The Book of Abraham

[Markk]

Note that I'm aware of, but it was reported by his ghostwriter that he could and even speak it...

I am not talking about the address the the GMB. We can get into the assertion and cf later.

I am simply asking your position as to whether or not you believe Joseph said, implied, or demonstrated, whether or not he could read and translate Egyptain. I wrote that my position is that he did, what is yours? It is a basic yes or no question at this point and you can have all the bandwidth you need to explain the yes and no of the question.

So I guess you answer is no he did not say it.

Did he demonstrate it or imply that he could?

 

[Richard7]

I am not talking about the address the the GMB. We can get into the assertion and cf later.

I am simply asking your position as to whether or not you believe Joseph said, implied, or demonstrated, whether or not he could read and translate Egyptain. I wrote that my position is that he did, what is yours? It is a basic yes or no question at this point and you can have all the bandwidth you need to explain the yes and no of the question.

So I guess you answer is no he did not say it.

Did he demonstrate it or imply that he could?

Yes! But below is my bandwidth

Only by the Gift and power of God..

 

[Markk]

Yes! But below is my bandwidth

Only by the Gift and power of God..

So your position is, so far:

1. By the gift and power God
2. There is a long and missing Scroll that actually reflects and compliments what is in the pages of the BoA
3. That Joseph could not read Egyptain
4. That Joseph never claimed he could read Egyptian
5. That the papyri are ancient Egyptain funerary texts on either side of facsimile 1


Are we good so far. If 5 is true what is facsimile 1, 2, and 3....if not funerary texts?

Do you believe Abraham is mentioned anywhere in the papyri or facsimiles? I did not comment on this in my OP, but I believes name is nowhere to be found on the papyri or facsimiles.

Thanks

 

[Magdalena]

Yes! But below is my bandwidth

Only by the Gift and power of God..

So he took a totally unrelated egyptian funerary text scroll, wrote down some other text, and claimed that was the translation from God.

Did he really believe he was getting a revelation from God? Or did he think no one else would know what it meant, so he could get away with it.

And if that’s what God had meant it to say, why wasn’t it written that way in the first place?

Because it was just a funerary text. That’s why.

Joseph Smith was a con man. Like Mark Hoffman. Smith just got away with it a little longer.

 

[dberrie2020]

So he took a totally unrelated egyptian funerary text scroll,

What is your evidence it is from a funerary text?

Loading…

divinecode.page

It’s Not Funerary Text​

"Even the author of the CES letter glibs over this little bit before telling you “case-solid” what the papyrus means. Look at this statement and see if you can spot the manipulation.

“though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.“

If you don’t read that carefully, you’re tempted to interpret that as, “All scholars have identified the papyrus fragments…”

No, no, they haven’t. Furthermore, the interpretation of those depictions as funerary text (sometimes referred to as the “Book of the Dead” or simply “BD”) has been thoroughly rethought by the leading Egyptologists of our day. Leading experts say it’s not a funerary text. But no one ever mentions that…do they?

I’ve included a more technical rebuttal at the end for those interested, but first, a little common sense.

What About Uncle Bob?​

You don’t need any of that expertise to know something is up with that picture being associated and identified as funerary text. Compare these two pictures.

The one on the right is a dead man.

Let’s say you were at your Uncle Bob’s funeral, and you notice that Uncle Bob is kicking his legs and flailing his arms, and his eyes are open. Would you turn to your mom and say, “Mom, Uncle Bob is going to tip the coffin over and disrupt the whole funeral; someone needs to tell him to stop!”

Secret Life Hack: If someone is kicking their legs, waving their arms, and their eyes are open at their funeral, it’s probably a good time to stop the funeral and take them home because they are alive."

IOW--the facsimile found in The Pearl of Great Price isn't a "funerary text".

 

[Markk]

What is your evidence it is from a funerary text?

Loading…

divinecode.page

It’s Not Funerary Text​

"Even the author of the CES letter glibs over this little bit before telling you “case-solid” what the papyrus means. Look at this statement and see if you can spot the manipulation.

“though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments. Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.“

If you don’t read that carefully, you’re tempted to interpret that as, “All scholars have identified the papyrus fragments…”

No, no, they haven’t. Furthermore, the interpretation of those depictions as funerary text (sometimes referred to as the “Book of the Dead” or simply “BD”) has been thoroughly rethought by the leading Egyptologists of our day. Leading experts say it’s not a funerary text. But no one ever mentions that…do they?

I’ve included a more technical rebuttal at the end for those interested, but first, a little common sense.

What About Uncle Bob?​

You don’t need any of that expertise to know something is up with that picture being associated and identified as funerary text. Compare these two pictures.

The one on the right is a dead man.

Let’s say you were at your Uncle Bob’s funeral, and you notice that Uncle Bob is kicking his legs and flailing his arms, and his eyes are open. Would you turn to your mom and say, “Mom, Uncle Bob is going to tip the coffin over and disrupt the whole funeral; someone needs to tell him to stop!”

Secret Life Hack: If someone is kicking their legs, waving their arms, and their eyes are open at their funeral, it’s probably a good time to stop the funeral and take them home because they are alive."

IOW--the facsimile found in The Pearl of Great Price isn't a "funerary text".

Disregard my invitation to opine here on another thread. Thanks for posting, this will be a very interesting conversation.

IOW--the facsimile found in The Pearl of Great Price isn't a "funerary text".

The facsimile above is facsimile 1. Is it also your opinion that Facsimiles 2, and 3 are not funerary texts?

 

[dberrie2020]

The facsimile above is facsimile 1.

Which doesn't fit the description of a "funerary text"--which Magdalena claimed:

Magdalena said---"So he took a totally unrelated egyptian funerary text scroll,"

Is it also your opinion that Facsimiles 2, and 3 are not funerary texts?

Markk--I'm not an expert on the facsimiles, and I believe most Egyptologists don't know as much as they claim. The area of concern, and some of the initial claims of the Egyptologists--have not remained constant nor consistent, and is an extremely complicated area of study--which neither you nor I can discuss with any degree of accuracy. Introducing this topic here is an attempt to fit a bowling ball in a marble sack.

 

[Markk]

Markk--I'm not an expert on the facsimiles, and I believe most Egyptologists don't know as much as they claim. The area of concern, and some of the initial claims of the Egyptologists--have not remained constant nor consistent, and is an extremely complicated area of study--which neither you nor I can discuss with any degree of accuracy. Introducing this topic here is an attempt to fit a bowling ball in a marble sack.

Well, that is just false. We can discuss it with great accuracy and understanding if you want to. In Joseph Smith's time your statement would be valid in that Egyptain could not be read or understood yet, but know it can, and a very basic understanding can be understood with not too much effort.

You assertion that "most" Egyptologists do not know as much as they claim is ridiculous....they language and script can now be spoken and read, and their are universities, museums, and institutes around the world dedicated to the study, not to mention all the books, journals and peer reviewed papers available with simple searches.

Which doesn't fit the description of a "funerary text"--which Magdalena claimed:

Magdalena said---"So he took a totally unrelated egyptian funerary text scroll,"

What she wrote is 1000% true, and can be easily shown which I intend to do, and the reason for this thread. As in my OP, JS bought several mummies, and along with the mummies were Papyri, with were instructions; basically a passport with instructions and magical incantations and spells to help the person/mummy navigate through the underworld or "Duat" in order the be in the end judge by what is called the weighing of the heart. Where their heart is literally weighed on a scale against a feather of goddess. If the heart is lighter that the feather they will basically be declared righteous, if not they will be devoured by a evil god and lose their soul. And by all means don't believe me, do a simple search and do a simple read. I'll paste a good place to start below.

I plan to get into this in more detail and show just how true Magdalena's statement is.

You posted from a website that is just comically inaccurate and wrong at so many levels, and really rather embarrassing, and I will show you why as we get going. I went to the website and commented and the owner edited my comments and banned me from further comments, at least so far. I pointed out the erect phallus in the line drawing that is most likely a line drawing from a temple or tomb wall scene that depicts Osiris coming to life, and she said it was distasteful, LOL, when she pasted a line drawing with Osiris with the erect phallus. But, I will explain the importance of this as we move forward. It is an important part of Egyptain mythology and a similar depiction of another god on facsimile 2 will show it.

But moving forward, you sated that Facsimile 1 is not a funerary scene (vignette), which is fine, that is your opinion that we can discuss it through, so also in your opinion are the other two vignettes funerary texts or not? Answer this question and hopefully Ralf will answer the last questions I asked him, and Gordon said he will post this weekend his position, then we can get started.

 

[Elijah the Tishbite]

Which doesn't fit the description of a "funerary text"--which Magdalena claimed:

Magdalena said---"So he took a totally unrelated egyptian funerary text scroll,"



Markk--I'm not an expert on the facsimiles, and I believe most Egyptologists don't know as much as they claim. The area of concern, and some of the initial claims of the Egyptologists--have not remained constant nor consistent, and is an extremely complicated area of study--which neither you nor I can discuss with any degree of accuracy. Introducing this topic here is an attempt to fit a bowling ball in a marble sack.

The most important thing is that The Book of Abraham teaches polythism a pagan concept in chapters 4 and 5

 

[Markk]

Introducing this topic here is an attempt to fit a bowling ball in a marble sack.

DB....again, it is without a doubt maybe the biggest reasons that member PIMO and leave the church. It is not like the BoM where we do not have the plates to test what was alleged to be the the source for the BoM. And there is no proof of a script called "reformed Egyptain."

But, and this is a huge But, we have much of the papyri and hand drawn copies that actually compliment reality and can be objectively tested against the BoA as canon for the CoJCoLdS.

Your statement above is far from the truth, in fact in regard to the LDS canon, their is nothing more logical to do a study on and test to see if it hold up to what JS said it was.

Ignoring this won't make it go away.

 

[dberrie2020]

Well, that is just false. We can discuss it with great accuracy and understanding if you want to. In Joseph Smith's time your statement would be valid in that Egyptain could not be read or understood yet, but know it can, and a very basic understanding can be understood with not too much effort.

Maybe you should go and instruct those Egyptologists who have struggled for decades with it.

 

[Markk]

Maybe you should go and instruct those Egyptologists who have struggled for decades with it.

Well DB, that is just no the case. Egypt is a treasure chest of antiquity, and what is known and what is available to study is exhaustive.

So, given you made a bold statement that facsimile 1 is not a funerary text, which again is fine as you opinion, my question stand as to whether or not facsimiles 2 and 3 are, or are not funerary texts.

I forgot to give a link in post #28

 

[Markk]

link finally

Fate & Fabled | How Isis Brought Her True Love Back From the Dead | Season 1 | Episode 3 | PBS

Their story is one of the oldest known myths known to man.

www.pbs.org

 

[Gordon]

Joseph purchased mummies and Egyptain papyri from a traveling "salesman."

Michael Chandler... everyone should know this.

He is said to have claimed that the papyri were actually writings from the hand Abraham and Joseph

The text originated from them. He didn't say that Abraham actually penned, with his own sweaty hand, the papyri he was currently in possession of.

I believe and can show that Joseph claimed to be able to read Egyptian

He did not. The GAEL isn't proof that he believed he could actually read the language.

was a complete fail and easily shown.

It's not. There is literally nothing showing this to be the case.

that are basically all over the place and have evolved over time.

They seem to be quite consistent.

The more prominent theories by paid apologists of the church are the long scroll or missing scroll theory, and the growing catalyst theory.

I would say this is the general consensus. While I don't necessarily believe the entire BoA text was contained on the long scroll (if any), apparently, writings from Abraham were on it (manuscript form, not original text).

Egyptain funerary texts

This is really the only card the critics have. We don't actually have a side-by-side text analysis for comparison...so it's based solely off of interpretation of the facsimiles. Remember, Abraham is real... Osiris isn't. The Egyptians could have claimed the original vignettes to mean whatever they wanted.

I can show that Joseph and his family profited of the papyri and mummies and it was a source of income for some of his family members.

Please do so.

I would love to start with facsimile 3 after you positions are posted, but I will start anywhere you like.

You've been given positions by other posters already...to which you haven't really even attempted to address. You've claimed you would discuss, in detail, later...but haven't. You also dismissed some as "comical", and went on about how you were banned from the website dberrie posted (which I actually enjoyed). You've not actually offered anything to this point. Critics like to assert that there's some huge BoA problem, with an intricate narrative, which causes many to leave the Church, but it's all a very simply subject. I would say only the weak in the Gospel allow this to become a stumbling block. The Church has addressed the issue rather well.

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

The Book of Abraham is a record of the Biblical prophet Abraham and is accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ as a book of scripture.

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

 

[Gordon]

After we have all done so, then let it go where every it leads.

On another note...you act like this is all new to us. Do you honestly think we haven't heard these arguments many times before?

 

[Markk]

Michael Chandler... everyone should know this.
The text originated from them. He didn't say that Abraham actually penned, with his own sweaty hand, the papyri he was currently in possession of.
He did not. The GAEL isn't proof that he believed he could actually read the language.
It's not. There is literally nothing showing this to be the case.
They seem to be quite consistent.
I would say this is the general consensus. While I don't necessarily believe the entire BoA text was contained on the long scroll (if any), apparently, writings from Abraham were on it (manuscript form, not original text).
This is really the only card the critics have. We don't actually have a side-by-side text analysis for comparison...so it's based solely off of interpretation of the facsimiles. Remember, Abraham is real... Osiris isn't. The Egyptians could have claimed the original vignettes to mean whatever they wanted.
Please do so.
You've been given positions by other posters already...to which you haven't really even attempted to address. You've claimed you would discuss, in detail, later...but haven't. You also dismissed some as "comical", and went on about how you were banned from the website dberrie posted (which I actually enjoyed). You've not actually offered anything to this point. Critics like to assert that there's some huge BoA problem, with an intricate narrative, which causes many to leave the Church, but it's all a very simply subject. I would say only the weak in the Gospel allow this to become a stumbling block. The Church has addressed the issue rather well.

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

The Book of Abraham is a record of the Biblical prophet Abraham and is accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ as a book of scripture.

www.churchofjesuschrist.org

Gordon what is your position, do you have one. I promise I will get as deep as possible with the BoA, but first I want to try to establish each of our general positions. Just answer these three questions and I'll get things rolling.

Do you believe that Joseph could read and translate the Papyri?

Did Joseph claim or demonstrate he could read and translate the Papyri?

Do you believe in the long and missing scroll theory, the catalyst theory, or other?

My opinion on these questions are no, yes, and neither. And regard to "other" I believe he just more or less made it up.

If this moves forward we will go deep in the essay and where it is accurate as well as where it is lacking.

On another note...you act like this is all new to us. Do you honestly think we haven't heard these arguments many times before?

I have no idea. I know Ralf and I have discussed them. From what DB said and linked me to, I doubt it. And I have no idea if you have or not.

 

[Gordon]

Just answer these three questions and I'll get things rolling.

I honestly hope you are not going to play games here. If you actually read my response, you would see that I already answered your questions. I'm sure you, or another critic, will retort that I should just give a "yes" or "no" response to your questions...but it's not needed. For you to fail to realize, and/or acknowledge this (that I have already answered), shows you really didn't take the time to actually read my response, and are not interested in an honest and sincere discussion.

Also, in the quarter century of debating critics online...I have obviously heard, and discussed, the arguments against the BoA numerous times.

 

[Elijah the Tishbite]

I honestly hope you are not going to play games here. If you actually read my response, you would see that I already answered your questions. I'm sure you, or another critic, will retort that I should just give a "yes" or "no" response to your questions...but it's not needed. For you to fail to realize, and/or acknowledge this (that I have already answered), shows you really didn't take the time to actually read my response, and are not interested in an honest and sincere discussion.

Also, in the quarter century of debating critics online...I have obviously heard, and discussed, the arguments against the BoA numerous times.

One of the most obvious questions would be whether the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price Chapters 4 & 5 teaches many Gods were involved in the creation, while the Book of Moses 1:6 teaches only One God in existence, and Isaiah 44:24 teaches only One God involved in the creation

 

[Gordon]

while the Book of Moses 1:6 teaches only One God in existence

Did you say something...?

Oh, that's right... you're just here to sabotage the discussion.

But no... that's not what Moses 1:6 states.

 

[Markk]

I'll just start with Facsimile #3



EXPLANATION

Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as
emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.

Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.



I think we all believe that Joseph whether by the inspiration of God or not, wrote ( with the help of scribes) the entire BoA. In facsimile 3 he actually shows he believed he could read Egyptain script by three of his exclamations, numbers 2,4,and 5.


One at a time. Exclamation #2 reads that this person is King Pharaoh. He wrote that it states it in the character above "his" head.

My position that is partly:
1. The person in figure 1 in clearly a woman, and is a typical rendering of the Goddess Isis with her typical sun disk on here head,
2. The woman, based on thousands of inscriptions on similar ancient text, tombs, and temples...etc., is Isis, the sister/wife of Osiris.
3. The words above her head read, according to Ritner and Rhodes read that it is Isis, mother of he God (Horus). (BYU studies, "Isis the Pharaoh" Ritner, “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” and verbally on his 13 hour Mormon stories interview) I'll link these later tonight after work.


My main point hear so far is that Joseph "claimed" to read, understand, and translate Egyptain.

More later on exclamation 2.