Book Of Abraham Characters As Variables: Updated Explanation Page

[DragonLancer]

Only that's not his hand...

 

Indeed.  The Egyptian god is Min, and that's his phallus.  Now bcuzbcuz will come on here and start on that again.

[mfbukowski]

Only that's not his hand...

Note I said forget the Egyptian understanding

 

It's not a hand, it's not Eloheim on a throne, it's not the Holy Ghost either- seems like you are a little hung up on the "hand" part!

 

We are changing the context to the American frontier with an uneducated person looking at a "picture book," or as they say in Utah, a "pitchur book"

 

<person thinking>

"What does the picture show?  Squiggles.  No wait a minute- that's a guy sitting down.   Look at that- his arm is a compass and square!!   Where's the other arm?  It's behind him with the forearm and hand sticking out.   Hmmmm. Cant see the fingers.   Maybe they are folded up kind of like a fist...   So his left arm is up in a square and his hand is a compass symbol, and the right arm, hidden behind his body, sticks out in front, and his fingers are folded under kind of...."

 

Since when is your.....  what it's supposed to be for the Egyptians --- since when does that come out of the middle of your belly?

 

The point is JOSEPH WAS NOT SEEING OR LITERALLY TRANSLATING THE EGYPTIAN.  I thought that was pretty well covered.

 

I presumed we had established a LONG time ago it was not literal.   Perhaps you should read up on what the "catalyst theory" IS.

 

It presumes it is not a literal translation.

[mfbukowski]

Indeed.  The Egyptian god is Min, and that's his phallus.  Now bcuzbcuz will come on here and start on that again.

Sigh......

[mfbukowski]

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."

Totally lost me.  Makes no sense.  You have "things" all over meaning different things.  "Used them as things"- what the heck does that mean?  Used what as what??  Joseph reproduced things ancient people did?  Like what?  Pottery?

 

And this:

" Egyptians in these kinds of contexts used them as things that in themselves had no meaning,...

 Joseph reproduced the meaning the Egyptians plugged in to this"

 

If the Egyptians had no meanings for "them" whatever "they" are, how could Joseph "reproduce their meaning?"

 

Look we can't do your editing for you.  I don't know what you are saying and it doesn't come across clearly.

 

Sorry- just trying to help.

Edited March 18, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Indeed.  The Egyptian god is Min, and that's his phallus.  Now bcuzbcuz will come on here and start on that again.

Don't let the trolls get you down or just don't respond to them.

 

But you DO have to get your language clearer.

[DragonLancer]

Totally lost me.  Makes no sense.  You have "things" all over meaning different things.  "Used them as things"- what the heck does that mean?  Used what as what??  Joseph reproduced things ancient people did?  Like what?  Pottery?

 

And this:

" Egyptians in these kinds of contexts used them as things that in themselves had no meaning,...

 Joseph reproduced the meaning the Egyptians plugged in to this"

 

If the Egyptians had no meanings for "them" whatever "they" are, how could Joseph "reproduce their meaning?"

 

Look we can't do your editing for you.  I don't know what you are saying and it doesn't come across clearly.

 

Sorry- just trying to help.

 

 

I'll try to say it yet again.  I'm saying that Joseph reproduced the information that the ancient people applied to the characters.  He didn't come up with any of this information for these characters himself.   Egyptians themselves in these kinds of contexts used the characters this way themselves.  The characters, when abstract, or as variables, in themselves had no meaning for the Egyptians.  The characters only had attributes, until the Egyptians plugged in meaning for them.  Remember, the letter B in our alphabet is just an empty plug socket (going back to my analogy of the electric socket in the previous post), devoid of any value assignment without anything plugged in to it, until in an algebra problem, a value is given.  The Egyptians then plugged in a value that fit the shape of the holes for the prongs in the electric socket.  Joseph merely reproduced the meaning the Egyptians plugged in to the characters.  The Egyptians did it originally, not Joseph.  That is why this is "ancient context."  That's why my blog is "The Ancient Context of Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar."  Ancient context means that Joseph is reproducing context that didn't come from him, but came from the Egyptians in ancient times.  You need to understand that Joseph Smith is just a guy that reproduces things.  He is not doing anything on his own.  He didn't come up with this on his own.  Pick an Egyptian character.  Lets go with the letter B in the Egyptian Alphabet for now as an example, since we were talking about B in our alphabet.  Joseph Smith said the Egyptian letter B was Kli-flos-is-es.  Joseph Smith didn't just pick out the letter B from the Egyptian Alphabet randomly and give it a weird name, saying it was Kli-flos-is-es.  The Egyptians over 2000 years ago, picked the letter B in their own alphabet, and called it by the ancient name Kli-flos-is-es, when using it for a character for the Book of Abraham, and the Spirit told Joseph Smith to pick the letter B and call it this, because it was an ancient usage.  Normally, its just a plain letter B in their alphabet.  This is like your algebra teacher picking the letter B in our alphabet and using it for the number 10 in a certain math problem.  Normally, the letter B in our alphabet is not the number ten.  Do you see what I am saying?  While it is true that Joseph Smith said that was the name of the letter B in the Book of Abraham usage of the character, that idea didn't originate with him.  Egyptians were the ones that gave it that assignment.  Joseph Smith just relayed this information.  Here is my article on the letter B, and I show where Joseph Smith pointed out that it was Kli-flos-is-es.

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/03/joseph-smiths-kli-flos-is-es-or-ha-ko.html

Edited March 19, 2015 by DragonLancer

[mfbukowski]

I'll try to say it yet again.  I'm saying that Joseph reproduced the information that the ancient people applied to the characters.  He didn't come up with any of this information for these characters himself.   Egyptians themselves in these kinds of contexts used the characters this way themselves.  The characters, when abstract, or as variables, in themselves had no meaning for the Egyptians.  The characters only had attributes, until the Egyptians plugged in meaning for them.  Remember, the letter B in our alphabet is just an empty plug socket (going back to my analogy of the electric socket in the previous post), devoid of any value assignment without anything plugged in to it, until in an algebra problem, a value is given.  The Egyptians then plugged in a value that fit the shape of the holes for the prongs in the electric socket.  Joseph merely reproduced the meaning the Egyptians plugged in to the characters.  The Egyptians did it originally, not Joseph.  That is why this is "ancient context."  That's why my blog is "The Ancient Context of Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar."  You need to understand that Joseph Smith is just a guy that reproduces things.  He is not doing anything on his own.  He didn't come up with this on his own.  Pick an Egyptian character.  Lets go with the letter B in the Egyptian Alphabet for now as an example, since we were talking about B.  Joseph Smith said it was Kli-flos-is-es.  Joseph Smith didn't just pick out the letter B from the Egyptian Alphabet randomly and give it a weird name, saying it was Kli-flos-is-es.  The Egyptians picked the letter B in their own alphabet, and called it by the ancient name Kli-flos-is-es, when using it for a character for the Book of Abraham.  Normally, its just a plain letter B.  This is like your algebra teacher picking the letter B in our alphabet and using it for the number 10 in a certain math problem.  Normally, the letter B in our alphabet is not the number ten.  Do you see what I am saying?  While it is true that Joseph Smith said that was the name of the letter B in the Book of Abraham usage of the character, that idea didn't originate with him.  Egyptians were the ones that gave it that assignment.  Joseph Smith just relayed this information.  Here is my article on the letter B, and I show where Joseph Smith pointed out that it was Kli-flos-is-es.

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2014/03/joseph-smiths-kli-flos-is-es-or-ha-ko.html

That sounds like you are describing a "literal translation"

 

The Egyptians had a context for these symbols and Joseph reproduced their meanings.  That is called a "translation".

 

Not what I thought you were saying at all.

[DragonLancer]

That sounds like you are describing a "literal translation"

 

The Egyptians had a context for these symbols and Joseph reproduced their meanings.  That is called a "translation".

 

Not what I thought you were saying at all.

 

Yes,  I am saying that it was an actual, ancient translation of an actual ancient usage, but it was only that context for this usage.  There were other contexts for other usages.

[Thinking]

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.

 

Ever since it became painfully obvious that what is on the existing papyri does not match the Book of Abraham as found in the Pearl of Great Price, LDS apologists have been creating theories to explain how this could happen. Why? They are trying to make the facts fit a previously determined conclusion that the record in the Book of Abraham is historically accurate.

[mfbukowski]

Yes,  I am saying that it was an actual, ancient translation of an actual ancient usage, but it was only that context for this usage.  There were other contexts for other usages.

So the same symbols had multiple possible meanings- like the same words could be about a baseball game and bonsai gardening?  (someone else's cool words)

[cinepro]

Yes,  I am saying that it was an actual, ancient translation of an actual ancient usage, but it was only that context for this usage.  There were other contexts for other usages.

 

What is your understanding for the dating on the Joseph Smith Papyri?  When was it created?

[cinepro]

So the same symbols had multiple possible meanings- like the same words could be about a baseball game and bonsai gardening?  (someone else's cool words)

 

...or a Nestle Tollhouse recipe.*

 

*My context for that line has it reading "mfbukowski is a great guy, and I agree with him."  If you see it saying something else, it's only because you are misreading the words in a different context.  Your mistake, not mine.  Each word is a variable, and please don't mistakenly assign them meanings that relate to chocolate chip cookies.  Because we're talking about ancient Egyptian, and that would make no sense.

Edited March 19, 2015 by cinepro

[DragonLancer]

Ever since it became painfully obvious that what is on the existing papyri does not match the Book of Abraham as found in the Pearl of Great Price, LDS apologists have been creating theories to explain how this could happen. Why? They are trying to make the facts fit a previously determined conclusion that the record in the Book of Abraham is historically accurate.

 

Yes.  It is admitted that it is a predetermined conclusion supported by the Holy Ghost, and we are not afraid of the fact that it is a previously determined conclusion with that kind of support.  I'm not the least bit afraid of anything any critic has ever said about it.  All their criticisms fall flat and now the momentum is starting to go in the other direction where they are starting to lose the battle where they used to have the upper hand, with the forensic evidence of the papyri, when all other apologists could do was to run and hide from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and make up a missing papyrus.  If you have not noticed, Joseph Smith's authorship of the Kirtland Egptian Papers and use of the Sensen Papyrus and no missing papyrus in modern times are the cornerstones of my theory.   My theory does not have the weaknesses evident in the standard apologetic.  I am not afraid of their criticisms in the least.  I embrace their evidence that they think they have a monopoly on.

[DragonLancer]

So the same symbols had multiple possible meanings- like the same words could be about a baseball game and bonsai gardening?  (someone else's cool words)

 

Yes.  But the key is that these things were ancient, and Joseph Smith was just the person to relay this.  EDIT:  I forgot to say that the multiple possible meanings always shared fundamental attributes with the Egyptian hieroglyphic that was chosen to represent them.

Edited March 19, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

What is your understanding for the dating on the Joseph Smith Papyri?  When was it created?

 

In the Ptolemaic/Greco-Roman period which is a fact universally known and agreed among all scholars that have dealt with these papyri. 

[DragonLancer]

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.

 

You are not honestly interested in my research, not even with a genuine desire to genuinely rebut it.  If you did, then you would engage it with honesty and not make false statements about it.  Sorry.  You are just not being honest.  I don't have the least bit of trust in your motives.  And after your unChristian behavior over the whole time I have had interaction with you, I owe you absolutely nothing.  I don't owe you my respect.  I don't owe you my trust.  I don't owe you the benefit of the doubt in the least.

Edited March 19, 2015 by DragonLancer

[mfbukowski]

...or a Nestle Tollhouse recipe.*

 

*My context for that line has it reading "mfbukowski is a great guy, and I agree with him."  If you see it saying something else, it's only because you are misreading the words in a different context.  Your mistake, not mine.  Each word is a variable, and please don't mistakenly assign them meanings that relate to chocolate chip cookies.  Because we're talking about ancient Egyptian, and that would make no sense.

I honestly just heard this statement on a sports report regarding March Madness.

 

"Texas is this year's Tennessee"

 

Just a tad context dependent.

[The Nehor]

You are not honestly interested in my research, not even with a genuine desire to genuinely rebut it.  If you did, then you would engage it with honesty and not make false statements about it.  Sorry.  You are just not being honest.  I don't have the least bit of trust in your motives.  And after your unChristian behavior over the whole time I have had interaction with you, I owe you absolutely nothing.  I don't owe you my respect.  I don't owe you my trust.  I don't owe you the benefit of the doubt in the least.

Okay, now that was just hurtful. Those are the kinds of comments that make baby Paladine cry. I have been insulted many times in my life but no one has ever had a hateful enough spirit to dare to call me plain. I challenge you to a duel on the field of honor.

Oh, and I never lied so that part is factually incorrect. I would suggest amending it before you embarrass yourself. Hope that helps.

[Senator]

This reminds me of a joke:

 

A man goes to a Psychologist and says, "Doc I got a real problem, I can't stop thinking about sex."
The Psychologist says, "Well let's see what we can find out", and pulls out his ink blots. "What is this a picture of?" he asks.
The man turns the picture upside down then turns it around and states, "That's a man and a woman on a bed making love."
The Psychologist says, "very interesting," and shows the next picture. "And what is this a picture of?"
The man looks and turns it in different directions and says, "That's a man and a woman on a bed making love."
The Psychologists tries again with the third ink blot, and asks the same question, "What is this a picture of?"
The patient again turns it in all directions and replies, "That's a man and a woman on a bed making love."
The Psychologist states, "Well, yes, you do seem to be obsessed with sex."
"Me!?" demands the patient. "You're the one who keeps showing me the dirty pictures!"

[Hillel2]

Yes.  But the key is that these things were ancient, and Joseph Smith was just the person to relay this.  EDIT:  I forgot to say that the multiple possible meanings always shared fundamental attributes with the Egyptian hieroglyphic that was chosen to represent them.

 Hello. I haven't read through Your entire blog so i apologize if You have addressed my questions thoroughly there or anywhere else. Your theory, as i understand it, seems interesting to me.

 

Now the questions.

 

Inasmuch as one symbol has more than one interpretation within the same cultural tradition (Let's just say that  X=Abraham, righteous, descend, multitude, sacrifice...), by what means is the meaning of that symbol understood? It would truly be a work of cryptographic genius to impose a different meaning on the characters of a text insuch a way that it would all hang together. It would be even more difficult to do so if the same character had multiple disparate meanings...not impossible, i've just never heard of anything that complex being done.

 

I have never been able to make a lot of sense of the Egyptian papers...i haven't spent a lot of time with them so that is my fault...am i correct in my perception that the characters are drawn at random from the Sensen text? If so, does that mean that when reading the Sensen text "Abrahamically" we should only "read" certain characters and ignore others? If so, it seems to me we are dealing with some kind of submerged cryptogram. Or are we intended to read all the characters of the Sensen manuscript but simply lack a glossary for all of them?

 

I have no position on any of these arguments. I'm interested in developing an understanding of Your position and how, from your viewpoint, my questions might be addressed. Thank you.

[DragonLancer]

Okay, now that was just hurtful. Those are the kinds of comments that make baby Paladine cry. I have been insulted many times in my life but no one has ever had a hateful enough spirit to dare to call me plain. I challenge you to a duel on the field of honor.

Oh, and I never lied so that part is factually incorrect. I would suggest amending it before you embarrass yourself. Hope that helps.

 

I stand by it.

[The Nehor]

I stand by it.

The liar or the plain part?

[DragonLancer]

The liar or the plain part?

 

The honestly engaging my theory part, even just to rebut it.

[Hillel2]

Another quick question. For anyone who does believe that the Sensen manuscript as we have it IS the original source of the BOA...What would be the need for the BOA to be "concealed" within the Sensen manuscript? As an example of apocryphal literature, it's very interesting but i don't find any of its assertions particularly astounding or dangerous should they fall into the hands of the wrong party. I can think of a large number of texts which make some, from the standpoint of received Judeo-christianity, really astounding claims but they were not encrypted or imposed on another text in order to conceal their contents from the unworthy.... Could there be other reasons for its being transmitted in this form?

 

Curious

[DragonLancer]

Hillel2, thank you so much for your questions.  I am at work so I will have to type up a more detailed response on a lunch break because these are more profound and thoughtful set of questions than I've had up till this point and I can't just answer in a moment, because it will take a number of paragraphs.  I'll get right back with you.  And I just wanted to add that I found your comment on that one thread about the Anthon Transcript very helpful and actually quoted it in a blog post, if you are interested:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2015/02/compression-of-information-in.html

 

Warning about a former post: If you continue to call posters dishonest the thread will be closed.