KEP - How important was it?

[SkepticTheist]

I'll do you whatever courtesy you would like.

I have only seen pot shots at me alleging that I haven't thought something through the way will Schryver has thought something through, and that I must not know what I'm talking about.

I'm not aware of "pot shots" at Will Schryver other than making statements about the substance and claims in his work, and the way I perceive that he thinks. I am only aware of ad homeneim attacks at Paul Osborne from people who has nothing to do with this other than we share the belief in no missing papyrus, and we are friends.

If you think that I have made personal shots at Will, then maybe I should re-examine my words in previous posts and pay closer attention to what I say.

I am willing to give a copy of where my document stands at this very time to anyone that requests it, but only to people that will keep it to themselves.

I will not broadly publish it. It is part of a rough draft manuscript of a book, and I'm not just into this to give this out to the world just willy nilly.

If you want a copy to look at, then request it.

Ed

Ed,

You've told us you don't want to spell out your theory because you've got a book in the works. That's fine, but taking potshots at Will Schryver for having a different theory is not a persuasive alternative. Your bare-bones summary of your theory looks interesting, but again, some of us have seen how Will explains in detail his proposed relationship between the EAG, the Phelps letter, the Egyptian Counting Document, and the Abraham manuscripts in the KEP. Until we see your theory in more detail, it isn't very realistic to expect us to simply throw Will under the bus just on your say-so, now is it?

I continue to marvel that those with alternative pro-LDS views on controversial subjects seem to spend more time sniping at their competitors than they do in refuting their opponents. Mr Meldrum is a classic example of this, with his barbed and bristly remarks about FARMS scholars. His theory doesn't hold water. Perhaps yours will, but will you do us the courtesy of allowing us to withhold judgement until your theory has been put before us in full?

Regards,

Pahoran

[SkepticTheist]

I know that's what his claim was. I'm saying that an ancient Egyptian Syncretist was responsible for assigning meanings to characters, not an American from the 19th century. An ancient Egyptian familiar with three languages, Hebrew Greek, and Egyptian, that created word-plays between the root meanings and the pronunciations of the words in those three and the root meanings of Egyptian characters. Phelps wouldn't have done that. The Egyptian Syncretist did. Therefore, regardless of whatever else the KEP is, Schryver's interpretation does not explain how this can be so. And only an interpretation which assigns responsibility for these phenomena to an ancient person in Egypt does answer how this is so.

My recollection of Will's presentation is nothing like you guys are discussing. Rather his point was that based on other documents and notations the KEP was an attempt to create a cypher that could be used when they wanted to communicate without the outside world knowing what was being said, largely because of the heavy persecution. He reached this conclusion because some of the symbols had no relation to those on the papyri or to Egyptian.

The reason I recall this so clearly is because I created such a cypher to write in my diaries when I was young. No one has ever figured it out and it is easy for me to read. Here is is actual talk, particularly part 2 is relevant to this.

Schryver's presentation

In any case the BOA is one of my favorite books and one of the most beautiful to read. I don't care how it came about and if people have nothing better to do than argue about whether the fragments they have are the actual papyri from which it came then go to it. It won't change the power and beauty of the book.

[Nomad]

Yeah, I knew Will had only his oral presentation. I am not sure if he will ever publish his findings in a written format. It seems he is "retired". Any way, I just know you had mentioned that you had a rebuttal and I thought you had sent it of to Nomad. Not a big deal. We will see it when we see it.

As I understand matters, Schryver has retired from the message boards, but not from KEP research. I don't know the timetable for him publishing articles. I do know that he has produced a ton of research to support his thesis. He has shared some of it with me. I think it's quite persuasive. But I don't know what the current status is on him publishing articles or books on the topic, only that I believe he still plans to do so.

[Deborah]

I know that's what his claim was. I'm saying that an ancient Egyptian Syncretist was responsible for assigning meanings to characters, not an American from the 19th century.

Even if that's the case, what is to keep Phelps from taking that information and using it to try to create a cypher. I think you are arguing something that is moot. The fact that someone else assigned meanings to characters doesn't prevent another person from using those meanings to create something else.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As I understand matters, Schryver has retired from the message boards, but not from KEP research. I don't know the timetable for him publishing articles. I do know that he has produced a ton of research to support his thesis. He has shared some of it with me. I think it's quite persuasive. But I don't know what the current status is on him publishing articles or books on the topic, only that I believe he still plans to do so.

AH, good to know. Thanks for the update. I will be reading his material when ever it is published.

Of course, at that time I think I will also be alot more interested in the critics arguments about Will's arguments.

[SkepticTheist]

Believe what you want.

As far as I know there are two major camps:

(1) People that just want AN explanation for the KEP so it will go away and they can feel good about it.

(2) People that want a good, rational explanation about how the Sensen was the Book of Abraham as Joseph Smith claimed, and that they can know he was a prophet, and how the KEP fits in with that.

People that don't care much for number two will be fine with Will Schryver's work.

Even if that's the case, what is to keep Phelps from taking that information and using it to try to create a cypher. I think you are arguing something that is moot. The fact that someone else assigned meanings to characters doesn't prevent another person from using those meanings to create something else.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Believe what you want.

As far as I know there are two major camps:

(1) People that just want AN explanation for the KEP so it will go away and they can feel good about it.

(2) People that want a good, rational explanation about how the Sensen was the Book of Abraham as Joseph Smith claimed, and that they can know he was a prophet, and how the KEP fits in with that.

People that don't care much for number two will be fine with Will Schryver's work.

"Who want the KEP to just go away so they can feel good about it"?

I know of no one that operates that way.

I would also love a good demonstration that "Sensen was the Book of Abraham as Joseph Smith claimed".

And were in did JS claim the Sensen was the BoA?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

dup

[SkepticTheist]

Well, this thread has really started to descend into something that is starting to effect my productivity here at work so I have no more to say at this time.

Send me a PM if anyone wants a copy that they agree to keep to themselves of my work where it stands.

"Who want the KEP to just go away so they can feel good about it"?

I know of no one that operates that way.

I would also love a good demonstration that "Sensen was the Book of Abraham as Joseph Smith claimed".

And were in did JS claim the Sensen was the BoA?

[Nomad]

SkepticTheist earlier today:

Joseph Smith specifically said that in creating the KEP he was re-creating something that the ancients did. In other words, the KEP was specifically said to be a re-creation of something ancient.

I want to reiterate my CFR.

I have never heard this claim before now and I would like to know what evidence supports it.

Thanks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, this thread has really started to descend into something that is starting to effect my productivity here at work so I have no more to say at this time.

Send me a PM if anyone wants a copy that they agree to keep to themselves of my work where it stands.

Understood.

[Nomad]

Even if that's the case, what is to keep Phelps from taking that information and using it to try to create a cypher. I think you are arguing something that is moot. The fact that someone else assigned meanings to characters doesn't prevent another person from using those meanings to create something else.

One thing that I have noticed is that the detailed research materials I have seen aren't related to the whole cipher business at all. My impression is that while Schryver proposed the cipher explanation as a working hypothesis on what the EAG were being made for, it is very much a secondary, much less important, aspect of his arguments. Not that he has abandoned it or doesn't think it has merit anymore. Just that he thinks it is not nearly as important as the question of whether or not the EAG is dependent on a pre-existing text of the BoA. He has mentioned to me that if he had it to do all over again, he would de-emphasize the cipher discussion even more than he did, just because he feels like people have focused too much on that at the expense of the primary thesis, which is the dependency question. Right at the end of his FAIR presentation, he said this:

... regardless of what their underlying purpose was in producing these materials, the

[SkepticTheist]

"The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in TRANSLATING AN ALPHABET to the Book of Abraham, and ARRANGING A GRAMMAR of the Egyptian language AS PRACTICED BY THE ANCIENTS." (DHC Vol. 2:238)

SkepticTheist earlier today:

I want to reiterate my CFR.

I have never heard this claim before now and I would like to know what evidence supports it.

Thanks.

[SkepticTheist]

Explain why they become moot. It makes no difference whether the one is dependent on the other. Why should this matter? If the KEP contains Egyptian translations, then it contains translations. What does that have to do with the dependence? I am not concerned in the least about the dependence of the English text. I am well aware of this claim, and that he keeps trumpeting it. I am unaware of why it should matter. If he received the BOA text and later made translations to make an "alphabet and grammar" then who cares? Both of them represent translation activity to me. I could care less.

Here I go again. This is like a drug. I have to get off this thread.

Ed

One thing that I have noticed is that the detailed research materials I have seen aren't related to the whole cipher business at all. My impression is that while Schryver proposed the cipher explanation as a working hypothesis on what the EAG were being made for, it is very much a secondary, much less important, aspect of his arguments. Not that he has abandoned it or doesn't think it has merit anymore. Just that he thinks it is not nearly as important as the question of whether or not the EAG is dependent on a pre-existing text of the BoA. He has mentioned to me that if he had it to do all over again, he would de-emphasize the cipher discussion even more than he did, just because he feels like people have focused too much on that at the expense of the primary thesis, which is the dependency question. Right at the end of his FAIR presentation, he said this:

Then he concludes with this statement:

I only mention this because I believe some people continue to focus way too much on the KEP/cipher key hypothesis at the expense of the more important and compelling issue of its dependency on an already translated BoA. If Schryver is right about that, then all the arguments surrounding the Abraham manuscripts and the Book of Breathings text become moot.

[Deborah]

I only mention this because I believe some people continue to focus way too much on the KEP/cipher key hypothesis at the expense of the more important and compelling issue of its dependency on an already translated BoA. If Schryver is right about that, then all the arguments surrounding the Abraham manuscripts and the Book of Breathings text become moot.

The point being of course that he presented to me a very detailed investigation that seemed to answer a lot of questions that as you say make the whole question moot.

[Deborah]

Believe what you want.

As far as I know there are two major camps:

How about a third camp: those who don't give a fig about either one and think it's much ado about nothing.

[David Bokovoy]

"The remainder of this month, I was continually engaged in TRANSLATING AN ALPHABET to the Book of Abraham, and ARRANGING A GRAMMAR of the Egyptian language AS PRACTICED BY THE ANCIENTS." (DHC Vol. 2:238)

Alright, I was afraid I was going to get seduced into this thread. In terms of Mr. Schryver's theory it's important to note that in addition to his highly problematic textual analysis, Schryver places considerable emphasis upon this statement from the Prophet Joseph. Mr. Schryver simply assumes that Joseph's statement "translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham" refers to the English version of the BofA. However, this assumption which taints Mr. Schryver's textual analysis is questionable at best.

The Prophet believed the Book of Abraham was written in Egyptian characters and that the Hor Book of Breathings either was or contained the Book of Abraham (depending upon one's perspective). One of the inherent problem's with Mr. Schryver's work is that he fails to consider alternative perspectives that run contrary to his assumptions.

In other words, it's just as likely, if not more so, that when Joseph stated that he was translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham that the Prophet was referring to the Egyptian papyri rather than the English Book of Abraham.

Yet of course this observation is merely the tip of the iceberg.

[SkepticTheist]

I would like a concise explanation about what it is that it makes moot.

As far as I know, the order in which one thing is revealed before another that has similar content does not mean one or the other is NOT a translation of a certain character.

Please demonstrate how this matters. So what if Joseph Smith got big chunks of the BOA by revelation? To me that is something that just detracts from the true issue, whether or not a certain thing is indeed a translation of something.

The point being of course that he presented to me a very detailed investigation that seemed to answer a lot of questions that as you say make the whole question moot.

[Deborah]

I suggest you get out more. Perhaps do some google searching of his presentation and find out how the critics have dismantled it. I'd provide links, but we know the forum doesn't tolerate such things.

I've read what the critics said and I realize that a lot of their work is wasted if what was said happens to be true. I also know a lot of people there at the presentation were very impressed with what was shown. Just because you don't like the theory and I do doesn't mean I don't get out as much. What an officious remark.

[David Bokovoy]

This is Schryver backing off of his prized argument. The bulk of his presentation focused on cipher, contrary to his claims. Now that at it has been decimated, suddenly he says it is just a secondary argument.

But either way, his so-called "primary" argument, as it has now come to be, is equally problematic and void of evidence. Schryver relies on a silly methodology they he created for his own purposes, and his thesis hinges on the validity of that method.

Further, we know what his primary argument was based on the title of his presentation. The "meaning" of the KEP. The "meaning" we were told, was that they were meant to represent a cipher project. That was what all the hoopla was about. That is what made people think he was a genius for thinking outside the box. Now you say it is all about showing there was a preexistent text!?! No, that isn't what the primary argument was.

How does it make sense to say the "meaning of the KEP" is that they were produced after the Book of Abraham was already translated?

Well said, Mikey.

And for all the hoopla, I would also add that Will's "outside of the box" theory owes a tremendous debt to Samuel Brown's article "Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Heiroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden," Church History (2009), 78: 26-65.

[SkepticTheist]

Sure, so I guess we can count you in that camp?

How about a third camp: those who don't give a fig about either one and think it's much ado about nothing.

[Deborah]

I would like a concise explanation about what it is that it makes moot.

Seriously? The fact that so many theories are being thrown out there demonstrates that we don't have all the facts. The fact that these theories after all these years are still a work in progress demonstrates that people are basically trying to fit what little we do have into their own view of what the BOA should be.

For me, I accept the BOA for what it is, a work of inspiration or revelation from God, whether it was translated from papyri or given as pure revelation while Joseph was perusing some old records. I don't think anyone has anything more definitive than this and if they did then the argument would be over wouldn't it?

[David Bokovoy]

Seriously? The fact that so many theories are being thrown out there demonstrates that we don't have all the facts. The fact that these theories after all these years are still a work in progress demonstrates that people are basically trying to fit what little we do have into their own view of what the BOA should be.

For me, I accept the BOA for what it is, a work of inspiration or revelation from God, whether it was translated from papyri or given as pure revelation while Joseph was perusing some old records. I don't think anyone has anything more definitive than this and if they did then the argument would be over wouldn't it?

The Book of Abraham features a revision of the opening chapters of Genesis which were originally written by two separate schools of Israelite thought beginning in the Neo-Assyrian era.

This fact alone means that Latter-day Saints ought not get too excited about Mr. Schryver's questionable theories, since even if the Hor Book of Breathing contained the Book of Abraham, it would be a pseudepigraphic text written by a Jewish author from the post exilic era.

Hence, for me, the idea that the work represents pure revelatory material given to Joseph Smith as he sought to interpret these ancient documents is preferable than the alternative, i.e. that Joseph translated a pseudepigraphic Book of Abraham created by some random Jewish author from the Hellenized era.

Moreover, the book's rejection of radical monotheism actually works against the record as an account deriving from a Jewish author living in the post-exilic time period.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I suggest you get out more. Perhaps do some google searching of his presentation and find out how the critics have dismantled it. I'd provide links, but we know the forum doesn't tolerate such things.

This is false Kevin, what is not tolerated is links to temple content. I also know they don't like poeple to link to the Sty in case a board war is started.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Book of Abraham features a revision of the opening chapters of Genesis which were originally written by two separate schools of Israelite thought beginning in the Neo-Assyrian era.

This fact alone means that Latter-day Saints ought not get too excited about Mr. Schryver's questionable theories, since even if the Hor Book of Breathing contained the Book of Abraham, it would be a pseudepigraphic text written by a Jewish author from the post exilic era.

Hence, for me, the idea that the work represents pure revelatory material given to Joseph Smith as he sought to interpret these ancient documents is preferable than the alternative, i.e. that Joseph translated a pseudepigraphic Book of Abraham created by some random Jewish author from the Hellenized era.

Moreover, the book's rejection of radical monotheism actually works against the record as an account deriving from a Jewish author living in the post-exilic time period.

This, of course is seprate issue. I agree that "the idea that the work represents pure revelatory material given to Joseph Smith as he sought to interpret these ancient documents is preferable".