...It was 20 years, however, before the decipherment of the Egyptian texts was announced by Jean-François Champollion in Paris in 1822.

Of course JS knew nothing about this as the news had not yet reached his narrow-minded sheltered little neck of the woods.

You see...they didn't have THE INTERNET back then that allows anyone with a fully-functioning curious and inquiring mind to have access to enlightening and intelligent information simply at their fingertips!!!

This very fascinating quick-paced 6-minute video that follows (link) completely shreds Moronism well before Moronism was even a gleam in the eye of convicted con-man Joseph Smith Jr. and his so-called "Book Of Abraham translation" from the "common funery" Papyrus that he bought off of a traveling salesman.

Or so it seems to me...

http://video.answers.com/the-archeology-of-the-rosetta-stone-516896660

I saw the Rosetta Stone at the British Museum only a few weeks before I discovered the truth of the BoA. I didn't know its significance to my own personal beliefs at the time. Now I want to go back and see it in a whole new light!

In 1860 one scholar had a look and said it was a fraud. I don't think many people heard about that. However, in 1912 a NY Times front page article declared mormonism a hoax after an investigation into the BOM. Here is an Excellent synopsis of the findings and quotes from real (read-"nonmormon") scholars: http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/book-of-abraham.html

Great synopsis, Onandagus, thanks.

So Joe told folks that along with the Abraham papyri, there were also papyri which he said were the writings of Moses in his own hand, that roughly recap Genesis, and which became the Book of MOses in the P of GP.

But wait, today's apologists claim that Joe just used this Moses papyrus as inspiration for a "spiritual channeling" of "the prophet Moses" himself, in order to transcribe the Book of Moses. They say he didn't translate anything to come up with the Book of Moses. But it is clear from Joe's own telling that he claimed to translate the papyrus, as he described it as the recap of Genesis, which is what we find in the current BoMoses.

And now some current apologists try to give the BOA the same lying treatment, that Joe didn't translate the Abraham papyri at all, but just used them as inspiration for the channeled material in today's BOA.

Such total lies.

The video gets Bouchard's name wrong. he said it was "Bouchet" --in fact it is often reported as Boussard. I ay be related, and by GGfather Bosard had a clipping about "M. (monsiuer) Bouusard in his Bible.

I woder is it true the inscription would not have been discovered of it had landed "face down."? Or was it picke up to be moved?

Is the universe truly random...???

BTW dont see what any of this has to do with the Mormons.

ECS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> BTW dont see what any of this has to do with the
> Mormons.

Oh nothing much other than iron-clad proof JS was a con-man.

Shows he couldn't translate egyptian real gud. Plus with archaeological, linguistic and recent genetic evidence, one can see he must have been kinda shitty at reformed-egyptian too.

Suddenly the multitude of BOM anachronisms make a lot of sense.

A mormon apologist would rant about your claim that a stake has been driven through the heart of this issue. Here are the possibilities that they flaunt to keep people in the church. From fairmormon.org:

"From a believer's perspective, however, there are several possible theories to account for (the text of the Book of Abraham not being in the papyri): 1) The text was revealed much in the same manner as that of the Book of Mormon, without the need for the actual papyri, 2) The text was present on portions of the papyri that are missing, and 3) The Book of Abraham manuscript was attached to the Book of Breathings manuscript and was lost. 4) Perhaps there was a way of understanding the Egyptian ideograms anciently that is unknown to Egyptology in our day, yet to be discovered, deciphered or acknowledged, that could yield an interpretation of a text that is different than the standard Egyptological reading."

This is, quite literally, all they have to go on. But if the church is 100% absolutely true in their minds, then they'll take whatever they can get.

kimball Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
4)
> Perhaps there was a way of understanding the
> Egyptian ideograms anciently that is unknown to
> Egyptology in our day, yet to be discovered,
> deciphered or acknowledged, that could yield an
> interpretation of a text that is different than
> the standard Egyptological reading."
>

Isn't this just a facile way of saying that ALL the world's Egyptologists are wrong, and always have been wrong, about how to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs? And that only the great Joe Smith actually gets it right?

Maybe these apologists are waiting for the fabled, divinely promised "white stone" to prove that Joe was right all along.

How dare these puny humans (gentiles at that) try to contradict the supreme Elohim?