his description of Facsimile 3 is dead wrong.

(Facsimile 3, in reality, shows Horace being led towards the afterlife.)


[This message has been edited by Modano (edited 7/15/2006 4:17p).]
NASAg03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
this is kind of like the Dead Sea Scrolls for the BoM, only in a bad way.
Fightin TX Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That is a devastating response by Modano.

If correct, then these ultimate conclusions must necessarily follow:

"Abraham" is not scripture. Joseph Smith was not a prophet. The Mormon religion is false.
Cold Steel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Modano: Facsimile 3 refers to Horace.

Modano, please provide references that Facsimile 3 refers to "Horace".

Thanks

Cold Steel

[This message has been edited by Cold Steel (edited 7/15/2006 7:04p).]
Hill Country Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fightin', you state:

quote:
That is a devastating response by Modano.


FWIW: I have learned that Mormon apologists are immune to devastating responses.
ibmagg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Guys, you will learn; there is NO silver bullet. "Cold steel" will handle completely this "devestating response."
thisguy05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wow, way to handle it
Hill Country Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ibmagg:
While I believe Mormon theology and doctrine are false, you at least try to rationalize Mormonism. Most of my Mormon friends are like many of my Catholic friends: they don't really know why they believe what they believe. The Bible says we are to search the scriptures, and use it to test everything else.
Hank Hill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Since I don't read egyptian I can't say who is right or who is wrong. I doubt anyone here can either.

I do know that you people have a grave misconception as to what Mormons believe a prophet to be.

I do know that you people have a misconception as to what a prophet is.

A Prophet is a man, with weakness just like any other man, sometimes more.

Moses studdered
Paul was about 4'11
Peter seemed to have an anger problem

Joseph Smith spent a large part of his life trying to convince members that just because someone is called to be a Prophet does not mean they are suddenly perfect.

If Joseph was wrong about the facmile, it does little to shake my faith.

He was wrong about people living on the Moon, as was he wrong about other things.

Same with Brigham Young and same with Gordon B. Hinkley.

We don't hold these men as being perfect or infoulable. Sorry to burst your bubble.

We do hold the BoM, D&C, and PoGP as scripture, and on a personal note I do, because I have prayed about them.

I do hold what Gordon B. Hinkley says in our General Conference to be scripture.

Why, because all these things bring me closer to Christ and that is their ultimate purpose.
Modano
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Egyptologist M. Theodule Deveria:

quote:
Concerning Facsimile No. 3 he wrote:

The deceased led by Ma into the presence of Osiris. His name is Horus, as may be seen in the prayer which is at the bottom of the picture, and which is addressed to the divinities of the four cardinal points.

By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus:
A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri

By Charles M. Larson

http://www.irr.org/MIT/Books/BHOH/bhoh1.html


TxAgKuwait
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I do hold what Gordon B. Hinkley says in our General Conference to be scripture.


Do you have the same philosophy about sermons and messages issued by Prophet, Seer, and Revelator Brigham Young?

He said something along these lines:

quote:
Brigham Young said, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture." (Journal of Discourses 13:95).


So, Hank....you've said you have ultimate trust, faith, and confidence in the utterings of Gordon Hinkley which take place at the General Conference. Do you feel the same way about the words of Brigham Young?

A simple yes or no will suffice, although if you say no.....I'd be curious as to why one would discount the words of a prophet who said all his sermons could be considered scripture.
Hank Hill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I won't play your silly game kwait, I will answer your question as I see fit.

I do have faith in many of the things Brigaham Young said and do hold them as scripture.

I don't hold all the things written in the Journal of Discourses as scripture.

Maybe you can't read so I will type this slow for you in hopes you can keep up.

A Prophet is a man, with weakness just like any other man, sometimes more.

Every word that comes out of a Prophet's mouth is not scripture.

Now please try and keep up, Brigaham Young was a Prophet but he was also a man with limited understanding the same as any other man including all the Apostles and Prophets of old.

Not everything he said was the word of God.

I hope you were able to understand it this time, I don't want to have to repeat myself a 3rd time.
TxAgKuwait
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Every word that comes out of a Prophet's mouth is not scripture.


Hank.

Thanks for your succinct if somewhat snide reply.

I wasn't playing a game. I was actually interested in knowing what you thought. I'll try not to make that mistake again.

Here is what I am getting from what you said.

You will believe what the prophets say as long as it serves your purposes or is convenient.

If, in 80 years, people of the LDS faith decide that the comments made by Gordon Hinkley during the General Conference made no sense, then they will discount them as "comments made by Gordon as a man, not as a prophet." I am not sure how that impacts the prohibition on multiple earrings or the "it's just a couplet".."I don't know that we teach that" eternal progression theory as described on the Larry King program. (minor issue here - if the prophet, seer, and revelator of your church DOES NOT KNOW if something is taught....then who in the world WOULD know?

Just like you are doing with Brigham's comments. Or Kimball's. Or Ezra Taft Benson's. Or Joseph Fielding Smith. If the words of the prophets later become a problem, it's too easy just to discount them by saying the prophet was speaking as a man, not as a prophet.

I am reminded of the lesson of the thermos. It keeps things hot or cold. But how does it know?

You like to think that I am not blessed by the fullness of the gospel and I like to think that you are following a false prophet and engaging in silly games and rituals concocted by a man, rather than by God. That's okay. That's what America is all about. People are allowed to make dumb choices and wrong headed decisions. Otherwise there would be no explanation for the Chia pet, the AMC Pacer, or President Jimmy Carter

I just find it perplexing that rather than admit thay LDS doctrine has changed over the years and is evolving, that Mormons tend to "cover up" or deny that what once was commonly held belief within the church no longer is.

If you cannot rely on the veracity of the prophets, then you really can't count on them for very much. And if you can't place total faith and confidence in the teaching of the prophets without the benefit of hindsight, you really don't have very much.

That being the case, I just find it disturbing that the church sends so many missionaries out to tell people that their religious faith is wrong, all other churches are an abomination, and the Catholics are especially bad.


[This message has been edited by TxAgKuwait (edited 7/16/2006 5:20a).]
Hank Hill
How long do you want to ignore this user?
KuwaitAg wrote:

quote:
You will believe what the prophets say as long as it serves your purposes or is convenient.


The Journal of Discourses has been around for over 100 years and yet our church has never considered cannonizing them as scripture. Why do you thinnk that is?

I will tell you.

Because the Journal of Discourses was the results of about 12 scribes who followed Brigaham Young around and wrote down everything he said. Some of it was sermons and some was just conversations he had.

Lots of the things in the Journal of Discourses was Brigaham's opinion.

Can I trust Brigaham Young, you bet. I own several books on the teachings and writings of Brigaham Young. What I don't trust is the unabridged Journal of Discourses.

quote:
If, in 80 years, people of the LDS faith decide that the comments made by Gordon Hinkley during the General Conference made no sense, then they will discount them as "comments made by Gordon as a man, not as a prophet." I am not sure how that impacts the prohibition on multiple earrings or the "it's just a couplet" eternal progression theory as described on the Larry King program.



When I was a LDS Missionary I served for a time in a little backwards town outside of Charleston SC called Monk's Corner. There were 4 Baptist churches in a town of about 5000 people when asked why here is what I was told.

First Baptist church split over a disagreement on Dancing. It later split again because of a disagreement on the actual existance of Noah, evidently half the congregation believed the Bible story and the other half didn't.

The other Baptist church split some time later over the hiring of a black youth minister.

Now I would accuse you of the same thing with regard to the book of Genesis but all the other crap you Protestants do is much more humorous.

Fact is I have yet to find two protestant churches that believe the same thing.


quote:
just find it perplexing that rather than admit thay LDS doctrine has changed over the years and is evolving, that Mormons tend to "cover up" or deny that what once was commonly held belief within the church no longer is.



I find it interesting you think this, our church is the essense of evolution. The reason we are lead by a Prophet is because the world is changing and we rely on the direction given by our church leaders. If our religion didn't evolve there would not be a need for continuous revelation.

The hypocrisy you represent is that you seem to think your religion is the same one that the Apostles preached. But the funny thing is the Catholic Church seems to say the same thing. And I don't see the Catholics and the Protestants teaching the same thing.

Fact is we can't all be right.

I believe the Bible says, One Lord, One faith, and one Baptism. Not 500 different ones, just one.

Yes we send out our missionaries and they preach the Gospel the believe to be true. If that is not the same one you believe you have a choice, reject it or accept it.

I was raised Catholic but I have rejected that church for the LDS faith.




Modano
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This 5 minute video ties it all together:

http://www.bookofabraham.info/videos/The_Critical_Link.wmv

The larger scroll refers again and again to Horus, and Horus is the subject of Facsimile 3.

Cold Steel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No time to reply today, but here are some articles to read.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=561

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/LBOA.pdf

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/lostbook.htm

Cold Steel

Fightin TX Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Alright, I read the articles. Now, most people regard me as a pretty bright fellow, but maybe I'm not so bright, because I did not see how any of those articles even attempted to take on the points made in this thread.

There was alot of discussion (or should I say misdirection) of interesting tidbits, but the authors did not address the "elephant in the living room."

Modano and the video seem to make two main points:

1) Facsimile 3 and the main scroll documents both relate to the fellow Horus, for whom this burial scroll was apparently written. So, it is highly likely that the scroll in the museum is the same scroll used by Smith. This refutes the claim (made in the original post above) that the scroll Smith used is lost.

2) The drawing of "Abraham on the altar" clearly came from this scroll and is clearly a misunderstanding of the drawing.

Together, these facts show that 1) we have the scroll in question and 2) Joseph Smith either made up or just completely botched his interpretation.

These facts also destroy any claim that the "Book of Abraham" is scripture. So, I have two questions: How important is the Book of Abraham to the LDS faith? If the Book of Abraham is untrustworthy, how can one trust any of the other writings of Joseph Smith?

[This message has been edited by Fightin TX Aggie (edited 7/16/2006 12:24p).]
RAB91
How long do you want to ignore this user?


[This message has been edited by RAB91 (edited 7/16/2006 1:28p).]
Wearer of the Ring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How did Joeseph Smith come into possession of the Urim and Thummim and where are they now? Please don't tell me that an "angel" gave them to him and subsequently took them back.
Patriarch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hank (I believe) states that there can be problems with BoA and that doesn't shake his faith in LDS beliefs because Joseph Smith was a human and like the faults of Paul, Moses, etc., all prophets are sinners and make mistakes. The main (obvious) weakness of that comparison is that one "human weakness" is held to be scripture while the other are simply human faults.

The rationale would hold true if you were defending Joseph Smith's treasure hunting (or other questionable conduct), but it does not hold true when you are talking about scripture. A prophet does not make mistakes in his revelation from God or no part of the christian faith stands up.
Patriarch
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Only two short installments were published during Joseph Smith's lifetime, although more was promised. Had not Joseph Smith's last 16 months been so turbulent, no doubt more of the translation would have been forth coming, as he had promised. We have but a SMALL fraction of a rather lengthy record."
I read this to suggest that bad guys on earth prevented the omnipotent God from fully restoring His church.

Despite what these LDS scholars or intelligent LDS posters state on this board, there is no logical, reasonable defense of the BoA. The only defense an "honest" Mormon can make of this book is to say "I don't understand it, but I accept it on faith because the Holy Spirit has told me it is true." In my opinion, LDS lose credibilty by trying to defend the BoA as scripture.
ibmagg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I have a question for those of you that have posted on this subject or read the thread. How many of you have actually read the Pearl of Great Price which includes the book of Abraham and Moses? When Cold Steel is through with his Sunday obligations, I hope the disappointment won't be too great with the answers.
fahraint
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
do know that you people have a misconception as to what a prophet is.

A Prophet is a man, with weakness just like any other man, sometimes more.


A true prophet of God does not lie, or speak mistruths like Joseph Smith did when he confabulated the BOA from Egyptian hieroglyphs...



Deut 18:15-22
15 The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, lest I die.' 17 "And the LORD said to me, 'They have spoken well. 18'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19'And it shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him. 20'But the prophet who shall speak a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he shall speak in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' 21 "And you may say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22 "When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.
NAS
Cold Steel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Fightin TX Aggie: Alright, I read the articles. Now, most people regard me as a pretty bright fellow, but maybe I'm not so bright, because I did not see how any of those articles even attempted to take on the points made in this thread.


It is very likely that you are a bright fellow, but just was unaware of what you should be looking for possibly.

quote:
Fightin TX Aggie: There was a lot of discussion (or should I say misdirection) of interesting tidbits, but the authors did not address the "elephant in the living room."


What is the “elephant in the living room” in your estimation?

quote:
Fightin TX Aggie: Modano and the video seem to make two main points:

1) Facsimile 3 and the main scroll documents both relate to the fellow Horus, for whom this burial scroll was apparently written. So, it is highly likely that the scroll in the museum is the same scroll used by Smith. This refutes the claim (made in the original post above) that the scroll Smith used is lost.


That the scroll in the museum is “some” of the same scroll in the possession of Smith is not in question. That it is the entire scroll is the question at hand. John Gee recently published details from the personal journal of a Professor Gustavus Seyffarth,* who detailed his visit to the St. Louis museum at the time it housed two of the Joseph Smith mummies and some of the papyri (which Professor Seyffarth translated). He also noted that there was significant text attached to the facsimile. These mummies and papyri were known to have gone to the museum in Chicago, and notwithstanding the papyri found, are still presumed to have been destroyed by fire.

There is no question that this papyrus roll was significantly longer than the fragments still extant. This of course causes some significant problems for Ritner, who has just assured us that we could expect little expansion on the existing text. If the papyrus roll was really as long as Gee suggests (and there is some evidence to support this), then we have to wonder what it might have contained. Other accounts, contemporary with the translation.

There are numerous examples of ancient Egyptian religious papyri with multiple texts on them. For example, a fragmentary 18th Dynasty Book of the Dead in Cairo (JE 95575) contains accounting texts on the other side of the papyrus. Papyrus Vandier also has a Book of the Dead on the one side of the papyrus, but on other side is a tale of a Meryre who was sacrificed on an altar (an interesting parallel with the attempted sacrifice of Abraham in the Book of Abraham).
The Book of the Dead of Psenmines (Louvre 3129) and Pawerem (BM 10252) both also contain temple rituals, and two demotic funerary papyri, Papyrus Harkness and BM 10507, contain several different texts.

Thus it is neither unprecedented nor unreasonable that the papyrus on which this particular text of the Book of Breathings was written could also have contained a copy of the Book of Abraham.

*For a description and assessment of the journal entry, see John Gee, “Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the
Joseph Smith Papyri” in Disciple as Witness: Essays on Latter-day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 200), 175-217. The actual dimensions of the papyri as suggested by Gee are 13 cm X 320 cm. Only 68 cm of text are extant.

quote:
Fightin TX Aggie: 2) The drawing of "Abraham on the altar" clearly came from this scroll and is clearly a misunderstanding of the drawing.


Perhaps I can remind you of the words on the paper written by Kerry Shirts. He stated:
“But before taking a closer look, it is important to emphasize what many Egyptologists are insisting on today as never before, namely, the folly of giving just one interpretation and one only to any Egyptian representation. This is the pit into which Joseph Smith's critics have always fallen: ‘This cannot possibly represent "A" because it represents "B"!’ ‘The value of an Egyptian presentation,’ Eberhard Otto reminds us, ‘depended on seeing the greatest possible number of meanings in the briefest possible formulation.’ Heretofore, critics of the Joseph Smith explanations have insisted on the least possible number of meanings, namely one, to every item, and as a result have not only disagreed widely among themselves, but also exposed their efforts to drastic future revision. The Egyptians ‘considered it a particular nicety that symbols should possess multiple significance,’ wrote Henri Frankfort, ‘that one single interpretation should not be the only possible one.’

Michael Rhodes tells us: “A reasonable explanation is that the original illustrations drawn by Abraham had been modified and adapted for use by Hor, the owner of the papyrus. This would have been especially easy if a copy of the Book of Abraham was also on the same papyrus. What Joseph Smith then did with the facsimiles is similar to the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible—he gave the original meaning of Abraham’s illustrations, correcting for the distortions that had taken place over nearly two millennia. The same of course holds true for Facsimile 2.

But is there any evidence that, even in distorted form, these illustrations were associated with Abraham anciently? There is indeed. In an ancient Egyptian papyrus dating to roughly the first or second century AD there is a lion-couch scene similar to the one shown in Facsimile 1. Underneath the illustration the text reads “Abraham, who upon . . .”. There is a break in the text here so we do not know what word followed. The key point, however, is that an ancient Egyptian document from approximately the same time period as the papyri Joseph Smith owned, associates Abraham with a lion-couch scene like Facsimile 1.

quote:
Fightin TX Aggie: Together, these facts show that 1) we have the scroll in question


See above. Based on eyewitness testimony, we are missing part of the scroll in question.

quote:
Fightin TX Aggie: and 2) Joseph Smith either made up or just completely botched his interpretation.


One of the things we must keep in mind that the “translation” process was not the process of the modern Egyptologists. The word chosen to describe the translation process, "unfolded," as indicated elsewhere in the writings of Joseph Smith was one of revelation, and not research. That the Book of Abraham was received by direct revelation is confirmed by the disgruntled Warren Parrish after his apostasy. Here’s what he said after his own apostasy: "I have sat by his [Joseph Smith’s] side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of heaven."

If the Book of Abraham was “translated” as the Book of Moses was “translated,” (by revelation) then the question is what direct connection, if any, do the papyri have to the Book of Abraham?

quote:
Fightin TX Aggie: These facts also destroy any claim that the "Book of Abraham" is scripture. So, I have two questions: How important is the Book of Abraham to the LDS faith? If the Book of Abraham is untrustworthy, how can one trust any of the other writings of Joseph Smith?


What we must not do in understanding these “facts” is not jump to unwarranted conclusions. In answer to your first question, the Book of Abraham is very important to the LDS faith. In answer to your second, IMO the Book of Abraham is not untrustworthy and so the rest of the question is moot. Perhaps a statement from Hugh Nibley is particularly relevant here:

“The words of the prophets cannot be held to the tentative and defective tests that men have devised for them. Science, philosophy, and common sense all have a right to their day in court. But the last word does not lie with them. Every time men in their wisdom have come forth with the last word, other words have promptly followed. The last word is a testimony of the gospel that comes only by direct revelation. Our Father in heaven speaks it, and if it were in perfect agreement with the science of today, it would surely be out of line with the science of tomorrow. Let us not, therefore, seek to hold God to the learned opinions of the moment when he speaks the language of eternity.” (emphasis added).

My apologies if any of my responses above are a bit disjointed. I am trying to reply to this post in between patients.

Cold Steel
Fightin TX Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
See below.

[This message has been edited by Fightin TX Aggie (edited 7/19/2006 7:00a).]
ibmagg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Patriarch-The lack of completing the text of the the Book of Abraham had nothing to do with the Church not being fully restored. That was accomplished with the the first Vision, the coming forth of Book of Mormon, the restoration of the priesthood held anciently, as well as other keys of authority that Joseph had conferred on him by those who had held them anciently. What we have lost for a while is the greater detail about what the ancients knew about the pre-exisence, the war in heaven and the fall of Adam, etc.
Cold Steel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fightin TX Aggie, it may be a day or two before I can respond. We just put my wife's mother in the hospital and she just had surgury this morning.

Perhaps in the meantime you can pick up the book "A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri" by John Gee and/or John's article ""Eyewitness, Hearsay and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri," in the book "The Disciple As Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World In Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson"

Cold Steel

[This message has been edited by Cold Steel (edited 7/18/2006 3:32p).]
Hill Country Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ibm:
The royal priesthood ushered in by Messiah Yeshua has never needed to be restored. It's doing just fine, thank you.

No rituals needed for the royal priesthood, just faith in Messiah Yeshua and his sacrifice for everyone's sin; once for all.
ibmagg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hill Country Ag -it was taken from the earth after the apostles were killed. That is why God sent John the Baptist, Peter, James and John back to confer it upon man once again as it had been conferred upon them. In the 8th Chapter of Acts you learn first hand the fallacy of the precept of the priesthood of the "believer". Philip (the first deacon in the Church) held the Aaronic priesthood. Philip had been baptizing many in Samaria. BUT he had to send for Peter and john to lay hands on the baptised members and confer upon them the "gift of the Holy Ghost". Philip did not hold the Melchizadek priesthood thus he could not do it himself. What was the most telling was Simon, who was a newly baptised "believer" saw Peter confering the "gift of the Holy Ghost" on other and was so intrigued with this power, he attempted to purchase it from Peter. If Simon thought he held the priesthood because he was a "believer" he would never have offered to pay for it. If Simon had the priesthood authority he was attempting to purchase, Peter would have told him to save his money for he already had the authority. But he told Simon that his money was to perish with him to think that he could by these things of God. It is also important to understand that after the newly baptised members had the gift of the Holy Ghost conferred upon them by the laying on of hands, this did not give THEM the ability or authority to confer it on others. They had to be "ordained" to the priesthood by one who already held that authority.
OilfieldAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hogwash, Obfuscation, ignoring facts, ignorance of facts, head in the sand, refusal to hear logic, blatant attempts to bore you to death, hallmarks of the mormons....take it from one they attempted to brainwash(from birth) and fortunately found my way out. They mean well, but it's all based on a hoax. Yes, I resigned. Yes, I am an apostate! And I know there're many out there who say Aggies are a cult, too. But hey, being an Aggie is fun, and something I'm proud of. A mormon, not so much...could've lived without all that BS.
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.