My JWHA Paper on the Egyptian Alphabet

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.

That is what I thought I just wanted to make sure. I have refered to them in the past as "EAG".

I must be an ameture? Lol.

[Calm]

Your responses to my examples of Gee's "two-inks" theory and "over-run" argument are deceptive because Gee's arguments never were that there were "in fact, at least two different inks used in places on the KEPA manuscripts" or that there were "in fact, cases where there are to be found significant instances of over-writing which militate against the critics' arguments." This comes across like you are trying to give doubters hope that I was wrong when you darn well that these two theories are dead. It is deceptive plain and simple.

That is certainly not how I read it. I saw it as Will saying that even if the general theories are 'dead', that there are aspects of the theories that are still relevant due to the fact of two inks, etc.

[dblagent007]

That is certainly not how I read it. I saw it as Will saying that even if the general theories are 'dead', that there are aspects of the theories that are still relevant due to the fact of two inks, etc.

Thank you for confirming exactly my point. Will knows that Gee's theories [edit: two-inks and over-run] are dead, but he answers in a way that makes it look as if there are aspects of those theories that are still relevant when there aren't. Will, if you disagree, please explain how either of Gee's theories are still relevant.

[William Schryver]

dblagent007:

Your responses to my examples of Gee's "two-inks" theory and "over-run" argument are deceptive because Gee's arguments never were that there were "in fact, at least two different inks used in places on the KEPA manuscripts" or that there were "in fact, cases where there are to be found significant instances of over-writing which militate against the critics' arguments." This comes across like you are trying to give doubters hope that I was wrong when you darn well that these two theories are dead. It is deceptive plain and simple.

I could point out a bunch of other examples on the other board where Kevin Graham caught you lying, but I can't post links to that board.

What does this show - that your BoA apologetics are ridiculous.

I haven't the time today to play your games, but I will simply state that I have never lied nor intentionally deceived on any point I have made concerning these BoA discussions. Not once. As in never, your bold allegations to the contrary notwithstanding.

Furthermore, see calmoriah's post above concerning my comments about theories you believe are dead. Many theories have evolved from their original articulation, but none of them are "dead" and all, to my knowledge, still have relevance to the larger issue of the provenance of the BoA.

That you and Kevin Graham (perhaps you one and the same, for all I know; I don't really care) believe I have lied is a commentary, not on my truthfulness, but on your substantial ignorance of the issues and evidence.

Finally, it doesn't concern me in the least that you, of all people, believe the things I have argued on these questions are "ridiculous." Time is my ally in these matters, not yours.

.

.

.

Metcalfe:

I haven't misunderstood your view that Smith's Egyptian alphabet and grammar project attempts to reverse engineer a no-longer-extant manuscript of the BoAbr. What I fail to grasp is your distinction between the various manuscripts that comprise character columns adjacent to English text. Clearer?

I have no idea what you're angling for here.

I'm confident that I understand the stemmatic relationships between KEPA 1, 2, 3. Although, to be sure, my understanding of the stemma is quite different from your own.

[William Schryver]

Thank you for confirming exactly my point. Will knows that Gee's theories are dead, but he answers in a way that makes it look as if there are aspects of those theories that are still relevant when there aren't. Will, if you disagree, please explain how either of Gee's theories are still relevant.

I don't think you have even the remotest idea of what Professor Gee has said on these issues in at least the past ten years. He is far from being the purveyor of "dead theories."

You, my friend, simply don't know what you're talking about. You're spouting talking points, but there is little or no knowledge behind the catch-phrases drooling out of your gaping piehole.

[dblagent007]

I haven't the time today to play your games, but I will simply state that I have never lied nor intentionally deceived on any point I have made concerning these BoA discussions. Not once. As in never, your bold allegations to the contrary notwithstanding.

So you want to put it all down as incompetence? Maybe, but when it happens so often, I don't know . . .

Furthermore, see calmoriah's post above concerning my comments about theories you believe are dead. Many theories have evolved from their original articulation, but none of them are "dead" and all, to my knowledge, still have relevance to the larger issue of the provenance of the BoA.

Please explain. I would love to hear how Gee's original "two inks" and "over-run" theories have any relationship to your newly evolved ones.

Will, this is so deceptive and you know it.

That you and Kevin Graham (perhaps you one and the same, for all I know; I don't really care) believe I have lied is a commentary, not on my truthfulness, but on your substantial ignorance of the issues and evidence.

Not Kevin Graham either.

[dblagent007]

I don't think you have even the remotest idea of what Professor Gee has said on these issues in at least the past ten years. He is far from being the purveyor of "dead theories."

Context Will, context. I am referring to the "two-inks" and "over-run" theories. Keep that straight, okay?

You, my friend, simply don't know what you're talking about. You're spouting talking points, but there is little or no knowledge behind the catch-phrases drooling out of your gaping piehole.

I'm waiting for your explanation of how Gee's "two-inks" and "over-run" theories relate to your recent work. I don't expect you to answer because it would demonstrate beyond any doubt the deceptiveness I outlined above.

[Chris Smith]

That is what I thought I just wanted to make sure. I have refered to them in the past as "EAG".

I must be an ameture? Lol.

"Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" is a broad term that includes several manuscripts: GAEL, EA JS, EA OC, and EA WWP. The GAEL is a large bound notebook with the title "Grammar and A[l]phabet of the Egyptian Language" on the first page. I use the abbreviation GAEL to distinguish this manuscript from the three "Egyptian Alphabet" manuscripts that preceded it. It's a bit of a false distinction, though, since the GAEL notebook has the title "Egyptian Alphabet" on the spine and at the beginning of degrees 1-4. Clearly the notebook was thought of as simply the next stage in the same project.

[PacMan]

Huh? The fact that what wasn't mentioned?

What I said was that Joseph believed the power of God was involved in interpreting Abraham 1:1-3. You then somehow interpreted this to mean that I think Joseph believed the power of God was not involved in interpreting Abraham 1:1-3. Which is the opposite of what I said.

The ones who think Joseph thought he figured something out without divine intervention are the apologists. And I agree with you: Joseph or his scribes creating the GAEL through mere speculative scholarly efforts is extremely farfetched. Somehow the name Zub-zool-oan was "reverse engineered" from the Book of Abraham?? How does that make sense?

-Chris

Chris,

You said:

I think Joseph would have said the power of God was involved in the production of Abr. 1:1-3, as well.

Did Joseph say so? If not, then your presumption that he "would have said" so means what? I don't understand what else can be inferred here.

And no, I think that the BoA being translated from scholarly efforts is far fetched. I believe the KEPA was reverse engineered, and that lead to tinkering with GAEL which diduse the reverse engineering as well as "scholarly" methods. I can prove that Champollion's ideas were in America by 1823. As far as his methodology, it seems that even Anthon had studied and commented on Egyptian by the time Harris saw him years before BoA. So whatsoever scholarship they had at the time, I think they attempted to apply. They did a really bad job of it (and I tend to think that there was a lot of square pegs being hammered into round holes to justify the narrative with the papyris as outset in KEPA), but it was scholarship nonetheless.

PacMan

[Uncertain]

Huh? The fact that what wasn't mentioned?

What I said was that Joseph believed the power of God was involved in interpreting Abraham 1:1-3. You then somehow interpreted this to mean that I think Joseph believed the power of God was not involved in interpreting Abraham 1:1-3. Which is the opposite of what I said.

The ones who think Joseph thought he figured something out without divine intervention are the apologists. And I agree with you: Joseph or his scribes creating the GAEL through mere speculative scholarly efforts is extremely farfetched. Somehow the name Zub-zool-oan was "reverse engineered" from the Book of Abraham?? How does that make sense?

-Chris

Hi Chris,

I have been following this discussion with some interest. I do not have a firm enough grasp on the relevant issues to have a strong opinion one way or another. This comment for me sparked a question. Are Egyptian hieroglyphics ever associated with text not found in the BOA? If indeed symbols are paired with text not found in the BOA this might cast some doubt on the BOA reverse engineering hypothesis. Although I suppose such an occurrence could possibly be explained as reverse engineering using some other previously revealed text (perhaps the Book of Joseph?) and not the BOA.

All the best,

Uncertain

[wenglund]

Since this, from the previous page, has yet to be respeonded to, let me ask again:

Am I correct in assuming that while Chris may be open to a supernaturalistic explanation for the BoA, there are those who proffer a naturalistic explanation?

If so, is there any in the latter camp participating on this thread?

I ask, because I am wondering what naturalistic arguments this latter group presents for how Joseph supposedly came up with the Egyptian alphabet/grammar to begin with, and whether they believe the alphabet/grammar was used in the production of most, if not all, of the BoA, rather than just Abr. 1:1-3, if that?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Hi Chris,

I have been following this discussion with some interest. I do not have a firm enough grasp on the relevant issues to have a strong opinion one way or another. This comment for me sparked a question. Are Egyptian hieroglyphics ever associated with text not found in the BOA? If indeed symbols are paired with text not found in the BOA this might cast some doubt on the BOA reverse engineering hypothesis. Although I suppose such an occurrence could possibly be explained as reverse engineering using some other previously revealed text (perhaps the Book of Joseph?) and not the BOA.

All the best, Uncertain

From my brief foray into the BoA controvesy, there appears to be at least three key and somewhat interconnected questions:

1) What was the means of translation for the BoA? (was it all or in part tranlated directly by the gift and power of God, or indirectly using an inspired alphabet/grammar, or some other yet to beliniated naturalistic modus operandi?)

2) What was the source material from whence the BoA was translated? (Was it translated from portion of the extant papyri--i.e the Book of Breathings/Dead/etc., or from non-extant papyri, and/or from some other unknown sources?)

3) Was the BoA a correct translation?

Thus far in the thread we have been discussing question #1--which is the only question I have yet to research.

Your question begins to take us into question #2.

What will be interesting to see, as the discusson proceeds, is how well the respective parties maintain consistency between their reasoning in answer to the second question and their reasoning in answer to the first. This, in turn, will then set the stage for addressing the third qustion.

Chris has already consistently indicated the source material from whence he believes the Egyptian alphabet/grammar and Abr. 1:1-3 and Facsimile 2 were derived. Like you, I will be interested to learn his hypothesis about from whence the bulk of the BoA was derived.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[William Schryver]

dlbagent007:

Your BoA apologetics are ridiculous because you pretty much deny/ignore the mountain of evidence that contradicts your thesis, while still tilting at windmills over one emendation or another.

Please do share with us a couple shovel fulls of the "mountain of evidence" that contradicts my thesis. I'm very curious to see if you can do this. You've shown that you can spit out a talking point here and there that you have picked up along the way--"two inks" and "overwriting", for example. But I don't believe you can produce a single intelligible statement that constitutes a sample of this "mountain of evidence" to which your refer above.

As for the significance of "two inks" and "overwriting" in terms of findings I have reported, the "two inks" are manifest in the form of the almost-exclusively secondary emendations that are present in KEPA 2 and 3. "Overwriting" is part of the evidence that conclusively demonstrates the later, interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12. Both these items are of significant import in terms of explaining the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. That said, I'm confident you don't why these things are important, or what they even mean in relation to the big picture.

So have it. Present some samples of this "mountain of evidence." I'll be standing by ...

.

.

.

P.S. I had a very nice visit today with Royal Skousen, whom I like very much. It seems he is not in accord with you and your friends when it comes to an assessment of my theses. But what does he know, anyway?

[dblagent007]

dlbagent007:

Please do share with us a couple shovel fulls of the "mountain of evidence" that contradicts my thesis. I'm very curious to see if you can do this. You've shown that you can spit out a talking point here and there that you have picked up along the way--"two inks" and "overwriting", for example. But I don't believe you can produce a single intelligible statement that constitutes a sample of this "mountain of evidence" to which your refer above.

Sure, I will put it together for you as soon as I am connected to a high speed connection.

As for the significance of "two inks" and "overwriting" in terms of findings I have reported, the "two inks" are manifest in the form of the almost-exclusively secondary emendations that are present in KEPA 2 and 3. "Overwriting" is part of the evidence that conclusively demonstrates the later, interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12. Both these items are of significant import in terms of explaining the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. That said, I'm confident you don't why these things are important, or what they even mean in relation to the big picture.

Great, now explain how that relates to Gee's arguments beyond using the same terminology.

[William Schryver]

Sure, I will put it together for you as soon as I am connected to a high speed connection.

How convenient. But I didn't ask for the mountain, just a couple shovels full.

Great, now explain how that relates to Gee's arguments beyond using the same terminology.

I'm not making John Gee's arguments. I'm making my own. "Two inks" and "overwriting" are the observable evidence that informed John's earlier arguments. Those two elements of evidence are very important to understanding the meaning of several loci on the documents. You said you wanted to know how those things related to my arguments. I believe I've now made that clear. Are you going to persist in trying to shift the focus from my arguments to those things your "talking points" cover? I realize the scope of your knowledge of these things is extremely narrow, but I'm only interested in addressing the issues surrounding my arguments, not to fill in the gaps of your ignorance.

[Chris Smith]

I have been following this discussion with some interest. I do not have a firm enough grasp on the relevant issues to have a strong opinion one way or another. This comment for me sparked a question. Are Egyptian hieroglyphics ever associated with text not found in the BOA? If indeed symbols are paired with text not found in the BOA this might cast some doubt on the BOA reverse engineering hypothesis. Although I suppose such an occurrence could possibly be explained as reverse engineering using some other previously revealed text (perhaps the Book of Joseph?) and not the BOA.

Hey Uncertain,

Yes, there is another case of this. In a small notebook with Joseph Smith's signature on the cover, we find the following:

A parallel notebook has the names of W. W. Phelps and F. G. Williams on the cover. It has a two page spread which is combined into a composite image below. The left hand page bears the title "A Translation of the next page," with the words "in part" scribbled next to it in graphite. (The graphite isn't visible in these crappy microfilm images I'm posting.)

Now, one could certainly argue that the "first part" of the "first degree" in the Egyptian Alphabet documents is a reverse-engineering of this "Translation" rather than the other way around. But that of course leaves the apologists with the same sticky issue they face in the case of the Book of Abraham: namely, how did this English text come to be associated with these characters in the first place? The way I see it, you ultimately have to invoke revelation to explain either the alphabet or the translation, and either way the apologists have a problem.

Peace,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

Hey Uncertain,

Yes, there is another case of this. In a small notebook with Joseph Smith's signature on the cover, we find the following:

A parallel notebook has the names of W. W. Phelps and F. G. Williams on the cover. It has a two page spread which is combined into a composite image below. The left hand page bear the title "A Translation of the next page," with the words "in part" scribbled next to it in graphite.

(The graphite isn't visible in these crappy microfilm images I'm posting.)

Now, one could certainly argue that the "first part" of the "first degree" in the Egyptian Alphabet documents is a reverse-engineering of this "Translation" rather than the other way around. But that of course leaves the apologists with the same sticky issue they face in the case of the Book of Abraham. Namely, how did this English text come to be associated with these characters in the first place? The way I see it, you simply have to invoke revelation to explain either the alphabet or the translation, and either way the apologists have a problem.

Peace,

-Chris

You pose a false dilemma. The problem you see is not a problem at all if you have the correct theory to inform the data.

[Chris Smith]

You pose a false dilemma. The problem you see is not a problem at all if you have the correct theory to inform the data.

Ah, yes. The old "scribes were just making crap up and then reverse-engineering their made-up crap" theory. I forgot about that one.

[William Schryver]

Ah, yes. The old "scribes were just making crap up and then reverse-engineering their made-up crap" theory. I forgot about that one.

You move so effortlessly from one logical fallacy to another. From the false dilemma to the strawman, and you didn't even break stride. Impressive.

Again, the problem you see is not a problem at all if you have the correct theory to inform the data.

[Chris Smith]

Again, the problem you see is not a problem at all if you have the correct theory to inform the data.

Now if only you had the correct theory, you could enlighten me as to what said theory might be!

[William Schryver]

Now if only you had the correct theory, you could enlighten me as to what said theory might be!

I perceive that your mind is closed to all but a few select possibilities. Just like Dale Morgan.

Nevertheless, Alma said it best:

... if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

And for those who refuse to plant and/or nurture the seed, that it fails to take root:

... this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof. And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

In reply to Chris you suggest...

You move so effortlessly from one logical fallacy to another. From the false dilemma to the strawman, and you didn't even break stride. Impressive.

Again, the problem you see is not a problem at all if you have the correct theory to inform the data.

What the...

Again, you've persuaded me that you utterly fail to appreciate the text-critical intricacies of the various BoAbr manuscripts. Chris has graciously proofed some of my transcriptions. Do you see the correction to Nibley's apologetic in Chris' post? Based on your response to Chris, I'd say that you don't.

Please clarify your rejoinder with evidence from the data.

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(

[dblagent007]

I perceive that your mind is closed to all but a few select possibilities. Just like Dale Morgan.

Nevertheless, Alma said it best:

And for those who refuse to plant and/or nurture the seed, that it fails to take root:

What's next Will? Are you going to curse Chris like you did Ray A?

[Uncertain]

Hey Uncertain,

Yes, there is another case of this. In a small notebook with Joseph Smith's signature on the cover, we find the following:

A parallel notebook has the names of W. W. Phelps and F. G. Williams on the cover. It has a two page spread which is combined into a composite image below. The left hand page bears the title "A Translation of the next page," with the words "in part" scribbled next to it in graphite. (The graphite isn't visible in these crappy microfilm images I'm posting.)

Now, one could certainly argue that the "first part" of the "first degree" in the Egyptian Alphabet documents is a reverse-engineering of this "Translation" rather than the other way around. But that of course leaves the apologists with the same sticky issue they face in the case of the Book of Abraham: namely, how did this English text come to be associated with these characters in the first place? The way I see it, you ultimately have to invoke revelation to explain either the alphabet or the translation, and either way the apologists have a problem.

Peace,

-Chris

Thanks!

[William Schryver]

What's next Will? Are you going to curse Chris like you did Ray A?

Not at this time.

But I think you would make a fine candidate.

.

.

.

Changing the subject ... I would like to draw the attention of all interested parties to a significant update I have posted to my scroll-length thread in the Pundit's forum.