"Egyptian Redaction" Theory & Fac 3

[Calm]

I suspect that's why those involved....with this video aren't stepping up to the plate to confirm what I've said.

Those I know of who were involved with producing the video who have been on the board in the past don't frequent the board that often, especially now. Tyler for example comes on to announce things from time to time, but I don't think I've seen him involved in many discussions otherwise. Very few people of FAIR have ever posted here and I know most who have done so have stated they've cut way back on their time on the board to devote to other things.

[Robert F. Smith]

What Gee says Ashment said: "To my knowledge, the only person who doubts that the name Abraham exists in the papyri is Edward H. Ashment. Ashment, who finds himself outside the mainstream of scholarship on this point, must give some convincing evidence to support this denial. Despite such clear and overwhelming evidence, Ashment argues that the name is not Abraham, and certainly not the biblical Abraham".

What Ashment really said: "It is therefore not surprising that the biblical name 'Abraham' would be popular in the spells — not only when the magicians would appeal to, among others, the god of 'Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob'."

Ed argued for literally the exact opposite of what Gee said he argued.

I mean this was really, a terrible response to Ashment. Not only because he had to resort to straw man arguments left and right, but also because he ignored so many points of refutation and he wasted so much space boring the heck out of the reader with irrelevant commentary about things that had nothing to do with Ashment's points. And in typical FARMS fashion he attacks Ashment from the beginning: "Edward H. Ashment, has continually been noted for his confused, confusing, and occasionally incoherent presentations." And his support for this assertion? His first footnote was a ridiculous 280 words of incestuous referencing from his colleagues at BYU who obviously don't like Ashment because he's an apostate. Big surprise there. Funny how Nibley had nothing but praise for Ashment when he thought he was still a faithful member, which is probably why Gee was careful to avoid citing Nibley in that footnote. This trend of long-winded, irrelevant fluffy commentary continued for the entire "response" that consisted of a ridiculous 26,000 words! It was a charade to give the appearance of scholarship.

Why did Gee do this? Why did he completely misrepresent what Ashment said and avoid the primary arguments? The answer is simple. He knew none of his LDS readers would actually read Ashment's review to find out for themselves just how badly Gee was being dishonest. And the fact that Gee had to resort to these tactics gives us every indication of who really had the upper hand in that debate.

With your constant need to engage in ad hominems, why would anyone trust you to provide us with the actual positions of these two individuals? You provide what you claim are the actual words which Ashment said that Gee was answering. Really? You provide no citation of sources for the two items so that we can compare the two statements to see if what you say is true. For scholars that is the minimum requirement. You seem blissfully unaware of the need to provide sources.

As to Ed Ashment, who is very smart, I was the victim of some of a series of false and misleading statements by him long ago, and I specified what those misstatements were in my “Translation of Languages (hermēniea glōssōn I Cor 12:10),” June 1980, online at http://www.scribd.com/lighthorseharry/d/46307834-Translation-of-Languages . Ed was dropped from the Egyptology program at the Univ. of Chicago by Klaus Baer.

[crixus]

For you any assertion by you is automatically a fact, rather than an interpretation. For scholars there are only interpretations of facts. You don't differentiate, but only come to this board to vent your spleen. Why are you so vicious and unkind? You do not even try to be even handed or fair.

Wow. You cannot even handle the prospect of one of your scholars getting something wrong without having a complete meltdown. What does this say about your bias, approach to and understanding of reason or scholarship? You're still hanging onto this assumption that I have quoted him "out of context," although now you modify your claim by saying I've "misinterpreted" what he said. And this you do in full ignorance of what was actually said. Why don't you buy the DVD and prove I'm a lying fool? Or maybe you could get someone from FAIR to do it for you? That should be rather easy. If you throw a stone in any direction on this forum and you're likely to hit a few of them.

So any statement made which disagrees with you is automatically spin.

No, any statement that represents spin, I consider to be spin. What you're doing here is precisely that. You cannot explain how the phrase "purporting to be" changes the historical, documented facts that Joseph Smith and his colleagues believed Abraham literally wrote this document.

So, for you, Joseph Smith and his companions believed that the papyri were literally written by the hand of Abraham, but that is not spin. It is a fact simply because you said it.

No, it is supported by the evidence for which you're completely unaware, probably because the apologetic articles you read on the subject neglected to share that information. But as I said before, why is this such a big deal for you? Why don't you just say he was imperfect and fallible and leave it at that? After all, he also believed the American Indians were the principle ancestors of the Lamanites, which the Church now denies.

Unlike you, I quoted Gee's whole statement in context (above), showing what he was in fact saying as a whole rather than following your love of quoting a brief phrase out of context.

No amount of context changes the fact that Gee was beating a straw man. You're really getting desperate huh? Do you really think all this rhetoric is going to save you here?

By carefully controlling how many words you allow them to say, and by making it appear that they are at loggerheads, you seek to gain the advantage, not to throw light on the text and illustration. Isn't that exactly what spin doctors do?

I quoted Muehlstein's exact words. If you think your little theory stands, then why don't you do the necessary research and prove it? Afraid of what you might find? Saying I am "carefully controlling" how many words he says is quite pathetic of you. I can assure you I had no part in editing that video clip. And despite your wishful thinking, no amount of context will change the fact that he flat out mistranslated the text for apologetic purposes. And the person putting together this video was obviously ignorant of what John Gee had already said about it.

CFR that Graham said that Gee lied to him on a number of issues.

He said in an email and I quote, "Gee cannot be trusted on any of these matters. He lied to me personally about the red ink argument when I was an apologist and he was coaching me in a debate with Metcalfe. He lied to me about the two ink theory, he lied when he manipulated photos in his book to support his theory, he lied with his misuse of Seyyfarth which Chris Smith recently exposed. And when referring to historical accounts prior to the Book of Abraham's 1842 publication, Gee lied when he said Joseph Smith only did "revisions" to an already translated text, when the fact is the same source Gee relied on clearly shows Joseph Smith admitting to "translating" as well. Gee is willing to hide whatever evidence he can because he knows he can get away with it, at least for his intended audience who naively accept whatever he says. And just look at the way he lied at a FAIR conference a couple of years ago by saying the Egyptian characters in the KEP were never taken in sequence from the papyri."

But I'm sure you're right. Kevin probably loves Gee, and I'm merely "misinterpreting" his own words.

Kevin has held forth on this board on these issue on a number of occasions, and he is clearly well-informed on these issues, but he did not in fact destroy the missing papyrus theory in any way.

If he is the poster "Xander," then he most certainly did. http://www.mormondia...-scroll-theory/

CFR that I said "liar, liar."

You've implied it several times already. Go ahead and pretend you haven't.

Implied doesn't count. Neither does using deceptive third person.

[crixus]

I guess you don't understand what context means

I know exactly what it means. But I have not cited him out of context. If you think I have, then prove it.

Journalists frequently use soundbites rather than full statements, and the result is often a complete skewing of what was actually said.

You don't say! So what you're saying is Tyler LIvingston took him out of context since they essentially collected a bunch of sound bites and bunched them together for an educational DVD on the Book of Abraham.

Context means extended remarks

There were none, which you would know if you weren't arguing in ignorance.

A short phrase just doesn't cut it, and it is clear to me that you should have depended on the transcript of Kerry's presentation

There was no "presentation." It was an interview for which only a few remarks were used in the video.

rather than on offhand and unclear remarks on videotape

You're making illicit assumptions, for what reason? Do you know what "offhand" means? It means "without previous thought or preparation." What is your evidence for this? You make it sound like he wasn't aware he was being interviewed and didn't prepare. The video shows him sitting down in a prepared setting. He wasn't abruptly asked a question while walking to an appointment. LOL. You're trying everything you can to excuse Kerry's failure to do minimal scholarly work by properly explaining a simple phrase in Egyptian. Amazing.

If the material is of such poor quality, why would you cite it at all?

Better yet, if you think it is such a horrible use of citations, the why would FAIR sell it at all? I cite it because it obviously shows how some defenders are willing to say whatever they think they can get away with. And to my knowledge, he did get away with it for his intended audience. The only people complaining about it are the critics.

You clearly don't understand CFR. Why do you think that others should do your work for you?

You're the one who refuses to do the required "homework." You assert, with no evidence whatsoever, that I have cited out of context. You refuse to go to the source, but insisting your accusation is correct based on... what?

Did you even bother to go to the FAIR website and then try to provide us with a citation? Title, date, etc. For example, are you referring to "A Most Remarkable Book : Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Abraham" (DVD), written and directed by Tyler Livingston. Edited by JD Julander. 70 minute video, 30 minute bonus features, 2011?

That's the one. No transcript that I could find. Now you're going to act like you had no idea which DVD I was referring to? How many FAIR DVD's on the Book of Abraham including interviews with Kerry can there be? The point I was making is that there was no way for me to provide all the context you wanted because it was video format. I can't cut and paste a video clip.

Here is an item written by Kerry Muhlestein. A fair-minded person would judge him by his actual statements made in context

Where does he address the translation of that papyrus in your link? If doesn't then your link is irrelevant. But since you ask, Kerry provides nothing new. He rehashed a bunch of the usual apologetic claims, most of which have been refuted.

Anyway, do you think Dr. Kara Cooney is a fair-minded person? She responded to Kerry's videos in an email saying:

"I watched the three videos, and I don't agree with any of it. The ancient Egyptians had no concept of Abraham, so I don't know where he gets these comparisons… And No, most Egyptologists do not agree, despite what Kerry says. I know Kerry, but I do not have much respect for his work. Now I have even less. The fact that he is digging in Egypt is even more worrisome… This PhD was awarded before I arrived at UCLA, although I know that Kerry finished his text based dissertation after only two years of Egyptian language training, which is rather laughable.

Have you read Robert Ritner's work about this in Journal of Near Eastern Studies? It's the best out there… Kerry is just spinning out the same Mormon rhetoric. What is different is: Mormons are funding PhDs in Egyptology and Biblical Studies and then funding positions at BYU and elsewhere and passing these people off as experts, when they are only ideologically driven researchers, not experts interested in actual evidence.

Thanks for sending. It's important to know who these people are"

Ouch!

Let me guess. She must be an anti-Mormon, therefore her highly educated opinion of Kerry's work must be dismissed.

Edited June 26, 2013 by crixus

[Calm]

That should be rather easy. If you throw a stone in any direction on this forum and you're likely to hit a few of them.

Not really, I am the only one who posts regularly that I know of and I am not one of the scholars and haven't been involved in any of the video discussions or productions. Edited June 26, 2013 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

Wow. You cannot even handle the prospect of one of your scholars getting something wrong without having a complete meltdown. What does this say about your bias, approach to and understanding of reason or scholarship? You're still hanging onto this assumption that I have quoted him "out of context," although now you modify your claim by saying I've "misinterpreted" what he said. And this you do in full ignorance of what was actually said. Why don't you buy the DVD and prove I'm a lying fool? Or maybe you could get someone from FAIR to do it for you? That should be rather easy. If you throw a stone in any direction on this forum and you're likely to hit a few of them.

Actually they seldom come to this board.

I am still requesting CFR on your claims, which you seem unwilling to fulfill -- a violation of this board's rules. Why are you afraid to provide your sources?

................No, it is supported by the evidence for which you're completely unaware, probably because the apologetic articles you read on the subject neglected to share that information. But as I said before, why is this such a big deal for you? Why don't you just say he was imperfect and fallible and leave it at that? After all, he also believed the American Indians were the principle ancestors of the Lamanites, which the Church now denies.

When you take a short break from your reading of Joseph's mind, perhaps could point out which apologetic works I cite in my “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” Dec 2012, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham ..

No amount of context changes the fact that Gee was beating a straw man. You're really getting desperate huh? Do you really think all this rhetoric is going to save you here?

So you are going to be gracious enough to just let us take your word for it? Is that what scholars do?

I quoted Muehlstein's exact words. If you think your little theory stands, then why don't you do the necessary research and prove it? Afraid of what you might find? Saying I am "carefully controlling" how many words he says is quite pathetic of you. I can assure you I had no part in editing that video clip. And despite your wishful thinking, no amount of context will change the fact that he flat out mistranslated the text for apologetic purposes. And the person putting together this video was obviously ignorant of what John Gee had already said about it.

So you flat out refuse to provide the full context? What are you afraid of?

He said in an email and I quote, "Gee cannot be trusted on any of these matters. He lied to me personally about the red ink argument when I was an apologist and he was coaching me in a debate with Metcalfe. He lied to me about the two ink theory, he lied when he manipulated photos in his book to support his theory, he lied with his misuse of Seyyfarth which Chris Smith recently exposed. And when referring to historical accounts prior to the Book of Abraham's 1842 publication, Gee lied when he said Joseph Smith only did "revisions" to an already translated text, when the fact is the same source Gee relied on clearly shows Joseph Smith admitting to "translating" as well. Gee is willing to hide whatever evidence he can because he knows he can get away with it, at least for his intended audience who naively accept whatever he says. And just look at the way he lied at a FAIR conference a couple of years ago by saying the Egyptian characters in the KEP were never taken in sequence from the papyri."

Excellent, crixus, this is what I'm talking about, even without a date. One gets the full flavor of Kevin's opinion on this matter, not just a phrase taken out of context.

By the way (unlike you), Kevin always used his actual name in his posts here. He used "Xander" only because someone else had taken his actual name. If I asked for context, he'd give me context. He went to great lengths to provide full documentation and detail.

But I'm sure you're right. Kevin probably loves Gee, and I'm merely "misinterpreting" his own words.

Sarcasm is no substitute for scholarship, and hysteria does not advance a discussion.

If he is the poster "Xander," then he most certainly did. http://www.mormondia...-scroll-theory/

........................................

You've implied it several times already. Go ahead and pretend you haven't.

False on both. Your own character is the mirror from which you dredge up these silly accusations ("implied"?). Wouldn't you rather deal with substantive issues?

[Chronos]

Crixus, if are unable to give the source for your references then you have to concede the point. Perhaps you haven't read the rules, but we state it pretty clearly.

~Chronos

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

After all, he also believed the American Indians were the principle ancestors of the Lamanites, which the Church now denies.

Lol

Ok. JS claimed this? Are you sure? He used the word "principle"? I would issue a CFR but what is the point. You don't care to actually give sources.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Okrahomer]

These "little histories" are brief stories inserted into incantations in order to harness the power of archetypical events. In simpler terms, the spell invokes the power of a past event to use it now. One 19th century Jewish spell relates a story of Job- suffering froma frightful toothache- meeting the Angel of Death who cures him from his pain.

Why historiolas are important in the context of Papyrus 384 is that they show that the name Abraham plays a more integral role than merely that of another form of abracadabra gobbledegook.

Very interesting information. Thank you!

[Brian 2.0]

Crixus, if are unable to give the source for your references then you have to concede the point. Perhaps you haven't read the rules, but we state it pretty clearly.

~Chronos

I'm confused on how crixus hasn't provided the source for his main claim that Kerry said "Abraham upon his couch" from the FAIR DVD video? I have seen this video but I admit to not remembering exactly what Kerry said at the point, but after Crixus says he's pulling his quote from the video hasn't he provided his source?

When someone answers a CFR with a book that is not available to view online, that person has still fulfilled the CFR requested, has he not?

If someone feels he is misquoting the source then they need to look to the source and show how he is misquoting him.

Four disembodied words does not constitute a quote in a discussion of this complexity. Nor does "a FAIR video" constitute a source. We shouldn't have to be explaining this. -Chaos

[Chronos]

I'm confused on how crixus hasn't provided the source for his main claim that Kerry said "Abraham upon his couch" from the FAIR DVD video? I have seen this video but I admit to not remembering exactly what Kerry said at the point, but after Crixus says he's pulling his quote from the video hasn't he provided his source?

When someone answers a CFR with a book that is not available to view online, that person has still fulfilled the CFR requested, has he not?

If someone feels he is misquoting the source then they need to look to the source and show how he is misquoting him.

Calling for a reference does include the context of what they referenced, especially when no one else seems to be able to verify the claim. From what I have been reading of crixus, they have been less than forth-coming in this matter.

On a side note crixus, stop with the snide remarks about other posters. We don't take kindly to that behavior.

~ We are mods, we will not be questioned in such manners with offerings of shrubberies!

[Glenn101]

You link an article from Kevin Graham who has since left the Church after saying John Gee had lied to him on a number of issues. Incidentally, Graham has all but destroyed the missing papyrus theory.

Of course I know that Kevin has left the church. Whether he thinks that Gee lied to him is irrelevant. I was just noting that he was making arguments for a missing papyrus. He has not destroyed anything, except in maybe your mind. And that is okay.

By the way, how long have you known (about) Kevin?

Glenn

Edited June 27, 2013 by Glenn101

[Glenn101]

Anyway, do you think Dr. Kara Cooney is a fair-minded person? She responded to Kerry's videos in an email saying:

"I watched the three videos, and I don't agree with any of it. The ancient Egyptians had no concept of Abraham, so I don't know where he gets these comparisons… And No, most Egyptologists do not agree, despite what Kerry says. I know Kerry, but I do not have much respect for his work. Now I have even less. The fact that he is digging in Egypt is even more worrisome… This PhD was awarded before I arrived at UCLA, although I know that Kerry finished his text based dissertation after only two years of Egyptian language training, which is rather laughable.

Have you read Robert Ritner's work about this in Journal of Near Eastern Studies? It's the best out there… Kerry is just spinning out the same Mormon rhetoric. What is different is: Mormons are funding PhDs in Egyptology and Biblical Studies and then funding positions at BYU and elsewhere and passing these people off as experts, when they are only ideologically driven researchers, not experts interested in actual evidence.

Thanks for sending. It's important to know who these people are"

Ouch!

Let me guess. She must be an anti-Mormon, therefore her highly educated opinion of Kerry's work must be dismissed.

Okay, how highly educated is she when she says that the ancient Egyptians had no concept of Abraham after all of the evidence that has been presented showing that the name Abraham (and the name associated with the Biblical Abraham.) was known among the ancient Egyptians? She has not responded tothat or even indicated whether she has read any of it. The Leiden papyrus 384 is a refutation of that assertion that she made.

Dr. Cooney is showing also an uneducated opinion on Dr.Kerry Muhlestein's Phd. I will quote his own words from an email he sent to the Fair Blog authors on the matter.

"I had the two years of Egyptian language classes offered at UCLA, during those two years and two more I was consistently in graduate seminars where we translated various texts and worked on both the language and the meaning of those texts. These seminars consisted of things like Old Egyptian Texts, Middle Egyptian, Late Egyptian, the language of the Book of the Dead and other afterlife books, etc. Language training comes from more than just grammar classes. Moreover, I am happy to let my published work based on the Egyptian language stand as a witness of my work."

The full article can be found here.

Her tone is contemptuous (laughable is the word she uses to characterize Dr. Muhlestein's UCLS Egyptian studies and makes a mistake when she says that Dr. Muhlestein obtained his Phd after only two years of Egyptian language training.) plus she makes a claim about the Church funding Phd's in Egyptology and Biblical studies then funding positions at BYU and passing them off as experts, while not offering a scintilla of evidence to back up those assertions.

She also is throwing the UCLA Egyptian Phd. program, the institution where she is employed, under the bus.

No, Dr. Cooney does not seem to be a fair minded person or even informed on the issues that we are discussing.

Glenn

Edited June 27, 2013 by Glenn101

[Brian 2.0]

Alright... hopefully this will satisfy everyone regarding the CFR requests and accusations of Crixus hiding the source, or being afraid of showing context...

Kerry Muhlstein regarding the Leiden Papyris: "The Text Says, 'Abraham upon his couch'."

Clip of this statement provided here:

[media=]

Clip from approx min 25 from the following video:

"A Most Remarkable Book : Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Abraham" (DVD), written and directed by Tyler Livingston. Edited by JD Julander. 70 minute video, 2011

CFR complete. I can't see where Crixus was hiding anything.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Robert F. Smith]

Alright... hopefully this will satisfy everyone regarding the CFR requests and accusations of Crixus hiding the source, or being afraid of showing context...

Kerry Muhlstein regarding the Leiden Papyris: "The Text Says, 'Abraham upon his couch'."

Clip of this statement provided here:

[media=]

Clip from approx min 25 from the following video:

"A Most Remarkable Book : Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Abraham" (DVD), written and directed by Tyler Livingston. Edited by JD Julander. 70 minute video, 2011

CFR complete. I can't see where Crixus was hiding anything.

Thanks, Brian. I suspected that this was the DVD crixus refused to source and give a full quote from, but only after he absolutely refused to make any effort, I had to rummage around on the internet looking for it myself. I don't know whether that means he was hiding anything, but he certainly doesn't honor scholarship or gentlemanly conduct.

So we still don't have the actual context, i.e., the words leading up to and following that statement. It is indeed a clip, and Muhlestein is indeed saying those words, but we don't get the full context. I would never have considered editing out the context of such a statement, even if I were trying to prove a case in court and it damaged my case to give the full context. Do I have to actually go out and buy the DVD myself just to get the context? Do you see the problem?

Would you consider giving us a longer clip?

[Robert F. Smith]

crixus, on 26 June 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

Anyway, do you think Dr. Kara Cooney is a fair-minded person? She responded to Kerry's videos in an email saying:

Quote

"I watched the three videos, and I don't agree with any of it. The ancient Egyptians had no concept of Abraham, so I don't know where he gets these comparisons… And No, most Egyptologists do not agree, despite what Kerry says. I know Kerry, but I do not have much respect for his work. Now I have even less. The fact that he is digging in Egypt is even more worrisome… This PhD was awarded before I arrived at UCLA, although I know that Kerry finished his text based dissertation after only two years of Egyptian language training, which is rather laughable.

Have you read Robert Ritner's work about this in Journal of Near Eastern Studies? It's the best out there… Kerry is just spinning out the same Mormon rhetoric. What is different is: Mormons are funding PhDs in Egyptology and Biblical Studies and then funding positions at BYU and elsewhere and passing these people off as experts, when they are only ideologically driven researchers, not experts interested in actual evidence.

Thanks for sending. It's important to know who these people are"

Ouch!

Let me guess. She must be an anti-Mormon, therefore her highly educated opinion of Kerry's work must be dismissed.

Okay, how highly educated is she when she says that the ancient Egyptians had no concept of Abraham after all of the evidence that has been presented showing that the name Abraham (and the name associated with the Biblical Abraham.) was known among the ancient Egyptians? She has not responded tothat or even indicated whether she has read any of it. The Leiden papyrus 384 is a refutation of that assertion that she made.

Dr. Cooney is showing also an uneducated opinion on Dr.Kerry Muhlestein's Phd. I will quote his own words from an email he sent to the Fair Blog authors on the matter.

"I had the two years of Egyptian language classes offered at UCLA, during those two years and two more I was consistently in graduate seminars where we translated various texts and worked on both the language and the meaning of those texts. These seminars consisted of things like Old Egyptian Texts, Middle Egyptian, Late Egyptian, the language of the Book of the Dead and other afterlife books, etc. Language training comes from more than just grammar classes. Moreover, I am happy to let my published work based on the Egyptian language stand as a witness of my work."

The full article can be found here.

Her tone is contemptuous (laughable is the word she uses to characterize Dr. Muhlestein's UCLS Egyptian studies and makes a mistake when she says that Dr. Muhlestein obtained his Phd after only two years of Egyptian language training.) plus she makes a claim about the Church funding Phd's in Egyptology and Biblical studies then funding positions at BYU and passing them off as experts, while not offering a scintilla of evidence to back up those assertions.

She also is throwing the UCLA Egyptian Phd. program, the institution where she is employed, under the bus.

No, Dr. Cooney does not seem to be a fair minded person or even informed on the issues that we are discussing.

Glenn

Prof. Kathlyn M. "Kara" Cooney rec'd her PhD in Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins in 2002, a year before Kerry Muhlestein, which means that they were grad students at the same time at opposite ends of the country. She says she knows Kerry, but doesn't say how (perhaps while excavating in Egypt), since he had left UCLA by the time she arrived. I have enjoyed her Discovery Channel series (which her husband produced). Since her specialty at NELC is Egyptian Art and Architecture, I don't know her qualifications in the ancient Egyptian language.

However, I did see Kerry sometimes while I was studying at UCLA, and one of my own instructors there, Dr. Monica Bontty (PhD in Egyptology, UCLA), knew Kerry and had nice things to say about him. At that time, Prof. Antonio Loprieno, perhaps the best expert in the world on ancient Egyptian linguistics, was also teaching at UCLA's Near Eastern Languages & Cultures dept. -- indeed, he was department chairman. Another Mormon studying there then also rec'd his PhD in Egyptology under Loprieno, and his dissertation was published by E. J. Brill in Leiden, one of the most prestigious publishing houses in the world of scholarship.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Brian 2.0]

So we still don't have the actual context, i.e., the words leading up to and following that statement. It is indeed a clip, and Muhlestein is indeed saying those words, but we don't get the full context.

What questions will this additional context answer for you? Are you questioning whether or not Kerry is even talking about the Leiden Papyri (the image shown in the clip)?

I would never have considered editing out the context of such a statement, even if I were trying to prove a case in court and it damaged my case to give the full context.

The context has been set by the film. Preceding Kerry is Michael Ash talking about the Leiden Demonic Papyri and gives an overview. Immediately following is Kerry saying, "In there is a lion couch scene..."

Kerry goes on to say (after a quick fade) that it is "a picture of a man on a lion couch, and the text says, "Abraham upon his couch."

The context given by the film is quite clear pointing out that Kerry is talking about the Leiden Demonic Papryi when talking. If you think the filmmakers have deliberately quoted Kerry out of context then that is a charge you need to level with Tyler Livingston the filmmaker or FAIR the distributor of the DVD.

Do I have to actually go out and buy the DVD myself just to get the context? Do you see the problem?

I see what your problem is with it, but I do not consider it a problem unless I suspect Tyler Livingston was manipulating Kerry's words and quoting him out of context.

I see no reason to suspect such a thing, especially since Kerry has not indicated he was used out of context, nor retracted what he said.

And if he was using him out of context that means Kerry is referring to a DIFFERENT scene other that the Leiden Papyri where there is a man on a lion couch and the text says, "Abraham upon his couch." If such a different scene exists, it would no doubt be used by Kerry and scores of other apologists when talking about the book of Abraham. It would be all over the place. Such is not the case. I see no reason to think Kerry is referring to anything other than the Leiden Papryi.

Would you consider giving us a longer clip?

It would provide you no further information. The stuff before it is on a different issue, the title card is the obvious changing of the subject. After Kerry's quote, Michael Ash goes on to talk about different points of "substituting Abraham for Osiris" and they have moved onto Testament of Abraham and so forth. No further information or talk regarding the Leiden Demonic Papyri.

If you are looking for more from Kerry's interview directly before or after the quote I posted then you will have to ask Tyler or FAIR for full transcripts, and if they do no provide them then you can charge that they do not "honor scholarship or gentlemanly conduct."

So what is the problem you see?

The context set by the film, the photos shown, and Kerry's description clearly set up that Kerry is talking about the Leiden Papyri and he indicates that the text says, "Abraham upon his couch."

If you suspect that Kerry actually did NOT say "Abraham upon his couch" in regards to The Lieden Papyri, and he is being mis-quoted, then you need to take that issue up with Tyler Livingston or FAIR.

Is that why you want more context? Because you think Kerry's quote here is not in regards to the Lieden Papyri? And his words are being used "out of context"?

Edited June 27, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[livy111us]

Quote

"I watched the three videos, and I don't agree with any of it. The ancient Egyptians had no concept of Abraham, so I don't know where he gets these comparisons…

She should have read Kerry's paper ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND OSIRIS-MICHAEL1 THE USE OF BIBLICAL FIGURES IN EGYPTIAN RELIGION, A SURVEY published by Russian Academy of Sciences Center for Egyptological Studies.

[livy111us]

Also, as the producer of the DVD, no malintent was intended. If Kerry mis-spoke, then the problem will be fixed. If he has insight on the issue that we do not, then it will stand. Either way, I appreciate this being brought to my attention. I don't intend to frequent this thread, but feel free to contact me if any errors are found.

BTW, I just sent him an email to ask him about this comment. We'll have to wait and see what he says.

Edited June 27, 2013 by livy111us

[Brian 2.0]

Also, as the producer of the DVD, no malintent was intended. If Kerry mis-spoke, then the problem will be fixed. If he has insight on the issue that we do not, then it will stand. Either way, I appreciate this being brought to my attention. I don't intend to frequent this thread, but feel free to contact me if any errors are found.

BTW, I just sent him an email to ask him about this comment. We'll have to wait and see what he says.

Thanks for chiming in here! And for being open to fixing something if incorrect!

I would think you did NOT quote him out of context. Because in this video link below (hosted by FAIR) he also indicated that the person on the lion couch in the Leiden Papyri is Abraham

[media=]

At approx 40 seconds into it, it is showing the Leiden Papyri and Kerry says, "They say specifically that the person this couch is Abraham." His view in this video is consistent with his translations he quoted on your video.

I am curious how Kerry is coming to this conclusion as it appears no others say this. The name Abraham is definitely on this papryi, but no one translated it to say that it is Abraham on the couch, they say the papyri is damaged shortly after the word Abraham. Rhodes translates it to "Abraham, who upon..", other Egyptologists have translated it to be "Abraham who at..." Both say it breaks off after that point.

All other apologists I have read on this papyri only can concluded that (paraphrasing) "We see Abraham associated with a lion couch scene" with Gee and others indicating that the person on the altar is a woman. Kerry is the only one who says that the text itself says "Abraham upon his couch" or concluded that the text clearing indicates that the drawing is Abraham upon the lion couch. This puts him at odds with, it appears, all other Egpytologists/apologists on this particular point, which is how this conversation got started.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

Also there is this... found courtesy of link provided by Robert F. Smith... so I would have thought Robert's own link would have provided the context he was looking for as the link he provided answered his own CFR on crixus.

From Muhlstein, Kerry M., "Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: Some Questions and Answers," The Religious Educator, 11/1 (2010), 91–108; available online at http://rsc.byu.edu/a...ons-and-answers :

It is also worth noting that there is a papyrus from the Roman period with a person on a lion couch whom the Egyptians themselves labeled as Abraham.44 (emphasis mine)

This is footnote 44:

44. John Gee, “References to Abraham Found in Two Eg yptian Texts,” Insights (September 1991): 1, 3; Rhodes, “Joseph Smith Hypocephalus”; John Gee, “Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” Ensign, July 1992, 60–62.

Let's break down those 3 reference to see how Kerry can back up the claim...

John Gee, “References to Abraham Found in Two Egyptian Texts,” Insights (September 1991): 1, 3:

Immediately below the scene are written the Greek words, "Let Abraham who . . . upon . . . wonder marvelously (orichthambito abraam ho epi . . .)" The text is broken at that point, and many endings are possible (for example, "who lies upon the altar" or "who calls upon God" are both possibilities).

This quote is insufficient evidence to support Kerry's quote, because Gee is simply conjecturing on what could have been written on the now damaged portion. Gee's conjecture and admission that "many endings are possible" does not support Kerry's quote that the person on the lion couch was someone "the Egyptians themselves labeled as Abraham."

Now onto Rhodes, “Joseph Smith Hypocephalus”

. Beneath this drawing are the words in Greek: Abρaaμ ὁ ἐπὶ . . .,” Abraham who upon .

. .” (the remainder of the sentence is damaged but could be something like “the couch.”

Again this is simply conjecture as to what the multitude of next words could be.

Now onto John Gee, “Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” Ensign, July 1992, 60–62.

It is accompanied by a picture, a lion couch scene similar to the one in facsimile no. 1 of the book of Abraham, but this picture is oriented in reverse. Part of the text, a love charm, reads: “Let Abraham who ... I adjure you by ... and incinerate so-and-so daughter of so-and-so. Write these words and draw this image on a new papyrus.”

Again, the translation does not indication it was Abraham on the couch, in fact... Gee goes on in the same article to say this...

The figure on the lion couch in this papyrus is a woman. The idea of incinerating the woman as a punishment in case the woman does not yield to the man who casts the spell is an old Egyptian formula.

So this source also does not support his statment, that "there is a papyrus from the Roman period with a person on a lion couch whom the Egyptians themselves labeled as Abraham." In fact, this source indicates the person is a woman.

So now we have 3 sources (the 2 FAIR videos listed in the above posts and now Kerry's article "Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: Some Questions and Answers,") that answer the CFR that Kerry Muhlstein claims that the Egyptians identify the person lying on the lion couch in the Leiden Papyri as Abraham.

If Kerry was in this thread I would ask for a CFR. Since he is not, I can look to his footnotes that he cites as sources to back up the claim, and I hope this post shows that the source he cites are lacking when providing evidence for his claim. The sources he quotes in his footnotes mention that the papyri is damaged, and any one of a number of possibilites (technically infinite) could follow, "upon his couch" is technically one of those conjectured following words. This is NOT supporting evidence that the person lying on the altar "the Egyptians themselves labeled as Abraham."

Edited June 27, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Robert F. Smith]

What questions will this additional context answer for you? Are you questioning whether or not Kerry is even talking about the Leiden Papyri (the image shown in the clip)?

The context has been set by the film. Preceding Kerry is Michael Ash talking about the Leiden Demonic Papyri and gives an overview. Immediately following is Kerry saying, "In there is a lion couch scene..."

Kerry goes on to say (after a quick fade) that it is "a picture of a man on a lion couch, and the text says, "Abraham upon his couch."

The context given by the film is quite clear pointing out that Kerry is talking about the Leiden Demonic Papryi when talking. If you think the filmmakers have deliberately quoted Kerry out of context then that is a charge you need to level with Tyler Livingston the filmmaker or FAIR the distributor of the DVD.

I see what your problem is with it, but I do not consider it a problem unless I suspect Tyler Livingston was manipulating Kerry's words and quoting him out of context.

I see no reason to suspect such a thing, especially since Kerry has not indicated he was used out of context, nor retracted what he said.

And if he was using him out of context that means Kerry is referring to a DIFFERENT scene other that the Leiden Papyri where there is a man on a lion couch and the text says, "Abraham upon his couch." If such a different scene exists, it would no doubt be used by Kerry and scores of other apologists when talking about the book of Abraham. It would be all over the place. Such is not the case. I see no reason to think Kerry is referring to anything other than the Leiden Papryi.

It would provide you no further information. The stuff before it is on a different issue, the title card is the obvious changing of the subject. After Kerry's quote, Michael Ash goes on to talk about different points of "substituting Abraham for Osiris" and they have moved onto Testament of Abraham and so forth. No further information or talk regarding the Leiden Demonic Papyri.

If you are looking for more from Kerry's interview directly before or after the quote I posted then you will have to ask Tyler or FAIR for full transcripts, and if they do no provide them then you can charge that they do not "honor scholarship or gentlemanly conduct."

So what is the problem you see?

The context set by the film, the photos shown, and Kerry's description clearly set up that Kerry is talking about the Leiden Papyri and he indicates that the text says, "Abraham upon his couch."

If you suspect that Kerry actually did NOT say "Abraham upon his couch" in regards to The Lieden Papyri, and he is being mis-quoted, then you need to take that issue up with Tyler Livingston or FAIR.

Is that why you want more context? Because you think Kerry's quote here is not in regards to the Lieden Papyri? And his words are being used "out of context"?

I see by your repeated comments here that you still don't know what a context is, Brian, and I realize that people in general are so broadly influenced by the habit of watching soundbites that it never occurs to them that they are regularly taken out context. Perhaps modern "journalism" (I haven't much respect for that profession any more) assumes that people will get bored by lengthy discussion and so clip and snip something brief out of longer discussions. That's what I thought you did with that DVD clip. I'd have automatically provided a longer piece of the DVD and then explained what you now say about the editing by the producer, but I would not control the flow of data but cutting it off prematurely. That you were mystified by my request for a longer clip ought to have been a clue to you about what I was seeing and thinking. Your words about me suspecting this, or charging that, are incorrect and miss the point entirely. I did not suggest that someone was misquoted. The world of placing guilt an faultfinding is irrelevant. Asking for context has nothing to do with suspecting anything, but rather is expected and demanded by all scholars at a minimum. The discussion cannot proceed without it.

Thankfully, Tyler Livingston has provided me with full context without my even asking him for it. Here is what Muhlestein said in context:

"One of the really exciting things that we had found as we’ve gone through and looked at these texts that are Egyptian religious texts that use biblical characters. The Greek magical papyri. In there is a lion couch scene. It’s actually part of a love charm which is a strange twist most people wouldn’t understand but love charms are actually descendants of a particular type of ritual called an execration ritual where you kill people. Most people wouldn’t expect that because love charms usually included something bad that would happen if you didn’t fall in love with me. So they’re a descendant of those spells and on those spells, one spell that’s a love charm and the text says specifically this picture goes with this text and the text says, it’s got a picture of a man on a lion couch and the text says “Abraham upon his couch”. Another fascinating thing, we look at how the Egyptians were using biblical characters. One of the consistent patterns we will find is that Abraham becomes a substitute for Osiris. And that becomes interesting because we think of Osiris being the one who is pictured on the lion couch scene and so it’s not a surprise in at least one case that we know of they’ve substituted Abraham for Osiris on that lion couch scene. Another interesting thing we’ve found and John Gee has done tremendous work on this. He’s identified a number of stellae, these are round, kind of rectangular with a round type stone that was part of someone’s funerary establishment. Our typical tombstone that says he is a descendant of the Egyptian stellae for their tombs. In any case in many of these the typical scene would be Abraham sitting on a throne and someone coming to his throne and being introduced into the (let me start over). For many of these the typical scene is Osiris sitting on his throne and the deceased person being brought to be presented before Osiris. And the text will say that he’s being brought to Osiris but what’s interesting is that in a number of these we find, and these are for Egyptians even, we find that instead of Osiris, it says Abraham. The person is being brought before Abraham who is sitting on a throne. And facsimile three is that typical kind of scene. So again we see Abraham being substituted for Osiris in a scene that is typical of what we find in the facsimiles where many people say that has to be Osiris, but we find that often it actually is Abraham."

This translation may have been suggested in part not only by Gee, but by Pedro Olavarria on this board, April 6, 2007, at http://www.mormondia...the-lion-couch/ , who provided actual translations of Papyrus Leiden I 384 and 383, both of which mention “Abraham.”

384,

... AIDIO ORICH THAMBITO, Abraham who at [

ho epi

“who upon”?]... PLANOIEGCHIBIOTH bind them and the whole soul for her, NN [whom NN bore]... the female body of her, NN [whom NN bore], I conjure by the... [and] to inflame her, NN whom [NN bore] [Write these] words together with this picture [the lion couch vignette] on a new papyrus.

Olavarria said:

I see a mummy on the couch. Whether it is Abraham or some babe, I dont know. No one knows because the papyrus has not survived intact. Abraham "who at/who upon" are two different translations for Epsolon, Pi, Iota, pronouced "epi" as in epidermis. Or according to Gee, could be taked as old coptic "who to this". Who at what? Who upon what? WHo to this what? We'll never know. One thing is certain though, the egyptian prest believed the text and the image went together hence the "....words together with this picture on a new papyrus". We morms are the first moderns to connect a lion couch with Abraham, what that means to a non-believer is a whole nother matter.

383,

....O god hohos, cause to be sealed, be satisfied, be satisfied, Jehovah. I never appear appear without causing awe, soul of souls., Jehovah Ariaha, Ariaha, act for her, while they turn the face of the rebel, four sided one, Ianian; we act while I initiate the four-sided one. Send me the god in whose hand is the command so that he may tell me the answer to everything about which I inquire here today. Come in this multitude, O fury of Re! O creator who caused creation to come into being, Abraham, the pupil of the wedjat-eye, four fold creator, the great creator, who caused creation to be created, great verdant creation.

I don't know why Dr. Muhlestein translated that line as he did, but he may have worked on it extensively since these other remarks were made. For people who can't read Greek and don't know anything about ancient Egypt to call him a liar seems absurd at this point. Perhaps he will respond with his own rationale.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Brian 2.0]

Robert,

What were you CFR'ing this whole time? Maybe we're speaking past each other because the context you provided that Tyler has provided to you did not change the meaning of the smaller clip I posted?

Were you CFR'ing that Kerry Muhlstein said that the text translated to "Abraham upon his couch"? Because obviously your added context that you finally got doesn't change that fact.

And i never called him a liar. I am stating what his quotes were and then stating that the I don't see the evidence to support his quotes.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Robert F. Smith]

Also there is this... found courtesy of link provided by Robert F. Smith... so I would have thought Robert's own link would have provided the context he was looking for as the link he provided answered his own CFR on crixus.

From Muhlstein, Kerry M., "Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: Some Questions and Answers," The Religious Educator, 11/1 (2010), 91–108; available online at http://rsc.byu.edu/a...ons-and-answers :

This is footnote 44:

..............................

Let's break down those 3 reference to see how Kerry can back up the claim...

John Gee, “References to Abraham Found in Two Egyptian Texts,” Insights (September 1991): 1, 3:

This quote is insufficient evidence to support Kerry's quote, because Gee is simply conjecturing on what could have been written on the now damaged portion. Gee's conjecture and admission that "many endings are possible" does not support Kerry's quote that the person on the lion couch was someone "the Egyptians themselves labeled as Abraham."

Now onto Rhodes, “Joseph Smith Hypocephalus”

Again this is simply conjecture as to what the multitude of next words could be.

Now onto John Gee, “Abraham in Ancient Egyptian Texts,” Ensign, July 1992, 60–62.

Again, the translation does not indication it was Abraham on the couch, in fact... Gee goes on in the same article to say this...

So this source also does not support his statment, that "there is a papyrus from the Roman period with a person on a lion couch whom the Egyptians themselves labeled as Abraham." In fact, this source indicates the person is a woman.

So now we have 3 sources (the 2 FAIR videos listed in the above posts and now Kerry's article "Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: Some Questions and Answers,") that answer the CFR that Kerry Muhlstein claims that the Egyptians identify the person lying on the lion couch in the Leiden Papyri as Abraham.

If Kerry was in this thread I would ask for a CFR. Since he is not, I can look to his footnotes that he cites as sources to back up the claim, and I hope this post shows that the source he cites are lacking when providing evidence for his claim. The sources he quotes in his footnotes mention that the papyri is damaged, and any one of a number of possibilites (technically infinite) could follow, "upon his couch" is technically one of those conjectured following words. This is NOT supporting evidence that the person lying on the altar "the Egyptians themselves labeled as Abraham."

I don't think that you conjecturing about the conjectures of others is of much help here, although I am mystified as to why crixus did not bother to read the citation I provided. I am glad that you had the presence of mind to do so, and the information you provide here is exactly what crixus should have provided early in the discussion. I even gave an example to crixus when I cited Gee in context. He ignored that.

Moreover, you improperly demand that Muhlestein's footnotes to his article support his comments on an unrelated video. Being fair-minded should be the first, not the last consideration here. The moderators do not demand that we love each other here, only that we at least be even-handed and cordial in our discussions. Other boards are not so genial and responsible, as I'm sure you are aware.

[Brian 2.0]

And i'm not quite sure why quoting Olavarria help Kerry's argument.

Olavarria said:

I see a mummy on the couch. Whether it is Abraham or some babe, I dont know. No one knows because the papyrus has not survived intact.

Kerry Muhlstein said he does know. He says the text translates to "Abraham upon his couch" and in his paper he said that the person on the couch "the Egyptians themselves labeled as Abraham."

I have provided plenty of sources to back up that Kerry said it, and there are plenty of sources, all others that I can find, that do no go that far to connect them. The source you quoted from Olavarria says that NO ONE knows because the papyri is not intact. Dr. Muhlstein can speculate on what he thinks comes next, but his quote, in their full context do not read as speculations, but declarations of fact.