Jump to content

Archived

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

jskains

KEP - How important was it?

Recommended Posts

Ed,

I look forward to reading your views. I too believe the position advocated by the Schryver-ite faction to be extremely problematic.

How so? I

Share this post


Link to post

David, I would love to PM you as well and send this manuscript to you privately as well. Can I do that? It would be wonderful for a person of your stature to give some feedback if that would be at all possible.

Ed

Ed,

I look forward to reading your views. I too believe the position advocated by the Schryver-ite faction to be extremely problematic.

Share this post


Link to post

Let's see now, my name is Ed Goble, and I'm a member of FAIR, and I have a head on my shoulders with an educated opinion as much as anyone else who is a researcher. I'm the guy that submitted the competing paper to FAIR to Schryver's stuff that nobody looked at, because Schryver was the anointed one with the red carpet treatment. I'm the guy that was in the back of the FAIR conference with my camera filming Schryver, along with Kerry Shirts who was the other guy filming Schryver. You sure have a mouth. I will give that to you. I know Schryver's argument and Gee's arguments inside and out. I also know Metcalfe's and Ashment's and Smith's, and Crapo's and Tvedtnes'.

I assure you that I have studied the KEP and Sensen for decades and you don't know who the ********** you are talking to, let alone what I know. And you can take your little attitude and *********************.

Ed Goble

I'm really sorry. I had no idea that you were suffering from a severe case of wounded pride in this matter. Had I known I would have been much more careful with the salt.

I do welcome your views on this topic. I never could understand what Osborn was talking about. Hopefully you will be better able to express yourself than he was. I look forward to what you have to offer. As I said above, I don't doubt there are things I should consider that I haven't. But it's hard to take into consideration things you don't know about. I encourage you to share your opinons with us. For example, what is the EAG all about? Do you believe it was created as a tool to translate the papyri?

Share this post


Link to post

David, I would love to PM you as well and send this manuscript to you privately as well. Can I do that? It would be wonderful for a person of your stature to give some feedback if that would be at all possible.

Ed

Ed,

Absolutely send it my way. I'm really, really busy right now, but I would love to look at it. Over the years, I've developed some strong opinions of my own on the BofA and the KEP that I will eventually put in print. For a variety of reasons, however, the most important being my focus on finishing and publishing my dissertation, I'm afraid it won't be for a couple years.

Share this post


Link to post

See, this is the grand irony, because Schryver was right about one thing. The KEP is a cipher. Just not one used by guys in modern times. It is the cipher invented by a Jewish/Egyptian Syncretist.

Joseph Smith got revelation on the methods of the Syncretist that knew the story of Abraham. It is not the Book of Abraham. It is the story imposed on the papyri by the Syncretist that knew the story of Abraham. It is the Syncretist that was using the papyri as a mnemonic for the Abraham story, that he imposed on it using a system that he himself invented, or that had been taught to him in his school of magic.

It is not a tool to translate the papyri. It is a tool that imposes a system of interpretation on the papyri, that uses it in a manner differently than the original author of the Sensen intended.

The system of interpretation is similar to Kabbalah in the sense that it is something imposed on a document that doesn't necessarily convey the intended original meaning of the document.

It uses the papyri in a different context than the original author of the papyri intended.

It imposes "magic" on the papyri to ritually transform it, in the same sense that a magic square is magical. Or that the so-called "Faculty of Abrac" is magical.

James Faulconer called this "incarnation" where something that is just a template is used in a symbolic manner that we impose meaning upon ourselves. For example, whether or not the symbols in the temple are Masonic, we use them with our meaning imposed on those symbols. They are in a different context than the Masons used them. They incarnate a part of our symbolic ordering. For the Syncretist, the Sensen incarnated the Abraham Story, and his magic transformed it to have that meaning.

I'm really sorry. I had no idea that you were suffering from a severe case of wounded pride in this matter. Had I known I would have been much more careful with the salt.

I do welcome your views on this topic. I never could understand what Osborn was talking about. Hopefully you will be better able to express yourself than he was. I look forward to what you have to offer. As I said above, I don't doubt there are things I should consider that I haven't. But it's hard to take into consideration things you don't know about. I encourage you to share your opinons with us. For example, what is the EAG all about? Do you believe it was created as a tool to translate the papyri?

Share this post


Link to post

It's more of an angry, contentious mindset that seeks to bully into submission all those who hold alternative perspectives rather than a secret combination that I would define as uninformed.

OK. I think I get the whole

Share this post


Link to post

See, this is the grand irony, because Schryver was right about one thing. The KEP is a cipher. Just not one used by guys in modern times. It is the cipher invented by a Jewish/Egyptian Syncretist.

Joseph Smith got revelation on the methods of the Syncretist that knew the story of Abraham. It is not the Book of Abraham. It is the story imposed on the papyri by the Syncretist that knew the story of Abraham. It is the Syncretist that was using the papyri as a mnemonic for the Abraham story, that he imposed on it using a system that he himself invented, or that had been taught to him in his school of magic.

It is not a tool to translate the papyri. It is a tool that imposes a system of interpretation on the papyri, that uses it in a manner differently than the original author of the Sensen intended.

The system of interpretation is similar to Kabbalah in the sense that it is something imposed on a document that doesn't necessarily convey the intended original meaning of the document.

It uses the papyri in a different context than the original author of the papyri intended.

It imposes "magic" on the papyri to ritually transform it, in the same sense that a magic square is magical. Or that the so-called "Faculty of Abrac" is magical.

OK, this sounds a little like the old mnemonic device theory, but with a twist. I can't say that I find it very comprehensible, or very persuasive. But at least I now understand where you're coming from.

But you completely ignored my question about the EAG stuff. That's what Schryver's thesis is mostly based on. You do realize, don't you, that the EAG, with very few exceptions, doesn't refer to characters that come from the papyri? So what do you make of the EAG? What was it produced for? Why? Most critics have argued that it was created before the BoA was produced, and that it was intended as a tool to translate the papyri. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post

You clearly do not understand the situation or the evidence, but that's understandable since most folks here don't.

Oh, gee, more of that condescending "if you knew what I knew, you would agree with me" drivel.

Share this post


Link to post

Its problematic because:

(1) it transfers the origin of the cipher from the ancients to be a speculative endeavor of William Phelps. 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.

(2) it doesn't explain what in the world the Sensen has to do with the Book of Abraham

(3) it ignores the descriptions of what Joseph Smith himself said he was doing with the papyri

(4) it ignores the fact that even a two year old can see that the Sensen papyrus was intended by Joseph Smith to be understood to be the Egyptian original for the Book of Abraham, and that the KEP employs it in this manner, making Abrahamic translations of it in the same way that the explanations for the facsimiles are Abrahamic translations of non-Abrahamic material

(5) if we are going to assign Abrahamic meanings to such things as Facsimile #1 and Facsimile #2 and so forth, when they are not inherently Abrahamic, and deny that the same thing can be done with the Sensen papyrus text, that constitutes cherry picking and special pleading.

OK. I think I get the whole

Share this post


Link to post

You didn't read closely enough to what I said.

If you were familiar with Chris Smith's paper, as well as Schryver's stuff, as well as Crapo's stuff, you would understand the concept of the lexemes.

The lexemes in the Grammar/Alphabet are pieces of dissected hieratic ideograms in the Sensen papyrus, separating each stroke or section of a hieratic character into separate characters. This is part of what the Syncretist did in inventing his own system.

A lot of what Schryver is saying is NOT in the Sensen, actually is. They are lexemes that he is misrepresenting as characters from a masonic cipher and so forth.

Yeah, I know about the other characters on the other "Pure language" document and how they are also part of the EAG. Once again, nobody has evidence that those pure language characters do not also represent part of this same revelation about an ancient system of this Egypitan Syncretist.

The Grammar/Alphabet is full of them, along with a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with the Sensen Papyrus.

So yes, there are things in the Grammar/Alphabet that are not on the Sensen Papyrus. But again, I told you that this was a revelation about something that an ancient Jewish/Egyptian Syncretist was doing. I didn't say that what the Syncretist was doing was limited only to the Sensen Papyrus. I'm saying that what Joseph Smith has in the KEP was a revelation of what the Syncretist was doing.

Another thing, my argument works regardless of the order of things. It doesn't matter whether the KEP was produced before or after the Book of Abraham. The concepts that I'm putting forth work regardless of ordering, or regardless of the order of dependence.

Something that you need to understand is that the whole KEP system represents an entire system of interpretation of an ancient Egyptian. it is not only a document with Abrahamic material in it.

In other words, you seem to be able to get the concept that Schryver says that the cipher consists of arbitrary characters and sounds that were assigned arbitrary meanings by Phelps. Now take that concept a step further. Instead of saying that it was Phelps that did it, simply put the ancient Egyptian person in his place, and give Joseph Smith the ability to have received revelation on what that Egyptian was doing. If it was truly Phelps that did it, then none of the characters in the EAG would have any consistent relationship with the actual meanings of the hieroglyphs in the Sensen. I assure you that they do.

Just as an example. Joseph Smith identifies the reed symbol as the Land of the Chaldees, although it doesn't have that meaning in the Egyptological translation of the Sensen. I can assure you that the ancient name of Sumer/Land of the Chaldees was indeed Kengi, or LAND OF REEDS.

OK, this sounds a little like the old mnemonic device theory, but with a twist. I can't say that I find it very comprehensible, or very persuasive. But at least I now understand where you're coming from.

But you completely ignored my question about the EAG stuff. That's what Schryver's thesis is mostly based on. You do realize, don't you, that the EAG, with very few exceptions, doesn't refer to characters that come from the papyri? So what do you make of the EAG? What was it produced for? Why? Most critics have argued that it was created before the BoA was produced, and that it was intended as a tool to translate the papyri. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post

SkepticTheist:

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.

CFR. I am not aware of this.

(2) it doesn't explain what in the world the Sensen has to do with the Book of Abraham

I think the whole point Schryver was trying to make is that if the BoA came before the Abraham manuscripts, then it is entirely possible that the

Share this post


Link to post

David Bokovoy:

Sorry, Mike. This topic carries political and time related issues that are extremely sensitive for me personally. Not now.

Mike? A term of endearment,perhaps?

At any rate, I

Share this post


Link to post

SkepticTheist:

Another thing, my argument works regardless of the order of things. It doesn't matter whether the KEP was produced before or after the Book of Abraham. The concepts that I'm putting forth work regardless of ordering, or regardless of the order of dependence.

I'm sorry,but I don't think you've thought things through very well when you say things like this. But no matter. I can kind of see that there isn't anything to be gained from a discussion with you about these things. I respect your viewpoints, but I don't find them persuasive. If you eventually write them all down so that they can be considered in full, I will be sure to check them out.

Best wishes ...

Share this post


Link to post

I guess we'll all just have to patiently wait until someone comes along who is willing to give us some idea of the

Share this post


Link to post

If you think there is a simpler explanation, then yes, if you want to consider an explanation that is not concise, that doesn't explain what the relationship is between the KEP, the Book of Abraham and the Sensen Papyrus. If you want an explanation that ignores the important parts of the issue, you can have it as simple as you want it. In other words, if you want something that explains things away rather than explains them, then yes, you can have it as simple as you want it.

The revelation on the KEP, just like anything else was in stages, coming to Joseph Smith before he knew what it would all represent.

the Phelps letter is exactly that. It is a piece of the KEP that the Lord started to reveal before the rest.

I don't understand why you think this is a problem. Please explain how that is a problem just because the revelation started before all the pieces came together.

SkepticTheist:

CFR. I am not aware of this.

I think the whole point Schryver was trying to make is that if the BoA came before the Abraham manuscripts, then it is entirely possible that the

Share this post


Link to post

I had kept hearing about all of these "problems" too. I have yet to see a serious artilce or rebuttle to Schryver. Lots of name calling, belittling, and assertions going on but not a lot of substance.

I thought that David had sent you some of his thoughts in an email about 2 or 3 months ago. I guess he did not.

To be precise, you haven't seen any article (serious or flippant) from Mr. Schryver. Only a brief oral presentation at a FAIR Conference, a few online video presentations, and some online posts presented in various threads.

If you're referring to personal correspondence with Will on this or any other topic, for the record, it does not, nor is it likely in the future to occur. For the time being, my specific criticisms direct against Mr. Schryver's research will occur if a forth-coming article is distributed to me for pre-publication review.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, as for the references and more deep explanations, I'm at work and can't dedicate time yet, but will dig them out for you, and will be happy to do so.

Ed

SkepticTheist:

CFR. I am not aware of this.

I think the whole point Schryver was trying to make is that if the BoA came before the Abraham manuscripts, then it is entirely possible that the

Share this post


Link to post

What?

Explain what is not thought out.

Explain why Schryver-thinking is the only kind of thinking that constitutes being "thought out."

I for one am not interested in who finds my work persuasive. I'm into it for me, not for you.

I'm into it for what makes sense, that actually comes up with something that builds faith ON FACTS, not what feels good to feel-good-people. That is something that I fundamentally don't see apologists doing.

This is the difference between apologists and people that care about facts. Apologists explain things away by making facts go away. People that want to know the truth want an explanation that starts out with what is true.

If it doesn't interest you that Schryver's interpretation doesn't explain anything about the nature of the Book of Abraham, then dismiss me.

I've been dismissed before. That isn't new. I've been ignored the whole time I've been into theology. Yes, I say I'm into THEOLOGY, not necessarily apologetics. Apologetics is there to explain crap away. Theology actually wants to make sense of stuff, and if possible come up with what can apologetically defend something. But it isn't apologetics for apologetics' sake.

Ed

SkepticTheist:

I'm sorry,but I don't think you've thought things through very well when you say things like this. But no matter. I can kind of see that there isn't anything to be gained from a discussion with you about these things. I respect your viewpoints, but I don't find them persuasive. If you eventually write them all down so that they can be considered in full, I will be sure to check them out.

Best wishes ...

Share this post


Link to post
David Bokovoy:

Mike? A term of endearment,perhaps?

I think David thought he was responding to MikeyMike. It's easy enough to get confused about who one is responding to here. I've even done it once or twice, and I usually quote the posts I'm replying to.

Incidentally, I think MikeyMike is yet another Kevin Graham sockpuppet, thus bringing his total to about 127.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

To be precise, you haven't seen any article (serious or flippant) from Mr. Schryver. Only a brief oral presentation at a FAIR Conference, a few online video presentations, and some online posts presented in various threads.

If you're referring to personal correspondence with Will on this or any other topic, for the record, it does not, nor is it likely in the future to occur. For the time being, my specific criticisms direct against Mr. Schryver's research will occur if a forth-coming article is distributed to me for pre-publication review.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
What?

Explain what is not thought out.

Explain why Schryver-thinking is the only kind of thinking that constitutes being "thought out."

I for one am not interested in who finds my work persuasive. I'm into it for me, not for you.

I'm into it for what makes sense, that actually comes up with something that builds faith ON FACTS, not what feels good to feel-good-people. That is something that I fundamentally don't see apologists doing.

This is the difference between apologists and people that care about facts. Apologists explain things away by making facts go away. People that want to know the truth want an explanation that starts out with what is true.

If it doesn't interest you that Schryver's interpretation doesn't explain anything about the nature of the Book of Abraham, then dismiss me.

I've been dismissed before. That isn't new. I've been ignored the whole time I've been into theology. Yes, I say I'm into THEOLOGY, not necessarily apologetics. Apologetics is there to explain crap away. Theology actually wants to make sense of stuff, and if possible come up with what can apologetically defend something. But it isn't apologetics for apologetics' sake.

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

Share this post


Link to post

Incidentally, I think MikeyMike is yet another Kevin Graham sockpuppet, thus bringing his total to about 127.

Regards,

Pahoran

Indeed. It only took about 2 posts of his for me to think that.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

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...