Book Of Abraham Characters As Variables: Updated Explanation Page

[Gervin]

I would like to hear about what he has to say about what scholars know about who really wrote the Bible.

Seeing this isn't a thread about who really wrote the Bible, I don't see the relevance.

[Thinking]

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.

 

"Violations of LSP, like this one, may or may not be a problem in practice, depending on the postconditions or invariants that are actually expected by the code that uses classes violating LSP."

 

In other words, it depends on how the code is written.

[DragonLancer]

"Violations of LSP, like this one, may or may not be a problem in practice, depending on the postconditions or invariants that are actually expected by the code that uses classes violating LSP."

 

In other words, it depends on how the code is written.

 

Poorly coded things can "work."  But that doesn't mean they are well-designed or maintainable.

You can compensate for it if you program around it, or if it is not a concern for your usage.  But that just makes the program have a built in bug if the program ever changes and the bug is manifest.  You are setting yourself up for a future problem in order to have present convenience.  An example in the real world is the wedge that you put in the V shape between two branches in a tree (it was President Monson that gave the example). You forget about it, and then you have caused yourself a problem.  The tree grew around the hidden wedge.

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/04/hidden-wedges?lang=eng

 

If something manifests later that exposes it when the program has grown and "spaghetti-fied," then you have built in the potential for a hard-to-find bug that can later cause you real heartache.  This is a principle of good design of structure to keep yourself out of trouble when a problem actually does manifest itself.  Its one less potential problem if you simply design your code correctly in the first place.

Edited March 29, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

For Hillel2:

 

Earlier in the thread, you made the comment how the Sensen Characters are not in order in the Book of Abraham Manuscript.  That is not the case, with the exception of the characters that were filled in place of characters that were missing in the lacuna.  Here is the blog post I created where I discuss Chris Smith's refutation of John Gee's claims on this point:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-refutation-of-john-gees-claim-that.html

Edited March 29, 2015 by DragonLancer

[DragonLancer]

Now, for those interested in my proposal for a catalyst hybrid theory with mine, here is my blog post on it:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2015/03/modified-neo-catalyst-modern.html

 

It is what I call, the "Modified Neo-Catalyst Modern Reconstruction" theory.  As you read the blog post, you will see why I call it this.

Again, for clarity, this is not my favorite explanation, but I offer this up for the individuals that may want an alternate explanation to account for the evidence that I am presenting for an actual translation effort.  Some people may be interested in this.  If you carefully read what I say, you will see why various aspects of this must be brought together, because the classic Catalyst theory is not enough to account for my evidence.

 

Ed

Edited March 29, 2015 by DragonLancer

[mfbukowski]

Seeing this isn't a thread about who really wrote the Bible, I don't see the relevance.

Of course. The origin of Abraham myths is totally irrelevant to this thread.

[mfbukowski]

Now, for those interested in my proposal for a catalyst hybrid theory with mine, here is my blog post on it:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2015/03/modified-neo-catalyst-modern.html

 

It is what I call, the "Modified Neo-Catalyst Modern Reconstruction" theory.  As you read the blog post, you will see why I call it this.

Again, for clarity, this is not my favorite explanation, but I offer this up for the individuals that may want an alternate explanation to account for the evidence that I am presenting for an actual translation effort.  Some people may be interested in this.  If you carefully read what I say, you will see why various aspects of this must be brought together, because the classic Catalyst theory is not enough to account for my evidence.

 

Ed

That works.

I would take it a step farther, and say that even belief in it's historicity is an act of faith, acknowledging that perhaps Abraham himself never existed, but everyone usually flips out on that idea.

But since people die for the BELIEF that they are dying for their country, I have no problem personally living my life as if Abraham existed.

I know that belief is everything and evidence is nothing but whatever interpretation we want to give it.

But yes, it works, as far as it goes.

[mfbukowski]

An interesting article on the historicity of Abraham.

Of course if he never existed, the only theory that survives is that God gave us these inspired stories for all they teach us about how to return to Him.

I have a testimony it is all true, but that's about all the evidence that is possible, in my opinion. And for me, I have no problem with that and can argue that til doomsday if need be.

All the historical evidence in the world cannot prove that Christ has taken away my personal sins, upon repentance,but I know that is true with every fiber of my being.

When God tells you something, history becomes irrelevant.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/features/world/asia/israel/abraham-text

[The Nehor]

All the historical evidence in the world cannot prove that Christ has taken away my personal sins, upon repentance,but I know that is true with every fiber of my being.

 

I wish I had that level of devotion. Some of the fibers of my being are apostate....some of the stomach tissues, the tendons in my arms, and bits of the lymphatic system in my legs. Traitors.

[Robert F. Smith]

I've seen the "Caractors."  I think they're gibberish.

I'd like to know the basis for your opinion, Gervin.

Professional Egyptologists, on the other hand, such as William C. Hayes and Richard A. Parker (both now deceased) provided very positive remarks about the nature of the horizontal Caractors Transcript and each regarded it as written in ancient Egyptian characters.

 

On February 6, 1956, W. C. Hayes provided hieroglyphic notes on some of the initial characters, with translation and comments to Stanley B. Kimball, telling Kimball that it resembled hieratic (Kimball was then a doctoral candidate at Columbia University).  Hayes wrote a letter to Paul M. Hanson of the RLDS Church later that year (June 8, 1956) saying that the Transcript “could conceivably have been an inaccurate copy of an Egyptian account or something of the sort written in hieratic script.  With some imagination the beginning of the inscription could be taken as a date, and many of the other groups look like hieratic numerals” – quoted in Hanson, “The Transcript from the Plates of the Book of Mormon,” Saints’ Herald, Nov 12, 1956, page 6 (Hanson included negative comments on the Transcript from John A. Wilson and Alan H. Gardiner).  Later, while a visiting scholar at Brown University, Richard Bushman spoke with Richard A. Parker about the Transcript -- Parker commenting that it appeared to be a copy of a real document in Egyptian script, but possibly in an unknown language such as Meroitic (Indeed, Hugh Nibley thought many names in the Book of Mormon not only sounded like Meroitic, but that the writing on the Caractors Transcript itself looked "most like Meroitic" -- Since Cumorah, CWHN VII:170-171).   In a letter to Marvin W. Cowan, March 22, 1966, R. A. Parker stated that “the signs purportedly from the Book of Mormon . . . could well be the latest form of the written language – demotic characters.” 

 

Perhaps they've been translated?

Not to my knowledge -- aside from Hayes' notes and comments on the initial characters in the first line (copy in my possession).

[Gervin]

I'd like to know the basis for your opinion, Gervin.

Your reference to the "very positive remarks" of two deceased persons and the citation of the opinions of some folks from 50-60 years ago is the basis for my opinion; I don't see any scholars - linguistic, Egyptologists, etc., - defending the authenticity of the Caractors.

[mfbukowski]

I wish I had that level of devotion. Some of the fibers of my being are apostate....some of the stomach tissues, the tendons in my arms, and bits of the lymphatic system in my legs. Traitors.

This of course is a clear demonstration of my overall superiority, especially in the area of meekness and humility.

Notice however I specifically mentioned only "fibers" which I take to apply to muscles alone.

In my incredible humility even I must admit that I occasionally actually do make mistakes. I distinctly remember a spelling error last year.

Edited April 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

I'd like to know the basis for your opinion, Gervin.

Your reference to the "very positive remarks" of two deceased persons and the citation of the opinions of some folks from 50-60 years ago is the basis for my opinion; I don't see any scholars - linguistic, Egyptologists, etc., - defending the authenticity of the Caractors.

And you are making your own ignorance the basis for determining whether the Caractors Transcript is coherent and meaningful?  Or are you basing your opinion on something substantive?  Otherwise it is clear that you have no basis for your apriori opinion, except rank prejudice.

Edited March 31, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

Your reference to the "very positive remarks" of two deceased persons and the citation of the opinions of some folks from 50-60 years ago is the basis for my opinion; I don't see any scholars - linguistic, Egyptologists, etc., - defending the authenticity of the Caractors.

And isn't wonderful that no scholars dispute the authenticity of every word in the Bible!

Afrer all your personal salvation depends on all those wonderfully unified scholarly opinions!

Isn't absolute certainty about everything wonderful?

[Gervin]

And you are making your own ignorance the basis for determining whether the Caractors Transcript is coherent and meaningful? 

 

I'm saying that your references appear paltry and I see no serious scholarship arguing that the Caractors are coherent and meaningful. Where's the Reformed Egyptian Beef?

 

Otherwise it is clear that you have no basis for your apriori opinion, except rank prejudice.

 

 

My prejudice is toward scholarship that doesn't require a presupposition that the Book of Mormon is history.

[Gervin]

And isn't wonderful that no scholars dispute the authenticity of every word in the Bible!

You seem to have a healthy interest in the history of the Bible.  You should start a thread exploring the topic.  Unless there are Bible "Caractors" in dispute, however, the comparison here isn't apt.

 

 

Afrer all your personal salvation depends on all those wonderfully unified scholarly opinions!

 

You know nothing about my personal salvation, thank you, so allow me to ignore the rude characterization.

[DragonLancer]

Here is an article that I wrote that is a digest of Ryan Larsen's work so far on Book of Abraham studies.  As I said, Ryan is my collaborator, and we are going to be working together on various projects.

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-digest-of-ryan-larsens-contributions.html

 

As you can see from this article, all of his contributions fundamentally have all of the same principles that I have pointed out from my research, and I believe he is on the same track I am.

[cinepro]

Now, for those interested in my proposal for a catalyst hybrid theory with mine, here is my blog post on it:

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2015/03/modified-neo-catalyst-modern.html

 

It is what I call, the "Modified Neo-Catalyst Modern Reconstruction" theory.  As you read the blog post, you will see why I call it this.

Again, for clarity, this is not my favorite explanation, but I offer this up for the individuals that may want an alternate explanation to account for the evidence that I am presenting for an actual translation effort.  Some people may be interested in this.  If you carefully read what I say, you will see why various aspects of this must be brought together, because the classic Catalyst theory is not enough to account for my evidence.

 

Ed

 

Theories, like government legislation, are easier to digest when their names are easy to remember.  Acronyms are especially helpful.  So I would suggest renaming along the lines of the "Catalyst - Reconstruction - Analogy of Papyrus" theory, or something like that.

[The Nehor]

I present my NAMBLA theory:

Nehor as Angel Manifested, Brought Lost Abraham stories.

Edited April 1, 2015 by The Nehor

[DragonLancer]

Theories, like government legislation, are easier to digest when their names are easy to remember.  Acronyms are especially helpful.  So I would suggest renaming along the lines of the "Catalyst - Reconstruction - Analogy of Papyrus" theory, or something like that.

 

I present my NAMBLA theory:

Nehor as Angel Manifested, Brought Lost Abraham stories.

 

 

So, what you're saying is that you continue to disagree, which we already knew, but you continue to be jerks about it and mock, after olive branches were extended to you.

[The Nehor]

So, what you're saying is that you continue to disagree, which we already knew, but you continue to be jerks about it and mock, after olive branches were extended to you.

No, that is not what I was saying and I do not like olives in any case. Please offer the branch of a tastier fruit next time.

[DragonLancer]

For those of you that still may not understand (for those that truly have the intent and interest to understand), here is my summary of and commentary on Kerry Shirts 2005 Sunstone presentation on the Book of Abraham.  Here, I give my commentary on how Kerry Shirts shows the "likenesses" and "accord" between Egyptian abstract symbols and concrete, literal value assignments to those symbols.  And I quote Moses 6:63 and D&C 128:12-14 to show how the abstract symbol (baptism, the act of being laid down and brought back up) is in accord with the literal value-assignment to that symbol (death and resurrection).  And how this is the principle that I'm talking about with how an abstract symbol in a papyrus shares a likeness, an accord, a relationship, a set of criteria or a set of attributes with the value that is applied or assigned to it.

 

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-summary-and-commentary-on-kerry.html

 

Though Kerry Shirts no longer believes in Mormonism, his opinions at the time are correct, and are still valid.  One can only hope that he returns to the Church like Don Bradley did and continue on with the work that he had done before.

Edited April 8, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Alvie J]

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.

If you’re really interested in the Book of Mormon and its connection to Masonry and the Rosicrucians perhaps you might look at this college research paper in which explores the Book of Mormon as a ciphered text.  It’s full of colored graphs and to pictures better help the reader discern the ciphers and their meanings. 

 

https://www.academia.edu/7892970/The_Mormon_Cipher

[CV75]

If you’re really interested in the Book of Mormon and its connection to Masonry and the Rosicrucians perhaps you might look at this college research paper in which explores the Book of Mormon as a ciphered text.  It’s full of colored graphs and to pictures better help the reader discern the ciphers and their meanings. 

 

https://www.academia.edu/7892970/The_Mormon_Cipher

What's it all about, Alvie?

[DragonLancer]

What's it all about, Alvie?

 

This should probably be on a different thread.  This was a Book of Abraham/KEP thread that ought to be considered dead now.  I recommend not resurrecting this thread for this.