Thanks Drumdude but your Amazon link is for an Interpreter review that Smoot did of Gee's horrible 2017 Book of Abraham book. I think Tom's link is the correct one. It was published by BYU Studies in 2022.drumdude wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 9:29 pmhttps://www.amazon.com/Pressing-Forward ... B07C85SLMC
The date says 2018 but for some reason he was presenting it at the 2023 fair conference.
"Not translations in the usual sense" Book of Abraham Defence.
-
- Bishop
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:02 am
Re: "Not translations in the usual sense" Book of Abraham Defence.
-
- God
- Posts: 6418
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am
Re: "Not translations in the usual sense" Book of Abraham Defence.
Thank you! You’d think it would be easier to find these things.Fence Sitter wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 2:17 pmThanks Drumdude but your Amazon link is for an Interpreter review that Smoot did of Gee's horrible 2017 Book of Abraham book. I think Tom's link is the correct one. It was published by BYU Studies in 2022.drumdude wrote: ↑Sat Aug 19, 2023 9:29 pm
https://www.amazon.com/Pressing-Forward ... B07C85SLMC
The date says 2018 but for some reason he was presenting it at the 2023 fair conference.
- sock puppet
- Bishop
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:29 pm
Re: "Not translations in the usual sense" Book of Abraham Defence.
Elohim was trying to make sense of the universe Himself and His conjectures in the 1830s and 1840s have just not held up under the scrutiny since.slskipper wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 5:57 amHere's my main issue: no matter how the book was produced, its cosmology is complete nonsense. So either (1) Abraham misheard Elohim, or (2) Elohim must have been on mushrooms when he talked to Abraham. That's assuming the book is an accurate record of what Abraham thought God said. The third option, of course, is that MAYBE JOSEPH SMITH MADE THE WHOLE DAMN THING UP!!! Or something. Or am I mistaken? Thank you.
It makes me wonder why the LDS corp. leadership doesn't update its 'cosmology' teachings.
"Apologists try to shill an explanation to questioning members as though science and reason really explain and buttress their professed faith. It [sic] does not. ...faith is the antithesis of science and reason." Critic as quoted by Peterson, Daniel C. (2010) FARMS Review, Intro., v22:2,2.
- sock puppet
- Bishop
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:29 pm
Re: "Not translations in the usual sense" Book of Abraham Defence.
It's really clever how Joseph Smith did not condition the Book of Mormon on the same "as far as translated correctly" that he dowsed the Bible with. That is, no other 'prophet' before Joseph Smith quite understood clearly what Elohim was telling him. Only Joseph Smith heard it correctly and so his scriptural productions need no hedging. So, if there's something in the Bible, as put down on paper by earlier prophets, that does not jive with what Joseph Smith produced, no big whoop. All others but Joseph Smith got it wrong, but Joseph Smith got it all perfectly.
"Apologists try to shill an explanation to questioning members as though science and reason really explain and buttress their professed faith. It [sic] does not. ...faith is the antithesis of science and reason." Critic as quoted by Peterson, Daniel C. (2010) FARMS Review, Intro., v22:2,2.