The Book of Abraham - Shifting sands

[_aussieguy55]

On the MAD discussing pro and anti arguments - this one on the Book of Abraham

"4.) Book of Abraham
While Apoligists will see authentic themes in the translation and will argue that we may possibly not have the original Papayri in their whole form, we find critics here not budging. They see from what we do have that rather then a document tied in any way to abraham, it is a common egytpian funeral text.

It is almost incredulous to critics that the Church claims this is an inspired translation.

Pro Response – some apologist take the stand that this is not normal translation as you and I understand it. That essentially the papryi acted as a prompt to initiate the revealing of the book of Abraham from God to Joseph and that the papryi very well may have been unrelated, though Joseph may have assumed otherwise.

So Smith thought he was translating but it was really just revealed to him. Is the missing papyri theory now dead?

Human beings can be really stupid in their reasoning

[_Tobin]

On the MAD discussing pro and anti arguments - this one on the Book of Abraham

"4.) Book of Abraham
While Apoligists will see authentic themes in the translation and will argue that we may possibly not have the original Papayri in their whole form, we find critics here not budging. They see from what we do have that rather then a document tied in any way to abraham, it is a common egytpian funeral text.

It is almost incredulous to critics that the Church claims this is an inspired translation.

Pro Response – some apologist take the stand that this is not normal translation as you and I understand it. That essentially the papryi acted as a prompt to initiate the revealing of the book of Abraham from God to Joseph and that the papryi very well may have been unrelated, though Joseph may have assumed otherwise.

So Smith thought he was translating but it was really just revealed to him. Is the missing papyri theory now dead?

Human beings can be really stupid in their reasoning

I hope the missing papyrus theory is dead. The whole concept is stupid. Joseph Smith had NO ability to read or understand Egyptian and his speculations about the characters and facsimiles are ridiculous. The Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the papyrus except as an impetus for what was shown to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith's mistaken impression about the papyrus otherwise just shows his human failings and lack of ability in this area.

[_Drifting]

The Apologists are clearly anti-Mormon's who need to repent and get into line behind the official canonised explanation of the Book of Abraham...

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus. (See History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51.)

[_son of Ishmael]

Pro Response – some apologist take the stand that this is not normal translation as you and I understand it. That essentially the papryi acted as a prompt to initiate the revealing of the book of Abraham from God to Joseph and that the papryi very well may have been unrelated, though Joseph may have assumed otherwise.

What do they base this on? They are grasping at straws

[_Tobin]

Pro Response – some apologist take the stand that this is not normal translation as you and I understand it. That essentially the papryi acted as a prompt to initiate the revealing of the book of Abraham from God to Joseph and that the papryi very well may have been unrelated, though Joseph may have assumed otherwise.

What do they base this on? They are grasping at straws

Not really. I've been saying that for years. There is physically (and logically) no possible way the Egyptian papyri could or should have anything to do with the Book of Abraham. The Egyptians were pagans and had no interest in preserving the tale. The Egyptian papyri are not nearly old enough to have been actually written by Abraham. And all the evidence to date backs that up. IF the Book of Abraham is true, the only possible way that could be is that the translation was of the original story related by Abraham as he originally wrote it down. And not the corrupted, altered, and changed stories and mythos before us now in the form of the Egyptian papyri.

[_son of Ishmael]

Tobin,

I thought that their (apologist) current stance is that the papyri had nothing to do the the Book of Abraham except to act as a prompt and that the Book of Abraham is actually a "revelation" and not a "translation".

I find that stance to be utter BS. They have nothing to base that on and once again the official church stance is that the Book of Abraham is a translation from the papyri. Additionally, the "revelation” vs “translation” theory doesn’t work anyway because the text of the book refers to the facsimiles that are on the papyri in question

[_Tobin]

Tobin,
I thought that their (apologist) current stance is that the papyri had nothing to do the the Book of Abraham except to act as a prompt and that the Book of Abraham is actually a "revelation" and not a "translation".
I find that stance to be utter BS. They have nothing to base that on and once again the official church stance is that the Book of Abraham is a translation from the papyri. Additionally, the "revelation” vs “translation” theory doesn’t work anyway because the text of the book refers to the facsimiles that are on the papyri in question

I believe you are misunderstanding the position. Abraham did write down an original text and make depictions. This story was not preserved (ie altered and changed) by the Egyptians (since they were pagans and had no reason to) and they sustituted their own stories and mythos in place of the original. The depictions referenced in the Book of Abraham reference the origianl uncorrupted depictions. What we have now is purely an Egyptian papyri and bears little to no similarity to the original and should not be used.

[_son of Ishmael]

Tobin,
I thought that their (apologist) current stance is that the papyri had nothing to do the the Book of Abraham except to act as a prompt and that the Book of Abraham is actually a "revelation" and not a "translation".
I find that stance to be utter BS. They have nothing to base that on and once again the official church stance is that the Book of Abraham is a translation from the papyri. Additionally, the "revelation” vs “translation” theory doesn’t work anyway because the text of the book refers to the facsimiles that are on the papyri in question

I believe you are misunderstanding the position. Abraham did write down an original text and make depictions. This story was not preserved (ie altered and changed) by the Egyptians (since they were pagans and had no reason to) and they sustituted their own stories and mythos in place of the original. The depictions referenced in the Book of Abraham reference the origianl uncorrupted depictions. What we have now is purely an Egyptian papyri and bears little to no similarity to the original and should not be used.

So the facsimiles that are printed as part of the Book of Abraham are the origianl uncorrupted depictions?

[_Tobin]

So the facsimiles that are printed as part of the Book of Abraham are the origianl uncorrupted depictions?

No, they are Egyptian in origin and should not be used.

[_son of Ishmael]

So the facsimiles that are printed as part of the Book of Abraham are the origianl uncorrupted depictions?

No, they are Egyptian in origin and should not be used.

Well I guess you better call up the President Monson and let him know. Because I a pretty sure that he thinks they are real