Posted by rpcman on January 19, 1999 at 10:55:52:
In Reply to: Care less about the people, but use their claims? posted by Michael on January 18, 1999 at 20:00:23:
: But all of these things ARE what DeeJay Nelson claimed...
I've never read anything written by DeeJay Nelson so I wouldn't know. If he claimed these things then he was speaking the truth. Wasn't it actually Nibley who was the first to buy into Nelson's claims? (See the quote at the bottom from Nibley.)
All of the items I mentioned are facts that I have researched myself.
: Joseph Smith described the appearance of the original papyri as having red rubric marks and being much larger than that which was discovered in New York.
No he didn't. You've confused some of the things that Oliver Cowdrey said. The discovered papyri does have the red marks. Papyrus Joseph Smith VI, Egyptian Book of the Dead for Ta-shert-Min, contains several sets of rubrics. To continue to deny that the Joseph Smith papyri has not been discovered is the poorest apologetic argument you can use. At least the other apologetic nonsense invoke the supernatural so the evidence can't be tested.
: As I said, Dr. Nibley and Mr. Shirts would be more than happy to reveal the truth of it to you, as they have studied this more extensively than either of us or Dr. Nelson.
I've read *everything* that Shirts and Nibley have said on the issue. Theirs is not a lesson in revealing truth. Theirs is a lesson in subterfuge. For an excellent example see Nibley's section entitled "What is Translation?" in _The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri_ in which Nibley attempts to convince the reader that the word "translation" doesn't really mean "translation". You'll also want to see Ed Ashment's excellent review of Nibley's flawed tactics in The Word of God.
Again, you appear to not have anything of value to add to the coversation. Can you explain in your own words the evidence that proves that the Book of Breathings is not the source for the Book of Abraham?
Hugh Nibley in _Brigham Young University Studies_, Spring 1968, p. 247, states that Nelson's study is "a conscientious and courageous piece of work...a usable and reliable translation of the available papyri..."