Book Of Abraham Characters As Variables: Updated Explanation Page

[cinepro]

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.

 

Yeah, let us know what Hauglid thinks. 

[DragonLancer]

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

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

 

 

Yeah, let us know what Hauglid thinks. 

 

He himself will let you know when he publishes.

[The Nehor]

He himself will let you know when he publishes.

When will that be? I want to have popcorn ready.

[DragonLancer]

When will that be? I want to have popcorn ready.

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2015/02/brian-hauglids-response-on-my-theory.html

[The Nehor]

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2015/02/brian-hauglids-response-on-my-theory.html

That is someone treating you with kid gloves. When you submit something and someone says they are taking it seriously........what were they supposed to say? I laughed at it and threw it in the trash? Even when doing a rebuttal of utter rubbish you have to take the source material seriously. That is not support for your theory. It is someone saying they will comment on it. Why do you think the comments will be supportive?

[DragonLancer]

That is someone treating you with kid gloves. When you submit something and someone says they are taking it seriously........what were they supposed to say? I laughed at it and threw it in the trash? Even when doing a rebuttal of utter rubbish you have to take the source material seriously. That is not support for your theory. It is someone saying they will comment on it. Why do you think the comments will be supportive?

 

Why do you suppose they will not be?  You have no evidence of anything you are saying, while I have hundreds of pages of things to back up what I have to say.  Either they are worth something, or they are not, and your estimation of them, once again, means as much to me as a basketball player's opinion of Chinese gardening.

[The Nehor]

Why do you suppose they will not be?  You have no evidence of anything you are saying, while I have hundreds of pages of things to back up what I have to say.  Either they are worth something, or they are not, and your estimation of them, once again, means as much to me as a basketball player's opinion of Chinese gardening.

You wrote most of the things that back up what you say. If I had the spare time I could create hundreds of pages about how Azathoth is the creator of the Universe and how Mayan pottery and Czech jurisprudence are clear evidence that this is the case. I would, of course, also be crazy.

I play basketball sometimes and have raised bonsai trees. Yeah, that is Japanese gardening but is it close enough?

[DragonLancer]

You wrote most of the things that back up what you say. If I had the spare time I could create hundreds of pages about how Azathoth is the creator of the Universe and how Mayan pottery and Czech jurisprudence are clear evidence that this is the case. I would, of course, also be crazy.

I play basketball sometimes and have raised bonsai trees. Yeah, that is Japanese gardening but is it close enough?

 

It was awesome to see how long it took you to come up with a response to my last post.  I see that it actually took you a while to think of a response.

[mfbukowski]

Mr.Dragon,

Hang in there, you are on to something, but you need the proper vocabulary.

There is a whole science of signs and semiotics.

One place to start would be here.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce-semiotics/

[The Nehor]

It was awesome to see how long it took you to come up with a response to my last post.  I see that it actually took you a while to think of a response.

I have this thing called a "job" and am at it right now. It means I have to do this thing called "work" which I have to prioritize above responding to you.

Going to give that one 2 out of 10 stars. Still amateur but at least you tried to use information about me to craft your burn even though you jumped to irrational conclusions based on the data. Seems to be a pattern for you huh?

[mfbukowski]

Think of all the things a swastika represents to us.

[The Nehor]

Think of all the things a swastika represents to us.

Peace and healing. I prefer the pre 1930's symbolism.

[mfbukowski]

Peace and healing. I prefer the pre 1930's symbolism.

The problem is that today that is not what the cultural context says.

The context is the key and that is his point I think, as I understand it.

Straight up, I think he's on to something if he can keep from arguing with the peanut gallery.

If cinepro doesn't like it, it has to be right.

Edited March 18, 2015 by mfbukowski

[DragonLancer]

I have this thing called a "job" and am at it right now. It means I have to do this thing called "work" which I have to prioritize above responding to you.

Going to give that one 2 out of 10 stars. Still amateur but at least you tried to use information about me to craft your burn even though you jumped to irrational conclusions based on the data. Seems to be a pattern for you huh?

 

Good excuse.  I have the same problem.

[mfbukowski]

More easy stuff on semiotics http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

Beware of big words, kids!

[The Nehor]

The problem is that today that is not what the cultural context says.

The context is the key and that is his point I think, as I understand it.

Straight up, I think he's on to something if he can keep from arguing with the peanut gallery.

If cinepro doesn't like it, it has to be right.

I do not. To get a handle on the Egyptian mind to dig into the context requires a lot of work. I would think being literate in the language and drowning yourself in everything written by them with a smattering of what is written about them on top. You have to get the culture to understand the symbolism and that is exactly what Dragonlancer seems to not do. He does not reference Egyptian work; he just starts guessing.

[DragonLancer]

The problem is that today that is not what the cultural context says.

The context is the key and that is his point I think, as I understand it.

Straight up, I think he's on to something if he can keep from arguing with the peanut gallery.

If cinepro doesn't like it, it has to be right.

 

Yes.  Because the usage is abstract, it is context that is the key point, and I'm trying to describe how this context is delivered.

Edited March 18, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

I do not. To get a handle on the Egyptian mind to dig into the context requires a lot of work. I would think being literate in the language and drowning yourself in everything written by them with a smattering of what is written about them on top. You have to get the culture to understand the symbolism and that is exactly what Dragonlancer seems to not do. He does not reference Egyptian work; he just starts guessing.

 

I reference a ton of Egyptian material.  Like I have said in previous threads, you are a troll, and you have admitted such, because you are the trickster.  You don't care about the points made, or the outcome, or whether I really am right.  You just want to jack with people's brains.

[The Nehor]

I reference a ton of Egyptian material.  Like I have said in previous threads, you are a troll, and you have admitted such, because you are the trickster.  You don't care about the points made, or the outcome, or whether I really am right.  You just want to jack with people's brains.

You reference some translations. If my brief reading of your blog is any indication you reference other people's references and there is not a lot of original research.

I resent your accusations. I am not just jacking with people's brains. I have other motives as well and I honestly do think you are utterly wrong so I do care about the outcome and whether you are right. I admit to agnosticism on many of the points being made but I think you and I would fundamentally disagree on what constitutes a point.

[mfbukowski]

I do not. To get a handle on the Egyptian mind to dig into the context requires a lot of work. I would think being literate in the language and drowning yourself in everything written by them with a smattering of what is written about them on top. You have to get the culture to understand the symbolism and that is exactly what Dragonlancer seems to not do. He does not reference Egyptian work; he just starts guessing.

That's not my understanding of what his theory is, though you may be right.

I thought the key is to see the facsimiles as an uneducated guy on the American frontier would see them in THAT context.

I see the figure of Min in f2 fig. 7 as a guy sitting giving a specific temple sign, with his one arm and hand as a compass and square, and the other "hand" in front of him.

That's not even close to what Egyptians saw obviously, but what is important is the context in which Joseph saw them, and how he "translated" their religious meaning. He changed the meaning of the pictures to mean what he thought they meant, and used them like a mandala to receive revelation.

The evidence for that is in Joseph's notes in the facsimiles. THAT is precisely what he say a he sees there!!

That's what I think anyway. Dunno if Dragon us saying that, but I have always thought that.

To me, that us the straight catalyst theory, but Dragon has analyzed what was going on in Joseph s head.

I think. Or something thereabouts.

Edited March 18, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I mean look at facsimile 2 figure 7 naively, having been endowed and knowing the temple. Forget the Egyptian.

What do you see? A guy in a chair giving a temple gesture, with some stick figure things giving another temple gesture, and a bird doing the same thing as the stick figure person

How does Joseph describe it?

"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."

That is crystal clear that that is what Joseph sees!

God giving a gesture which is a key word, and the Holy Ghost doing the same, and a stick figure imitating the Holy ghost.

It fits the description perfectly.

[canard78]

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.

How can I falsify something that is a figment of your imagination?

[DragonLancer]

How can I falsify something that is a figment of your imagination?

 

Why should I respond to comments that you spout off about something that you know nothing about and refuse to do any work on to demonstrate that you are serious about commenting on it?

[canard78]

I mean look at facsimile 2 figure 7 naively, having been endowed and knowing the temple. Forget the Egyptian.

What do you see? A guy in a chair giving a temple gesture, with some stick figure things giving another temple gesture, and a bird doing the same thing as the stick figure person

How does Joseph describe it?

"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."

That is crystal clear that that is what Joseph sees!

God giving a gesture which is a key word, and the Holy Ghost doing the same, and a stick figure imitating the Holy ghost.

It fits the description perfectly.

Only that's not his hand...

[DragonLancer]

That's not my understanding of what his theory is, though you may be right.

I thought the key is to see the facsimiles as an uneducated guy on the American frontier would see them in THAT context.

I see the figure of Min in f2 fig. 7 as a guy sitting giving a specific temple sign, with his one arm and hand as a compass and square, and the other "hand" in front of him.

That's not even close to what Egyptians saw obviously, but what is important is the context in which Joseph saw them, and how he "translated" their religious meaning. He changed the meaning of the pictures to mean what he thought they meant, and used them like a mandala to receive revelation.

The evidence for that is in Joseph's notes in the facsimiles. THAT is precisely what he say a he sees there!!

That's what I think anyway. Dunno if Dragon us saying that, but I have always thought that.

To me, that us the straight catalyst theory, but Dragon has analyzed what was going on in Joseph s head.

I think. Or something thereabouts.

 

I'll try to say it again.  I'm saying that Joseph reproduced things that ancient people did.  Joseph didn't come up with any of this information himself.   Joseph didn't change their meaning.  Egyptians in these kinds of contexts used them as things that in themselves had no meaning, only attributes, until the Egyptians plugged in meaning.  Joseph reproduced the meaning the Egyptians plugged in to this.  The Egyptians did it.  That is why this is "ancient context."  That's why my blog is "The Ancient Context of Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar."