[Moderated Thread] Discussion on Mormonism

[rcronk]

You implied that the papyri was found and didn't match the Book of Abraham and therefore Joseph Smith is not a prophet. I explained why that was an incomplete picture. Do you agree that you left out some big parts in your bulleted list - like that only 11 fragments of two scrolls of the five representing about 13% were found and therefore that leaves a big hole in your list? That was item 3. You are bringing up additional information now and we can go through it but I'd at least expect you to say, "Oh, I didn't realize it was only 13%, I guess that doesn't prove anything in and of itself. What do you think about the facsimiles..." instead of barraging me with a long list of questions. It's overwhelming for me to, on my lunch break, be expected to go through all of these documents again looking for answers to your questions. I found answers to my own questions as I went through them and went through your information. I expected you to go through and answer your own questions too. I quoted from the links I gave you, but I'll try to give more context this time.

1. AIU, the papyri found, it turns out, is a common text known as the Book of the Dead. Quite a few copies have been found. To date not a single papyri has been found that contains anything remotely similar to the Book of Abraham.

Yes, the experts say it was the Book of the Dead. I'll take your word for it that quite a few copies have been found. I'll also take your word that no other Book of Abraham has been found yet - I'm sure we would have heard about it. More may yet be found. I guess if this was a rare event, one could look into why it was so rare. Of course, it could have been a complete fake, as you assume. I'm not an egyptologist or any kind of expert in these things but experts on both sides have ideas. Below is a section that may answer some of these questions.

So Smith happened to find a text that conveniently has no contemporary. Nothing in which to coorborate it and the only thing that could be found remaining of the papyri is the common portion.

Apparently so. Again, this is not proof or evidence for or against anything. You wording sounds biased though.

Why did the papyri containing a story of Abraham exist at all? Is there any basis to believe that Egyptians kept these important stories of Abraham when the Israelites didn't? Is there any reason to embalm a copy of the book of the dead and stories of Abraham with a dead Egyptian? The burial of mumies was very precise. Why include a text that had nothing to whatsoever to do with the Egyptian concept of the next life with the Book of the Dead? Why was a text that was very contemptous of Egyptian theology included in the ritual of Egyptian burial? Why did Abraham use facimilies? Why did Abraham draw facimilies that look remarkably like Egyptian facimilies? More damning, the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham do not depict what Joseph Smith Claimed. No scholars to date accept Smith's translation. The apologetics that try, in vain, to answer the criticisms are not taken seriously by any non-Mormon scholar. None agree with smith.

Hopefully some of your questions might be answered in this quote, if not, you can feel free to go look for answers to your questions in the links I gave you:

It is therefore possible that the Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings. But why? Why would an important Semitic document be attached to a pagan (Egyptian) funerary text?
Kevin Barney posits that the Book of Abraham material was passed on through the generations from Abraham to Jews of the 2nd century B.C.—or the Ptolemaic period—just as Old Testament scriptures were passed on to later generations.Sometime in the Ptolemaic period, a hypothetical Jewish redactor (editor), whom Barney labels "J-red" attached the Book of Abraham to the Egyptian papyri. Why? Because of the useful symbolism contained on the Egyptian funerary text.
This claim is supported by at least three known ancient Jewish texts. Barney notes that many Biblical scholars believe that an ancient Egyptian book—the Instructions of Amenemope—may have been the source for parts of the biblical book of Proverbs. The ancient "Testament of Abraham" has several similarities to the LDS Book of Abraham. The book also has strong similarities to an Egyptian papyrus related to the Book of the Dead. For example, notes Barney, it is widely recognized that a judgment scene described in the Testament of Abraham was
influenced by an Egyptian psychostasy ("soul weighing") papyrus.... It may even be that the author [of the Testament of Abraham] was gazing on such a psychostasy papyrus when he penned his account. But while there is a clear relationship between the Egyptian psychostasy scene and the judgment scene of the Testament of Abraham, the scene has been transformed to accord with Semitic needs and sensibilities. Osiris [Egyptian god] has become Abel; the Egyptian gods have become angels. Our author looks at the Egyptian illustration, yet sees a situation peopled with Semitic characters. Note the Osiris-Abel connection, to which we will return below.
The third example comes from the book of Luke's story of the rich man and Lazarus. In this tale, the beggar Lazarus ate the crumbs that fell from a rich man's table. When Lazarus died, angels carried him to Abraham's bosom. When the rich man died, he awoke in Hell but could see—far away—Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham. The rich man begged Abraham to send the dead Lazarus to his brothers so that they would repent and not befall the same terrible fate. (See Luke 16:19–31).
Scholars have shown that this story is based on a popular Jewish tale, written in Hebrew, but ultimately based on an Egyptian story. In the original Egyptian legend, the names are different (as are some of the general details of the story) but the basic account and moral is the same. In the Egyptian version, however (the version upon which the Hebrew tradition depends), Osiris plays the part later adapted (by Jews) to Abraham. It seems that the early Jews had no problem adapting the pagan god Osiris to important Judaic figures such as Abel or Abraham.
Not only do we see, in the Book of Luke, a Jewish adaptation of an Egyptian judgment scene, but we also find some interesting parallels to Facsimile 1 from the Book of Abraham. In this vignette, Joseph identified the figure lying on the lion couch as Abraham. Egyptologists, however, identify the figure as Osiris. Based on an early Judaic adaptation of Facsimile 1, Joseph got it exactly right.
Instead of focusing on how Egyptians of the 2nd century B.C. or 2000 B.C. understood the motifs, Barney convincingly argues that Abraham did not draw the facsimiles (which date nearly two thousand years after Abraham lived) but that these Egyptian vignettes "were either adopted [copied wholesale as the Egyptians drew them] or adapted [altered to more accurately reflect the Semitic perspective] by an Egyptian-Jewish redactor as illustrations of the attempt on Abraham's life and Abraham's teaching astronomy to the Egyptians." Barney argues that we should focus our attention on understanding how Jews of the 2nd century B.C. understood the Egyptian graphics.
In Facsimile 1 (the lion couch scene), for instance, under the floor there is a crocodile. Under the crocodile are numerous vertical lines. Joseph interpreted these lines as representing the "pillars of heaven." Egyptologists, however, tell us that this is incorrect. These lines really signify the palace façade. The etched lines around the crocodile signify, according to Joseph, "Raukeeyang" or "the expanse or firmament over our heads," or the high "heavens." Egyptologists, however, tell us that the lines are simply waters in which the crocodile swims. So according to an Egyptian interpretation, Joseph got it all wrong.
What if we compare Joseph's interpretation to how 2nd century B.C. Jews might have understood the scene? Firstly, Joseph's "Raukeeyang" is very similar to the Hebrew word for "expanse." "In Hebrew cosmology," writes Barney, "the Hebrew 'firmament' was believed to be a solid dome, supported by pillars." Recall the vertical lines in the vignette. This, "in turn was closely associated with the celestial ocean, which it supported." And remember that in Facsimile 1 it appears that the pillars are under the water in which the crocodile swims.
In the lower half of Facsimile 1, we have [the firmament]...(1) connected with the waters, as with the celestial ocean, (2) appearing to be supported by pillars, and (3) being solid and therefore capable of serving itself as a support, in this case for the lion couch. The bottom half of Facsimile 1 would have looked to J-red very much like a microcosm of the universe (in much the same way that the divine throne chariot of Ezekiel 1–2, which associates the four four-faced fiery living creatures with the [firmament]...above their heads on which God sits enthroned, is a microcosm of the universe). If we accept a Jewish redactor adapting Egyptian motifs to a Hebrew understanding, we can easily appreciate the possibility that "J-red" attached the Book of Abraham manuscript to the Book of Breathings in order to graphically convey the doctrines portrayed in the manuscript. Barney gives this useful comparison to the Book of Mormon:
The gold plates were untouched by human hands from the time Moroni deposited them in a stone box in the fifth century A.D. until Joseph's retrieval of the cache in 1827. Prior to that time, however, the records of the Book of Mormon peoples underwent an express redaction [abridgement or editing] process at the hands of Mormon and Moroni. Similarly, the papyrus source for the Book of Abraham sat untouched from the time it was deposited in the tomb during Greco-Roman age until Lebolo retrieved it [about 1820]. Before that time, though, it circulated among people and was subject to normal transmission processes. My hypothetical redactor, J-red, was in essentially the same position with respect to the Book of Abraham as Mormon was with respect to the Book of Mormon.

On the contrary there is much evidence that the apologetics are simply wrong.

Have you read the links I gave you? How can you make such a statement without having read what the apologetics I have linked to have said? Is any of this new information to you?

The following is a great video of the controversy that is very in depth.

The video is one-sided, repeating the assertions made in a book by the same anti-Mormon group a decade ago but without including research that disagrees with it since then. The link I gave about this video above covers the things that the video leaves out or gets wrong.

If you have more questions, I suggest you contact one of the many experts who could directly answer your questions. I'm just a computer geek and I do my best to read through both your information - yes I read your links and watch your videos - and information that has been created to provide another point of view on the same issues. I hope you would do the same.

So, feel free to look for your answers in the links I provided. I will not do it further than what I have already done. I don't have time to go through long lists of your questions and research and answer them for you. If you want to find out the answers, do it - I already did. We can move on to item 4 unless you have some final points.

 

[rcronk]

P.S. The following is with regard to your most recent post. In my last post, I revisited your earlier post but in doing so I forgot to address any new questions, so I'll try to do so below:

All well and good but the notes of Joseph's scribes put the markings from the scrolls directly next to translated text. This does not resolve the issue.

If you had read the links I gave you, you would know about this. From what I remember from the "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" link, the text was translated first, and then they tried to use the English translation to decipher the markings from the scrolls. A different ink was used for the markings than the English text and in several places, the ink for the markings overwrote the ink for the English text, meaning that they wrote the English text first, and then tried to match up the markings - to create a sort of Rosetta Stone, if you will. They ended up trying to do this from left to right instead of from right to left and so they failed in their attempt.

The video was posted to support my points and NOT to be my argument. Please deal with my points.

The video contains severe errors and biased incorrect assumptions based on incomplete information. I provided a link to a document that detailed those errors to show that you couldn't rely on the video to support your arguments. Does that make sense? Is that a valid thing for me to do?

 

[RandFan]

You implied that the papyri was found and didn't match the Book of Abraham and therefore Joseph Smith is not a prophet.

Yes, and I stand by this. For the reasons stated.

I explained why that was an incomplete picture. Do you agree that you left out some big parts in your bulleted list - like that only 11 fragments of two scrolls of the five representing about 13% were found and therefore that leaves a big hole in your list?

No because that makes unjustified assumptions.

• It assumes that nothing from the published book of Abraham and the notes used for the book of Abraham can be found in the papyri that was found.
• This is NOT true. It is patently untrue.

Yes, the experts say it was the Book of the Dead. I'll take your word for it that quite a few copies have been found. I'll also take your word that no other Book of Abraham has been found yet - I'm sure we would have heard about it. More may yet be found. I guess if this was a rare event, one could look into why it was so rare. Of course, it could have been a complete fake, as you assume. I'm not an egyptologist or any kind of expert in these things but experts on both sides have ideas. Below is a section that may answer some of these questions.

To date, no non-Mormon defends the Book of Abraham. It's simply untenible.

Kevin Barney posits that the Book of Abraham material was passed on through the generations from Abraham to Jews of the 2nd century B.C.—or the Ptolemaic period—just as Old Testament scriptures were passed on to later generations.Sometime in the Ptolemaic period, a hypothetical Jewish redactor (editor), whom Barney labels "J-red" attached the Book of Abraham to the Egyptian papyri. Why? Because of the useful symbolism contained on the Egyptian funerary text.

• This is rank speculation.
• It's not coroborated by anything.
• What does it mean to say "Because of the useful symbolism contained on the Egyptian funerary text".
• That makes no sense.

Barney notes that many Biblical scholars believe that an ancient Egyptian book—the Instructions of Amenemope—may have been the source for parts of the biblical book of Proverbs. The ancient "Testament of Abraham" has several similarities to the LDS Book of Abraham. The book also has strong similarities to an Egyptian papyrus related to the Book of the Dead. For example, notes Barney, it is widely recognized that a judgment scene described in the Testament of Abraham was
influenced by an Egyptian psychostasy ("soul weighing") papyrus.... It may even be that the author [of the Testament of Abraham] was gazing on such a psychostasy papyrus when he penned his account.

This is just asserted and the booknotes are to Mormon authors.

Why don't flashing red lights and buzzers go off when you read stuff like that?

It goes on and on like that. It's just all rank speculation with no basis in objective historicity.

You assume that there are two sides to the story and this one is as at least as credible.

It's not.

Apparently so. Again, this is not proof or evidence for or against anything. You wording sounds biased though.

"Biased"? It's an incredible story without any croboration or basis in fact.

Given the weight of the evidence it doesn't have the ring of truth.

Hopefully some of your questions might be answered in this quote, if not, you can feel free to go look for answers to your questions in the links I gave you:

No. Look, if you want to take this one at a time and slow it down so you will have time then fine.

I am more than willing to accomodate you. We can take it one item a day or one item a week.

I'm not going to do your work for you. For one thing I can't find any useful information. Only biased scholars or pseudo intelecuals offering spurious explanations without foundations. Linking to mormon scholars does not inspire faith.

So, feel free to look for your answers in the links I provided. I will not do it further than what I have already done.

You mean you will only argue via link? Really?

I don't have time to go through long lists of your questions and research and answer them for you. If you want to find out the answers, do it - I already did. We can move on to item 4 unless you have some final points.

No. I will not move on and I will not be brow beaten into simply accepting this pitiful apologetics.

If you are sincere then let's take the time. Let's slow down. Let's focus on one item at a time.

Fair enough?

I'm not going to do your work though and I'm not going to argue via link.

RandFan: Here is an argument.
Rcronk: Here is a link.
RandFan: Here is a counter link.

What's the point of that?

So, if you are game then let me know and I will post an item. Fair enough?

 

[rcronk]

Fair enough - one item at a time, like we agreed at the beginning. I will do that. I apologize for getting overwhelmed and throwing my hands up - that's a weakness of mine. I am willing to do one item at a time. Go ahead and pick one and let's go to it.

 

[prewitt81]

Just a reminder, since we're into page two now: Per the terms set forth in the OP, only RandFan and rcronk may post in this thread. Use the Commentary thread (also stickied) for any remarks/criticisms.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[prewitt81]

Thread closed at the request of the participants.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81