Book Of Abraham Characters As Variables: Updated Explanation Page

[DragonLancer]

I refuse to believe that anyone actually likes Ted Cruz.

 

I do.  But I am not even a Republican.

[The Nehor]

I do.  But I am not even a Republican.

Every time I see his face I want to punch it. He has one of the most punchable faces I have ever seen. How can you not want to punch it? Is there something wrong with you?

[Senator]

Ed,

You are the quintessential Mormon of my youth

[DragonLancer]

Ed,

You are the quintessential Mormon of my youth

 

Uh.  Ok.  I am a little hesitant to say thanks because I don't know what that means.  Is that a good thing or.....?

[mfbukowski]

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?

So you also do not understand the arrows.  That's my point.

 

If it really is a "translation"- even if only idea by idea- pay 5 undergrads to learn the theory in detail,  preferably non-members who do not know the BOA, give them the hash and see if they even get perhaps the same ideas in the same order as the BOA, and then you have something.

 

Everyone wants science, and science is science.  If it is a "translation" which does not require inspiration, the above should work, again even if just the concepts in the same order come through.

 

If that does not work, we are back to the catalyst theory.   Simple.

 

As has been shown, working backward from the "answer sheet" doesn't show it was a "translation".  Yes, it gives tremendous insight into the workings of Joseph's natural mind without inspiration- and maybe if presented that way it would be really helpful.   Maybe I just don't understand the whole thing, but then hat shows another problem- it still needs to be explained better.

 

I hope he takes this all constructively, because there is something valuable there.  If nothing else it gives great insights into Joseph's mind and how much was pure inspiration and how much was his own mental processes.

 

Overall I see it could be a big step forward if he can make it understandable even if only to specialists.

[mfbukowski]

I do.  But I am not even a Republican.

Oh an apostate then huh? 

 

You've got some very interesting stuff there I wish I understood it.

[Ahab]

So you also do not understand the arrows. That's my point.

I get his basic idea though, and I like it, and I think it makes a lot of good sense.

If it really is a "translation"- even if only idea by idea- pay 5 undergrads to learn the theory in detail, preferably non-members who do not know the BOA, give them the hash and see if they even get perhaps the same ideas in the same order as the BOA, and then you have something.

You seem to have a lot of faith in undergrads, and that is just adorable. But let's suppose that the undergrads selected were inspired by God with wisdom and intelligence without even realizing it and they each came up with 5 different but equally valid interpretations of the KEP (a new term in my vocabulary) because, as Ed's theory suggests, the Egyptian texts and symbols and pictures have not just 1 valid interpretation but more than 1, like 2, or maybe even 5, because the whole package is composed of variable or various terms?

Everyone wants science, and science is science. If it is a "translation" which does not require inspiration, the above should work, again even if just the concepts in the same order come through.

I think you should be more open to the idea of what receiving inspiration or even revelation is all about before saying something like "inspiration is not required". As far as I know ALL good ideas are God's ideas and if we didn't get any it would mean all of our ideas would be stupid.

But, anyway, Ed did seem to be saying that anyone who could correctly understand the meanings and methodologies Egyptians used to communicate ideas would be able to see what he sees as variable terms.

If that does not work, we are back to the catalyst theory. Simple.

The point is simply to understand how Joseph's understanding and the understanding of other people regarding the KEP can both be valid, I think. I think it would be nice if both interpretations are right, in the proper contexts.

As has been shown, working backward from the "answer sheet" doesn't show it was a "translation". Yes, it gives tremendous insight into the workings of Joseph's natural mind without inspiration- and maybe if presented that way it would be really helpful. Maybe I just don't understand the whole thing, but then hat shows another problem- it still needs to be explained better.

Ed has done a lot of work on this and he has tried to explain what he thinks, repeatedly. I think we just need to toss out the "skeptic" mentality in favor of more sincere questions.

I hope he takes this all constructively, because there is something valuable there. If nothing else it gives great insights into Joseph's mind and how much was pure inspiration and how much was his own mental processes.

Overall I see it could be a big step forward if he can make it understandable even if only to specialists.

There you go. That's the kind of positive feedback needed here if we want to keep Ed from his desire to snap at the skeptics.

But I suppose we all need to learn how to deal with skeptics in our own way.

[cinepro]

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.

 

It's just an odd idea.  You either have an ancient Egyptian priest (who is preparing dead bodies according to the religion and superstition of the Egyptians) being inspired to prepare the specific documents for these specific mummies so that they can be delivered to Kirtland and sold to Joseph Smith 2,000 years later (but without making any obvious changes to the original pagan documents), or you had Egyptian priests unknowingly including secret copies of The Book of Abraham and The Book of Joseph with every mummy.

 

It's a creatively entertaining supposition, but as long as the only "evidence" is based associating the already produced BoA with apparently unconnected symbols, it's kind of hard to latch on to it as anything other than an interesting idea.

[Ahab]

It's just an odd idea. You either have an ancient Egyptian priest (who is preparing dead bodies according to the religion and superstition of the Egyptians) being inspired to prepare the specific documents for these specific mummies so that they can be delivered to Kirtland and sold to Joseph Smith 2,000 years later (but without making any obvious changes to the original pagan documents), or you had Egyptian priests unknowingly including secret copies of The Book of Abraham and The Book of Joseph with every mummy.

It's a creatively entertaining supposition, but as long as the only "evidence" is based associating the already produced BoA with apparently unconnected symbols, it's kind of hard to latch on to it as anything other than an interesting idea.

If you can just accept the idea that Abraham taught some of the early Egyptians some of what he knew about the gospel, including the ordinances associated with salvation and exaltation, IN ADDITION TO what the Egyptians already knew from some of their ancestors going all the way back to Adam through Noah, then it shouldn't be toooo much of a stretch for you to see how their funerary texts and pictures harken back to what they learned through Abraham and other prophets of God.

But, hey, I can see why you would have trouble accepting all that and so I have nothing but sympathy for you.

[DragonLancer]

It's just an odd idea.  You either have an ancient Egyptian priest (who is preparing dead bodies according to the religion and superstition of the Egyptians) being inspired to prepare the specific documents for these specific mummies so that they can be delivered to Kirtland and sold to Joseph Smith 2,000 years later (but without making any obvious changes to the original pagan documents), or you had Egyptian priests unknowingly including secret copies of The Book of Abraham and The Book of Joseph with every mummy.

 

It's a creatively entertaining supposition, but as long as the only "evidence" is based associating the already produced BoA with apparently unconnected symbols, it's kind of hard to latch on to it as anything other than an interesting idea.

 

You keep saying they are unconnected symbols.  The evidence is there to demonstrate they are connected.  If you say, "I reject what you think is evidence, because I have examined carefully your claims and I don't concur."  That is different from your mocking my work and giving me some symbol and telling me to read your mind, as you have in the messages above, to do the same thing that Nebuchadnezzar did to his soothsayers, to choke up not only the interpretation of the dream, but also the dream, or he would kill them.  It took Daniel to do both, who was a seer.

 

I'm saying that reverse-engineering is different from that, because you have the evidence from both sides (the explanations in the KEP and for the facsimiles on the one hand, and regular Egyptian translations of characters and in-depth studies on the various characters done by Egyptologists on the other hand).  To discern what those two sets of evidence have in common is much different from Nebuchadnezzar demanding someone to produce the dream he had.

 

Now, If you say you don't agree with my research, it is one thing.  That is acceptable, after actually knowing what I am actually saying.  To mock my research and me because you are ignorant of it, which both you and Nehor have on this thread repeatedly, after I took the time to answer this in a number of ways, that to me is a grotesque bit of trollery.

 

Being inspired for anyone is no different than some guy on the street being inspired to help someone in need because the Spirit whispered to him to help.  He didn't have to be a member of the Church to be inspired in that way.  It is not something beyond comprehension for people to do things that they don't understand why.  And they don't have to be a member of the Church for this to happen.  (Words of Mormon 1:7; Alma 19:16; 1 Nephi 4:6)

 

Now, for you to choose to not believe in an explanation like this, that is your right.  

What you are not free to do without making an un-factual claim would be for you tell me that I haven't done my homework, because that is not the case.  (Well, of course, you can say whatever you want, because you are free to say what you want, but I mean to say that you can make claims that are not factual, but the fact remains that if you make a claim that is not factual, then you are saying something that is not factual.)  If you tell me that I'm wrong, and that is your opinion after understanding my claims, then that is acceptable to me as being a genuine disagreement.

 

And again, this is not someone putting secret copies of the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph in every mummy.  Again, for the umpteenth time.  These are common funerary documents.  It is fortunate for us there are so many copies.  The fact remains that they were used this way, which is why, it didn't matter which copy of them ended up in the hands of Joseph Smith.  There is nothing special about the one copy we do have from Joseph Smith, with the exception that it is nice that it had facsimile 1 and 3 with it.  It is also fortunate that there was a hypocephalus among the collection of Egyptian documents that Joseph Smith ended up with.  And furthermore, fortunately for us, there are so many copies that we can reconstruct the characters that the Sensen Papyrus used to have in the parts that have been damaged by comparing them with the ones in the other Sensen Papyri of the same class of papyri.  Fortunately for us, there are so many hypocephali out there that we can basically reconstruct what the damaged portions of Facsimile 2 used to be like as well.

 

If you can get past the fact that the documents are ordinary, and the usage of the documents is what matters, then you can understand that there is nothing special about the documents, and that what was special was the usage of the documents.  If you can comprehend that this is all about the usage of the documents instead of this being about the documents, then you can start to comprehend what I'm saying.  And for someone to be directed in ancient times to use a document this way, and for someone in modern times that is a seer to be directed to see that someone in ancient times was directed to use a document this way, that really isn't all that big of a deal if you have evidence that someone was using the documents this way.  And indeed, that is the case.  That is what the evidence shows.

Edited March 25, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Ahab]

I really like you, Ed. You remind me of me, except that you know and understand a heck of a lot more about Egyptian stuff and KEP stuff than I do. Up until now I've been content knowing that what we have in the BOA is true, based on a testimony from God to me personally, but now I have a much better understanding of how we got that information through Joseph and how much the Egyptians were taught, too. I thank you for helping me with that. Now I'm going to start reading your blog.

Oh, and you remind me a little of Hugh Nibley, too, who I also enjoyed learning from. My kind of prophet!

[DragonLancer]

I really like you, Ed. You remind me of me, except that you know and understand a heck of a lot more about Egyptian stuff and KEP stuff than I do. Up until now I've been content knowing that what we have in the BOA is true, based on a testimony from God to me personally, but now I have a much better understanding of how we got that information through Joseph and how much the Egyptians were taught, too. I thank you for helping me with that. Now I'm going to start reading your blog.

Oh, and you remind me a little of Hugh Nibley, too, who I also enjoyed learning from. My kind of prophet!

 

Thanks again Ahab, and no problem.  However, I really do shy away from being compared to Nibley in some way.  I love Nibley's work.  I love John Gee's work.  I love Kerry Muhlstien's work.  I disagree with them all on the KEP and the Sensen Papyrus, because they are/were all proponents of the missing papyrus theory and the scribes did it theory.  But that really is a minor thing.  I respect them all  for all they have done that is positive, and all that they have done to preserve people's faith.  However, its time for us to all move on from the Missing Papyrus theory to things that are more evidence-based, namely to have the forensic evidence as the basis of our work, which is the papyrus and the KEP evidence.  Because the Missing Papyrus theory had its day.  Now people are more sophisticated in their attacks on the Book of Abraham, and now the Internet is causing loss of faith.

 

I respect William Schryver for his hard work and effort to have a faith-promoting explanation for the KEP, and it is good that he saw that these things in the KEP were basically variables, although he said they are a "cipher."  That again is just a way to describe their nature as variables, because he is saying they were value-assignments to symbols.  I respect that he believes that it was a modern-day effort.  I respect him that he is a fellow Software Engineer.  But he is wrong about the idea that it is ONLY a modern-day effort headed by William W. Phelps, that had nothing to do with ancient translation.  It was the prophet Joseph Smith that was behind all of these papers, and it was an ancient thing that he was reproducing.

 

I also expressed my dismay at the Church's statement on the Book of Abraham when it said that theories that attempt to demonstrate a real translation effort of the extant papyrus are not likely to yield fruit.  I was dismayed at this because if they had had the information I have, perhaps they would not have said that.  And perhaps it isn't too late to get that changed, if they can eventually see serious efforts in this direction.

 

 I have always been driven to come up with something that did not have the flaws in the Missing Papyrus theory.  Furthermore, I have always been driven to find an explanation that had the actual forensic evidence of what Joseph Smith was doing as its basis rather than the evasion tactics and artful dodges in the Missing Papyrus theory.  Unfortunately, that is all the Missing Papyrus Theory is, is a way to skirt around the evidence in the KEP.  If we embrace the KEP and the Sensen Papyrus and defend them, then we actually take our fight to the grounds the Anti-Mormons have dominated for so long.  And so, that is why, I have said on various threads and on various blog posts.  If I am not entirely right, then some approach like mine will still end up being the type of approach that is the future of Book of Abraham research and apologetics.  Because the approach transforms the apologetic from something that is an evasion tactic to something that is evidence based.  The Anti-Mormons for so long thought that there was nothing in that set of evidence that could be shown to actually defend the truth, because they thought it was so obvious that the translations were so obviously false.  And that is the same reason that the apologists did not and still do not want to tread there.  That is just not true at all, and that is why we need to concentrate our research there instead of running from it and dodging it.

Edited March 25, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Ahab]

Thanks again Ahab, and no problem. However, I really do shy away from being compared to Nibley in some way.

Maybe it's just how you say some things. Not sure, really, but somehow you remind me of him, a little.

And I think your best bet for reaching more people would be to show step-by-step how you interpret either specific Egyptian characters or overall Egyptian stories in multiple ways that are all equally valid, while explaining how you came up with different interpretations.

But don't use numbers, as you try to do with algebra. Use pictures or symbols or words while explaining what they have in common but which can still be interpreted in various ways

I haven't read your blog yet though so if you do that there I'm sure I'll pick up even more from you then.

[Ahab]

Nope. I have said nothing about encodings, although it is vaguely something that is creative that some people could try to use the word "encodings" for. But I wish you could get past the idea of using the word encodings for it because that is just the wrong idea. I will pull another rabbit out of a hat and get technical here since it seems like this is what it will take, but I doubt that you will "get it" without being a programmer, or a technical person of some sort. I have exhausted all my simple analogies I can think of, so here we go to get technical. This is the usage of abstract symbols with external context-helpers. that isn't really an encoding. This is just plain different, and it is not an encoding. An encoding means that something can be unencoded. This is something more along the lines in computer programming called a "hash" that is only a one way thing. The relationship of the literal thing to the symbol can be seen only if the literal thing is known, not the other way around. In other words, this is totally a one way thing, like hashing. If you care to see the technical difference between encoding and hashing, here is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function

https://danielmiessler.com/study/encoding_encryption_hashing/

If you know the literal meaning, you can check it against the hash and you can see that it fits with the hash. but the hash cannot be reversed. The hash itself can give you no information about the thing that produced it or the thing that it is a place-holder for. You can only see that it fits with the hash by having that information and checking it with the hash.

So, this is where someone uses a symbol dynamically to represent something that it has something in common or common attributes with. there was nothing in the document to be detected because the things that could give you clues to it were outside the document and were not passed down. And so, no, it was not deciphered in that way. The "glossary" as Hillel2 calls it was revealed to a seer, and that is what made it useful to us. It is not useful without thing things external to it. Without the "glossary," you cannot see how the abstract symbols relate to the things they are meant to represent. Once you have the glossary, then the relationships between the symbols and the things they are made to represent become evident. I have shown the relationships to the symbols and their assigned meanings, and in every case, there are two facts: 1) The symbol doesn't LITERALLY mean what the assigned meaning says it means. 2) The symbol always shares attributes with the thing it represents, so they are tied together with the attributes they share in common.

Examples:

(1) Osiris = Abraham. Osiris mythologically shares many attributes that Abraham had literally.

(2) Reed Symbol, or Egyptian uniliteral Letter I = Land of the Chaldees. the vocalization in the KEP is Chalsidonhiash, which is Joseph Smith's vocalization for the Kassite place name Karduniash, which is southern Babylonia, (i.e. Land of the Chaldees). The Sumerian name of the place was Land of Reeds, or Kiengi, which is how it appears in their pictographic writings in the cuneiform. So as you can see, Abraham was from the Land of Reeds, and the reed symbol was used to represent it pictographically. On its own, the reed symbol is the letter I, and means nothing. But when a glossary or table of meaning assignments is given, you can see that an abstraction (reed) was a suitible symbol to be used for a concrete value assignment (land of reeds). and when you know the general meaning of Egyptian hieroglyph, and you can see a meaning assignment that is meaningful that manifests what the abstract symbol has in common with its meaning assignment, you can see through simple reasoning that it is not literally saying land of reeds. It is however a suitable abstract symbol to represent land of reeds when you have that value assigned to it.

(3) Khnum-Ra = Kolob. Khnum-Ra is the God of creation and Kolob is the first creation. they share a thematic attribute making the abstract symbol (Khnum-Ra) a suitible place-holder or representation of Kolob through that theme: creation.

And the list goes on and on and on. They all share the same pattern: non-literal symbol with attributes in common with the concrete value assignment making it a suitable symbol to represent the thing that it is made to represent as long as you have the thing that is the context helper, the thing that gives the value assignment to the abstract symbol. By itself, the symbol doesn't have enough to offer anyone to help them understand what concrete or literal meaning should be applied to it without the thing that gives it meaning that is an external table of meaning assignments or glossary.

If you can't see what I'm talking about with these examples and can't see that it is not encoding of any kind, I don't know what to do to help you. I've told you this in so many different ways, that I literally have exhausted all of my analogies I can think of. I've supplied you with a number of analogies. I've supplied you with examples. I supplied you with a blog with tons of background information and research on this. If you are not impressed and are still meh about it and it doesn't do anything for you, then I suggest that you move on.

Just read this again and think its worth quoting to help some who may have missed it to understand what you mean.

[DragonLancer]

As an Olive Branch to Thinking:

 

I apologize for how things turned out earlier on this thread.  I can understand why you would say that a square is a rectangle from the standpoint of mathematics, which is a specialized thing for your field.  I was talking to a colleague about this, and it is another thing that boils down to context, yet again.  However, I hope you will accept that in computer science, there is a specialized way to look at squares and rectangles from the standpoint of the Liskov Substitution Principle.  I hope that you will accept that while you happen to be right from one point of view, there is another point of view to consider that is a specialized way of looking at it that you may not be familiar with from another field of study.  So, in my field of study, I hope you will understand why I said the things I said earlier in the thread, and I'm sorry it turned out the way it did.  If we can come to agree that we are both right in certain ways, I hope we can come to agree on that.

 

I hope you will understand that I was posting what I did to try to help you understand that I am concerned with the functional point of view of things too, and I am not unaware of what you were concerned with.

 

As an Olive Branch to Cinepro and Nehor (and this will be of interest to mfbukowski and Hillel2 perhaps):

 

I am working on a blog post that I will have finished in the next few days that will be called something like the Neo-Catalyst Modern Reconstruction Theory (which is a term I am coining, or the working title for what I plan to call the theory).  This is a hybrid between my theory and the Catalyst theory.  I am doing this to explore how a Catalyst Theory can work with the observations I've made on my blog about evidence for Modern Reconstruction of damaged parts of the papyrus, as well as this idea that popped up in other posts on this blog where people were asking me about whether this evidence I have could support the idea of Joseph Smith being the one to have done this with these characters rather than an ancient person at all.  I have done further contemplation of this, and I have to admit that I ought to offer this up as an alternate theory for how this happens in the papyrus rather than insisting only on my favorite point of view, that there was an ancient redactor/interpreter like Kevin Barney's J-red.  I know that Cinepro has a lot of issues with this "imaginative" thing as he calls it.  I hope that by offering this interpretation as an alternate explanation, that this evidence will be something that you may be more willing to accept.  I hope also, that by offering this, that Nehor will take a step back and reconsider being so against what I have to present.  Nehor, I don't know what to do for you to get on your good side, but I suspect there is nothing I can do to earn your friendship.  But as a curious human being, I am wondering if it is possible.  Anyhow, I will post the link to that blog post when done.  mfburkowski, I know you love the Catalyst theory, so this will be of interest to you.  But again, I am writing it kind of as something that I do not believe in personally, but to accommodate another plausible point of view.  And perhaps I ought to be offering up more of a "cafeteria" of explanantions to help people see how what I have found can be interpreted so that my evidence will not necessarily be rejected just because somebody may not like my preferred explanation for it.  Also, as an example, Mormon Puzzle Pieces (Ryan Larsen) has some interesting observations that I consider part of that "cafeteria" of alternatives.

 

For Hillel2, I haven't forgotten about the Zomarah blog post where I was planning to comment on that.  He has something there, but I think he is not correct in some of his deductions, so I will also be writing a blog post on that.

 

Also, all of you should be aware that Ryan Larsen (Mormon Puzzle Pieces) is kind of a partner of mine now, and we will be collaborating.  I am going to do a digest and analysis of his contributions to research on Facsimile 3 and show how those things work with the principles that I'm talking about.  Here is his research, and I will show how it harmonizes with mine:

 

http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-book-of-abraham.html

 

Ed Goble

Edited March 27, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

Just read this again and think its worth quoting to help some who may have missed it to understand what you mean.

 

I appreciate your re-posting that Ahab.  Thanks.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

While it is certainly true that Ed Goble (DragonLancer) has the burden of showing systematically that ancient Egyptians actually used the standard symbols of the BofA facsimiles to mean what he says they mean, that same burden is also borne by the anti-Mormons.  No amount of razzamatazz and high-kicking and squealing at Le Moulin Rouge can make up for that stark reality (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKyh4zKkths).  Nor can claims that Joseph used a virtual-state transducer to come up with his explanations substitute for hard core comparisons with standard Egyptology.  Since you don't offer anything substantive, well . . .

 

. . , we might just as well have La vie en rose (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRjBZ3bRqIo).

[Robert F. Smith]

Every time I see his face I want to punch it. He has one of the most punchable faces I have ever seen. How can you not want to punch it? Is there something wrong with you?

You need to get that out of your system now, Nehor, 'cause when Cruz becomes the candidate and you say somethng like that, the Secret Service will come around to chat with you (if they're not too drunk).

[mfbukowski]

As an Olive Branch to Thinking:

I apologize for how things turned out earlier on this thread. I can understand why you would say that a square is a rectangle from the standpoint of mathematics, which is a specialized thing for your field. I was talking to a colleague about this, and it is another thing that boils down to context, yet again. However, I hope you will accept that in computer science, there is a specialized way to look at squares and rectangles from the standpoint of the Liskov Substitution Principle. I hope that you will accept that while you happen to be right from one point of view, there is another point of view to consider that is a specialized way of looking at it that you may not be familiar with from another field of study. So, in my field of study, I hope you will understand why I said the things I said earlier in the thread, and I'm sorry it turned out the way it did. If we can come to agree that we are both right in certain ways, I hope we can come to agree on that.

I hope you will understand that I was posting what I did to try to help you understand that I am concerned with the functional point of view of things too, and I am not unaware of what you were concerned with.

As an Olive Branch to Cinepro and Nehor (and this will be of interest to mfbukowski and Hillel2 perhaps):

I am working on a blog post that I will have finished in the next few days that will be called something like the Neo-Catalyst Modern Reconstruction Theory (which is a term I am coining, or the working title for what I plan to call the theory). This is a hybrid between my theory and the Catalyst theory. I am doing this to explore how a Catalyst Theory can work with the observations I've made on my blog about evidence for Modern Reconstruction of damaged parts of the papyrus, as well as this idea that popped up in other posts on this blog where people were asking me about whether this evidence I have could support the idea of Joseph Smith being the one to have done this with these characters rather than an ancient person at all. I have done further contemplation of this, and I have to admit that I ought to offer this up as an alternate theory for how this happens in the papyrus rather than insisting only on my favorite point of view, that there was an ancient redactor/interpreter like Kevin Barney's J-red. I know that Cinepro has a lot of issues with this "imaginative" thing as he calls it. I hope that by offering this interpretation as an alternate explanation, that this evidence will be something that you may be more willing to accept. I hope also, that by offering this, that Nehor will take a step back and reconsider being so against what I have to present. Nehor, I don't know what to do for you to get on your good side, but I suspect there is nothing I can do to earn your friendship. But as a curious human being, I am wondering if it is possible. Anyhow, I will post the link to that blog post when done. mfburkowski, I know you love the Catalyst theory, so this will be of interest to you. But again, I am writing it kind of as something that I do not believe in personally, but to accommodate another plausible point of view. And perhaps I ought to be offering up more of a "cafeteria" of explanantions to help people see how what I have found can be interpreted so that my evidence will not necessarily be rejected just because somebody may not like my preferred explanation for it. Also, as an example, Mormon Puzzle Pieces (Ryan Larsen) has some interesting observations that I consider part of that "cafeteria" of alternatives.

For Hillel2, I haven't forgotten about the Zomarah blog post where I was planning to comment on that. He has something there, but I think he is not correct in some of his deductions, so I will also be writing a blog post on that.

Also, all of you should be aware that Ryan Larsen (Mormon Puzzle Pieces) is kind of a partner of mine now, and we will be collaborating. I am going to do a digest and analysis of his contributions to research on Facsimile 3 and show how those things work with the principles that I'm talking about. Here is his research, and I will show how it harmonizes with mine:

http://mormonpuzzlepieces.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-book-of-abraham.html

Ed Goble

For the parts of this that apply to me, I think those are definitely positive steps. I tend to go straight for the bottom line. If the process is ultimately based on revelation, it is all revelation. If it is based on objective evidence observable to anyone, then it can be seen as "science".

Science would be interpreted the same by anyone who understands the context.

But I know there are many Mormons who seem to like a hybrid approach to all this just as there are bible believers who think the existence of Jerusalem is evidence for the reality of the atonement. For me, if the proverbial "Welcome to Zarahemla" stele were discovered tomorrow, I still would not see that as evidence for the divinity of the BOM, only testimony can do that.

So I guess I am weird. But I definitely think those changes will help to communicate your positions. You find some fascinating parallels, and I can imagine Joseph creating those, and using them as "helpers" to allow him to truly believe he was "translating" as opposed to receiving pure revelation. Perhaps he never felt worthy for the gift God gave him, and has to come up with stories as a crutch to psychologically diminish the amazing gift he never felt fully worthy to show forth.

And thanks to Ahab for that repost. The third time helped.

Edited March 28, 2015 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

You need to get that out of your system now, Nehor, 'cause when Cruz becomes the candidate and you say somethng like that, the Secret Service will come around to chat with you (if they're not too drunk).

 

Cool, I always need more people to talk to. I get lonely sometimes.

[Gervin]

Wouldn't it have just been better if God had been consistent and summoned the papyrus to heaven, like He did the golden plates?

[Robert F. Smith]

Wouldn't it have just been better if God had been consistent and summoned the papyrus to heaven, like He did the golden plates?

Hey, Gervin, we do have the so-called "Anthon Transcript."  What do you make of that?

[mfbukowski]

Hey, Gervin, we do have the so-called "Anthon Transcript." What do you make of that?

I would like to hear about what he has to say about what scholars know about who really wrote the Bible. Edited March 29, 2015 by mfbukowski

[cinepro]

Wouldn't it have just been better if God had been consistent and summoned the papyrus to heaven, like He did the golden plates?

 

I've said before that the greatest tragedy for apologists is that the papyri weren't lost.  If someone had just burned all the papyri and not included the facsimiles in the PoGP, there would be nothing troubling about the BoA.  And the doctrine would be exactly the same.

[Gervin]

Hey, Gervin, we do have the so-called "Anthon Transcript."  What do you make of that?

I've seen the "Caractors."  I think they're gibberish.  Perhaps they've been translated?