Rough Draft Paper on Book of Abraham- Try Number Two

[EdGoble]

28 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

But aren't the characters in the margin next to the Abraham text in the same order on the permit? If it's visual affinity that seems like the scribes got super lucky that the characters used in the permit shared visual likeness to the BoA concepts, in order!

I get the idea of a "visual pun" on a individual character level... but that the permit in sequence served as a visual pun IN SEQUENCE to the Book of Abraham seems like a stretch. Unless the scribes were looking at the next character in the Permit and said "ok... here's the character... the BoA text is about the creation... how does this character visually link to the creation...hmmmm..." and then they found a way to make the visual link. 

Yes, it is quite a forced and intentional phenomenon, where they were trying to get them in order as much as they could.  And they would look for whatever likeness they could find to use the character for how they used it.  But more often, if the character was more complex, they would simply split the characters up and treat them as if the individual characters were compounds (like a ligature), and sort of forcefully break them up.  And if they found that a piece of a character looked like another Egyptian character, then they would use it as if it was.  For example, if they thought a character looked like it had a dot in it, they would use this character as the pupil of the eye, and interpret it as if it were a whole eye.

They treated the ordering of the characters as if they were dealing with the ritual ordering of an alphabet.  Which is why Joseph Smith called the Breathing Permit the "Egyptian Alphabet."

Edited April 26, 2018 by EdGoble

[Brian 2.0]

2 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

Yes, it is quite a forced and intentional phenomenon, where they were trying to get them in order as much as they could.  And they would look for whatever likeness they could find to use the character for how they used it.  But more often, if the character was more complex, they would simply split the characters up and treat them as if the individual characters were compounds (like a ligature), and sort of forcefully break them up.  And if they found that a piece of a character looked like another Egyptian character, then they would use it as if it was.  For example, if they thought a character looked like it had a dot in it, they would use this character as the pupil of the eye, and interpret it as if it were a whole eye.

What reasons then was the Breathing Permit used? Could not any text have been used for this by the scribes?

And what is the purpose of this exercise in general?

[EdGoble]

6 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

What reasons then was the Breathing Permit used? Could not any text have been used for this by the scribes?

And what is the purpose of this exercise in general?

They intentionally interpreted this as a religious exercise linked to calendars, alphabets and Zodiacs.  It was a game like playing Senet or Mehen (like how these games were religious rituals), and was conceptually linked to those games.  In fact, they intentionally linked Mehen to the Hypocephalus, and Senet to the Facsimile #1 (lion couch scene) through a visual pun.  In other words, their "word games" and "picture games" were religious rituals.

Any text of religious significance could be used in a word/picture game, and most were.

Edited April 26, 2018 by EdGoble

[Brian 2.0]

3 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

They intentionally interpreted this as a religious exercise linked to calendars, alphabets and Zodiacs.  It was a game like playing Senet or Mehen, and was conceptually linked to those games.  In fact, they intentionally linked Mehen to the Hypocephalus, and Senet to the Facsimile #1 (lion couch scene) through a visual pun.  In other words, their "word games" and "picture games" were religious rituals.

So would this "game" of sorts between the permit and the BoA text have been known amongst the scribes or those familiar with the the Book of Abraham back then? 

[EdGoble]

16 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

So would this "game" of sorts between the permit and the BoA text have been known amongst the scribes or those familiar with the the Book of Abraham back then? 

Yes, it falls under the general practice in Egypt of ritual punning in religious documents in ancient times, and playing alphabet games in the ancient world in General.  It is the same type of thing as acrostics (acronyms) in the Old Testament, where the Hebrew alphabet was used for section markers of text, and other types of practices that were alphabet games.  This type of thing is called "constrained writing," where a composition or a hybrid composition like a mash-up is subjected to certain rules.

In this case, the rules were that somebody decided that the ordering of the symbols and the symbols themselves in the Breathing Permit was meaningful to them, and they were going to use it for decorations in the Book of Abraham text, and they forcefully and intentionally did it.  They forced it to fit unnaturally to this context.

Edited April 26, 2018 by EdGoble

[Brian 2.0]

27 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

Yes, it falls under the general practice in Egypt of ritual punning in religious documents in ancient times, and playing alphabet games in the ancient world in General.  It is the same type of thing as acrostics (acronyms) in the Old Testament, where the Hebrew alphabet was used for section markers of text, and other types of practices that were alphabet games.  This type of thing is called "constrained writing," where a composition or a hybrid composition like a mash-up is subjected to certain rules.

In this case, the rules were that somebody decided that the ordering of the symbols and the symbols themselves in the Breathing Permit was meaningful to them, and they were going to use it for decorations in the Book of Abraham text, and they forcefully and intentionally did it.  They forced it to fit unnaturally to this context.

How do the KEP pages on Alphabet and Grammar that are not associated with the BoA transcripts fit into this theory?

[MormonMason]

11 hours ago, EdGoble said:

I do not believe in the theory about the Book of Mormon being translated by a different prophet before Joseph Smith.  I believe that Moroni gave Joseph Smith the English text, and the rendering that we have are actually the English words produced in the mind of Moroni, who learned the English language a couple of hundred years before Joseph Smith, while he was a resurrected being, as an angel among the English immigrants from Europe in America.  I believe Moroni had interaction with the founding Fathers, and was instrumental in establishing this country.  And he learned English in that era, which is why the Book of Mormon is from a style of English before Joseph Smith's time.

There is another possibility for that situation.  People who home-schooled their children for generations due to poverty would have preserved the earlier style and manners of saying things because they did not have the advantage of receiving formal schooling to change such with the rapid changes that occurred in American English in the educational systems before and during that time.

One cannot compare Joseph Smith's later writings to the translation of the Book of Mormon and then say that they are different so he had to have gotten it from someone else.  Joseph Smith received further training in English grammar and diction during the Kirtland Period.  There isn't any need for Moroni to come among the earlier English immigrants to learn English a couple hundred years before translating the Book of Mormon into English so he could whisper his own translation to Joseph during the translation process.  Joseph Smith had to figure things out for himself and the Lord stated that Oliver Cowdery had to do the same if he was to get anything at all and be able to translate.  David Whitmer also confirmed that Cowdery had the same gift as Joseph.  Not have it whispered to him by Moroni but think it through and then ask God whether or not the translation was correct.

If the process was different, and Moroni was just whispering it to him or was the original translator, why didn't God say so? Why would Joseph Smith claim to be the translator when Moroni was the translator, or why did he not just say Moroni was the translator, if what you surmise were true?

I also do not see Moroni as being directly instrumental in establishing this country.  Where is the revelatory precedent for such a thing?

[EdGoble]

On 4/26/2018 at 11:18 PM, MormonMason said:

There is another possibility for that situation.  People who home-schooled their children for generations due to poverty would have preserved the earlier style and manners of saying things because they did not have the advantage of receiving formal schooling to change such with the rapid changes that occurred in American English in the educational systems before and during that time.

One cannot compare Joseph Smith's later writings to the translation of the Book of Mormon and then say that they are different so he had to have gotten it from someone else.  Joseph Smith received further training in English grammar and diction during the Kirtland Period.  There isn't any need for Moroni to come among the earlier English immigrants to learn English a couple hundred years before translating the Book of Mormon into English so he could whisper his own translation to Joseph during the translation process.  Joseph Smith had to figure things out for himself and the Lord stated that Oliver Cowdery had to do the same if he was to get anything at all and be able to translate.  David Whitmer also confirmed that Cowdery had the same gift as Joseph.  Not have it whispered to him by Moroni but think it through and then ask God whether or not the translation was correct.

If the process was different, and Moroni was just whispering it to him or was the original translator, why didn't God say so? Why would Joseph Smith claim to be the translator when Moroni was the translator, or why did he not just say Moroni was the translator, if what you surmise were true?

I also do not see Moroni as being directly instrumental in establishing this country.  Where is the revelatory precedent for such a thing?

I see your point, but I still favor Moroni over this explanation.

The revelatory precedent is where angelic/translated beings go among groups of people to prepare them for the Lord's work among them, such as with John among the ten tribes preparing them, according the Joseph Smith, or the three Nephites among us doing the work of preparation.  Angels intervene in things all the time.

I don't believe that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon text as a translation, but that the words were given to him.

[MormonMason]

2 hours ago, EdGoble said:

I see your point, but I still favor Moroni over this explanation.

The revelatory precedent is where angelic/translated beings go among groups of people to prepare them for the Lord's work among them, such as with John among the ten tribes preparing them, according the Joseph Smith, or the three Nephites among us doing the work of preparation.  Angels intervene in things all the time.

I don't believe that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon text as a translation, but that the words were given to him.

Then what is the point of studying it out in his mind if it was merely given to him? The Lord himself described elements of the process to Oliver Cowdery as not merely having it given.  Cowdery failed to translate because he thought it would merely be given to him.

[aussieguy55]

Have you seen Dan Vogel's recent contribution to the debate over the BOA on youtube?

 

[MormonMason]

11 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

Have you seen Dan Vogel's recent contribution to the debate over the BOA on youtube?

 

The one he uploaded yesterday? Nope.  Just became aware of it.  If it's like some of his other stuff (you know, like his "Joseph Smith made a set of tin plates" kind of stuff), will it be worth my time to watch it? I can never recover those lost minutes, if not.  I don't want to waste any more of my limited time if I don't have to.

[mfbukowski]

On 4/26/2018 at 10:45 AM, EdGoble said:

Well, who was it that wrote the Book of Abraham?  I say it is Abraham.

So the originally inspired content was written by Abraham.

There was an intermediary person or persons, who were Egyptians, that created an artistic composition out of the Book of Abraham.  It was a new redaction of the Book of Abraham text that combined it with pictures and illustrations (decorators) from the papyrus of Hor (the book of Breathings), and from the hypocephalus of Sheshonk (facsimile 2).  Abraham didn't do this.  Someone else did.  Kevin Barney called him J-Red or Jewish redactor.  I don't think it is necessary to say he was Jewish.  He could have been an Egyptian scribe.  Whatever the case, he interpolated these aesthetic additions to the Book of Abraham in the Greco-Roman era.

These illustrations and decorators (aesthetic additions) are not critical to the message of the Book of Abraham.  But they were nevertheless added to it.  They are definitely nice for added effect.

Whether they are "inspired" aesthetic additions is not really the point I think.  They are merely aesthetic.  Its kind of like some scribe in the middle ages adding some artistic design to some manuscript of the Bible, or adding some illustration.  We wouldn't presume that the original writers of the Bible added medieval illustrations to the original manuscripts of the Bible.  We would presume that scribes in the middle ages added them to the later copies, and that the illustrations and designs didn't exist in the originals.

What is also inspired is that Joseph Smith knew that these people did this with these symbols in the original manuscript and reproduced it.  And because he reproduced it, we are able to see the puns manifest in the pairings, and reverse-engineer them to elucidate their existence, through Egyptological analysis of the symbols in comparison to the content of the English text paired with them. The English text is a translation of ancient content, produced by Joseph Smith.

I do not believe in the theory about the Book of Mormon being translated by a different prophet before Joseph Smith.  I believe that Moroni gave Joseph Smith the English text, and the rendering that we have are actually the English words produced in the mind of Moroni, who learned the English language a couple of hundred years before Joseph Smith, while he was a resurrected being, as an angel among the English immigrants from Europe in America.  I believe Moroni had interaction with the founding Fathers, and was instrumental in establishing this country.  And he learned English in that era, which is why the Book of Mormon is from a style of English before Joseph Smith's time.

I would suggest that this description is precisely what people want to hear and how to say it!

It is brief, to the point, and puts your whole view into simple English.  In short it is what people have been looking for, those who cannot sit down for an hour to figure out what you are talking about.

I have no problem with this view and it is very plausible to me

The first time I really LOOKED at Facsimile 2 section 7 I saw parallels with the temple, which I will describe here but not in detail.   In no way is this a "translation" of Egyptian, but I saw it strictly as a picture or illustration and a key for understanding certain temple symbols.  I could add the picture but I won't so that others who care to do so can look it up for themselves.

I saw a seated person with his right arm raised to the square with his hand being portrayed by a compass symbol.  So that right hand and arm symbolized a compass even though it was raised to the square.  So right there you had a compass AND square symbolized in his arm and hand.

So if that hand was a "compass" what did that symbolize, and how did that compass relate to the exact temple covenants being made?

Could this be a kind of SIGN LANGUGE- here in more ways that one-  portraying the meanings of certain temple gestures?

Could those gestures actually refer to and portray the covenants being entered into?  And be teaching us more about them and their meaning??

His other arm was brought before him, elbow bent and hand in front of him.  That is what I saw in that artistic piece. Was the shape of the hand in the shape of another compass?  That would be interesting but the art was not clear enough to discern that.

Nearby there is a stick figure raising his arms to heaven while being in the presence of a bird.  Could the bird be the Holy Ghost?   All the way looking at the facsimile I saw illustrations of temple symbols.

I did not care one iota where that art came from, but to me, in my perception and interpretation of the piece as a work of art, it was crystal clear to me that one could easily read into it, if inspired to do so, much of the temple covenants there illustrated symbolically

At that point I knew that the facsimile had to be inspired and it was there to teach us,

Later I learned that the Egyptian translation of those figures was quite different than what I saw them as, as artistic pieces.  Critics loved to point out how different the "real meaning" of the hieroglyphics was.

But they had missed the whole point.

So yes, I agree whole heartedly with your general point of view, but I may disagree with some of the particulars.

But that's ok!

It's art!

Art is there to BE interpreted, with each person seeing it for themselves!   So that may be where we differ

But do I think that these are "really the words of Abraham?"  I see NO REASON that doubting that is called for.  Could they be?  Absolutely!  Can we "prove" it?  Of course not!  Can we reasonably see this art AS the words of Abraham using faith and the impressions of our hearts to see it that way, as directed by the spirit?  Double absolutely!! 

For me, these are the words of Abraham as redacted and illustrated through the ages possibly, but primarily given to us as a vision from Joseph Smith

He is the first in the latter days to see this vision of the words and the temple covenants they symbolically represent, ARTISTICALLY and put it all together into a cohesive whole in the temple and the Book of Abraham, as inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Works for me!

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, aussieguy55 said:

Have you seen Dan Vogel's recent contribution to the debate over the BOA on youtube?

 

Vogel has no comprehension of anything and takes it all literally.  It doesn't work that way and he makes himself irrelevant because his whole point of view is irrelevant to the true gospel and understanding how inspiration works.  His level of understanding is similar to someone who will not accept the bible because it says the earth was created in 6 days.

There is not much you can do with people who cannot comprehend symbolism or spiritual matters.  I had some debates with him here years ago, figured out that was his level of understanding and disregarded his stuff as irrelevant. 

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, aussieguy55 said:

Have you seen Dan Vogel's recent contribution to the debate over the BOA on youtube?

I hate when people do YouTube videos to push the debate. If it's something new do a quick paper. Put it up on Medium if you don't have a place to publish it. Footnotes, endnotes and so forth are important. Videos are fine for summations of stuff or introductions but lousy for cutting edge stuff. At least give us a transcript.

[EdGoble]

On 4/29/2018 at 11:08 AM, MormonMason said:

Then what is the point of studying it out in his mind if it was merely given to him? The Lord himself described elements of the process to Oliver Cowdery as not merely having it given.  Cowdery failed to translate because he thought it would merely be given to him.

The same reason we work things out in our minds to get anything we get.

While it is true that the Lord described this as part of the process, the other description of the translation process that was given in the seerstone/urim and thummim was that the English words would appear.

Furthermore, in this other article that I have written, I show that various spiritual gifts exist and are used in place of the "burning in the bosom" for the people that do not have the "burning of the bosom" as their spiritual gift:

https://thoughtfulmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-holy-ghost-and-umwelt-is-burning-in.html

Therefore, one could "translate" with a rod moving in a spooky way, if one's gift is "working with the rod" instead of the burning of the bosom.

Therefore, I think that this description of words appearing in the seerstone, but Joseph being actively engaged mentally in trying to figure out what those words ought to be is one of these types of gifts.

[EdGoble]

On the other thread that was shut down again, Robert Smith wrote:

Quote

I don't see any apologetic  value in Ed's approach, and don't know whether that is his purpose.  I prefer an approach which takes account of standard Egyptology.

However, the merits of Ed's POV aside, it is very difficult to understand what he is saying at all, and without a coherent presentation he may just as well not say it at all.

Now.  Brother Smith.

You say that you prefer an approach of standard Egyptology.  You may have not noticed the fact that I have quoted standard Egyptologists, or perhaps that may not matter to you.  Standard Egyptology for you may mean only when I am not the one to quote them.  You would prefer that the person quoting them be someone like Stephen Smoot instead, perhaps, and perhaps then it would be standard Egyptology to you.  If I quote them, and show what THEIR evidences and conclusions were, and make conclusions based on their conclusions, that is not standard Egyptology to you.  Ok.  But I'm used to that.  It is possible that you may not care about my information and whether it is a good explanation or not.  It only matters that it came from me, perhaps.

You say that you don't see any apologetic value in my writings.  I'll explain to you its value.  What do apologists care about?  Do they care about truth?  Or do they only care about winning?  Do they care about evidence, or do they only care about preservation of faith at any cost?  I care about an explanation that explains the evidence in such a way that Joseph Smith still produced and transferred information from the ancient world, yet also something that actually explains the evidence as it is.  Because I actually care about evidence, and an explanation that actually explains that evidence, instead of something that explains it away, like all other approaches.  I am not going to settle for Joseph Smith being either a pseudotranslator or someone that produced pseudepigrapha, or whatever else.  I can't see how making Joseph Smith into a pseudotranslator after the manner of Sam Brown is a faith-promoting approach.  I can't see how making Joseph Smith into a producer of pseudepigrapha after the manner of David Bokovoy is a faith promoting approach.  I can't see how explaining away the KEP and acting like Joseph Smith is not responsible, and blaming it on Phelps is faith promoting, when that is a misrepresentation of fact.  The fact is, Joseph Smith and Phelps were both a part of one translation council who all participated in the translation effort, and some things came from Phelps and some from Joseph Smith.  They were both conduits of the Holy Ghost in that effort.  And I can't see how saying that Joseph Smith was not responsible for the KEP, and trying to say that the KEP is a false translation is faith promoting.  I can only see that the only acceptable explanation is that the KEP is something that Joseph Smith produced, and that it actually is transmitting information from the ancient world.  And therefore, there must be an explanation that explains how that is so.  I can't understand how you can possibly say that this is not the most faith promoting explanation over all others.

I have presented here a point of view that marries evidence to a faithful point of view that upholds the Mormon faith, and actually explains what is going on.  I am a Temple Recommend carrying member of the Church with a calling of in my stake.  What in the world would my purpose be if its not apologetics?  It certainly is not to attack the Book of Abraham.  It is to explain it.

You keep saying over and over again that it's very difficult to understand what I am saying.  Read it again then, and pay attention, because many other people can understand precisely what I am trying to say.

You say I might as well say nothing at all, trying to shut me down, putting me down in the process.  The only thing you have tried to do is make ad hominem-esque-attacks against me and my work.

Edited April 30, 2018 by EdGoble