Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 22, 2009 12:33:46 GMT -4
Ancient Egyptian writing consists of hieroglyphs - pictoral symbols used as a writing system. Facsimile 1 does not contain any actual hieroglyphs. But the drawing matches the surviving piece. I mean, the facsimile matches the surviing piece. THe surviving piece even has a drawing over missing fragments ( I guess by Smith). Yes it does match. And Facsimile 1 does not contain hieroglyphs and the fragment which is its apparent source does not either. No one knows who drew in parts of the missing drawing on the current fragment, or what the state of the drawing was when it was owned by Joseph Smith, except that the reports are that the fragment was still part of a scroll when he obtained it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 22, 2009 12:34:58 GMT -4
Would you care to sumarize the video? I don't watch youtube at work. If you look at my earlier posts, you'll see I already addressed this point.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 22, 2009 14:45:01 GMT -4
But the drawing matches the surviving piece. I mean, the facsimile matches the surviing piece. THe surviving piece even has a drawing over missing fragments ( I guess by Smith). Yes it does match. And Facsimile 1 does not contain hieroglyphs and the fragment which is its apparent source does not either. No one knows who drew in parts of the missing drawing on the current fragment, or what the state of the drawing was when it was owned by Joseph Smith, except that the reports are that the fragment was still part of a scroll when he obtained it. So are you saying that Smith cannot translate? I do not know what you are suggesting or what conclusion you are going to. First of all, Egyptologists have drawn in the missing parts of the fragment and the missing parts do not match what Smith or his friends drew in and the drawn in parts are part of the Facsimile 1. Jason, let me cut to the chase. The man who sold the scrolls to the Mormons told them that they were written in a dead language. Completely dead. Common sense tells me that Smith felt free to present an interpretation benefitial to himself and his religious sect. The Rosetta Stone had been discovered in Smith's time but I understand that its importance had not been understood during Smith's time. I believe that if Smith had known that ancient Egyptian could be scientifically translated, he would have steered away from the scrolls and would not have tried to translate them.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 22, 2009 14:47:50 GMT -4
Would you care to sumarize the video? I don't watch youtube at work. If you look at my earlier posts, you'll see I already addressed this point. I will transcribe the video's dialog when I have the time. The video shows that the mormon claim that the part of the surviving parchment does not match what Smith translated from a corresponding facsimile is baseless. Jason, is Mormonism anti-science?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 22, 2009 16:21:29 GMT -4
So are you saying that Smith cannot translate? I do not know what you are suggesting or what conclusion you are going to. You said earlier that Egyptologists have said that Joseph mis-translated the surviving fragments. I pointed out that of the surviving fragments, only one can really be tied to the finished translation of the Book of Abraham - the drawing known as Facsimile 1 - and that it has no writing (neither heiroglyphics, which the other fragments have on them, nor any Hieratic nor Demotic script characters) on it. It is therefore inaccurate to say that Joseph mis-translated it, since there was no actual writing to translate in the first place. It is fully acknowledged that the remaining fragments which do contain writing do not seem to contain any of the text of the Book of Abraham. However, as I pointed out, what has survived to the present is only a fraction of what Joseph Smith had in his possession - the Book of Abraham text may well have been found on the portions of the scrolls that have not survived. How do Egyptologists know what the missing parts should be? The answer is that they guess what would be there by comparison with other surviving similar texts. However, as I pointed out in post #443, there are numerous aspects of the scene in Facsimile 1 that are unique to it: Presumably, if the portions of the surviving fragment showing one of these unique features of Facsimile 1 had been destroyed, the Egyptologists you speak of would also credit it as something Joseph Smith drew in by mistake. And they would be incorrect. As the drawing is demonstratably unique among surviving "lion couch" scenes, why should we expect the missing portions to correspond exactly to other similar scenes? Common sense is not always a reliable guide when looking for the truth. I believe that, had Egyptian been understood and had Egyptologists who could translate it existed in America in the 1840s, that Joseph Smith would have proceeded to translate the scrolls just as he did, and would have submitted the papyri to these Egyptologists for confirmation of his translation as well. Unfortunately such Egyptologists didn't exist, Joseph was murdered before any did, and the papyri went to those who were not interested in preserving or translating them until the surviving fragments were finally returned to the Church in the 1960s, at which point too much of them had been destroyed to ever confirm or deny Joseph's translation. Joseph did do something very similar to what I believe he would have done. Joseph copied some characters from the golden plates the Book of Mormon was translated from and his associate Martin Harris attempted to have them verified by the scientists of his day. By Martin's account Dr. Charles Anthon at first verified that they were ancient in origin and that the translation accompanying them was quite reasonable, but once he heard where the characters had come from he called the whole thing a hoax. Dr. Anthon at first denied that he ever validated the characters, then later said that he had validated the characters to Harris in an attempt to "expose a fraud".
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 22, 2009 16:29:13 GMT -4
The video shows that the mormon claim that the part of the surviving parchment does not match what Smith translated from a corresponding facsimile is baseless. That doesn't seem to make sense. The video is claiming that the surviving fragments do in fact contain the text of the Book of Abraham, contrary to Mormon claims that they do not? Are you sure you didn't get things a little backwards there? No. The LDS Church has had a few famous scientists, runs a well-regarded university, and studies have shown that LDS generally are more likely to have higher education (and speak a second language) than the general populace.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 22, 2009 17:30:28 GMT -4
How does relate to the thread's topic which is, "Was Jesus Christ God?" ? Much as I like having my thread "bumped", maybe a new thread should be starting debating the merits or faults of (insert your religion here)...
I don't know how Jason feels about the direction that this is taking but I would be very uncomfortable trying to defend, lets say, Catholicism (if I were a Catholic) on every point when even the most learned scholars can't explain the doctrines, history and relics of that faith.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 22, 2009 18:06:24 GMT -4
How does relate to the thread's topic which is, "Was Jesus Christ God?" ? Much as I like having my thread "bumped", maybe a new thread should be starting debating the merits or faults of (insert your religion here)... I don't know how Jason feels about the direction that this is taking but I would be very uncomfortable trying to defend, lets say, Catholicism (if I were a Catholic) on every point when even the most learned scholars can't explain the doctrines, history and relics of that faith. Was this your thread 31 pages back? I forgot.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Dec 22, 2009 19:33:25 GMT -4
How does relate to the thread's topic which is, "Was Jesus Christ God?" ? Much as I like having my thread "bumped", maybe a new thread should be starting debating the merits or faults of (insert your religion here)... I don't know how Jason feels about the direction that this is taking but I would be very uncomfortable trying to defend, lets say, Catholicism (if I were a Catholic) on every point when even the most learned scholars can't explain the doctrines, history and relics of that faith. Was this your thread 31 pages back? I forgot. Yeah, so did I. I had to go to page one to find out!
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 22, 2009 20:22:35 GMT -4
The video shows that the mormon claim that the part of the surviving parchment does not match what Smith translated from a corresponding facsimile is baseless. That doesn't seem to make sense. The video is claiming that the surviving fragments do in fact contain the text of the Book of Abraham, contrary to Mormon claims that they do not? Are you sure you didn't get things a little backwards there? OK, let's wait until I transcribe the video. I do not understand. How does the fact that the LDS church have a few famous scientists or that they are educated make them not anti-science? One of my doctors is Mormon. That does not make him a bad or a good doctor. He could believe in a geocentric universe and that would not make him a bad doctor. I think Mormons are anti-science. Their prophet did not take a huge archelogical find to any known scientist for observation or study.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 22, 2009 20:38:41 GMT -4
So are you saying that Smith cannot translate? I do not know what you are suggesting or what conclusion you are going to. You said earlier that Egyptologists have said that Joseph mis-translated the surviving fragments. I pointed out that of the surviving fragments, only one can really be tied to the finished translation of the Book of Abraham - the drawing known as Facsimile 1 - and that it has no writing (neither heiroglyphics, which the other fragments have on them, nor any Hieratic nor Demotic script characters) on it. It is therefore inaccurate to say that Joseph mis-translated it, since there was no actual writing to translate in the first place. It is fully acknowledged that the remaining fragments which do contain writing do not seem to contain any of the text of the Book of Abraham. However, as I pointed out, what has survived to the present is only a fraction of what Joseph Smith had in his possession - the Book of Abraham text may well have been found on the portions of the scrolls that have not survived. If you saw the video, you would see that this is not true. The surviving piece lines up perfectly with a part of the fascimilie that smith mis-translated.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 22, 2009 21:45:26 GMT -4
Alright, I'm watching the video. First problem - the opening crawl says the papyrus was recovered. Period. In fact only a tiny fraction of what Joseph Smith had has been recovered.
Second problem - Mormons don't question that the image in Facsimile 1 is copied from a surviving fragment. No Mormon I know makes the claim that Facsimile 1 was taken from some other part of the papyrus. So the video is already beating up straw men in the first minute.
In the second minute we have rampant speculation. As I pointed out, the "reconstruction" by Charles Larson consists of Mr. Larson attempting to guess what should be in the missing segments of the fragment by comparing it to surviving Egyptian funary documents with similar scenes. That is not good methodology. The video also fails to mention the unique features of the Facsimile 1 original when compared to other "lion couch" scenes. Nor does it address any of the other issues I have brought up on this forum (similarities between the Book of Abraham text and other Abrahamic texts that were not available to Joseph Smith, for instance).
In short, the video is garbage.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Dec 22, 2009 21:48:17 GMT -4
I do not understand. How does the fact that the LDS church have a few famous scientists or that they are educated make them not anti-science? Well, you usually don't get to be a famous scientist if your peers consider you anti-science, and you don't usually get to be an accredited university unless you teach science, and people who aren't interested in science don't usually go to college and become educated in science. Are you speaking of the papyri?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 23, 2009 3:42:23 GMT -4
I do not understand. How does the fact that the LDS church have a few famous scientists or that they are educated make them not anti-science? Well, you usually don't get to be a famous scientist if your peers consider you anti-science, and you don't usually get to be an accredited university unless you teach science, and people who aren't interested in science don't usually go to college and become educated in science. Are you sure? The silliest things come out of the mouths of the most brilliant men. Being gifted in one school does not make you gifted in all schools. Let me think of some examples. Carl Sagan was regarded as being pretty mediocre as far as a scientist goes and yet he was famous because he had a way of presenting other people's discoveries to the masses. Phil Plait has written a few blogs that seem to have disappeared once he realized he made a huge goof. One was showing what star systems were getting what tv and radio broadcasts. Someone must have tipped him off that we now know that those signals deteriorate. Even Hawking has made some huge goofs. What about all the linguists and historians and biologists who have left the LDS church? Are they ALL "anti-mormon"? Nope. I am not talking about the papyri when I say that I think Mormons are anti-science. Their prophet did not take a huge archelogical find to any known scientist for observation or study. Oh yes, a small piece of writing was handed to a linguist who said it looked like a language of some kind. But any uniformed group of symbols could look like a language of some kind. Smith should have handed over the golden plates.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 23, 2009 4:10:15 GMT -4
Alright, I'm watching the video. First problem - the opening crawl says the papyrus was recovered. Period. In fact only a tiny fraction of what Joseph Smith had has been recovered. Wait. You are confusing me. You said that the piece that was recovered (back in 1966 or '67) was NOT part of the papyri that Smith translated. And now you are saying it was? Actually that is not true. Lots and lots of Mormons have come to the defense of their faith on YouTube by claiming just that. One is a guy who calls himself "The backyard Professor" and he quotes some prodomonate Mormons who use all sorts of logical fallacies to claim that the critisims of The Book of Abraham and the debunking of the papyrus is not valid. ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdwMJPpJivU ) The backyard professor mentions this work: Kevin L. Barney "astronomy papyrus and covenant" www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Kevin+%22astronomy+papyrus+and+covenant%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=www.amazon.com/Astronomy-Papyrus-Covenant-Brigham-University/product-reviews/0934893764The backyard professor claims that Barney insists that the recoverd piece is not part of the paprus that Smith used. I don't know if you agree or disagree. Here you disagree. Other Mormons agree. Wait a second. How do you figure that? The surviving document segment is from a Egyptian funary paprus. It is what would logically be part of The Book of the Dead. The other fascimies are also from The Book of the Dead. So what he did is simple logic. How is this bad methodology and not logical? Sure but other Youtube videos do. Here is a debunking of facsimile #2: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViutCg0cyXA&feature=relatedIn short, the whole thing is debunked. I am fascinated by how your mind works. Were you a Mormon before you heard all this stuff? Are you emotionally invested in the LDS church? Smith gets more things wrong than he gets right. The things he seems to get right seem to be just by chance. You say "similarities between the Book of Abraham text and other Abrahamic texts that were not available to Joseph Smith, for instance". That sounds like the OJ Simpson defense where the lawyers said "if you throw enough at a wall, something is bound to stick". Good science would be "if Smith got anything wrong, it should be thrown out". Instead, he got most wrong. And yet you are pointing out a few things he got right? That sounds like luck and chance to me.
|
|