Jump to content

webbles

Members
  • Content Count

    665
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by webbles

  1. It would be cool if the church had an official communication channel that all members had access to. Whether that is Zoom, Teams, Skype, etc. Then we login with our online account and have easy access to ward members and such.
  2. Why are you assuming that the people who crossed the bering strait weren't brought over by God? The Mulekites shows us that people can be brought by God without having any prophets or spiritual leaders among them. And why are you bringing up a word ("principal") that isn't part of the original 1830 text? And, by the way, I still accept that the "Lamanites" are the "principal" ancestors of the American Indians. I'd go even so far as saying that the "Lamanites" are the entire ancestors of the American Indians. And that is because the term "Lamanites", by the end of the Book of Mormon, d
  3. Does Ritner discuss the various issues with the bird vs the hand that Fair mentions at https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_1#Question:_Does_Book_of_Abraham_Facsimile_1_show_a_hand.2C_or_does_it_show_the_wing_of_a_second_bird.3F Does Ritner discuss all the strange differences between the Fac 1 and other known couches that Fair mentions at https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Facsimiles/Facsimile_1#Question:_Is_Joseph_Smith_papyri_Facsimile_1_common_and_similar_to_other_such_scenes.3F I don't see
  4. Isn't everyone "imposing [our] own personal reading on the text"? :) Ok, you tell me what the "ordinary and plain meaning as existed in 1830" for Lehi's words to his sons? Lehi can not be "plainly" saying that no one will come to the Americas other than his family since the text itself contradicts that. The text "plainly" states that others can come (verse 5 and 7) before he states that it is hidden (verse 8). And the rest of text also "plainly" states that others are already on the land or about to land (Mulekites and Jaredites).
  5. We know that the Mulekites are either already in the Americas or shortly will be. We also know the Jaredites have already been here. Lehi doesn't talk about either of them nor are any of them mentioned previously (Nephi's vision earlier is a good example of where they should probably be mentioned but they aren't). So, we already know that this land hasn't been "kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations". At least two other nations know of it. In addition, Lehi says, in 2 Nephi 1:5: "Yea, the Lord hath covenanted this land unto me, and to my children forever, and also all tho
  6. Not really. Before this, every time they talk about the new land, they only talk about how it is for them and their descendants. But now that they've finally reached this new land, Lehi starts talking about how others might come to the land. Its almost like Lehi is trying to explain to his children how this supposedly clear place that he and his kids were going to inherit is already overrun with inhabitants.
  7. Thank you. I can't seem to view that image though.
  8. Are there other places in the papyrus where that phrase would also be? I'm looking through the translation on wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing_Permit_of_Hôr) and it looks like there should be a few more places (such as paragraphs 3, 7, 8, and 10) but I definitely don't know Egyptian so I'm having difficulties finding them.
  9. Oh, so you took those images, added some text and created the compilation that you posted. Good to know. Thanks for showing what should be in the gap.
  10. He had posted an image. I was just wondering where that image came from.
  11. Cool! Where did you find that? Is there a website or a book that you grabbed it from?
  12. That's the rebuttal that I remember reading. Thanks for finding it. Reading that and going through the JSPP again and watching the video again, I see that both groups (JSPP and Gee) are actually arguing for random characters. Just different characters. Gee argues that characters 13-16 (using Xander's numbering from the linked thread or 11-14 using the JSPP numbering) are from random places on the papyrus. The JSPP doesn't assign those characters to any locations in the papyrus and Xander (in that linked thread) says they come from the gap. JSPP argues that character 3 (using
  13. I followed Gee's presentation. And if you watch it, you'll notice that all of the scrambled characters are only when there is missing papyrus. He doesn't give any explanation on why he picks random parts of the papyrus. The only time he references another version of the Hor Sensen is when he talks about the 3rd character (JSPP numbers it 3.11). This is a character that doesn't exist in the existing papyrus as well. Interesting enough, the JSPP assigns this character to a completely different papyrus. I'd love to see a presentation or anything where someone actually shows what the hie
  14. The BOA manuscripts from 1835 are only for the beginning of Abraham. Manuscript A is Abraham 1:4 - 2:6. Manuscript B is Abraham 1:4 - 2:2. Manuscript C is Abraham 1:1 - 2:18 The 1842 manuscripts also don't contain the entire text. The first manuscript has Abraham 1:1 - 2:18 (the JSPP says that it appears to be an edited version of Manuscript C with heavy revisions in the first 200 words). The second manuscript is Abraham 3:18-26. There are no manuscripts for Abraham 2:19 - 3:17 and Abraham 3:26 - 5:21
  15. It is my idea but based on the rebuttal that I had read long time ago. I don't remember where I had read the rebuttal nor do I remember who had written it so I don't know how to find it online. The JSPP just doesn't match those characters with anything on the papyrus. In the printed JSPP, there is a table on pages 350-380 titled "Comparison of Characters". That is what I've been using to match up the characters. I can't find that table on the online version, yet. So I can't give you a link. At the beginning of the table, it does say "It is not always clear whether a character on
  16. I would love to see a restored version of the Hor Sensen. Unfortunately, I can't find it. Gee doesn't do it in the video and the JSPP doesn't do it. So I can't see what should be in the missing gaps. Do you know where someone has done that comparison?
  17. I rewatched the video and compared his characters to what the JSPP says. And I think Gee is wrong about it being a jumbled sequence. There are 27 characters that the video talks about. In the JSPP, the first three are numbered 5.27, 5.28, and 3.11, and the rest are numbered 2 through 25. As the video mentions, the first 12 characters (5.27, 5.28, 3.11, and 2 through 10) are in order. But he points out that 5 of those are not on the papyrus. They are instead lost in the gap in the papyrus. This shows that Joseph might have seen more characters on the papyrus than we currently have.
  18. I watched the link. The JSPP doesn't connect those glyphs the same way. It just says those glyphs are not on the papyrus. I'm going to have to find that other "Book of Breathing for Horos" and see what the missing glyphs are and if they look similar to what is in the manuscripts.
  19. Another odd thing I noticed while looking at the glyphs is that the first two manuscripts (A and B) in the JSPP don't have Abraham 1:1-3 while C does. C has three extra glyphs for those three extra verses (though, not a 1-1 correlation between verses and glyphs). According to the JSPP, those first three glyphs are the only glyphs that are also in the KEP. The rest of the glyphs in manuscript C match all of the glyphs in manuscript A and B and none of them are in the KEP.
  20. I remember seeing something where they refuted this "out-of-order" glyphs. The reasoning (that I remember) was that the glyphs that are in the BoA come from the missing tears/rips. These "out-of-order" glyphs supposedly don't match any of the existing glyphs on the papyrus. Looking through the JSPP book, the "out-of-order" glyphs are not given a corresponding glyph on the papyrus.
  21. Where does it say that in the JSPP BoA volume? I've so far only seen instances where it says that we don't know which came first or when they were done. And reading the volume and looking at the character correlation, it really doesn't look like the BoA is based off of the KEP. According to the volume, the characters in both sets have almost no overlap (except for a later BoA manuscript that is definitely after the original BoA manuscripts). And none of them have any overlap with the characters in the hieroglyphs.
  22. This almost sounds like surrogacy. Maybe we have concubinage already in the modern world? We just call it surrogate birthing now.
  23. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/6/26/21304482/covid-19-coronavirus-case-count-rate-new-record-positive-tests-pandemic-masks-warning-salt-lake-city - Went into affect on Saturday June 27.
  24. Another interesting thing I saw in the JSP is the following quote: Out of the ~140 characters (I counted 142 but I might have messed up), there are 23 from the "first part of the first degree" and none of them came from the papyri. The "second part of the first degree" has 59 total characters and after going through the "Comparison of Characters" in the back of the book, it looks like only characters 32, 36, and 40-59 come from the papyri. So the first 54 characters in the Alphabet aren't related to the papyri. That's more than 1/3 of the characters in the Alphabet. In addition, on
×
×
  • Create New...