Jump to content

Missing Papyrus


jskains

Recommended Posts

Lets say KEP was the attempt by Joseph Smith and others to backtranslate the text. If he got the text wrong, it is easily possible that he got the Facimilies wrong too. He had the text, then he linked what he thought was the correct Facimilies to what he read in the text and tried to explain what he thought was connected to what.

If this is correct, the idea that there were more scroll peices including the possibility of a seperate scroll that was wrapped inside or outside the one that was recovered is still very possible. The only hard link between the text and the document is the facimilies. But if the Facimilies were guesswork of Joseph's and he just included it on his own, then the entire missing papyrus is still on the table.

We know that the Book of Mormon was a more visual translation method. If the same translation method or even something similar was done, than the papyrus wasn't even nessesary (like ultimately the golden plates were unnessesary). And if KEP itself was just a reverse engineering project, linking the Facimilies incorrectly could also be a byproduct of the same.

Or even alternatively, the original Facimilies could have been lost altogether, and Joseph Smith simply used the one on the known papyrus as a replacement.

I just don't agree that the missing papyrus "theory" is off the table.

JMS

Link to comment

Catalyst theory FTW.

Why? It's consistent with the translation methods of the Book of Mormon (plates were the Catalyst) and JST (KJV was the catalyst). I just don't think it's necessary for there to have been an actual Abraham manuscript (in modernity, or even antiquity), for such a valid volume of inspired scripture to be produced.

Plus, the 'Missing Papyrus Theory' seems to be just as tenuous and lacking of evidence as the 'Missing Spalding Manuscript' theory of the BoM.

Also...the Catalyst theory jives with my own personal experience and understanding as to how truth can be transmitted through a co-creative revelatory writing/pondering process.

Link to comment

Catalyst theory FTW.

Why? It's consistent with the translation methods of the Book of Mormon (plates were the Catalyst) and JST (KJV was the catalyst). I just don't think it's necessary for there to have been an actual Abraham manuscript (in modernity, or even antiquity), for such a valid volume of inspired scripture to be produced.

Plus, the 'Missing Papyrus Theory' seems to be just as tenuous and lacking of evidence as the 'Missing Spalding Manuscript' theory of the BoM.

Also...the Catalyst theory jives with my own personal experience and understanding as to how truth can be transmitted through a co-creative revelatory writing/pondering process.

While that might be true just looking at those scrolls we have now (can it even be called a scroll?) just seem so incomplete.

And I still don't see how KEP is that important. I think we think it is more important than Joseph Smith and crew thought. It wasn't canonized, ever. Why? Why not include it with the facimilies???

JMS

Link to comment
While that might be true just looking at those scrolls we have now (can it even be called a scroll?) just seem so incomplete.

And I still don't see how KEP is that important. I think we think it is more important than Joseph Smith and crew thought. It wasn't canonized, ever. Why? Why not include it with the facimilies???

JMS

Careful, Josh. Don't be surprised if a brand new poster appears to denounce the Missing Papyrus theory as a Mopologetic lie and everyone who ever advocated it -- including you -- as Mormon deceivers.

It'll just be Kevin Graham, the Lady Catherine de Bourgh of the Mormon-related boards, but he thinks only liars disagree with him.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

I just don't agree that the missing papyrus "theory" is off the table.

JMS

Nor do I. Is there another theory out there that is better? Probably. I have noodled about 3 theories and I think all have strong points.

Link to comment

For some people, they can have a simple faith in the BOA. In the end, you should pick whatever it is that helps you maintain faith.

Pick whatever explanation you like best.

This will be a good tentative thing until the actual truth is known.

The fact of the matter is, some apologetic approaches explain away evidence, or try to say something is a certain way without good foundation.

For people like me that want the best explanation for all the evidence at hand while trying to maintain a faithful explanation of that, we will continue on our way as well.

I got a bit contentious in the last thread, which is a character flaw of mine, but I really don't see how my presence in this thread beyond this one post will add any real substance to the conversation, when I already said all I had to say in the last thread. So I'm going to refuse to get seduced into this one, and end it here.

In the end, it is just the "choose ye this day" thing. Whatever helps you maintain your faith. Go ahead and believe it if it helps you.

Ed

Lets say KEP was the attempt by Joseph Smith and others to backtranslate the text. If he got the text wrong, it is easily possible that he got the Facimilies wrong too. He had the text, then he linked what he thought was the correct Facimilies to what he read in the text and tried to explain what he thought was connected to what.

If this is correct, the idea that there were more scroll peices including the possibility of a seperate scroll that was wrapped inside or outside the one that was recovered is still very possible. The only hard link between the text and the document is the facimilies. But if the Facimilies were guesswork of Joseph's and he just included it on his own, then the entire missing papyrus is still on the table.

We know that the Book of Mormon was a more visual translation method. If the same translation method or even something similar was done, than the papyrus wasn't even nessesary (like ultimately the golden plates were unnessesary). And if KEP itself was just a reverse engineering project, linking the Facimilies incorrectly could also be a byproduct of the same.

Or even alternatively, the original Facimilies could have been lost altogether, and Joseph Smith simply used the one on the known papyrus as a replacement.

I just don't agree that the missing papyrus "theory" is off the table.

JMS

Link to comment

Careful, Josh. Don't be surprised if a brand new poster appears to denounce the Missing Papyrus theory as a Mopologetic lie and everyone who ever advocated it -- including you -- as Mormon deceivers.

It'll just be Kevin Graham, the Lady Catherine de Bourgh of the Mormon-related boards, but he thinks only liars disagree with him.

Regards,

Pahoran

Well, don't you know anything about the Lady Catherine de Bourgh? She's so high, high above us.

Wait, that's Tai and not Kevin. Sorry.

Link to comment

The Facsimile 3 explanations clearly are not Egyptologically-correct translations of the labels in the vignette. So why assume that the rest of the BoA is any different? Why assume that the BoA is an Egyptologically-correct translation of a missing papyrus if all extant evidence suggests that Egyptological correctness was no part of JS's translation process?

Link to comment

Here I go again, getting sucked in.

Why stop there? Why then is the KEP, being a translation of textual ideograms, any different than the explanations for any of that text in Facsimile #3 or any of the text on Facsimile #2?

Cannot anyone besides me see the double standard evident among apologists on this matter?

I don't recall the Book of Abraham being canonical until the Pearl of Great Price was made canonical.

As far as I know, if the KEP had been finished, and wouldn't have been lost, it would have been canonized too.

it was just as much a translation activity as anything else, yet John Gee said we are not bound by it, so we can just ignore it. Geez.

The Facsimile 3 explanations clearly are not Egyptologically-correct translations of the labels in the vignette. So why assume that the rest of the BoA is any different? Why assume that the BoA is an Egyptologically-correct translation of a missing papyrus if all extant evidence suggests that Egyptological correctness was no part of JS's translation process?

Link to comment

The Facsimile 3 explanations clearly are not Egyptologically-correct translations of the labels in the vignette. So why assume that the rest of the BoA is any different? Why assume that the BoA is an Egyptologically-correct translation of a missing papyrus if all extant evidence suggests that Egyptological correctness was no part of JS's translation process?

Again, that assumes that JS did not just assume those were the ones referenced in the begining of the text and try on his own to label it. If he was using the wrong scroll in the collection, then your not forced to make the connection. If this is true, it is unprovable, unless we can directly question Joseph Smith and his scribes on exactly how the translation was done.

JMS

Link to comment

Also, to add, the KEP project obviously was not God driven if he went to go validate it with others. So as far as we know, God wasn't even happy with the entire KEP project, which is why it was never protected or canonized by the Church.

JMS

Link to comment

The Facsimile 3 explanations clearly are not Egyptologically-correct translations of the labels in the vignette.

The humor here is if Egyptology has an "ah-ha" moment and declares they found something that "fundementally changes" the translation process and suddenly Joseph Smith DID correctly translate Facsimile 3 correctly. Then what happens? :P

JMS

Lets not forget that some think that the "virgins" promised in the Koran could actually be "grapes" because of how close the two words are.

Link to comment

The Facsimile 3 explanations clearly are not Egyptologically-correct translations of the labels in the vignette. So why assume that the rest of the BoA is any different? Why assume that the BoA is an Egyptologically-correct translation of a missing papyrus if all extant evidence suggests that Egyptological correctness was no part of JS's translation process?

I am not convicned that JS was trying to translate the vignettes. Oh well.

Link to comment

Edited:

You are making a provocative statement, that provokes strong feelings in those who have intense beliefs to the contrary. And your claim is without basis.

You are claiming to know the mind of God with regard to the KEP.

Ed Goble

Also, to add, the KEP project obviously was not God driven if he went to go validate it with others. So as far as we know, God wasn't even happy with the entire KEP project, which is why it was never protected or canonized by the Church.

JMS

Link to comment

WOW! Holy shmoly. That's some claim. Not God driven. That is absolutely the most baseless claim I've heard on this whole subject to date. I mean, go ahead and believe that personally if you want. But my word, you have absolutely no evidence for that in the slightest.

Ed Goble

Ed,

Let's try to tone down the insulting tone, unless your fame is to drive threads into eventual lockdown mode.

And I actually gave a reason for my claim. Perhaps you should comment directly rather than generalized cast offs of others thoughts.

JMS

Link to comment

My claim: you have a baseless claim.

You are making a provocative statement, that provokes strong feelings in those who have intense beliefs to the contrary.

You are claiming to know the mind of God with regard to the KEP.

This you have no evidence for at all, only that you follow the suppositions of those who wanted to kill the KEP for the sake of easy apologetics. I lay the killing of the KEP squarely at the feet of apologists who wanted a quick and dirty way to get rid of them, and many apologists keep on with this same effort.

This is akin to Hugh Nibley trying to assign jealousy and other motivations for why Joseph Smith's scribes would try to outdo him in translation efforts, so as to assign responsibility for the KEP to those scribes, rather than to Joseph smith. Hugh Nibley led the charge in the killing of the KEP, not to mention inventing the name "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" for them so as to not have to call them Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. John Gee and William Schryver continue on proudly in the tradition.

Ed,

Let's try to tone down the insulting tone, unless your fame is to drive threads into eventual lockdown mode.

And I actually gave a reason for my claim. Perhaps you should comment directly rather than generalized cast offs of others thoughts.

JMS

Link to comment

I just think you are an angry person with a chip on your shoulder who needs mental help. Not interested in interacting with you because you are not interested in dialog, just shoveling your ideas down our throats then demand only you are smart enough to understand this issue.

Please stop plaguing my threads.

Link to comment
The Facsimile 3 explanations clearly are not Egyptologically-correct translations of the labels in the vignette. So why assume that the rest of the BoA is any different? Why assume that the BoA is an Egyptologically-correct translation of a missing papyrus if all extant evidence suggests that Egyptological correctness was no part of JS's translation process?

Because the Egyptians are well known for hiding history and changing the story to cover up embarrasing events, perhaps like the one where Abraham got away. From that alone, if one assumes the current translation to be incorrect, one has to wonder of there was a more original one.

Link to comment

It is absolutely certain that there are missing parts of the papyri. It isn't a theory. It is a fact. All one needs to do is look at the photographs, etc. in Rhodes' Books of the Dead Belonging to Tshemmin and Neferirnub (2010). This is not the question.

The question is whether the missing parts of the papyri (or extra entirely missing papyri) contained the BOA. Since those pieces are missing, there is no way to determine this.

We also all agree that JS interpretations of the facsimiles represents iconotropy--the intentionally or unintentionally reinterpretation of the iconography of one culture according to the iconographic norms of another culture. This is extraordinarily common phenomena in ancient cultures. The only question is whether JS engaged in iconotropy or whether an ancient author engaged in iconotropy, and JS correctly revealed an ancient Hebrew iconotropic interpretation of the facsimiles.

Link to comment

Let's take a step back now. I take full responsibility and I admit that I entirely overreacted and I ask you for your forgiveness. Can we start over again?

Ed Goble

I just think you are an angry person with a chip on your shoulder who needs mental help. Not interested in interacting with you because you are not interested in dialog, just shoveling your ideas down our throats then demand only you are smart enough to understand this issue.

Please stop plaguing my threads.

Link to comment

Bill,

The issue isn't about the fact that there are missing parts of the papyrus. Nobody is disputing that. When I say no missing papyrus, I am specifically talking about the Sensen Papyrus. The issue is about the key piece of the Sensen papyrus for which the KEP attempts to make translations of its ideograms and assigns Abrahamic meanings to them. This is the key thing, and it is not missing. This is why the apologetic efforts out of necessity attempt to distort this relationship and these facts.

You say the issue is about "iconotropy" of the Facsimiles as you term it. Yes, but the issue is about the iconotropy of the KEP and Sensen ideograms, as well, which is what the camp of apologists which doesn't include myself seems to be so intent on not admitting.

I constantly find myself becoming a target. I am entirely at fault for that, and need to humble myself, because I guess I say stupid things and react stupidly.

Ed Goble

It is absolutely certain that there are missing parts of the papyri. It isn't a theory. It is a fact. All one needs to do is look at the photographs, etc. in Rhodes' Books of the Dead Belonging to Tshemmin and Neferirnub (2010). This is not the question.

The question is whether the missing parts of the papyri (or extra entirely missing papyri) contained the BOA. Since those pieces are missing, there is no way to determine this.

We also all agree that JS interpretations of the facsimiles represents iconotropy--the intentionally or unintentionally reinterpretation of the iconography of one culture according to the iconographic norms of another culture. This is extraordinarily common phenomena in ancient cultures. The only question is whether JS engaged in iconotropy or whether an ancient author engaged in iconotropy, and JS correctly revealed an ancient Hebrew iconotropic interpretation of the facsimiles.

Link to comment

Bill,

The issue isn't about the fact that there are missing parts of the papyrus. Nobody is disputing that. When I say no missing papyrus, I am specifically talking about the Sensen Papyrus. The issue is about the key piece of the Sensen papyrus for which the KEP attempts to make translations of its ideograms and assigns Abrahamic meanings to them. This is the key thing, and it is not missing. This is why the apologetic efforts out of necessity attempt to distort this relationship and these facts.

You say the issue is about "iconotropy" of the Facsimiles as you term it. Yes, but the issue is about the iconotropy of the KEP and Sensen ideograms, as well, which is what the camp of apologists which doesn't include myself seems to be so intent on not admitting.

I constantly find myself becoming a target. I am entirely at fault for that, and need to humble myself, because I guess I say stupid things and react stupidly.

Ed Goble

It is not clear to me that the KEP were ever claimed as revelation, let alone scripture.

But be that as it may, you are talking about something different from the original post. I was responding to the original post. For the sake of clarity, it is best to keep this issues distinct, rather than conflate them.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...