Jump to content

Dan Vogel

Contributor
  • Content Count

    1,154
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

140 Excellent

1 Follower

About Dan Vogel

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

2,158 profile views
  1. Probably sometime next year. But you already have the basic argument. The reverse translation theory doesn't work because the Grammar and Alphabet doesn't derive from the Book of Abraham. The characters in the margins of the Abraham manuscripts come from JSP XI, whereas the characters used in the Egyptian Alphabets and the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language come from other papyri, the pure language, and the columns next to Fac. 1 on JSP I. Because they do not cover the same material, the GAEL can't be said to derive from Abraham. It's that simple.
  2. What it boils down to, Dan, is that you vaunt up your probabilistic argument against what you see as the Gee-Muhlestein probabilistic argument (if that is in fact their actual argument), and then you claim parsimony. What is noteworthy from you is the complete absence of an actual systematic demonstration of any of that -- with quotations, citations, and sound, logical argument. What you have done is declare victory and go to lunch. Why bother with making an actual case? Is that what you learned in history class at CSULB? Did your history professors let you get by with that? If
  3. I was studying and writing on this subject while you were still in Middle School, Dan. I keep hoping that you will up your game a bit and address the central issues adequately. What you really need is a little less polemic and a little more logic. That would help a lot. Well, perhaps you have forgotten some things, or just maybe I have noticed some things you missed. I have already briefly outlined my evidence and argument against the reverse-translation theory in my first post, as follows: "There is no chicken or egg problem here since the GAEL is not directly related to the
  4. You're the one who declared opposing views as "garbage," instead of providing rational argument. I did provide several arguments against the reverse translation theory, but you chose to ignore them. Rational argument is now "irrelevant"? And it is solely the burden of Gee & Muhlestein, not you, to show what the facts are? Is that really your position? I have not taken the side of Gee and Muhlestein in any of this, and I differ with them at a number of points -- which should have been obvious to you. In fact, I have never met or communicated with M
  5. Science and reason don't take apriori sides, Dan. They require an evidence-based analysis, which I very much hope you have in your forthcoming book. Thus far, your arguments are at the "tis so - tis not" level, which doesn't advance knowledge one iota. As you should know, bob, historical reasoning includes probabilistic arguments. Focusing on my use of the word “probably” as a means of dismissing my argument would be like saying evolution is only a theory. You know very well that the most parsimonious construal of the evidence shows that the code words, including Shinehah, existed
  6. Despite the assertions of Gee, Hauglid, Muhlestein, and Hansen, Shinehah, as one of the code names used in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, probably pre-dates the arrival of the Egyptian papyri in July 1835. Indeed, there is no indication that any of the code names were influenced by the Egyptian project. There are two non-Hebrew names from Abraham 3:13—Shinehah and Olea—where they are said to mean the sun and the moon. This departs from the bound Grammar, which names the moon Flo-ees and the sun Flos-isis. the probable source of Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3:13 is an 8 July 1838 revelation t
  7. The Hebrew terms could have been added at any time after the Brethren began examining their Sephardic Hebrew grammars. Your approach seems to be that any theory which does not agree with yours "is garbage." I look forward to a well-argued case with citations in your forthcoming book on all this. Your accusation that I think any theory that doesn’t agree with mine is garbage is a hasty generalization. In this case, I only think the reverse translation theory is garbage. I have given my reasons and you have failed to respond to them. Your comment about the Hebrew being added to
  8. Well, by all means throw it out, Dan. Then provide your evidence-based theory in its place. Reason and logic should make your case for you. I look forward to your forthcoming scholarly book on the subject. You should already know what I’m saying is true if you spent just a little time with the documents.
  9. Despite the assertions of Gee, Hauglid, Muhlestein, and Hansen, Shinehah, as one of the code names used in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, probably pre-dates the arrival of the Egyptian papyri in July 1835. Indeed, there is no indication that any of the code names were influenced by the Egyptian project. There are two non-Hebrew names from Abraham 3:13—Shinehah and Olea—where they are said to mean the sun and the moon. This departs from the bound Grammar, which names the moon Flo-ees and the sun Flos-isis. the probable source of Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3:13 is an 8 July 1838 revelation t
  10. There is no logjam because the apologists Gee and Muhlestein have only asserted without evidence that the Hebrew terms were added in 1842. Their only reason for asserting this is because they think the entire Book of Abraham needs to exist before the GAEL for their reverse translation theory to work. However, the reverse translation theory is garbage because there is no direct relationship between the two. They are essentially different translations of different characters. They are not parallel works, but rather exist on a continuum of translation.
  11. Yeh. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Are we going to decide that based on evidence, or through apriorism? Let's hope that Matt Grey does a good job in laying it out for us. There is no chicken or egg problem here since the GAEL is not directly related to the Book of Abraham. The Gael deals with characters from the Amenhotep and Ta-sherit-Min papyri and then the columns next to Fac. 1 on the Hor Book of Breathings. Whereas the Book of Abraham characters come from JSP XI, not JSP I. The whole reverse translation theory needs to be thrown out.
×
×
  • Create New...