Making Covenants

[drumdude]

I'll let Shulem take it from here.


"by his own hand upon papyrus" is the smoking gun of Mormonism. It's not often that you get something so clear, but thank God we have it for Mormonism.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Defending the Old Testament Abraham is only 1/2 of the problem you have to solve because you're defending the Mormon Abraham. You're completely ignoring Joseph's "by his own hand upon papyrus" lie.

Let me ask you this. Is the reason that you are unable and/or unwilling to accept the possibility of an Old Testament Abram/Abraham directly connected your disbelief in the provenance of the Book of Abraham ultimately coming from God?

You see, I think that an ancient person named Abram/Abraham who is then represented through story and covenant making with God in the Old Testament increases the likelihood that he may also play a part in the restoration narrative as a real person.

But of course you have to go the whole metaphysical/supernatural route to go there so I surmise that’s going to be a nonstarter.

I don’t think you read the sources I posted all the way through. There wasn’t enough time. If you didn’t read…why not?

And what else have you not read? That’s the problem with a message board. We can accuse or at least point a finger (or in the case of Doc, figurative flipping the bird) at each other and question whether one person or another has looked thoroughly at evidence pro and con.

By the way, if you’re wrong on Abraham historicity as a result of possibly not either being aware of and/or being unwilling to look at any evidence that might point that direction, could you possibly be wrong in respect to whether or not the Book of Abraham’s provenance lies at the feet of deity instead of 100% Joseph Smith?

Regards,
MG

A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

Abraham 1:23-25 - Egyptus

The Abraham of Joseph Smith simply doesn’t exist. The absurdity of ‘Egyptus’, among many more with regard to the Book of Abraham tanks the existence of Abraham if you’re relying on Mormon sources.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

Out of interest what are some of the stories in the Old Testament and Book of Abraham that you believe have little or no correlation with a historical Abraham?

And can you show through evidentiary means that they don’t?

Regards,
MG

Listen up MG, this is the great and power Shulem and you cannot escape my detection.

YOU are welcome to come up to the Celestial Forum where I can whip you into shape and teach you a lesson you'll never forget. I am filled with the SPIRIT of power! Bring professor Gee and Muhlestein his lapdog. And bring Smoot-boy too, so I can change his diaper and burp his sorry little ass -- he's just a little boy...

Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

Come on up and take your best shot, MG.

I’m actually a bit more interested in whether or not there was a historical Abraham before anything else. Disassociated from anything Mormon. All else hinges on that. Would you agree? In the link I provided would you be willing to take the time and answer the questions I put to drumdude?

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

I'll let Shulem take it from here.


"by his own hand upon papyrus" is the smoking gun of Mormonism. It's not often that you get something so clear, but thank God we have it for Mormonism.

Yep. Shulem is very capable of taking MG on a long ride which he may find somewhat uncomfortable. I will not be merciful and will not let up, not for a second!

[MG 2.0]

Here it is again, Shulem:

In the case of Abraham we have conflicting narratives preserved in texts that are widely viewed as mythology. And we have no other evidence for his existence outside of those myths.

You are right in saying that through the fog of history there is very little direct physical evidence of the patriarch Abram/Abraham.

May I post a few quotes that might at least open up possibilities?

But what are we to say to those who argue the Biblical archeological record is incomplete? The answer is best delivered by another expert witness in the field, Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, historian and Professor Emeritus at Miami University. Yamauchi wrote a book entitled, The Stones and the Scripture, where he rightly noted that archaeological evidence is a matter of “fractions”:

Only a fraction of the world’s archaeological evidence still survives in the ground.

Only a fraction of the possible archaeological sites have been discovered.

Only a fraction have been excavated, and those only partially.

Only a fraction of those partial excavations have been thoroughly examined and published.

Only a fraction of what has been examined and published has anything to do with the claims of the Bible!

Old Testament scholar James Hoffmeier (who specializes in issues of Old Testament historicity and archaeology) says:

As a field archaeologist myself, I am keenly aware of how little has actually survived from the ancient past, owing to natural forces, such as moisture in many forms, deflation, and earthquakes, as well as human impact in the form of later occupation (in ancient times), reusing earlier building materials, human destruction (war and burning), and modern development (urban and agricultural). Realistic expectations about what archaeology can and cannot do for biblical studies must always be kept in mind.

the Archaeological Study Bible says this:

No mention of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel) has been found in extrabiblical documents from their era (c. 1950-1550 B.C.), nor should we expect to find such references. Living as nomads on the fringes of populated areas, the patriachs wandered between the great empires of Mesopotamia and Egypt, and their activities would have been insignificant to scribes and annalists of that period. The Biblical narratives, which from their side make few references to political events of those times, are nevertheless historical, not myth or fiction. Biblical writers simply selected material appropriate to their theological objectives.

There are various reasons (above and beyond basic faith commitments) for us to acccept the Biblical accounts as historically reliable, among them:

Because writing systems were in use by the third millenium B.C, it is unnecessary to assume that a long period of oral transmission existed between the events themselves and their documentation in written records. People of the late third millenium and the early second millenium B.C. maintained written records and did not depend on memory for matters they condisered to be important. The events of the patriarchal period may have been recorded soon after their occurrence in texts that the Biblical writers later utilized as sources.

Names similar to Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abram/Abraham (Gen 11) and Jacob (ch. 25) appear in documents of the first half Old Testament he second millenium B.C., showing that these names were common during that period. The names of kings mentioned in Genesis 14 are difficult to account for, but the evidence does collaborate the story itself.

Apparently some locations mentioned in the patriarchal narrative were sparsely inhabited during the time of the patriarchs and thus are difficult to account for archaeologically. Other locations, however, had larger populations and are known from archaeology and/or texts contemporary to the lives of the patriarchs. There is strong evidence, for example, related to the location of the cities of the plain.

The patriarchs’ travel is not to be regarded as improbable. Texts from Ebla (c. 2300 B.C.) and Cappadocia (C. 2000 B.C.) indicate that travel, commerce and trade regularly occurred throughout the ancient Near East.

Hurrian family law, in force in Haran (see chs. 12; 24) and Nuzi, shed light on some of the activities of Abraham’s family that might otherwise perplex us. Another parallel has been found in a letter from Larsa (an ancient Summerian city on the Euphrates River), indicating that a childless man could indeed adopt his slave as his heir (see 15:2).

The patriarchal stories faithfully reflect customs that were not practiced and institutions that did not exist during later periods, some of which were even prohibited under the religious norms of later Israel. For example, marriage to a half sister (cf. Lev 18:9) or to tow sisters simultaneously (cf. Lev 18:18) was permissible during patriarchal times but forbidden in later Israelite society. This fact argues against the idea claimed by some critics that these stories were invented during the period of the Israelite monarchy.

Thus, various contemporary Near Eastern sources lend support to the historicity of the Genesis narrative.

All three quote sources are from:

https://cyberpenance.wordpress.com/2019 ... r-abraham/

My point in cut and pasting some references dealing with Abraham are simply to make the point that, as I said, the jury is out on Abraham as a historical figure. As we look through the fog of history we can, believer and disbeliever alike, find information and evidence that supports our point of view and presuppositions.

The critics, of course, would like to make a slam dunk in regards to the non existence of an Old Testament Patriarch named Abram/Abraham. In effect they can then discount everything that came after in regards to the Abrahamic Covenant and that covenantal relationship that Latter Day Saints claim to have with deity. Obviously it’s a big deal.

My response to critics is simply…not so fast. There are reasons to look at the historical Abraham as being a distinct possibility.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Can you two debate this in Celestial so the debate stays friendly and scholarly? I would be very interested to follow along.

[MG 2.0]

Can you two debate this in Celestial so the debate stays friendly and scholarly? I would be very interested to follow along.

I’m under no pretension that Shulem’s knowledge is much superior to mine in certain respects. I’m interested in him tackling the same questions I posed to you and remained unanswered.

That much can be done right here. It’s my thread.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

I’m actually a bit more interested in whether or not there was a historical Abraham before anything else. Disassociated from anything Mormon. All else hinges on that. Would you agree? In the link I provided would you be willing to take the time and answer the questions I put to drumdude?

Regards,
MG

Nope. I will only agree with you on what Joseph Smith said. Let's see if he was right. That's all that counts. Whether Abraham was a historical person from a modern perspective is beside the point.

So, go up and read the thread and prepare yourself. I'm ready for anything and everything you can throw at me.

[drumdude]

Can you two debate this in Celestial so the debate stays friendly and scholarly? I would be very interested to follow along.

I’m under no pretension that Shulem’s knowledge is much superior to mine in certain respects. I’m interested in him tackling the same questions I posed to you and remained unanswered.

That much can be done right here. It’s my thread.

Regards,
MG

Then you're going to get spicy shulem

Maybe it can be agreed to argue with Celestial rules here.

[drumdude]

Nope. I will only agree with you on what Joseph Smith said. Let's see if he was right. That's all that counts. Whether Abraham was a historical person from a modern perspective is beside the point.

To be fair he's asking for that point to be conceded and to focus on the standard Christian Abraham.

I think it's a more challenging question since the Mormon Abraham is an Achilles heel at this point, in large part due to your vast work pointing out the flaws.