Our friend MG, here on this board, is stuck in that lie.
Let us pray for him....
I actually will because I like MG, and I think prayer makes us kinder people. MG has stated that he knows the Church has some hinky beliefs, and he is not required to subscribe to all of them.
I understand why Professor Royal Skousen wishes the Church would just give the boot to the Book of Abraham. It combines both an ugly form of racism and preposterousness.
I understand why Professor Royal Skousen wishes the Church would just give the boot to the Book of Abraham. It combines both an ugly form of racism and preposterousness.
Too bad for Professor Skousen. He's stuck with the Book of Abraham sandwiched within Mormon scripture. There isn't a damn thing he can do about it other than complain and explain his reasons and objections.
MG? Screw him. He's stuck with the Book of Abraham whether he likes it or not and that's his problem. And what he makes of the tale told in chapter one about a woman discovering Egypt after the biblical flood dated at 2400 BC is his problem too.
MG made his bed and he can lie in it. Someday, maybe, he'll wake up and smell the coffee, if he doesn't already.
I understand why Professor Royal Skousen wishes the Church would just give the boot to the Book of Abraham. It combines both an ugly form of racism and preposterousness.
Too bad for Professor Skousen. He's stuck with the Book of Abraham sandwiched within Mormon scripture. There isn't a damn thing he can do about it other than complain and explain his reasons and objections.
MG? Screw him. He's stuck with the Book of Abraham whether he likes it or not and that's his problem. And what he makes of the tale told in chapter one about a woman discovering Egypt after the biblical flood dated at 2400 BC is his problem too.
MG made his bed and he can lie in it. Someday, maybe, he'll wake up and smell the coffee, if he doesn't already.
The origin of Egypt as told by the LDS God
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
If the land was under water, how was she able to discover it? Here is a link to The British Museum’s timeline for ancient Egypt. The Book of Abraham is proof positive that Joseph Smith made stuff up.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
If the land was under water, how was she able to discover it?
That's a great question.
I touch on that a little bit in my Celestial thread that demonstrates how Smith really was trying to work his way through the subject matter in order to produce a story that would seem credible. Smith's Egyptology project (Grammar & Alphabet of the Egyptian Language) was comprehensive in nature! The land under water is derived from the GAEL: "any land over flown with water— a land seen when overflown by water:— land overflown by the seasons, land enriched by being overflown low marshy ground."
New Book of Abraham Study Guide wrote:
21 Now this king of Egypt was a colored descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the black-skinned Canaanites by birth who are mentioned in the Book of Moses (7:8,22).
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land as well as the curse of Canaan, curse of Ham, and curse of Cain.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, a Greek name, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden or in other words: White people must not marry black people or they will be cursed;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land which meant that black people could not hold the priesthood but were cursed because of their lineage and race.
Scholars would tell you the Mormons are a very imaginative people.
Joseph Smith was very imaginative in inventing stories for the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, and Book of Abraham -- three imaginative literary pieces, the last of which is easily provable through professional scholarship and scientific means. Apologists are imaginative in inventing excuses to explain away that scholarship. Apologists like Jacob Hansen thumb their nose at science and make a mockery of ancient Egypt.
It's all very shameful. Mormons operate outside the bounds of truth because they are living a lie of their own making. It's quite the spectacle!
I understand why Professor Royal Skousen wishes the Church would just give the boot to the Book of Abraham. It combines both an ugly form of racism and preposterousness.
Mr. Skousen's objections (now age 80) about Smith's Book of Abraham claims, seem to be a recent declaration on his part that was probably raised due to all the arguments presented by critics that prove the Facsimile explanations are bunk. He finally came to grips with the facts and decided to divorce the Facsimiles from the chapters of the book even though they are married through Smith's publication, to say nothing of everything Smith and his associates said about the papyri vignettes and cuts used for the Facsimiles.
So, what is Mr. Skousen going to say about chapter one that tells us Egypt was founded after the flood around 2300 BC by a woman wandering about looking for a new home? It appears to me that Skousen is cherry picking and playing mental gymnastics. He's just another Mormon liar who can't face the truth. He reminds me of MG.
I understand why Professor Royal Skousen wishes the Church would just give the boot to the Book of Abraham. It combines both an ugly form of racism and preposterousness.
Too bad for Professor Skousen. He's stuck with the Book of Abraham sandwiched within Mormon scripture. There isn't a damn thing he can do about it other than complain and explain his reasons and objections.
MG? Screw him. He's stuck with the Book of Abraham whether he likes it or not and that's his problem. And what he makes of the tale told in chapter one about a woman discovering Egypt after the biblical flood dated at 2400 BC is his problem too.
I've already expressed my views in regard to the Book of Abraham elsewhere.
