William Schryver Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 You've got to be kidding!!POT or KETTLEYou can choose one or the other, but not the color.For the sake of discussion, let's say I choose KETTLE.Explain to me why it is you always seem to give credence to the POT?What does that say about you?...In any event, our measurements of the papyri were not dependent on a piece of paper laid over the top of the mylar-encased papyrus, upon which a pencil was used to trace the lacunae edges. Our measurements of the lacunae are accurate to at least .5 mm. Our measurements of the papyrus thickness are accurate to at least .01 mm (10 μ). 2
hammermil405 Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) I know from my university studies a little about the Egiptian text and language. I have also read parts of the BoA, There are an increadible amounts of in accuracys in the translation by JS. I am also a seeker of the TRUTH. One thing I have learned about the truth is that there are 2 sides to it. To know the truth is to listen to each side not just one. I would invite everyone to watch this video and then to pray and ask God for the truth.link removedRead our board rules before you post again. Do not post links to sites that contain temple content. Edited October 15, 2011 by Minos
Senator Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) For the sake of discussion, let's say I choose KETTLE.Explain to me why it is you always seem to give credence to the POT?What does that say about you?...In any event, our measurements of the papyri were not dependent on a piece of paper laid over the top of the mylar-encased papyrus, upon which a pencil was used to trace the lacunae edges. Our measurements of the lacunae are accurate to at least .5 mm. Our measurements of the papyrus thickness are accurate to at least .01 mm (10 μ).Your absolutely correct. My use of this particular idiom was entirely inapropriate. For having done so implies that I think that there is a shared likeness between you and Chris... and that's not fair to Chris. You are suspended for 3 days. This is your second post of nothing but insults. Edited October 15, 2011 by Minos
ToGo Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Does the video explain why non-LDS Egyptologists disagree with the Joseph Smith translation of the papyri? Is it passed off as those non-LDS Eqyptologists being tricked by the devil?
William Schryver Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Your absolutely correct. My use of this particular idiom was entirely inapropriate. For having done so implies that I think that there is a shared likeness between you and Chris... You're absolutely correct. There is no "shared likeness" between the two of us. I would never choose to become a career anti-Mormon like Chris Smith, Mike Reed, Dan Vogel, et al. have done. It's just not in my nature.
wenglund Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 As I see it, the conventions of effective discourse and critical thought in relation to the question of the Book of Abraham are such that it leaves ample room for reasoned disagreement and faith, and little room for dogmatism and no real room for accusation of lying. Yet, a certain party manages persistently to do just the opposite. Ya gotta luv him.Anyway, mention has been made that the DVD ignores or downplays several of the most powerful arguments against the Book of Abraham as a divinely inspired translation. Perhaps it may prove beneficial were the accusing parties to list here, one by one, and open for discussion, these most powerful counter-arguments, beginning with the most powerful.Granted, the argument over scroll length has already been mentioned, but it might be best to wait on that one until Will's article has been published. So, what is next?Thanks, -Wade Englund-
wenglund Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 How does the DVD explain the KEP?It is my understanding that the DVD was about the Book of Abraham and not the KEP. As such, if the producers and participants in the DVD do not presume that the Book of Abraham was a derivative of the KEP, then they would have little reason to pay it much mind.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Sleeper Cell Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Ares, if what I say is true, then all of the highlighted comments are justified and appropriate. Actually, even if the highlighted comments were true and justified, your critique of the DVD would be much more effective without them. Otherwise, a casual reader might get the impression that your critique is motivated more by personal animosity than by your scholarship.
ToGo Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) It is my understanding that the DVD was about the Book of Abraham and not the KEP. As such, if the producers and participants in the DVD do not presume that the Book of Abraham was a derivative of the KEP, then they would have little reason to pay it much mind.Thanks, -Wade Englund-I thought the DVD was a defense against criticisms of the Book of Abraham. My understanding is that one of the key criticisms is that the KEP ties the Book of Abraham text to the Egyptian characters on the papyrus found. Seems to be a glaring omission for a defense of the Book of Abraham to not address the problems created by the KEP.Without Will Schryver willing to be interviewed for the DVD, did FAIR have no other explanation to include regarding the KEP criticism? Edited October 15, 2011 by ToGo
William Schryver Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) My understanding is that one of the key criticisms is that the KEP ties the Book of Abraham text to the Egyptian characters on the papyrus found.I don't think anyone has ever denied that the characters in the left hand column of manuscripts Ab2 and Ab3 of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers* consist of (for the most part) hieratic characters drawn from the Document of Fellowship** portion of the extant papyrus.What of it?Are you sure you even understand the significance of the argument?* = The name "Kirtland Egyptian Papers" is now considered obsolete. "Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers" is correct.** = "Book of Breathings" is also considered obsolete. The accurate full name of the text in question is Document of Fellowship Written by Isis for Her Brother. Edited October 15, 2011 by William Schryver
wenglund Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) I thought the DVD was a defense against criticisms of the Book of Abraham. My understanding is that one of the key criticisms is that the KEP ties the Book of Abraham text to the Egyptian characters on the papyrus found. Seems to be a glaring omission for a defense of the Book of Abraham to not address the problems created by the KEP.As previously intimated, It would only be a "key criticism" were the alleged "ties" thought to be relevant to the production of the Book of Abraham, rather than incidental to or a product thereof. To the minds of the producers of and participants in the DVD, it evidently isn't viewed as a "key issue" because they apparently don't view the Book of Abraham as a product of the KEP. In recent times, at best the critics have been able to argue is that a few more than 3 verses of all the Book of Abraham were translated using the KEP. So, with so little in play, and the presumed lack of persuasive arguments even for that, it makes sense for the parties involved not to view the KEP as a "key criticsm," but leave it instead to be addressed by interested parties on its own--as with Will Schryver's wonderful FAIR presentation.You, of course, are free to think otherwise. But, in so do, please understand that you aren't offering a criticism, but rather a difference of opinion.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited October 15, 2011 by wenglund
wenglund Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 ** = "Book of Breathings" is also considered obsolete. The accurate full name of the text in question is Document of Fellowship Written by Isis for Her Brother.Is it still considered as part of the "Book of the Dead" genre?Thanks, -Wade Englund-
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 To those interested in the relationship between the Egyptian papers and the Book of Abraham, Schryver has a good presentation which, in my opinion, shows pretty clearly a dependency on a preexisting text: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers
William Schryver Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Is it still considered as part of the "Book of the Dead" genre?Thanks, -Wade Englund-Yes. Nothing is changed in that respect. It's all just a question of how the Egyptian word "snsn" should be properly translated. See John Gee's article here: Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri
William Schryver Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 To those interested in the relationship between the Egyptian papers and the Book of Abraham, Schryver has a good presentation which, in my opinion, shows pretty clearly a dependency on a preexisting text: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian PapersJeremy,My sincere thanks for your endorsement--although you'd best be careful. Many of your friends here aren't nearly as persuaded by my arguments as you appear to be, and some might find fault in you merely for speaking favorably of such a universally acknowledged scumbag as I.At any rate, for those interested in viewing my presentation to which you provided the link above, the text is also available online here: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers - Text
Chris Smith Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Chris, mind if I post the link to your article here? I remain on the fence (due, apparently, to closed-mindedness on my part ), but it's an interesting piece that should be read and considered by others.Sure, feel free.William, I look forward to your rebuttal. In the meantime, I hope you'll forgive my skepticism. We've, after all, been down this road before.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Will: I wasn't aware that I had "friends" here. *grin* No biggie, dude - I'm used to all manner of fault-finding thrown my way; in atheist circles I'm the religious fanatic, in religious circles I'm the apostate atheist, in liberal circles I'm the fundamentalist conservative, in conservative circles I'm the evil socialist liberal.(Y'all will have to forgive me if I choose to see this as evidence of my moderateness rather than an underlying incoherence. )Chris: Cool, gratzie. An interesting piece on the history of the Joseph Smith papyri: "That Which Is Lost" by C. Smith. 1
William Schryver Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 William, I look forward to your rebuttal. In the meantime, I hope you'll forgive my skepticism. We've, after all, been down this road before.???What road are you talking about?
William Schryver Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Will: I wasn't aware that I had "friends" here. *grin* No biggie, dude - I'm used to all manner of fault-finding thrown my way; in atheist circles I'm the religious fanatic, in religious circles I'm the apostate atheist, in liberal circles I'm the fundamentalist conservative, in conservative circles I'm the evil socialist liberal.(Y'all will have to forgive me if I choose to see this as evidence of my moderateness rather than an underlying incoherence. )Chris: Cool, gratzie. An interesting piece on the history of the Joseph Smith papyri: "That Which Is Lost" by C. Smith.The link doesn't work for me.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Hrrm, weird. It's working for me, and I am technologically illiterate enough that I'm not sure how to fix it. Another try: "That Which Is Lost".
William Schryver Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Hrrm, weird. It's working for me, and I am technologically illiterate enough that I'm not sure how to fix it. Another try: "That Which Is Lost".It's a permission issue. It says: "... you don't have permission to view the document." You must have provided your Google id to Chris and he has limited access to the document.
shalamabobbi Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 To those interested in the relationship between the Egyptian papers and the Book of Abraham, Schryver has a good presentation which, in my opinion, shows pretty clearly a dependency on a preexisting text: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian PapersI agree. What seemed to nail it was Phelps pure language cipher changing the same 6 characters to different meanings later.
William Schryver Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) Sure, feel free.William, I look forward to your rebuttal. In the meantime, I hope you'll forgive my skepticism. We've, after all, been down this road before.Again, Chris, what road are you talking about?Are you referring to the road where one group of people--your supporters--makes a play on the very eve of publication, through blatantly ad hominem methods, to block the publication of an article that consists of a powerful rebuttal to your and Andrew Cook's scroll-length article, and then you continue to disingenuously act as though there are no counter-arguments to your allegedly invulnerable paper?Is that the road you're talking about?I find it utterly incredible that you would feign innocence in this matter; that you would not have previously spoken out forcefully against the practice of attempting to silence your opponent in a debate, through textbook ad hominem methods—based in lies, forgeries, and propagandistic misrepresentations. (To his credit, Andrew has expressed some measure of disapprobation concerning the actions of your friends in the GSTP.)I can see how one in your position might resort to such cowardly methods if the heart of his argument was dependent on measurements that were based on a piece of paper laid atop the mylar-encased papyrus, and a pencil then used to trace the edges of the lacunae. Yes, if that was the methodology I had used and I knew that my opponents in the debate had used high-tech instrumentation to perform their measurements ... well, then I suppose I might consider standing silently by while my friends mobbed and gagged my opponent.So, is this the road you're talking about?Well, I won't be going down that road again. Indeed, truth has prevailed such that no one will ever again fall victim to the thugs you call your friends. And notwithstanding your willingness to have your opponents silenced in this debate, you will have to eventually face the rebuttal to your arguments, albeit a little later than originally anticipated.ETA: Not only is the Cook/Smith methodology flawed, but spectacularly so. It was tested against a scroll of known dimensions, and predicted a length less than 25% of the actual length of the scroll! The Schryver/Slack methodology performed much better, predicting a length about 90% of the actual. Edited October 15, 2011 by William Schryver
Chris Smith Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) Yes, William, it's all my fault that someone wrote an exposé of your abrasive posting style, and then FAIR decided not to publish your article. It was I who forced you to write misogynistic things, I who forced Jack to call you out on it, and (as I'm sure you suspected) I who demanded that my shadowy minions in the FAIR hierarchy pull your article.Is it any wonder I mostly ignore you these days?P.S. It was transparencies and a marker, actually, and we did it that way so we could digitize them and let a computer program sort out the winding lengths rather than having to judge subjectively where one winding began and another ended. In other words, our measurements were very much technology-assisted. But you knew that already. Edited October 15, 2011 by Chris Smith
Recommended Posts