Book of Abraham Astronomy

[_Dr. Shades]

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for that analysis and graphic. Your argument makes much more sense than the geocentric assertion.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I should add that the earth itself is described as having "revolutions" and that the proposed Hebrew/Arabic etymology for Kolob (Hunter Biden. qrb, Ar. qlb) relies on the meaning "heart, center." If we adopt the geocentric reading, the most interesting ancient linguistic link to the Book of Abraham utterly dissolves. It seems that the apologists have to choose between two evidences in this case. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

[_Gazelam]

Ok, I'm trying to grasp what your talking about here.

Are you saying that these guys are claiming that the earth is at the center of the universe and everything revovles around it?

[_dartagnan]

What they are trying to argue is simple really:

1) The Book of Abraham provides a geocentric model of the universe.
2) Ancient civilizations also believed in a geocentric model.
3) Therefore, this parallel constitutes evidence that the Book of Abraham is of ancient origin, and not the product of 19th century sources/ideas.

One problem with this is 1) geocentrism is hardly unique to ancient civilizations. It was alive and well in the 19th century just as it is today. To say Joseph Smith would have followed the cutting edge in astronomy, if he were creating the book on his own, merely begs the question. It is basing a thesis on an assumption, which is precisely why they criticize Vogle and Metcalfe - for making unwarranted assumptions and assuming their veracity. The other problem is that 2) it is not at all certain whether the Book of Abraham claims the earth is at the center of the universe. This proposal requires a lot of interpretation that comes across as mental gymnastics.

Ultimately they do nothing to diffuse the hard-hitting evidences provided by Metcalfe and Vogle. They address none of the striking parallels with Book of Abraham teaching and that of Thomas Dick. They don't even acknolwedge they exist, which makes this "paper" apologetic fluff designed for faith promoting purposes only.

[_Gazelam]

I can see the univrse being developed from God outward, merely because it makes sence. Heres the place where intelligence was organized, and we worked from here outward, bringing order to the cosmos. This idea is fleshed out in alot of the apocryphal scriptures as well. So the Abraham writings are not alone in this. Nibley goes into this in his essay Apocryphal writings and teaching of the dead sea scrolls.

To understand your arguement further I guess I'll have to read the article in question.
For a moment there I thought you were saying they viewed the universe as being from Earth out which is completely ludicrous, yet still preached in some evangelical churchs, Like the one I visited last year. To say I was stunned to hear this preached from a pulpit is to put it mildly.

Gaz

[_dartagnan]

What they do say is that the geocentric model is not false. So it seems they hold out for the possibility that the Book of Abraham might very well represent proper astronomy.

[_Gazelam]

Well this is going off on a doctrinal wild hair, sence we only have the vaugest notion as to where Gods began, but for the sake of arguement lets look at it this way:

At some point in time an intelligence achieved the state of being God, and in a desire for order, begins melting down trhe elements of the universe, createing the first sun and forming a world out of the elements. the intelligences around him desired to be like him, and asked that they also be organized and educated, repeating the steps the first had taken, and so on and so forth, worlds without end.

With this as a model, it would make sence that things started at a certain point and worked outward, bringing order to the disorganized elemts of the universe as it worked its way outward. And with the government of the church being a patriarchal one, the first Father would remain at the head.

Just things as I see it

Gaz

[_Sethbag]

What they do say is that the geocentric model is not false. So it seems they hold out for the possibility that the Book of Abraham might very well represent proper astronomy.

I'm reading this differently. I don't see them holding out hope that the geocentric model is actually true. What I see is them holding out the geocentric model as evidence that Joseph was not copying the non-geocentric theories popular in Joseph Smith's day. If the Book of Abraham did depict a geocentric model, and yet the books mentioned (Dick and whoever else) contemplated a Newtonian view, then the geocentricity of the Book of Abraham undercuts the assertion that Joseph Smith was just copying Dick and the others. I didn't make this up, someone else already stated it previously, probably CaliforniaKid.

If the Geocentric Model is not literally true, that's bad, but it's less bad for the Book of Abraham than the assertions that Joseph Smith copied the Book of Abraham concepts from literature of his day to which he had access. The Geocentric Model can be excused by arguing that Abraham was merely writing down the best knowledge he had about it at the time, that he was a fallible human, the Book of Abraham wasn't meant to be an astronomy text so the Lord didn't correct Abraham's false understanding, etc.

[Guest]

Well, this is exactly what they said.

Secondly, the geocentric view of the cosmos is not, strictly speaking, false. If modern relativistic physics has taught us anything, it is that there is no absolute space, and thus no privileged point for observation of the cosmos except as has been established by convention. The geocentric system was abandoned, in the last analysis, not because it was incorrect but because, as it had developed with its cycles and epicycles, it was too complex and cumbersome. And even then, scientists were able to abandon it only because a new and less cumbersome and more accurate alternative—essentially the Keplerian and Copernican theory—was available to replace it. But it would still be possible today, in light of modern relativistic physics—and if we were willing to subject ourselves to the difficulty of doing so—to construct a description of the universe that assumes the earth to be at the center. Indeed astronomical observations are of necessity made from a geocentric point of view and converted into a nongeocentric point of view.

Sounds to me like they are holding out for the possibility that the earth really is at the center. This apologetic is thorough and careful to cover all its bases. On the one hand, it doesn't matter if the Book of Abraham teaches bad astronomy because Joseph Smith only said it was astronomy "as Abraham understood it." On the other hand, Abraham might have been right all along. This is typical methodology at FARMS/FAIR.

The Geocentric Model can be excused by arguing that Abraham was merely writing down the best knowledge he had about it at the time, that he was a fallible human, the Book of Abraham wasn't meant to be an astronomy text so the Lord didn't correct Abraham's false understanding, etc.

Yes, but this still causes problems because Abraham was receiving this information through divine revelation. They argued that the divine vision didn't take place until verse 12 but that is where they begin to argue for a geocentric model. And I'm sick and tired of this excuse: "but he was a human and you can't expect the divine to be able to communicate to humans without confusion." I mean isn't that the whole purpose of having a prophet? To avoid the confusion left during the apostasy? So we can be sure we have the "true" Church, the "true" gospel, the "true" interpretation of scripture, etc? I mean this apologetic line essentially undermines the entire Mormon foundation of divine revelation. If it is no more trustworthy and is just as prone to error as any layman with his own Bible interpretation, then what's the point at all?

The Mormon paradigm is rigged from the start to exclude any form of fault system. They'll scratch and claw through history to find any superficial "parallels" and hold them up as evidence for modern revelation, yet when the evidence contradicts, then this is just an example whereby a prophet allows his human nature to get in the way. The claim of prophethood has become unfalsifiable in the LDS paradigm. I mean what would it take to prove to an apologist that the LDS leadership is not in fact "inspired" by God? The thought doesn't even register with them. No amount of evidence works because they have been conditioned to reject any kind of fault system.

Anyway, our authors also beg a huge question when they insist Joseph Smith's statement about Abraham's "understanding" somehow proves he didn't really think the Book of Abraham astronomy was necessarily true. And they criticize Vogle and Metcalfe for basing a thesis on assumptions? Their entire paper is built upon one assumption after another.

[_truth dancer]

If the Geocentric Model is not literally true, that's bad, but it's less bad for the Book of Abraham than the assertions that Joseph Smith copied the Book of Abraham concepts from literature of his day to which he had access. The Geocentric Model can be excused by arguing that Abraham was merely writing down the best knowledge he had about it at the time, that he was a fallible human, the Book of Abraham wasn't meant to be an astronomy text so the Lord didn't correct Abraham's false understanding, etc.

Yep... prophets only speak their opinion.

;-)

~dancer~