Book of Abraham

[Prestor John]

Agreement is not necessary to prove something is correct or incorrect.

It is when you cannot provide any reason for anyone to believe the Egyptologists you quoted over others.

Why should anyone believe their interpretation when other Egyptologists would translate it differently?

If Egyptologists are not in agreement, how can you claim that Joseph Smith was wrong?

I have quoted from Egyptologists who disagree with Smith. No one, including Clear, has provided any evidence that Egyptologists agree with Smith's translation of the facsimiles.

Clear provided many examples of Egyptologist who disagreed with the Egyptologists you quoted.

He also provided a plethora of supporting historical evidence that support Joseph Smith's understanding of the ancient world.

The Church admitting that Smith's translation does not necessarily mean he was wrong, but it's a huge backtrack and CYA (much like they've done on other issues).

How is stating the truth a "backtrack"?

I agree that sticking with the truth is the best way to CYA and the Church has done that repeatedly throughout its history.

I'm not "jumping to conclusions." I've read what modern Egyptologists have to say on the topic and I trust them - not Smith's unsupported version.

You trust in people who do not all agree on the interpretation?

 

[Watchmen]

I am aware of what you are referencing and I do not believe it says what you have claimed. Therefore, in order for you to better explain your position, you should have provided the source.

But don't worry. I will pick up your slack. The article can be found here: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

You will notice that the article does not make the claim that the Book of Abraham was "not a literal translation". It claims that since "The book originated with Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith translated beginning in 1835. Many people saw the papyri, but no eyewitness account of the translation survives, making it impossible to reconstruct the process."

"We do know some things about the translation process. The word translation typically assumes an expert knowledge of multiple languages. Joseph Smith claimed no expertise in any language. He readily acknowledged that he was one of the “weak things of the world,” called to speak words sent “from heaven.” Speaking of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Lord said, “You cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.” The same principle can be applied to the book of Abraham. The Lord did not require Joseph Smith to have knowledge of Egyptian. By the gift and power of God, Joseph received knowledge about the life and teachings of Abraham.

"On many particulars, the book of Abraham is consistent with historical knowledge about the ancient world. Some of this knowledge, which is discussed later in this essay, had not yet been discovered or was not well known in 1842. But even this evidence of ancient origins, substantial though it may be, cannot prove the truthfulness of the book of Abraham any more than archaeological evidence can prove the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt or the Resurrection of the Son of God. The book of Abraham’s status as scripture ultimately rests on faith in the saving truths found within the book itself as witnessed by the Holy Ghost." (You would have known this if you had read Clear's comments)

Now the portion of interest,

"Neither the Lord nor Joseph Smith explained the process of translation of the book of Abraham, but some insight can be gained from the Lord’s instructions to Joseph regarding translation. In April 1829, Joseph received a revelation for Oliver Cowdery that taught that both intellectual work and revelation were essential to translating sacred records. It was necessary to “study it out in your mind” and then seek spiritual confirmation. Records indicate that Joseph and others studied the papyri and that close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation. As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.”

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri."

What the Church admitted was:

- no one knew the method of translation

- the same principle applied to the translation of the Book of Mormon could be applied to the Book of Abraham.

- there was a possibility that the Book of Abraham was "not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be".

Claiming a possibility that it may not be a literal rendering is not the same as saying that it was not.

The idea that it could not be a literal rendering does not mean that the Book of Abraham is not scripture or that Joseph Smith's interpretation of the facsimile was incorrect.

The first sentence of the article still reads, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture."

I will share again a portion from the article, "It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri."

If the scroll that the Book of Abraham was translated from was destroyed, whose to say what is or is not "close"?

If the interpretation of the facsimile was not a "literal translation" (as you admitted no one claimed) then how could anyone judge Joseph Smith's interpretation of it?

If (as the article claimed as a possibility) "the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation" and "catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham" then what does it really matter what the papyri says?

Do you always answer questions with a question?

Clear did and you ignored it. Wouldn't you just ignore me too?

Irrelevant.

If what you have shared on this thread is this "information" you encountered, then it sounds like you were looking for any shallow reason to leave the Church.

If we do not even know the method of translation, how could I provide what you are asking for?

Nevertheless, what Joseph Smith wrote about the ancient world has since been proven to be consistent with historical knowledge that was not discovered until after his death.

You can ignore it all you want, but that does not make it any less true.

Hahahahahajajahah!!!

When it's pointed out that Smith's interpretation conflicts with the experts, the best the church can come up with is "We don't know the process he used." The process is irrelevant. The facsimiles' translations are wrong.

 

[Watchmen]

It is when you cannot provide any reason for anyone to believe the Egyptologists you quoted over others.

Why should anyone believe their interpretation when other Egyptologists would translate it differently?

If Egyptologists are not in agreement, how can you claim that Joseph Smith was wrong?

Clear provided many examples of Egyptologist who disagreed with the Egyptologists you quoted.

He also provided a plethora of supporting historical evidence that support Joseph Smith's understanding of the ancient world.

How is stating the truth a "backtrack"?

I agree that sticking with the truth is the best way to CYA and the Church has done that repeatedly throughout its history.

You trust in people who do not all agree on the interpretation?

Oh. And here's a quote from the Chuch's article:

"Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be."


I trust in experts who agree Smith was wrong. They might disagree here and there with each other, but none of them are consistent with Smith.

 

[Watchmen]

I am aware of what you are referencing and I do not believe it says what you have claimed. Therefore, in order for you to better explain your position, you should have provided the source.

But don't worry. I will pick up your slack. The article can be found here: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

You will notice that the article does not make the claim that the Book of Abraham was "not a literal translation". It claims that since "The book originated with Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith translated beginning in 1835. Many people saw the papyri, but no eyewitness account of the translation survives, making it impossible to reconstruct the process."

"We do know some things about the translation process. The word translation typically assumes an expert knowledge of multiple languages. Joseph Smith claimed no expertise in any language. He readily acknowledged that he was one of the “weak things of the world,” called to speak words sent “from heaven.” Speaking of the translation of the Book of Mormon, the Lord said, “You cannot write that which is sacred save it be given you from me.” The same principle can be applied to the book of Abraham. The Lord did not require Joseph Smith to have knowledge of Egyptian. By the gift and power of God, Joseph received knowledge about the life and teachings of Abraham.

"On many particulars, the book of Abraham is consistent with historical knowledge about the ancient world. Some of this knowledge, which is discussed later in this essay, had not yet been discovered or was not well known in 1842. But even this evidence of ancient origins, substantial though it may be, cannot prove the truthfulness of the book of Abraham any more than archaeological evidence can prove the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt or the Resurrection of the Son of God. The book of Abraham’s status as scripture ultimately rests on faith in the saving truths found within the book itself as witnessed by the Holy Ghost." (You would have known this if you had read Clear's comments)

Now the portion of interest,

"Neither the Lord nor Joseph Smith explained the process of translation of the book of Abraham, but some insight can be gained from the Lord’s instructions to Joseph regarding translation. In April 1829, Joseph received a revelation for Oliver Cowdery that taught that both intellectual work and revelation were essential to translating sacred records. It was necessary to “study it out in your mind” and then seek spiritual confirmation. Records indicate that Joseph and others studied the papyri and that close observers also believed that the translation came by revelation. As John Whitmer observed, “Joseph the Seer saw these Record and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records.”

It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri.

Alternatively, Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham, much as he had earlier received a revelation about the life of Moses while studying the Bible. This view assumes a broader definition of the words translator and translation. According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. They catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri."

What the Church admitted was:

- no one knew the method of translation

- the same principle applied to the translation of the Book of Mormon could be applied to the Book of Abraham.

- there was a possibility that the Book of Abraham was "not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be".

Claiming a possibility that it may not be a literal rendering is not the same as saying that it was not.

The idea that it could not be a literal rendering does not mean that the Book of Abraham is not scripture or that Joseph Smith's interpretation of the facsimile was incorrect.

The first sentence of the article still reads, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the book of Abraham as scripture."

I will share again a portion from the article, "It is likely futile to assess Joseph’s ability to translate papyri when we now have only a fraction of the papyri he had in his possession. Eyewitnesses spoke of “a long roll” or multiple “rolls” of papyrus. Since only fragments survive, it is likely that much of the papyri accessible to Joseph when he translated the book of Abraham is not among these fragments. The loss of a significant portion of the papyri means the relationship of the papyri to the published text cannot be settled conclusively by reference to the papyri."

If the scroll that the Book of Abraham was translated from was destroyed, whose to say what is or is not "close"?

If the interpretation of the facsimile was not a "literal translation" (as you admitted no one claimed) then how could anyone judge Joseph Smith's interpretation of it?

If (as the article claimed as a possibility) "the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation" and "catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham" then what does it really matter what the papyri says?

Do you always answer questions with a question?

Clear did and you ignored it. Wouldn't you just ignore me too?

Irrelevant.

If what you have shared on this thread is this "information" you encountered, then it sounds like you were looking for any shallow reason to leave the Church.

If we do not even know the method of translation, how could I provide what you are asking for?

Nevertheless, what Joseph Smith wrote about the ancient world has since been proven to be consistent with historical knowledge that was not discovered until after his death.

You can ignore it all you want, but that does not make it any less true.

John, I'm curious. Since the essay said exactly what I claimed, are you going to apologize and retract your post above?

Also, I've haven't even scratched the surface of the reasons that led to me stop believing in the Chirch and its teachings. Don't be so presumptuous to think I'd share such a personal and challenging journey with the likes of you.

 

[Prestor John]

Hahahahahajajahah!!!

When it's pointed out that Smith's interpretation conflicts with the experts, the best the church can come up with is "We don't know the process he used." The process is irrelevant. The facsimiles' translations are wrong.

You didn't actually read my post, did you? You didn't even read the entire article. If you had then you'd know how important the translation process was.

You have yet to prove that Joseph Smith's translation of the facsimiles was wrong. You have quoted a few Egyptologists' educated guesses. That is all.

Oh. And here's a quote from the Chuch's article:

"Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be.".

You quoted only a portion of that sentence. The entire sentence reads, "According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be."

The Church was presenting a theory or possibility. It was not definitively stating that Joseph Smith's translation was not a literal translation.

If it was a literal translation or not is irrelevant to the fact that the Church still considers Joseph Smith to be a Prophet and the Book of Abraham to be true scripture.

I trust in experts who agree Smith was wrong. They might disagree here and there with each other, but none of them are consistent with Smith.

If they cannot agree with each other, then how can any of them claim who is right or who is wrong?

Also, as Clear pointed out, these "experts" interpreted the facsimile as solely Egyptian, when it is actually a Semitic redaction. Making their interpretation incorrect.

Also also, nothing these "experts" have claimed somehow disprove all the other things that Joseph Smith got right about the ancient world.

You need to stop ignoring that.

John, I'm curious. Since the essay said exactly what I claimed, are you going to apologize and retract your post above?

No. You quoted only a portion of that sentence. It was offered up as a possibility. Nothing more.

Your blinders keep causing you to be dishonest and you see only what you want to see.

Also, I've haven't even scratched the surface of the reasons that led to me stop believing in the Chirch and its teachings.?

I know for a fact that anything you present would be just as shallow and ineffectual as what you have already presented.

Don't be so presumptuous to think I'd share such a personal and challenging journey with the likes of you.

Choosing the easier route is not challenging.

 

[Watchmen]

You didn't actually read my post, did you? You didn't even read the entire article. If you had then you'd know how important the translation process was.

You have yet to prove that Joseph Smith's translation of the facsimiles was wrong. You have quoted a few Egyptologists' educated guesses. That is all.

You quoted only a portion of that sentence. The entire sentence reads, "According to this view, Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be."

The Church was presenting a theory or possibility. It was not definitively stating that Joseph Smith's translation was not a literal translation.

If it was a literal translation or not is irrelevant to the fact that the Church still considers Joseph Smith to be a Prophet and the Book of Abraham to be true scripture.

If they cannot agree with each other, then how can any of them claim who is right or who is wrong?

Also, as Clear pointed out, these "experts" interpreted the facsimile as solely Egyptian, when it is actually a Semitic redaction. Making their interpretation incorrect.

Also also, nothing these "experts" have claimed somehow disprove all the other things that Joseph Smith got right about the ancient world.

You need to stop ignoring that.

No. You quoted only a portion of that sentence. It was offered up as a possibility. Nothing more.

Your blinders keep causing you to be dishonest and you see only what you want to see.

I know for a fact that anything you present would be just as shallow and ineffectual as what you have already presented.

Choosing the easier route is not challenging.

Would you like to have a one on one debate on the issue?

Also, your statement that leaving the church is easier than staying in is presumptuous. You have no idea what people go through.

 

[Watchmen]

Would you like to have a one on one debate on the issue?

Also, your statement that leaving the church is easier than staying in is presumptuous. You have no idea what people go through.

I guess his answer is, "No."

 

[Prestor John]

Would you like to have a one on one debate on the issue?

I don't believe you know what a "debate" is. Ignoring the statements and evidences of your "opponent" while belligerently repeating the same argument is not a "debate".

Also, your statement that leaving the church is easier than staying in is presumptuous.

That's a weird way of spelling "accurate".

You have no idea what people go through.

You have no idea what I know and have experienced.

I guess his answer is, "No."

I got busy and also tired of hearing the same worn-out arguments.

Only in your delusional mind does that equate to my saying "No".

The world does not revolve around you.

 

[Watchmen]

I don't believe you know what a "debate" is. Ignoring the statements and evidences of your "opponent" while belligerently repeating the same argument is not a "debate".

That's a weird way of spelling "accurate".

You have no idea what I know and have experienced.

I got busy and also tired of hearing the same worn-out arguments.

Only in your delusional mind does that equate to my saying "No".

The world does not revolve around you.

Simple question. It requires only a yes or no answer. Will you have a one on one debate?

 

[Prestor John]

Simple question. It requires only a yes or no answer. Will you have a one on one debate?

I'd be willing, but I don't think there is anything more to be said on this topic.

 

[Watchmen]

I'd be willing, but I don't think there is anything more to be said on this topic.

Is that a yes or a no?

 

[Prestor John]

Is that a yes or a no?

I'm telling you to go ahead and try but I doubt you have any argument I haven't seen before.

 

[Watchmen]

I'm telling you to go ahead and try but I doubt you have any argument I haven't seen before.

Ok. And I doubt you have any argument I haven't seen before. After all, I spent decades defending the church myself. I'll set up a one on one this week. Have a good Sunday.

 

[Prestor John]

Ok. And I doubt you have any argument I haven't seen before. After all, I spent decades defending the church myself. I'll set up a one on one this week. Have a good Sunday.

What's the point in even having the debate then?

 

[Watchmen]

What's the point in even having the debate then?

To revisit and rediscover. And, perhaps, maybe some new things will come to light.

 

[Prestor John]

To revisit and rediscover. And, perhaps, maybe some new things will come to light.

And if any of those new things support Joseph Smith's claims... Will you come back to the Church?

 

[Watchmen]

And if any of those new things support Joseph Smith's claims... Will you come back to the Church?

I will evaluate the information and make the decision that I think is best for my family. If any of the things discount Joseph Smith's claims, will you leave the church?

 

[Prestor John]

I will evaluate the information and make the decision that I think is best for my family. If any of the things discount Joseph Smith's claims, will you leave the church?

I have never come across anything that discounted him.

There have always been reasonable explanations for everything his critics have thrown at him.

The teachings of the Church have always been a significant benefit to me and mine. Brought joy to our lives and peace to our souls.

 

[Watchmen]

I have never come across anything that discounted him.

There have always been reasonable explanations for everything his critics have thrown at him.

The teachings of the Church have always been a significant benefit to me and mine. Brought joy to our lives and peace to our souls.

I suppose our definition of "reasonable" is different. I'll start the thread later this week.

 

[ukok102nak]

~;> perhaps the doctrines may have something to say whether someone is a prophet (although theres no prophets that will came from the west as they say
coz the prophets from east shall go to the west)

this a example of what they say about the prophet thing
as it is written
:read:
1 John 4:1
Beloved ones, do not believe every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of Elohim, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.


:ty:




godbless
unto all always