The Lost Book of Abraham

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

…in reference to Occam’s razor, I’ve been burned enough by that rule in the past – both with others’ view of me and with my view of others – to believe it works the majority of the time but not even close to how often most people think when it involves humans and not just scientific experiments.

We can rarely, if ever, divine other people’s intentions, so using Ockham’s razor based on the imagined intent of another person will most often get you into trouble. That’s really not the case here. By all accounts, intentions were clearly stated and later shown (with a reasonable certainty) to be way off base. There are lots of explanations for that, but only one that kind of makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

1. Joseph claimed it was a direct translation from the scrolls

2. The recovered scrolls do not support that in any way.

I think this is well crystallized. In addition, I think it’s fair to deduce fraudulent intent from a look at the manner of reconstruction of facsimile 2.

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

Cadence wrote:

1. Joseph claimed it was a direct translation from the scrolls

2. The recovered scrolls do not support that in any way.

I think this is well crystallized. In addition, I think it’s fair to deduce fraudulent intent from a look at the manner of reconstruction of facsimile 2.

I had forgotten about the way they tried to fix Facsimile 2. Who took the liberty of filling in missing sections of Facsimile 2 including adding text from the Sensen (Book of Breathings) papyrus around the top right edge and why? It is amazing to see the number of problems that apologists need to try to explain for such a small book while it seems like the top Church leaders would rather just ignore these issues altogether and pretend they don’t exist. Maybe they should pray for some new revelations to try to clear up any misunderstandings about this. Seriously this is still canonized scripture and an increasing number of members are going to find out about some of these problems with it eventually.

[Anonymous]

I have watched the documentary (years ago). When reconstructing the Facs., the artist made the mistake of giving the figures human heads, whereas they should have had animal heads, as is common in Egyptian imagery.

Everything points towards the Facs. being based on funerary papyri of someone called Shoshenq. A lot of the motifs are common, and found in numerous other papyri, common to the point of being formulaic in fact, so there’s not much wiggle room here at all.

There is some interesting stuff in the BoA about the heavenly council etc, but there’s no way at all I can believe in it in the classic fashion.

[Author]

Posts