Posted on 06/23/2009 3:47:53 PM PDT by delacoert
The Rosetta stone I believe had the same text body in hieroglyphs, hieratic writing, and Greek and that indicates that hieroglyphs were still either in use or at least understood at an age closer to our own than one might think if he assumes that the pyramids are 4000 - 5500 years old. Heinsohn and Sweeney of course are claiming an age more like 3000 for them.
The Book of Abraham for dummies
Says it all!
***
yes it does critics are dummies!
The Book of Abraham for dummies 6
These are supposed to PROVE something?
Hey!
Look over THERE!!
the fact that the papyrus recovered from the collection that Joseph Smith and the Saints obtained doesn’t have the text of the Book of Abraham on it.
this is laughable at face value. 4000 changes to a document written in 1830's. Since there are no gold plates to examine, and according to mormon history, the hand written extant first edition 'translations' should be the most perfect. You admit they are not. Isn't the mormon god significant enought to get it right the first time?
No can do. Again your point falls short. What you are providing is the recollection of the scribes on how the text was transmitted to them. I submit this is only speculation on their part on how the translation, as opposed to the transmission, took place.
Ah, good 'ol mormon cognative dissonance. The testimony of the scribes (particularly those who are also the 'witnessess') is only speculation. LOL, how can they speculate on what they 'participated' in, relating their first hand interaction with smith.
You did not provide an account by Joseph Smith on how the translation was accomplished, because there is none available.
I'll let LDS apologist Stephen Ricks answer:
"His reticence was probably well justified and may have been due to the inordinate interest which some of the early Saints had shown in the seer stone or to the negative and sometimes bitter reactions he encountered when he had reported some of his sacred experiences to others."
Again, divination used - NOT translation.
Also, not every word was spelled out, just names the first time they were transmitted to the scribe.
Again, I would refer you to the first hand account by mormon witness Whitmer, endorsed by Elder Nelson previous post.
As a prophet, Joseph certainly had the inspiration to make any corrections to the BofM, and he did.
Then he failed BY THE POWER OF GOD to 'translate it correctly the first time. That does not lend credability to his credentials as a real prophet.
Your most trusted man CRITICIZED all of Christianity!
Resty, please read my post more carefully. It is smith's 'translation' mentions Abraham, not the translation by the egyptologist. It sound like you are citing a work by Gee where the word 'Abraham' was found in a papyrus NOT owned by Smith or used for the boa. However another mormon egyptologist Edward H. Ashment refutes Gee in "The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to Authenticate the Book of Abraham"
Was Joseph just a good guesser? Is this just a grand coincidence?
Since Abraham is not mentioned, smith is a grand liar
I’m not here to try and prove the Book of Abraham. But this is evidence that the case isn’t as much an ‘open and shut’ instance as the LDS critics would feign it to be
For lurkers, an excellent reference on the boa can be found here:
http://www.bookofabraham.com/
Precisely!
yes it does critics are dummies!
Your most trusted man CRITICIZED all of Christianity!
****
The Traditions of men did that...
Just like Obama is obamazing the Contitution!
Joseph Smith was choosen by the Lord Jesus Christ to be his servant not the world Tradition of Men!
Joseph was given the ability to translate the BofM. You are ignoring the transmission errors from Joseph to his scribes and from the scribe's copy to the printer's copy and what actually got typeset. No doubt traditional christianity has different notions about prophets and scripture than Mormons. We have first hand experience with prophets and scriptures that you don't. :-)
Believe what you want I don’t care for me I am a seeker of the Lord’s TRUTH not traditiion of men!
Don't worry, give us another 1000 years or so and perhaps we will catch up with the 400,000 variants in the Greek NT!
Then he failed BY THE POWER OF GOD to 'translate it correctly the first time. That does not lend credability to his credentials as a real prophet.
Now who is confusing translation and transmission errors? :-)
There’s one tiny bit of consolation I could offer you, i.e. the fact that the people described in the bom are in good company; it’s becoming increasingly apparent that Charlemagne never existed either. Try doing google searches on ‘charlemagne’, ‘Illig’, and possibly also ‘Heinsohn’....
then why are you following joseph smith?
Thank you for your admission that the changes in the bom (as recent as within the last decade) are the work of man and not god, therefore smith was not a prophet of god.
Now who is confusing translation and transmission errors? :-)
Must still be you, since there should be NO translation errors from english to english. So you are saying that the only correct and inspired version of the bom is the 1830 first edition, thank you for making my point so well for me.
Your reply sound like your are being spiteful!
Now really resty, you may be becoming overly sensitive if you consider my question - then why are you following joseph smith? - as spiteful. Remember, this is not for the thin-skinned.
The actual story of the bulk of the people of Israel who the Assyrians carried away in biblical times is here. Again, these people left real traces and real evidence, dres, names, culture in the later Khazer kingdom, a city named Samara on the Volga river etc. etc. etc.
If you care anything about Mormons or the Mormon church you need to work towards getting rid of the bom, "Kolob(TM)", and the rest of the sci-fi theology, ASAP.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.