Pt 3 AT LAST!!!! Non-LDS Egyptologist AGREES with Joseph Smith!

[madmonk]

The bottom line of this video is that Joseph Smith got the "2nd hand" correct. Mormons, please ask yourselves - does this really mean that Joseph was inspired? Honestly, none of the papyrus mentions Abraham.

BTW professor, you are on FAIR's payroll aren't you?

[jjepsen1]

"From the evidence that we have today, it’s quite safe to say that Joseph Smith did not have the Book of Abraham or the Book of Joseph in front of him in the form of these papyri because they bear no relationship to the contents of the stories or to his translation." -Lanny Bell

Smith was a false prophet and the false writings of the BoA prove it.

[ZorroTech88]

Exactly Professor, E n la sua volontade e nostra pace,

You bring life and passion to a subject many anti's wish was dead, I for one am extremely encouraged by your enthuesiasm (spell?)

[IExposeMormonism]

You have the same problem I had with Posting Text: you really have to have high resolution to see the text. On ebay I shoot pics at 1 million and its perfect. on youtube I have to shoot text at 3-7million to read! And having Lanny help your argument does not make it all moot. The real argument goes to the interpretation. There is much interpretation of glyphs.

[Rommelator]

What Kerry is saying, I think, is that Charles Larson's reconstruction of the vignette in P. Joseph Smith I has now been refuted by not only LDS Egyptologists but non-LDS Egyptologists as well. I think that is what he is saying is moot. The question of whether there is a second ba-bird and an erect phallus is now settled by both the LDS and non-LDS Egyptologists.

[omiolo]

second hand up by his face....

that sounds and looks so familiar =)

[TrueSaintsLDS]

ah touche :)

[omiolo]

so what is going to happen now is that someone is going to ask Lanny Bell if this proves the Book of Abraham is true and he will say no and they will post that under the heading that the Mormons are false says leading Egyptologist.

[TheBackyardProfessor]

I already addressed that and said Lanny Bell will NOT say it proves Mormonism for a very simple reason. It does NOT prove Mormonism, that is not what it is about. What this does do is dispose of an anti-Mormon argument that there are NO Egyptologists who agree with JS or any Mormon Egyptologists. That argument is now officially moot.

[omiolo]

yeah, I know you addressed that in the first video of the series.

[TrueSaintsLDS]

wish you could get part one of this video set to be a response underneath the book of abraham anti-mormon video.

[TrueSaintsLDS]

I was wondering, bro. Shirt, what is Lannie Bells' correct spelling of the name?

[dansmckl]

Fascinating-I am just not to sure that the antimormons will take this to the heart. They will probably just ignore this information. It will probably take several Lanny Bells to make a difference. But your information in interesting though.

[TheBackyardProfessor]

Once the dam breaks, the water flows. It shall continue getting larger. Not that I think we have an advocate in Lanny Bell, but at least he works with the real issues and is realistic about the actual state of the papyri and facsimile! THANK GOODNESS! The Mormon scholars have taken it in the teeth over ridiculous things, it's nice to see some sanity coming about and thus showing we Mormons have been sane all along anyway regardless of all the carping against us.

[TrueSaintsLDS]

This is a huge break through! I tried to present it to an anti-Mormon and his bias was so bad, that he wouldn't even accept Dr. Lannie Bell's words.

[TheBackyardProfessor]

Of course not. We already know how they will react. Taht is no surprise. But then their credibility continues to erode... OUR LegItimate Egyptologists are now gaining ground.

[canadianbacon007]

The pattern continues. Professor Anton admited the characters were genuine, but later the "word" (truth) gets choked by cares of the world. Bias rears it's ugly head over and over. To me that is a witness(albeit sad), in and of itself.

[Rommelator]

I don't understand what the big hang up is with the knife. At least two of Spaulding's scholars in 1912 saw no trouble with the presence of the knife. Henry Woodward and Friedrich Freiherr von Bissing saw absolutely no problem with the knife in the vignette, and they were the star witnesses against Joseph Smith.

But with the evidence provided by Nibley and Gee now the whole issue is settled in my opinion.

[Rommelator]

Actually, the knife hasn't been drawn in the vignette in P. Joseph Smith I. Only the body of the figure on the lion couch and the head of Anubis.

Eyewitnesses like William Appleby and Henry Caswall detailed a knife when they saw the papyri. There is no getting around that. No attempt at a knife being drawn in could have been described since there was no attempt at such a drawing. Thus, there had to have been a knife.