Does the universe need intelligence to order it?

[Midnight Rain]

No it is not. It is quantum fluctuations such that you THINK they are matter. There is no matter. When we look, we now see Quantum fluctutations, and ONLY Quantum fluctuations. The 'material' particles you think are real are virtual, and virtual means just that. A mirage of a pool of water is not water. It is nothing.

So what do you call these specific quantum fluctuations that act just like matter and follow all the laws of physics just as matter does?

Give ya a hint. We call it matter. Its like your saying 'your not a person your cells". Yeah I am made of cells but I am also a person.

 

[Midnight Rain]

The fakers and con-men ruin it for everyone. The real thing does exist, but you won't find it in some medicine show. The real thing isn't usually publicized, because there is no one trying to profit off of it, and because it only invites ridicule.

Crazy thing is she was a Mormon going to a Mormon church. Free of charge faith healing. So yeah I do not believe it and I have some strong feelings about it.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Here is the wikipedia article. They mentioned almost nothing of my favorite prophecy, the one given to Dr. Richards a year before his death. He was told that the day would come when bullets would rain down on him like hail, and that men would fall on his right, and on his left, but that he wouldn't receive so much as a hole in his clothing. Joseph didn't mention that one of those men would be himself, and that the other would be his brother.
List of prophecies of Joseph Smith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I didn't even feel the need to respond to the others. But I read through them all and none of them were convincing. All were either self fulfilling or so vague that it was conceivable that it would happen.

The Civil war one in particular has been brought up to me in the past. However what they always seem to miss is the fact that the war had been on comming for a long time. It was well known that the north and south would clash. There had been efforts for nearly 20 years to stop it from happening. He also didn't say when it would start.

Next portion is that it was in South Carolina. This is interesting but actually it was based off of his misconception that North Carolina would actually be part of the "north". Though a good guess as this would be the chief spot for the war to begin as the other states along the boarder would have been protected by mountains. It would have been a good educated guess.

Both the north and the south asked both the French and the English for assistance. So would that prove he was wrong?

Next it didn't pour over into Europe. WWI was several decades later and had nothing to do with the Civil war.

So this prophecy is a bumbling failure with some slight incoherent bits that could be rationalized later.

 

[godnotgod]

So what do you call these specific quantum fluctuations that act just like matter and follow all the laws of physics just as matter does?

Give ya a hint. We call it matter. Its like your saying 'your not a person your cells". Yeah I am made of cells but I am also a person.

Now you're speaking a different language, which is a comparison of the microscopic to the gross. The analogy doesn't work when referring to Quantum fluctuations and matter.

You see, the problem is that you are still fixated on the old idea of matter, and infusing it into the discussion about Quantum fluctuations. They don't 'act just like matter and follow all the laws of physics just as matter does.' Matter is non-existent. Quantum fluctuations act like Quantum fluctuations because that is what they are, which, on the gross scale, we interpret, via perceptual reality, as something real, because it now has form seeming to be substance.

The whole thing is an illusion. But this is still not in the correct context. Our consciousness must be expanded to understand the background from which the illusion emerges, and why. By focusing on the background, the fish can be correctly understood in its relationship with the surrounding sea. The background for human existence and the entire universe is Universal Consciousness.

re: 'person': No, you are not a person. That you think you are is the mind self creating itself in Identification. 'I' is nothing more than an illusion.

 

[rrosskopf]

We are not discussing courts of law but rather courts of science. Testimony is considered in forming hypothesis, but confirmation requires more than anecdotal evidence.

I wish it worked like that. It doesn't always. Canals on Mars. The Piltdown man. Similarities between embryotic forms of different animals. All accepted on the authority of one man. All false. All found in scientific textbooks when I was in High School. I suppose that is why everything should be established with two or more witnesses.
"And now, behold, I give unto you, and also unto my servant Joseph, the keys of this gift, which shall bring to light this ministry; and in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
(Doctrine and Covenants 6:28)

Not really much debate here, just a whole lot of obfuscation and
and excuse making.

You mean by skeptics? ;-)
Clearly, you only know one side of the argument. You can be sure it is propaganda, when nothing positive is ever mentioned. For example, where is the list from Egyptologists of the things that Joseph Smith got right in the Book of Abraham? If one only reads anti-mormon literature, one would assume it to be zero. That is far from the truth. In regards to the sacrifice of Abraham, Joseph Smith's translation is still more compelling. If this fasimile was a typical embalming scene, the deceased would be naked, or shown in mummy wrappings, and not fully clothed, struggling to get up with a priest between his legs holding a knife. The ancient Egyptians did sacrifice people on the iron lion couches, particularly if they were teaching religious doctrine that was at odds with their own belief. Although the Book of Abraham is very short - only three chapters were translated before Joseph Smith's death, there are many elements which are not found in the Bible. All of these elements have been found in other Abrahamic literature, literature unavailable to Joseph Smith. Take for example the Apocalypse of Abraham. It also has Abraham's vision of the cosmos, and where he also sees the premortal spirits of man. What other Christian church even teaches about the premortal spirits of man? Not one. So don't be so smug as you laugh off Joseph Smith.
I suggest you read One Eternal Round by Hugh Nibley and Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham by Tvedtnes. There is about 1200 pages between them, and no fluff.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Now you're speaking a different language, which is a comparison of the microscopic to the gross. The analogy doesn't work when referring to Quantum fluctuations and matter.
You see, the problem is that you are still fixated on the old idea of matter, and infusing it into the discussion about Quantum fluctuations. They don't 'act just like matter and follow all the laws of physics just as matter does.' Matter is non-existent. Quantum fluctuations act like Quantum fluctuations because that is what they are, which, on the gross scale, we interpret, via perceptual reality, as something real, because it now has form seeming to be substance.

The whole thing is an illusion. But this is still not in the correct context. Our consciousness must be expanded to understand the background from which the illusion emerges, and why. By focusing on the background, the fish can be correctly understood in its relationship with the surrounding sea. The background for human existence and the entire universe is Universal Consciousness.

re: 'person': No, you are not a person. That you think you are is the mind self creating itself in Identification. 'I' is nothing more than an illusion.

You still don't get it. The matter is not the illusion. It is our perceptions about the matter. Just because it is at its most basic point fluctuations does not mean that the accumulation of the forces of those fluctuations don't appear on the macro level as matter.

 

[Sapiens]

At what? What did you think I was attempting to do? I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was listing areas which could be studied, areas traditionally attributed to the supernatural. There is evidence, just not the kind that one puts into a test tube. A different approach is required. I am assuming, for the moment, that I am not talking to a devoted skeptic. In my experience, a good skeptic can't be persuaded that anything is true.

Actually an intelligent person can not be persuaded that anything is true only that something has a certain degree of probability.

Er... no. I wasn't referring to any of those. But now that you bring them up... the Hebrew word for chariot is borrowed from the Egyptian, and translates to "riding seat". A litter is a riding seat. Litters were used throughout Mesoamerica by generals and kings - the two classes mentioned in the Book of Mormon as using chariots.

While that is quite interesting it's clearly crap as demonstrated by Smith's repeated lies concerning the translation of the non-existent "reformed" Egyptian. There was no Hebrew involved, there was no actual Egyptian involved.

There is evidence of Jews (or at least Israelites) in the New World.
[/quite]
No, there is not, the genetic studies rather conclusive show this.

There are many Hebrew words in the Uto-Aztecan language family, which had widespread usage in North America.

That is false, clearly rejected by Campbell in his seminal work, "American Indian Languages."

Ancient Hebrew script has been found on at least 3 artifacts, all found in the United States.

All have been shown to be hoaxes of recent origin having no association with the spot they were claimed to have been found.

One can question the validity of the evidence, but there is evidence.

The only evidence is evidence of fraud.

I had to look up the definition of ungulates. If you were referring to cattle, bison are cattle. If you were referring to horses, they are native to North America. They died out at some point, oddly continuing only in Eurasia, but there is no evidence to prove when exactly they died out, or that none ever were reestablished for a period.

You need to look up way more than the word "ungulate."
Horses died out about 12,000 years ago, long before the Hebrews existed as a people. The same is true of all the other ungulates that Smith tells lies about.

Elephants are only mentioned once in the Book of Mormon - in the Book of Ether, which goes back three or four thousand years. At least three different kinds of elephants once roamed the Americas. I'm not making this up. Olmec art history shows several examples of what appear to be elephants. Perhaps you should visit a natural history museum, instead of telling me to get with reality.

From wiki: Conventional Mesoamerican scholarship does not support any proposal that allows for the presence or influence of Old World cultures in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. No accepted material evidence has been found that would indicate contact between Mesoamerica and Old World cultures.[32] Among other criticisms leveled against the belief that the Olmec had Jaredite origins or identity, Mesoamerican archaeologists note that many of the things described in the Book of Mormon are known not to have been part of or present in Olmec culture, including iron, silk, and elephants.

Writing in the Mormon studies journal Dialogue, Yale University anthropology professor and eminent Mesoamericanist archaeologist Michael D. Coe lays out the mainstream archaeological assessment of material claims found in the Book of Mormon, as they relate to the known archaeological record of the New World. Specifically addressing the case for any ancient New World presence of the peoples and technologies described in the Book of Mormon, and whether the Olmec and other ancient Mesoamericans resemble these or bear traces of such external influences, Coe states:

"There is an inherent improbability in specific items that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon as having been brought to the New World by Jaredites and/or Nephites. Among these are the horse (extinct in the New World since about 7,000 B.C.), the chariot, wheat, barley, and metallurgy (true metallurgy based upon smelting and casting being no earlier in Mesoamerica than about 800 A.D.). The picture of this hemisphere between 2,000 B.C. and A.D. 421 presented in the book has little to do with the early Indian cultures as we know them, in spite of much wishful thinking.[33]"

There really is not reason to go on, anyone with an open mind can look all this up ... google is your friend.

BTW: I really don't need to visit a Natural History Museum, I damn near grew up in one, the American Museum of Natural History.

 

[Sapiens]

Obviously, it is given in geologic time ;-)
One might also ask how it can be the hour, if the day isn't yet at hand...
The language is specifically non-specific, if that makes sense. It is meant to convey urgency, without really informing us of how much time is left. It was known from the start that the gospel would first need to be taken to the nations of the world. Although their missionary effort was valiant, this wasn't achieved in Joseph Smith's day. Today, the gospel is being taught in 98% of the nations of the world. We still have 2% to go.

If "urgency" has not been met in two centuries I'd say that it's not going to be.

 

[Sapiens]

Way ahead of you...
"Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—"
"And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill."
(Doctrine and Covenants 89:4,8)

As far as I know the Native Americans did not use tobacco for bruises, there were no cattle in precolumbian America to get sick (remember, ungulates?). Primarily they smoked it as a sacrament and used it as an offering and in medicine bags.

 

[rrosskopf]

Next it didn't pour over into Europe. WWI was several decades later and had nothing to do with the Civil war.

In the beginning, it states "wars" not "war".
"Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass..."
So it is a mistake to assume it is talking about just one war.
"and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations"
So England isn't calling upon other nations to protect themselves from the Northern States, but from other nations. This is talking about another war. In fact England did side with the Southern states, and although they didn't send troops, they helped the Southern states in other ways. It caused a rift between the United States and England.

The treaties between nations did lead to a world war. Specifically it was England's 1839 treaty with Belgium that forced it to go to Belgium's aid when Germany invaded.

It is easy to look back and say it was all obvious, but it is hard to find anyone else in 1832 who ventured a similar opinion. In fact, Joseph's prophecy was openly mocked right up to the start of the war. And how in the world would Joseph Smith know that Jackson County Missouri would become a "sea of chimneys"? Or that disease and pestilence would claim over 200,000 lives? If these are all just good guesses, then I guess I choose to follow the man with good guesses.

 

[Sapiens]

Yeah, that's not history. Even the eye witnesses who were angry at Joseph Smith went to their graves testifying that they saw the plates, and the angel.

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.
Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun.
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen.
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

The Three Witnesses' ( Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer), were clearly very troubled people. It is true that their joint testimony claims that they saw the plates. Yet, in 1838, Joseph Smith called Cowdery, Harris, and Whitmer "too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them." A year later Cowdery published a tract rejecting the Latter Day Saints and in 1840 become a member of the Methodist Protestant Church. Leaves one with the impression that this was not a very dependable or stable or believable group.

 

[Sapiens]

I wish it worked like that. It doesn't always. Canals on Mars. The Piltdown man. Similarities between embryotic forms of different animals. All accepted on the authority of one man. All false. All found in scientific textbooks when I was in High School. I suppose that is why everything should be established with two or more witnesses.
"And now, behold, I give unto you, and also unto my servant Joseph, the keys of this gift, which shall bring to light this ministry; and in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
(Doctrine and Covenants 6:28)

You mean by skeptics? ;-)
Clearly, you only know one side of the argument. You can be sure it is propaganda, when nothing positive is ever mentioned. For example, where is the list from Egyptologists of the things that Joseph Smith got right in the Book of Abraham? If one only reads anti-mormon literature, one would assume it to be zero. That is far from the truth. In regards to the sacrifice of Abraham, Joseph Smith's translation is still more compelling. If this fasimile was a typical embalming scene, the deceased would be naked, or shown in mummy wrappings, and not fully clothed, struggling to get up with a priest between his legs holding a knife. The ancient Egyptians did sacrifice people on the iron lion couches, particularly if they were teaching religious doctrine that was at odds with their own belief. Although the Book of Abraham is very short - only three chapters were translated before Joseph Smith's death, there are many elements which are not found in the Bible. All of these elements have been found in other Abrahamic literature, literature unavailable to Joseph Smith. Take for example the Apocalypse of Abraham. It also has Abraham's vision of the cosmos, and where he also sees the premortal spirits of man. What other Christian church even teaches about the premortal spirits of man? Not one. So don't be so smug as you laugh off Joseph Smith.
I suggest you read One Eternal Round by Hugh Nibley and Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham by Tvedtnes. There is about 1200 pages between them, and no fluff.

I suggest you read a bit too: Dr. Stephen E. Thompson holds a Ph.D. degree in Egyptology from Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. He is the second LDS scholar to earn a doctorate degree in Egyptology. In a paper given at the 1993 Sunstone Symposia in Salt Lake City (August) and Boston (November) Dr. Thompson presented his reasons for concluding that Joseph Smith did not produce the Book of Abraham by translating it, as he claimed, from an Egyptian papyrus scroll he had obtained in 1835.

Excerpts:

"In the entry on the facsimiles from the Book of Abraham in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, we are told that the prophet's explanations of each of the facsimiles accord with present understanding of Egyptian religious practice. This a truly remarkable statement in view of the fact that those Egyptologists who have commented on Joseph's interpretations of the facsimiles have stated emphatically that his interpretations are not correct from the perspective of the Egyptologist who attempts to interpret Egyptian religious literature and iconography as he or she believes the ancient Egyptians themselves would have. For example, in the famous pamphlet compiled by the Rev. Spalding in 1912, James H. Breasted, the first person to hold a chair in Egyptology in America, stated that Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of the documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization. More recently, Klaus Baer, speaking of Joseph Smith's interpretations of the original Facsimile One in the accompanying text, noted that the Egyptologist interprets it differently, relying on a considerable body of parallel data, research and knowledge."

* * * * * * *

"First, it is of vital importance to note that the originals of these facsimiles of the Book of Abraham were created for a specific purpose to provide for the successful transition to the afterlife of the deceased. While it is possible that some of these figures might appear in other contexts, and take on other meanings in those contexts, in the context of funerary papyri, their interpretation is limited to funerary purposes. The approach taken in attempting to support Joseph's interpretations of these figures is to compare them with figures found in other historical and textual contexts. It is simply not valid, however, to search through 3,000 years of Egyptian religious iconography in an attempt to find parallels which can be pushed, prodded, squeezed or linked to attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations."

* * * * * * *

"One way to judge whether or not the Book of Abraham derives from an Abraham holograph is by whether or not the text of the book contains anachronisms. Of course, the first thing that has to be determined is when Abraham lived .... Many scholars would place this sometime during the first half of the second millennium, i.e., 2000 to 1500 B.C., while others would narrow the time frame within this period. In our search for anachronisms it would be safe to say that anything occurring after 1500 B.C. is definitely anachronistic to Abraham's lifetime. And since Abraham is portrayed as the first patriarch, anything occurring at the end of this period is probably anachronistic. What then are the anachronisms which I believe can be identified in the Book of Abraham?"



* * * * * * *

"From the foregoing discussion it would appear that if one accepts the date of sometime in the first half of the second millennium for Abraham, then there are four anachronistic names in the text; Chaldea, Potiphar, Egyptus, and probably Pharaoh. Pharoah squeaks in there in the end. If you want to put Abraham in the very, very last possible period that you could squeeze him into you might be able to get him in there under the wire for Abraham. So that one is a probably. Since these are names it is not likely that they are translation equivalents of other words in the original text. If they are translation equivalents, they don't carry much meaning for us because they don't increase our understanding of the text. They certainly aren't good translation equivalents if they are such. I don't believe them to have been. I believe that there is sufficient evidence of anachronisms in the text of the Book of Abraham to conclude that it cannot be an actual Abraham holograph, i.e., that it was not written 'by Abraham's own hand upon papyrus.' "

* * * * * * *

"In the preceding I have argued that: Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles are not in agreement with the meanings which these figures had in their original funerary context, anachronisms in the text of the book make it impossible that it was translated from a text written by Abraham himself, and what we know about the relationship between Egypt and Asia renders the account of the attempted sacrifice of Abraham extremely implausible."

 

[godnotgod]

You still don't get it. The matter is not the illusion. It is our perceptions about the matter. Just because it is at its most basic point fluctuations does not mean that the accumulation of the forces of those fluctuations don't appear on the macro level as matter.

They do, because they are only appearances. But you still see such appearances as matter because you have not yet pierced the facade.

A reference to the famous rope/snake analogy may help:

One analogy to explain the peculiar relationship between Ultimate Reality and the universe is the relationless relationship of the rope that is mistaken for the snake, because of poor lighting. The rope appears as a snake no doubt, but actually there is no snake there, ever.

The snake appears on the rope; the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning that, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: "Where is the snake?", the answer is: "it is in the rope."

To the question; "Is the snake there?", the answer is: "there is no snake; the snake was never in the rope."

True Nature of the Universe: What is Maya? | ReligiousForums.com

 

[rrosskopf]

If "urgency" has not been met in two centuries I'd say that it's not going to be.

With urgency, it has taken 185 (not 200) years to take the gospel to 98% of the world. I think that is amazing. It went from 6 people to 15 million, and now over 70,000 missionaries actively teach the gospel full time. I never thought that I would see the day when the gospel was taught in the Soviet Union or China. Barriers drop as the work of the Lord goes on. If they hadn't started the missionary program so actively in 1830, those numbers would be much lower. Here is a 3 minute movie showing the expansion of the church.

 

[Sapiens]

I wish it worked like that. It doesn't always. Canals on Mars. The Piltdown man. Similarities between embryotic forms of different animals. All accepted on the authority of one man. All false. All found in scientific textbooks when I was in High School. I suppose that is why everything should be established with two or more witnesses.

All of which were revealed by science in the end. But you have some bad history there, just like you had some bad texts in High School. Piltdown Man was roundly rejected by manty scholars from the get-go. Canals on Mars were never anything more than a hypothesis and photos of the embryonic forms show the same sorts of things that the drawing did.

"And now, behold, I give unto you, and also unto my servant Joseph, the keys of this gift, which shall bring to light this ministry; and in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."
(Doctrine and Covenants 6:28)

Hell of a set of undependable witnesses.

You mean by skeptics? ;-)
Clearly, you only know one side of the argument. You can be sure it is propaganda, when nothing positive is ever mentioned. For example, where is the list from Egyptologists of the things that Joseph Smith got right in the Book of Abraham?

From what the Egyptian scholars say (even LDS affiliated ones) he got it all wrong.

If one only reads anti-mormon literature, one would assume it to be zero. That is far from the truth. In regards to the sacrifice of Abraham, Joseph Smith's translation is still more compelling. If this fasimile was a typical embalming scene, the deceased would be naked, or shown in mummy wrappings, and not fully clothed, struggling to get up with a priest between his legs holding a knife. The ancient Egyptians did sacrifice people on the iron lion couches, particularly if they were teaching religious doctrine that was at odds with their own belief. Although the Book of Abraham is very short - only three chapters were translated before Joseph Smith's death, there are many elements which are not found in the Bible. All of these elements have been found in other Abrahamic literature, literature unavailable to Joseph Smith. Take for example the Apocalypse of Abraham. It also has Abraham's vision of the cosmos, and where he also sees the premortal spirits of man. What other Christian church even teaches about the premortal spirits of man? Not one. So don't be so smug as you laugh off Joseph Smith.

That's complete and utter foolishness, and who cares what other Christians believe about the premortal status of man, that's even dumber than their beliefs on the postmortal status of man.

I suggest you read One Eternal Round by Hugh Nibley and Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham by Tvedtnes. There is about 1200 pages between them, and no fluff.

No fluff, all stupidity, not even amusing.

 

[rrosskopf]

I suggest you read a bit too: Dr. Stephen E. Thompson holds a Ph.D. degree in Egyptology from Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. He is the second LDS scholar to earn a doctorate degree in Egyptology. In a paper given at the 1993 Sunstone Symposia in Salt Lake City (August) and Boston (November) Dr. Thompson presented his reasons for concluding that Joseph Smith did not produce the Book of Abraham by translating it, as he claimed, from an Egyptian papyrus scroll he had obtained in 1835.

I would very much like to read what he has to say, although I can see some obvious problems just from the quotes you selected. First of all, Joseph Smith wasn't a translator in the true sense; he translated by revelation. During the course of receiving revelation, he learned a few things about translation, and using that knowledge would sometimes translate something in the normal fashion, according to his own wisdom, and not using revelation from God, and in that respect he was as fallible as any man. So it isn't surprising to find errors. The KEP or Kirtland Egyptian Papers are often used to prove Joseph Smith a fraud, but the opposite is true; they are proof that he was a prophet of God. There are two columns - in one column is an Egyptian character, in the other is a translation. A good scholar would point out immediately that the translation doesn't match the character. Entire paragraphs, in some cases seem to be the translation of a single Character. Sometimes the same character would be opposite a completely different paragraph. The skeptics shout "Aha! Joseph must be a fraud! These are his translation papers and they clearly show he didn't know what he was doing!". There are several problems with this theory. First of all, the vast majority aren't in Joseph's handwriting. They were written by several different people. Secondly, scientific analysis shows the ink of the translation lies beneath the ink of the Egyptian character. Two different inks. The translation was written first. Who would write the translation before putting down the character being translated? Thirdly, in each case, the translation of the Egyptian character can be found within the quoted text. And fourthly, the entire Book of Abraham is not present - only a few lines. A theory that actually fits the facts is that they were trying to learn Egyptian by studying Joseph's English translation and comparing it to the characters on the scroll.

For example, in the famous pamphlet compiled by the Rev. Spalding in 1912, James H. Breasted, the first person to hold a chair in Egyptology in America, stated that Joseph Smith's interpretations of the facsimiles very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of the documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.

What they failed to mention, was that all the experts of the day disagreed on the translation. James H. Breasted would have said the same thing about other Egyptologists. They were a proud lot.

More recently, Klaus Baer, speaking of Joseph Smith's interpretations of the original Facsimile One in the accompanying text, noted that the Egyptologist interprets it differently, relying on a considerable body of parallel data, research and knowledge."

Yet, facsimile 1 is the only document ever found where the man on the bed is fully clothed, trying to get up, with a priest between his legs holding a knife. Maybe Klaus Baer is mistaken to rely on traditional interpretations for such a unique document. Nor does he address the issue that the Egyptian drawing is being used by a Christian, and not an Egyptian. Like the Book of Abraham, the Testament of Abraham was also discovered in Egypt in a tomb, and was written by a Jewish or Christian convert who was well versed on the Egyptian religion. The Testament of Abraham also borrows vignettes from the Book of the Dead.

One way to judge whether or not the Book of Abraham derives from an Abraham holograph is by whether or not the text of the book contains anachronisms.

I don't know of anyone who claims it derives from a holograph. The book itself claims to be written from "the hand of Abraham", but any translators or scribes would have faithfully copied that as well. Dr. Thompson should know that.

there are four anachronistic names in the text; Chaldea, Potiphar, Egyptus, and probably Pharaoh.

This is only anachronistic if this is a perfect holograph. If it was interpreted by a 1st century Christian, like the Testament of Abraham, it would use the newer names. Even if it wasn't, what is to prevent Joseph Smith from using modern names in an interpretation?
I don't find these arguments compelling, when faced with the evidence. What are the odds that a Jewish book about Abraham would borrow from the Book of the Dead and be found in an Egyptian tomb? Apparently, about two in a million.

 

[Sapiens]

I would very much like to read what he has to say, although I can see some obvious problems just from the quotes you selected. First of all, Joseph Smith wasn't a translator in the true sense; he translated by revelation.

That is an unprovable and indemonstrable claim.

During the course of receiving revelation, he learned a few things about translation, and using that knowledge would sometimes translate something in the normal fashion, according to his own wisdom, and not using revelation from God, and in that respect he was as fallible as any man. So it isn't surprising to find errors.

That is ex post facto rationalization used as an apologia for what should be obvious, once a con-man always a con-man.

The KEP or Kirtland Egyptian Papers are often used to prove Joseph Smith a fraud, but the opposite is true; they are proof that he was a prophet of God. There are two columns - in one column is an Egyptian character, in the other is a translation. A good scholar would point out immediately that the translation doesn't match the character. Entire paragraphs, in some cases seem to be the translation of a single Character. Sometimes the same character would be opposite a completely different paragraph. The skeptics shout "Aha! Joseph must be a fraud! These are his translation papers and they clearly show he didn't know what he was doing!". There are several problems with this theory. First of all, the vast majority aren't in Joseph's handwriting. They were written by several different people. Secondly, scientific analysis shows the ink of the translation lies beneath the ink of the Egyptian character. Two different inks. The translation was written first. Who would write the translation before putting down the character being translated? Thirdly, in each case, the translation of the Egyptian character can be found within the quoted text. And fourthly, the entire Book of Abraham is not present - only a few lines. A theory that actually fits the facts is that they were trying to learn Egyptian by studying Joseph's English translation and comparing it to the characters on the scroll.

Man, it's a long road to even begin to follow that rationalization.

What they failed to mention, was that all the experts of the day disagreed on the translation. James H. Breasted would have said the same thing about other Egyptologists. They were a proud lot.

But the actual document was found at the Met. And what did it say?

Yet, facsimile 1 is the only document ever found where the man on the bed is fully clothed, trying to get up, with a priest between his legs holding a knife. Maybe Klaus Baer is mistaken to rely on traditional interpretations for such a unique document. Nor does he address the issue that the Egyptian drawing is being used by a Christian, and not an Egyptian. Like the Book of Abraham, the Testament of Abraham was also discovered in Egypt in a tomb, and was written by a Jewish or Christian convert who was well versed on the Egyptian religion. The Testament of Abraham also borrows vignettes from the Book of the Dead.

I don't know of anyone who claims it derives from a holograph. The book itself claims to be written from "the hand of Abraham", but any translators or scribes would have faithfully copied that as well. Dr. Thompson should know that.

This is only anachronistic if this is a perfect holograph. If it was interpreted by a 1st century Christian, like the Testament of Abraham, it would use the newer names. Even if it wasn't, what is to prevent Joseph Smith from using modern names in an interpretation?
I don't find these arguments compelling, when faced with the evidence. What are the odds that a Jewish book about Abraham would borrow from the Book of the Dead and be found in an Egyptian tomb? Apparently, about two in a million.

I'd say far less that the odds that Smith made the whole thing up, that was, after all, his style.

 

[Thief]

I'mma let you have your moment on this as it doesn't seem to pertain to the discussion.... but if you had stayed longer (usually about 5-15 minutes for most people) you would have been able to see. Not perfectly but you could have made out your hand.

Thank you for the moment.
and I do know what it is to be blind.

 

[Thief]

Do you equate that with the big bang? The problem is we currently have no language to describe "before" the big bang.

That would be correct.
No photos, no fingerprints, no equations, and no experiment of proving.

All we can do is think about it.

The lack of language indicates the proclamation....I AM!...to be impossible.
So....creation would be the only alternative.
So again.....Let there be light....is synonymous to... I AM!

It's not so much the Voice of God, even though Genesis calls it....the WORD.

 

[Thief]

Here on the big island I can see that many nights out of the month. We have very little light pollution and when it is cloudy and the moon is not it is as dark as an unlit cave. That is a very natural circumstance and I fail to see why it even bears mentioning.

It relates as awareness in a situation of ....no light.

and yes, the moment I attempt to describe was without light.
It was REALLY DARK!