Book of Mormon a Stolen Novel?

[_Tobin]

In the pearl of great price we read that the Book of Abraham was translated by Joseph Smith from papyrus written by the hand of Abraham. What evidence do you offer of any other mode?

Joseph Smith could not read and translate Egyptian Hieroglyphics. Also, the papyri could not have been written by the hand of Abraham when it is not nearly old enough to have been written by Abraham (nor do we have any papyri in existance from that period) Since neither of those two statements are factual, then obviously what is stated in the PofGP is inaccurate and you are being completely disingenuous in stating I must assume that position.

[_SteelHead]

I didn't say you must assume that position. I asked you to suport any other method.

But let me try to understand your position. Joseph Smith was wrong in his basis for performing the translation but the end product was divine.

Is this what you assert?

[_Tobin]

I didn't say you must assume that position. I asked you to suport any other method.

I already laid out the case for my position. There simply is no reason to believe the stated positions that
1) Joseph Smith could translate anything, especially ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics.
2) That Egyptian papyri would contain anything related to dieties or stories that are not their own.
3) That papyri was written by the hand of Abraham (when they are too young to have been written by him).

Given those facts, there is no reason to believe the papyri contains the Book of Abraham. So if the Book of Abraham is true, the only possibility that remains is that it no longer exists and Joseph Smith restored it by the gift and power of God.

[Guest]

You are comparing two different things. The gold plates contained an account written by the Nephites. I don't know how "literal" the translation was since I 1) don't possess the gold plates 2) don't read and write the language and 3) don't understand how one translates a book by the gift and power of god without being able to read and understand the language it is written in (or have a firm grasp of the 17th century English it was translated into).

The Book of Abraham is completely different. It was written by Abraham at one time. The Egyptians obviously would have no interest in preserving that account and would instead have written stories into the copies they made of their own invention and mythos. In this case, the papyri was this degenerate copy which "triggered" Joseph Smith to view the original written account and relate it. Again, Joseph Smith had no ability to translate and did not understand the nature of the papyri in front of him. He made the bad assumption it was like the gold plates and a true account of what occurred. In this case, he was mistaken.

Okay. So how does rejecting or accepting the existence of a lost Spaulding manuscript affect your belief in the Book of Mormon?

If I have understood you correctly it shouldn't either way because it seems that you are not heavily reliant on historical evidence (a la your Book of Abraham theories) on how Joseph Smith produced scripture. It is entirely possible, within your view, that a Spaulding manuscript could have been a trigger mechanism that aided J.S. in the eventual production of the Book of Mormon is it not?

[Guest]

I didn't say you must assume that position. I asked you to suport any other method.

I already laid out the case for my position. There simply is no reason to believe the stated positions that
1) Joseph Smith could translate anything, especially ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphics.
2) That Egyptian papyri would contain anything related to dieties or stories that are not their own.
3) That papyri was written by the hand of Abraham (when they are too young to have been written by him).

Given those facts, there is no reason to believe the papyri contains the Book of Abraham. So if the Book of Abraham is true, the only possibility that remains is that it no longer exists and Joseph Smith restored it by the gift and power of God.

So take the conclusion and then rework the details to fit the conclusion. Got it.

Revelation via Serendipity. Damn sloppy way to reveal the word of god, just an argument for an incompetent god.

[Guest]

Okay. So how does rejecting or accepting the existence of a lost Spaulding manuscript affect your belief in the Book of Mormon?

If I have understood you correctly it shouldn't either way because it seems that you are not heavily reliant on historical evidence (a la your Book of Abraham theories) on how Joseph Smith produced scripture. It is entirely possible, within your view, that a Solomon manuscript could have been a trigger mechanism that aided J.S. in the eventual production of the Book of Mormon is it not?

I really don't understand how you arrived there after I explained the differences. The problem with the Spaulding manuscript is that it probably never existed. Joseph Smith never writes about them and neither does SR. The Book of Mormon claims to have come from an account of the Nephites and the Book of Abraham claims to have come from an account written at one time by Abraham. There are at least some claims (to be validated by God) that in effect attribute these books to ancient authors and these books claim to be a generational records of man's dealings with God.

[_Tobin]

So take the conclusion and then rework the details to fit the conclusion. Got it.

Damn sloppy way to reveal the word of god, just an argument for an incompetent god.

Well, it is human nature to make mistakes. I think it is really a stretch to conclude that fallible people prove that God is incompetent however.

[_SteelHead]

Tobin,
Is there more evidence for the spaulding manuscript than for your alleged original document for the Book of Abraham?

[_Tobin]

Tobin, Is there more evidence for the spaulding manuscript than for your alleged original document for the Book of Abraham?

Yes, we have the partial Book of Abraham (with the given facts I've already highlighted to you twice). There is no evidence of the mythical Spaulding Manuscript (not even one page).

[Guest]

You said the papyrus had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham as the Egyptians would not have copied it and it no longer exists. Where is there any evidence then for the original?

Where is the partial original to which you refer in this convolusion of mental gymnastics?