Exploring The Kep Anyone?

[Loran Blood]

Wade wrote, in a waning thread:

Is anyone else interested in exploring the texts of the KEP to determine if there may be indications of a pre-existing BoA translation?

Yes. As someone who's knowledge of this particular issue in BofA apologetics is broad but fragmentary, I'd like to see a thread open up in which we could look at, point by point, the entire range of KEP issues in some kind of order, look at how they relate to one another, and at the relative cogency/uncertainty in the arguments underlying the positions of both sides.

I would especially like to explore why the critic's "translation in progress" theory (the KEP as an intermediary translation tool) of the meaning and purpose of the KEP just doesn't stand up on its own two feet well.

[Loran Blood]

For whatever odd reason, even though I typed "KEP" in the title in capitals, the 'e' and the 'p' came up in small case. That's why I re-posted the post.

No biggie.

[LeSellers]

For whatever odd reason, even though I typed "KEP" in the title in capitals, the 'e' and the 'p' came up in small case. That's why I re-posted the post.

Even though artificial intelligence beats no intelligence, it is not without its problems.

The software here automatically "cases" letters according to its algorithm. The headline of any topic suffers from this, and a subhead does, too, although in different ways.

Any letter following punctuaation is capitalized Thus we get "Church'S, rather than Church's.

No letter except an initial letter is capitalized, thus Kep, not KEP, and Lds, instead of LDS.

Lehi

Edited August 3, 2011 by LeSellers

[Loran Blood]

Even though artificial intelligence beats no intelligence, it is not without its problems.

The software here automatically "cases" letters according to its algorithm. The headline of any topic suffers from this, and a subhead does, too, although in different ways.

Any letter following punctuaation is capitalized Thus we get "Church'S, rather than Church's.

No letter except an initial letter is capitalized, thus Kep, not KEP, and Lds, instead of LDS.

Lehi

As Mr. Spock used to say so eloquently, "Fascinating."

[Mortal Man]

Is anyone else interested in exploring the texts of the KEP to determine if there may be indications of a pre-existing BoA translation?

There is nothing in the texts of the KEP to indicate a pre-existing BoA translation (other than the account in Genesis and various ideas from Antiquities, Philosophy, Proclus etc.).

On the other hand, there are numerous indications (historical and documentary) that there could not have been a pre-existing text. The earliest manuscripts show that Joseph was looking at the characters and images on the Hor scroll to form his translation. To begin seeing this, you can answer this question.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is nothing in the texts of the KEP to indicate a pre-existing BoA translation (other than the account in Genesis and various ideas from Antiquities, Philosophy, Proclus etc.).

On the other hand, there are numerous indications (historical and documentary) that there could not have been a pre-existing text. The earliest manuscripts show that Joseph was looking at the characters and images on the Hor scroll to form his translation. To begin seeing this, you can answer this question.

I fail to see the relevance between that question and the on regarding the KEP. Sigh I fear others have been down this road before.

[Nomad]

There is nothing in the texts of the KEP to indicate a pre-existing BoA translation (other than the account in Genesis and various ideas from Antiquities, Philosophy, Proclus etc.).

More argument by assertion. From what I have seen, that is the only form counter arguments to the Schryver thesis have taken.

On the other hand, there are numerous indications (historical and documentary) that there could not have been a pre-existing text.

No there aren't.

(I can see why you like the argument by assertion thing so much! It makes these debates so much easier for you.)

The earliest manuscripts show that Joseph was looking at the characters and images on the Hor scroll to form his translation.

The "earliest" manuscripts? What might those be? Because I don't think anyone would argue that there are KEP documents that pre-date the EAG, and I sure can't see where they use "characters and images on the Hor scroll".

But, from what I've seen, a good part of the critic's arguments about this stuff depend on being able to put BS over on people who don't know much about the details of this stuff. They're preaching to their own choir, for the most part. And the way they do it is just by acting, as a group, as though things John Gee and Will Schryver and others have argued are just not worthy of any serious consideration. It's really interesting to watch, in a lot of ways. But whenever I have taken the time to really look seriously into the details of things, I have found that Gee and Schryver and others are always making really good points, and that the critics never engage those points. In a lot of ways, it's the weirdest and most frustrating debate going on about Mormon-related things, because so much of what passes for arguments is really just rhetoric and propaganda. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[Mortal Man]

I fail to see the relevance between that question and the on regarding the KEP.

Wade's questions, as quoted by Loran, was

Is anyone else interested in exploring the texts of the KEP to determine if there may be indications of a pre-existing BoA translation?

I have been doing precisely that for the past few years, so yes, I would be interested in discussing this issue with someone familiar with the documents. I am not interested, however, in dragging anyone kicking and screaming through the evidence. So as a bare minimal test to see who here might be worth engaging, I posed the straightforward question: "If there was a pre-existing BoA translation then what would the names of the four canopic jars have been in the missing manuscript?" Anyone reasonably familiar with the translation manuscripts would recognize the relevance of this question to Wade's question. To further simplify, I'll ask an even easier question:

What are the names of the four sons of Horus as first written in the extant manuscripts?

Sigh I fear others have been down this road before.

Yes, but not very far. William took one baby step but could go no further.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Mortal Man

[altersteve]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is KEP?

[Ahab]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is KEP?

The word is actually kelp. and it's a type of plant that is found in the sea.

I don't know what the big deal about capital letters is all about, though.

KELP or kelp. Either way, it's all kelp.

[wenglund]

I have been doing precisely that for the past few years, so yes, I would be interested in discussing this issue with someone familiar with the documents.

Excellent.

I am not interested, however, in dragging anyone kicking and screaming through the evidence. So as a bare minimal test to see who here might be worth engaging, I posed the straightforward question: "If there was a pre-existing BoA translation then what would the names of the four canopic jars have been in the missing manuscript?"

I can't be certain how much of the alleged missing manuscript was written prior to production commencing on the EA's and/or GAEL, and how much of it may have been written during the course of the EA/GAEL production.

However, were I to guess in answer to your question, I can't speak to the names of the Coptic Jars, but the names of the God's of the heathens possibly mentioned in the missing BoA Mss (though conspicuously absent from the EA and GAEL), I suspect were: Elk-Kiner, I am not sure about the second name, Mah mack rah, and the God of Pharoah.

I hope I passed your test.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is KEP?

Kirtland Egyptian Papers, see here if you need more info: http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php?title=Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers&oldid=81891

[Nomad]

What are the names of the four sons of Horus as first written in the extant manuscripts?

... William took one baby step but could go no further.

I hope people check out the thread you referenced. It was one of the best debates ever on this message board. Not only was the questioned answered, but the critic's position was turned on its head. Great thread. I recommend it.

[Vance]

Yes, but not very far. William took one baby step but could go no further.

Has Brent Metcalfe published his theories yet?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am not interested, however, in dragging anyone kicking and screaming through the evidence.

Actually what it seems is that you don't want a debate.

[Xander]

Actually what it seems is that you don't want a debate.

Debate? Here? With people who know so, so very little about these documents?

Seriously?

And who would be having this debate with Mortal Man, anyway?

You? Wade? Loran? Nomad?

I've tried to educate wade on this matter profusely over the past couple of years, enduring his interrogation process that usually consists of roughly 4,382 questions while answering none directed at him. On the other forum there are a half dozen threads pertaining to something resembling a "debate" where it became embarrassingly clear how little he and his buddies, Loran and Nomad know about this subject. Not too long ago wade insisted the facsimiles had nothing to do with the KEP. Nephi has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, so what's the point trying to "debate" someone with so little knowledge on the subject? He also had no idea about the existence of Joseph Smith's "specimen" containing the pure language, which subsequently appeared in Phelp's letter to his wife. You see, he and Schryver were so adamant about pointing to the letter as evidence that Phelps was the source for this pure language business. But when I mentioned that it derived from Joseph Smith's own translation, wade was clueless. So I provided an image of the document, only to be confronted with more confusion on his part, as he had no idea that this document was readily available from *gasp* a non-anti-Mormon website promoting the Joseph Smith papers. Of course this document was brought to Will's attention years ago when he was waving the Phelp's letter in everyone's face as proof that Phelps was the mind behind the madness, but wade hadn't kept pace with the progression of the "debate" as it had transpired on the two forums. I recommend googling "KEP: a quasi-forensic non-theory-ladened, analysis" which was a thread started by wade many months ago. Particularly page five of that thread. While wade's knowledge level on the subject is poor, I have to give him credit for at least being the only LDS apologist currently willing to "discuss" the issue, diving head first with eyes wide open.

On the other hand, there is Loran. A few years ago he posted as Coggins and attacked me on the other forum for daring to question the veracity of the BoA, insisting that every "anti-Mormon" complaint had been "dealt with" on numerous occasions; you know, the standard myth. He then started regurgitating some of the oldest and poorest apologetic responses, as he scrolled outdated FARMS articles and relayed Gee and Rhodes. When I pointed out how some of these had been refuted and even abandoned by their authors, he then ran over to this forum to illicit help from anyone who knew enough about this topic. He posted there as Coggins and posted his request as Loran over here, hoping no one would realize they were one and the same. The point is, he plea for help from ANYONE who knew ANYTHING was all I needed to know that he was a poser who only pretended to be adequately informed on this subject. But someone adequately informed would never make this ridiculous statement: "We do not know that the hypocephalus was the source of the BofA. That is pure conjecture; it is a theory that has been plausibly answered for a generation or more."

No, it has never been "plausibly answered" because it was never "plausibly questioned." These people just make it all up as they go along, pretending to have the faintest idea what the "debate" was ever about to begin with.

And, all the while these "debates" are taking place, more and more apologists pop in with questions like "What the heck are the KEP" only to return a week later as armchair experts after reading a few apologetic pieces.

This summarizes what has taken place on online BoA/KEP "debates" since 2006, when William Schryver first attacked me for stating my views when he had no earthly idea what the KEP were. He thought the KEP were synonymous with the Joseph Smith papyri! When I corrected his misunderstanding, he responded indignantly by telling me he assures us that he has studied the KEP extensively.... someone should have told him the KEP had not been studied by anyone (even John Gee) at that time since they weren't available to anyone. It would have saved him from making such a bold and embarrassing claim. Now this same guy appears to be the leading apologetic authority on the matter, and he refuses to come forward and debate the critics or respond to critical feedback about his presentations.

So, I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate a working knowledge of the relevant documents before taking them seriously. I've wasted enough time, enough precious hours, trying to educate the posers who do little more than relay old FARMS articles and Schryver videos. So I can empathize with Mortal Man here.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Xander

[BCSpace]

Until the missing papyri show up, one really can't attack or defend the BoA in any serious way. Even criticism of the interpretation of a facsimile can't be accomplished without this context. All the critics have is hopeful speculation and apologists need not try and defend it other than to point it out.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Debate? Here? With people who know so, so very little about these documents?

Seriously?

And who would be having this debate with Mortal Man, anyway?

You? Wade? Loran? Nomad?

I am so sick an tired of your elitist mentality. I confess to not know quite as much as others but some people here seem to have quite a grasp on this subject and I try to follow along. They seem to even run circles around you.

So color me unimpressed. And MM could not even answer my simple question. Instead he ranted and you continued to do so were he left off with little substance.

BTW if I wanted an opinion piece I would run to Media Matters.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Loran Blood]

Debate? Here? With people who know so, so very little about these documents?

Seriously?

And who would be having this debate with Mortal Man, anyway?

You? Wade? Loran? Nomad?

I've tried to educate wade on this matter profusely over the past couple of years, enduring his interrogation process that usually consists of roughly 4,382 questions while answering none directed at him. On the other forum there are a half dozen threads pertaining to something resembling a "debate" where it became embarrassingly clear how little he and his buddies, Loran and Nomad know about this subject. Not too long ago wade insisted the facsimiles had nothing to do with the KEP. Nephi has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, so what's the point trying to "debate" someone with so little knowledge on the subject? He also had no idea about the existence of Joseph Smith's "specimen" containing the pure language, which subsequently appeared in Phelp's letter to his wife. You see, he and Schryver were so adamant about pointing to the letter as evidence that Phelps was the source for this pure language business. But when I mentioned that it derived from Joseph Smith's own translation, wade was clueless. So I provided an image of the document, only to be confronted with more confusion on his part, as he had no idea that this document was readily available from *gasp* a non-anti-Mormon website promoting the Joseph Smith papers. Of course this document was brought to Will's attention years ago when he was waving the Phelp's letter in everyone's face as proof that Phelps was the mind behind the madness, but wade hadn't kept pace with the progression of the "debate" as it had transpired on the two forums. I recommend googling "KEP: a quasi-forensic non-theory-ladened, analysis" which was a thread started by wade many months ago. Particularly page five of that thread. While wade's knowledge level on the subject is poor, I have to give him credit for at least being the only LDS apologist currently willing to "discuss" the issue, diving head first with eyes wide open.

On the other hand, there is Loran. A few years ago he posted as Coggins and attacked me on the other forum for daring to question the veracity of the BoA, insisting that every "anti-Mormon" complaint had been "dealt with" on numerous occasions; you know, the standard myth. He then started regurgitating some of the oldest and poorest apologetic responses, as he scrolled outdated FARMS articles and relayed Gee and Rhodes. When I pointed out how some of these had been refuted and even abandoned by their authors, he then ran over to this forum to illicit help from anyone who knew enough about this topic. He posted there as Coggins and posted his request as Loran over here, hoping no one would realize they were one and the same. The point is, his plea for help from ANYONE who knew ANYTHING was all I needed to know that he was a poser who only pretended to be adequately informed on this subject. But someone adequately informed would never make this ridiculous statement: "We do not know that the hypocephalus was the source of the BofA. That is pure conjecture; it is a theory that has been plausibly answered for a generation or more."

No, it has never been "plausibly answered" because it was never "plausibly questioned." These people just make it all up as they go along, pretending to have the faintest idea what the "debate" was ever about to begin with.

So, I'm still waiting for someone to demonstrate a working knowledge of the relevant documents before taking them seriously. I've wasted enough time, enough precious hours, trying to educate the posers who do little more than relay old FARMS articles and Schryver videos. So I can empathize with Mortal Man here.

1. The above, given the source and his history of debate on this subject, here and in another forum, in which this source's posterior has been handed to him on numerous occasions and who has been severely criticized for exactly the reasons he has elucidated above regarding several of us here - that he doesn't really understand much regarding what he's talking about (though he very much thinks he does) and he does not have access to the relevant primary sources - is a fascinating exercise in both multiple ironies and projection the likes of which few other than this individual would dare attempt with such brazenness.

2. A major criticism, perhaps when Kevin was in diapers but well known when I was in High School, was that the hypocephelus (facsimile 2), or Book of Breathings, had nothing to do, as its translation apparently made clear, with the actual text of the BofA. This encompassed much of the original criticism that arose over the Book of Breathings relative to the BofA over forty years ago when the remains of the Joseph Smith papyri were made available to the Church. Dee Jay Nelson built a brief anti-Mormon career around this problem.

Years ago when I made the statement Kevin sources above, I had little understanding of the KEP issue and was arguing along other lines. My primary mindset then, in other words, was the criticism of the BofA relative to the hypocephalus and its various vignettes (in which our own Kerry Shirts had done a great deal of work in the past) not the KEP. Graham et al were already preoccupied with the KEP, seeing in it and the wide conjectural field of historical reconstruction its ambiguous and undocumented nature present the best chance available to flummox the apologetic community. To say "We do not know that the hypocephalus was the source of the BofA" was just to make clear that what I believed was still the primary argument - that the translation of the Book of Breathings showed it to be a Book of Breathings of the standard, albeit in its case, unique - type, and that therefore Joseph was a fraud, had, given the LDS scholarship I had previously seen on the topic, little to write home about. There were clearly a number of other documents, now not extant, to account for (and this, ironically again, still looms large in the present KEP broo-hah-hah). At that time, that's what I still thought the major argument boiled down to (and, given the really large quantity of texts multiple eyewitnesses report having seen in the 19th century, still casts a long and deep shadow over the critic's KEP fascination, just as it did over the Book of Breathings focus of several decades ago).

I was just thinking past Kevin at that, point, in other words, and was at that time not really interested in the whole KEP problem.

3. Yes, I came here (how Kevin knows I "ran" here I"m not sure. I think I was actually in my stocking feet when this occured) looking for a better understanding and and knowledge of BofA issues. Where better to come? And why not? Kevin and others at the other board, who I will not mention here, have always treated this as a sign of intellectual and characterological defect (that I came to a message board of which I was already a member, loaded with both degreed scholars and autodidacts with long and substantive expertise on this subject) for deeper education in this area. Why is this a defect of character?

3. I did not post here as Coggins because I didn't want anybody to know who I was. I had been of and on the MADboard since its inception as "Coggins" and, when I rejoined the board in the early 2000nds, I reinstated the name. I was "Droopy" at the Trailerpark because I like Droopy, and Coggins here because I had always been (this is my wife's Irish heritage -the Coggins branch).

No, I don't want to get banned from reading this thread, which I started, so I'll just have my say here and move on. However, I should note that "Xander's" presense here is almost certainly tilted in provoking responses that will move the thread off the rails. In an old cartoon I used to watch as a kid, called Breezly Bruin, about a polar bear, they always used to say, "Where there's Breezly, there's brawling." LIke unto this, it is inevitable that, where there's Kevin, there's contention.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

There is nothing in the texts of the KEP to indicate a pre-existing BoA translation (other than the account in Genesis and various ideas from Antiquities, Philosophy, Proclus etc.).

This is something I've wanted to explore for sometime, and which would be interesting to look at given its apparant prominance among critics. The environmental determinist approach to the range of parallels to known ancient traditions, ideas, and motifs regarding Abraham (and other doctrinal concepts) has traditionally been one of ascertaining whether a book was plausibly or known to be within Joseph's cultural environment at the time, or whether a body of ideas was "in the air" in his day, and extrapolating from that that Joseph must have then had access to, or borrowed directly from, those sources.

No documentary evidence exists for any of these inferences, but the leap from "It was in Joseph's environment" to "Joseph took this idea from" seems plausible on the surface, so long as one cleaves to a purly naturalistic explanation for most or all of Joseph's claims. The Josephus claims seem stronger because some ideas and traditions used in the BofA do appear, it would seem, in Josephus, but the question is, to what extent and with what particular relevance?

In other words, how much of the Abraham material in the BofA could have been lifted and modified directly from Josephus, and how much cannot be accounted for in that work, but can only be accounted for in apocryphal/pseudepigraphal works that only became known long after Joseph's time?

Nibley, of course, did a lot of work in this area, showing the unusually clear and specific parallels to the BofA across a number of ancient Near Eastern texts. That Josephus echos some of these texts, we might expect, but how much of Josephus is really of use to critics, and where must Josephus "bow out" as a source for the BofA Abraham traditions?

Edited August 5, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Xander]

There is a valid reason why so many threads started by wade and Loran don't ever go anywhere. In most cases, most of the "replies" come from themselves.

Here is more from Loran's in-depth knowledge on this matter:

All we have is the Joseph Smith Papyri, 11 fragments from what is known to have been a much larger collection, the Sensen text, which is not known, (except in anti-Mormon theoretical structures) to be directly related to the BofA in a direct textual way, and the Book of the Dead fragments. Bare assertions of facts that do not exist and the confusion of theory and hypothesis with certainty bodes ill for your analysis. Eyewitnesses saw and described long rolls of papery which contained scriptural writings, papyri and writings we do not have. Your claim above is a patent falsehood. Direct, eyewitness accounts indicate much greater material existing in the nineteenth century.

How you refute direct, eyewitness testimony of the handling of empirical objects I'm not sure, but your way over stating the degree of certainty in your case to the point of disingenuity. We have only a tiny fraction of this today, and since we don't know as a matter of fact that the book of breathings was the source (indeed, Joseph never claimed it was), the critics claims, thought they may be plausible in a strictly intellectual way, cannot be conclusively be demonstrated with any degree of certainty.

Recently, I illustrated the fact that the Sensen text was assumed to be the original source for the Book of Abraham by virtually all the Mormon scholars involved at the time the document was rediscovered in 1967. Only after they realized it had nothing to do with Abraham, did it necessarily have to be abandoned, and turned into an "anti-Mormon claim" just to scare believers away from it. But aside from that, we have the Book of Abraham Abr 1:12-15 referencing the Sensen Text explicitly. But for Loran this constitutes some "anti-Mormon theoretical structure." Loran goes on with his impressive prose:

Indeed, outside of anti-Mormon polemical circles, it is actually doubtful that the present papyri have a direct connection to the Abraham text.

Translation: only within the LDS apologetic circle does anyone believe the papyri has no connection to the Book of Abraham. Everyone else must be anti-Mormon.

We do have facsimile 1, but that's the end of any clear connection. Contrary to your assertions, critic's claims that the BofA is a direct translation from the KEP, including entire sentences or paragraphs from single characters, has been debunked by LDS scholarship for quite sometime now.

Oh, but you didn't know that...

Because it isn't true. The extent of the argument presented by "LDS Scholarship" amounts to Hugh Nibley's bald assertion that Joseph Smith wouldn't have thought one character could produce multiple words or sentences. His evidence? None. But this is just another reason to distrust LDS scholarship on this subject, since his assertion flies in the face of David Whitmer's eye-witness testimony of the Book of Mormon translation process. He said, "frequently one character would make two lines of manuscript." This means the evidence from the KEP is strengthened even further, as it identifies the Sensen text as the source for the Book of Abraham.

After refuting his bald assertions, Loran decided he'd have to get help from someone here, so he went to this posting as Loran, with his plea for help from anyone he could recruit. He called me condescending and arrogant too as if I were the one launching illicit attacks. I'm condescending and arrogant because I know what I'm talking about? Suffice it to say Loran didn't get anyone to help him out at here probably because they didn't have the heart to tell him that his apologetic is outdated, and was once defended and subsequently refuted by the guy he's currently debating (moi).

Fast forward to a few years, and Loran is on this forum arguing with Ed Goble on the same subject, except this time he is regurgitating Hugh Nibley's discredited "rubrics" argument. It has become clear now that Droop/Loran/Coggins researches nothing for himself. His education on this is based strictly on "LDS scholarship" that he mines from the FARMS website, just as his political tripe is whatever he can dig out of Heritage or Mises.org. He has no original thought on this matter. It is truly scary that someone claiming to be a defender of the Book of Abraham could be so oblivious of the prevailing arguments over the last decade, and know which ones have been abandoned and which ones are still in use. The red writing argument is no longer supported by a single LDS scholar. Not one. But no matter, Loran found an old Nibley article and he thinks it has to stand the test of time simply because it is "LDS scholarship":

Joseph himself, of course, described the condition of the papyri in his possession as "'The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is (1) beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and (2) a small part red, ink or paint, (3) in perfect preservation.'...

The present textual remains are utterly devoid of rubrics and, unlike the documents Joseph described, are in a poor state of preservation. Other 19th century witnesses attest to the presence of both red and black characters comprising different parts of the documents extent at the time.

Again, this is a misrepresentation of the documents that Nibley once told, but we know now that the extant papyri do in fact contain rubrics. This is important because it not only shows how ignorant Loran really is on this matter, but it forces him to do a cognitive back-flip once Goble points it out. Loran then turns around and forgets he was just refuted and says:

You're claiming then, that the Sensen text contains rubrics? That, after all, is the document that critics have traditionally held to be the source of the BofA.

No, he is claiming you're ignorant since you originally stated: "The present textual remains are utterly devoid of rubrics." Joseph Smith never said the Book of Abraham derived from the portion containing rubrics. This was another trick by Nibley in his misuse of the ellipses. William Appleby observed, "there is a perceptible difference between the writings [of Abraham and Joseph]. Joseph appears to have been the best scribe."

Since the rubrics are on the papyrus that is better preserved, then that leaves the Sensen text (poorly preserved) to be the Book of Abraham, which makes sense since that is what Abr 1:12-16 and the KEP project identify as the source. The whole time Nibley was trying to imply the Book of Abraham was on a beautifully preserved scroll with red ink, but that isn't what the evidence suggests and he completely twisted the testimony to make it sound like it supported his thesis. If Loran disagrees, then let him explain why no one in LDS scholarship follows Nibley's argument any longer. It was Ed Ashment who refuted Nibley on this point by presenting the full context of the eye-witness description, way back in 1990. Ever since then the apologists have distanced themselves from Nibley's argument. All except Loran, who is too disinterested in the subject to realize his preferred group of scholars have failed miserably on this argument.

But there is more yet. The size of the scroll (size does matter) remains a problem for the critics due to the eyewitness accounts detailing a significantly larger corpus of material than exists at the present time.

This is another canard that has been well refuted ever since WIll Schryver misrepresented source documents in order to multiply and exaggerate the evidence for multiple and long rolls. No one from the apologetic camp has tried to defend it, especially Schryver.

The point of course, is that there are valid reasons why those who know more about this subject, tend to ignore folks like wade and Loran. Don't see this as evidence that we're just too "afraid" to debate. We've been doing this for years with them on the other forum, but to no avail. Dragging them kicking and screaming through the evidence was a very apt way of putting it.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Xander

[Mortal Man]

However, were I to guess in answer to your question, I can't speak to the names of the Coptic Jars, but the names of the God's of the heathens possibly mentioned in the missing BoA Mss (though conspicuously absent from the EA and GAEL), I suspect were: Elk-Kiner, I am not sure about the second name, Mah mack rah, and the God of Pharoah.

I hope I passed your test.

Congratulations Wade, you passed. I was looking for "Pharaoh", which William unfortunately missed.

Now why do you suppose that JS originally identified Imsety/Ko[r]ash as "a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt"?

[Mortal Man]

And MM could not even answer my simple question.

Hi Mola,

You and I usually get along pretty well on this board, so I was surprised and puzzled by your comment.

Please allow me to point out that you have not yet asked any questions in this thread, so I'm not sure what I couldn't answer.

Instead he ranted and you continued to do so were he left off with little substance.

My "rant" as it were, was not in any way directed at you; however, I can see how it may have come off that way.

I meant no offense and I certainly don't consider you personally guilty of any "kicking or screaming". I was only venting my frustration with the general

apologetic state of affairs with KEP research.

I replied to your comment because you're usually a pretty good sport about indulging my little quizzes. I hope I haven't put you off.

FWIW, I consider you a friend.

MM

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hi Mola,

You and I usually get along pretty well on this board, so I was surprised and puzzled by your comment.

Please allow me to point out that you have not yet asked any questions in this thread, so I'm not sure what I couldn't answer.

My "rant" as it were, was not in any way directed at you; however, I can see how it may have come off that way.

I meant no offense and I certainly don't consider you personally guilty of any "kicking or screaming". I was only venting my frustration with the general

apologetic state of affairs with KEP research.

I replied to your comment because you're usually a pretty good sport about indulging my little quizzes. I hope I haven't put you off.

FWIW, I consider you a friend.

MM

MM Forgive me. I acted hastily and had an error in judgment. Lets start over. I would like to get into this. The only thing I need is small chunks. I do consider you a friend as well. I think you have some serious wit that is unmatched. And you make some great points too.

I think my question was more of a statement that I was hoping for further clarification. I do not understand the relevance of your question that you asked earlier were you linked to an old thread in the pundits forum.

I will answer your question with the knowledge that I posses.

But first, are you wanting an answer of what Egyptologists say what the jars are or are you wanting what the PoGP says the jars represent?

[Loran Blood]

After refuting his bald assertions, Loran decided he'd have to get help from someone here, so he went to this posting as Loran, with his plea for help from anyone he could recruit.

I came here to "recruit" sycophants. I see.

He called me condescending and arrogant too as if I were the one launching illicit attacks.

As this very post attests, you egomaniacal condescension and arrogance are core aspects of your personality, and are not confined to any specific argument. I'm now convinced that you don't even understand the older augments surrounding the BofA/hypocephalus connection, let along Will's more recent forays.

I'm condescending and arrogant because I know what I'm talking about? Suffice it to say Loran didn't get anyone to help him out at here probably because they didn't have the heart to tell him that his apologetic is outdated, and was once defended and subsequently refuted by the guy he's currently debating (moi).

The fact of the matter is that Will's theoretical model has yet to be "refuted" by anyone, let alone a third rate polemicist like Xander (all of us, from Nomad to Wade to Mola to me are still looking for this "refutation," and all we ever get is Kevin's assurance that it has).

Fast forward to a few years, and Loran is on this forum arguing with Ed Goble on the same subject, except this time he is regurgitating Hugh Nibley's discredited "rubrics" argument. It has become clear now that Droop/Loran/Coggins researches nothing for himself.

No, I don't, and have no conceivable way to do so as I have neither the time, nor the money, nor the access to primary documents that this would require. My knowledge, like yours, relies upon the primary research of others.

And?

His education on this is based strictly on "LDS scholarship" that he mines from the FARMS website,

In other words, I do a lot of reading, and my conclusions and views are not shared with critics of the Church like yourself.

just as his political tripe is whatever he can dig out of Heritage or Mises.org.

I wonder what kind of discourse this provocation is intended to incite?

Just wondering.

He has no original thought on this matter.

Well, I do, but its not in the realm of the text critical problems, which I find to be both a bit dry at this point, to be frank.

It is truly scary that someone claiming to be a defender of the Book of Abraham could be so oblivious of the prevailing arguments over the last decade, and know which ones have been abandoned and which ones are still in use. The red writing argument is no longer supported by a single LDS scholar. Not one. But no matter, Loran found an old Nibley article and he thinks it has to stand the test of time simply because it is "LDS scholarship":

I'm perfectly willing to admit I was wrong on this or that point (as the vast majority of these points are clearly in the conjectural/theoretical realm, and are not the fundamental manner in which the BofA is known to be an authentic ancient text, and none of which can prove or disprove its legitimacy) but clearly, your ad hominem ravings against me regarding the hypocephalus are misplaced. I wouldn't argue that the hypocephalus has no relevance to the BofA, just that it was not the translation document, just as the claim that the KEP represents translation documents from which the BofA was derived are not particularly strong, and never have been.

I'd actually like some comment regarding the status of the rubrics aspect of the question from some others here with a perhaps a greater knowledge of it than Xander and who I would trust not to withhold evidence not conducive to their own viewpoint.

This is another canard that has been well refuted ever since WIll Schryver misrepresented source documents in order to multiply and exaggerate the evidence for multiple and long rolls. No one from the apologetic camp has tried to defend it, especially Schryver.

So here you call out Will as a bald liar once again. Can you put up or shut up on this for a change? How did Will "misrepresent" his sources? Keep in mind that alternate interpretations, or the fact that your interpretation does not agree with his does not allow you to cry "Liar!" at a scholar who has done extensive work with sources and documents that you have never seen and have no access to, and who has interpreted them in a way that you find threatening.

The point of course, is that there are valid reasons why those who know more about this subject, tend to ignore folks like wade and Loran.

Let's see where this goes. Its Friday night, and Graham is uptight (and highly self conscious regarding his own intellectual abilities, as all of this is clearly indicative).

Edited August 5, 2011 by Loran Blood