Replies

pornography..

engravings of the Egyptian god Min with his private parts exposed have nothing to do with the Abraham of the Christian Bible..

***

I am sure it doesn’t but what are you doing looking at those sites? oh I see it was from the anti Mormon site “Mormon Think” the same group who bogus charges against President Monson. Boy how low can they go...

____________

Good news! See the new Website for The Book of Abraham Project at BOAP.org. I especially recommend their page, “Criticisms of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham.” It refutes many of the anti-Mormon assaults on the Book of Abraham. Also, Michael Rhodes’ fascinating article, “The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus: Seventeen Years Later,” is available online. This article provides an excellent discussion of Facsimile #2 and the amazingly reasonable commentary of Joseph Smith, which could not have been fabricated based on scholarly knowledge in the 1830s. Critics, can you explain away the evidence?

Another new and helpful resource is “The Jewish Origin of the Book of Abraham” by Jonathan Moyer, a scholarly paper exploring the ancient Jewish roots of the Book of Abraham. Also see the FAIRMormon.org answers on Facsimile 3.

Aug. 2013 updates: Several corrections to past errors have been made and labeled with “2013 Update”. I observe, for example, that Nibley was wrong in stating that the Joseph Smith papyri were entirely devoid of rubrics, which weakens the missing scroll argument based on physical description.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Abraham.shtml

bfl rebuttal, because it’s gonna be an easy one...

Using mormons, who use mormon sources on a pro-mormon blog to support mormon claims and assertions about the author of mormonism who incorrectly translated a supposed mormon book from an Egyptian papyri...

boy, I just can’t imagine why anyone would be surprised that the “conclusions” are in favor of the purported translation...

I doubt that this will be viewed, but it is in rebuttal to mormon claims of the purported translation by JS...as requested.

Note that the review of JS’s purported translation span multiple generations of Egyptologists and to a man, they all agree...it was a fraud.

Even Hugh Nibley, who the mormons appointed to review the translation originally had to cede that it was false, then, somehow, managed to “change his mind”. A man who admitted he had no training in Egyptology now is viewed as an “expert” by the LDS. But it’s funny that the numerous non-LDS experts are dismissed in order to substantiate Mr. Nibley...color me surprised. Not.

From the link:
Thomas Ferguson, a Mormon archaeologist, concluded in a private letter to a friend:

“Since 4 scholars, who have established that they can read Egyptian, say that the manuscripts deal with neither Abraham nor Joseph— and since the 4 reputable men tell us exactly what the manuscripts do say — I must conclude that Joseph Smith had not the remotest skill in things Egyptian-hieroglyphics. To my surprise, one of the highest of officials in the Mormon Church agreed with that conclusion when I made that very statement to him on Dec. 4, 1970—privately in one-to-one [c]onversation...
“The attempts, including Nibley’s, to explain away and dodge the trap into which Joseph Smith fell when he had the audacity to translate the Chandler text, and keep the original Egyptian texts around, are absurd, in my view.

“My views are not for publication or spreading abroad. I am like you—maintaining membership because of the many fine things the Church offers. But facts speak for themselves. I offered the data available to my Stake Pres. recently and he walked away without it—saying he didn’t want to read it. They can hardly excommunicate us when they won’t look at the evidence.

Of course the dodge as to the Book of Abraham must be: ‘WE DON’T HAVE THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT FROM WHICH THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM WAS TRANSLATED.’ I conclude that we do have it and have translations of it.” (Letter from Thomas Ferguson to Jim, dated March 13, 1971)

http://www.bookofabraham.com/intro.html