The Book of Abraham: From Whence was it Derived?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Which contemporary, credible Egyptologist's translation agrees with Joseph Smith's?

See the linked articles I have referenced several times.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Could you point out specifically what linked article is from a contemporary, credible Egyptologist?

[_wenglund]

Here is what one respected Egyptologist had to say, and he is LDS no less:

In the preceding I have argued that (1) Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are not in agreement with the meanings which these figures had in their original, funerary, context; (2) anachronisms in the text of the book make it impossible that it was translated from a text written by Abraham himself; and (3) what we know about the relationship between Egypt and Asia renders the account of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham extremely implausible. If one accepts that Joseph Smith was using the facsimiles in a fashion which was not consonant with their original purpose, it does not make sense to then insist that "the Prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practices." I see no evidence that Joseph Smith had a correct conception of "Egyptian religious practices" or that a knowledge of such was essential to the production of the Book of Abraham.

Stephen Thompson received his Bachelors of Arts in Near Eastern Studies from Brigham Young University in 1984. He received his Masters of Arts and his Doctor of Philosophy in Egyptology from Brown University in 1988 and 1991, respectively.

Kevin,

At this point we are focused on the four jars and the lines depicting the fimament in the Facsimilis. If Thompson has something to say on those specific points, which may somehow Trump what is presented inn the several articles I linked to, then feel free to present it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Could you point out specifically what linked article is from a contemporary, credible Egyptologist?

See the citations in the linked articles. If you doubt what is being argued and backed up by supportive evidence, then feel free to provide counter-arguments from "a contemporary, credible Egyptologist" since that is so critical to you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Could you point out specifically what linked article is from a contemporary, credible Egyptologist?

See the citations in the linked articles. If you doubt what is being argued and backed up by supportive evidence, then feel free to provide counter-arguments from "a contemporary, credible Egyptologist" since that is so critical to you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So... none of them, right? The Egyptologists have already made their position quite clear. The translation provided by Joseph Smith doesn't correspond to the text at all.

[Gadianton]

It's not going to happen. One of the interesting things he said earlier was that he has faith in DCP. I would view this as putting faith in fair and farms that what they say is accurate and true. While this is not a surprise, the open minded tend to try and be skeptical of their own side as well. This is how I have approached the issues and was disappointed to see that what they say was far lass accurate then I had hoped. Wade like many apologists rely on fair and farms for answers and then post them here as though this is enough.

Wade's deliberate intellectual incuriosity, to me, at least, speaks of doctrinal insecurity.

Let's see, you dismissively rely on a wiki article that is based on 1860's Egyptology, and I rely on several article that appeal to contemporary Egyptologists, and yet you see me as the one with "deliberate intellectual incuriosity" and insecurities. That is quite funny, and appropose for someone posting anonymously, though aptly, as a wooden nickel. Kind of oozes credibility and personal confidence. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

So... none of them, right? The Egyptologists have already made their position quite clear. The translation provided by Joseph Smith doesn't correspond to the text at all.

Evidently, you don't care that the articles are supported by contemporary Egyptology--particularly in regards to the specific points in question. I thought as much. So much for the pretense of a reasoned discussion (and yet, I am the one that is supped to be deliberately intellectually incurious). You have your dogma, and I will leave you to it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dad of a Mormon]

So... none of them, right? The Egyptologists have already made their position quite clear. The translation provided by Joseph Smith doesn't correspond to the text at all.

Evidently, you don't care that the articles are supported by contemporary Egyptology--particularly in regards to the specific points in question. I thought as much. So much for the pretense of a reasoned discussion (and yet, I am the one that is supped to be deliberately intellectually incurious). You have your dogma, and I will leave you to it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually, I do care. But the articles you linked to have already been thoroughly refuted here and elsewhere. This is why you love link wars and debates by proxy. Because when you attempt to specifically investigate the claims made in the articles, they are easily shown to be false or misleading.

For example, the Kerry Shirts article has already been shown to be lacking in providing any real evidence for the gods mentioned in Abraham, appealing only to surface level similar phonemes without any real evidence to make the connection. He doesn't show any real connections, but knows that he doesn't have to because his audience is willing to grasp at any surface similarity and assume that it is that is sufficient.

So, since it has been clearly shown that the articles you linked to aren't reliable, would you like to try your hand at making a specific argument and supporting it with actual evidence?

[_Themis]

For example, the Kerry Shirts article has already been shown to be lacking in providing any real evidence for the gods mentioned in Abraham, appealing only to surface level similar phonemes without any real evidence to make the connection. He doesn't show any real connections, but knows that he doesn't have to because his audience is willing to grasp at any surface similarity and assume that it is that is sufficient.

Whats interesting is that a number members including believing members also see that this really is not realistic.

So, since it has been clearly shown that the articles you linked to aren't reliable, would you like to try your hand at making a specific argument and supporting it with actual evidence?

Again, not going to happen. Wade like many apologists do not go past what fair and farms has to say and accepts them without real questioning. Have faith in them brother. :)

[_wenglund]

Actually, I do care. But the articles you linked to have already been thoroughly refuted here and elsewhere. This is why you love link wars and debates by proxy. Because when you attempt to specifically investigate the claims made in the articles, they are easily shown to be false or misleading.

That is an interesrting, if not self-serving perception of the ongoing discussion. To your way of thinking, all that is required on your part is to say that the articles have been thoroughly refuted, and whalla, to you they are. And, of course that show just how much you truly care. LOL

For example, the Kerry Shirts article has already been shown to be lacking in providing any real evidence for the gods mentioned in Abraham, appealing only to surface level similar phonemes without any real evidence to make the connection.

And, of course what you just said is undeniable because, after all, that is what you have decided.

He doesn't show any real connections, but knows that he doesn't have to because his audience is willing to grasp at any surface similarity and assume that it is that is sufficient.

Certainly, a person of your intellectual acumen is above such presumed whimsical musings. There is no getting anything over on you.

So, since it has been clearly shown that the articles you linked to aren't reliable, would you like to try your hand at making a specific argument and supporting it with actual evidence?

I am sorry, but given your unarguably far superior scholastic bearing, there is nothing we LDS can offer than won't immediately be rendered less than inadequate. The debate is over. You carried the day even before it started. And, to think it only took little more than a dismissive wave of your caring hand.

What a hoot!!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Wade, you forgot to make an argument. I'm sure it was an oversight.