How is the Book of Abraham NOT a secular translation?

[_wenglund]

hat I find very curious about all this is that a number of critics, many of whom do not believe in revelation, contending that the KP translation was revelatory

I think you misunderstand the critics' point (or are disingenuously pretending to).

Perhaps I was mistaken. There are so many points being made by the critics, it is possible that I was confused when I spoke to just some of them--which is understandable given the possible varied usages of the term "revelatory" as well as potential confusion of perspectives.

When I speak of "revelatory," I am referring to that which is alleged by the Church and/or the translator, to have been derived of God, and where Joseph is presumed to be acting in the capacity of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. In short, I am speaking to those translations that Joseph and the Church may view as super-naturalistic.

When I speak of "academic," I am referring to that which is derived of man, through whatever man-made means, where Joseph is acting simply as a man. I am speaking to translations that Joseph and the Church may view as naturalistic.

Prior to Don's presentation, certain critics have long argued that KP translation, itself, was "revelatory." in the sense I just suggested.

After Don's presentation, some are still arguing this, while others are arguing that Joseph may have academically used the KEP to translate the KP character, but in Joseph's and the Church's view, the KEP, itself, was "revelatory".

What I, and other apologists as well as certain critics are arguing is that, in Joseph's view and the view of the Church, the KP translation was academic.

However, this leaves open the question whether Joesph and the Church viewed the KEP as "revelatory" or academic. And, from what I can tell so far from my research, I suspect they viewed it as academic.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Equality]

However, this leaves open the question whether Joesph and the Church viewed the KEP as "revelatory" or academic. And, from what I can tell so far from my research, I suspect they viewed it as academic.

I hope this helps.

Actually, it does. Thanks.

Perhaps you can help me understand in what manner the KEP was academic. Specifically, in what way was the translation of the character in question an academic translation? That's really the sticking point I am having with Don's argument, and I have not seen an apologist address that question directly yet. How did the character come to be identified as "ho e oop hah"? And where did the notion that that character means something about Ham and kingly descent, etc. come from? In other words, what is the secular or academic source for the translation of that character into English that is found both in the GAEL and now (assuming for the sake of argument that Don's identification of the character on the KP as the same character that is on the GAEL is accurate) the Kinderhook Plates?

[_wenglund]

However, this leaves open the question whether Joesph and the Church viewed the KEP as "revelatory" or academic. And, from what I can tell so far from my research, I suspect they viewed it as academic.

I hope this helps.

Actually, it does. Thanks.

Perhaps you can help me understand in what manner the KEP was academic. Specifically, in what way was the translation of the character in question an academic translation? That's really the sticking point I am having with Don's argument, and I have not seen an apologist address that question directly yet. How did the character come to be identified as "ho e oop hah"? And where did the notion that that character means something about Ham and kingly descent, etc. come from? In other words, what is the secular or academic source for the translation of that character into English that is found both in the GAEL and now (assuming for the sake of argument that Don's identification of the character on the KP as the same character that is on the GAEL is accurate) the Kinderhook Plates?

At this point, my assumption about the KEP being an academic creation is more by default--having found little if anything about it and how it was produced and what was or was not said about it that I would consider suggestive of a revelatory provenance (others, like Chris and Kevin may disagree). And, given how it has remained in relative obscurity and unimportance within the Church, strongly suggests to me that the Church doesn't consider it to be revelatory.

This is not to say that the KEP enterprise was entirely devoid of revelation or inspiration. At the very least, much of the English explanations were derived, I believe, from prior revelations, including portions of the Book of Abraham. It is possible, too, that those involved in the project may have felt inspired at various points. ANd, I haven't entirely ruled out the prospect that it could have been revelatory in some respects.

Be that as it may, the answers to your good questions are yet somewhat unknown, though several of us are currently working on divergent hypotheses. George Miller is apparently of the mind that the characters and sounds may have Masonic origins, which relate to the English Explanation. Will Schryver had similar thoughts regarding some of the EA/GAEL characters. For my own part, I am currently examining the relationship between the sounds and the English explanations to see if there is any discernible pattern. My preliminary findings suggest that there are, and that at least some of the composite sounds found throughout the various degree and parts of the GAEL may have been deduced academically from certain core sounds/explanations. Where those core sounds came from is anyone's guess.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_CaliforniaKid]

Where those core sounds came from is anyone's guess.

I'll give "anyone" exactly one guess.

[_wenglund]

Where those core sounds came from is anyone's guess.

I'll give "anyone" exactly one guess.

A Kabbalistic Egyptian priest during the Roman era?

Solomon Spalding?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_CaliforniaKid]

A Kabbalistic Egyptian priest during the Roman era?

I assume this means you agree with me that the sounds had to come through revelation.

Unless, of course, you're serious about the Solomon Spalding thing. ;)

[_wenglund]

A Kabbalistic Egyptian priest during the Roman era?

I assume this means you agree with me that the sounds had to come through revelation.

Unless, of course, you're serious about the Solomon Spalding thing. ;)

I was just teasing you. As yet, the provenance of the alleged core sounds is unknown to me, though I am willing to consider plausible hypothesis (no, I do not consider Spalding as plausible).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Equality]

I was just teasing you. As yet, the provenance of the alleged core sounds is unknown to me, though I am willing to consider plausible hypothesis (no, I do not consider Spalding as plausible).

Would one plausible hypothesis be that Joseph Smith just made it up, the same way he made up the gibberish on the Book of Abraham facsimiles?

[_wenglund]

Would one plausible hypothesis be that Joseph Smith just made it up, the same way he made up the gibberish on the Book of Abraham facsimiles?

I don't consider to Book of Abraham facsimilis to be gibberish or made up, so I can't answer your question as asked.

However, I am open to possibility that the GAEL was "made up," whether in part or whole, or by Joseph or others people involved.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_jon]

I don't consider to Book of Abraham facsimilis to be gibberish or made up, so I can't answer your question as asked.


Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I'm interested in how you manage to get past the fact that Non LDS and LDS experts alike can find no similarity between the actual translation of the facsimilie and the one Joseph came up with.
I can understand how your testimony on the Book of Abraham might survive by clinging to the 'missing papyrus' apologetic, but that cannot work for the facsimilies that physically exist for us to look at.
How do you rationalise that, to be able to believe Joseph got it right when everybody now realises (proven beyond any shadow of any doubt) that he got it wildly wrong?