Statement on the problems with the Book of Abraham

[Hannant]

He was good enough to do that for us himself

Come on. He drew a human head!

Explain that

[buffalo_girl]

He was good enough to do that for us himself

[/color]
Since that's the conclusion based on various itemized proofs above, why continue wasting your energy on the pursuit of every 'jot & tittle' of his alleged fraud?

Since - in your estimation - Joseph has already been proven a fraud, why not walk away into a better, more self-directed life?

Wishing you a lifetime of thoroughly satisfying answers to your every question!

[Bgood]

:ymapplause:

[DragonSlayer]

Ed Goble here. My new blog covers all of the problems and offers the solution here. Rather than writing a book on the subject as I thought I would do, right now I will present all of my research on this blog in its current form and document it. I have the solution to the problem of the Book of Abraham.

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DragonSlayer]

Ed Goble here. Not sure if the last post worked since I've created a new account here. Hopefully this is not a duplicate post.

I have the solution. Some people may disagree, but this solution is actually consistent with evidence.

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hannant]

Gday mate.
Great effort.
Send it to church HQ.
They've tried everything else but nothing has stuck, so they'll give yours a go

[freedomforall]

Hey Hannant, what was all this good luck and resigning talk? Wish you would stick to your word rather than spew more lies and falsehoods.

Anyone who seeks after greater light, knowledge, and understanding should be well advised to stay the hell away from hannants vile words because there is no light coming from him. There is no truth in his words, just a invisible black hole that sucks up all light and leaves no hope.

Hey, watch out, this kind of talk is against forum rules. I got PM'd a warning for it. Am I the only one?

[DragonSlayer]

Gday mate.
Great effort.
Send it to church HQ.
They've tried everything else but nothing has stuck, so they'll give yours a go

I am a private researcher. I have no interest in sending this to Church Headquarters, and I have no interest in putting a lot of effort into trying to convince other people to take my theory seriously either. People can look at my research, and if my logic and research makes sense, then it will withstand scrutiny. If not, it will be back to the drawing board and I will adjust the theory where it needs to be adjusted. In the end, people need a spiritual conversion to the book of Abraham through the Holy Ghost, and no amount of apologetics will help them with that ultimately. Apologetics cannot stop individuals like you from making a choice to apostatize. Apologetics can only help you see a possibility of truth in a matter, to create an environment where faith can exist. My issue with other apologetics on the Book of Abraham is methodological. This is why, ultimately, my purpose is not about proving my theory. Its about pointing out methodological problems with other theories and making a call to have apologetics that are methodologically sound. The theories that evade evidence rather than explain it have a methodological problem, and this ends up hurting and impeding our cause rather than helping it. I seem to detect a bit of a mocking tone from your words anyway, so I am not going to spend a lot of time or effort answering you.

[log]

Without accounting for the perfectly preserved papyrus, done with red ink, which even hostile sources and eyewitnesses demonstrate Joseph claimed was the source of the Book of Abraham, there is no reason to consider your theory.

[DragonSlayer]

Without accounting for the perfectly preserved papyrus, done with red ink, which even hostile sources and eyewitnesses demonstrate Joseph claimed was the source of the Book of Abraham, there is no reason to consider your theory.

Respectfully, then I'm sure that favoring that kind of stuff over the physical evidence of the translation process will continue to get you where it has gotten us for the last fifty years. Good luck with that.

[log]

Personally, I'm satisfied with things the way they are. Like the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, the original papyrus source of the Book of Abraham is not in our possession. Pretending that it is within our possession is just that - a pretence.

[andsmith0723]

Ed Goble here. My new blog covers all of the problems and offers the solution here. Rather than writing a book on the subject as I thought I would do, right now I will present all of my research on this blog in its current form and document it. I have the solution to the problem of the Book of Abraham.

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you for that. I myself have also come to many of the same conclusions as you specifically on the system of interpretation used for the papyri. If we look through egyptian history we find virtually nothing of the Bibles history concerning the jews building the pyramids. It should be of no suprise that we also find nothing of abraham and his influence. If pharaoh was cursed in not holding the priesthood of old -the adamaic- then it would make sense that the influence of abraham and that priesthood would've been erased by pharaoh and their idolatry. The rosetta stone would therefore have contained the pagan system of interpretation and not the abrahamic interpretation of astronomy handed down from the Lord. Isn't it also curious that the Nephites used "reformed egyptian" when they came to America? Why would they use a "reformed" version of egyptian? Perhaps the original had been corrupted and adapted for paganism, and they needed a new form. Just a thought. Whatever the case it is clear to me that 1) Joseph did not just make it up. 2) Language and the meaning of language can be lost in translation 3) The BOA is not the keystone of our religion. The BOM is, if you know the BOM is true then you know the BOA is true as well

[DragonSlayer]

Personally, I'm satisfied with things the way they are. Like the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, the original papyrus source of the Book of Abraham is not in our possession. Pretending that it is within our possession is just that - a pretence.

I would say that pretending that it is NOT in our possession is entirely the problem, and why people continue to be deceived so easily by the critics/anti-Mormons and their claim that Joseph could not translate, because it is so obvious that we have them but our apologists are doing everything they can do to avoid having to conclude that, and denying it with all the fervor of their souls. bad apologetics is a great thing if you like to remain in ignorance.

[log]

Personally, I'm satisfied with things the way they are. Like the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, the original papyrus source of the Book of Abraham is not in our possession. Pretending that it is within our possession is just that - a pretence.

I would say that pretending that it is NOT in our possession is entirely the problem.

Witnesses and contradictory sources are a problem, aren't they? It is easier to deny them than to account for them.

[DragonSlayer]

Well, you know, if you choose to be a troll about this, more power to you. I determined ahead of time that I wasn't going to get into another brawl here. You are welcome to live in your world based on your sources. I have the body of the murder victim, figuratively speaking, not just a bunch of people saying in court what they thought they saw. I have a document called the Egyptian Alphabet with Joseph Smith's handwriting on it with translations from symbols from the Sensen Book of Breathings papyrus next to his handwriting in high resolution on the Joseph Smith Papers site. That's Joseph Smith's fingerprints on the figurative body. I have Joseph Smith filling in all the lacunae with his own material in Facsimile #1 and Facsimile #2. Go ahead and live in your world my friend. For those like me that have searched a long time for an actual answer that fits with the physical evidence, I hope they will now have an answer to makes sense to them as I have. I have spent two decades on this problem, including puzzling over the things that you call a "problem".

Lacunae in the source material hardly disqualifies it as not being perfectly preserved. Do as you wish. Think as you wish. for the rest of those that will agree with me, we will finally have something that makes sense to us. Glad yours makes sense to you.

[DragonSlayer]

Ed Goble here. My new blog covers all of the problems and offers the solution here. Rather than writing a book on the subject as I thought I would do, right now I will present all of my research on this blog in its current form and document it. I have the solution to the problem of the Book of Abraham.

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you for that. I myself have also come to many of the same conclusions as you specifically on the system of interpretation used for the papyri. If we look through egyptian history we find virtually nothing of the Bibles history concerning the jews building the pyramids. It should be of no suprise that we also find nothing of abraham and his influence. If pharaoh was cursed in not holding the priesthood of old -the adamaic- then it would make sense that the influence of abraham and that priesthood would've been erased by pharaoh and their idolatry. The rosetta stone would therefore have contained the pagan system of interpretation and not the abrahamic interpretation of astronomy handed down from the Lord. Isn't it also curious that the Nephites used "reformed egyptian" when they came to America? Why would they use a "reformed" version of egyptian? Perhaps the original had been corrupted and adapted for paganism, and they needed a new form. Just a thought. Whatever the case it is clear to me that 1) Joseph did not just make it up. 2) Language and the meaning of language can be lost in translation 3) The BOA is not the keystone of our religion. The BOM is, if you know the BOM is true then you know the BOA is true as well

Happy to see that there is actually another kindred soul in the world. I thought I was all alone up to this point.
Well see, the "pagan" system of interpretation is the actual mechanical Egyptian. It is this other system of Interpretation that is more akin to something like cabala or something like magical devices like the "faculty of abrac" or magic squares is something that Syncretist Egyptians invented in order to use symbols outside their original intent. Its like a cabalist finding something in the scriptures that the writer of the document never intended to begin with. When the cabalist finds something like this, it is he that is actually imposing it on the document. The document didn't magically have it there to begin with. Its not that the Abrahamic meanings have anything to do with the original author of the Book of Breathings. Therefore, its not like a mechanical translation of it would yield that meaning. You have to get into the head of the person that used it that way, which Joseph Smith had access to the spirit, which knew how Hor the Egyptian used the document.

[log]

Well, you know, if you choose to be a troll about this, more power to you.

Is it troll behavior to point out your foundational claim is false, on historical evidence and eyewitness accounts from hostile sources?

[andsmith0723]

Ed Goble here. My new blog covers all of the problems and offers the solution here. Rather than writing a book on the subject as I thought I would do, right now I will present all of my research on this blog in its current form and document it. I have the solution to the problem of the Book of Abraham.

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you for that. I myself have also come to many of the same conclusions as you specifically on the system of interpretation used for the papyri. If we look through egyptian history we find virtually nothing of the Bibles history concerning the jews building the pyramids. It should be of no suprise that we also find nothing of abraham and his influence. If pharaoh was cursed in not holding the priesthood of old -the adamaic- then it would make sense that the influence of abraham and that priesthood would've been erased by pharaoh and their idolatry. The rosetta stone would therefore have contained the pagan system of interpretation and not the abrahamic interpretation of astronomy handed down from the Lord. Isn't it also curious that the Nephites used "reformed egyptian" when they came to America? Why would they use a "reformed" version of egyptian? Perhaps the original had been corrupted and adapted for paganism, and they needed a new form. Just a thought. Whatever the case it is clear to me that 1) Joseph did not just make it up. 2) Language and the meaning of language can be lost in translation 3) The BOA is not the keystone of our religion. The BOM is, if you know the BOM is true then you know the BOA is true as well

Happy to see that there is actually another kindred soul in the world. I thought I was all alone up to this point.
Well see, the "pagan" system of interpretation is the actual mechanical Egyptian. It is this other system of Interpretation that is more akin to something like cabala or something like magical devices like the "faculty of abrac" or magic squares is something that Syncretist Egyptians invented in order to use symbols outside their original intent. Its like a cabalist finding something in the scriptures that the writer of the document never intended to begin with. When the cabalist finds something like this, it is he that is actually imposing it on the document. The document didn't magically have it there to begin with.

That's a very interesting and methodical viewpoint. It's gonna take me a bit to really let it sink in, but I cannot logically argue with it. What do you think about the possibility of an original interpretation being corrupted, and lost, then being restored? Much like the need for the BOM and the Bible being changed.

[DragonSlayer]

Well, you know, if you choose to be a troll about this, more power to you.

Is it troll behavior to point out your foundational claim is false, on historical evidence and eyewitness accounts from hostile sources?

Its troll behavior to pick at a sore until it bleeds. Again, believe as you will. Live as you will. I hope you continue to have peace in your world.

[log]

Well, you know, if you choose to be a troll about this, more power to you.

Is it troll behavior to point out your foundational claim is false, on historical evidence and eyewitness accounts from hostile sources?

Its troll behavior to pick at a sore until it bleeds.

Having constructed a theory which is at its foundation false is a pretty massive sore. Is it possible to have been unaware that it was false when you began?

[DragonSlayer]

That's a very interesting and methodical viewpoint. It's gonna take me a bit to really let it sink in, but I cannot logically argue with it. What do you think about the possibility of an original interpretation being corrupted, and lost, then being restored? Much like the need for the BOM and the Bible being changed.

Well, the problem with that is, there are actual Hor-papyrus specific stuff being translated in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar that is not found in other versions of the Sensen Papyrus. If you look at the picture of the Hor papyrus on the Joseph Smith Papers site in high res, you will notice three vertical columns of characters surrounding the original for Facsimile #1. These are the specific characters that Joseph Smith spends the most time on. Many of these characters he translates as if they represent an alphabet (or star chart) of sorts, not unlike the fact that Nibley shows that Facsimile #2 is a Star Chart. This alphabet, containing such things as Kolob, Kli-flos-isis, and so forth, some with visual affinities to some of the characters in the Facsimile #2. In fact, the character in the "alphabet" that Joseph Smith identifies as Kolob looks like the Khnum-Ra character in Facsimile #2 cut in half. Now, if you read the book Hor Book of Breathings by Michael Rhodes, Rhodes translates these columns as something where Hor is identified as being the son of Usiwer ("Osiris the Great') the priest of Amon and Taikeybit the dancer. it is his immediate genealogy, so to speak. The interesting thing is the name Usiwer was translated by Joseph Smith as "Ah-bra-oam". In other words, Joseph Smith actually translated this as Abraham. Now, if you look in Facsimile #1, it is none other than the Figure of Osiris laying on the Lion Couch about to be sacrificed. Is it then a mistake for Joseph Smith to have translated "Osiris" as Abraham? I think not. Not just the guy on the Lion Couch. But also the character that stood for Osiris in the Alphabet? Sorry. This is not a coincidence.

Anyway, the point of all this is, Joseph Smith knew that this Hor was using his own papyrus this way, and this is Hor papyrus specific stuff. therefore, the only person that could have done this and interpreted it this way was Hor himself.

[DragonSlayer]

Having constructed a theory which is at its foundation false is a pretty massive sore. Is it possible to have been unaware that it was false when you began?

Serious man? Even after I politely bowed out of your little brawl?

[log]

Having constructed a theory which is at its foundation false is a pretty massive sore. Is it possible to have been unaware that it was false when you began?

Serious man? Even after I politely bowed out of your little brawl?

If the sore - your theory - is bleeding, perhaps you better get it cleaned of its infection - the false foundation upon which it is predicated - and bandaged. Nothing compels you to respond.

The Papyri That Aren't There
Larson has nothing but contempt for what he calls the "Missing Black and Red Scroll" Theory (pp. 129-34), for "it is considered valid by novices" (p. 85). He insists that we now possess the papyri from which the book of Abraham comes, and that Latter-day Saint scholars who have argued that another, missing, papyrus was the source are indulging in mere wishful thinking. After all, "whenever qualified people have studied the papyri, including such undisputed experts as Baer, Wilson, and Parker, they have always reached the same conclusions that [Dee Jay] Nelson did" (p. 151, deemphasis mine). Yet Larson is unaware that the most recent non-LDS Egyptologist to write on the subject, to my knowledge, said that "the Pap. Joseph Smith XI and X containing the Book of Breathings were wrongly identified by others with Joseph Smith's book of Abraham."35

Larson is adamant that "there were two, and only two, 'rolls of papyrus' " (pp. 133, 85) and accuses Nibley of concocting a story about there being more than one lengthy scroll in Nauvoo (pp. 129-30).36 This is important to him because he wants to be able to demonstrate that we have the papyrus from which Joseph Smith claimed to have derived the book of Abraham, and then point out triumphantly that the book of Abraham cannot, in fact, be derived from that papyrus. Nonetheless, the evidence appears to be on Nibley's side rather than Larson's. In 1842, the fragments we now have in the Joseph Smith Papyri were mounted in "a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics."37 The next year, in 1843, a nonmember named Charlotte Haven visited Lucy Mack Smith and wrote a letter to her own mother about it:

Then she [Mother Smith] turned to a long table, set her candlestick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was "the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit," and she read several minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament—and it might have been for anything we knew—but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence. Then in the same way she interpreted to us hieroglyphics from another roll. One was Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent, who—the serpent, I mean—was standing on the tip of his tail, which with his two legs formed a tripod, and had his head in Eve's ear.38

If Nibley's source seems suspect for being late, oral, and from a Mormon, this other source (which Nibley did not cite) nevertheless says the same thing—but is contemporary, written, and from a non-Mormon. Notice that the vignette described matches none of those in the Joseph Smith papyri we have from the Metropolitan Museum.39 And there seem indeed to have been two long rolls even after the present fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri were mounted. If there were only two rolls it is important to note that Joseph Smith Papyri I-XI were not on them.

Larson tries to dismiss the notion that the document from which the book of Abraham was translated was "beautifully written upon papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation" (pp. 129-32).40 But there is another eyewitness account from the Nauvoo period that supports this statement:

"Oh, here is the Pearl of Great Price," said Brother Horne, picking up that book. "I've seen these records with my own eyes," referring to the Book of Abraham, "and handled them with these hands. Mother Lucy . . . showed them to me. . . . The records which I saw were some kind of parchment or papyrus, and it contained writing in red and black. Mother Lucy told me that one was the writings of Abraham and the other the writings of Joseph, who was sold in Egypt."41

And there is still more evidence that Joseph Smith had additional papyri. Egyptian papyrus documents almost universally pertain to only one individual.42 So from an Egyptological perspective how many papyri do we know that Joseph Smith had? We know that there was a Book of Breathings belonging to Hor, son of Remnyqay and Taykhebit,43 a Book of the Dead belonging to Tasheritmin,44 a Book of the Dead belonging to Neferirnub,45 a hypocephalus belonging to Sheshonq,46 and a document belonging to Amenhotep, the son of Hor.47 Here we have documents from at least five different individuals. If we have all the papyri Joseph Smith had, where, we might ask Mr. Larson, are Facsimiles 2 and 3, the roll belonging to Amenhotep, or all the strange vignettes which those who saw the papyri in Nauvoo describe? If there are documents we do not have, by what clairvoyance do Larson and his fellow critics proclaim what was or was not on them? cite

[Hannant]

Yeah, I used to come up with fanciful possibilities to explain away the problems.

One day I stopped trying to kid myself and just accepted the obvious for what it is

You uh, really think Egypt destroyed every single trace of the old interpretation of early Abrahamic period heiroglyphs, and just invented a new language from them, with no record of how and when the transition occured. Never mind why.

They destroyed it all

But the new interpretation perfectly translates those old glyphs too.

Amazing people those Egyptians

[DragonSlayer]

If the sore - your theory - is bleeding, perhaps you better get it cleaned of its infection - the false foundation upon which it is predicated - and bandaged. Nothing compels you to respond.

Go ahead and take my words out of context. You created the sore by poking at me like other apologists always do the second I start talking about this. This is why I have had profound resentment towards your type of apologist for a very long time and have to ask the Savior all the time to maintain forgiveness toward your type. It isn't enough for two theories to co-exist and have people disagree and leave it at that. You scratched at it until it bled. You started it. You finished it. It behooves me not to enter into your world, not because I could not respond but because contention is of the devil. Like I said, you can live in your world. I'll live in mine. Just because you lay out your material does not force me to engage you in your brawl.