And really, I want real sources sited here. I just read no one has the original source papyri, that there are fragments and bits of funeral texts, as well as facsimiles. There's also 4-5 lost scrolls including the "long scrolls" - about 30 foot long each.

Can I get any confirmation one way or another from an objective, unbiased source?

Have you looked at the multiple online sources of detailed factual information?

Why don't you start with www.mormonthink.com and the Tanner's site www.utlm.com.

Give us your feedback on what you read-- if you feel you have the complete story with all the Hugh Nibley details.


Anagrammy

The "long scrolls" probably never existed. There's only one reference to that, and it was by an old guy who got it third or fourth hand from someone who said someone said they knew some one who saw them or it. There was a Youtube referred to last night that was an excellent explanation. I lost the link, but maybe someone will re-post it.

According to that video you guys posted yesterday or so, the long scroll reference was from Hugh Nibley, via his father, via Joseph F. Smith, via Bigfoot, anyway it was third or fourth hand.

Enough.

It really makes no difference how much is missing. There could be thousands of missing scrolls for all I care. What does matter is that a) the bits we have are nothing to do with Abraham b) the facsimiles, which we also have, are incorrectly translated. So how many mistranslations do you excuse before a prophet is discredited?

At a high level, here are the 2 strongest arguments that the Scroll of Hor was, in fact, the source Joseph Smith used:

1) It is attached to fascimile 1. The text of the BoA says that it is attached to fascimile 1.

2) It is the source of the incorrect Egyptian alphabet translation.

Probably the closest to an unbiased source you can get is the Egyptologist is this video:

http://mit.irr.org/lost-book-of-abraham-investigating-remarkable-mormon-claim

He makes very definite statements about how much of the papyrus is missing

It will be almost impossible to not find a biased source because someone will either believe that JS was a prophet or not and their opinion will be skewed accordingly. There is no-one that I am aware of that believes to BoA may be legitimate other than believing Mormons.

However, here are some sources that are thorough:
http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_TOC.html
http://mit.irr.org/by-his-own-hand-upon-papyrus-part-1
www.mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm


https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/The-Original-Length-of-the-Scroll-of-Hor.pdf (Note this one directly address you question in significant detail.)



If you want to read more:
http://www.mormonprobe.com/index.php?topic=Book%20of%20Abraham



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2013 09:02AM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.

ACTUALLY If there were 30 foot long scrolls that validates that they were funeral scrolls. The coming forth by day texts and the negative confession scrolls were around 30FT long. they included spells & rituals to help the dead cross over & be reserected. and the negative confessions were declarations of innocents to the gods. These scrolls were placed on the mummys chest for future referance. And they were 30ft long!

And we find the temple rituals necessary for passing through the veil onerous! No wonder why they had to have so much writing - only for the well-to-do of course since the printing press hadn't been invented. If Joseph Smith had the slightest knowledge of what was on those scrolls, think how long the temple endowment sessions would last. We should be thankful that he was such a fraud on the BoA because it proves everything else wrong at the same time.

rhgc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And we find the temple rituals necessary for
> passing through the veil onerous! No wonder why
> they had to have so much writing - only for the
> well-to-do of course since the printing press
> hadn't been invented. If Joseph Smith had the
> slightest knowledge of what was on those scrolls,
> think how long the temple endowment sessions would
> last. We should be thankful that he was such a
> fraud on the BoA because it proves everything else
> wrong at the same time.

Iam only an interested amature in egyptology. But to my knowlege the "coming forth by day"& negative confessions have nothing to do w/temple stuff. According to the scrolls the person is escorted by anubus to orsirus to confess he did nothing wrong. eg;"I did not lie,I did not let anyone go hungry,did not cheat on spouse etc.The person does this in front of serveral other gods. And their heart (or conscience) is wieghed by Maat (goddess of justice & order). As far as I know there are no tokens or bloodoaths

INTERESTING SIDE NOTE. They actually did have prewritten "eco.scroll". They were prewritten for the masses. with spaces for the persons name! Kind of like getting a bible w/your name printed on them. These (el cheapo) scrolls varied in length & detail. So ofcouse they werent as elborate as the wealthies.

"...;"I did not lie, I did not let anyone go hungry, did not cheat on spouse etc."

I'd like to see JS confessing THAT in front of several other gods..... :-)

We could be missing mountains of scrolls, for all it matters. The fact is, Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar shows that HE THOUGHT the funerary scroll we have was the source of much, if not all, of the Book of Abraham. (Egyptologists now agree that a correct translation of the Egyptian is nothing like the "translation" that Joseph Smith produced) Then there are the facsimiles, which are printed in every single copy of the BoA. These are just plain wrong as well! JS points to a picture or section of writing, and says, "Here's what this means." And he was WRONG on every count!

The fact is, JS "translated" what we do have WRONG. Whatever may or may not be missing is just a distraction apologists use to try to throw some doubt into things and steer the argument away from the fact that what we DO have shows that the Book of Abraham is a fraud, a patently incorrect translation of some pagan funerary documents.

Clearly, if the Morg could produce these missing scrolls they're always going on about and could be prove that they're not fraudulent, then we'd have to reevaluate. But, until then, we should focus on the evidence we DO have, rather than focusing on evidence we DO NOT. And all the evidence we have clearly links the scrolls we do have with the BoA, and clearly show that JS's translation is completely wrong.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2013 01:43PM by nickname.

Doesn't look like anyone has concisely answered your question.

If you look under "The 'Missing Black and Red Scroll' Theory" at this link, you will find some evidence from a letter by Oliver Cowdery that there were only ever 2 scrolls, and a couple small fragments.

http://mit.irr.org/his-own-hand-upon-papyrus-part-4

As mentioned above by "The Oncoming Storm - bc", the important thing is that there's pretty strong evidence that JS believed that the papyri we now have was actually the source of the Book of Abraham.

Also, modern Egyptologists (specifically Robert Ritner) say that the scroll we have is very nearly complete.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2013 04:36PM by bubbleboy.