How is the Book of Abraham NOT a secular translation?

[_harmony]

*crickets*

[_stemelbow]

From the conversations surrounding Don's character connection between the GAEL and the Kinderhoax Plates, it is surmised that Joseph didn't attempt to use any revelatory skills (there is no evidence to categorically show that he did) so therefore it was a secular translation.

Well, if we apply that same logic to the translation of the Book of Abraham doesn't it match exactly, making it also a secular, non-revelatory translation?

There is no evidence, as far as I'm aware that Joseph Smith did much more than identify one brief summary of what the Kinderhook plates contained. He didn't follow through with any attempt to actually translate it, per se. on the other hand, Joseph Smith did indeed attempt a translation, and not knowing Egyptian he maintained that translation was revelatory, no?

In the end I think you're pursuing a non-point.

[_harmony]

In the end I think you're pursuing a non-point.

In the end, it's all a non-point. The thing was a fake. Might just as well have been comparing it to Cheerios.

[_wenglund]

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 am not sure you are correct about your so-called "fact". There have been some similarities noted by LDS Egyptologists.

But, in response to the gist of your question, the way I get past the lack of conformity between Joseph's revelatory translation and the translations of modern Egyptologist, is to prayerfully consider whether it is of significance to my progress in faith within the restored gospel that there be conformity. The answer that I have come to is that it isn't.

Instead, what is of varied and relative importance is the content of what as revealed.

Also, as explained on another thread, I don't look to Egyptologists for the final word on the "rightness" of the translation, not just because I don't view the learning of men to be the best source for discerning the revelations of God, but also because Egyptologists can at best give a basic Egyptological translation. They may lack the skills to see possible hidden mysteries.

Think of it as like the difference between how Greek and Hebrew linguists have translated the Bible as contrasted with how Kabbalists and Midrashists translate the same.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Buffalo]

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 am not sure you are correct about your so-called "fact". There have been some similarities noted by LDS Egyptologists.

The only one I'm aware of is identifying the four jars with the four corners of the earth. So a partial hit there, and everything else wrong.

As unimpressive as that is, it's even less impressive when you realize how often Joseph used that "four corners of the earth" thing.

[_Themis]

The only one I'm aware of is identifying the four jars with the four corners of the earth. So a partial hit there, and everything else wrong.

As unimpressive as that is, it's even less impressive when you realize how often Joseph used that "four corners of the earth" thing.

It's no surprise that Wade does not go into detail here. He also had a chance on the other thread asking for evidences for the Book of Abraham. He like many others in their respective religions will ignore the facts and go with their feelings they have interpreted as coming from God. To bad we can't get any common ground on what they mean. Many LDS though recognize that the spiritual is not a reliable means of getting accurate information, so know better then to ignore the facts. This really is the major hurdle or road block for most religions, and why so many cannot cannot recognize their own false beliefs.

[_jon]

Also, as explained on another thread, I don't look to Egyptologists for the final word on the "rightness" of the translation, not just because I don't view the learning of men to be the best source for discerning the revelations of God, but also because Egyptologists can at best give a basic Egyptological translation. They may lack the skills to see possible hidden mysteries.


Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks Wade,

It seems that you believe that Joseph got it right and everybody else is wrong. That's fair enough, that's your belief. I don't happen to agree with you.
Some people still believe the earth is flat...

[_wenglund]

It seems that you believe that Joseph got it right and everybody else is wrong.

Not really. I am not an Egyptologist, but I have no problem accepting that they have correctly provided the common and literal meaning for the glyphs with their translations. It is possible for each to be correct in their own right, even though they disagree.

That's fair enough, that's your belief. I don't happen to agree with you. Some people still believe the earth is flat...

And, I can respect that you may view things differently,. Some people can't think beyond the narrow confines of the literal, Their black/white inner eyes may lack the necessary development to see the rich layers of esoteric and figurative meaning. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dad of a Mormon]

It seems that you believe that Joseph got it right and everybody else is wrong.

Not really. I am not an Egyptologist, but I have no problem accepting that they have correctly provided the common and literal meaning for the glyphs with their translations. It is possible for each to be correct in their own right, even though they disagree.

I was thinking about this, and it occurred to me that if what you say is true, then maybe your claim above could also have a dual meaning. So I think that what you are saying is that the LDS church is false and Joseph Smith is a fraud.

I'm pretty sure that is a correct spiritual translation of your post. Using your logic, it may be different than a normal reading, but they could both be right, even though they disagree. If not, why not?

Or it could be that Joseph Smith didn't know what he was doing and his translation is just as worthless as my spiritual translation of your claims.

[_Themis]

I was thinking about this, and it occurred to me that if what you say is true, then maybe your claim above could also have a dual meaning. So I think that what you are saying is that the LDS church is false and Joseph Smith is a fraud.

I'm pretty sure that is a correct spiritual translation of your post. Using your logic, it may be different than a normal reading, but they could both be right, even though they disagree. If not, why not?

Or it could be that Joseph Smith didn't know what he was doing and his translation is just as worthless as my spiritual translation of your claims.

Actually, I think what Wade is trying to bring up here is the hidden meaning theory. Problem is this is just made up with no evidence. Not unlike the catalyst theory which also has no evidence to support it. A spiritual translation would be more like the catalyst theory, but I suppose they could break it into two, one being inspired fiction, and the other being inspired historical story that really happened. These theories really are just an excuse to ignore the facts.