Jump to content

PacMan

Contributor
  • Content Count

    965
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

359 Excellent

About PacMan

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,537 profile views
  1. The one thing I appreciate is how he produces this timeline through a particular theory, while stating he will produce another video based on another theory. In other words, it seems like he’s investigating rather than pushing a pet theory. I’d be great if everything wraps up by 2024. Somehow I doubt it. Although, we will know next Spring if there’s anything to this video.
  2. I’m sure you’re very sincere and interested in your parallels. But you are making tremendous assumptions without any analysis and leaving very little to discuss. I’m not persuaded by reincarnating nations. But even if I was, what’s your driving point? Why is it important or material to an apologetics board?
  3. Navigating the conundrum becomes easier if you assume that you don’t know what you don’t know. For example, for all the information you didn’t know 20 years ago that brought you to your present point, you can safely assume that there is more evidence that can return you to where you used to be. Time has been unrelentingly kind to Joseph Smith - which is counterintuitive. It’ll only get better.
  4. Please post in a drive so we can download without a subscription. Thanks.
  5. Thank you! It worked like a charm. You are officially my hero for the day. Do you have a translation of Facsimile 2 footnote 8? I have been trying to find one, with no luck.
  6. Robert, is there a direct PDF download link? I don’t want to sign up for Scribd.
  7. Yes, and consistent with my notes I did not include a citation for that particular quote. Very frustrating.
  8. In my notes, I have the following quotes but I cannot figure out where they came from. Anyone have any idea? I'm not sure if they are consecutive or from separate sources. If anyone is familiar with the quote(s), I'd greatly appreciate the citation. “The characters on the papyrus of Abraham are after the manner of the Egyptians who lived in Thebes…but as I say they did use a systematic order to relay their thoughts in writing; a system in which signs could convey specific sounds and words.” “God in these last days has now given us the story from this papyrus written by the hand of
  9. Boom. This. Scholarly criticisms that does not account for potential common borrowing is myopic and hardly scholarly...or critical.
  10. Bob, When you own the board you can make the rules. You don’t. So move on from your discontent with anonymous posters. Know your place. In any event, your judgmental self-righteousness is neither invited, warranted, helpful, or appreciated. You, like most of us, are a nobody. And you certainly don’t speak on behalf of anyone—particularly the Lord.
  11. You are not understanding. I'll make it really, really clear. The 1831 account is quoting Martin Harris regarding the Harris interaction with Dr. Mitchell in 1828: Harris says that the Doctor received him very “purlitely,” looked at his engravings—made a learned dissertation on them—compared them with the hieroglyphics discovered by Champollion in Egypt—and set them down as the language of a people formerly in existence in the East, but now no more." Please note the quotation marks used to seemingly mock Harris. These are Martin's words. As to the reference to Champollion, there
  12. Not at all, actually. This is not a unique idea. For example, JS “translated” parts of the BoM without any source—by pure revelation. Yet he called it “translation.” He called his inspired version “translation” when it wasn’t anything of the sort. JS’s concept of translation is not consistent with how we use the term. That’s not wishful thinking. That’s fact. Take a look at the intro to the Book of Moses and try to make sense of it. You can’t if you use the typical definition of “translation.”
  13. Nevo, this is in context of the BoM. As Kevin has noted, Barker takes the BoM much of the way, but not the entire length of the field. Rather than speak of a binary unified author, the issue here is whether there is a unity of authorship for those portions of Deutero-Isaiah in the BoM. That's where M. Barker parts ways with other scholars. Once we take the more nuanced view, I'm interested how many of your 98% of scholars that support the multiple-author theory would allow that some of the Deutero chapters in the BoM were actually authored by Isaiah himself.
  14. To the contrary. The history and facts support the conclusion that JS created documents as an analysis--not causal translation--of Egyptian. My research has led to some very interesting and unexpected history connecting to what Joseph Smith did and did not know. He (through Cowdery) had a personal connection to yet another publisher that was well acquainted with Champollion. Not only that, but it strongly appears that JS adopted his formulation and understanding of Champollion's work. This explain why JS used the odd "degrees" methodology. JS's BoA manuscript was not a translation bu
  15. Yes, but what did he mean by translation? Not what you think when you use the term. And that has no bearing on whether the manuscript is part of the translation process. It is not.
×
×
  • Create New...