Book Of Abraham Characters As Variables: Updated Explanation Page

[mfbukowski]

Hmmm. Only 1 fan out of ??? how many ??? that got his message?

Oh well. At least I like what I got.

Well I like that there might be something out there and I understand the sense of the approach.  The rest is darkness.  What specifically did you learn?

[Ahab]

Well I like that there might be something out there and I understand the sense of the approach. The rest is darkness. What specifically did you learn?

Not sure that I can be specific enough for you to know what I got, but generally the idea that words and images can have multiple meanings and applications and that a legend/key to deciphering can be variable.

Like how a specific type of image of a man, like an image of one seated with his hands and arms in certain positions, can be not only one man but any man in that position, like either Adam or some Egyptian who died a long time ago or Abraham who taught a lot of Egyptians what he knew or even me or you in that position. And how the position of other objects and people around that man can add even more to the story, depending on what those objects signify and with each object having various meanings.

Mainly just the basic idea that words and objects and symbols can have various or variable meanings and still mean what they mean and still be used to tell other stories.

Did you even read the very first link he posted in this thread?

[The Nehor]

Not sure that I can be specific enough for you to know what I got, but generally the idea that words and images can have multiple meanings and applications and that a legend/key to deciphering can be variable.

Like how a specific type of image of a man, like an image of one seated with his hands and arms in certain positions, can be not only one man but any man in that position, like either Adam or some Egyptian who died a long time ago or Abraham who taught a lot of Egyptians what he knew or even me or you in that position. And how the position of other objects and people around that man can add even more to the story, depending on what those objects signify and with each object having various meanings.

Mainly just the basic idea that words and objects and symbols can have various or variable meanings and still mean what they mean and still be used to tell other stories.

Did you even read the very first link he posted in this thread?

 

Congratulations on discovering the concept of an allegory.

[Ahab]

Congratulations on discovering the concept of an allegory.

And I bet you thought you didn't agree with Ed.

[The Nehor]

And I bet you thought you didn't agree with Ed.

I don't.

[Ahab]

I don't.

But really you do on a basic level and yet you think you don't.

[The Nehor]

But really you do on a basic level and yet you think you don't.

Uhhh...no.

Believing that allegories exist does not mean I believe in Dragonlancer's theory.

[Ahab]

Uhhh...no.

Believing that allegories exist does not mean I believe in Dragonlancer's theory.

I'm done arguing with you for now.

You and Ed agree on what Ed was talking about, at least on a basic level, and you can continue to think you don't agree with him for as long as you want.

[The Nehor]

I'm done arguing with you for now.

You and Ed agree on what Ed was talking about, at least on a basic level, and you can continue to think you don't agree with him for as long as you want.

Since I am not convinced you know what he was talking about on even a basic level I am going to take your conclusion with a few pounds of salt.

Wait, that wasn't salt. That wasn't salt at all!

[cinepro]

Not sure that I can be specific enough for you to know what I got, but generally the idea that words and images can have multiple meanings and applications and that a legend/key to deciphering can be variable.

Like how a specific type of image of a man, like an image of one seated with his hands and arms in certain positions, can be not only one man but any man in that position, like either Adam or some Egyptian who died a long time ago or Abraham who taught a lot of Egyptians what he knew or even me or you in that position. And how the position of other objects and people around that man can add even more to the story, depending on what those objects signify and with each object having various meanings.

Mainly just the basic idea that words and objects and symbols can have various or variable meanings and still mean what they mean and still be used to tell other stories.

 

 

All those things are good, and very easy to understand.  No one is arguing about the concepts of symbolism or allegories.

 

And no one is arguing that the writing and images on the papyri can't be taken to understand different things.  It is certainly within Joseph Smith's (or anyone else's) right to look at Facsimile #1 and give the illustration of the body on the altar the identity of "Young Abraham", and the identity of the man standing over him "the priest of Elkanah" and so on.  

 

And it is certainly within the right of someone to look at Joseph Smith's explanation and for whatever reason, believe that it is describing real, historical people and real, historical events (this would be the "Catalyst Theory.")

 

It is also within the right of an Egyptologist to look at the facsimiles and papyri and explain what they think these documents meant to the ancient Egyptians based on their similarity to other Egyptian documents.  People might believe that his interpretation is describing real people and real events (in the context of ancient Egyptian religion and superstition, of course).

 

Those are the most basic principles at work in the story of The Book of Abraham's creation. 

 

The problem is when additional elements are added to the story without sufficient evidence (and honestly, once we're talking about The Book of Abraham the standard for evidence is really pretty low.)  Ultimately, that is the problem with DragonLancer's "theory": it is an exercise in creativity that has no basis in the "evidence" that is there, neither does the theory offer any new information.

 

For example, if his theory led to a process that allowed other untranslated portions of the papyri to be "translated" and additional scripture to be deciphered, it would be incredibly valuable.  Who knows how much ancient Abrahamic and Josephaic scripture is "hashed" in Egyptian writings sitting in museums all over the world?

 

Ultimately, the theory being discussed would probably be more appropriately presented in this format until better evidence for it comes along.

 

 

 

 

Egypt was hot as a furnace, as a refiner s fire; even the Nile breezes as they crept through Cairo made little difference. But the men were meeting anyway, in a private room in the back of a coffee house near Orabi Square. One of the men smoothed back his thick, white hair, then looked around the circle before turning to a large man, dressed in black. All is ready in America?

 

Yes. The attacks will be sudden and devastating. The big man paused. But the FBI is investigating the embassy, so we must move slowly and carefully. You are a cautious man maybe too cautious. Some might even wonder whose side you are on. The white-haired man narrowed his eyes. Soon it will not matter, the man shrugged. The embassy will be destroyed. Then the attacks in America will drive the point home, on their own soil. Perhaps then the Americans will keep to their own business.

 

When FBI agent and cryptologist David Hunter is temporarily assigned to decipher coded terrorist communications in Egypt, he turns to an unlikely source for help an authentic Egyptian document containing the pharaohs priestly writing code, hieroglyphics that bear a remarkable similarity to characters in the fascimiles in the Book of Abraham.

Edited March 24, 2015 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

 

Ultimately, the theory being discussed would probably be more appropriately presented in this format until better evidence for it comes along.

 

 

 

I did not know such a book existed. I am not sure whether to be depressed or amused that the book does exist.

[mfbukowski]

Not sure that I can be specific enough for you to know what I got, but generally the idea that words and images can have multiple meanings and applications and that a legend/key to deciphering can be variable.

Like how a specific type of image of a man, like an image of one seated with his hands and arms in certain positions, can be not only one man but any man in that position, like either Adam or some Egyptian who died a long time ago or Abraham who taught a lot of Egyptians what he knew or even me or you in that position. And how the position of other objects and people around that man can add even more to the story, depending on what those objects signify and with each object having various meanings.

Mainly just the basic idea that words and objects and symbols can have various or variable meanings and still mean what they mean and still be used to tell other stories.

Did you even read the very first link he posted in this thread?

Of course.

 

Have you ever considered yourself as if you were Adam?

 

Does that sound vaguely familiar?

 

The scans are so blurry that they are illegible so the arrows etc point to squiggles that are blurs.  An arrow pointing to two blurs?  What is that supposed to show?

Edited March 25, 2015 by mfbukowski

[DragonLancer]

We all gaze in awe at your programming brilliance and wonder why you are bragging about it as if it relates to interpreting Egyptian funerary documents.

 

Because since you are inept at understanding the argument I have made with Egyptian symbols, I certainly wouldn't expect you to be apt to see where Liskov Substitution directly relates with what I have done with Egyptian, so much so, that it is even closer than the hash allegory.  But you're not a programmer, so go back to World of Warcraft.

Edited March 25, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

How is it "ancient information" if the hash needed function was a revelation to Joseph?

 

No revelation, no "Ancient information".  The Egyptians did not create the alleged "hash function"- God or Joseph did.

 

I disagree with you.  This is totally the Egyptians.  Or Egyptian Jews...  Or Semites in Egypt.  Or Syncretists in Egypt.  Whatever you please.  It is ancient.

Edited March 25, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

All those things are good, and very easy to understand.  No one is arguing about the concepts of symbolism or allegories.

 

And no one is arguing that the writing and images on the papyri can't be taken to understand different things.  It is certainly within Joseph Smith's (or anyone else's) right to look at Facsimile #1 and give the illustration of the body on the altar the identity of "Young Abraham", and the identity of the man standing over him "the priest of Elkanah" and so on.  

 

And it is certainly within the right of someone to look at Joseph Smith's explanation and for whatever reason, believe that it is describing real, historical people and real, historical events (this would be the "Catalyst Theory.")

 

It is also within the right of an Egyptologist to look at the facsimiles and papyri and explain what they think these documents meant to the ancient Egyptians based on their similarity to other Egyptian documents.  People might believe that his interpretation is describing real people and real events (in the context of ancient Egyptian religion and superstition, of course).

 

Those are the most basic principles at work in the story of The Book of Abraham's creation. 

 

The problem is when additional elements are added to the story without sufficient evidence (and honestly, once we're talking about The Book of Abraham the standard for evidence is really pretty low.)  Ultimately, that is the problem with DragonLancer's "theory": it is an exercise in creativity that has no basis in the "evidence" that is there, neither does the theory offer any new information.

 

For example, if his theory led to a process that allowed other untranslated portions of the papyri to be "translated" and additional scripture to be deciphered, it would be incredibly valuable.  Who knows how much ancient Abrahamic and Josephaic scripture is "hashed" in Egyptian writings sitting in museums all over the world?

 

Ultimately, the theory being discussed would probably be more appropriately presented in this format until better evidence for it comes along.

 

 

 

 

You haven't read the blog, so you don't know what additional information was presented.

You don't understand and have demonstrated a lack of interest to understand the arguments presented with additional information here.

And I happen to know Jack personally, and he knows about my theory and likes it.

I meet with Jack every month for dinner.

Leave his book alone.

Edited March 25, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Ahab]

Of course.

Have you ever considered yourself as if you were Adam?

Does that sound vaguely familiar?

The scans are so blurry that they are illegible so the arrows etc point to squiggles that are blurs. An arrow pointing to two blurs? What is that supposed to show?

Yes of course to your first question and which scans are you talking about? I'm guessing the arrows point to variable meanings.

Something I didn't mention before that Ed mentioned is how the BOA (he calls it BA) sources have 2 valid interpretations, or at least 2, and his theory (I think he thinks of it as a theory) explains why. So the question is if that is correct and how would we know it?

[The Nehor]

Because since you are inept at understanding the argument I have made with Egyptian symbols, I certainly wouldn't expect you to be apt to see where Liskov Substitution directly relates with what I have done with Egyptian, so much so, that it is even closer than the hash allegory.  But you're not a programmer, so go back to World of Warcraft.

That is the second time you have tried to use that as an insult. Let's see......user name comes from a series of fantasy D&D books written for teens......do you think maybe these insults are just you compensating for something.

You haven't read the blog, so you don't know what additional information was presented.

And I happen to know Jack personally, and he knows about my theory and likes it.

I meet with Jack every month for dinner.

Leave his book alone.

And the funny just keeps on coming.

This is like a historian being endorsed by the writer of "The Da Vinchi Code". I do not know the guy but the book is ridiculous. No big complaint there as long as readers are having fun but to act as if he is an authority and his support bolsters your standing.......wow, just wow.

[DragonLancer]

That is the second time you have tried to use that as an insult. Let's see......user name comes from a series of fantasy D&D books written for teens......do you think maybe these insults are just you compensating for something.

And the funny just keeps on coming.

This is like a historian being endorsed by the writer of "The Da Vinchi Code". I do not know the guy but the book is ridiculous. No big complaint there as long as readers are having fun but to act as if he is an authority and his support bolsters your standing.......wow, just wow.

 

You are even inept at understanding the message of my post.  His book is a nice fictional story.  I didn't say his book bolsters my theory.  Again.  Get a grip.  I said, leave his book alone, because it has nothing to do with the fact that you can't understand an argument, or rather, you pretend like you don't to create contention.

Edited March 25, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

Letting myself get sucked in again to counter trolls again.  Sheesh.  I have to pull myself away from this message board again.  I've said what I have had to say.  

[The Nehor]

You are even inept at understanding the message of my post.  His book is a nice fictional story.  I didn't say his book bolsters my theory.  Again.  Get a grip.  I said, leave his book alone, because it has nothing to do with the fact that you can't understand an argument, or rather, you pretend like you don't to create contention.

You did not say it but you implied it. You had to slip in that he supports your theory. I plan to leave the book alone. I am not going to read it. I just got a good laugh off the fact that it exists. I find it hilarious.

Where did I pretend I do not like contention?

[DragonLancer]

 

Of course.

 

Have you ever considered yourself as if you were Adam?

 

Does that sound vaguely familiar?

 

The scans are so blurry that they are illegible so the arrows etc point to squiggles that are blurs.  An arrow pointing to two blurs?  What is that supposed to show?

 

 

The High Res scans of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers are on the Joseph Smith Papers site.  We are not limited to bad scans provided by Anti-Mormons like we used to be.

Edited March 25, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

You did not say it but you implied it. You had to slip in that he supports your theory. I plan to leave the book alone. I am not going to read it. I just got a good laugh off the fact that it exists. I find it hilarious.

Where did I pretend I do not like contention?

 

I didn't say that he supports my theory.  I said he likes it.  He likes it among a number of other theories.

[The Nehor]

I didn't say that he supports my theory.  I said he likes it.  He likes it among a number of other theories.

Why would you like something you do not support. Your friend is weird.

[DragonLancer]

Why would you like something you do not support. Your friend is weird.

 

As a Republican, if you happen to be one, you can like a number of different candidates for president without making a choice for who you will ultimately vote for, until the primaries are over for your party.

Edited March 25, 2015 by DragonLancer

[The Nehor]

As a Republican, if you happen to be one, you can like a number of different candidates for president without making a choice for who you will ultimately vote for, until the primaries are over for your party.

I refuse to believe that anyone actually likes Ted Cruz.