The Book of Abraham: From Whence was it Derived?

[_Dad of a Mormon]

But, the story of George Washington playing quarterback for the New York Jets doesn't predates you by hundreds of years? So, bad analogy (see below).

Just like the story of Abraham and Kolob doesn't predate Joseph Smith. So, good analogy.

Can you tell me what is substantially different from my story and the book of Abraham in terms of how it may have originated?

Yes. The things I have and will specifically be pointing out, were a part of the Abraham story written thousands of years ago. The quarterback part of your story was made up by you today. That is a huge difference. Had you actually addressed my previous posts you might have realized that.

What you said in the post that I was responding to was that it couldn't be from his imagination because the Bible predates Joseph Smith by thousands of years. I conclusively shown that is bad reasoning.

Your arguments can be refuted in two words: historical fiction.

Your alleged refutation can be negated in a single word: fallacious.

You can argue by buzzword if you like, but there is nothing fallacious in my reasoning. If there were, you would have demonstrated the fallacy instead of merely asserted it. Instead, like you normally do, you just assert something is the case and hope no one notices.

[_wenglund]

The bulk of chapter 1 derives from the Bible, Josephus, and Joseph's interpretation the opening vignette.

Like with Buffalo, as I raise specific parts of the Abraham story, feel free to point out where in the Bible and Josephus they may be found. Once you do so, we can then look at the feasibility that those were the sources from whence the Book of Abraham was derived.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dad of a Mormon]

He wasn't making that "point," I was. And, while some of the sited texts may have been available to Joseph, the question is still open as to whether he read or used them, and whether they were the source from whence the Book of Abraham was derived.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yea, Wade, and I typed out the text in the quote box above without seeing or using your actual post. Is that credible to you? Why not?

Generally, the way that most literary critics detect whether a writer had access to a source is by their use of the source in their writing. Unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that they couldn't have accessed that source, that is sufficient.

[_wenglund]

Just like the story of Abraham and Kolob doesn't predate Joseph Smith. So, good analogy.

Since I have yet to raise the matter of Kolob, it is a bad analogy. You aren't countering the arguments I am actually raising. Please try and address what I have actually said.

What you said in the post that I was responding to was that it couldn't be from his imagination because the Bible predates Joseph Smith by thousands of years. I conclusively shown that is bad reasoning.

No. You failed to address the argument that I actually made, and instead argued against one that I haven't made. I have yet to bring up Kolob. At this point I am only arguing for those portions of the Abraham story that can be proven to have pre-dated Joseph by thousands of years, but which where not in the Bible. What about this do you not understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Generally, the way that most literary critics detect whether a writer had access to a source is by their use of the source in their writing. Unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that they couldn't have accessed that source, that is sufficient.

By this "logic", if a classroom of student have taken a test, the presumption is that all the students derived their answer from the first person to turn in their test unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that they couldn't have accessed the first student's answers. Right?

Wrong. The burden of "proof" for a theorized source rest with those so theorizing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Generally, the way that most literary critics detect whether a writer had access to a source is by their use of the source in their writing. Unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that they couldn't have accessed that source, that is sufficient.

By this "logic", if a classroom of student have taken a test, the presumption is that all the students derived their answer from the first person to turn in their test unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that they couldn't have accessed the first student's answers. Right?

The students had access to the answers by means of the material presented to them. The only evidence that the teacher has that they read the materials or listened in class is the test itself, which is enough. They don't need eyewitness accounts that the student read the textbook if the student can demonstrate their knowledge via the test.

[_Dad of a Mormon]

Just like the story of Abraham and Kolob doesn't predate Joseph Smith. So, good analogy.

Since I have yet to raise the matter of Kolob, it is a bad analogy. You aren't countering the arguments I am actually raising. Please try and address what I have actually said.

What you said in the post that I was responding to was that it couldn't be from his imagination because the Bible predates Joseph Smith by thousands of years. I conclusively shown that is bad reasoning.

No. You failed to address the argument that I actually made, and instead argued against one that I haven't made. I have yet to bring up Kolob. At this point I am only arguing for those portions of the Abraham story that can be proven to have pre-dated Joseph by thousands of years, but which where not in the Bible. What about this do you not understand?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What you need to demonstrate, Wade, is that the Book of Abraham has material that he could not have known about but that accurately reflects what we know about Abraham through other historical sources. If you will check the thread, I acknowledged that one of the arguments made by Dan Peterson would be compelling if it can be demonstrated that the premises are true. So I challenged you or anyone else to support the premise, specifically that the gods mentioned are known to be gods of the ancient world and that this information could not have been known by Joseph Smith at the time.

[_wenglund]

What you need to demonstrate, Wade, is that the Book of Abraham has material that he could not have known about but that accurately reflects what we know about Abraham through other historical sources. If you will check the thread, I acknowledged that one of the arguments made by Dan Peterson would be compelling if it can be demonstrated that the premises are true. So I challenged you or anyone else to support the premise, specifically that the gods mentioned are known to be gods of the ancient world and that this information could not have been known by Joseph Smith at the time.

Great, at least we are now on the same page. However, re-doing the scholarly research of Dr. Peterson, particularly in the course of an informal discussion online, is highly unfeasible as you soon found out with your Google search. If you can't take his word for it, I am okay with that, though I can. My intent here isn't to convert, but to provide room for faith for those so inclined.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

The students had access to the answers by means of the material presented to them. The only evidence that the teacher has that they read the materials or listened in class is the test itself, which is enough. They don't need eyewitness accounts that the student read the textbook if the student can demonstrate their knowledge via the test.

Now you are starting to get it. There are multiple sources from whence the answers may have been derived, including: text books, classroom lectuctures, other students notes, and even other students answers on the test. How, then, does one determine which of the various sources from whence the test answers were derived?

Just because a student turns in his test first, is that sufficient basis to rest a theory that all the other students got their answers from him? I don't think so. For such a theory to have merit, evidence needs to be provided that the first student's test was the source for the other students answers.

Just because the course material existed before and was available to students, is that sufficient basis alone to theorize that course material was the source of the student's answers. Again, I don't think so. Additional evidence is required, and that often takes the form general student practices--i.e. the way in which students typically derive course information answered in the test.

In short, those who are theorizing a specific source still have the burden of "proof" for their theory, which is contrary to what you suggested.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dad of a Mormon]

The students had access to the answers by means of the material presented to them. The only evidence that the teacher has that they read the materials or listened in class is the test itself, which is enough. They don't need eyewitness accounts that the student read the textbook if the student can demonstrate their knowledge via the test.

Now you are starting to get it.

Wish I could say the same for you.

There are multiple sources from whence the answers may have been derived, including: text books, classroom lectuctures, other students notes, and even other students answers on the test. How, then, does one determine which of the various sources from whence the test answers were derived?

One ALWAYS considers the ordinary sources of knowledge before jumping to the extraordinary.

Just because a student turns in his test first, is that sufficient basis to rest a theory that all the other students got their answers from him? I don't think so. For such a theory to have merit, evidence needs to be provided that the first student's test was the source for the other students answers.

That was your theory and based on your misunderstanding.

Just because the course material existed before and was available to students, is that sufficient basis alone to theorize that course material was the source of the student's answers. Again, I don't think so. Additional evidence is required, and that often takes the form general student practices--i.e. the way in which students typically derive course information answered in the test.

This is irrelevant. The specific study habits employed by the students doesn't change where the information most likely originally derived.

In short, those who are theorizing a specific source still have the burden of "proof" for their theory, which is contrary to what you suggested.

Proof is a mathematical concept. History is concerned with probabilities. We know that if sources were readily available to a person during a period of time, we look to the common ways that he might have received this information before we hypothesize the uncommon.

I know you are just playing the role of apologist, so if this type of reasoning is convincing to you, stick with it in order to save your faith. It isn't convincing to anyone who seeking truth or following logic.