New Book of Abraham Discovery

[Dan Vogel]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A lot of apriori question-begging has gone on in both POVs.  The problem is that LDS theology is not supernatural (although that is a view held by those who don't know the theology), and the timeline of publication does not negate the Gee claim.  In fact it allows it credence, but it doesn't prove it one way or the other.  Moreover, the Egyptian etymologies offered for Shinehah are very well-based and reasonable.  Which means that we will have to find a less tendentious way to sort this matter out.  There has not been much new light thrown on this matter since the Chris Smith and Bill Hamblin discussion.  Let's hope that Matt Grey can break the logjam.

There is no logjam because the apologists Gee and Muhlestein have only asserted without evidence that the Hebrew terms were added in 1842. Their only reason for asserting this is because they think the entire Book of Abraham needs to exist before the GAEL for their reverse translation theory to work. However, the reverse translation theory is garbage because there is no direct relationship between the two. They are essentially different translations of different characters. They are not parallel works, but rather exist on a continuum of translation.

[Dan Vogel]

On 10/31/2019 at 12:53 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and the "printing house" was code-named "Laneshine-house" in the D&C.  And "Shinelah" was the code-word for "print."  And "Shinelane" meant "printing."  The Community of Christ (RLDS) still use those code names, but the LDS D&C uses the actual meanings now.  The code-names appeared first in the 1835 D&C, which came out in Sept 1835 in bound form for sale. 

Despite the assertions of Gee, Hauglid, Muhlestein, and Hansen, Shinehah, as one of the code names used in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, probably pre-dates the arrival of the Egyptian papyri in July 1835. Indeed, there is no indication that any of the code names were influenced by the Egyptian project. There are two non-Hebrew names from Abraham 3:13—Shinehah and Olea—where they are said to mean the sun and the moon. This departs from the bound Grammar, which names the moon Flo-ees and the sun Flos-isis. the probable source of Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3:13 is an 8 July 1838 revelation that speaks of both the “mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman” and the “plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt” (D&C 117:8). An early copy of this revelation in the handwriting of Edward Partridge as well as two other sources close to Joseph Smith read “Olea Shinihah.” The use of “Olea Shinihah” in this revelation is not intended as a code name but as an actual place name in the Adamic language comparable to Adam-ondi-Ahman. Thus the two non-Hebrew names Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3:13 seem to have their origin in this 1838 revelation, although Shinehah as a code name probably pre-dated the Book of Abraham. It therefore seems probable that in Abraham 3:13 Joseph Smith was blending Hebrew and Adamic terminology.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

Despite the assertions of Gee, Hauglid, Muhlestein, and Hansen, Shinehah, as one of the code names used in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, probably pre-dates the arrival of the Egyptian papyri in July 1835. Indeed, there is no indication that any of the code names were influenced by the Egyptian project. There are two non-Hebrew names from Abraham 3:13—Shinehah and Olea—where they are said to mean the sun and the moon. This departs from the bound Grammar, which names the moon Flo-ees and the sun Flos-isis. the probable source of Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3:13 is an 8 July 1838 revelation that speaks of both the “mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman” and the “plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt” (D&C 117:8). An early copy of this revelation in the handwriting of Edward Partridge as well as two other sources close to Joseph Smith read “Olea Shinihah.” The use of “Olea Shinihah” in this revelation is not intended as a code name but as an actual place name in the Adamic language comparable to Adam-ondi-Ahman. Thus the two non-Hebrew names Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3:13 seem to have their origin in this 1838 revelation, although Shinehah as a code name probably pre-dated the Book of Abraham. It therefore seems probable that in Abraham 3:13 Joseph Smith was blending Hebrew and Adamic terminology.

Nice theory, Dan (aside from what Hauglid actually thinks currently).  However, building a case on convenient probabilities seems only to muddy both the polemic and apologetic waters.  We need an evidence-based argument.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

There is no logjam because the apologists Gee and Muhlestein have only asserted without evidence that the Hebrew terms were added in 1842. Their only reason for asserting this is because they think the entire Book of Abraham needs to exist before the GAEL for their reverse translation theory to work. However, the reverse translation theory is garbage because there is no direct relationship between the two. They are essentially different translations of different characters. They are not parallel works, but rather exist on a continuum of translation.

The Hebrew terms could have been added at any time after the Brethren began examining their Sephardic Hebrew grammars.  Your approach seems to be that any theory which does not agree with yours "is garbage."  I look forward to a well-argued case with citations in your forthcoming book on all this.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

There is no chicken or egg problem here since the GAEL is not directly related to the Book of Abraham. The Gael deals with characters from the Amenhotep and Ta-sherit-Min papyri and then the columns next to Fac. 1 on the Hor Book of Breathings. Whereas the Book of Abraham characters come from JSP XI, not JSP I. The whole reverse translation theory needs to be thrown out. 

Well, by all means throw it out, Dan.  Then provide your evidence-based theory in its place.  Reason and logic should make your case for you.  I look forward to your forthcoming scholarly book on the subject.

[blueglass]

šnw “endless time, eternity”; šnt nt pt “circuit of heaven”

Alma 7:20

"his course is one eternal round."

 

[Dan Vogel]

On 11/2/2019 at 3:50 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

On 11/2/2019 at 1:03 PM, Dan Vogel said:

There is no chicken or egg problem here since the GAEL is not directly related to the Book of Abraham. The Gael deals with characters from the Amenhotep and Ta-sherit-Min papyri and then the columns next to Fac. 1 on the Hor Book of Breathings. Whereas the Book of Abraham characters come from JSP XI, not JSP I. The whole reverse translation theory needs to be thrown out. 

Well, by all means throw it out, Dan.  Then provide your evidence-based theory in its place.  Reason and logic should make your case for you.  I look forward to your forthcoming scholarly book on the subject.

You should already know what I’m saying is true if you spent just a little time with the documents.

[Dan Vogel]

On 11/2/2019 at 3:47 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

On 11/2/2019 at 1:09 PM, Dan Vogel said:

There is no logjam because the apologists Gee and Muhlestein have only asserted without evidence that the Hebrew terms were added in 1842. Their only reason for asserting this is because they think the entire Book of Abraham needs to exist before the GAEL for their reverse translation theory to work. However, the reverse translation theory is garbage because there is no direct relationship between the two. They are essentially different translations of different characters. They are not parallel works, but rather exist on a continuum of translation.

The Hebrew terms could have been added at any time after the Brethren began examining their Sephardic Hebrew grammars.  Your approach seems to be that any theory which does not agree with yours "is garbage."  I look forward to a well-argued case with citations in your forthcoming book on all this.

Your accusation that I think any theory that doesn’t agree with mine is garbage is a hasty generalization. In this case, I only think the reverse translation theory is garbage. I have given my reasons and you have failed to respond to them.

Your comment about the Hebrew being added to Abraham 3-5 at anytime after the arrival of the Hebrew books is irrelevant to what I said. Gee and Muhlestein have asserted without evidence that the Abraham 3-5 were dictated in 1835 and the Hebrew terms were added in 1842 before publication. The burden is only Gee and Muhlestein, not on me. Will you ask them for “a well-argued case as you have me?

[Dan Vogel]

On 11/2/2019 at 1:26 PM, Dan Vogel said:

On 10/31/2019 at 12:53 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and the "printing house" was code-named "Laneshine-house" in the D&C.  And "Shinelah" was the code-word for "print."  And "Shinelane" meant "printing."  The Community of Christ (RLDS) still use those code names, but the LDS D&C uses the actual meanings now.  The code-names appeared first in the 1835 D&C, which came out in Sept 1835 in bound form for sale. 

Despite the assertions of Gee, Hauglid, Muhlestein, and Hansen, Shinehah, as one of the code names used in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, probably pre-dates the arrival of the Egyptian papyri in July 1835. Indeed, there is no indication that any of the code names were influenced by the Egyptian project. There are two non-Hebrew names from Abraham 3:13—Shinehah and Olea—where they are said to mean the sun and the moon. This departs from the bound Grammar, which names the moon Flo-ees and the sun Flos-isis. the probable source of Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3:13 is an 8 July 1838 revelation that speaks of both the “mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman” and the “plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt” (D&C 117:8). An early copy of this revelation in the handwriting of Edward Partridge as well as two other sources close to Joseph Smith read “Olea Shinihah.” The use of “Olea Shinihah” in this revelation is not intended as a code name but as an actual place name in the Adamic language comparable to Adam-ondi-Ahman. Thus the two non-Hebrew names Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3:13 seem to have their origin in this 1838 revelation, although Shinehah as a code name probably pre-dated the Book of Abraham. It therefore seems probable that in Abraham 3:13 Joseph Smith was blending Hebrew and Adamic terminology.

The burden is not on me, but on the apologists. They have no evidence of Shinehah existing before the code names. I’m merely giving a better explanation for the appearance of Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3. You’re welcome.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, Dan Vogel said:

The burden is not on me, but on the apologists. They have no evidence of Shinehah existing before the code names. I’m merely giving a better explanation for the appearance of Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3. You’re welcome.

Science and reason don't take apriori sides, Dan.  They require an evidence-based analysis, which I very much hope you have in your forthcoming book.  Thus far, your arguments are at the "tis so - tis not" level, which doesn't advance knowledge one iota.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, Dan Vogel said:

Your accusation that I think any theory that doesn’t agree with mine is garbage is a hasty generalization. In this case, I only think the reverse translation theory is garbage. I have given my reasons and you have failed to respond to them.

You're the one who declared opposing views as "garbage," instead of providing rational argument.

15 minutes ago, Dan Vogel said:

Your comment about the Hebrew being added to Abraham 3-5 at anytime after the arrival of the Hebrew books is irrelevant to what I said. Gee and Muhlestein have asserted without evidence that the Abraham 3-5 were dictated in 1835 and the Hebrew terms were added in 1842 before publication. The burden is only Gee and Muhlestein, not on me. Will you ask them for “a well-argued case as you have me?

Rational argument is now "irrelevant"?  And it is solely the burden of Gee & Muhlestein, not you, to show what the facts are?  Is that really your position?

I have not taken the side of Gee and Muhlestein in any of this, and I differ with them at a number of points -- which should have been obvious to you.  In fact, I have never met or communicated with Muhlestein, and have not consulted with Gee on any of these matters.  So why should I have to demand something from them?  I am not on staff at BYU.  I have consistently asked for a well-argued, scholarly case from anyone discussing these matters.  And you have consistently ignored my request.  I keep hoping that your forthcoming book will fill that void.  I hope that you will not disappoint me, Dan.

[Robert F. Smith]

32 minutes ago, Dan Vogel said:

You should already know what I’m saying is true if you spent just a little time with the documents.

I was studying and writing on this subject while you were still in Middle School, Dan.  I keep hoping that you will up your game a bit and address the central issues adequately.  What you really need is a little less polemic and a little more logic.  That would help a lot.

[blarsen]

On 10/31/2019 at 4:33 PM, OGHoosier said:

The conversation on the ecliptic's relevance for timekeeping is my addition, not Pearl of Great Price Central's. I am the only one to be blamed if it is indeed an error. 

However, I believe that a pre-Copernican outlook is more appropriate for interpreting Pearl of Great Price cosmology. The Egyptians, from what Egyptology tells us, viewed Ra's barque as moving through the sky, as opposed to the Earth moving around it. 

Indeed the pre-Copernican outlook is more in keeping w/PGP cosmology. However, I was actually surprised to see that several links to ecliptic definitions do equate the suns path across the sky with the ecliptic in accordance with the 'common sense' and ancient concept of that process.  The only recommendation I might make is to make that distinction clearer in the text.  The sun DOES follow the path defined by the intersection of the eclipitic plane w/the celestial sphere.  So both are right.  But other readers might find the ancient usage jarring, as I did, if the distinction is ignored.

[phaedrus ut]

On 10/30/2019 at 5:57 PM, Steve Thompson said:

An important sentence from the article:

So while the Egyptian word for the sun itself is not the same as in the Book of Abraham,17 one of the Egyptian words for the sun’s ecliptic (the path of the sun through the sky) as attested in Abraham’s day is.

Apparently close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and LDS apologetics.

Is this the same Stephen Thompson that has a Ph.D. in Egyptology from a Ivy League university? 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/30/2019 at 8:55 PM, OGHoosier said:

The whole Abrahamic cosmological system is oriented around the motion of celestial bodies and specifically their relation to timekeeping. 

The ecliptic forms the basis of our understanding of the year. It's what we use to determine timeframes longer than a day. In the context of timekeeping, which is what Abrahamic cosmology is all about, the ecliptic is the sun. It should also be mentioned that, while our modern understanding causes us to view the Sun as a discrete object in space, to pre-heliocentric societies the Sun was inextricably connected with the path that it followed. I think Dahle's find is actually rather significant. 

Unfortunately, as pointed out by Mike Rhodes and Ward Moody, geocentrism is not adequate to account for the system described in Book of Abraham 3 and facsimile 2.

See Rhodes & Moody, “Astronomy and the Creation in the Book of Abraham,” in J. Gee and B. Hauglid, eds., Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, StBA 3.  (Provo: FARMS, 2005), 17-36, online at https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/content/astronomy-and-creation-book-abraham. 

See also my discussion in “A Brief Assessment of the LDS Book of Abraham,” version 10, Mar 21, 2019, online at https://www.scribd.com/document/118810727/A-Brief-Assessment-of-the-LDS-Book-of-Abraham . .

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

Is this the same Stephen Thompson that has a Ph.D. in Egyptology from a Ivy League university? 

Yes, of course.

[Dan Vogel]

On 11/3/2019 at 7:47 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

On 11/3/2019 at 7:34 PM, Dan Vogel said:

The burden is not on me, but on the apologists. They have no evidence of Shinehah existing before the code names. I’m merely giving a better explanation for the appearance of Shinehah and Olea in Abraham 3. You’re welcome.

Science and reason don't take apriori sides, Dan.  They require an evidence-based analysis, which I very much hope you have in your forthcoming book.  Thus far, your arguments are at the "tis so - tis not" level, which doesn't advance knowledge one iota.

As you should know, bob, historical reasoning includes probabilistic arguments. Focusing on my use of the word “probably” as a means of dismissing my argument would be like saying evolution is only a theory. You know very well that the most parsimonious construal of the evidence shows that the code words, including Shinehah, existed before Abraham 3 was dictated, and that Abraham 3 was dictated in 1842. You also know that Gee and Muhlestein have no evidence to support their theory that the entire Book of Abraham was dictated in 1835, a theory that has grown out of their misguided need to support their reverse-translation apologetic. The documents show that Abraham 3 was dictated in 1842 prior to publication and that the word Shinahah already existed in the 1838 revelation, where both Shinahah and Olea appear. This reconstruction is far stronger than the Gee-Muhlestein theory and is what you call an “evidence-based analysis.” You shouldn’t try to hide behind pretended objections and make it appear that it’s just a matter of interpretation because it is Gee and Muhlestein who have no evidence.

[Dan Vogel]

On 11/3/2019 at 8:03 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

On 11/3/2019 at 7:33 PM, Dan Vogel said:

Your accusation that I think any theory that doesn’t agree with mine is garbage is a hasty generalization. In this case, I only think the reverse translation theory is garbage. I have given my reasons and you have failed to respond to them.

You're the one who declared opposing views as "garbage," instead of providing rational argument.

I did provide several arguments against the reverse translation theory, but you chose to ignore them.

 

On 11/3/2019 at 8:03 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Quote

Your comment about the Hebrew being added to Abraham 3-5 at anytime after the arrival of the Hebrew books is irrelevant to what I said. Gee and Muhlestein have asserted without evidence that the Abraham 3-5 were dictated in 1835 and the Hebrew terms were added in 1842 before publication. The burden is only Gee and Muhlestein, not on me. Will you ask them for “a well-argued case as you have me?

Rational argument is now "irrelevant"?  And it is solely the burden of Gee & Muhlestein, not you, to show what the facts are?  Is that really your position?

I have not taken the side of Gee and Muhlestein in any of this, and I differ with them at a number of points -- which should have been obvious to you.  In fact, I have never met or communicated with Muhlestein, and have not consulted with Gee on any of these matters.  So why should I have to demand something from them?  I am not on staff at BYU.  I have consistently asked for a well-argued, scholarly case from anyone discussing these matters.  And you have consistently ignored my request.  I keep hoping that your forthcoming book will fill that void.  I hope that you will not disappoint me, Dan.

Where did I say rational argument was irrelevant? I said your argument was irrelevant to what I said. This is merely diversionary because you also do not respond to my explanation of why it was irrelevant. 

Of course, Gee and Muhlestein have the burden of establishing their reverse translation theory or the theory that the Hebrew was added to an 1835 document, which they have not done. Besides, I have eliminated the reason for the ad hoc theory. 

I have not ignored your request. I gave you reasons for rejecting the reverse-translation theory as well as the Shinehah evidence. It's you who has not responded to it. 

[Dan Vogel]

On 11/3/2019 at 8:08 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

On 11/3/2019 at 7:31 PM, Dan Vogel said:

You should already know what I’m saying is true if you spent just a little time with the documents.

I was studying and writing on this subject while you were still in Middle School, Dan.  I keep hoping that you will up your game a bit and address the central issues adequately.  What you really need is a little less polemic and a little more logic.  That would help a lot.

Well, perhaps you have forgotten some things, or just maybe I have noticed some things you missed. I have already briefly outlined my evidence and argument against the reverse-translation theory in my first post, as follows:

"There is no chicken or egg problem here since the GAEL is not directly related to the Book of Abraham. The Gael deals with characters from the Amenhotep and Ta-sherit-Min papyri and then the columns next to Fac. 1 on the Hor Book of Breathings. Whereas the Book of Abraham characters come from JSP XI, not JSP I. The whole reverse translation theory needs to be thrown out."

I won't repeat my argument against the use of Shinehah because I have already done so. 

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, Dan Vogel said:

Well, perhaps you have forgotten some things, or just maybe I have noticed some things you missed. I have already briefly outlined my evidence and argument against the reverse-translation theory in my first post, as follows:

"There is no chicken or egg problem here since the GAEL is not directly related to the Book of Abraham. The Gael deals with characters from the Amenhotep and Ta-sherit-Min papyri and then the columns next to Fac. 1 on the Hor Book of Breathings. Whereas the Book of Abraham characters come from JSP XI, not JSP I. The whole reverse translation theory needs to be thrown out."

I won't repeat my argument against the use of Shinehah because I have already done so. 

You keep repeating yourself, Dan, instead of delivering a solid argument backed by a full panoply of evidence.  So, I repeat:  Looking forward with great anticipation to your forthcoming book.

[Robert F. Smith]

29 minutes ago, Dan Vogel said:

I did provide several arguments against the reverse translation theory, but you chose to ignore them.

Where did I say rational argument was irrelevant? I said your argument was irrelevant to what I said. This is merely diversionary because you also do not respond to my explanation of why it was irrelevant. 

Of course, Gee and Muhlestein have the burden of establishing their reverse translation theory or the theory that the Hebrew was added to an 1835 document, which they have not done. Besides, I have eliminated the reason for the ad hoc theory. 

I have not ignored your request. I gave you reasons for rejecting the reverse-translation theory as well as the Shinehah evidence. It's you who has not responded to it. 

Sorry, Dan.  It must be my fault for ignoring your superb and well-documented case.  And here I mistakenly thought that you were simply opinionmongering and engaging in wishful thinking.  No need to wait for your book.  Whatever you say must be true just because you said it.  We don't need no stinkin' evidence.  

[Robert F. Smith]

49 minutes ago, Dan Vogel said:

As you should know, bob, historical reasoning includes probabilistic arguments. Focusing on my use of the word “probably” as a means of dismissing my argument would be like saying evolution is only a theory. You know very well that the most parsimonious construal of the evidence shows that the code words, including Shinehah, existed before Abraham 3 was dictated, and that Abraham 3 was dictated in 1842. You also know that Gee and Muhlestein have no evidence to support their theory that the entire Book of Abraham was dictated in 1835, a theory that has grown out of their misguided need to support their reverse-translation apologetic. The documents show that Abraham 3 was dictated in 1842 prior to publication and that the word Shinahah already existed in the 1838 revelation, where both Shinahah and Olea appear. This reconstruction is far stronger than the Gee-Muhlestein theory and is what you call an “evidence-based analysis.” You shouldn’t try to hide behind pretended objections and make it appear that it’s just a matter of interpretation because it is Gee and Muhlestein who have no evidence.

What it  boils down to, Dan, is that you vaunt up your probabilistic argument against what you see as the Gee-Muhlestein probabilistic argument (if that is in fact their actual argument), and then you claim parsimony.  What is noteworthy from you is the complete absence of an actual systematic demonstration of any of that -- with quotations, citations, and sound, logical argument.  What you have done is declare victory and go to lunch.  Why bother with making an actual case?  Is that what you learned in history class at CSULB?  Did your history professors let you get by with that?

[Dan Vogel]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

1 hour ago, Dan Vogel said:

As you should know, bob, historical reasoning includes probabilistic arguments. Focusing on my use of the word “probably” as a means of dismissing my argument would be like saying evolution is only a theory. You know very well that the most parsimonious construal of the evidence shows that the code words, including Shinehah, existed before Abraham 3 was dictated, and that Abraham 3 was dictated in 1842. You also know that Gee and Muhlestein have no evidence to support their theory that the entire Book of Abraham was dictated in 1835, a theory that has grown out of their misguided need to support their reverse-translation apologetic. The documents show that Abraham 3 was dictated in 1842 prior to publication and that the word Shinahah already existed in the 1838 revelation, where both Shinahah and Olea appear. This reconstruction is far stronger than the Gee-Muhlestein theory and is what you call an “evidence-based analysis.” You shouldn’t try to hide behind pretended objections and make it appear that it’s just a matter of interpretation because it is Gee and Muhlestein who have no evidence.

What it  boils down to, Dan, is that you vaunt up your probabilistic argument against what you see as the Gee-Muhlestein probabilistic argument (if that is in fact their actual argument), and then you claim parsimony.  What is noteworthy from you is the complete absence of an actual systematic demonstration of any of that -- with quotations, citations, and sound, logical argument.  What you have done is declare victory and go to lunch.  Why bother with making an actual case?  Is that what you learned in history class at CSULB?  Did your history professors let you get by with that?

If you knew the documentation as you claim, you would immediately see the saliency of my argument, as did Hauglid. The fact that you persist in ad hominem and the demand for "a full panoply of evidence" probably indicates that you can't or won't try to understand my argument. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Dan Vogel said:

If you knew the documentation as you claim, you would immediately see the saliency of my argument, as did Hauglid. The fact that you persist in ad hominem and the demand for "a full panoply of evidence" probably indicates that you can't or won't try to understand my argument. 

I am sincerely and patiently waiting for that book you have coming out, Dan.  I am always fair to arguments from which ever side.  I don't really care whose ox gets gored.  Of course, since everything is polemics and apologetics in your world, you don't believe in even-handed scholarship.  If you can make a salient argument, I will certainly recognize it.  So stop pretending, and come forth with the real thing, Dan.  I have been waiting patiently.  Do you have a projected date for your book?

[Dan Vogel]

On 11/5/2019 at 1:28 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I am sincerely and patiently waiting for that book you have coming out, Dan.  I am always fair to arguments from which ever side.  I don't really care whose ox gets gored.  Of course, since everything is polemics and apologetics in your world, you don't believe in even-handed scholarship.  If you can make a salient argument, I will certainly recognize it.  So stop pretending, and come forth with the real thing, Dan.  I have been waiting patiently.  Do you have a projected date for your book?

Probably sometime next year. But you already have the basic argument. The reverse translation theory doesn't work because the Grammar and Alphabet doesn't derive from the Book of Abraham. The characters in the margins of the Abraham manuscripts come from JSP XI, whereas the characters used in the Egyptian Alphabets and the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language come from other papyri, the pure language, and the columns next to Fac. 1 on JSP I. Because they do not cover the same material, the GAEL can't be said to derive from Abraham. It's that simple.