Questioning God's Chosen Communication

[POI]

(1) Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in? (2) Why would God care more about making scientific knowledge available in these texts versus addressing how He wanted humans to live?

For debate: Does the provided video below answer the above two questions sufficiently? If not, why not? If so, then I guess God is inept?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #39]

I really have only one comment. Pointing the finger of 'not understanding' is only an appeal to Faith -based revelation of Truth. The ambiguous means ambiguous - one explanation is as good as another. Understanding which one is right is the faithclaim.

Skipping the flag - waving about the greater understanding and wisdom and struggles against hardship of those who accord their personal opinions divine status, I'll just look at “Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.” Whatever he prefers to believe, he will have had to admit he lost the case.

I'm willing to discuss a case, but I find no case in just dismissing those with other views as 'not understanding' (because they don't do Faith or divine revelation) and brings nothing but dismissal and deprecation to the discussion.

[TRANSPONDER]

I see you don’t understand that one cannot critique a book they don’t understand

False. A person can critique a book that they don't understand. Their critique may not be accurate, but that is not your claim. Your claim is a false one, but I don't expect you to amend your thinking about this, nor the meaning of ambiguous sadly.

What I always say is the following:

Only experts in Reformed Egyptian are allowed to critique the Book of Mormon

Good one You are of coursae kidding as experts in Egyptian say that 'Reformed Egyptian' is not Egyptian at all but random scribble by Joseph Smith where he claimed with no basis to be translation Egyptian (in the 'Book of Abraham papyrus which is actually the very common spells for funerary rites) with divine revelation.

[The Nice Centurion]

I see you don’t understand that one cannot critique a book they don’t understand

False. A person can critique a book that they don't understand. Their critique may not be accurate, but that is not your claim. Your claim is a false one, but I don't expect you to amend your thinking about this, nor the meaning of ambiguous sadly.

What I always say is the following:

Only experts in Reformed Egyptian are allowed to critique the Book of Mormon

Good one You are of coursae kidding as experts in Egyptian say that 'Reformed Egyptian' is not Egyptian at all but random scribble by Joseph Smith where he claimed with no basis to be translation Egyptian (in the 'Book of Abraham papyrus which is actually the very common spells for funerary rites) with divine revelation.

I see you don’t understand that one cannot critique a book they don’t understand

False. A person can critique a book that they don't understand. Their critique may not be accurate, but that is not your claim. Your claim is a false one, but I don't expect you to amend your thinking about this, nor the meaning of ambiguous sadly.

What I always say is the following:

Only experts in Reformed Egyptian are allowed to critique the Book of Mormon

Good one You are of coursae kidding as experts in Egyptian say that 'Reformed Egyptian' is not Egyptian at all but random scribble by Joseph Smith where he claimed with no basis to be translation Egyptian (in the 'Book of Abraham papyrus which is actually the very common spells for funerary rites) with divine revelation.

Not quite right.
Here comes a history lesson for you:

Joseph Smith claimed to have found the Golden Plates at the Hill Cumorah, inscribed with the Book of Mormon text and originally written by several ancient Prophets.
And he explained that it was written in Reformed Egyptian, a linguistic amalgam of hebrew and egyptian.

Later in his career he buyed a papyrus written obviously on in pure egyptian hieroglyphs which no one in america was able to decipher that time.

Joseph claimed that by revelation he could translate the papyrus and that gave us the Book of Abraham.
Unfortunately Joseph, for whatever reason, did not translate for us what he said to be also written on same papiry: The Book of Joseph (meaning Joseph of Egypt, not Smith) and so we today do not have it.

I wonder why no one ever has approached the current LDS prophet to ask him to translate this second precious book too. All LDS prophets have revelations all the time.

I suppose that the current prophet is able to give us the Book of Joseph before breakfast.

Perhaps you, Transponder, could go all the way writing to him about that important issue and then tell us his answer?

But sadly the whole thing gets more complicated;

When Napoleon visited egypt, he brought war, famine and his scientist Chapoleon (Champollion) with him.
Napoleon said: "Half my name! What a good omen!" when he decided to give him a job."

Now then and there Chapoleon discovered the ancient Rosetta stone and was able to translate its inscription without Urim and Thummin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_Stone

Said stone has the same ancient kingly inscription in three versions:
Egyptian hieroglyphs
Egyptian demotic
Ancient greek

Oh would that the Rosetta stone had a fourth version:
Reformed Egyptian

But we arent that lucky.

But france and little later british historicists were able to read Egyptin now, for they already knew Ancient Greek from which they assumed the meaning of the Hieroglyphs.

But Joseph Smith and america had not heard about Chapoleon when the Book of Abraham was revealed and in later and current times this became uncomfortable for the morrmons.

Because non mormon Historicists read only a simple grave inscription out of the Joseph Smith papyrus.

Alas they do not own an Urim and Thummin.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #43]

Thanks for the elaboration. The LDS church did as much covering -up as they could but the final nail in the coffin was the discovery that the papyrus hadn't been destroyed, but turned up intact. It was clear that Smith had made an effort to copy the hieroglyphs but had to make up his own squiggles in the missing places. It was not the Egyptian he translated of course and the stock funerary prayers were nothing to do with Abraham. The scenes are well understood and Smith was totally wrong. I even suspect that he deliberately cut out the bird head and jackal head too so as to be able to interpret them as human heads, but that can't be proven.

There is nowhere to go on this - Smith was deluded (if not deliberately fraudulent) about the 'Book of Abraham.

p.s on another forum the LDS apologist tried to argue that Smith was channelling a true story of Abraham using a mistranslation of Egyptian as a sort of spiritual Ouija board. It was utter faithbased denial and (as usual) we can only leave it to others to judge.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #39]

I really have only one comment. Pointing the finger of 'not understanding' is only an appeal to Faith -based revelation of Truth. The ambiguous means ambiguous - one explanation is as good as another. Understanding which one is right is the faithclaim.

But it’s not at all ambiguous to millions. You view is your own personal subjective opinion.

Skipping the flag - waving about the greater understanding and wisdom and struggles against hardship of those who accord their personal opinions divine status, I'll just look at “Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.” Whatever he prefers to believe, he will have had to admit he lost the case.

That would a very honest and honorable man whom we could not but admire….and extremely rare.

I'm willing to discuss a case, but I find no case in just dismissing those with other views as 'not understanding' (because they don't do Faith or divine revelation) and brings nothing but dismissal and deprecation to the discussion.

But I don’t claim divine understanding. My position is based on evidence and logic. It has explanatory power other positions lack.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44]
It is fun to parody people who try to avoid having to debate critics to their worldview by "allowing" only a certain kind of people to critique it.

A muslima in a documentation once said;
"Only a muslim may critique Islam!"

Bart Ehrman tends to be super specific about what exactly a person must have study grades in to be taken earnest when critiquing his books.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44]
Praise the Temple Lot. This mormon fraction is above hardships like explaining the Book of Abraham 'cause they say Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet.

Book of Mormon = Yes, true

Papyrus Abraham and Poligamy = badbadbad when Joseph had fallen already

[Clownboat]

Those who choose to not want to understand will always find “reasons” not to do so. Those who came to personally know the One inspiring the work chose differently.

Poisoning the well is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

One of their rewards is understanding.

There is no special understanding needed in order to read the Bible. It's mostly boring, but it is not hard to read and then understand until we get to discrepancies.

And what is more, those who have taken that path, particularly against hardships, become sharper in intellect, deeper in wisdom and impressive in character.

Please show you speak the truth.

But communicating this understanding requires something in the recipient that cannot be overridden.

What mechanism is it that you claim is in place that would prevent the understanding of the reading of a book?

“Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.”

You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.

What reasoning is used to justify the belief that long dead Saints got out of their grave and walk Jerusalem?
Matthew 27:52-53
New King James Version
52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #39]

I really have only one comment. Pointing the finger of 'not understanding' is only an appeal to Faith -based revelation of Truth. The ambiguous means ambiguous - one explanation is as good as another. Understanding which one is right is the faithclaim.

But it’s not at all ambiguous to millions. You view is your own personal subjective opinion.

Skipping the flag - waving about the greater understanding and wisdom and struggles against hardship of those who accord their personal opinions divine status, I'll just look at “Convince a man against his will and he’s of the same opinion still.” Whatever he prefers to believe, he will have had to admit he lost the case.

That would a very honest and honorable man whom we could not but admire….and extremely rare.

I'm willing to discuss a case, but I find no case in just dismissing those with other views as 'not understanding' (because they don't do Faith or divine revelation) and brings nothing but dismissal and deprecation to the discussion.

But I don’t claim divine understanding. My position is based on evidence and logic. It has explanatory power other positions lack.

I can assure you that debates so far have not produced any decent evidence and 'explanations' have turned out to be excuses why there is no decent evidence. I look forward to discussing yours, should you produce any as so far, I have seen you produce only personal faithclaims.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #44]
Praise the Temple Lot. This mormon fraction is above hardships like explaining the Book of Abraham 'cause they say Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet.

Book of Mormon = Yes, true

Papyrus Abraham and Poligamy = badbadbad when Joseph had fallen already

Excuses. No I do not believe the Book of Mormon is true. You may believe what you wish, of course. Like for instance J Smith had a True Revelation but afterwards went to the bad and the disprovable 'Revelations' were false. Fine, you tell yourself that, I don't mind. But in addition to my poor impression of the Book of Mormon, the total debunk of the Book of Abraham does nothing to persuade me otherwise.