Jump to content

Latter Day Data

Members
  • Content Count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Good

About Latter Day Data

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just a couple things, here. To me, wording matters because a lot of these issues come down to small nuances. I said I’m skeptical of Ritner, and after I was shown some of what Chandler said, I replied, “So if Ritner changed “may have” into a stronger claim, that would make my point.” In other words, “if” those were the quotes from Chandler that Ritner was relying on, then Ritner would indeed be misrepresenting what Chandler said. In a recent topic, I explained how Ritner is apparently misleading people by claiming facsimile 3 contains the name “Isis,” when he seems to actually be re
  2. Thanks for replying. You seem to be suggesting that Ritner accurately portrayed what Chandler said. Is that what you are suggesting? So let’s have a look: What Chandler is known to have said: “... probably not less than three thousand year ago.” “These strangers illustrious from their antiquity, may have lived in the days of Jacob, Moses, or David” What Ritner claims Chandler said: “These date from the times of the prophets” “you can see the faces of Egyptians who will have talked to Joseph” “here are people who talked to Joseph” Looking at thes
  3. So if Ritner changed “may have” into a stronger claim, that would make my point. Do you remember Ritner’s exact words?
  4. I’m pretty skeptical of Ritner’s claim about Chandler advertising the mummies/papyri and so forth as dating from the time of the patriarchs. While Ritner knows Egyptology, his scholarship regarding the LDS side of the coin leaves much to be desired. He doesn’t seem to care or to understand the significance and interplay between that and the Egyptology. He seems to treat the Book of Abraham as a matter of Egyptology, as if Joseph Smith were trying to approach it as an Egyptologist, which is just as silly as mistaking the Book of Revelation for a scientific analysis of future probabilities.
  5. https://meditationsandmeaning.blogspot.com/2020/05/meditations-on-vogel-appendix-c-anubis.html
  6. To me, it's not a little thing. Because, Ritner said the text could be clearly read. So, if he was talking about the text being clearly readable on other illustrations (but not on Facsimile 3), he ought to know that the listeners are going to assume he's talking about Facsimile 3. He might rationalize it by perhaps thinking "well, this is how things are done in Egyptology, and I'm just giving this to the people on a level they can understand," or perhaps he might think, "well, Joseph Smith was such a fraud that the specifics here don't really even matter," but the problem this creates is that
  7. I'm very open to that possibility for my current purposes, I was just trying to say that I think it's important for all the details we are working with to be accurate in order to facilitate further discussions (like iconography).
  8. On a MormonMatters podcast dated February 21, 2014, Dr. Hauglid said the following: The reason this is relevant to my theory is explained in my Fourth Meditation on Vogel (scroll a little more than halfway down the page and you should run into the Fourth Meditation).
  9. Hello! Yes, and I have written elsewhere that there is nothing wrong with the Egyptological convention of translating that way, as a standard practice. However, I agree with what Quinten Barney wrote in his thesis (see the OP for a link): "Thus, while comparisons with other copies of the Book of Breathings would cause us to expect Figure 2 of Facsimile No. 3 to be Isis, the lack of any clear reading of her name, as well as the various associations of the epithet “the god’s mother” prevent us from saying so with certainty. This case serves as a good example in demonstrating our
  10. hahaha well, his defenders are welcome to answer in his behalf, so maybe they can come up with something! True. They didn't exactly hold his feet to the fire on anything.
  11. In his interview with RFM and John Dehlin, Robert Ritner says he was able to read the text on Facsimile 3. For instance, he says the name Isis is readable. However: Egyptologist James Henry Breasted said the figure is "probably Isis," indicating the name was not readable and he therefore was basing his analysis on other, similar vignettes. Klaus Baer, the man who taught Egyptian to Robert Ritner, did not think he could translate most of the text on facsimile 3. In fact, the only part he felt he could translate was the portion relating directly to Hor (which, I have argued
  12. Joseph Smith III actually described what happened to the papyrus which was said to contain the writings of Abraham. He started from when Joseph first obtained the papyri and mummies, and continued until it was sold which he says was by William Smith when he was hard up. According to JSIII (see Fourth Meditation), when Joseph found it with the mummies, it was wrapped in a roll with some other papyrus (it makes sense it would be anciently bundled together with the Hor Breathing Permit, since that was where the scribe made a restored version of the Facsimile 1 illustration, intended to accompany
  13. Since you ask, yes, I have. I posted it online yesterday I was actually just mentioning this to Robert F. Smith, above. I'd be very interested in any pushback/feedback anyone has to offer.
  14. Thank you so much. I sent you a PM.
  15. Hi! Scribd wants me to sign up with a credit card to access. Is your article available anywhere else? I would be interested in reading what you've written on this subject, especially since I just posted a response to Dan Vogel's Abraham video series, yesterday.
×
×
  • Create New...