DiscussMormonism.com

Why doesn't modern translation of these scrolls match Joseph Smith's translation of them?

LDS Apologists postulate that a great deal of the scroll is missing. Abraham followed the practice that some of us used for our term papers, of leaving a lot of blank paper after the title page and placing our work last, so that after the teached weighed it in his hand, he could assign a grade.

Those Egyptian priest took advantage of that by using the 2,800 year old scroll as a convenient place to inscribe there funerary prayer. Their motto was "waste not want not". It is on the inner scroll portion containing Abrahams writings that Joseph Smith translated, since the Stone was able to weed out the later writings. It is thought that subsequently the Great Chicago Fire started by Mrs. O'Leary's cow acting irresponsibly with matches, destroyed the inner more lengthy portion of the scroll.

For a more verbose version of this past game changing subject, please visit the FAIRMormon wesbsite.

Hope that helps.

Is there any credible non Mormon Egyptologist that supports the view that a 'great deal of the scroll is missing'?

Bazooka wrote:Is there any credible non Mormon Egyptologist that supports the view that a 'great deal of the scroll is missing'?

Maybe. How tight would you make your definition of a credible Egyptologist?

moksha wrote:

Bazooka wrote:Is there any credible non Mormon Egyptologist that supports the view that a 'great deal of the scroll is missing'?

Maybe. How tight would you make your definition of a credible Egyptologist?

Okay, they need to be qualified in Egyptology and be credible within their peer group (on the subject of Egyptology, rather than baseball cards).

Bazooka wrote:
Okay, they need to be qualified in Egyptology and be credible within their peer group (on the subject of Egyptology, rather than baseball cards).

Keep in mind that one need not be an egyptologist to calculate scroll length. I think Chris Smith and Mortal man have provided a very reasonable calculation on this.

Themis wrote:

Bazooka wrote:
Okay, they need to be qualified in Egyptology and be credible within their peer group (on the subject of Egyptology, rather than baseball cards).

Keep in mind that one need not be an egyptologist to calculate scroll length. I think Chris Smith and Mortal man have provided a very reasonable calculation on this.

That's good with me.

Themis wrote:
Keep in mind that one need not be an Egyptologist to calculate scroll length.

Bazooka needs to realize that it is not the length of a scroll that matters, but what you do with it. Joseph Smith knew exactly what to do with his scroll. Don't try to tell me that modern translators who go in for scroll length and end up being slapped around and called a "beeotch" wouldn't trade it all in for Joseph's celestial promise.

moksha wrote:Bazooka needs to realize that it is not the length of a scroll that matters, but what you do with it.

Spoken like a penguin with scroll envy....

Bazooka wrote:

moksha wrote:Bazooka needs to realize that it is not the length of a scroll that matters, but what you do with it.

Spoken like a penguin with scroll envy....

I like it when you guys talk about tight scrolls and long length.

moksha wrote:Bazooka needs to realize that it is not the length of a scroll that matters, but what you do with it.

Bazooka wrote:Spoken like a penguin with scroll envy....

The Erotic Apologist wrote:I like it when you guys talk about tight scrolls and long length.

Honi soit qui mal y pense (ɔni swa ki mal i pɛ̃s)

The motto appears in a royal coat of arms of the 17th century on the ceiling of Bath Abbey:
Has it a weird shape, hasn't it?