Book Of Abraham Characters As Variables: Updated Explanation Page

[DragonLancer]

It seems that in previous threads where I tried to present my theory on the Book of Abraham, a number of people did not understand.  I have tried yet again to update my explanation page on my blog in a way that would make it understandable:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/p/some-background-on-my-stance-on-book-of.html

 

Before I called the characters abstractions with concrete assignments.  I have tried yet again by using the word "variable" and to use the analogy of math or algebra for what I'm talking about.

 

Ed

[cinepro]

This is the fundamental principle behind the Book of Abraham.  This is why Facsimile 2, figure 1 = "Kolob."  Not because Facsimile 1, figure 1 IS Kolob.  But because Facsimile 1, figure 1 is a good picture or symbol that was made to represent Kolob by assignment.  Do you see the difference between when something IS something, and when there is a value assignment TO something?

 

So if I were to argue that Facsimile 3 shows an Egyptian cooking lesson, and the characters at the top of the picture are actually the specific recipe for Nestle Tollhouse Cookies (in Egyptian), would I be wrong?

[DragonLancer]

So if I were to argue that Facsimile 3 shows an Egyptian cooking lesson, and the characters at the top of the picture are actually the specific recipe for Nestle Tollhouse Cookies (in Egyptian), would I be wrong?

 

Yes you would be wrong.  Because the context of their usage as abstractions or variables is defined by the table of definitions, not by what they "read".

 

You are only right that the REGULAR way to read them presents an Egyptian cooking lesson, in your hypothetical example.  If what we care about is what the table of definitions that gives the assignments of value that was given us has to say, then you ignore the "regular" way of reading it in favor of the other context.

Edited March 17, 2015 by DragonLancer

[The Nehor]

Yes you would be wrong.  Because the context of their usage as abstractions or variables is defined by the table of definitions, not by what they "read".

 

You are only right that the REGULAR way to read them presents an Egyptian cooking lesson, in your hypothetical example.  If what we care about is what the table of definitions that gives the assignments of value that was given us has to say, then you ignore the "regular" way of reading it in favor of the other context.

 

So books do not say what they say unless you have the secret table of definitions? Are you sure you are not a gnostic?

[canard78]

This is the fundamental principle behind the Book of Abraham. This is why Facsimile 2, figure 1 = "Kolob." Not because Facsimile 1, figure 1 IS Kolob. But because Facsimile 1, figure 1 is a good picture or symbol that was made to represent Kolob by assignment. Do you see the difference between when something IS something, and when there is a value assignment TO something?

So if I were to argue that Facsimile 3 shows an Egyptian cooking lesson, and the characters at the top of the picture are actually the specific recipe for Nestle Tollhouse Cookies (in Egyptian), would I be wrong?

You're right.

If we're going to say that X=Y and allow any mental gymnastics to go through the process of making X=Y then it's open season.

But then, that's what Joseph was apparently doing with the facsimile. Oh look, here's X... what does X mean? No idea... What do I want it to mean? Well... "Y" Will anyone notice that X actually =X and not Y? Not in the 1840s they won't... Sorted.

[DragonLancer]

So books do not say what they say unless you have the secret table of definitions? Are you sure you are not a gnostic?

 

Books do say what they say.  When ancient people choose to use a book differently because it is a venerated religious object with dynamic symbolism, not just a book, then they invent ways for it to "magically" come to life, and not just be a "book."

[DragonLancer]

You're right.

If we're going to say that X=Y and allow any mental gymnastics to go through the process of making X=Y then it's open season.

But then, that's what Joseph was apparently doing with the facsimile. Oh look, here's X... what does X mean? No idea... What do I want it to mean? Well... "Y" Will anyone notice that X actually =X and not Y? Not in the 1840s they won't... Sorted.

 

The only problem with your logic is that in this case, such and such Egyptian symbol happens to be a perfect place-holder because of its attributes for such and such thing, and that is the point.  They chose such and such thing to represent such and such thing because of the symbol is the perfect thing to represent it as an abstraction.  Its not just X = Y.  I was introducing to the uninformed what I'm talking about by using the concept of variables which is a concept that they are likely to understand.  Its not that a variable X is a perfect and straight forward parallel for what I'm talking about.  It is, however, a starting point.  But It doesn't matter what I say to some people.  You guys are obviously ok with me stating the obvious, that your math teacher in high school used X to represent 2.  But somehow an ancient priest cannot do the same type of thing to you.  That somehow, to some of your minds, is impossible to accept.  Heaven forbid that ancient people like the Greeks and Egyptians knew math and variables and used the same principles in other symbolic ways outside of math.

 

But if I see a guy named Osiris as a symbol and say that I am assigning him the value of Abraham, you say I'm nuts.  Yet, but in different words for those of you that are apologists, that is exactly what Kevin Barney did with "Semitic Adaptation," and some of you actually accept that.  This is just the same exact concept as that put in different words because I'm trying to reach people somehow.  Kevin Barney did the exact same thing in his articles when he said essentially Osiris = Abraham.  Osiris is the variable, the abstraction, the mythological thing that is used in place of the real thing.  Abraham is the concrete value assignment.  Osiris in myth has attributes in common with Abraham, making him as a symbol the perfect place-holder for Abraham.  This is not rocket science.

Edited March 18, 2015 by DragonLancer

[cinepro]

Yes you would be wrong.  Because the context of their usage as abstractions or variables is defined by the table of definitions, not by what they "read".

 

You are only right that the REGULAR way to read them presents an Egyptian cooking lesson, in your hypothetical example.  If what we care about is what the table of definitions that gives the assignments of value that was given us has to say, then you ignore the "regular" way of reading it in favor of the other context.

 

Perhaps another way to ask it is this:

 

According to your theory, is there any theoretical "translation" that Joseph could have rendered that you would consider objectively incorrect?  Or does someone have unlimited latitude to say anything they want when they "translate" according to your method.

Edited March 18, 2015 by cinepro

[canard78]

 

- SNIP - 

This is not rocket science.

 

It doesn't look like any kind of science

[DragonLancer]

Perhaps another way to ask it is this:

 

According to your theory, is there any theoretical "translation" that Joseph could have rendered that you would consider objectively incorrect?  Or does someone have unlimited latitude to say anything they want when they "translate" according to your method.

 

 

Well, here's the thing.  You need to ask the right questions in the right order to get the right answers.

 

Question:  Is this Sensen Papyrus the Book of Abraham?  Answer:  Yes and no.  You need to understand details to answer this in detail to understand in what ways the answer is yes, and in what ways the answer is no.

 

Is it the book Abraham wrote?  No.

 

Does this method work?  Yes.  The method is not in question, because I have demonstrated the method.  Kevin Barney, and other apologists for that matter, have demonstrated the method that these symbols use to work this way.

 

Could anybody have used this papyrus for a number of things?  Yes.

 

Does that mean it WASN'T used for the Book of Abraham just because it could be used for other things?  Absolutely not.

 

What is a translation?  A relaying of intent.  Did Joseph Smith relay the intent of the ancients by demonstrating their method, and doing what they did to represent Abraham's story?  Yes.

 

Did Abraham write a book?  Yes.  So the book that Abraham wrote with his own hand is not this one.

 

Did someone use the symbols in this book in Ancient Times to represent the same story and information that was in the book that Abraham wrote with his own hand?  Yes.

 

Does this mean that Joseph Smith didn't make this up and he was actually relaying the intent of the ancients to our day?  Yes.

 

Did Joseph Smith understand the details of what he was doing?  No and yes.  In other words, he knew the symbols in question represented Abrahamic material.  He had no idea of the details.  But by analyzing what he was doing, we can see what he was doing, even though to him, the knowledge of what he was doing came to him line upon line.

 

If someone used it this way, does that make it in effect a communication device that relays the story and information of the Book of Abraham that is different from the way that a regular book would?  Yes.

 

If this book doesn't "read" this way in conventional Egyptian, then how did they do it?  The "KEP/Facsimiles Explanation" system where a number of abstractions are assigned meaningful values, where the attributes of the symbol make it a logical place-holder for the meaningful value that is assigned to it.  The entries in the KEP work exactly the same way as the explanations do for each figure in the facsimiles.  It is the same exact system.

 

Does this mean that it cannot be done without the "definition table" or key to know what the assignments are to the abstractions?  Yes and No.  If you have the definition table, then yes, it can be done to some limited degree.  If you do not, you have to be a seer.  To get the "full story" since most of these abstract symbols only represent themes, you really do have to be a seer to get the full story.  Otherwise, you may only know basics of the story that are relayed by the symbols, because they are, in effect, pictographs in this system of usage.

 

Since Joseph Smith did not have a "table of definitions," and only had a papyrus full of abstract symbols, he gave us one with the KEP and the Facsimiles Explanations, which is either a reconstruction of an ancient document that we do not have, or the reconstruction of something that relays ancient intent that was in the heads of ancient Egyptians in the form of a table of definitions or a table of value assignments.

Edited March 18, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

It doesn't look like any kind of science

 

With someone with a mental block or prejudice of some sort against it, it is understandable why you would say this.  But you are wrong.

[Thinking]

Mental

[Calm]

I used to be able to do that....sigh.

[DragonLancer]

Mental

 

Actually, it is not me that is doing mental gymnastics.  It happens to be you, my good sir, that has a mental block, that cannot see the obviousness of that which is placed before you because you do not have the background information in your mind.  Have you studied the information that I've studied?  No.  Have you analyzed it?  No.  So I would say that that makes you the person that is unqualified to judge in this matter.

Edited March 18, 2015 by DragonLancer

[canard78]

With someone with a mental block or prejudice of some sort against it, it is understandable why you would say this. But you are wrong.

If it were science it would be testable and replicable. I've not seen an approach offered by you that is yet.

[DragonLancer]

If it were science it would be testable and replicable. I've not seen an approach offered by you that is yet.

 

Seriously?  It is all demonstrated on my blog.  Go replicate it.  I take you through it step by step.  Check the information.  If I can do it, you can do it.  When you have, come back and report.  Again, in all seriousness, when you have done the work, you qualify yourself to comment.  If I am indeed incorrect, then the burden is on you to demonstrate it by falsifying in detail every post on my blog.  I invite you to do it, not to sit here and tell me that I am wrong, by virtue that you sit upon your throne in your omniscience.

Edited March 18, 2015 by DragonLancer

[cinepro]

Yes you would be wrong.  Because the context of their usage as abstractions or variables is defined by the table of definitions, not by what they "read".

 

You are only right that the REGULAR way to read them presents an Egyptian cooking lesson, in your hypothetical example.  If what we care about is what the table of definitions that gives the assignments of value that was given us has to say, then you ignore the "regular" way of reading it in favor of the other context.

 

What is the "table of definitions"?  That term doesn't appear anywhere on your blog.

 

 

 

Here are two different theories regarding the origin of the explanations for the facsimilies:

 

1. Joseph Smith looked at them, thought he was accurately conveying what they mean, but ultimately it's just nonsense.

 

2. The ancient Egyptian priests secretly encoded meanings into the facsimiles, and Joseph Smith was able to decipher those meanings (and their ancient intent) when he looked at them.

 

Now, between those two theories, what evidence do you have for the latter over the former?  In other words, I think you just made your theory up out of thin air (and lots of creativity).  What evidence do you have that you didn't?

[DragonLancer]

What is the "table of definitions"?  That term doesn't appear anywhere on your blog.

 

 

 

Here are two different theories regarding the origin of the explanations for the facsimilies:

 

1. Joseph Smith looked at them, thought he was accurately conveying what they mean, but ultimately it's just nonsense.

 

2. The ancient Egyptian priests secretly encoded meanings into the facsimiles, and Joseph Smith was able to decipher those meanings (and their ancient intent) when he looked at them.

 

Now, between those two theories, what evidence do you have for the latter over the former?  In other words, I think you just made your theory up out of thin air (and lots of creativity).  What evidence do you have that you didn't?

 

I have tried over a period of time to put things in a manner that people could understand what I'm talking about.

 

In fact, in this very post:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/p/some-background-on-my-stance-on-book-of.html

 

This is where I call it a "table" of "value assignments."  That is the table of definitions.  In other words, the explanations in the facsimiles, and the entries in the KEP comprise a table of value assignments, those are, in effect, definitions.

 

What other words would you like me to use to try to convey what I'm saying?

 

Now, What I'm saying is not either one of the two options you present in your comment.  Yet, it was Ancient Egyptian priests that did what I'm saying that they did, not Joseph Smith.  And what they did was not to encode meanings into the facsimiles.  Although what I'm saying is vaguely similar to something along those lines.  There is no encoding of anything inside anything.  Again.  When something is a variable or abstraction, there is nothing encoded in it internally with the exception of its own attributes.  When it is that kind of an abstraction, it relies on something external from itself for a value assignment.  X is just X until the algebra teacher conveys to you that it means X, by making a statement where he says, "Let X be 2."  In other words, the explanation given by Joseph Smith relays to us the value assignment made by the ancient Egyptians for an Egyptian character in a facsimile without the character inherently being that thing.  The character just has attributes that makes it a good enough symbol to portray that thing once a value assignment is made.  How else would you like me to try to explain that?  Are there any other words I can possibly use to try to say that any differently that would relay this thought?  It relies on something outside of itself to give it meaning.  The structure of the symbol, the makeup of the symbol, the nature of the symbol shares things in common with the thing that it is made to represent that is plugged in to it outside of it by the thing outside of it.

 

Think of it this way.  Here is another analogy for those among you that don't get it.  The empty, abstract symbol is a plug socket.  A plug that fits in it has three prongs, the positive prong, the negative prong, and the ground prong.  The fact that it has two prongs that deliver the electricity, and one prong that serves as ground, means that an appliance with the plug of the same shape can be plugged into the socket, and the appliance will work, shaped that same way.  A plug that is from China does not share this same shape.  While it similarly has prongs, and those prongs deliver electricity and so forth.  It is structured/shaped differently, and will not plug into that socket.  The shapes of the prongs do not fit in the holes.  The fact that the value assignment (the meaning assigned) and the symbol (the abstract variable thing) share the same structure means that you can plug the one into the other, and things WORK.  The Facsimile figure thing, the thing that is a little picture within the bigger picture that are numbered, are the empty plug sockets.  The explanations for these symbols are the plugs that plug into the empty sockets.  Each socket has a different structure.  Only the plug from China can plug into the one that has the right structure for it to fit in.  But without a plug, it is an empty socket.  An empty plug socket is what we have with the Facsimiles and the characters in the Sensen Papyrus.  They are not the appliances that plug in.

 

You say I made up my theory out of creativity.  No kidding.  It takes creativity to put something like this together.  Yet your accusation is really saying that I have no evidence for my theory, or in other words, that the building blocks of the theory hold no water.  I will repeat myself again.  Go read the blog in detail, each and every post.  Digest them, and come back and you can talk.  All I can say for you is that is a silly accusation for a research blog with 97 posts and a number of web pages, that if printed would be three or four hundred pages in length.  Now, think of what you said, and imagine yourself saying it to Hugh Nibley to his face when he holds "One Eternal Round" in his hand right in front of you.  Imagine that you see the book One Eternal Round in front of your face and he is holding it, and you say to him, "you have no basis for your research, and you just made all this **** up out of thin air."

 

Your accusation also has within it the element that nobody has ever thought of this kind of stuff before.  I am applying details thought of before by William Schryver, Kerry Shirts, John Gee, William Hamblin, Kerry Muhlstien, Hugh Nibley and so forth and so on, and put them together in a different way into a coherent theory.  The building blocks of this stuff are not new.  Sorry.

Edited March 18, 2015 by DragonLancer

[The Nehor]

I have not read your whole blog but I have read several entries and your evidence in those is stretched beyond all reason. You are being creative. The problem is that you have no idea if your creativity matches that of the Egyptians. You just pile guesses on guesses.

You do not have a table of definitions. You make it up as you go and use incredibly tenuous reasoning to back it up.

[DragonLancer]

I have not read your whole blog but I have read several entries and your evidence in those is stretched beyond all reason. You are being creative. The problem is that you have no idea if your creativity matches that of the Egyptians. You just pile guesses on guesses.

You do not have a table of definitions. You make it up as you go and use incredibly tenuous reasoning to back it up.

 

The table of definitions for the struggling among you:

 

Now, if you will carefully note, there is a thing in the Egyptian alphabet and grammar where on the left side there is a character, on the right side a value assignment:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Egyptian-Papers/dp/B001O4N684/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426710477&sr=8-1&keywords=joseph+Smith+egyptian+papers

 

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81DO2T8QmaL.jpg

 

If you will carefully note, on one side of the explanation, which is part of a table of value assignments is the number for each character that is numbered in a picture, and on the right side, there is a definition/assignment.

 

Explanation

1. The Angel of the Lord.
2. Abraham fastened upon an altar.
3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.
4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.
5. The idolatrous god of Elkenah.
6. The idolatrous god of Libnah.
7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.
8. The idolatrous god of Korash.
9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.
10. Abraham in Egypt.
11. Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.
12. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.

Explanation

1. Kolob, signifying the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God. First in government, the last pertaining to the measurement of time. The measurement according to celestial time, which celestial time signifies one day to a cubit. One day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years according to the measurement of this earth, which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh.
2. Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham, as he offered sacrifice upon an altar, which he had built unto the Lord.
3. Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed.
4. Answers to the Hebrew word Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament of the heavens; also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand; answering to the measuring of the time of Oliblish, which is equal with Kolob in its revolution and in its measuring of time.
5. Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions. This planet receives its power through the medium of Kli-flos-is-es, or Hah-ko-kau-beam, the stars represented by numbers 22 and 23, receiving light from the revolutions of Kolob.
6. Represents this earth in its four quarters.
7. Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.
8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.
9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.
10. Also.
11. Also. If the world can find out these numbers, so let it be. Amen.
12. Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the own due time of the Lord.

Explanation

1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.
2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also inFigure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.
4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.
6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.

Edited March 18, 2015 by DragonLancer

[The Nehor]

Yeah, I figured you had nothing.

[cinepro]

I have tried over a period of time to put things in a manner that people could understand what I'm talking about.

Have you ever done the thing where you think you've come up with a really cool theory or idea, and when you try to explain it to people, they're like "Meh", and then you think the reason they're not impressed is because they just don't understand it, but then you realize that they do and it's just that your idea wasn't that impressive?  Because if you haven't, just hang on for a minute or two.

 

Your analogy with algebra is superfluous, because algebra operates on universal principles that go beyond the creativity of the teacher's brain.  If you had an algebra teacher that said "Class, solve the equation x + 3 = y, where x = 'apple", they would be fired (except in LAUSD).

 

A better analogy would be a fine arts teacher, who shows the kids a painting and explains the symbolism and ways to interpret it.  They could even make an assignment for the kids to re-interpret an old painting with modern symbols.  Sure, Monet didn't mean for the flower pot to be like a car dealership, with all the flowers being cars, but that can be a modern creative interpretation.  And maybe Picasso didn't mean for that one picture to show how we are all connected on the internet now, but still feel isolated and alone at the same time, but that's an interesting modern interpretation.

 

Ultimately, no one is going to believe for a second that some ancient Egyptian priest was familiar with the writings of ancient Abraham and that he intentionally somehow meant for some mummy wrappings to secretly encode these writings in a way that only one man in 1835 would be able to decipher, while at the same time looking to the rest of the world exactly like regular Egyptian illustrations.  There are much, much better (and simpler) theories to explain the divine origin of the BoA.  You're adding layers and layers of speculation where it isn't needed. 

[DragonLancer]

Yeah, I figured you had nothing.

 

Yeah, I figured that you wanted to be unreasonable and why my message is not to you, but to people like Brian Hauglid that matter.  You have nothing to say about the debate at hand because you are not a player, nor are your remarks of value.  So just go crawl back to playing world of warcraft where you can make yourself useful.

[DragonLancer]

Have you ever done the thing where you think you've come up with a really cool theory or idea, and when you try to explain it to people, they're like "Meh", and then you think the reason they're not impressed is because they just don't understand it, but then you realize that they do and it's just that your idea wasn't that impressive?  Because if you haven't, just hang on for a minute or two.

 

Your analogy with algebra is superfluous, because algebra operates on universal principles that go beyond the creativity of the teacher's brain.  If you had an algebra teacher that said "Class, solve the equation x + 3 = y, where x = 'apple", they would be fired (except in LAUSD).

 

A better analogy would be a fine arts teacher, who shows the kids a painting and explains the symbolism and ways to interpret it.  They could even make an assignment for the kids to re-interpret an old painting with modern symbols.  Sure, Monet didn't mean for the flower pot to be like a car dealership, with all the flowers being cars, but that can be a modern creative interpretation.  And maybe Picasso didn't mean for that one picture to show how we are all connected on the internet now, but still feel isolated and alone at the same time, but that's an interesting modern interpretation.

 

Ultimately, no one is going to believe for a second that some ancient Egyptian priest was familiar with the writings of ancient Abraham and that he intentionally somehow meant for some mummy wrappings to secretly encode these writings in a way that only one man in 1835 would be able to decipher, while at the same time looking to the rest of the world exactly like regular Egyptian illustrations.  There are much, much better (and simpler) theories to explain the divine origin of the BoA.  You're adding layers and layers of speculation where it isn't needed.

 

Have you ever realized that the fact that a thing is not impressive to you is "meh" to me, because you are not the person I care to reach?  But that by conversing with you, I will ultimately reach the people that do matter to reach in time?

Edited March 18, 2015 by DragonLancer

[The Nehor]

Yeah, I figured that you wanted to be unreasonable and why my message is not to you, but to people like Brian Hauglid that matter. You have nothing to say about the debate at hand because you are not a player, nor are your remarks of value. So just go crawl back to playing world of warcraft where you can make yourself useful.

Your insult missed as I have never played World of Warcraft and insults that try to put the insulter in an elite club are basically an admission that they are desperately seeking approval and want to be in the cool kids club but are not. Basically an admission of a crippling inferiority complex.

I give your attempted burn 1.5 out of 10 stars. See me after class for tutoring.

Edited March 18, 2015 by The Nehor