By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

  • user warning: Table './exmo_08072012/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '2:c04d2945c21a20e114ecc9623d52b1b3' in /home/exmormon/public_html/d6/drupal/includes/cache.inc on line 27.
  • user warning: Table './exmo_08072012/cache_filter' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: UPDATE cache_filter SET data = '<p>farrow Aug. 2014</p>\n<p>Am I a simpleton for thinking that the preamble of the Book of Abraham is intended to mean what it says?</p>\n<p>The LDS.org essay on BofA says that the papyrus could have been a transcription of Abrahams\'s book.</p>\n<p>But the problem is that Joseph wrote that the papyrus that came into his hands from the catacombs of egypt was written By Abraham, By His Own Hand.</p>\n<p>I don\'t know how much more clear it can be.</p>\n<p>Not to get political on here, but it reeks to me of Clinton\'s \"depends on what the meaning of the word is is\"</p>\n<hr />\nexodus<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\n<p>We\'ve had several postings on this board touching on this very point and others like it since the BoA essay was posted. You are right.</p>\n<p>Think of it this way. There is nothing in written history to indicate these new theories of an alternate meaning for the word \"translation\". On the contrary, there are many clear and direct references and evidences of a direct translation. For example, the Egyptian grammar and alphabet notes taken. The church\'s stance has changed every time new evidence is found that disproves the historicity of the BoA. You can read more on MormonThink:</p>\n<p><a href=\"http://mormonthink.com/essays-book-of-abraham.htm\" title=\"http://mormonthink.com/essays-book-of-abraham.htm\">http://mormonthink.com/essays-book-of-abraham.htm</a></p>\n<hr />\noutsider<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\n<p>It fits the Joey\'s pattern. Here is not just any Indian skeleton, but Zelph, the Great Warrior. This isn\'t just any stone, it\'s the actual altar build by Adam himself in Missouri.</p>\n<p>So yes, the apologist try to come up with creative spins, but the introduction is without doubt that Joey told people.</p>\n<hr />\nblueorchid<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\n<p>\"By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\" is a classic example of By His Own Foot in his Mouth. Good one, Joey!</p>\n<hr />\nandroidandy<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\n<p>This book helped me see the clear fraud of Joseph Smith\'s modus operandi...</p>\n<p>Lie to everyone.</p>\n<p>The top LDS leadership knew in the late 1960\'s the truth about the BoA. They chose to continue the lie.</p>\n<p>That\'s all I needed to know.</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Ex Aedibus<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus</p>\n<p>I think this video explains the problem nicely and in a humourous way:</p>\n<p><a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_iuV2vIXlI\" title=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_iuV2vIXlI\">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_iuV2vIXlI</a></p>\n<p>The irritating thing about all this is that the LDS church has had since 1912 to deal with this. In 1912, the Rt. Rev. Franklin Spalding, third Episcopal Bishop of Utah, sent copies of the facsimiles and their translations to various distinguished Egyptologists. All of them pronounced Joseph Smith\'s translations to be laughable. One pronounced it to be a \"complete farrago of nonsense from beginning to end\".</p>\n<hr />\nLevi<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\n<p>If this specific line had never been included, I might have been able to swallow the apologists BS line, but this is very clear. Too clear, one might say.</p>\n<p>6 words got me to wake up and see the truth.</p>\n<hr />\njacob<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\n<p>For me it ain\'t the origins of the BOA it\'s the content that tells me it is a pile of sh!t.</p>\n<hr />\nGenY<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\n<p>They both work hand in hand to show all but the most deluded what a crock it is.</p>\n<hr />\nmichaelc1945<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\n<p>BoA is a pile of Kolob.</p>\n<hr />\nWhite Cliffs<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\n<p>2 Thess. 3:17</p>\n<p>\"The salutation of Paul with mine own hand...\"</p>\n<hr />\nAlready Gone<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\n<p>This is how you show the papyri as \"catalyst for revelation\" as bad reasoning. The introduction says, literally, \"upon his own hand\". (that and Joseph never said it was a catalyst)</p>\n<hr />\n<p>Camelot<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus</p>\n<p>It reminds me of the example of when you tell a lie, you then have to tell a bigger lie to cover that lie, and so on, and so on. Then one day your saying the word translation has a different meaning then what you think it means. What a joke.</p>\n<hr />\nsherlock<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\n<p>It\'s curious that for many years TBMs believed and were taught that the words of JS could and should be taken literally (I.e. They mean what they actually say).</p>\n<p>But the meaning is ONLY adjusted to something completely different AFTER alternative evidence arises and not before.</p>\n<p>It\'s the same with the hemispheric versus limited geography models for the Book of Mormon geography. When contrary evidence arises apologists have to find a new way to make it fit, even if it\'s counter intuitive and completely ludicrous.</p>\n<p>In addition, I find it laughable that this apologist tactic completely undermines everything else that JS ever said; sayings and words that TBMs revere, quote and hold their testimonies upon. For if it can be shown that JS said one thing but meant another (BoA), how can you not then apply this same caution to everything else he ever said, including the correlated first vision account and all other supposed revelations?</p>\n<hr />\nProf. Plum<br />\n\"The Lost Book of Abraham\" \n<p><a href=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE\" title=\"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE\">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE</a></p>\n<hr />\nChump<br />\nRe: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus\n<p>Agreed. Someone recently posted a comment from an Egyptologist stating exactly that...that you don\'t even need to look at the \"translation\" to know that the book is a fraud. The few historical points that can be fact-checked are all wrong.</p>\n<p>\"Recovery from Mormonism - www.exmormon.org\"</p>\n', created = 1544425599, expire = 1544511999, headers = '', serialized = 0 WHERE cid = '2:c04d2945c21a20e114ecc9623d52b1b3' in /home/exmormon/public_html/d6/drupal/includes/cache.inc on line 112.

farrow Aug. 2014

Am I a simpleton for thinking that the preamble of the Book of Abraham is intended to mean what it says?

The LDS.org essay on BofA says that the papyrus could have been a transcription of Abrahams's book.

But the problem is that Joseph wrote that the papyrus that came into his hands from the catacombs of egypt was written By Abraham, By His Own Hand.

I don't know how much more clear it can be.

Not to get political on here, but it reeks to me of Clinton's "depends on what the meaning of the word is is"


exodus
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

We've had several postings on this board touching on this very point and others like it since the BoA essay was posted. You are right.

Think of it this way. There is nothing in written history to indicate these new theories of an alternate meaning for the word "translation". On the contrary, there are many clear and direct references and evidences of a direct translation. For example, the Egyptian grammar and alphabet notes taken. The church's stance has changed every time new evidence is found that disproves the historicity of the BoA. You can read more on MormonThink:

http://mormonthink.com/essays-book-of-abraham.htm


outsider
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

It fits the Joey's pattern. Here is not just any Indian skeleton, but Zelph, the Great Warrior. This isn't just any stone, it's the actual altar build by Adam himself in Missouri.

So yes, the apologist try to come up with creative spins, but the introduction is without doubt that Joey told people.


blueorchid
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

"By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus" is a classic example of By His Own Foot in his Mouth. Good one, Joey!


androidandy
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

This book helped me see the clear fraud of Joseph Smith's modus operandi...

Lie to everyone.

The top LDS leadership knew in the late 1960's the truth about the BoA. They chose to continue the lie.

That's all I needed to know.


Ex Aedibus
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

I think this video explains the problem nicely and in a humourous way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_iuV2vIXlI

The irritating thing about all this is that the LDS church has had since 1912 to deal with this. In 1912, the Rt. Rev. Franklin Spalding, third Episcopal Bishop of Utah, sent copies of the facsimiles and their translations to various distinguished Egyptologists. All of them pronounced Joseph Smith's translations to be laughable. One pronounced it to be a "complete farrago of nonsense from beginning to end".


Levi
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

If this specific line had never been included, I might have been able to swallow the apologists BS line, but this is very clear. Too clear, one might say.

6 words got me to wake up and see the truth.


jacob
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

For me it ain't the origins of the BOA it's the content that tells me it is a pile of sh!t.


GenY
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

They both work hand in hand to show all but the most deluded what a crock it is.


michaelc1945
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

BoA is a pile of Kolob.


White Cliffs
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

2 Thess. 3:17

"The salutation of Paul with mine own hand..."


Already Gone
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

This is how you show the papyri as "catalyst for revelation" as bad reasoning. The introduction says, literally, "upon his own hand". (that and Joseph never said it was a catalyst)


Camelot
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

It reminds me of the example of when you tell a lie, you then have to tell a bigger lie to cover that lie, and so on, and so on. Then one day your saying the word translation has a different meaning then what you think it means. What a joke.


sherlock
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

It's curious that for many years TBMs believed and were taught that the words of JS could and should be taken literally (I.e. They mean what they actually say).

But the meaning is ONLY adjusted to something completely different AFTER alternative evidence arises and not before.

It's the same with the hemispheric versus limited geography models for the Book of Mormon geography. When contrary evidence arises apologists have to find a new way to make it fit, even if it's counter intuitive and completely ludicrous.

In addition, I find it laughable that this apologist tactic completely undermines everything else that JS ever said; sayings and words that TBMs revere, quote and hold their testimonies upon. For if it can be shown that JS said one thing but meant another (BoA), how can you not then apply this same caution to everything else he ever said, including the correlated first vision account and all other supposed revelations?


Prof. Plum
"The Lost Book of Abraham"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcyzkd_m6KE


Chump
Re: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus

Agreed. Someone recently posted a comment from an Egyptologist stating exactly that...that you don't even need to look at the "translation" to know that the book is a fraud. The few historical points that can be fact-checked are all wrong.

"Recovery from Mormonism - www.exmormon.org"