VegasRefugee wrote:OOOO, your scarng me mr wannabe egyptologist. Tell me, Do you really think this s*** passes as scholarship? Seriously, your using absurd conclusions and total lack of logic. What your trying to prove with your bubble gum and duct tape faith-based b***s*** is that all those people who told you that your full of s*** will not be exhalted and you will. You think theres this giant brass ring full of endless worlds you lord over as God and a continuous Train Gang Bang with your spiritual wives.
Your culture is sick and your reasonings for your beliefs are reminiscent of the Aryan Race shortly before Hitler blew his and Shotsy's brains all over his underground bunker.
I´m afraid you are unfair to Paul and your insulting remarks don´t add credibility or strength
to your points, that can be made in the manner of civilized people.
What Paul is trying to do is quite rational and convincing and brings credibility to the Book of Abraham
subject.
A non-LDS egyptologist has written:
"It is not a matter here as I see it, of missing documents or texts with missing parts that might have contained what the "translator" claimed, but of actual pictures of very common Egyptian scenes that have been included in a book and are explained in a completely wrong manner, nothing dubious but rather quite clear in any sense and in black and white for all to see."
but he also concedes that:
"However, the above remarks refer to the plain meaning of these figures considered as examples of ancient Egyptian funerary images and texts, I think that if one day a statement is made that what Joseph Smith translated were concepts transmitted to him by God, not necessarily the ordinary understanding of such ancient documents, since anybody who believes in God will accept that He can use any medium he chooses to transmit knowledge, then there could be no further opposition between the readings made by scholars of these objects and that made by the Prophet, since it would become strictly a matter of faith which would be outside our field of study.
Some people have expressed an opinion that the Kirtland Papers seem to show that the Prophet was engaged in a conventional translation of the hieroglyphic texts and thus there was no divine inspiration using them as a mere medium as I suggested above, but in fact, nothing prevented the Prophet, if he had at first indeed attempted such conventional rendering, himself or through others, to have received at a later time a direct revelation that it was not the right way to go about it and then God inspired him with the correct version.
I think that the essential point in all this is if the books revealed to Joseph Smith are, with the limitations of the human mind to understand transcendental matters, solid, coherent, sensible scripture as other religious books such as the Hebrew Old Testament, the Christian New Testament or the Muslim Quran are. If so, the way in which this revelation was transmitted to a Prophet is not so important or relevant as the validity, the basic goodness and the internal consistence of such writings and their agreement with the contemporary events as known from other sources, all which would be clearly beyond the capability of a man without divine inspiration."
and I find these views worth careful consideration rather than insisting on beating a dead
donkey that has no life in it anymore.
I wonder what you other folks think about it.
Jimmy