- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I am not a scholar and I hope this is not a repeat post. This seemed a bit better explanation than some I have read showing the Authenticity of the Book of Abraham. http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2012-fair-conference/2012-book-of-abraham-i-presume Excellent, really excellent. It’s something that has bothered me when I dwell on the criticisms too long. But this article goes a long way to at least give some balance to the ‘claims against.’ I need to spend a bit more time considering this line from it: “You might be perplexed for the present, but you have already proved God in days that are past.”
Have to say, no real time for it, although the astronomical stuff is cool. Glad you found it interesting….was hoping some of the brainy folks here could help us slow brains understand this better. My problem with so many of these things is that I am a layman and feel squished between expert researchers…both who have a tendency to start with a conclusion they want then look for evidence that supports their desired conclusion….and of course I don’t know enough to recognize mis-representations or even outright lies.
I was going to read it but then I saw it was from Fair. There stuff is so convoluted and full of misdirection I rarely bother anymore. A simple explanation usually suffices for me. Something like he made it up, explains it nice and neat and in a fraction of the paper. So until they can come up with a one paragraph statement saying what it is all about I shall not waste my time. I love the BoA and absolutely believe it was inspired (and have no problem with it being included as “scripture” – since I define that term differently than many), but I don’t believe it originated from an ancient record. Honestly, I have read so many articles about it (from both sides of the fence) that I have a hard time wanting to read more. I know how I view and feel about it by this point in my life. I’ll try to carve out some time to read the link, but I’m catching up with a lot of things right now.
Thanks Ray…I forget sometimes as i have only recently had my eyes “opened” that much of this is old hat to the others here. I sort of skipped the anger/betrayal steps since most of the stuff I have learned just “rings” with the secret doubts I have had for years….so I have not been exposed to the apolegetics portions…..almost seems like they are losing steam …think the church is getting tired of kicking against the pricks? I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to take it so literally. Book of Mormon was translated fairly supernaturally – especially as the plates were not even in the room for most of it. Given Moses and D&C don’t even have a source material I don’t think it matters too much about BoA. If taken as a literal translation I’d say we’re grasping at straws.
Having said that the whole story of its creation is a bit odd from start to end. It makes me wonder and for now I just don’t have the energy.
johnh wrote:Thanks Ray…I forget sometimes as i have only recently had my eyes “opened” that much of this is old hat to the others here. I sort of skipped the anger/betrayal steps since most of the stuff I have learned just “rings” with the secret doubts I have had for years….so I have not been exposed to the apolegetics portions…..almost seems like they are losing steam …think the church is getting tired of kicking against the pricks?
Don’t worry, for some of us it’s still fresh and raw. Maybe scabbing up a little bit, and for now I try to avoid picking at it too much. It’ll certainly scar though… And could get worse.
I read the article, and I felt that the author picked the fights he could win and then tried to argue that it was the whole battle. I disagree, I think that many, if not most, members think the facimilies were part of the same document the BoA was from. The way the book is formatted with the facimilies interspersed between sections of text gives that impression.
It also avoids the bigger question of Joseph Smith’s translation of the facimilies, which didn’t match even remotely the translation of other Egyptologists. (In his defense, E.A. Budge was a famous and respected Egyptologist in his day, and his translations aren’t much respected now either.)
For myself, I treat it the same way I do all scripture, GC talks, and Ensign articles and random books. Read it, think about the things that are meaningful for me, ignore the rest. If the principles are true it doesn’t matter where the story came from (i.e. fables, myths, Paul Dunn’s stories), if the principles are not true it matters even less.
mackay11 wrote:I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to take it so literally. Book of Mormon was translated fairly supernaturally – especially as the plates were not even in the room for most of it.
Given Moses and D&C don’t even have a source material I don’t think it matters too much about BoA. ….
Inspired statement…..thank you very much. Sometimes things are so much more simple with the right perspective. Love that feeling when somone finds words that click with feelings you have been having but couldn’t describe….brings great comfort.
The difference is that we DO have the papyri, and we do have the facsimiles, and both the translation and the reproductions are wrong. We don’t have the plates though. The BoM is a much superior work though.
SamBee wrote:The difference is that we DO have the papyri, and we do have the facsimiles, and both the translation and the reproductions are wrong.
We don’t have the plates though. The BoM is a much superior work though.
Hi Sam, I think we need to be careful with the conclusions drawn on BoA. Both the critics and apologists are too ‘absolute’ in their statements about it. There are some papyri, but there’s no conclusive proof that the fragments available were in any way used for the writing of BoA. Maybe they were the source, maybe they weren’t. We can only work with maybes.
Second, we only have part of the original of Facsimile 1. The picture is not conclusively wrong (nor right). We don’t know what the intended meaning of the other two are, but can draw meaning from the symbols. Two people can read the same parable and take different lessons out.
I know I’m sounding evasive, I don’t mean to. I just don’t think either ‘camp’ can draw a final conclusion.
Quote:There are some papyri, but there’s no conclusive proof that the fragments available were in any way used for the writing of BoA. Maybe they were the source, maybe they weren’t. We can only work with maybes.
Yes, but here’s the rub… they’re printed along with the Book of Abraham in any edition of the Pearl of Great Price!
Quote:Second, we only have part of the original of Facsimile 1. The picture is not conclusively wrong (nor right). We don’t know what the intended meaning of the other two are, but can draw meaning from the symbols. Two people can read the same parable and take different lessons out.
The lacunae (gaps) match up with where JS’ apparent reconstruction went wrong.
There are several widely used Egyptian symbols on the papyrus. It obviously shows a body being prepared for mummification, not Isaac on the sacrificial altar…
SamBee wrote:Yes, but here’s the rub… they’re printed along with the Book of Abraham in any edition of the Pearl of Great Price!
We might be talking at crossed purposes. The source for the text is not proven to be the fragments available. There were other scrolls beyond the ones found.
Quote:The lacunae (gaps) match up with where JS’ apparent reconstruction went wrong.
There are several widely used Egyptian symbols on the papyrus. It obviously shows a body being prepared for mummification, not Isaac on the sacrificial altar…
Again, I don’t agree that we can be so absolute. The lacunae match with where critics guess he went wrong. No-one has the full original so both critics and defenders can only speculate about what was originally in the gaps.
Look:
“All the world’s a ….. and all the people merely players”
A shakespeare expert would fill that with ‘stage’ and laugh at anyone who says otherwise. But they’ll never know what I had in the sentence categorically. It could also have been ‘football pitch.’
(By the way, it’s supposedly Abraham being sacrificed, not Isaac, was that a typo?)
I agree that BoA presents some thorny issues to literalists. But it’s not case closed for the critics.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.