Canucklehead wrote:However, I wonder if someone could explain to me why the KEPA documents matter in evaluating the Book of Abraham. Isn't this discussion missing the point here a bit?
I was wondering the same thing. Maybe someone conversant with all of this can tell us neophytes exactly what is at stake with this debate.
Canucklehead wrote:I mean, we have the facsimiles published directly in the Mormon canon alongside Joseph Smith' "translations" and, surprise surprise, they don't match up. Isn't that enough direct evidence to conclude that Joseph Smith was simply pulling stuff out of his butt to impress gullible audiences?
It's enough for me, pending a compelling case being made for why it shouldn't....
TrashcanMan79 wrote:Maybe someone conversant with all of this can tell us neophytes exactly what is at stake with this debate.
Um, hello, i just told you. From the critic point of view, it helps establish that Joseph Smith used the extant papyri to 'translate' the Book of Abraham.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
TrashcanMan79 wrote:Maybe someone conversant with all of this can tell us neophytes exactly what is at stake with this debate.
Um, hello, I just told you.
You did. Sorry. I post while at work, and there's sometimes a long stretch of time between starting a post and actually submitting it. Your explanation wasn't there when I started, but thanks for it!
TrashcanMan79 wrote:Maybe someone conversant with all of this can tell us neophytes exactly what is at stake with this debate.
Um, hello, I just told you.
You did. Sorry. I post while at work, and there's sometimes a long stretch of time between starting a post and actually submitting it. Your explanation wasn't there when I started, but thanks for it!
No prob.
Conversely, the apologists would like to 'distance' Joseph Smith from the KEP, and thereby claim 'the scribes did it' - thus, the KEP are basically meaningless - and that's one less piece of evidence linking Joseph Smith to the extant papyri.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Canucklehead wrote:However, I wonder if someone could explain to me why the KEPA documents matter in evaluating the Book of Abraham. Isn't this discussion missing the point here a bit? I mean, we have the facsimiles published directly in the Mormon canon alongside Joseph Smith' "translations" and, surprise surprise, they don't match up. Isn't that enough direct evidence to conclude that Joseph Smith was simply pulling stuff out of his butt to impress gullible audiences?
I think it's easier to shrug off one or two nails-in-the-coffin than a whole lot of them. The KEP are just another nail.
Who Knows wrote:Will - let me ask you a quick question.
Do you really think Joseph Smith could translate egyptian?
In other words, do you really think he had a text, that, if still in existence, and translated today by egyptologists, would translate into the text of the Book of Abraham?
Somehow I don't think you will ever get direct answers to those two questions. They blow away too much of the smoke, and put all the mirrors out of alignment - especially the second one.
Canucklehead wrote:However, I wonder if someone could explain to me why the KEPA documents matter in evaluating the Book of Abraham. Isn't this discussion missing the point here a bit? I mean, we have the facsimiles published directly in the Mormon canon alongside Joseph Smith' "translations" and, surprise surprise, they don't match up. Isn't that enough direct evidence to conclude that Joseph Smith was simply pulling stuff out of his butt to impress gullible audiences?
I think it's easier to shrug off one or two nails-in-the-coffin than a whole lot of them. The KEP are just another nail.
Yes, I suppose that's true. Thank you (and Who Knows) for answering.
Would either of you also mind explaining another basic aspect of this to me? Will is claiming (if I understand) that the KEP are not transcriptions of oral dictation, but are re-copies of another document. So, does anyone suggest what other document the scribes were copying from?
Who Knows wrote:Will - let me ask you a quick question.
Do you really think Joseph Smith could translate egyptian?
In other words, do you really think he had a text, that, if still in existence, and translated today by egyptologists, would translate into the text of the Book of Abraham?
Somehow I don't think you will ever get direct answers to those two questions. They blow away too much of the smoke, and put all the mirrors out of alignment - especially the second one.
I just read through an old thread on this topic and Will specifically stated that he didn't think that Joseph Smith could translate egyptian, BUT that Joseph Smith never claimed that he could. What was funny was when you supplied two crystal clear references showing that Joseph Smith actually DID claim to be able to translate egyptian and Will never returned to the thread.
Who Knows wrote:Will - let me ask you a quick question.
Do you really think Joseph Smith could translate egyptian?
In other words, do you really think he had a text, that, if still in existence, and translated today by egyptologists, would translate into the text of the Book of Abraham?
Somehow I don't think you will ever get direct answers to those two questions. They blow away too much of the smoke, and put all the mirrors out of alignment - especially the second one.
I just read through an old thread on this topic and Will specifically stated that he didn't think that Joseph Smith could translate egyptian, BUT that Joseph Smith never claimed that he could. What was funny was when you supplied two crystal clear references showing that Joseph Smith actually DID claim to be able to translate egyptian and Will never returned to the thread.
Gosh thanks Canuklehead! It's nice to know I have made an impact (blushing ...). Do you by any chance have a link to the thread in which my nervous brilliance was so tellingly demonstrated?
The problem about effective posting against apologists on this board is that they do just as Mr Schryver seems to have done in the case you mention - they say nothing, and just go away for a while. When they eventually come back, they act as if the hit had never been made.
I suppose that in the interval they have been fasting, praying and generally getting their testimonies back together again. One can only hope that in the long run there will be enough cumulative damage to ensure that the bits just can't be glued together anymore, and they eventually join the rest of us on the Dark Side ...
Canucklehead if you are interested in reading up on the Book of Abraham stuff over the past few years, you might want to try this corner of the web. I set it aside to discuss the basics and the latest in the online debates.
You see the same thing over and over. Check out the thread in response to coggins. The guy really thought nothing had changed in 40 years.
My discovery of the Book of Abraham controversy is what led to me abandoning faith in the LDS Church.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein