|
Post by rick on Dec 8, 2009 20:15:31 GMT -4
So? Only a tiny fragment of what Joseph had in his possession has been recovered, and modern researchers believe there were as many as five scrolls in the original collection - roughly eight times the amount of papyri that have been recovered. There is also the possibility that the destroyed portions of the existing fragments contained the Book of Abraham text. Ancient writers sometimes re-used the materials at hand. Writing on the back, for instance, or adding additional unrelated text to the end of an existing scroll. There are also many interesting parallels between the LDS Book of Abraham and ancient Abrahamic traditions and writings (such as The Apocalypse of Abraham, first translated in 1898) that Joseph Smith did not have access to at the time he made the translation. These parallels provide evidence that the Book of Abraham is an authentic translation of an ancient document. You can see a partial comparison between the texts here.
If Joseph Smith made up the text of the Book of Abraham, he certainly got lucky with a few of those parallels.But what about the fact that the fascimile that Smith had matches part of the surviving scroll that people can say that was translated by Smith incorrectly?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Dec 8, 2009 19:44:11 GMT -4
sometimes spell checker is the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Nov 2, 2009 13:18:41 GMT -4
Jason,
Nostradamus has a following because his faithful insist that the burden of proof lies on those who do not believe in him. But science does not work that way. The burden of proof should lie on the followers of Nostradamus. The same should be said about Joseph Smith and his followers.
You seem to insist that the burden of proof lies on those who do not believe rather than the faithful. It does not work that way.
The Book of Abraham is canonized. So it is an official LDS doctrine. The Book of Abraham is a purported translation in 1835 by Joseph Smith of a set of Egyptian papyri purchased from a traveling mummy exhibition. According to Smith, the book was "a translation of some ancient records....purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus". Smith's translation of the papyri describes a story of Abraham's early life, including a vision of the cosmos. The Mormons were told by the person running the mummy exhibition that the writings were from a dead language.
All this was before people knew the value of the Rosetta Stone that Neapolitan and his men had found in Egypt and years later the papyri would be properly translated by Egyptologists and the result was that Smith's translation would be determined to be wrong -- that is, by people who are not paid by the LDS church as an apologist.
The burden of proof lies is with the LDS church just as people who follow Nostradamus have the burden of proof. An independent peer group has to review the findings and confirm they are authentic.
It does not work the other way around. People could make any outrageous claim they want about goblins, fairies, witches and the earth being flat. Since you cannot logically prove a negative, the burden of proof has to lie on those making the claims.
You may have heard this one about Santa Claus. I can claim that he exists and I challenge you to disprove his existance. You can fly me over the north pole and show me that his house is not there and I can claim that Santa knew you were coming and he moved his house. You see, you cannot "prove" that something "does not" exist. You cannot prove a negative. You can only prove a positive. So the burdne of proof lies on the people who claim that something is real. That holds true for the people who believe in Santa Clause. The same holds true for Nostradamus and Joseph Smith.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Nov 1, 2009 15:27:05 GMT -4
This may suprise you but they are not stupid and just because they have not evolved vocal cords, they can communicate. Both chimps and gorillas have been taught sign langauges and a common question that they have been asked in internet chat rooms is this question or one simular. They do not think that being a gorilla or a chimp is less than being human. I am interested in hearing why you think this might not be the case. Do you know what anthropomorphizing is? I personally doubt that chimps and gorillas can really understand the question "do you think being a gorilla/chimp is less than being a human"? Their answer in a chat room is what a researcher interprets their answer to be. I read about this in National Geographic. The only claim that I have ever read that it was not what they said it was is made by you. And I think it is more likely that you just want to find a way to brush it aside than anything less than what they claim it to be. A biblical fundamentalist friend in college did not believe in evolution because of what he thought it meant. He thought it meant that human beings are animals and thus human beings had no souls. It does not have to be intrepreted this way. But back to this subject of apes with sign language. What is your position. Do you think they do not communicate at all? It was once thought that pet dogs cannot "talk" but in reality they are talking to us all the time with body language. Or would you think that apes would regard humans as being superior? I have never lived there. I only hear from people who have and the stories they have to tell. People in Jonestown were pretty much brainwashed. Why is it so unlikely that that is not the case with a larger area? I said what I said because what I have heard about the teen suicide rate in Utah. Are the theories wrong? The qualifications of a seer should include the ability to spot forgeries if the qualifications of a seer includes the ability to see divine messages that others can not. Specifically, the forgeries included a hand written set of modified Egyptian characters. If the seers had t he supernatural ability to read such characters, he would know when fake ones were presented to him. So if someone was being optimistic about the church, this is something that is not very damaging. Consider this, on the other hand, Jason. If someone was being pessimistic about the church wouldn't this be an issue? Just the fact that it was not canonized does not mean much -- if you were finding something to be critical of the Church. Smith said it. It was his view. You see, that is how logical thought works. You do not take the position that you accept something supernatural and then find all sorts of ways to defend against criticism. This is not how it works. Instead, if we are to regard ourselves as rational beings, we have to take the position that claims of supernatural require extraordinary proof. And if it is more plausible that something is wrong, we go with the more plausible view. If we are to be regarded as rational beings we have to side on the side of doubt. And then wait for the evidence to dislodge us from our position. You take the opposite position. You take the side of faith in the less likely and hold steadfast to that position. I asked you what you believe and why you believe it. Your answers were not based on what you can logically conclude. They were based on what your believes do to you emotionally and personally. So why make your comments in a web forum that is focused on exposing myths and irrationality?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 30, 2009 17:45:58 GMT -4
This may suprise you but they are not stupid and just because they have not evolved vocal cords, they can communicate. Both chimps and gorillas have been taught sign langauges and a common question that they have been asked in internet chat rooms is this question or one simular. They do not think that being a gorilla or a chimp is less than being human.
I am interested in hearing why you think this might not be the case.
The same can be said for Utah.
Jason, what are you saying, that evil spirts put early human fossils in the ground, or are you saying that human origins television programs are not allowed in Utah?
But I did. Don't get testy. Let me word it, then, differently. This means that I would not trust the members of the Presidency of the LDS church and the equivalent members since I think the qualifications of a seer would include recognizing a fake religious artifact apart from a real one. If they are true seers then they would have the ability that Smith had which included the supernatural ability to use seer stones and other objects and be given divine guidence. This inherited divine ability would have had the ability to recognize a fraud just as much as they could put a seer stone in a hat and read from it to see true religious messages. Didn't Smith say he was -- that Elohim was once a man -- in his final speech when he was offering himself up as a lamb?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 25, 2009 0:38:18 GMT -4
Jason,
Don't the Mormons say the bible is corrupted from it original source? But doesn't the original Hebrew book of Genius say that God created the stars after the Earth?
So that leads me to two questions.
#1. Do you think that God created the stars AFTER the Earth?
#2. If the God that the Mormons believe in created all the stars then doesn't that contradict the multi-thiesm of the LDS church? Since they think that Ellohim was once a man and the universe is populated with billions of Gods ruling over individual planets?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 25, 2009 0:34:28 GMT -4
But the president [of the LDS Church] is thought to be a seer. Actually, the three members of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are all considered "prophets, seers, and revelators", not just the President of the Church. Which means what exactly? What do you think are the qualities of a seer? if he could not tell a fake religious artifact, he is not much of a seer. I would not trust him.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 25, 2009 0:33:27 GMT -4
Finally, we may not be the same as chimpanzees... So you agree with me - we aren't chimpanzees. and chimpanzees are proud they are not human beings. Stll, it is common in science that we have a common ancestor. Really, the first thing that seperated us was shape of the hips that allowed us to walk upright. It was not big brains. Walking upright gave us the ability to use our hands. But for millions of years our brains were not any bigger.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 12, 2009 19:38:03 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 12, 2009 17:02:59 GMT -4
You're never going to convince him about evolution, either, or the place of humans in the system. He must have an answer tho'. I would like to read it. In short, I don't consider the Hoffman case to be damaging to the Church's credibility. But the president is thought to be a seer. And as a seer, he should have known the material was fake.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 12, 2009 16:57:25 GMT -4
I wonder where the thing is and who last studied it.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 12, 2009 16:54:59 GMT -4
The first question, I think, to bring forth to those in the know is this. If there were any Earths out there among the systems already observed, could we detect it?
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 12, 2009 13:50:06 GMT -4
In short, I don't consider the Hoffman case to be damaging to the Church's credibility. But the president is thought to be a seer.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 12, 2009 13:46:35 GMT -4
We aren't. Primates are not as intelligent as we are, do not have language and a civilization, etc. It's fairly obvious that we are not in fact the same as chimpanzees, despite having very simlilar DNA. First of all, a simple switch in the index dna causes the brain to double, just like a cow having two stomachs. Secondly, a one year old chimp is smarter than a one year old human. The larger the brain, the longer it takes it to be programmed. Nothing unique or special here. They talk. Infact, even rodents talk. My son has gerbils and if he teaches one a trick, the animal seems to go and tell the others such that the next day, they all know the trick. Also, if not for a very few exceptional humans, we too would not have any civilization. It has been argued that Neanderthals were smarter than us. They had bigger brains. It is just that we out bred them. We overpopulated and there is strength in numbers. On average, they could have had a higher IQ, it is just that there were so much more of us that there was bound to be a few exceptional humans to teach the others how to better make better weapons and tools. Finally, we may not be the same as chimpanzees but it is also fairly obvious that we shared a common ancestor.
|
|
|
Post by rick on Oct 12, 2009 13:38:56 GMT -4
I heard that they found one that was not as small as earth but was pretty close. Still, there was something about it that made it unhabital.
|
|