Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Bokovoy

Facsimile 3

Recommended Posts

James Clifford Miller, we are observing that threads turn into brawls whenever you enter them. We do take notice when a growing number of our regulars are expressing annoyance on a regular basis. If you wish to continue on this board you need to give references for your information. If you are reciting information that you have gleaned from Larson's book without crediting that book you are engaging in plagiarism. Clean it up, JCM.

Share this post


Link to post
James Clifford Miller, we are observing that threads turn into brawls whenever you enter them. We do take notice when a growing number of our regulars are expressing annoyance on a regular basis. If you wish to continue on this board you need to give references for your information. If you are reciting information that you have gleaned from Larson's book without crediting that book you are engaging in plagiarism. Clean it up, JCM.

Dunamis,

I typically agree with your interventions here but I do not, in anyway, agree with the controls you are attempting to place on the posts of James Clifford Miller. I do not see you requiring the same of other posters on this board and will seek any opportunity that presents itself to me, to point that out to you.

Lady Sundancer

Share this post


Link to post

James,

When you get placed on moderator queue here or banned, feel free to post on ZLMB. Your posts are typically rational and informative and would be welcomed on ZLMB. Now in response to what you have written to me...

I do not know much about the work of Mr. Hugh Nibley. I do know that a great many LDS admired his work and respected his knowledge. I did not previously know that these theories I read about, originated with Mr. Nibely and so I thank you for describing the events by which they came to light. As I said earlier, your posts are typically rational and informative.

I do admire the devoted efforts of some apologists that I have encountered on boards like these. Prior to my coming to ZLMB and FAIR, which was suggested to me by others, I had no concept of the scope of the work of apologists and I have benefitted from my experiences on both boards.

In this case, it seems to me that some folks are overlooking the fact that, in their work, they are challenging the claims of the Prophet who when presented with the collection of papyri by Mr. Manchester, identified them as the writings of Abraham and stated that he could translate them.

I accept that some part of the collection of papyri could have been lost or destroyed over time however, that does not change the fact that the Facsimile that appears on the LDS. org website bears the translation of the Prophet of the Facsimile. And his translation is in error.

In order to accept the claims of the current theories, I have to accept that the professional and well educated Egyptologists are wrong or accept that somehow if the Prophet was in error it automatically follows that all translators who used his methods were in error. None of that makes sense when weighed against Occam's Razor.

According to many sources, the Prophet employed at least three methods of translation that I am aware of. That being the use of the Urim and Thummim, the seer stone and then direct translation. Which method is it that is in error and which other translators used that method, who are also in error?

The explanations are too ambiguous for me to hang my hat on.

Lady Sundancer

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Lady Sundancer,

Many of us really enjoy the exchange with thoughtful critics that this site provides. Speaking personally, I appreciate the challenge of interacting with such critics here on the FAIR Board. Unfortunately, James now has a history, not only in this thread but in others as well, of making strong statements that he cannot support.

As you know, participants on this site regularly address issues time and time again similar to those raised by James. From what I

Share this post


Link to post

Lady Sundancer,

I do not know much about the work of Mr. Hugh Nibley. I do know that a great many LDS admired his work and respected his knowledge.

As did a great many non-LDS. A few years ago I stood in David Noel Freedman

Share this post


Link to post
The shift of focus from topic to poster is always an indication of inadequacy on the part of those who aren't able to support their own position.

What about the shift from evidences to questions without addressing any of the points and/or questions that provide the very focus of this thread?

Fact: Facsimile 3 presents a scene very much in harmony with Mesopotamian cylinder seals. The seals often depict a ritual journey and even a deification component consistent with Joseph

Share this post


Link to post

David,

I'm going to respond to portions of your post in this way:

Daivd: I respectfully disagree. What has James claimed that has not been successfully addressed? You obviously did not read his comments posted on the Masonic symbols thread, nor did you read his criticism of the famous Mormon archeologist Howard W. Hunter.

LSD: David, this thread is about the Facsimiles. It isn't about Masonic symbols and your mention of that other thread is simply a distraction. I do not see you addressing the fact that some of the apologist work challenges the claims of the Prophet himself. That is what I'd like you to address or as I stated previously, you could bide your time until the thread is closed.

LSD QUOTE

In my estimation, Dunamis and others are simply building a strawman, one piece at a time that is intended to culminate in the banning of James Clifford Miller...because they cannot effectively challenge his claims or comments.

David: Do you honestly believe that James presents a bigger challenge than Dan Vogel?

LSD: Is Dan Vogel on this thread? Is this another attempt to shift focus from topic to posters?

As for your comments in the second post regarding F3. That's not what the Prophet said they were.

Share this post


Link to post
James Clifford Miller,  we are observing that threads turn into brawls whenever you enter them.  We do take notice when a growing number of our regulars are expressing annoyance on a regular basis.  If you wish to continue on this board you need to give references for your information.  If you are reciting information that you have gleaned from Larson's book without crediting that book you are engaging in plagiarism.    Clean it up,  JCM.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello James,

it can tolerate the efforts of a single little, bald-headed guy like me here in this venue.

Share this post


Link to post
In my view, the comments of James Clifford Miller are such that any responses would be without substantial defense and that is why Dunamis issued the warning above.

Lady Sundancer, when a poster is asked for documentation they are to give it. Continuous refusal to support claims of fact is considered harrassment on this board. This is another board rule. If you feel that it is improper to expect a poster to divulge his/her sources or that a poster should be free to paraphrase someone else's work without accreditation, you are on the wrong board. Do not derail threads by arguing over board rules.

* Posts will be judged on a "noise to signal" ratio. Too much noise and too little signal and your posts (and you) will not last long. Noise is defined by sniping, sneering, constant one-liners, nonsubstantive and unsubstantiated posts, taunting, name-calling, vulgarity, excessive chatter and nonstop nitpicking. You are expected to add something to a dialogue not simply pick apart everyone else's comments. If asked for documentation for your opinion, you will be expected to provide it.

Share this post


Link to post

David,

Do you honestly believe that James presents a bigger challenge than Dan Vogel?

For the record, I

Share this post


Link to post
I think the answer is fairly obvious: Joseph was a mystic who communed with God in a supremely supernatural means and he obtained the BofM and the BofA simply as result of a divine communication with God that transcended earthly artifact.

Yes, indeed, these are the words that describe what happened. I'm glad to see that others aren't afraid to use the word "mystic". Joseph Smith, like prophets of old was very much a mystic.

There is no question that the translation process is nothing like what the critics expect one to be. They need to look at what the prophet was doing and quit telling us that he was claiming a translating like one would do down at the local university.

The following sample from the KEP show the translation process in action. I hope James takes a good hard look at it and realize that when the prophet looked at Facsimile No. 3 he was looking at it from a point of view not had by today's science. So, take a hard look folks and realize that the prophet was up to something quite different than your standard university professor translating an old piece of papyrus! I insist that the critics use more care in telling me HOW the prophet translated because they don't even bother to think it through. I've thought it through - many counteless hours of hard devotion on this subject and can clearly see that we are dealing with a prophet who utilized spiritual gifts that the critics don't even believe exist.

Jahoheh4.JPG

Flo-ees1st.JPG

Ahmeos.jpg

Paul O

Share this post


Link to post
There is no question that the translation process is nothing like what the critics expect one to be. They need to look at what the prophet was doing and quit telling us that he was claiming a translating like one would do down at the local university.

Paul, your effort and devotion are noted and lauded.

But I ask you to ask yourself something. Why didn

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly if Joseph Smith's grammar was his & not the scribes I think he would agree the characters were a catalyst to recieve revelation about Abraham. If asked about that stuff he would not say today he provided a conventional translation of Egyptian.

Share this post


Link to post
But I ask you to ask yourself something. Why didn

Share this post


Link to post

But I ask you to ask yourself something. Why didn

Share this post


Link to post

David Bokovoy:

Clearly these scenes depict the worshiper entering the presence of deity with a ritual gesture associated with biblical temple worship:

Psalm 124:2:

Share this post


Link to post

Kerry,

Great insights! Thanks for posting this information. I'm going to explore it in greater detail after Church.

BTW, I'm sure I'll end up getting the 2nd edition at somepoint, but how essential is the revised version from your perspective?

All the best,

David

Share this post


Link to post
David Bokovoy:

Clearly these scenes depict the worshiper entering the presence of deity with a ritual gesture associated with biblical temple worship:

Psalm 124:2:

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...