Scroll Length?

[wenglund]

We have robbed Hor of his spells needed to navigate the afterlife. He will now be eaten by Apophis.

I didn't know it took more than several millennia for the deceased party with whom the scrolls were buried, to perform the rituals on the scrolls. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 18, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

Just a short comment. I received an email from Robert Ritner this evening...

Professor Ritner can comment here if he wants. Don't bring in second hand gossip. - Ares

Off topic responses to this will be deleted. We don't need a he said, she said war here.

[Xander]

But Schryver can constantly allude to fischer, skousen etc.? He is constantly asserting he has authorities agreeing with him in off-forum chatter. I just wanted to point out the same is true for andrew and chris. This will be published within the next two months. I guess we can talk about it then?

[Ares]

But Schryver can constantly allude to fischer, skousen etc.? He is constantly asserting he has authorities agreeing with him in off-forum chatter. I just wanted to point out the same is true for andrew and chris. This will be published within the next two months. I guess we can talk about it then?

Feel free to quote substantive discussion points from authorities. Don't come in here with second hand reports consisting of no more than "so and so agrees with me". If you find others doing this you may report it or better yet call for references for the point they are making. You may not turn this into an argument with the moderators.

[Mortal Man]

I didn't know it took more than several millennia for the deceased party with whom the scrolls were buried, to perform the rituals on the scrolls. LOL

We learn from the hawk in Figure 4 of Facsimile 2 that a thousand years to us is only one day in the afterlife, so he's only been dead two days.

[Mortal Man]

I suspect that 1.5 cm is a typo and that they meant 1.5 mm.

[Xander]

Awesome. I will be sure to spend an hour this weekend reporting every post where Schryver and Hamblin claim authorities agree with them based on nothing more than their say so. Schryver has been doing this for years. Funny how no one ever complains until the second a critic does it.

[Mortal Man]

I must also note that Hoffmann (that's Friedhelm to you Will) used the method to calculate how much of the Strasbourg papyrus is missing.

And that scroll's changes in winding length are in the 4-6 mm range.

It appears that short papyrus scrolls have changes in winding length around 5 mm, while very long scrolls (e.g., Greenfield) are as high as 9.4 mm.

I'd be surprised if any Ptolemaic papyrus scroll could be found with a mean change in winding length less than 4 mm.

The BoB scrolls most closely matching the Hor scroll are: Louvre 3284, 3291, 3121, 3126, 3158, 3166, Hague 42/88 (P. Denon), British Museum 9995, and Berlin 3135.

It would be particularly useful to get the winding lengths for Papyrus Louvre 3284, since that is the "standard text" for BoB translations.

I doubt that any significant differences could be found between the physical characteristics of these scrolls and the Hor scroll.

[Vance]

What is the implication/argument attached to either a short or long roll? (deserving 17 pages of debate)

Feel free to be brief.

I think it is even more simple than has been stated.

1) Critics claim the small portion of papyri in the Church's possession IS the source for the BoA.

2) Then the critics claim that the small portion of the papyri in the Church's possession is NOT the source for the BoA, because,

a) it is too short.

b) it is an Egyptian funeral test.

c) the scroll it came from is too small to have the BoA text on it.

3) The critics conclude that the Church is false, (actually, that is the conclusion they started with.)

Edited November 18, 2011 by Vance

[wenglund]

We learn from the hawk in Figure 4 of Facsimile 2 that a thousand years to us is only one day in the afterlife, so he's only been dead two days.

Yes. However, the mascara on this Greenfield papyrus glyph of the goddess Geb indicates that the after-life rituals are performed in a blink of an eye.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 18, 2011 by wenglund

[Xander]

I think it is even more simple than has been stated.

1) Critics claim the small portion of papyri in the Church's possession IS the source for the BoA.

Maybe because that is what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests? After all, LDS scholars claimed the same thing when the papyri were rediscovered in the 60's. So this isn't just a "critics" position. It was the most reasonable position in the 60's and it remains the most reasonable position today. The only reason some Mormons (not all) have shifted their ground on the subject is because it turns out that the papyri do not translate to mean anything remotely similar to the Book of Abraham. Once this became apparent, BYU scholars scrambled to come up with ideas for explaining the problem in a faith-promoting manner. The result was a "tragedy of errors" beginning with Nibley and ending with Gee. From Nibley's failed rubrics argument, to Gee's two ink theory, one by one their apologetic claims have been refuted by the evidence.

2) Then the critics claim that the small portion of the papyri in the Church's possession is NOT the source for the BoA, because

"Then"? No, there is no "then." You're maiking it sound like the critics are the ones constantly shifting their ground when in fact the apologists have been doing this for decades. Do I really need to list the number of theories they's created and abandoned over the years? They're constantly changing their position because they are trying to come up with something, anything, that is just as plausible as the "critical" position. But every time they come up with something, it gets shot down before it has a chance. This silliness about a long missing scroll is a perfect example. Years ago Will Schryver gloated about how the Hoffman formula was going to vindicate John Gee's wild claim of 40 feet of missing papyrus. But mathematics isn't his forte. This happens to be Mortal Man's area of expertise, so he decided to tackle the issue using the formula Will and Gee recommended. Once it became apparent that the Hoffman formula wouldn't produce the results Schryver and Gee were looking for, they moved the goal posts back another two hundred yards and started on with this nonsense about papyrus thickness.

3) The critics conclude that the Church is false, (actually, that is the conclusion they started with.)

Not this critic.

Not too long ago I was a faithful member and die-hard apologist for the faith. I came across this information only because I was researching the matter for the sole purpose of developing a better apologetic to help the Church. There are plenty of posts dating before this period, documenting my attempts to get to the bottom of this problem, as a faithful believer. So no, that wasn't the conclusion I "started with." This is just something believers like to say because they don't like to acknolwedge the simple fact that the critical argument convinces both LDS believers and non-believers (believers usually run with the catalyst theory because they see how weak the missing scroll theory really is). The apologetic arguments convince no one except those who remain firm in the position that Joseph Smith was a genuine prophet and that no "worldly" evidence could ever prove otherwise.

Tchau for now....

[wenglund]

I suspect that 1.5 cm is a typo and that they meant 1.5 mm.

I figure they meant .15 mm.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Maybe because that is what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests? After all, LDS scholars claimed the same thing when the papyri were rediscovered in the 60's. So this isn't just a "critics" position. It was the most reasonable position in the 60's and it remains the most reasonable position today. The only reason some Mormons (not all) have shifted their ground on the subject is because it turns out that the papyri do not translate to mean anything remotely similar to the Book of Abraham. Once this became apparent, BYU scholars scrambled to come up with ideas for explaining the problem in a faith-promoting manner. The result was a "tragedy of errors" beginning with Nibley and ending with Gee. From Nibley's failed rubrics argument, to Gee's two ink theory, one by one their apologetic claims have been refuted by the evidence.

While I am willing to suffer through yet another of your well-worn, self-serving, tangential, splean-venting strolls down memory lane, this thread is concerned with recent developments (within the last year or so) regarding estimating the length of missing portions of scrolls. If you have something substantive to add to the discussion, I would appreciate hearing it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vance]

"Then"? No, there is no "then."

Sure there is. Every critic's screed I have read always starts with 1, and "THEN" goes to 2.

You're maiking it sound like the critics are the ones constantly shifting their ground when in fact the apologists have been doing this for decades.

Nah, not at all. They have been very consistent in following the pattern I posted.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Nah, not at all. They have been very consistent in following the pattern I posted.

Fruit roll up anyone?

[Vance]

Fruit roll up anyone?

I like the really thick kind, thank you.

[wenglund]

Fruit roll up anyone?

Speaking of effective thickness of spiral rings, how about this?:

Or better yet, this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 18, 2011 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Speaking of effective thickness of spiral rings, how about this?:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hahahaha, that is great Wade.

[Ares]

Awesome. I will be sure to spend an hour this weekend reporting every post where Schryver and Hamblin claim authorities agree with them based on nothing more than their say so. Schryver has been doing this for years. Funny how no one ever complains until the second a critic does it.

Just remember you are still posting here after arguing with moderators the next time you want to complain about how you have been treated.

Remember what I warned you about. You are free to ask for evidence of agreement if someone asserts without proof.

However, if you just complain without cause you will be removed from threads.

[Xander]

Just remember you are still posting here after arguing with moderators the next time you want to complain about how you have been treated.

Remember what I warned you about. You are free to ask for evidence of agreement if someone asserts without proof.

However, if you just complain without cause you will be removed from threads.

I'm sorry for the confusion, but I wasn't trying to argue. I simply asked a question and you answered it. Much appreciated. I knew I did nothing that wasn't done on a regular basis by the apologists. They share personal experiences and relay things told to them by others on a daily basis. But when I did it, some members got upset with what I found out. You said the reason William and other LDS apologists have been getting away with doing precisely the same exact thing for which I was immediately reprimanded, is because LDS posters immediately "report" my posts whereas no one reports William's posts. That makes sense, and easily explains the constant moderator intervention in virtually everything I post at this forum. Nemesis explained this to me shortly after I was invited back and told me to try not getting lured into the fights. So I've been ignoring the majority of those who have been trying to bait me into a personal scuffle.

BTW, I noticed just now that I was banned from the other thread. I don't even bother asking why anymore.

[Xander]

While I am willing to suffer through yet another of your well-worn, self-serving, tangential, splean-venting strolls down memory lane, this thread is concerned with recent developments (within the last year or so) regarding estimating the length of missing portions of scrolls. If you have something substantive to add to the discussion, I would appreciate hearing it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you do not see how my post was a direct response to Vance's nonsensical rant, then there is nothing I can do for you. Oh, and I'm still planning to respond to your previous post from last week. Give me till tonight.

[Xander]

Speaking of effective thickness of spiral rings, how about this?:

Or better yet, this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Trying to get a feel for your idea of "substantive" commentary.

This is it?

[Ares]

I'm sorry for the confusion, but I wasn't trying to argue. I simply asked a question and you answered it. Much appreciated. I knew I did nothing that wasn't done on a regular basis by the apologists. They share personal experiences and relay things told to them by others on a daily basis. But when I did it, some members got upset with what I found out. You said the reason William and other LDS apologists have been getting away with doing precisely the same exact thing for which I was immediately reprimanded, is because LDS posters immediately "report" my posts whereas no one reports William's posts. That makes sense, and easily explains the constant moderator intervention in virtually everything I post at this forum. Nemesis explained this to me shortly after I was invited back and told me to try not getting lured into the fights. So I've been ignoring the majority of those who have been trying to bait me into a personal scuffle.

BTW, I noticed just now that I was banned from the other thread. I don't even bother asking why anymore.

Since you insist on hashing this out in public...

Stop playing the victim. We get just as many complaints about apologists as we do critics and we act on both in an even handed manner. I've personally banned more pro-Mormon trolls than anti-Mormon critics from this board. You are on your second nic. There aren't many people who have been let back after a deserved banning.

It only appears that you are being singled out because unlike most people quietly correct their behavior when called on it, you just choose to whine make a public scene like this one.

I'm done arguing with you. Put up more content per quip or you will be banned.

[Ares]

Trying to get a feel for your idea of "substantive" commentary.

This is it?

The lowest common denominator is not the level you should be aiming for if you want to continue posting Kevin.

But since this has gone downhill- thread closed.