The Book of Abraham: From Whence was it Derived?

[_wenglund]

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

That is very charitable of you to say. But, we all know that given my legendary deliberate intellectual incuriousity, anything I say would invariably melt like ice under the laser-sharp brightness of your and Themis and Buffallo's white-hot intellect. So, why even try?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Themis]

This is Wades way of saying he cannot provide some reasonable requests for evidence and sources that support his assertions from fair and farms. Not unexpected. Still waiting Wade.

[_wenglund]

This is Wades way of saying he cannot provide some reasonable requests for evidence and sources that support his assertions from fair and farms. Not unexpected. Still waiting Wade.

Themis has me figured out, and so there I go melting once again under the white-hot intellect of my opponents. I mean, here I thought I had supplied several well thought out articles that cite contemporary Egyptology, but according to the preeminent authorities I have been interacting with here, that doesn't amount to evidence. After all, the articles are written by LDS who are associated with FARMS and FAIR, and thus can't possibly be expected to have anything of merit to say. If only I had a Wiki artcle based on Egyptology from over 170 years ago, then maybe I would have a prayer. But, I don't.

So, again, why try?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Themis]

This is Wades way of saying he cannot provide some reasonable requests for evidence and sources that support his assertions from fair and farms. Not unexpected. Still waiting Wade.

Themis has me figured out, and so there I go melting once again under the white-hot intellect of my opponents. I mean, here I thought I had supplied several well thought out articles that cite contemporary Egyptology, but according to the preeminent authorities I have been interacting with here, that doesn't amount to evidence. After all, the articles are written by LDS who are associated with FARMS and FAIR, and thus can't possibly be expected to have anything of merit to say. If only I had a Wiki artcle based on Egyptology from over 170 years ago, then maybe I would have a prayer. But, I don't.

So, again, why try?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Still waiting Wade. Buffalo has made some reasonable requests for you to back some of your assertions. Until then we can only conclude you lack the evidence. Like I said before, it would be helpful if you went beyond what Fair and farms assertions.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

This is Wades way of saying he cannot provide some reasonable requests for evidence and sources that support his assertions from fair and farms. Not unexpected. Still waiting Wade.

Themis has me figured out, and so there I go melting once again under the white-hot intellect of my opponents. I mean, here I thought I had supplied several well thought out articles that cite contemporary Egyptology, but according to the preeminent authorities I have been interacting with here, that doesn't amount to evidence. After all, the articles are written by LDS who are associated with FARMS and FAIR, and thus can't possibly be expected to have anything of merit to say. If only I had a Wiki artcle based on Egyptology from over 170 years ago, then maybe I would have a prayer. But, I don't.

This is what I mean when I say you engage in argument by proxy. I looked at the articles. Others have looked at the articles. Based on the articles, we have made specific requests to back up certain assertions. Unfortunately, these requests seem to always go unanswered.

The articles, of course, are always going to have the appearance of presenting a case for the Book of Abraham because that is their purpose. Whether they are actually successful or not means really examining their premises, asking if there is evidence to back them up, etc. These are the type of questions and requests that never get a response.

Oh, and give yourself some credit. You do have a prayer. You just don't have an argument. Or not one that you seem willing to make and defend.

[_Buffalo]

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

See the linked articles I have referenced several times.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The article doesn't provide any contemporary, credible Egyptologists saying that Joseph Smith's translation is accurate. Can you provide another source - preferably a direct source?

[_Buffalo]

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-

If you look closely, you'll see that the nickle in my avatar isn't wood but metal, of the buffalo/Indian head type. My user name is, after all, buffalo.

Is this your way of admitting that you don't have any credible Egyptologists, contemporary or otherwise, who will back up Joseph's translation?

[_Kevin Graham]

I realize how torturous it is for the critics to engage arguments that run counter to their position, but I am not about to let this dissuade me from pursuing those legitimate lines of reasoning

Wade, you have no argument nor do you have a line of reasoning. Your method is one of the oldest tricks in the apologetic books. All you do is reference some lame article written by an apologist and leave it at that. You think that settles the matter. This in and of itself illustrates the intellectual bankruptcy of your position. You don't know enough about the matter to discuss it on a serious level. So when something in your article is challenged, you don't know how to defend it other than to reiterate the same assertion over and over again. When pressed to explain why no Egyptologist outside BYU believes Joseph Smith got anything right, you're left with diversionary tactics, and you do this by attacking those who have the intellectual fortitude to probe deeper, and not blindly accept the conclusions of career apologists.

And the reason apologists like Dan Peterson and John Gee write articles instead of debating the points in an open forum, is because they don't want feedback or criticism because that would reveal all the holes in their presentations. They want to lecture at a pulpit where they know their audience (naïve LDS members looking for any reason to believe they can get their minds on) will be more inclined to bow down in fawning praise - even when it is obvious they have no idea what was just said - as opposed to offering critical feedback that challenges their claims.

In the end, you're left with a couple of apologists who work for the Church, claiming Joseph Smith got anything right with his translations. But even they do this while ignoring the other 98% he indisputably got wrong.

All you're then left with is this mentality that Egyptian is changing all the time and so maybe one day it will change enough to validate Smith's translations. This is the deception played by BYU's scholars.

As long as stuff keeps changing, then that is reason enough for them to hold off judgement, all the while pretending this shows they have an "open mind."

[_DrW]

Just checked back to see how Wade was doing.

He has apparently left the field (and without responding to my questions for him).

Probably a wise decision on his part. At some point, it is time to stop digging.