Jump to content

OGHoosier

Members
  • Content Count

    355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by OGHoosier

  1. It's unlikely. "The Hebrew hath been changed by us also" leads me to think that the Reformed Egyptian also evolved, though it retained enough continuity for Mormon to understand what was on the small plates. The point is that it would be unlikely for us to find extant Reformed Egyptian, since it seems to primarily have been a priestly language and, in all likelihood, was only a dominant script during the early period of Nephite residence in the New World, when they were still very Judaic in their worship. Like I said, I don't think Hebrew temples have much writing on them, if the biblical desc
  2. There's also little reason to believe that Reformed Egyptian would really have persisted as a public language. Benjamin makes a point of ensuring that his sons know it, which indicates that it had passed from normal circulation by his day. That's probably also connected to the fact that Benjamin was the first to receive the plates from the Jacobean line of record-keepers. From then on, the record passes in the line of Alma from keeper to keeper, with each one being specifically trained for the purpose. When the plates leave the Almaic line, they go to Mormon, who was already becoming "learned
  3. Hence "Even though the hieroglyphics have been translated to say "Anubis" (though in page 61, he points out that there are some possible problems with that translation), the hieroglyphics don't always relate to the character next to it."
  4. I know. Tiemeyer challenges the geography but not the chronology of Deutero-Isaiah. I still think her data might be good to know.
  5. On the contrary, historical matters such as the Book of Abraham are subject to a great deal more ambiguity than observable things like the curvature of the earth or the absence of Santa Claus on Christmas Eve night.
  6. How did they know that? Was a record kept of it or is it deduction based on the woodcut? Thanks for the link to what amounts to a suggestive and thoroughly irreverent graphic novel. In all seriousness, I looked through his arguments and I have some reservations about both arguments and conclusions. Permit me to raise my objections. Quotes will be from Mr. Osborne's page. Is Mr. Osborne such a craftsman? If not, why hasn't he produced one who testifies to that effect? In any case, we see the same sorts of bevels, scrapes, and marks all throughout the low-relief area of t
  7. I'll be honest, I'm still putting in my due diligence on Deutero-Isaiah and Trito-Isaiah. I wouldn't call myself knowledgeable enough to weigh in yet with anything substantial. I will say this, though: Bokovoy and Townsend speak from within a scholarly community of which they are representative. The Deutero- and Trito-Isaiah model is the beneficiary of a broad consensus among historical-critical scholars of the Bible, and Bokovoy and Townsend elevate that consensus, in their discourse which I have seen, to established fact. There are diverging opinions however, which I do believe deserve consi
  8. What's not true? That he served in these positions? That Ritner was removed from the doctoral committee? Or that you slavishly accept everything Ritner says as falling from the mouth of God?
  9. John Gee is not only well-regarded in Mormon circles. This opinion you hold is simply wrong. Let's look at his accomplishments, shall we? From his bio on FairMormon: He has since served as the editor of the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities. He has also participated in the International Association for Coptic Studies,] the Society of Biblical Literature, the American Research Center in Egypt, and BYU's David M. Kennedy Center for International Studies. You could find this out with a simple Google Search, man. The only reason people think Gee i
  10. Credibility shot. Not his. Yours. Tell me, what does a good Egyptologist look like to you? Someone who toes every line of the scholastic orthodoxy perhaps? Or perhaps someone who publishes a lot of peer-reviewed material? Perhaps you ought to tread a little more carefully: if I am not mistaken, Gee has published more than Dr. Ritner, and his publications are in good standing. The same goes with Dr. Muhlestein, who is one of the most highly rated Egyptology professors in the country.
  11. Sorry, I let my temper get away from me a bit. I apologize.
  12. ^ this. I think the love of money and stuff which almost always precedes the rise of secret combinations and the collapse of society in the Book of Mormon will do the trick.
  13. There it is. This, in a nutshell, is why we aren't interested. Clearly the point of this is for someone to get put in their place. Forgive us for not wanting to produce the next patch of soundbites and videos for the Bloggernacle to regurgitate for eternity. Only a fool thinks that a person-to-person debate is a superior form of getting to truth, or even a mildly passable one. Written exchanges, the type which we already have, permit deeper development of thoughts and arguments, a broader range of sources, and more time to flesh out and fully treat ideas, among other benefits. Thes
  14. Let me repeat what I said: "Nothing of substance is lost. Dehlin and RFM are just throwing another gauntlet around which will then become r/exmormon fodder for mocking the Mopologists from TSCC. And, after the furor passes, the number of people who give a darn will remain at 0." I'm don't care about the mockery that r/exmormon denizens will throw around. Like I said, "after the furor passes, the number of people who give a darn will remain at 0." They can get in a circle and pat each other on the back all they want. That's what this whole thing is about. Everyone knows that a Gee/Muhlest
  15. Nephi would disagree, per 1 Nephi 14:20-27. I imagine the Brethren quote from it less because there are more pressing things to discuss in General Conference and they don't have the time/expertise to get their hearers appropriately equipped with the tools of exegesis. Returning to Nephi's view, he didn't seem to think so. Referring to 1 Nephi 14 again, he identifies the whore of all the earth as "the great and abominable church" which is among all nations. It is operative before the American revolutions are prefigured in 1 Nephi 13, and 1 Nephi 14:1-3 says that the Gentiles need to ha
  16. How on earth are you getting that from what I wrote? How much have you engaged with the papers the apologists have written? It doesn't seem like a lot, because you still seem to be hung up on "the Book of the Dead doesn't talk about Abraham" which is old news by now. We've been on this treadmill for a century. How familiar are you with the debate as it is today? You know what hasn't been engaged directly, to my knowledge? Kevin Barney's proposal of a Jewish redactor. Robert Smith's oft-linked assessment of the Abrahamic facsimiles and traditions. Sam Brown's discussion of tex
  17. A direct scholarly dialogue has already been ongoing. Dehlin and RFM would not be needed as moderators if it were going to be an exchange of papers or anything other than a "formal debate." Their self-insertion betrays the whole game. Nothing of substance is lost. Dehlin and RFM are just throwing another gauntlet around which will then become r/exmormon fodder for mocking the Mopologists from TSCC. And, after the furor passes, the number of people who give a darn will remain at 0.
  18. Nibley was an iconoclast with a flair for the dramatic. Great moments ensued.
  19. Probably no different than scientists or people from any other discipline when they disagree. Seriously, I don't understand the rhetoric around the word "apologist" which so many seem to have internalized. It seems like many people think of "the apologist" as some sort of monolithic genus of subhuman creature, chained to a wheel which he perpetually pushes in slavery to the defense of a narrative. This is flatly untrue. There's apologists of all shapes, stripes, levels of orthodoxy, and clashing opinions, just like in any discipline.
  20. I'm sorry, but I've seen too much of Dehlin and RFM to have any confidence at all in their bonafides. Their discussions are so one-sided that I cannot attribute to them anything more noble than the status of active polemicist. If they were interested in the truth, they would give Brant Gardner and Terryl Givens the same softball treatment they give Coe and Ritner. Dehlin's interview with Coe was absolutely embarrassing: he hadn't put in any effort at all to grasp the fundamentals of apologetic scholarship. They may use the "it's wrong for members to not know the exact truth and sacrifice so mu
×
×
  • Create New...