Statement on the problems with the Book of Abraham

[Bgood]

:-ss

[Hannant]

Delete the thread.
Trust me on this. There is no coming back once you start getting into the Book of Abraham.

[SpeedRacer]

Delete the thread.
Trust me on this. There is no coming back once you start getting into the Book of Abraham.

Are you inferring that the whole thing is false because this is false?

[Hannant]

No comment. It is simply indefensible, that's all

[SempiternalHarbinger]

No comment. It is simply indefensible, that's all

Simply not true! I do agree that there is no going back, but in the most incredible, beautiful and mind blowing way. So much lack of understanding and so little faith if any at all.

[keep the faith]

No comment. It is simply indefensible, that's all

Simply not true! I do agree that there is no going back, but in the most incredible, beautiful and mind blowing way. So much lack of understanding and so little faith if any at all.

Ss true Semp. The ancient Prophets and Joseph understood cosmic imagery and planetary catastrophic events in a very personal way. The anti's have duped many of the clueless who don't take the time to educate themselves to buy into their deceitful game of trying to discredit the faith filled works of The Lord through scripture by using all assortment of half truths and outright lies. These arguments have been used for decades by unscrupulous faultfinders and deceivers who do not recognize the Spirit from the accuser. It is sad that so many get caught up in their web of lies and it causes them to lose their faith. These deceivers will one day stand before the judgement bar of God and account for their folly as Moroni testified. I suspect Joseph will have a lot to say as to where they will end up. ;)

[Bgood]

:-ss

[ajax]

There is no coming back once you start getting into the Book of Abraham.

Tell me about it. Beautiful scripture it is. Much light and truth contained therein.

[buffalo_girl]

But...does The Book of Abraham add to your spiritual insight?

[log]

The fact that we don't have the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated is established by hostile - anti-Mormon - contemporary eye-witnesses to the papyrus in question, which was characterized as having been beautifully done and featuring red ink in perfect preservation. None of the surviving Joseph Smith papyri match that description.

FARMS response? Joseph Smith was able to see things in the Papyrus that someone without the power of God could not see. FARMS's BYU "professors" then cross their fingers behind their backs and hope that Church will swallow this bitter pill.

Said by someone who has neglected to read his Nibley. Tsk.

[Bgood]

=))

[log]

The fact that we don't have the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated is established by hostile - anti-Mormon - contemporary eye-witnesses to the papyrus in question, which was characterized as having been beautifully done and featuring red ink in perfect preservation. None of the surviving Joseph Smith papyri match that description.

FARMS response? Joseph Smith was able to see things in the Papyrus that someone without the power of God could not see. FARMS's BYU "professors" then cross their fingers behind their backs and hope that Church will swallow this bitter pill.

Said by someone who has neglected to read his Nibley, in particular, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass. Tsk.

In fact, the papyrus used by Smith from which to derive the Book of Abraham has been dated by scholars to the first century AD--almost 2000 years after the time of Abraham.

It's like you didn't read what I wrote. Let me repeat it.

The fact that we don't have the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated is established by hostile - anti-Mormon - contemporary eye-witnesses to the papyrus in question, which was characterized as having been beautifully done and featuring red ink in perfect preservation. None of the surviving Joseph Smith papyri match that description.

[ajax]

But...does The Book of Abraham add to your spiritual insight?

Yes

[Bgood]

:ymcowboy:

[log]

Oh, I get it. You're not actually reading, but posting talking points.

[Hannant]

They have the original document.
Farms only fall back after that was that JS used it for inspiration only, and since the original, correct papyrus that Abraham did, every single papyrus since has corrupted the meanings of everything on the 3 facsimiles, AND, it wasn't a Jackal head but a human head, so JSs inserting a human head was correct and one day we will find a real manuscript, proving the 10,000 funerary texts found, that are all exactly the same BTW, proving them all false corruptions.
That's the best we got.
Yes Virginia, we have the manuscripts.
Don't let the colour red herring fool you, they all have JSs handwriting on them for goodness sake
Like I said, there is no come back from this.
You either start dry wrenching, or you bury the cog diss deeper

[log]

They have the original document.

I call bullcrap.

[Hyrcanus]

There are definitely problems that contemporary scholarship on the Book of Abraham presents us with. There is lots of back and forth, with interesting research coming out from both sides on a somewhat regular basis. Those predisposed one way or another won't have their opinion changed. I prefer a neutral ground, I don't find either sides argument compelling, so I'm willing to wait and see. I'll add parenthetically that I don't think anyone seriously involved in the research claims that we have all of the scrolls that Joseph had. I think the best any of them have done is to claim we have most, and can reasonably extrapolate what is on the portion we don't have.

Incidentally, if you take the same critical approach to the Bible you aren't left with anything better. Only a handful of the books in the Bible are written by the authors claimed by the text. We know it was common practice to embellish these records early in the transmission process. One of the most frequently cited stories from the New Testament where Jesus forgives the prostitute is overwhelmingly considered a subsequent addition not belonging to the original text. Huge swaths of the history represented in the Old Testament are demonstrably false.

I don't have the answers to those problems. The best I can do is one of my favorite quotes from C.S. Lewis:
"Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger than when a human, no longer desiring, but still intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys."

[durangout]

(yawn) another boring, tedious anti-Mormon thread...you guys need to come up with some better or at least some new material.

[buffalo_girl]

You either start dry wrenching, or you bury the cog diss deeper

or

You thank God the Father in the Name of His Only Begotten Son for additional insight The Book of Abraham has given you regarding His Creation and the process by which it is brought to pass!

[sevenator]

Incidentally, if you take the same critical approach to the Bible you aren't left with anything better. Only a handful of the books in the Bible are written by the authors claimed by the text. We know it was common practice to embellish these records early in the transmission process. One of the most frequently cited stories from the New Testament where Jesus forgives the prostitute is overwhelmingly considered a subsequent addition not belonging to the original text. Huge swaths of the history represented in the Old Testament are demonstrably false.

I don't think your point can be overstated. I was watching a show on the History Channel last week about translations of the Bible and they pointed out this very thing. In discussing the King James version, it was pointed out that the story of the woman taken in adultery and brought before the Savior by the Pharisees didn't appear in any text until the King James version. It was a story that was passed down as part of the oral tradition of Christianity. It was interesting to hear an professor from Notre Dame University say that the event "probably never happened". I disagree with the assessment, but from a "scholarly" perspective, her statement really can't be disproven. Hence, scholarship alone is not the answer.

[Hannant]

They have the original document.

I call bullcrap.

Yes I would expect that because your posts are quite emotional and devoid of facts and so forth

You/ we have not much else.

This is from LDS org.

/....In 1966 eleven fragments of papyri once possessed by the Prophet Joseph Smith were discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. They were given to the Church and have been analyzed by scholars who date them between about 100 B.C.and A.D. 100. A common objection to the authenticity of the book of Abraham is that the manuscripts are not old enough to have been written by Abraham, who lived almost two thousand years before Christ. Joseph Smith never claimed that the papyri were autographic (written by Abraham himself), nor that they dated from the time of Abraham. It is common to refer to an author’s works as “his” writings, whether he penned them himself, dictated them to others, or others copied his writings later.
/end.


Did you pick the lie in there?

Joseph Smith never said what?
And how does that square with The very Book of Abraham again?

[log]

They have the original document.

I call bullcrap.

Yes I would expect that because your posts are quite emotional and devoid of facts and so forth

Ah, you missed it, just like your compatriot before you.

I'll repeat it.

The fact that we don't have the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated is established by hostile - anti-Mormon - contemporary eye-witnesses to the papyrus in question, which was characterized as having been beautifully done and featuring red ink in perfect preservation. None of the surviving Joseph Smith papyri match that description.

Personally, if I were a moderator, I would ban people after they'd been corrected and refused to acknowledge it.

[Hannant]

http://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of- ... braham.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


That's the reference
I mean "Chaldea" didn't even exist for another thousand years!!??

[jbalm]

Incidentally, if you take the same critical approach to the Bible you aren't left with anything better. Only a handful of the books in the Bible are written by the authors claimed by the text. We know it was common practice to embellish these records early in the transmission process. One of the most frequently cited stories from the New Testament where Jesus forgives the prostitute is overwhelmingly considered a subsequent addition not belonging to the original text. Huge swaths of the history represented in the Old Testament are demonstrably false.

I don't think your point can be overstated. I was watching a show on the History Channel last week about translations of the Bible and they pointed out this very thing. In discussing the King James version, it was pointed out that the story of the woman taken in adultery and brought before the Savior by the Pharisees didn't appear in any text until the King James version. It was a story that was passed down as part of the oral tradition of Christianity. It was interesting to hear an professor from Notre Dame University say that the event "probably never happened". I disagree with the assessment, but from a "scholarly" perspective, her statement really can't be disproven. Hence, scholarship alone is not the answer.

Bummer that the books we are supposed to base our lives on were just made up. Lies by pious liars.