LDS Freedom Forum

.

EdGoble wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 12:35 pm http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogs ... imile.html

Here is my new paper on the Book of Abraham for anyone interested.

Hey EdGoble - very interesting so far as I have read through the basics / introduction. I've studied this topic a bit where anti-mormon efforts use the alleged scholarly interpretation to demonstrate that Joseph didn't translate these papyri correctly.

Since the Book of Abraham is incredibly true (which is just as true as true but has more incredible-ness,) of course these attempts don't hold much weight with me personally. My feeling has been the truth lies in one of the following explanations:

A. The scholarly translations are just lies or at best some form of twisting the truth
B. The scholarly translations are true but Joseph Smith was using them as a medium to translate either original data or related data.
C. The Papyri may not have been from Abraham but were at some point copied from Abraham's teachings and were perverted over time, etc.


Of course that's a lazy consideration, and I haven't put nearly as much thought into it as you. I just wanted to recap what I understand so far in hopes to help you generate some interest here: Are you saying that all the text is there in the papyri but is hidden or encoded by other methods? If so, does this explanation give room for scholars to have a legitimate "this is just the Book of the Dead and it all means other stuff" translation based off a different translation method, if that makes sense?

From your intro:

"(1) Abraham wrote a book thousands of years ago. Its contents were revealed to Joseph Smith in English. The papyrus that the Church has is not the one Abraham wrote. It doesn't contain this text.

(2) What is on the papyrus that the Church has? A whole bunch of pictures that go along with the Book of Abraham. This is called the papyrus of Hor, because the guy that owned this was named Hor (Horus). The type of papyrus it is is called a Sensen papyrus, or "Book of Breathings."

So, the theory is 1 and 2 and therefore ... 3? May I offer a friendly suggestion to add a name to the theory in your intro title and restate and define clearly what the theory is at the beginning--maybe another restating at the conclusion of the intro incorporating some of what you cover in between the opening and closing.

It looks like you've put a lot of time and effort in here, and I look forward to digging in a little deeper!

.

antimormons love this book. a perfect portrayal of mormon racism/cultic behaviour/polytheistic "non-christian", as enemies of the church try to point out. just imagine what other doctrines some members would feel a need to explain away if Joseph Smith had lived, and finished translating.

i proper love debating this stuff with anti's. out of all the guilty pleasures God has seen fit to inflict upon me, i think i received the double portion of bible bashing.

abijah wrote: ↑March 1st, 2018, 7:27 pm antimormons love this book. a perfect portrayal of mormon racism/cultic behaviour/polytheistic "non-christian", as enemies of the church try to point out. just imagine what other doctrines some members would feel a need to explain away if Joseph Smith had lived, and finished translating.

i proper love debating this stuff with anti's. out of all the guilty pleasures God has seen fit to inflict upon me, i think i received the double portion of bible bashing.

Have any fun tales to share?

not really. it's fun in the moment, but when i reflect later i just feel like i'm using god's gifts of knowledge to attack others and their faith, and don't really feel good about it. plus it's not really fair to begin with, me having been blessed with the true gospel and light of revelation. i feel like i'm in a gunfight against a man with an empty mag