Kep: Problems With The Cipher Theory

[wenglund]

I'll happily answer your question, and you can have your fun with me.

Yes, Joseph would have considered those characters Egyptian. This is the clear implication of the document's title.

Since it is uncertain whether Kevin will get around to answering my second question, I will go ahead and address your answer.

Would it surprise you to learn that the four characters I asked about were contained in a document explicitly titled as "Egyptian"?

They were all taken from the "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language".

However, one of the characters was a page number, two of the characters marked the numbered sequence of other characters, and one was a capital "E" in an English explanation (it was, interesting enough, the "E" in "Egypt").

In other words, while these characters were contained in a document clearly marked as "Egyptian," and while these character were as similar as the Egyptian Counting characters to the Anthon Caractors Kevin pointed out, it his highly doubtful that Joseph would have considered them to be Egyptian. Instead, he would have thought them to be English.

The point being, contrary to what Kevin argued above, even though a character bears a strong resemblance to certain Anthon Caractors, and just because it is in a document clearly marked as "Egyptian", doesn't mean that Joseph would have considered the characters as Egyptian.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 15, 2011 by wenglund

[Chris Smith]

Wade,

Obviously we have to make a distinction between the ostensibly "Egyptian" characters and their ostensibly "English" explanations. Not everything in the "Egyptian Alphabet" will be Egyptian, just as not everything in Gardiner's "Egyptian Grammar" will be Egyptian. But the documents contain internal cues as to what is to be considered "Egyptian" and what is not. One cannot simply ignore those internal cues or pretend they don't exist.

As for the symbols you posted being page numbers and English letters, all I can say is that this wouldn't be the first time that the symbols were shared across multiple languages. Is the word "taco" an English word or a Spanish one? Answer: both!

Peace,

-Chris

[wenglund]

Wade,

Obviously we have to make a distinction between the ostensibly "Egyptian" characters and their ostensibly "English" explanations. Not everything in the "Egyptian Alphabet" will be Egyptian, just as not everything in Gardiner's "Egyptian Grammar" will be Egyptian. But the documents contain internal cues as to what is to be considered "Egyptian" and what is not. One cannot simply ignore those internal cues or pretend they don't exist.

As for the symbols you posted being page numbers and English letters, all I can say is that this wouldn't be the first time that the symbols were shared across multiple languages. Is the word "taco" an English word or a Spanish one? Answer: both!

Peace, -Chris

I can appreciate what you are saying, Chris. However, it is besides the point I was making, which was counter to the point Kevin was making. Kevin seemed to be arguing that Joseph believed the four Egyptian Counting character were Egyptian because they were similar to several of the Reformed Egyptian characters on the Anthon Caractor document. I countered by showing that the similarity in the shape of the characters isn't sufficient for Kevin to make his case, and may in some instance prove just the opposite.

Regarding the ostensible "Egyptian" characters, no one is arguing against the characters appearing under the title of "Epyptian Counting". What is in dispute is whether the word "Egyptian" in the title may have been figurative or literal, or may have been what was first intended, but not what finally resulted. In other words, did the producers of the document believe, in the end, that the characters were literally Egyptian, or did they just call them that for convenience sake or as shorthand for "pure language", etc.? Pointing to the fact that the characters are ostensibly titled as Egyptian, simply begs the question.

As such, or at least to me, the question remains open.

And, not coincidentally, I have similar questions about the word "alphabet." I don't know that the producers of the EA/GAEL considered the EA characters to literally be an alphabet, let alone alphabetical. And, there is some reason to suggest that they didn't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

I'm surprised. I thought there'd be more effort to defend Schryver's thesis here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

xander,

I am sorry. I made a gallant effort to charitably sifted through your incoherent rant to see if I could find an answer to my first simple and straightforward question. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful. Oh well, maybe that is my fault.

Be that as it may, could you please answer my second question? (If you would fore-go the verbose clutter of self-serving caricatures and tangential sneers, it would be appreciated):

To your way of thinking, would Joseph consider the following to be Egyptian characters:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You mean like this? You don't even seem interested in your own thread.

[Xander]

You mean like this? You don't even seem interested in your own thread.

I've dealt with wade's desperate red herrings too many times to think anything of significance could come from doing so again.

What exactly do you think wade's point is, anyway? How is his "request" relevant to the fact that he has completely misrepresented Schryver's argument?

From what I can tell, the lack of apologetic fervor for Schryver's argument has much to do with the fact that most people simply don't understand his argument well enough. Unfortunately, wade falls into this category as well.

[wenglund]

I'm surprised. I thought there'd be more effort to defend Schryver's thesis here.

There is little need to defend against a failed challenge.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

I've dealt with wade's desperate red herrings too many times to think anything of significance could come from doing so again.

What exactly do you think wade's point is, anyway? How is his "request" relevant to the fact that he has completely misrepresented Schryver's argument?

From what I can tell, the lack of apologetic fervor for Schryver's argument has much to do with the fact that most people simply don't understand his argument well enough. Unfortunately, wade falls into this category as well.

No need to defend against this kind of nonsense. It is self-defeating.

Thanks, -Wader Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No need to defend against this kind of nonsense. It is self-defeating.

Thanks, -Wader Englund-

Other than for the readers benefit there is no point in talking to Kevin.

The classic "you just don't understand it". Nothing makes some one want to respond when that is the constant slogan thrown around.

[wenglund]

Other than for the readers benefit there is no point in talking to Kevin.

The classic "you just don't understand it". Nothing makes some one want to respond when that is the constant slogan thrown around.

I think the readers are now on to Kevin's vacuous and self-deluding bluster. He is fooling no one but himself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

There is little need to defend against a failed challenge.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You're following the Pahoran school of argument via assertion. I've effectively dismantled the entire premise for his thesis, which you didn't understand from the beginning, as I have shown. I know your method all too well, as you'll turn a thread into a 50 page inquisition where you ask questions but never answer those asked of you. If you have an argument, then make it. I don't have time for your little pop quizzes, which presupposes you're in a position to assume the role of teacher.

As for your silly quiz, I have already demonstrated to you many times in the past that Joseph Smith saw plenty of overlap between languages. I proved to you that he believed English was very similar to the "pure language" of Adam. So it should hardly be surprising that he believed the Egyptian numbering system, in many ways resembled Arabic numerals.

Do us all a favor. Familiarize yourself better with the documents and try to under grasp the reality of what Schryver argued. Stop trying to deny every single point just for the sake of argument. If you cannot even accept what it is Schryver has argued, there is no point in trying to debate specifics with you. If you want to keep denying what Schryver has argued with respect to the Egyptian Counting being the "key" to understanding the KEP, then that is fine as well. I have no problem showing why you are wrong, again, and again, and again...

Edited August 17, 2011 by Xander

[Xander]

Mola, post #17 proved beyond all doubt that wade simply doesn't understand Schryver's argument. So how did wade respond to my refutation? By throwing up a pop quiz. He addressed nothing in that post.

Nothing.

There is no point in trying to debate people who refuse to address refutations of their claims.

[wenglund]

You're following the Pahoran school of argument via assertion. I've effectively dismantled the entire premise for his thesis, which you didn't understand from the beginning, as I have shown. I know your method all too well, as you'll turn a thread into a 50 page inquisition where you ask questions but never answer those asked of you. If you have an argument, then make it. I don't have time for your little pop quizzes, which presupposes you're in a position to assume the role of teacher.

As for your silly quiz, I have already demonstrated to you many times in the past that Joseph Smith saw plenty of overlap between languages several. I proved to you that he believed English was very similar to the "pure language" of Adam. So it should hardly be surprising that he believed the Egyptian numbering system, in many ways resembled Arabic numerals.

Do us all a favor. Familiarize yourself better with the documents and try to under grasp the reality of what Schryver argued. Stop trying to deny every single point just for the sake of argument. If you cannot even accept what it is Schryver has argued, there is no point in trying to debate specifics with you. If you want to keep denying what Schryver has argued with respect to the Egyptian Counting being the "key" too understanding the KEP, then that is fine as well. I have no problem showing why you are wrong, again, and again, and again...

These dogmatic barks do nothing more than fill the air with irritating noise. As you may have guessed, I am uninterested in enduring the nonsense, and I will somewhat ignore your posts until you. like Chris and other critics, are willing and able to reasonably engage my counter-arguments. Until then...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

A quick overview of what has happened in this thread should make it clear why I'm reluctant to engage wade on anything related to this subject:

Kevin: "Crucial to Schryver's thesis is the premise that since none of the counting characters were Egyptian, Joseph Smith never thought they were Egytian."

wade: "Since Will doesn't directly speak to whether Joseph thought the EC characters were Egyptian or not, could you please explain why you believe the premise you introduce above is critical to Will's 'thesis'?"

Kevin: (responds by providing detailed excerpts from Schryver's presentation, proving that this is precisely what he argued)

wade: Ignoring the citations I provided, wade has the audacity to claim I didn't respond to his loaded question while envisioning himself as the Jesus of debate: "I am sorry. I made a gallant effort to charitably sifted through your incoherent rant to see if I could find an answer to my first simple and straightforward question. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful. Oh well, maybe that is my fault."

So this is why it is pointless discussing anything with wade, which is why I usually ignore him. I provide a detailed refutation, and wade pretends I didn't respond at all while diverting our attention to yet another silly question; a question that reveals his utter lack of familiarity with the subject matter is worse than I thought.

I am expected to is constantly shoot at a moving target that has rigged the game. Wade wants to play in "God mode" all the time. Meaning, I shoot it down, and he thinks he can just get back up and pretend I never fired.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Xander

[wenglund]

A quick overview of what has happened in this thread should make it clear why I'm reluctant to engage wade on anything related to this subject:

So this is why it is pointless discussing anything with wade, which is why I usually ignore him. I provide a detailed refutation, and wade pretends I didn't respond at all while diverting our attention to yet another silly question; a question that reveals his utter lack of familiarity with the subject matter is worse than I thought.

I am expected to is constantly shoot at a moving target that has rigged the game. Wade wants to play in "God mode" all the time. Meaning, I shoot it down, and he thinks he can just get back up and pretend I never fired.

Just so you know, self-serving caricatures don't qualify as a reasoned response to my counter-arguments. Instead, it comes across as a lame excuse. But, whatever helps you to feel better about yourself...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 17, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

Just so you know, self-serving caricatures don't qualify as a reasoned response to my counter-arguments. Instead, it comes across as a lame excuse. But, whatever helps you to feel better about yourself...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My word for word citation of the exchange does in fact serve me and my argument, but it is hardly a caricature. You accused me of misrepresenting Will, and I proved that it was you who misrepresented him. Your only response is to ignore the response and pretend no response has been given. I know your game wade, but the real mystery is why you think you're audience is so dumb that they're going to just accept your assertion that I haven't responded, when my response is slapping everyone in the face. That's just plain weird.

And your response here is just another reason why trying to argue with you is pointless. You only pretend to be genuinely interested in a debate. In reality, you want to have a battle of rhetoric. I'm interested in a coherent argument based on the evidence.You only try to do this whenever you think you have evidence of your side. In this case you know that you don't, so it is back to the rhetoric. Wash, rinse, repeat... we know the drill.

[wenglund]

[delete more self-serving caricatures]

Like I said, when you are ready to provide a reasoned response to my counter-arguments, then I will engage you. Until then, I will just let you yap away at will without responding.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Minos]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: continual sniping

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff