Problems With the Book of Abraham

[Lakumi]

Yes but he drew the head wrong and gave him a knife, more of what people say is that what the scroll says isn't at all what Joseph Smith translates it as, the age of the scroll being wrong (about 500 years before Christ if I remember correctly-as we know things chaged in how funerals and the like were done).

But I am no egyptologist so can't read what it says, but there are people who can, as well as we can any language.

 

But the Book of Mormon is more of an issue if one feels it is genuine history, since there doesn't seem to be any proof of any of them ever existing.
There are societies far older that have left far more for us to find, and it wasn't like they were some backwards-low tech bunch of people who built with only wood, they had steel and buildings and all sorts of stuff.

You don't have that kind of stuff in huge numbers, and it just vanish.

 

There are no answers I get, just "you wouldn't accept it so I won't tell you" or "I lack faith" or some such thing.

I never assumed I was asking for much by wanting proof a society of people existed.

If I did get that hard evidence then I'd fully admit I was wrong. Like I would if someone could prove to me the Book of Abraham is true and Joseph Smith translated it properly, but as it stands that is not the case.

Whatever Joseph Smith came up with wasn't on those scrolls and either came from the divine-which one can't bring science or egyptology into (because God(s) is/are beyond that, if one is to believe in him/her/it/them), or nothing at all.

 

I'm not attacking these things, don't think that I am. I believe these scriptures, like the bible, have many good things to teach people.

I just don't accept them as history, how people tell me they were written, etc.

I read them quite often.

[The Folk Prophet]

I get, just "you wouldn't accept it so I won't tell you" or "I lack faith" or some such thing.

 

No one said either of these things. You are reading into what has been said and applying your own bias against it.

 

Whatever Joseph Smith came up with wasn't on those scrolls and either came from the divine-which one can't bring science or egyptology into (because God(s) is/are beyond that, if one is to believe in him/her/it/them), or nothing at all.

 

This viewpoint is entirely unsupportable.

[Lakumi]

I don't really feel I have a bias, there's no bias in history, to me anyways.

As I said before, if I am proven wrong I will fully admit it. That's what this dialog is all about, exchanging viewpoints and whatnot.

[Lakumi]

No one said either of these things. You are reading into what has been said and applying your own bias against it.

 

 

This viewpoint is entirely unsupportable.

 

and how is that unsupportable? We know what ancient egyptian says, people can read it.

[The Folk Prophet]

and how is that unsupportable? We know what ancient egyptian says, people can read it.

 

You: Whatever Joseph Smith came up with wasn't on those scrolls

 

Me: Unsupportable. We do not have all the scrolls. Only a small portion, really.

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't really feel I have a bias, there's no bias in history, to me anyways.

 

I'm not talking about history. I'm talking about the way you are translating things that are or are not said. No one said you didn't have faith. No one they just wouldn't tell you.

 

 

But since you're talking about bias in history...uh....you need to educate yourself better on history. There is most certainly bias in history. Extreme bias.

[Lakumi]

You: Whatever Joseph Smith came up with wasn't on those scrolls

 

Me: Unsupportable. We do not have all the scrolls. Only a small portion, really.

 

Okay the small portion then, but even if I give Joseph the benefit of the doubt (and say-sure there could have been more), that doesn't solve my other issues.

[Blackmarch]

Yes but he drew the head wrong and gave him a knife, more of what people say is that what the scroll says isn't at all what Joseph Smith translates it as, the age of the scroll being wrong (about 500 years before Christ if I remember correctly-as we know things chaged in how funerals and the like were done).

yes he possibly drew them wrong. the reason we can't know for sure is because this is a very unique piece far as I know, one that does not have a duplicate  (and 2 the parts that would prove it are missing). it's quite possible that he didn't put an Anubis mask on the priest, however as for the knife there is some precedent- there have been lion couch vignettes found that are sacrifice actions rather than mummy/resurrection actions (granted not anywhere near as noumerous as the more known type). all this really does it starts showing the experts statements (made at that time) to be in error more than anything else

To take the experts position it helps to know somewhat how the experts come to their conclusion, do you know why most of them say (or said in the past) that the knife is in error?
 

 

 

But I am no egyptologist so can't read what it says, but there are people who can, as well as we can any language.

well the folks in the first couple vids posted claim to be, and what they've said seems to jive with the bits and pieces of Egyptology I've looked at. i'd love to see a decent rebuttal to what they say. I'd say pay particular attention to what they say about Egyptology.
 

 

 

 

But the Book of Mormon is more of an issue if one feels it is genuine history, since there doesn't seem to be any proof of any of them ever existing.
There are societies far older that have left far more for us to find, and it wasn't like they were some backwards-low tech bunch of people who built with only wood, they had steel and buildings and all sorts of stuff.

You don't have that kind of stuff in huge numbers, and it just vanish.

You'd be surprised at what can be lost. However, some of the eastern US Hopewell cultures, especially those found around the great lakes areas are very very intriguing. especially if one were to take the time to listen to the natives oral histories.

 

 

 

There are no answers I get, just "you wouldn't accept it so I won't tell you" or "I lack faith" or some such thing.

i'm sure you get that a lot. I don't use that. While it's claim may or may not be true, it doesn't help. Please don't attribute it to me.

 

 

 

I never assumed I was asking for much by wanting proof a society of people existed.

If I did get that hard evidence then I'd fully admit I was wrong. Like I would if someone could prove to me the Book of Abraham is true and Joseph Smith translated it properly, but as it stands that is not the case.

Whatever Joseph Smith came up with wasn't on those scrolls and either came from the divine-which one can't bring science or egyptology into (because God(s) is/are beyond that, if one is to believe in him/her/it/them), or nothing at all.

 

I'm not attacking these things, don't think that I am. I believe these scriptures, like the bible, have many good things to teach people.

I just don't accept them as history, how people tell me they were written, etc.

I read them quite often.

I didn't say you were, and I don't believe that you are attacking at this time.
Also if you are hoping for a 100% translation of anything, good luck, you probably won't get that till the next life.

well for one generally history is only secondary or tertiary goals of the scripture writers- the only history that is relevant are the bits used to illustrate a point. while that's great, and would have worked if the events happened like 50 to 100 years ago, it does get a wee bit harder when there's a couple thousand years of passage involved.
 

Evidence seeking is great and should be done, but I do warn of feverishly chasing something (anything really) it becomes very easy to miss things.

Another thing I remind you of is that science is still a great work in progress, one that has many many branches. Whats fact one day becomes mistake or hoax another, and sometimes even back to fact even later. So be cautious with both sides of the fence. I've found patience to generally be the best course of action.

 

My second caution would be, don't ask for things you aren't willing to digest.
 

If you are looking for some book of Mormon evidences I suggest getting in contact with this guy,
Wayne May who did -This Presentation on evidences he's foundhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnWAqV-eqa4]  which will probably take some emailing around to get as I don't have a contact for him sorry. However I do suggest watching the whole thing. cause it does a farily decent job of putting the hot potato in the watchers' laps.

 

Evidence is great and nice, but in the end it's going to take something deeper. it always does. now if evidence can help you achieve that, then that is good. If you think evidence is the path you must take, then I suggest you start seeking out these folks have been finding these evidences and work with them in some manner or another.

[Lakumi]

I haven't gotten anything, just a bunch of what-to me-seems like running around the issue.

 

This isn't about me going after something I am not willing to digest. I don't see being proven wrong as a bad thing. It's part of seeking knowledge.

 

But thank you for that video, I will watch it.

[The Folk Prophet]

I haven't gotten anything, just a bunch of what-to me-seems like running around the issue.

 

This is the point. You see it the way you see it. So anything thrown at you is not going to really help. There is, as has been stated, a very, very clear path to determine the authenticity of these things. You refuse to accept that method as valid. So be it. That is your prerogative.

[Lakumi]

This is the point. You see it the way you see it. So anything thrown at you is not going to really help. There is, as has been stated, a very, very clear path to determine the authenticity of these things. You refuse to accept that method as valid. So be it. That is your prerogative.

 

And what method is that?

The prayer method? That's a common one (how did it go... pray, and ask heavenly father if the BoM is true) I donno the exact wording, but that's what they tell you, the missionaries tell investigators.

[The Folk Prophet]

And what method is that?

The prayer method? That's a common one (how did it go... pray, and ask heavenly father if the BoM is true) I donno the exact wording, but that's what they tell you, the missionaries tell investigators.

 

Yes.

[Lakumi]

Yes.

 

Which hits the problem of what if you don't believe in God.

I don't need to believe in God to know there were Aztecs. That generally isn't a thing one needs to now a society existed once upon a time.

And that's really why I don't think the BoM will be considered history, because you don't pray to find out history you look for it.

You go looking for artifacts and all that stuff.

Its fine and well if you got an answer to your prayers, and if that makes you feel good inside more power to you, joy is hard to come by, but you can't convince anyone on that basis alone.

Obviously it would seem I feel differently about the entire thing.

[The Folk Prophet]

Which hits the problem of what if you don't believe in God.

 

Then it is entirely pointless to discuss scripture. Which is why I am reticent to debate with you on the subject.

[Lakumi]

Then it is entirely pointless to discuss scripture. Which is why I am reticent to debate with you on the subject.

I believe in God, by the way.