Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: The Mormon Religion Message-ID: Date: 8 Aug 90 07:54:59 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR. Lines: 33 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article cms@dragon.uucp writes: [Cindy posts 4 articles, all probably lifted directly from Walter Martin. I will try to respond as time permits, starting with this one] > A few more gems, just for good measure: In 1967, Joseph's Smith papyri were >discovered from which he claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham found >in the Pearl of Great Price. An actual translation by real scholars revealed >the papri to be an Egyptian death scroll, the contents of which bore no >relation whatsoever to Smith's Book of Abraham. Hardly. It appears that not all the papyri were discovered and certainly the scroll translated by "real scholars" was *not* the Book of Abraham manuscript. The Abraham manuscript was described in Joseph Smith's journal as beautifully written and preserved, written in black ink with headings in red (rubrics). The text you (or your source, probably Walter Martin and D. Nelson) refer to is poorly written and preserved and has no rubrics. While "beautifully written and preserved" may be a subjective call, the lack of rubrics rules out this as the Abraham manuscript. The papyrus you refer to is indeed a funerary text and this fact was published by the LDS church well before Nelson started his misguided work. Nelson, by the way, is no Egyptolist in spite of his claims and has retired from the "Mormon-bashing" business since somebody checked on his credentials and found them to be bogus. If you want a scholarly treatment of this scroll, try _The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri_ by Hugh Nibely. [A lot of quotation from the PoGP deleted since I don't know what Cindy is trying to prove by including it.]