LDS Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham is False

[dzheremi]

As we've seen in this thread from HITW, Mormons both insist that the text of the BOA is to be found on a second, not extant papyri, and also (somehow) on at least one of the surviving fragments of another papyri, despite the fact that this other papyri has been professionally translated and published by a respected academic who has absolutely no reason to misrepresent anything (and plenty of reasons not to, such as his book having to pass academic muster -- something which LDS-affiliated Egyptologists never have to worry about so long as they stay within the Mormon pseudo-academy).

This type of argumentation reminds me of Hanlon's Razor, which states "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." As the disinterested academic Egyptologist is neither malicious nor stupid, that only leaves one other party involved in the handling of these documents and dissemination of information about them to apply that saying to.

 

[Leaf473]

As far as I know he did not have an opinion, he just did as the Lord commanded him to do.

this isn't the quote I was thinking of, but I'm not sure where that quote was.
or if I'm misremembering it.

but, going with this for now,
"...where the purity of the scriptures remains unsullied by the folly of men..."
Joseph Smith Quotes

I assume that in his translation, he fixes those parts that he says have been sullied.

to me, his fixes often look to involve significant alterations.
and again to me, that amounts to a claim that the ancient manuscripts we have today have been significantly altered from what was originally written.

 

[He is the way]

As we've seen in this thread from HITW, Mormons both insist that the text of the BOA is to be found on a second, not extant papyri, and also (somehow) on at least one of the surviving fragments of another papyri, despite the fact that this other papyri has been professionally translated and published by a respected academic who has absolutely no reason to misrepresent anything (and plenty of reasons not to, such as his book having to pass academic muster -- something which LDS-affiliated Egyptologists never have to worry about so long as they stay within the Mormon pseudo-academy).

This type of argumentation reminds me of Hanlon's Razor, which states "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." As the disinterested academic Egyptologist is neither malicious nor stupid, that only leaves one other party involved in the handling of these documents and dissemination of information about them to apply that saying to.

Of the two papyri only one has been translated. It is not the one used to write the Book of Abraham.

 

[He is the way]

this isn't the quote I was thinking of, but I'm not sure where that quote was.
or if I'm misremembering it.

but, going with this for now,
"...where the purity of the scriptures remains unsullied by the folly of men..."
Joseph Smith Quotes

I assume that in his translation, he fixes those parts that he says have been sullied.

to me, his fixes often look to involve significant alterations.
and again to me, that amounts to a claim that the ancient manuscripts we have today have been significantly altered from what was originally written.

It is so easy for us to have misunderstandings while in this life. I have it from many witnesses that we won't have those misunderstandings in the life to come. Nothing here is perfect. The book of Mormon is not perfect and it says so:

(Book of Mormon | Preface Title Page:2)

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment–seat of Christ.

There are also mistakes and contradictions in the Bible. Does that make the Bible false? The Bible is not completely wrong and neither is the Book of Abraham. There is a way to know the truth and it is through the Holy Ghost:

(New Testament | John 16:12 - 14)

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

(New Testament | 1 John 2:27 - 29)

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

 

[dzheremi]

Of the two papyri only one has been translated. It is not the one used to write the Book of Abraham.

That's not what you claimed before. You wrote in post #124: "except for one of the fragments the rest of the Book of Abraham and perhaps that one fragment came from a different scroll."

I realize you're trying to hedge your bets by including that second clause about how "perhaps that one fragment came from a different scroll", but you still wrote that one of the fragments corresponds to something in the BOA, and you're still 100% wrong about that.

Either stick with your arguments, or just don't don't make such poor arguments.

 

[mmksparbud]

Of the two papyri only one has been translated. It is not the one used to write the Book of Abraham.

Are all the LDS posters on here Priests? You and Peter1000?

 

[He is the way]

That's not what you claimed before. You wrote in post #124: "except for one of the fragments the rest of the Book of Abraham and perhaps that one fragment came from a different scroll."

I realize you're trying to hedge your bets by including that second clause about how "perhaps that one fragment came from a different scroll", but you still wrote that one of the fragments corresponds to something in the BOA, and you're still 100% wrong about that.

Either stick with your arguments, or just don't don't make such poor arguments.

I suspect you didn't understand what I said. "except for one of the fragments the rest of the Book of Abraham and perhaps that one fragment came from a different scroll." that different scroll and the first fragment is what the Book of Abraham was written from. The first fragment was found in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The other scroll likely burned up in Wood's museum in Chicago with the mummies. You keep insisting that the other ten fragments were part of the Book of Abraham, which they were not part of it. There were two mummies with two scrolls and there is only eleven fragments left of one of the scrolls. That scroll is the different scroll I was talking about, along with one of the eleven fragments that made up the Book of Abraham. We have the first fragment but NOT the different scroll. I am not sure how I can make this any clearer. The scroll used to write the Book of Abraham is gone, burned, finished, kaput, and we can not bring it back to look at it, or compare it with the Book of Abraham.

 

[dzheremi]

I suspect you didn't understand what I said. "except for one of the fragments the rest of the Book of Abraham and perhaps that one fragment came from a different scroll." that different scroll and the first fragment is what the Book of Abraham was written from.

I don't know if I am understanding what you're saying, but you don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. I made the point in a different reply that if you claim that any of the BOA is present in any of the fragments that are currently available (doesn't matter how many of them or which ones), you fatally damage your own claim, because we know with what is on the fragments we currently have, and that these fragments do not match any part of the BOA at all. Dr. Ritner says so in the interview snippets I've already posted in this thread, and he would know better than either of us, since he's the one who professionally translated them as part of his disinterested academic work.

Yet you've now claimed that twice now (in the earlier reply and again above), in this statement about the first fragment.

You keep insisting that the other ten fragments were part of the Book of Abraham

Show me where I claimed that.

 

[Dale]

This site about the resurrection of Osiris contains many pictures of Osiris on the bier. He is dead in some of them and alive in others. I believe that he was very much alive in the picture you posted.
ISIDA Project
Dendera. Osiris Resurrection


Dendera. Osiris Resurrection.

Do you know what a bier is? The word appears in the caption to the picture I showed.


From Dictionary.com

Bier - noun

A frame or stand on which a corpse or the coffin containing it is laid before burial.

Or, such a stand together with the corpse or coffin.




A bier is always associated with a coffin or the viewing of a corpse. It is always connected with death.

I don't see why you would be trying to tell us that the figure is alive if you know what a bier is.

 

[Dale]

This site about the resurrection of Osiris contains many pictures of Osiris on the bier. He is dead in some of them and alive in others. I believe that he was very much alive in the picture you posted.
ISIDA Project
Dendera. Osiris Resurrection


Dendera. Osiris Resurrection.

I checked the site you pointed to with the link. I don't see any case where Osiris is alive, although I see other pictures with one leg raised, or one leg above the other.


From that site:

Here Osiris has a raised leg and the caption tells us that Anubis is getting ready to embalm him.

Need I point out that embalming is something done to a corpse?



Link
http://isida-project.org/egypt_2012/dendera/osiris/mariette_13.jpg

 

[He is the way]

I don't know if I am understanding what you're saying, but you don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying. I made the point in a different reply that if you claim that any of the BOA is present in any of the fragments that are currently available (doesn't matter how many of them or which ones), you fatally damage your own claim, because we know with what is on the fragments we currently have, and that these fragments do not match any part of the BOA at all. Dr. Ritner says so in the interview snippets I've already posted in this thread, and he would know better than either of us, since he's the one who professionally translated them as part of his disinterested academic work.

Yet you've now claimed that twice now (in the earlier reply and again above), in this statement about the first fragment.



Show me where I claimed that.

You said: "I made the point in a different reply that if you claim that any of the BOA is present in any of the fragments that are currently available (doesn't matter how many of them or which ones), you fatally damage your own claim, because we know with what is on the fragments we currently have, and that these fragments do not match any part of the BOA at all."

This is the one that matches the Book of Abraham. It is very clear that the person on the bed is alive. That being the case Joseph Smith's rendition of this fragment is correct. The other fragments were part of a scroll NOT used for the Book of Abraham. The Egyptologists rendering of this fragment is wrong. Their naming of the Gods is wrong (people don't even know the proper pronunciation of Jesus). Their assumption that the person on the bed is dead is wrong. Their assumption that the other facsimiles are part of the same scroll is wrong.

 

[He is the way]

Do you know what a bier is? The word appears in the caption to the picture I showed.


From Dictionary.com

Bier - noun

A frame or stand on which a corpse or the coffin containing it is laid before burial.

Or, such a stand together with the corpse or coffin.




A bier is always associated with a coffin or the viewing of a corpse. It is always connected with death.

I don't see why you would be trying to tell us that the figure is alive if you know what a bier is.

Yes I do know what a bier is I have seen living people in a coffin. It is NOT impossible for a living person to be on a bier, in a coffin, or in a grave. People have accidentally been buried alive. If Osiris was resurrected on a bier, he would be depicted as being alive.

 

[He is the way]

I checked the site you pointed to with the link. I don't see any case where Osiris is alive, although I see other pictures with one leg raised, or one leg above the other.


From that site:

View attachment 282386



Here Osiris has a raised leg and the caption tells us that Anubis is getting ready to embalm him.

Need I point out that embalming is something done to a corpse?



Link
http://isida-project.org/egypt_2012/dendera/osiris/mariette_13.jpg

I am not surprised that Osiris would be depicted as a living corpse. After all he was a god:


"Osiris is the Egyptian Lord of the Underworld and Judge of the Dead, brother-husband to Isis, and one of the most important gods of ancient Egypt. The name `Osiris' is the Latinized form of the Egyptian Usir which is interpreted as 'powerful' or 'mighty'. He is the first-born of the gods Geb (earth) and Nut (sky) shortly after the creation of the world, was murdered by his younger brother Set, and brought back to life by his sister-wife Isis. This myth, and the gods involved, became central to Egyptian culture and religious life. Osiris was originally a fertility god, possibly from Syria (though this claim is contested) who became so popular he absorbed the function of earlier gods such as Andjeti and Khentiamenti, two gods of fertility and agriculture worshipped at Abydos. He is associated with the djed symbol and is often depicted with black or green skin symbolizing the fertile mud of the Nile and regeneration. He is also frequently shown as a mummy or in partially mummified form in his role as Judge of the Dead.

Images of Osiris as a living god depict him as a handsome man in royal dress wearing the crown of Upper Egypt as a plumed headdress known as the atef and carrying the crook and flail, symbols of kingship. He is associated with the mythical Bennu bird (inspiration for the Greek Phoenix) who rises to life from the ashes. Osiris was known by many names but chiefly as Wennefer, "The Beautiful One" and, in his role as Judge of the Dead, Khentiamenti, "The Foremost of the Westerners". The west was associated with death and 'westerners' became synonymous with those who had passed on to the afterlife.

He was also known as The Lord of Love, King of the Living, and Eternal Lord. After Isis, Osiris was the most popular and enduring of all the Egyptian gods. His worship spanned thousands of years from shortly before the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3150-2613 BCE) to the Ptolemaic Dynasty (323-30 BCE), the last dynasty to rule Egypt before the coming of Rome. It is also possible that Osiris was worshipped in some form in the Predynastic Period of Egypt (c. 6000-3150 BCE) and probable that he originated at that time. Scholar Geraldine Pinch writes:"

From: Osiris'.

 

[Leaf473]

It is so easy for us to have misunderstandings while in this life. I have it from many witnesses that we won't have those misunderstandings in the life to come. Nothing here is perfect. The book of Mormon is not perfect and it says so:

(Book of Mormon | Preface Title Page:2)

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment–seat of Christ.

There are also mistakes and contradictions in the Bible. Does that make the Bible false? The Bible is not completely wrong and neither is the Book of Abraham. There is a way to know the truth and it is through the Holy Ghost:

(New Testament | John 16:12 - 14)

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

(New Testament | 1 John 2:27 - 29)

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
28 And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
29 If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.

well, I don't think it's fair to compare contradictions (or paradoxes) in the Bible with the sayings and actions of a single person.

I think the Bible is true the way that a good novel is true.
do LDS people consider the book of Abraham the same way?

I think it's like if you're considering buying both a car and a sewing machine from the same person.
and you know cars, but you don't know sewing machines.
but what the person tells you about the car you know almost certainly isn't true.
does it make sense to believe what they say about the sewing machine?

is the essence of being LDS being taught by the holy Spirit?
if so, then I am already LDS.

have I answered all the questions you asked so far?
great discussion, btw.

 

[mmksparbud]

I am not surprised that Osiris would be depicted as a living corpse. After all he was a god:


"Osiris is the Egyptian Lord of the Underworld and Judge of the Dead, brother-husband to Isis, and one of the most important gods of ancient Egypt. The name `Osiris' is the Latinized form of the Egyptian Usir which is interpreted as 'powerful' or 'mighty'. He is the first-born of the gods Geb (earth) and Nut (sky) shortly after the creation of the world, was murdered by his younger brother Set, and brought back to life by his sister-wife Isis. This myth, and the gods involved, became central to Egyptian culture and religious life. Osiris was originally a fertility god, possibly from Syria (though this claim is contested) who became so popular he absorbed the function of earlier gods such as Andjeti and Khentiamenti, two gods of fertility and agriculture worshipped at Abydos. He is associated with the djed symbol and is often depicted with black or green skin symbolizing the fertile mud of the Nile and regeneration. He is also frequently shown as a mummy or in partially mummified form in his role as Judge of the Dead.

Images of Osiris as a living god depict him as a handsome man in royal dress wearing the crown of Upper Egypt as a plumed headdress known as the atef and carrying the crook and flail, symbols of kingship. He is associated with the mythical Bennu bird (inspiration for the Greek Phoenix) who rises to life from the ashes. Osiris was known by many names but chiefly as Wennefer, "The Beautiful One" and, in his role as Judge of the Dead, Khentiamenti, "The Foremost of the Westerners". The west was associated with death and 'westerners' became synonymous with those who had passed on to the afterlife.

He was also known as The Lord of Love, King of the Living, and Eternal Lord. After Isis, Osiris was the most popular and enduring of all the Egyptian gods. His worship spanned thousands of years from shortly before the Early Dynastic Period (c. 3150-2613 BCE) to the Ptolemaic Dynasty (323-30 BCE), the last dynasty to rule Egypt before the coming of Rome. It is also possible that Osiris was worshipped in some form in the Predynastic Period of Egypt (c. 6000-3150 BCE) and probable that he originated at that time. Scholar Geraldine Pinch writes:"

From: Osiris'.

The more you deny the obvious, the more obvious it becomes!

 

[He is the way]

well, I don't think it's fair to compare contradictions (or paradoxes) in the Bible with the sayings and actions of a single person.

I think the Bible is true the way that a good novel is true.
do LDS people consider the book of Abraham the same way?

I think it's like if you're considering buying both a car and a sewing machine from the same person.
and you know cars, but you don't know sewing machines.
but what the person tells you about the car you know almost certainly isn't true.
does it make sense to believe what they say about the sewing machine?

is the essence of being LDS being taught by the holy Spirit?
if so, then I am already LDS.

have I answered all the questions you asked so far?
great discussion, btw.

We consider the Book of Abraham history and revelation from God. We also consider Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God. He could not have made up the Book of Mormon, it is a very amazing book and goes along completely with the Bible.

 

[Dale]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this already, but the entire 'Joseph Smith Papyri', as it is called, has been translated by an actual professional, disinterested (non-LDS/non-BYU) Egyptologist, Dr. Robert K. Ritner. You can buy it on Amazon Kindle right now for $10, if you want to. I have not read it myself, but I do know from other sources that in Dr. Ritner's conclusion is that it does not match in content or form the LDS Book of Abraham. He puts it very kindly here, emphasizing that the book is not what they claim it is, but that this doesn't mean that it's necessarily useless -- only that they make ahistorical claims about its authorship and content:

Thanks for providing this information!

 

[mmksparbud]

We consider the Book of Abraham history and revelation from God. We also consider Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God. He could not have made up the Book of Mormon, it is a very amazing book and goes along completely with the Bible.

Only as far as the LDS are concerned. No one else believes it. And people make up stories all the time, just head on down to your nearest library and check out the fiction section. There are far more intricately written stories. They still have libraries don't they?

 

[Leaf473]

We consider the Book of Abraham history and revelation from God. We also consider Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God. He could not have made up the Book of Mormon, it is a very amazing book and goes along completely with the Bible.

well, I think we have an interesting situation here!

I think Joseph Smith was a literary genius.
as I understand it, he had only a very basic education.
yet he wrote things in such a way that people still pour over them today.
this in itself, of course, is not proof of divine inspiration.
Mozart did similar things in the world of music.

and I think Smith was also very spiritually sensitive, such that he could write on spiritual topics in a way that people like to hear.
not necessarily the truth, but in a way that people's spirits will respond to.

I have a very strong interior sensation that the book of Abraham is not reliable history in the sense that we think of history today.

I would say that Smith's writings came from God in the sense that he had the God-given ability to "prophesy".
he probably did some good, but in some cases turned his gifts to his own ends, in much the same way that the prophet Balaam did.

 

[Esperanza_Mia]

Indeed, I believe Joseph Smith clearly came to understand how to get someone's attention, as with the translation of a chance discovery of papyri into scripture. Depending on whether you're a believer or not, you might consider it to be prophetic tongue or utter nonsense.

From the Joseph Smith Papers, his Appeal to the Green Mountain Boys, December 1843, the prophet declares these gifts:

General Joseph Smith’s Appeal to the Green Mountain Boys, December 1843, Page 3

Were I a Chaldean I would exclaim: Keed’nauh ta-meroon le-hoam olauhayauh dey-shemayauh veh aur’kau lau gnaubadoo yabadoo ma-ar’gnau oomeen tehoat shemayauh alah. (Thus shall ye say unto them: The gods that have not made the heavens and earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.)

An Egyptian: Su e-eh-ni: (What other persons are those?) A Grecian: Diabolos bassileuei: (The Devil reigns.) A Frenchman: Messieurs sans Dieu, (Gentlemen without God A Turk. Ain shems: (The fountain of light.) A German: sie sind unferstandig. (What consummat ignorance!) A Syrian: Zaubol. (Sacrifice!) A Spaniard: ll sabio muda conscio, il nescio no. (A wise man reflects, a fool does not.) A Samaritan: Saunau! (O Stranger!) An Italian: Oh tempa! oh diffidanza! (O the times! o the diffidence!) A Hebrew: Ahtauh ail rauey. (Thou God seest me.) A Dane: Hyad tidende! (What tidings!) A Saxon: Hwaet riht! (What right!) A Sweede: Hyad skilia: (What skill!) A Polander: Nav-yen-shoo bah pon na Jesu Christus; (Blessed be the name of Jesus Christ.) A Western Indian: She-mo-kah she-mo-keh teh ough-ne gah. (The white man, O the white man, he very uncertain.) A Roman: Procul, o procul este profani! (Be off, be off ye profane!) But as I am I will only add: when the wicked rule the people mourn.

Those of you who speak foreign languages can do the translation yourself. Smith was either wrong or unintelligible much of the time. I speak fluent Spanish, and what he proclaims to say in my language wasn't my language - even two centuries ago. And our Egyptian friends will tell you that Smith's Egyptian is meaningless.

Was the man gifted? In some ways. In total, hard to know what to make of it all...