Explanation of the Book of abraham(LDS)

[pablope]

I don’t take that statement to mean that Abraham necessarily drew the facsimiles, but that he wrote the record that was translated into the book itself (the text).

Looks like you are going in circles again. To set the record straight, why don’t you find and post Smith’s claim about the papyrus and refute the Egyptoligists assertion that state… "Joseph Smith’s statement that the papyri were "written by [Abraham’s] own hand upon papyrus."

As per the article, The Joseph Smith Papyri have been dated to the late Ptolemaic or early Roman period, 1500 years after Abraham’s supposed lifetime…so how could you claim that Abraham wrote the record itself?

Paul …means that Paul had writings which we don’t have, since we don’t find such a description about Abraham in Genesis. Hebrews 11 shows the same thing about Enoch–that Paul knew more about Enoch than is written in Genesis.

Your conjecture again, Parker. Paul would not write anything about the OT, why would he. His revelation was directly from Jesus, and he was spreading the Gospel, not anything about Abraham or Enoch. If you closely examine Paul’s epistles, these were epistles that dealt with problems and advise to the churches he established in the name of Christ, instructions to those he left in charge (Timothy and Titus),

The Genesis account is unclear about the timing of events. However, since there was a famine that sent Abraham to Egypt, one can understand that a famine is not an overnight event,** and that Abraham must have been in Egypt for long enough **that the famine abated by the time he left–at least a year or close to a year.

Another conjecture, Parker. You are trying to stretch the account and you have quite an imagination.Here is the verse again:

Genesis 12:17-19
17But the LORD afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram’s wife. 18So Pharaoh called Abram and said, “What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? 19Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife; take her, and go.”

The account indicates that Abram was dismissed by Pharaoh, with the famine not having abated. At best, Abram was in Egypt, no more than one to two months, and that is stretching it.

My point was that for the Pharaoh to have had a knowledge that Abraham was even around, and to have had an interest in his “sister”, that they had a relationship beyond just casual acquaintance. .

It is not for sure pharaoh had actual relations with Sarai, the accounts indicate from verse 15… “they praised her to Pharaoh. And the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house”…indicating that she was being prepared for marriage…but before this could happen, see what happens at verse 17.

We already know from the papyrus and the writings we have both cited, that the Egyptians were interested in the heavens, the creation of the universe, and the stars

Unless you can provide actual sources from Egyptian history to prove this, I would say this is conjecture again. If they were interested in such, why did they bother to build pyramids?

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

I was aware that what I had pasted included the JS version and the “translated by scholars” version of certain words or ideograms.

The articles I had referenced previously showed that hieroglyphics and its use evolved over time, and wasn’t static at all. So for a scholar to say that a pictograph means precisely such and such does not acknowledge that that same pictograph could have meant something else hundreds of years earlier–and they just don’t have enough evidence to be able to say for sure that the facsimiles were from later time periods than when Abraham was alive, as they assert. New evidence that changes their thinking is found often in Egypt as other archeology is uncovered and examined.

I have seen no explanation about the sword or dagger–have you in your reading?

Parker…those experts who examined and translated the JS papyri were “experts” in every word…in their field…don’t you think they took into account the period the papyri were written? That is why they were able to date them correctly (or did you deliberately miss the point about the dating…which I was hoping you would pay attention to)…and interpret them correctly. With the dating as 1500 years after Abraham, this puts the papyrus closer to the time of the Rosetta stone, right?

Another point…after Abram’s time in Egypt, and with the Mormon claims about him teaching pharaoh astrology…why is there no account of this in all the Egyptian scrolls that have been discovered after Abram’s event in Egypt? In the pyramids?

And you ignored my earlier question: What is the name of the Pharaoh that Abram met in Egypt? And this should be contained in the Book, right? If Abraham wrote the papyri or record, as you put it, why did he not bother to write his name?

This much I can tell…all the Egyptian experts, both Mormon and non-mormon, that came to the same conclusion in their study and examination, were being guided by the Holy Spirit. As for the Holy Spirit that you claim is guiding you, sorry to say this, but I believe it is another HS.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

Surely you noticed that whoever posted that comment had very little knowledge of facsimile 1, had not studied the subject at all, and just needed an excuse to leave the LDS church, which is just fine–that fulfills the parable of the sower, and is totally to be expected. A person who joins the LDS church needs to be reading the Book of Mormon in their life in this modern time, to stay close to the Holy Ghost and not drift by every wind of doctrine, but if they don’t want to do that, then they are better off finding a religion they will live by and thus be able to follow their own heart. I’m fine with that.

Actually, from what I can tell, he gave and spent time with Mormons, and considered joining but his further investigation revealed the truth. And I hope you do too…in whatever or wherever it leads you.

You know, what is one of the hardest thing for a human being to do? It is admit a mistake, to be forthright about it, and to actually find the humility to accept and admit and confess the mistake. I commend you for the brave face you are showing, despite all the contrary evidence shown you about the real story behind the book of A.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker…those experts who examined and translated the JS papyri were “experts” in every word…in their field…don’t you think they took into account the period the papyri were written? That is why they were able to date them correctly (or did you deliberately miss the point about the dating…which I was hoping you would pay attention to)…and interpret them correctly. With the dating as 1500 years after Abraham, this puts the papyrus closer to the time of the Rosetta stone, right?

Pablope,

I did notice their dating method, which was by comparison–they said in so many words, "this matches what we have seen in the period of time of the Rosetta stone, so it must be from the same period. But there are also studies that acknowledge that some of the hieroglyphics were “passed on” as one would expect for what they considered sacred, special writings. So the dating issue has holes in it. (I wish we had one “on the line” to take that up as a point of discussion.)

Another point…after Abram’s time in Egypt, and with the Mormon claims about him teaching pharaoh astrology…why is there no account of this in all the Egyptian scrolls that have been discovered after Abram’s event in Egypt? In the pyramids?

You don’t seem to have understood that the hieroglyphic pictographs were about death and getting one’s soul into the right place after death, plus preparing for the resurrection, and about the creation of the heavens. There would be no reason to assume that the Pharoah would “record” Abraham having taught him (particularly since he thought of himself as a “deity” and would not want to preserve that history for anyone to know about).

And you ignored my earlier question: What is the name of the Pharaoh that Abram met in Egypt? And this should be contained in the Book, right? If Abraham wrote the papyri or record, as you put it, why did he not bother to write his name?

The name title “Pharoah” is the name title that was used in Biblical type writings, as we can see in the Bible. There would be no expected difference, as Abraham was writing in a scriptural way for his posterity including all the seed of Abraham.

I have so much more going on in my life that specifically provides confirming witness of the Holy Spirit working in my life as a guide and a comforter, that it makes not an iota of difference whether anyone thinks I do or don’t–not saying I do at every moment in time, but enough to know when His guidance is happening, and I delight in those experiences.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

I did notice their dating method, which was by comparison–they said in so many words, "this matches what we have seen in the period of time of the Rosetta stone, so it must be from the same period. But there are also studies that acknowledge that some of the hieroglyphics were “passed on” as one would expect for what they considered sacred, special writings. So the dating issue has holes in it. (I wish we had one “on the line” to take that up as a point of discussion.)

I have so much more going on in my life that specifically provides confirming witness of the Holy Spirit working in my life as a guide and a comforter, that it makes not an iota of difference whether anyone thinks I do or don’t–not saying I do at every moment in time, but enough to know when His guidance is happening, and I delight in those experiences.

So the dating issue has holes in it. (I wish we had one “on the line” to take that up as a point of discussion.)

What is the mistake in the dating? I am sure the Mormon church would have recorded this if there was. Show the proof.

The name title “Pharoah” is the name title that was used in Biblical type writings, as we can see in the Bible. There would be no expected difference, as Abraham was writing in a scriptural way for his posterity including all the seed of Abraham.

How could abraham know how to write scripturally, there was no scripture at the time of Abraham. And if he was to write, why not write it in his language, Hebrew…or whatever it was at his time…so that he people would understand it. Was he writing for the Egyptians or the Jews? Ostensibly, he was writing for the Jews, so why write in Egyptian? So there would be no need for a translator!! And besides, at the time of Abraham, there was no writings.

You don’t seem to have understood that the hieroglyphic pictographs were about death and getting one’s soul into the right place after death, plus preparing for the resurrection, and about the creation of the heavens.

Sorry to say, but not according to the experts, which have more credibility.

There would be no reason to assume that the Pharoah would “record” Abraham having taught him (particularly since he thought of himself as a “deity” and would not want to preserve that history for anyone to know about).

Pharaoh is busy ruling his kingdom. He would not be by himself with Abraham and he would have his scholars or others with him learning. So, there would be a record somehow. But why is there none, because it never happened in the first place.

And you have not even gotten the name of the actual Pharaoh that Abraham taught. Where is it in the Book of A. Don’t you think Abraham would record his name in his record, for all to see that he taught the heavens to a king?

 

[ParkerD]

…
How could Abraham know how to write scripturally, there was no scripture at the time of Abraham. And if he was to write, why not write it in his language, Hebrew…or whatever it was at his time…so that he people would understand it. Was he writing for the Egyptians or the Jews? Ostensibly, he was writing for the Jews, so why write in Egyptian? So there would be no need for a translator!! And besides, at the time of Abraham, there was no writings.

Pablope,

The following is a quote from the Wikipedia article about “Hebrew language–history”:

“Numerous older tablets have been found in the region with similar scripts written in other Semitic languages, for example Protosinaitic. It is believed that the original shapes of the script go back to Egyptian hieroglyphs, though the phonetic values are instead inspired by the acrophonic principle. The common ancestor of Hebrew and Phoenician is called Canaanite, and was the first to use a Semitic alphabet distinct from Egyptian. One ancient document is the famous Moabite Stone written in the Moabite dialect; the Siloam Inscription, found near Jerusalem, is an early example of Hebrew. Less ancient samples of Archaic Hebrew include the ostraka found near Lachish which describe events preceding the final capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian captivity of 586 BCE.”

Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language

As to your question about the time of the hieroglyphics, here is a relevant quote from Wikipedia, “Book of the Dead”, since the “Book of Abraham” article you already cited says the hieroglyphics originated from the Book of the Dead which was noted to exist much earlier in time than the Book of Breathings :

“The “Book of the Dead” is the modern name of an ancient Egyptian funerary text, first used at the beginning of the New Kingdom (around 1550 BC) and still in use around 50 BC.[2] The original Egyptian name for the text, transliterated rw nw prt m hrw[3] is translated as “Book of Coming Forth by Day”,[4] or perhaps “Utterances of Going Forth by Day”[5], and the text consists of a number of magic spells intended to assist a dead person journey through the Duat, or underworld, and into the afterlife. The Book of the Dead derives from earlier Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts”

Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Book_of_the_Dead

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

The following is a quote from the Wikipedia article about “Hebrew language–history”:

“Numerous older tablets have been found in the region with similar scripts written in other Semitic languages, for example Protosinaitic. It is believed that the original shapes of the script go back to Egyptian hieroglyphs, though the phonetic values are instead inspired by the acrophonic principle. The common ancestor of Hebrew and Phoenician is called Canaanite, and was the first to use a Semitic alphabet distinct from Egyptian. One ancient document is the famous Moabite Stone written in the Moabite dialect; the Siloam Inscription, found near Jerusalem, is an early example of Hebrew. Less ancient samples of Archaic Hebrew include the ostraka found near Lachish which describe events preceding the final capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian captivity of 586 BCE.”

**

What does what you researched contribute to your proof? Sorry, I am at a lost…I do not think I made my point…what I was trying to point out, that at Abraham’s time, ordinary people like abraham did not know how to write, if ever there was writing of any form then…it was confined to a few and these were in the King’s court. There were no schools as we have today. So you stated Abraham probably wrote scripturally…no, there was no form of scripture then. If abraham did write something, there would be more of his writings, and it would not just be the Book of Mormon, which he did not write in the first place.

**
Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language

As to your question about the time of the hieroglyphics, here is a relevant quote from Wikipedia, “Book of the Dead”, since the “Book of Abraham” article you already cited says the hieroglyphics originated from the Book of the Dead which was noted to exist much earlier in time than the Book of Breathings :

“The “Book of the Dead” is the modern name of an ancient Egyptian funerary text, first used at the beginning of the New Kingdom (around 1550 BC) and still in use around 50 BC.[2] The original Egyptian name for the text, transliterated rw nw prt m hrw[3] is translated as “Book of Coming Forth by Day”,[4] or perhaps “Utterances of Going Forth by Day”[5], and the text consists of a number of magic spells intended to assist a dead person journey through the Duat, or underworld, and into the afterlife. The Book of the Dead derives from earlier Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts”

Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Book_of_the_Dead

Again, how does this prove your point? All it says, is that there was basis for the Egyptologists to come the right conclusion, that the Book of A is a sham, as the book of the dead was mis-used to dupe a lot of good natured people, and that their translation was correct.

Besides, when Abram was in Egypt, God was still testing him. His covenant with God does not occur until well after, in Gen 15: 18. If ever God was going to give him any divine gifts, it would be after God had made a covenant with Abraham.

 

[ParkerD]

…
Besides, when Abram was in Egypt, God was still testing him. His covenant with God does not occur until well after, in Gen 15: 18. If ever God was going to give him any divine gifts, it would be after God had made a covenant with Abraham.

Pablope,

I think this is proving to be an unfruitful conversation, having a little bit to do with such things as reading Genesis 12 and finding the promise God made to Abraham and that Abraham saw God as recounted there–yet a comment such as this one from your end. I think the most helpful thing for you to do will be to really focus on the Bible in your reading, rather than on anything I have to say–best wishes that you may do that thoroughly and with great enjoyment!

 

[SnakeMauler]

e46,

The supposed “proof” of what supposed scholars believe is a “mistranslation”, arises from two or more misconceptions:

1. The belief that they are looking at the primary source of the translation. This is simply not true. There was another papyrus that Joseph Smith looked at when he translated the book of Abraham.
2. The belief that the Rosetta Stone is the be-all and the end-all for Egyptian translation from the beginning of the use of hieroglyphic writings for sacred beliefs of those people–as though beliefs and names would remain constant for 1000 years. When Abraham lived among them, he taught them, not vice-versa.

It can be easily found in history that Egyptian beliefs changed over a few centuries of time, let alone a thousand years.

1. The belief that there was a “word-for-word” translation process is a misconception. Hieroglyphics are a symbolic religious language conveyance that communicates ideas, not individual words. Joseph Smith was able to capture the ideas through the Holy Spirit guiding his mind and heart, and thus he knew what Abraham conveyed through hieroglyphics–some of the same kinds of teachings conveyed and captured in the Bible about Abraham and the Abrahamic covenant, but with additional insight into the promises given by God to Abraham through his righteousness and his righteous desires for his posterity.

The posterity of Abraham is spread throughout the world, so we are seeing fulfillment today of promises given to Abraham so very long ago. We also saw a fulfillment of one of those promises through the birth of Christ, the Son of David and the King of Kings, over 2,000 years ago.

So you mean he just kinda looked at it and was like hmm that could mean this and that could mean that and just somehow applied it to his religion?

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

I think this is proving to be an unfruitful conversation, having a little bit to do with such things as reading Genesis 12 and finding the promise God made to Abraham and that Abraham saw God as recounted there–yet a comment such as this one from your end. I think the most helpful thing for you to do will be to really focus on the Bible in your reading, rather than on anything I have to say–best wishes that you may do that thoroughly and with great enjoyment!

Same to you, Parker…hope you find the truth and your eyes opened. My advise to you, if you have not, is to read past Genesis 12, and see the progression of Abram’s tests by God and his continued faith in God, hence, God wish to have a covenant with him and Gen 15:18

18On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying,
"To your descendants I have given this land,
From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

And in Genesis 17, God changing his name to Abraham and revealing his plans for him.

Genesis 17:3-5 (King James Version)
3And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
5Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

 

[ParkerD]

Same to you, Parker…hope you find the truth and your eyes opened. My advise to you, if you have not, is to read past Genesis 12, and see the progression of Abram’s tests by God and his continued faith in God, hence, God wish to have a covenant with him and Gen 15:18

18On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying,
"To your descendants I have given this land,
From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates:

And in Genesis 17, God changing his name to Abraham and revealing his plans for him.

Genesis 17:3-5 (King James Version)
3And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
5Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Pablope,
So you’re saying Genesis 12:1-3 and Genesis 12:7 and Genesis 13:16 are not covenant promises from God? We disagree profoundly, both about the magnitude of Abraham’s abilities (he could write) and about the magnitude of his relationship with God even before the experiences recorded in Genesis 15:18 and in Genesis 17. All of Genesis contains precious and important information, and I certainly do read and study it all.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,
So you’re saying Genesis 12:1-3 and Genesis 12:7 and Genesis 13:16 are not covenant promises from God? We disagree profoundly, both about the magnitude of Abraham’s abilities (he could write) and about the magnitude of his relationship with God even before the experiences recorded in Genesis 15:18 and in Genesis 17. All of Genesis contains precious and important information, and I certainly do read and study it all.

Parker…Gen 12 is the call of Abram, and God’s promise if he followed, which A does dutifully on a promise and no guarantee. So here, you see A’s first test of faith. Then goes to Egypt and another test of A’s faith while in Egypt. God follows through in not allowing the defilement of Sarai, that the Pharaoh dismisses Abram and his family away. I think from your previous posts, you believe that Sarah actually was violated by Pharaoh. The God I know would not allow that to happen.

Gen 13: 14-18 is God confirming his promise to Abram, after his quarrel with Lot.

Gen 15 is the covenant, the sealing of the agreement between Abram and God, or it is now a treaty or is formalized.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker…Gen 12 is the call of Abram, and God’s promise if he followed, which A does dutifully on a promise and no guarantee. So here, you see A’s first test of faith. Then goes to Egypt and another test of A’s faith while in Egypt. God follows through …
Gen 13: 14-18 is God confirming his promise to Abram, after his quarrel with Lot.

Gen 15 is the covenant, the sealing of the agreement between Abram and God, or it is now a treaty or is formalized.

Pablope,
No–I do not think in any way whatsoever that Pharaoh took advantage of Sarah–nor did I ever imply any such thing.

Abraham was not being “dutiful” only–much more significantly, he had a relationship with God, the kind of personal relationship that follows if a person seeks God with all their heart. That becomes a covenant relationship, and Abraham understood that and God confirmed it.

Abraham did not “quarrel with Lot”. He sought the peacemaker position of offering for Lot to choose whichever land he would choose, and Abraham would accept that choice and they would separate their flocks and their herdsmen to avoid the strife that was occurring. Abraham was doing an inspired thing, and the outcome showed the Lord’s hand in guiding him.

So anyway, we disagree very profoundly in many ways about the experiences of Abraham as recorded in Genesis. I think more can be learned from his experiences, his faith, and his relationship with God than it appears you have given him credit for. But to each their own…Peace to you.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

Abraham was not being “dutiful” only–much more significantly, he had a relationship with God, the kind of personal relationship that follows if a person seeks God with all their heart. That becomes a covenant relationship, and Abraham understood that and God confirmed it.

Abraham did not “quarrel with Lot”. He sought the peacemaker position of offering for Lot to choose whichever land he would choose, and Abraham would accept that choice and they would separate their flocks and their herdsmen to avoid the strife that was occurring. Abraham was doing an inspired thing, and the outcome showed the Lord’s hand in guiding him.

So anyway, we disagree very profoundly in many ways about the experiences of Abraham as recorded in Genesis. I think more can be learned from his experiences, his faith, and his relationship with God than it appears you have given him credit for. But to each their own…Peace to you.

No–I do not think in any way whatsoever that Pharaoh took advantage of Sarah–nor did I ever imply any such thing.

I must have misread your reply from Post 36,if I did, please correct me:

The Genesis account is unclear about the timing of events. However, since there was a famine that sent Abraham to Egypt, one can understand that a famine is not an overnight event, and that Abraham must have been in Egypt for long enough that the famine abated by the time he left--at least a year or close to a year.

My point was that for the Pharaoh to have had a knowledge that Abraham was even around, and to have had an interest in his “sister”, that they had a relationship beyond just casual acquaintance. We already know from the papyrus and the writings we have both cited, that the Egyptians were interested in the heavens, the creation of the universe, and the stars.

This is how I understand what you are saying here: With Abram in Egypt for a year, and with Pharaoh having an interest in Sarai, and a relationship beyond casual acquaintance…so pharaoh would have consumated a relationship beyond casual with Sarai, in the time they were in Egypt, don’t you think?

From what I understand from Genesis, God saw A as a good man, and called on Abram, and he dutifully followed, and established a relationship with Abraham and sealed it with a covenant.

Abraham did not “quarrel with Lot”

I may have used a wrong word. My bad here.

 

[ParkerD]

I must have misread your reply from Post 36,if I did, please correct me:

This is how I understand what you are saying here: With Abram in Egypt for a year, and with Pharaoh having an interest in Sarai, and a relationship beyond casual acquaintance…so Pharaoh would have consumated a relationship beyond casual with Sarai, in the time they were in Egypt, don’t you think?

From what I understand from Genesis, God saw A as a good man, and called on Abram, and he dutifully followed, and established a relationship with Abraham and sealed it with a covenant.

Pablope,
I suppose that I could have made my meaning clearer. The relationship we had been discussing was between Abraham and Pharaoh, and that was the compound subject that led to my use of the pronoun “they”. (In other words, I didn’t change the subject to a different compound subject in mid-sentence.)

Pharoah had evidently spent enough time with Abraham that they were what most people would call “friends”. But the friendship was disrupted when Pharaoh found out that Abraham and Sarah were not only cousins, but husband and wife, and it is logical that Pharaoh felt he had been deceived but also now he would not have the same level of trust for Abraham as he previously had–so he sent them away from Egypt.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,
I suppose that I could have made my meaning clearer. The relationship we had been discussing was between Abraham and Pharaoh, and that was the compound subject that led to my use of the pronoun “they”. (In other words, I didn’t change the subject to a different compound subject in mid-sentence.)

Pharoah had evidently spent enough time with Abraham that they were what most people would call “friends”. But the friendship was disrupted when Pharaoh found out that Abraham and Sarah were not only cousins, but husband and wife, and it is logical that Pharaoh felt he had been deceived but also now he would not have the same level of trust for Abraham as he previously had–so he sent them away from Egypt.

Your timeline, or rather your accounting of the story again does not fit in with the account in the Bible, and it looks like you are trying to prove the truthfulness of the B of A and trying to make it fit.

You are conjecturing again:

Pharoah had evidently spent enough time with Abraham that they were what most people would call “friends”

I will take it verse by verse and see if it agrees with your supposition:

Gen 12: 11-20

11And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:

12Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.

On the way to Egypt, A realizes that since Sarai is fair and beautiful, the egyptians will kill abram so that they could have their way with sarai.

13Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

So, they will pretend to be brothers and sisters.

14And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.

**So now they are in Egypt. Ordinary Egyptians see Sarai and see that she is fair. Word likely goes around of a beautiful or fair woman and this will likely reach Pharaoh’s men. **

15The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.

**Pharaoh’s men see Sarai, tells Pharaoh of her beauty…and they take her to Pharaoh’s palace. There is no contact with Abram here between him and phraraoh. Sarai sees the pharaoh even before Abram. so, where is the friendship between Abram and pharaoh that you are talking about?

**

16And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.

**Pharaoh’s men give gifts to Abram to keep him quiet, sort of bribes. First contact between Pharaoh and Abram. He is given more gifts by Pharaoh because of Sarai…“for her sake.” I do not see any discussion of stars and heavens among friends here. Pharaoh seems to be more interested in Sarai and desires Sarai, not talking to Abram. Abram is most likely dismissed here, with Pharaoh getting ready to defile Sarai.
**

17And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram’s wife.

**Before the defilement of Sarai could occur, God intervenes and plagues Pharaoh.

**

18And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?

19Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

**Pharaoh calls Abram, tells him to take his wife and be on your way. **

20And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.

**Pharaoh’s command to his men to let Abram leave and not harm him, together with all his possessions and what was given Abram, allowing him with enough to survive the famine.
**

 

[ParkerD]

Your timeline, or rather your accounting of the story again does not fit in with the account in the Bible, and it looks like you are trying to prove the truthfulness of the B of A and trying to make it fit.

You are conjecturing again:

I will take it verse by verse and see if it agrees with your supposition:

Gen 12: 11-20

11And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon:

12Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see thee, that they shall say, This is his wife: and they will kill me, but they will save thee alive.

On the way to Egypt, A realizes that since Sarai is fair and beautiful, the egyptians will kill abram so that they could have their way with sarai.

13Say, I pray thee, thou art my sister: that it may be well with me for thy sake; and my soul shall live because of thee.

So, they will pretend to be brothers and sisters.

14And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.

**So now they are in Egypt. Ordinary Egyptians see Sarai and see that she is fair. Word likely goes around of a beautiful or fair woman and this will likely reach Pharaoh’s men. **

15The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.

**Pharaoh’s men see Sarai, tells Pharaoh of her beauty…and they take her to Pharaoh’s palace. There is no contact with Abram here between him and phraraoh. Sarai sees the pharaoh even before Abram. so, where is the friendship between Abram and pharaoh that you are talking about?

**

16And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.

**Pharaoh’s men give gifts to Abram to keep him quiet, sort of bribes. First contact between Pharaoh and Abram. He is given more gifts by Pharaoh because of Sarai…“for her sake.” I do not see any discussion of stars and heavens among friends here. Pharaoh seems to be more interested in Sarai and desires Sarai, not talking to Abram. Abram is most likely dismissed here, with Pharaoh getting ready to defile Sarai.
**

17And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram’s wife.

**Before the defilement of Sarai could occur, God intervenes and plagues Pharaoh.

**

18And Pharaoh called Abram and said, What is this that thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she was thy wife?

19Why saidst thou, She is my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take her, and go thy way.

**Pharaoh calls Abram, tells him to take his wife and be on your way. **

20And Pharaoh commanded his men concerning him: and they sent him away, and his wife, and all that he had.

**Pharaoh’s command to his men to let Abram leave and not harm him, together with all his possessions and what was given Abram, allowing him with enough to survive the famine.
**

Pablope,

I have no idea where you have gotten the idea into your thinking that Pharaoh had evil intentions toward Sarah. Have you not understood the cultural tradition of a dowry? If Pharaoh had evil intentions toward Sarah, then just because he had now found out that Sarah was Abraham’s wife would not change his intentions–he would simply have Abraham put to death or taken prisoner if he had evil intentions toward Sarah and had not planned on marrying her under the assumption that she was Abraham’s sister, and if he had not already formed a friendship with Abraham.

I might as well give you the more logical flow of events:

1. “If they think I am your husband, the Egyptians will kill me so that one of them can marry you.”
2. See Genesis 20:12 to understand the word “sister”, or even then it may be a “cousin” relationship and the word use would be the same. See a commentary.
3. This verse is very important to understand the situation. The verse shows that Pharaoh had a speaking terms relationship with Abraham already. This was not a first meeting.
4. Pharaoh proposes giving Abraham a dowry for Sarah to be his wife, honorably and with no evil intentions at all. There is no evidence from verse 16 or thereafter that Abraham received the proposed dowry.
5. See Genesis 20:18 to understand that in a similar situation, the Lord had “closed up all the wombs of the house of king Abimelech” even though he had “not come near unto [Sarah]” although he had taken her into his custody planning to marry her. So Genesis 12:17 shows that plagues (not sure what kind) happened to the Egyptians after Pharaoh had begun making plans to marry Sarah. This verse also shows that there was a passage of time–time enough to understand that “plagues” were happening.
6. This verse shows that not all of the situation has been recounted in the Genesis account. Pharaoh would have not the slightest way of knowing why plagues had begun to happen without some sense that there might be a connection to Abraham being there, and trying to find out why the plagues were happening.

Once again, we have such a profound difference in our view of Abraham and even of Pharaoh that no wonder the Book of Abraham account does not ring true to you. I can’t help you there–it’s your choice how you view Pharaoh and Abraham (with no ability to write), but the Bible didn’t give you those views, within its context, and rather presented an understandable situation given what happened in Genesis 20.

 

[Stephen168]

I was just wondering If mormons still consider the book of abraham valid, even though it has been proven that it was mistranslated by joseph smith. If they do consider it valid, how do you defend it? If not, how do you defend joseph smith’s seer-ship?

If by ‘valid’ you mean; is it still Mormon scripture? It is considered scripture by the Brighamite branch of Mormonism and its various sub-branches.

If by ‘valid’ you mean; is it what Joseph Smith claims it to be? Yes, the Brighamite branch of Mormonism seems to support Joseph Smiths claim.

Contrary to Smith’s story of a 2nd millennium BC Abraham, scientists have shown the papyri to be a first century BC Egyptian funeral text.

The most common way I’ve seen Mormons defend Smiths “translation” of the papyri is to declare science wrong. They will find a Mormon scientist, who wants to stay Mormon, to explain why the rest of the scientific community is wrong.

Two other Mormon explanations I’ve heard are: 1)We know it is true by our faith and 2)Joseph Smith was having a revelation while looking at the papyri but wasn’t really translating it.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

I have no idea where you have gotten the idea into your thinking that Pharaoh had evil intentions toward Sarah. Have you not understood the cultural tradition of a dowry? If Pharaoh had evil intentions toward Sarah, then just because he had now found out that Sarah was Abraham’s wife would not change his intentions–he would simply have Abraham put to death or taken prisoner if he had evil intentions toward Sarah and had not planned on marrying her under the assumption that she was Abraham’s sister, and if he had not already formed a friendship with Abraham.

I might as well give you the more logical flow of events:

1. “If they think I am your husband, the Egyptians will kill me so that one of them can marry you.”

Parker, this is precisely the reason they pretended to be brother and sister.

1. See Genesis 20:12 to understand the word “sister”, or even then it may be a “cousin” relationship and the word use would be the same. See a commentary.

I have reviewed commentaries and know what it could mean. If you have, then why do you have a different conclusion about the story or account?

1. This verse is very important to understand the situation. The verse shows that Pharaoh had a speaking terms relationship with Abraham already. This was not a first meeting.

See, now you even have Verse 18 before verse 16? So you are inverting and retelling the account?

**Actually, the verses states Sarai went to pharaoh first, on account of the king’s men bringing her there (verse 15), not the other way around. So there was no meeting between Pharaoh and Abram prior to this. It is also evident from the account that Pharaoh learned of Sarai first before Abram. **

1. Pharaoh proposes giving Abraham a dowry for Sarah to be his wife, honorably and with no evil intentions at all. There is no evidence from verse 16 or thereafter that Abraham received the proposed dowry.

**Had no evil intentions? Why would Pharaoh give a dowry in the first place unless he was aiming to marry or have her way with her? This was pharaoh’s intention, right? Look at the last verse (verse 20) and the next chapter…Abraham came out richer because of what was given him. And this was part of his reward for following God’s order to go to Egypt. Abram still followed, knowing the danger that would meet them once in Egypt.
**

1. See Genesis 20:18 to understand that in a similar situation, the Lord had “closed up all the wombs of the house of king Abimelech” even though he had “not come near unto [Sarah]” although he had taken her into his custody planning to marry her. So Genesis 12:17 shows that plagues (not sure what kind) happened to the Egyptians after Pharaoh had begun making plans to marry Sarah. This verse also shows that there was a passage of time–time enough to understand that “plagues” were happening.

**The God I know would not give time for something to happen to Sarai, hence, it was immediately apparent that plagues were caused on account of the plan to marry Sarah. Besides, if there already plagues, if these were slow developing, how could the pharaoh have time to converse with Abram about stars and heavens, if his household was being plagued? Would he not pay attention to the plagues, and how to get rid of it, especially if he was also afflicted by it?

**

1. This verse shows that not all of the situation has been recounted in the Genesis account. Pharaoh would have not the slightest way of knowing why plagues had begun to happen without some sense that there might be a connection to Abraham being there, and trying to find out why the plagues were happening.

It seems you are speaking of a different God, again. The God I know would find a way that pharaoh would get the message where the plagues came from. Same question: Besides, if there already plagues, if these were slow developing, how could the pharaoh have time to converse with Abram about stars and heavens, if his household was being plagued? Would he not pay attention to the plagues, and how to get rid of it, especially if he was also afflicted by it?

Once again, we have such a profound difference in our view of Abraham and even of Pharaoh that no wonder the Book of Abraham account does not ring true to you. I can’t help you there–it’s your choice how you view Pharaoh and Abraham (with no ability to write), but the Bible didn’t give you those views, within its context, and rather presented an understandable situation given what happened in Genesis 20.

It does not ring true because the Egyptian experts concluded so, and logic and reasoning too and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

Besides, if Abraham did know how to write, how come he does not have any book in the OT? Don’t you think the Jews, his descendants, would have preserved any writing from him?

And you still have not shown the name of the pharaoh encountered by Abram, why is the name not in the B of Abraham?

 

[ParkerD]

Besides, if Abraham did know how to write, how come he does not have any book in the OT? Don’t you think the Jews, his descendants, would have preserved any writing from him?

And you still have not shown the name of the pharaoh encountered by Abram, why is the name not in the B of Abraham?

Pablope,

We aren’t communicating at all. If you think every prophet who wrote a writing is represented by a book in the Old Testament, then obviously we are wasting time discussing whether Abraham wrote, since you have a premise that would immediately dismiss any such idea–but I think it is a poor premise unfounded by reasonable Bible scholarship.

I already had noted that Pharaoh is a name title. Have you ever seen the words “Pharaoh (first name here)”?

As far as verse 18 showing an important piece of information that pertained to understanding verse 16, I give up on helping you understand my point. It seems you think all the verses in the Old Testament are in chronological time sequence, which I can’t help you with if that is your premise. I don’t hold to that premise at all.

No need to respond–as I noted, we aren’t communicating since your basic Bible scholarship premises are different than mine.