You do not need to be an expert. You just need to examine the facts for yourself.

I have also read much of the FAIR/FARMS stuff on the Book of Abraham, and it mostly skirts the issues.

The truth is that the Book of Abraham is just a tough, killer issue for the LDS church. It drove Nibley off his rocker. He saw the truth - despite what he wrote. Nibley was a good man. He must have thought it was best not to shatter the faith of his church. He was so respected by the LDS faithful. He probably could not bear to be the man who brought down the whole church.

At any rate, if you ever researched the answers to my questions (which you never will), you will find that there are no satisfactory LDS answers. The truth is that the Book of Abraham is a fraud.

I challenge you, for the thousandth time, to really examine your faith. Do no rely on others. Investigate for yourself. It is the only way you will know the truth.As noted in the first post of this thread, even a 13-year-old could easily see how the BofA is a fabrication. All it takes is an honest investigation. Do not fear the truth. It will set you free.

[This message has been edited by El Sid (edited 12/30/2006 5:54p).]

Sid -I have examined it before I joined and have done so for decades. Everything I have learned and experienced is more faith confirming. As I have told you before, I have the wonderful advantage of seeing it operative in my life, the lives of my family and in the lives of my friends. My only truly great atribute is that I have a keen sense of the obvious. I can not look at a dirt clod and say if you hit agains the wall it will break open and there is a diamond inside. But, I can look at a diamond and say that is a diamond. Then when I put it to every conceivable test for a diamond and it proves to be a daimond, well...'nuff said. By any and every possible examination, my faith passes with the highest marks possible. I have a real frame of reference. You do not.

Read this new article carefully that I directed you to and tell me what you think.

IBMAGG

Let's look at the Facsimile 3 explanations side-by-side



The official LDS explanation (per Joseph Smith):

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.

---

Now, let's look at the Egyptologist's explanation (Dr. Klaus Baer):

quote:

---

"Facsimile No. 3" shows a man (5), his hand raised in adoration and a cone of perfumed grease and a lotus flower on his head (ancient Egyptian festival attire), being introduced by Maat (4), the goddess of justice, and Anubis (6), the guide of the dead, into the presence of Osiris (1), enthroned as king of the Netherworld. Behind Osiris stands Isis (2), and in front of him is an offering-stand (3) with a jug and some flowers on it.

http://www.xmission.com/~research/about/abraham.htm

---

These two explanations cannot be reconciled. Both cannot be correct.

So, who is right? Well, just for the sake of simplicity, look at the figure on the far left. Joseph Smith labels this figure as "King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head." Egyptologist Dr. Baer labels this figure as Isis.

I just took a quick trip to Wikipedia. Here are some images of Isis from Wikipedia:





And here is another:



What do your eyes tell you? Is the figure on the left "Pharoah" or is it Isis?

Sid, ibmagg's "defense" and your last post reminded me of something.

Cold Steel and/or ibmagg:

Here are two incontrovertible facts. Could you please respond to them in your own analysis?

Fact 1: The actual papyrus (pictured on the first page of this post) matches facsimile 1 but for the missing portions. The drawing from the papyrus is a common funerary scene, but the "missing" parts filled in by Joseph Smith are unknown in Egyptology. In other words Joseph Smith got it wrong when he attempted to complete the drawings. No competent (non-LDS) Egyptologist would say otherwise.

Fact 2: Facsimile 3 again represents a common Egyptian scene. I this case, the priest Horus is being led to the underworld. Joseph Smith's labels for this drawing are comical. It is not "Abraham" on the throne expounding on astrology. Even though there is a black skinned person on the drawing, he is no "slave." All the figures are misidentified. No competent (non-LDS) Egyptologist would say otherwise.

I have now asked these questions 4 or 5 times. Are you unable to respond?

Oh and ibmagg, what do your eyes tell you about Isis?

i think the correct question would be, what does your bosom tell you?

Coldsteel will answer this. He is the most knowledgeable of the two of us on this nit.

it's o.k. to say i don't know.

El Sid, my apologies for not getting back to this. Unfortunately I had a funeral of a friend to attend to the last couple of days and with that the work that has piled up and I don't know if I can get to this for a few days. Some of the things you have written here make me question your research into this subject. If you seriously believe the story that the Book of Abraham "drove Nibley off his rocker" then you apparently believe anything that is written by our critics while dismissing anything to the contrary. I can assure you that such was not the case.

So I question the value of spending any time trying to discuss this issue with you. As a wise man once told me "When a man asks for proof we can be pretty sure that proof is the last thing in the world he really wants. His request is thrown out as a challenge, and the chances are that he has no intention of being shown up. After all these years the Bible itself is still not proven to those who do not choose to believe it."

Well, in the mean time, many of the issues you have brought up, which have all been answered, and can be found at:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml
and
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/boa.shtml

Cold Steel

I'll admit I don't know the truth about Nibley. That said, what his daughter wrote makes sense to me at least from a logical standpoint. Nibley was immersed in this material, and he became quite informed on Egyptology. He was far too bright. I cannot honestly believe that he maintained any confidence in the BoA. He must have seen the truth.

I have read all of Jeff Lindsay's stuff on the boA, and while he is probably the best that the Mormon apologists have to offer on the subject, his analysis is far, far from satisfactory.

That is why I asked you to answer my questions in your own words.

Of course, if you are going to say, "Maybe it all has a double meaning - maybe it is both the funeral scroll of Horus AND the Book of Abraham," then don't bother. That is farce.

If you have some real analysis, I would like to read it.

Edit:

You will note that even Jeff Lindsay has no answer for Facsimile 3:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham2.shtml#f3

ibmagg's eyes do not lie to him. That is Isis on the far left, not pharoah. It is Osiris on the throne, not Abraham. The goddess Ma'at stands before the throne, not prince pharoah. There is no "Shulem" but rather the same Horus referenced in the hieroglyphs. Finally, there is no "black" slave "Olimlah," but rather Anubis.


[This message has been edited by El Sid (edited 1/3/2007 1:32p).]

quote:

---

So I question the value of spending any time trying to discuss this issue with you. As a wise man once told me "When a man asks for proof we can be pretty sure that proof is the last thing in the world he really wants. His request is thrown out as a challenge, and the chances are that he has no intention of being shown up. After all these years the Bible itself is still not proven to those who do not choose to believe it."

---

This seems like an easy way out of any debate or intelligent discussion of your faith. I welcome dissenting opinions and views from that of my own and do my best to explain where I stand and make a case for my faith. I would attempt to offer whatever proof I can in support of my beliefs which I hold so dear.

In fact, I, myself question my faith and confirm my beliefs time and time again. I beleive it is a healthy means of spiritual growth.

Sid - A better explanation is, I don't really care. We don't begin to have all the information or material that Joseph had to work with in this matter. To me, this is a nit. But the critics are despateely seeking anything they can, as they have utterly failed to discredit the Book of Mormon.

Sid, you have not answered one of my questions. Have you "read" either the Book of Abraham or Book of Moses contained in the Pearl of Great Price?

quote:

---

We don't begin to have all the information or material that Joseph had to work with in this matter. To me, this is a nit.

---

Wrong on both counts.

I think you can agree in principle that if Joseph invented the Book of Abraham not from the papyrus but from his own imagination - and presented to his church as scripture - that all of his work is called into question. If you cannot believe JS on the BofA, then you cannot believe him on any of the rest.

So, clearly this is no "nit."

What we are left with then is the question of the BofA itself. It is a very important investigation for you to make.

quote:

---

El Sid: You will note that even Jeff Lindsay has no answer for Facsimile 3

---

Did you miss Michael Rhodes comment?

quote:

---

Joseph Smith explained that Facsimile 3 represents Abraham sitting on the pharaoh's throne teaching principles of astronomy to the Egyptian court. Critics have pointed out that the second figure, which Joseph Smith says is the king, is the goddess Hathor (or Isis). There are, however, examples in other papyri, not in the possession of Joseph Smith, in which the pharaoh is portrayed as Hathor. In fact, the whole scene is typical of Egyptian ritual drama in which costumed actors played the parts of various gods and goddesses....

---

Cold Steel

El Sid, Why we are waiting for me to get caught up on a few things, why don't you address page 3 of Jeff Lindsay's website about the Book of Abraham? He points out some of the vast body of ancient documents that confirm numerous details in the Book of Abraham that are not found in the Bible, and could not have been known to Joseph Smith.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/boa.shtml

Cold Steel

Rhodes' comment appears to have little relation to the question I raised, and it misstates the criticism of the 'translation," but let's discuss.

What do you make of Rhodes' comment?

Do you believe that Facsimile 3 is a drawing of an "Egyptian ritual drama in which costumed actors played the parts of various gods and goddesses"? If so, you agree it has no relation to the Book of Abraham. If so, in other words, Joseph Smith was equally wrong.

Or perhaps you believe it is a drawing of Abraham participating in an Egyptian ritual drama in which costumed actors played the parts of various gods and goddesses. Again, this would depart from the text of the BofA, and it seems unlikely that the Abraham of the Bible would agree to act in a drama where he portrayed an imaginary Egyptian god.

So, exactly why do you find Rhodes' comment of any interest?

While reading Lindsay's comments about Facsimilie 3, I wanted to read the context as well, so I perused the book of Abraham. Chapter 4 recounts the Genesis story of creation word for word, save for one *minor* detail. Anywhere a Christian or Jew would expect to see "God" or "the Lord" or any singular form of a term for our Deity, I see the plural form of "The Gods" as in Abraham 4:3

quote:

---

And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.

---

as compared with Genesis 1:3

quote:

---

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

---

Certainly LDS holds to the same book of Genesis as a Christian would, since the writing of Genesis and the Torah (first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible) predates any supposed migration of Jewish people to the Americas in 600 BC.

Through my limited knowledge of the Old Testament, I have learned it was carefully copied, word for word from previous versions. Those who did this work simply did not make mistakes.

Lindsay almost seems to admit that the critics have the upper hand, and he reverts to pure faith despite the facts. This is from his summary:

quote:

---

Even if one insists on considering only intellectual factors, there is evidence which suggests - in my opinion - that it may be rash to simply dismiss or ignore the Book of Abraham....The real proof that the Book of Abraham is authentic must be based on a spiritual witness obtained through study and prayer, not from the commentary of man. Those who know, through the power of the Holy Ghost, that the Book of Mormon is true and that Joseph was a true prophet called to restore the Church of Christ, should not be swayed by the seemingly powerful attacks of critics. On a purely intellectual level, these attacks can be rejected or put on hold pending further data. On a spiritual level, the Book of Abraham contains valuable truths that deserve our attention.

Certainly many questions remain, so let's keep looking for answers - patiently.

---

Honestly, from this thread, it is really a slam dunk against the Book of Abraham. Looking patiently for answers is sort of like Linus waiting patiently in the pumpkin patch for the "Great Pumpkin." Even Sally eventually figures out the wait is useless.

82 -A good point that you bring up. This will be my last post for tonight but hopefully this one will answer your question. By the way, what Church do you go to?

The answer to your question is written in Moses 2:1. So, let us read:

"And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the beginning and the End the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created the heaven and the earth upon which thou standest."

Christ is the God of the Old Testament (Ex. 6:3). In Moses 2:1, Our Heavenly Father is saying that he made the worlds through his son. In Hebrews 1:2, it states:

"[God]Hath in these last days spoken unto by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds."

Thus, the Pearl of Great Price is correct in "both" verses. God the Father created the earth through His Son Jesus Christ. When it says "Gods" it refers to both God the Father and God the Son (remember we have established they are separate beings). Of Course the Book of Genesis is also correct when it says "God created the heaven and the earth"(Gen. 1:1). It could just as easily said "the Gods" again meaning Jesus under the direction of God the Father.

You might also remember Gen. 1:26 where it says "Let us make man in our image after our likeness." It did not say "Let me make man in my image and after my likeness."



IBMAGG

IBMAGG,

You've mentioned in a couple of posts now that God is not a God of confusion. If so, why does that present confusion?

Could God have been speaking to the celestial beings or in fact all of earth itself when He said Gen 1:26?

Regardless, Gen 1:27 reverts back to the singular where "God created man in His image."

(See http://www.israelofgod.org/genesis1.htm for a more detailed look into the grammar if you like.)

Regarding Hebrews 1, the author goes on to say (the Son) is the exact representation of His (God's) being. But, please, lets not get into the issue of the Holy Trinity, that is a concept Christians have trouble with, let alone the differences held between the Christian view of the Trinity and the Mormon take on the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

If God is a God of clarity and not confusion, wouldn't the explantion I gave be more clear? After all, God ends up making man in His image, not "our image."

How is it that a book written by the originator of the Jewish people was not included in their Scriptures?

If the means of recording history in Abraham's time by Abraham's people was indeed ancient Egyptian, why did they switch to Hebrew, even after being enslaved by the Egyptians whilst mainntaining their Hebrew?

Why did the gods of the BoA have to wait on their creation to "obey" (BoA 4:18)? My God observed his creation was "good" (Gen 1:18)

In response the the church question, I claim no specific denomination, though I was raised in the Methodist church, I am not a Methodist. I am simply a Christian. I beleive Jesus died on the cross for my sins and through faith alone do I receive atonement for them and His grace. There is nothing I could ever do to earn this.

Fine 82 -where do you go to Church?

-God is not the author of confusion. That is why the different sects are not guided by the Holy Ghost nor are they "His". They are simply "man made" (the most charitable description) organizations that teach for religion the philosphies of men mingled with scripture. Not so in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

-If we were were working together but I presided, I could say, hey 82, my son, let's make man in our image after our likeness. Then after the fact, it would be said of me that I made man in my image after my likeness. Why? Because as the Eternal Father, I was in charge; you were my son. No, I think my explantion is more clear and would justify the plural and singular use of the pronoun.

-The different creeds with their different doctrines are proof positve, that since God is not a God of confusion, He is not the source of their doctrines or creeds. There was no confusion among the apostles when they were on the earth in the primitive Church. Neither are there with His Latter-day apostles and prophets.

-because many writings of the OT and NT are missing, if, for example, you are referring to the Book of Abraham or the Book of Moses. As an example in the OT: Read Ex. 24:4-7 that refers to the "Book of the Covenant"; In Num. 21:14 it talks about "The Book of the Wars of the Lord"; In Josh. 10:13 & 2 Sam. 1:18 it talks about "The Book of Jasher"; In 1 Sam. 10:25, "The Book of Statues"; 1 Kings 11:41, "The Book of the Acts of Solomon"; 1 Chron. 29:29, "The Books of Nathan & Gad; 2 Chron:15, "The Book of Shemaiah"; 2 Chron. 20:34, "The Book of Jehu"; 2 Chron. 9:29, "The Prophecy of Ahijah and Visions of Iddo"; 2 Chron. 26:22, "The Acts of Uzziah, Written by Isaiah"; 2 Chron. 33:19, "The Sayings of the Seers." What happened to all of these? I think you get my point.

-It did not take long for the elements to "obey" They existed spiritually before they existed temporally. The world was not created out of nothing; that is a false and uninspired notion. The elements are eternal and can never be annihilated. The Latter-day Saints got a good chuckle when Einstein proved the doctine correct, when he declared that "matter can neither be created or destroyed". The word create, came from the word baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize, the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos - chaotic matter which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized. They had no beginning and can have no end.

When "they" looked down on what they had created, they declared it was good!



IBMAGG

quote:

---

There was no confusion among the apostles when they were on the earth in the primitive Church. Neither are there with His Latter-day apostles and prophets.

---

I find this pill hard to swallow. There was immense confusion in the early church. Take the whole minsitry to Jews vs. ministry to Gentiles issue. The covenent of circumcision in Christendom. Grace by faith or works.
The NT wouldn't contain Paul's epistles or the first few chapters in Revelations if the early Church and its Apostles did not have some major disagreements. Refer to the history behind specific epistles if you must.

To say the LDS is without confusion is also laughable. Wikipedia at least would agree.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism#Denominations Maybe all of them had different revelations?

Reference to other books not contained in the OT by the OT does not prove the existence of other books not mentioned by the OT.

I don't believe Einstein was the one who stated the Law of Conservation of Mass. Antoine Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry was the one who postulated this. Last time I checked, this law refered to temporal things, not "spiritual elements." Are you saying God could not have created something from nothing? Is this restricting God to align with your beliefs? Of course, by Einstein's famous equation, matter could have been created from energy.

Back to the BoA, what say you of Joseph Smith's description of the Canopic Jars in Facsimile 1?

I am currently the member of no church. Am still searching for one that fits. I don't subscribe to any particular denominaion either.

82 -You must read more carefully. The confusion that reigned in the early Church was among the members, not between the Apostles. That is one of the puposes of the office of an Apostle and why, as the scriptures say,it was to remain until we all come ito theunity of the faith.

The epistles that the Apostles were constantly having to write were to clear up the confusion that was caused by those among them who taught error and false doctrines; the "wolves in sheep's clothing" if you will.

There is no confusion among the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. Those little groups who broke broke off have dwindled into almost nothingness, and their leaders were excommunicated. The largest one has even had to change its name but its fate is certain also.

I don't know the answer to your last question.

But since you are looking for a church, make the effort to come check us out up close and personal. No one will "jump on you" and try to convert you on the spot, etc. but you will notice a different and postive Spirit. Good luck!

IBMAGG

quote:

---

There is no confusion among the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. Those little groups who broke broke off have dwindled into almost nothingness, and their leaders were excommunicated. The largest one has even had to change its name but its fate is certain also.

---

I thought the answer would be somewhat along those lines.

When I get my hands on my Bible this evening I will look into the book of Acts and address the issue of differences in the early church amogst the Apostles themselves, regarding issues such as ministry to Gentiles, eating of formerly forbidden foods, and the act of circumcision.

specifically when Paul confront Peter in full view of believers - i consider that 'confusion'.

82 & JRod -look forward to that. But bear in mind, the disagreements, few as they were, were setled how - by revelation; immediately after that, no "confusion". In addition I noticed that Paul did not start a new Church over it nor did Peter.

By the way give me the chapter & verse on the incident and I will give you some more comment. Thanks.

IBMAGG

Acts 15 gives an account of the debate over circumcision at the Council at Jerusalem. Granted, God spoke directly to Peter when he was told "do not call anything impure that God has mand clean." But the whole reason for the council at Jerusalem is to reconcile an early split in the Church. Some wanted all Christians to follow the law of Moses, others said it was not necessary.

I think it is important to note that those who dissented, those who believed Gentiles must be circumsized are referred to as "believers." Holding to circumcision, baptism, or commuunion do not save you. Only through faith in Christ alone can you be saved. All churches teach this. Its like believing in a "young earth" creation, "old earth" creation, or simply a theistic evolution. One, you take the book of Genesis to the letter, another, an interpretation, and the other the book of Genesis is merely an explaination of the order of things. Believing in one or the other has no impact on your salvation, yet Christians are split over it.

I am glad to see you noticed it was by revelation that Peter and the other "believers" learned the correct answer. The law of Moses was the main stumbling block for the Jews in recoginizing Jesus and accepting Him as Saviour and Redeemer. They worshipped the "Law" to the extent they never figured out that the "Law Giver" was amongst them, that he had fulfilled the law and changes were thus being made, for it was a new day.

Only by revelation will you ever know God's will. Faith is where it starts, but that is only the beginning of the journey. It is the "first principle" of the gospel. There are others, which if not followed will allow your faith to avail you nothing. And when you worship a Christ that does not and has never existed, you are in a world of hurt. Why? For as the scripture says "This is Life Eternal, to know thee, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." It is imperative that we know and understand the true nature and character of God the Father and His Only Begotten Son. Worshipping the concept of Christ won't get anyone where they want to go. The devils believe in Christ, in fact they "know" who Christ is and tremble. Doesn't do them any good.

IBMAGG

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 1/5/2007 9:39a).]

Actually, the council did not receive revelationand that revelation (the sheet of food) was not presented as evidence to the council. Rather, James drew from Amos 9:11-12 to give his rationale.

Is this not also revelation?

The Holy Spirit works in individuals - not in church denominations.

The Holy Spirit has revealed things to me, has guided me and protected me.

As a believing Christian who places my love, devotion, obedience and trust in Jesus Christ, who died for my sins and was resurrected, I am part of Christ's church.

This argument which you guys are having is unrelated to your salvation. Focus on Jesus rather than on some particular religious organization!



p.s. Hasn't this thread been hijacked a bit? I would like to see answers to the Book of Abraham questions.

[This message has been edited by Modano (edited 1/5/2007 11:07a).]

It is not explicit divine revelation, which is what I believe you meant by "revelation" in this discussion. While God most likely had a hand in guiding the words and the flow of discussion in the council of Jerusalem, it is not explicitly noted.

(Maybe they didn't bring their seer stones to the council with them to look at the OT.)

Maybe it was because they spoke the language, do you think?

IBMAGG

quote:

---

I would like to see answers to the Book of Abraham questions.

---