do We Believe Joseph Smith or Lds Apologists? Joseph Says He Could Translate Egyptian.

[Bob Crockett]

49 minutes ago, ttribe said:

 

This is a landmark day!  Shout it from the hills!  Someone get the Church Newsroom on the line!  Someone call the Deseret News!  PAC MAN HAS "SINGLEHANDEDLY DISMANTLED ONE OF THE GREATEST PITS OF DOUBTS IN ALL OF CHURCH HISTORY!"

I had a laff too.  He must be a lawyer, right?  Although his literacy is a little off. 

[Bob Crockett]

Snio

Edited August 20, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[ttribe]

14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

What?  Sorry to hear.  Drop me a note at Bob[a]bobcrockettlaw.com.

It's been about 10 years.  I kept it quiet for a very long time.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

The Holy Ghost in fac 2  is not a bird but a snake with legs.(Nehebkau)  In one example the snake like Min is displaying a penis.

Do you understand that this is your INTERPRETATION of what you want it to be?

The Holy Ghost is actually neither a bird or a snake. Incidentally the last time I looked snakes don't have legs, and according to our Doctrine the Holy Ghost is neither a bird nor a snake.

From a naive perspective as Joseph had, that is not how he  interpreted Min.

I think the idea of showing a bird with legs to represent the Holy Ghost is a great symbol, indicating both his usual symbolic identity as a "dove" and simultaneously symbolically showing the nature of his Spirit body as the spirit body of a human man. 

It is not up to you to decide what the figure is or is not. What it "is", to the interpreter is up to the interpreter, not you or anyone else.

When you see this as poetry all of it changes.

It's a Jackson Pollock painting with swirls and dots. We make the pictures, if we need to make it into some kind of representation.  It is no more "Min" than my avatar is "Picasso"- and incidentally that is the whole point of my avatar.  

Edited August 20, 2020 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, PacMan said:

In case you're still not getting it, I have singlehandedly dismantled one of the greatest pits of doubt in all of Church History.  All 'them apostates that left the church over the BoA manuscript should be feeling awfully silly/penitent right about now.

Indeed. One might even say, I think, that you’ve  pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on that pit of doubt and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.

Edited August 20, 2020 by jkwilliams

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I find myself agreeing, generally speaking. I would like to hear your view more specifically elaborated, if you don't mind. How did Joseph use the word "translation?"

In a hurry at the moment but find the 1828 websters dictionary and look it up.

One of the definitions is "transform".

[PacMan]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

All by yourself, huh.  With no help at all from Joseph Smith or God or the Holy Spirit or anyone else... you mean singlehandedly in that sense?  No, I didn't think so.

It’s all relative...

This is why I stay anonymous. I can make conceited, arrogant, and pompous claims that don’t actually mean anything. 

[PacMan]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I had a laff too.  He must be a lawyer, right?  Although his literacy is a little off. 

I know. Funny isn’t. He can’t even quote me correctly. But, strain at typographical errors (that I didn’t make) while you don’t even know the basics of your own profession.

Or I guess I could just laff that you don’t know how to spell laugh. Oh well. 

Edited August 20, 2020 by PacMan

[Bob Crockett]

Hah hah.  I'm a lousy lawyer all right.  Tell it. 

[PacMan]

54 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Indeed. One might even say, I think, that you’ve  pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on that pit of doubt and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt Doom under the continental plates.

Precisely. And because you are unable to actually address the argument, I’ll chalk that up as a win. 

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, PacMan said:

I know. Funny isn’t. He can’t even quote me correctly. But, strain at typographical errors (that I didn’t make) while you don’t even know the basics of your own profession.

Or I guess I could just laff that you don’t know how to spell laugh. Oh well. 

I started replying before you edited your post.  Get over yourself.

[PacMan]

1 minute ago, Bob Crockett said:

Hah hah.  I'm a lousy lawyer all right.  Tell it. 

I didn’t say you’re lousy. Unfortunately, good lawyering is more about effective marketing than legal knowledge and competency. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, PacMan said:

Precisely. And because you are unable to actually address the argument, I’ll chalk that up as a win. 

If by “unable to” you mean “not interested in,” you may be a winner, indeed. 

[PacMan]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If by “unable to” you mean “not interested in,” you may be a winner, indeed. 

You’re “not interested” in the BoA manuscript dilemma? Really? Since when?

When did this intellectual dishonesty kick in—when you were left speechless without any rebuttal along with all the other critics?

You were obviously interested enough to try to mock me rather than engage in a substantive discussion. 
 

Not interested, indeed.

Edited August 20, 2020 by PacMan

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, PacMan said:

You’re “not interested” in the BoA manuscript dilemma? Really? Since when?

When did this intellectual dishonesty kick in—when you were left speechless without any rebuttal along with all the other critics?

You were obviously interested enough to try to mock me rather than engage in a substantive discussion. 
 

Not interested, indeed.

Nah, just thought your admittedly arrogant and meaningless post was funny in a way that reminded me of previous arrogant and meaningless presentations. I could not care less about the Book of Abraham “manuscript dilemma” (whatever that means) at this point in my life. 
 

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, PacMan said:

You’re “not interested” in the BoA manuscript dilemma? Really? Since when?

When did this intellectual dishonesty kick in—when you were left speechless without any rebuttal along with all the other critics?

You were obviously interested enough to try to mock me rather than engage in a substantive discussion. 
 

Not interested, indeed.

Pretty sure he responded because you're hilarious.

ETA: I see he responded already. I like my summary, though.

Edited August 20, 2020 by ttribe

[Fair Dinkum]

I’ve been out of town for a few days...and while I’ve been away, this thread has become even more interesting. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, ttribe said:

It's been about 10 years.  I kept it quiet for a very long time.

Oh boy I can relate!

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I’ve been out of town for a few days...and while I’ve been away, this thread has become even more interesting. 

I'm on my third thing of popcorn by now. 

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I’ve been out of town for a few days...and while I’ve been away, this thread has become even more interesting. 

Ergo, we make more interesting comments when you go out of town.

[Bob Crockett]

To summarize:

1.  Despite my repeated questioning, there is zero evidence that Joseph Smith ever rendered a verifiable translation of Egyptian.

     a.  He claimed to be able to render a translation in the letter to the Green Mountain Boys and in excerpts to the Times and Seasons.

          (i)  The suggestion is made that somebody else rendered that letter and those excerpts to the Times and Seasons.  That could or may be true, but then there's the doctrines of adoption and ratification by Joseph Smith. 

     b.  Scott Lloyd made the argument, "are you calling Joseph Smith a liar?" 

           (i)  That is an interesting argument, but it doesn't really address the issue.  This "a liar" argument also impugns the integrity of the questioner.  Scott doesn't know me from Adam, so I wonder why he would do that.

           (ii)  This argument seems to suggest that I am required to accept a particular person's word without exception or qualification.  I suppose that is done in the religious context, but not the secular context.  My question is a secular one. 

     c.  The suggestion has been made that "translation" means something other than the dictionary definition of the word.  I understand that argument, but it really is sophistry.  But, it could be true.

     d.   The argument has been made that the words Joseph Smith transmitted to Charles Anthon were confirmed by him to be legitimate translations and thus Joseph Smith was demonstrated to have successfully translated Egyptian.

           (i)  But, given the state today of knowledge of Egyptian, this vignette doesn't really answer the question of a verifiable translation.

           (ii)  Plus, the "caracters" were not really Egyptian.  

      e.  It could be that Joseph Smith was just speculating or joking about his knowledge of Egyptian.  But, there's a lot of effort that went into the KEP, for a joke.

      f.   Lots of argument has been made to attack my integrity, to discuss my analytical skills as a lawyer.  I suppose there might be some relevance to the argument.  But the question as framed is a simple one, one that could be asked by a buffoon as well as by the likes of Robert Smith.  I think I tilt towards the Homer Simpson side of things, but I think the question is legit and attacks against my integrity are not. 

  2.  I asked a second question as to whether Joseph Smith was aware of the work of Jean-François Champollion.  

     a.  Here, the answer seems to be that he did. 

     b.  But, I'm not sure that Joseph Smith knew that Champollion rendered a translation, because if Joseph Smith was aware, then his claims of knowing Egyptian is even more mystifying.

 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[Fair Dinkum]

6 hours ago, Ahab said:

Ergo, we make more interesting comments when you go out of town.

I’ve tried to think of a clever rejoinder that won’t result in my being banned. I couldn’t think of one. That said, Your comment is interesting in light of the fact that I have no idea who you are nor can I recall ever interacting with you on this board. I’ve decided to assume that you’re just having a bad day and needed someone to take it out on. Glad I could help. 

Edited August 20, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[stemelbow]

On 8/19/2020 at 1:09 PM, PacMan said:

Thanks for admitting you are trolling with a second handle (so much for your anti-anonymity superiority complex).  In any event, you being published (I am too) has no bearing on your intellectual constipation.  Just say'n.

1. Don't think so.  Irrelevant to the question at hand.
2. Yes.  A major hurdle here, as Ritner has promulgated, is that Champollion's 1822 (not simply 1824 or 1828) work had not crossed the pond.  Ritner claims that ignorant America knew nothing about Champollion until after the BoA was produced.  This is wholly, and demonstrably, wrong.  Not only was Thomas Young's work widely-published before the 1800s, but America was publishing the work of Young, Salt, Greppo, etc.  These demonstrated the nature of Egyptian being, at least partially, phonetic.

The North American Review, beginning from 1823, repeatedly covered the progress of Egyptian.  In 1831, it published the following:

"But we can conceive, that the different stages of the written language denote the successive improvement in the art of reading, that is, of converting the written into the spoken language. From using the whole of the picture for the whole of the sound, the progress is natural to using a part of the picture for a part of the sound ; and in the final result of this progress, we find alphabetical writing deduced from hieroglyphical. The recent discoveries in Egyptian hieroglyphics fully establish this, as the order of improvement. We find not only hieroglyphical signs employed as alphabetical characters, in their original shape of animals, plants, utensils, &c. ; but we also find a sort of popular current alphabet formed out of the hieroglyphic, merely by a more compendious delineation."

The fact that Joseph Smith knew something of Egyptian is evident by the fact that they knew to search out Charles Anthon at all.  He was a foremost American expert in this field of antiquity, and it is implausible that Martin Harris simply stumbled upon Anthon without first knowing his expertise.  To know of an expert's existence as an expert requires one to also know the existence of his field of expertise.  Ritner's baffling claim is that a knowledge of Egyptian's phonetic nature didn't exist at all in the Americas--a notion contradicted by JS's and Martin Harris's simple familiarity with Anthon.

Is your whole point to show that when Ritner claims the Egyptian papers with the Egyptian bits in the margins is an artifact of the "translation" attempt, that it really is not such an artifact?  You think Joseph knew enough about Egyptian to know that a single character would not amount to lines of English text all because it was possible that Joseph was all caught up on the Young and Champollion work?   Ah but the burden rests on you.  What leads to you to believe Joseph didn't think a single character could amount to a few lines of English?  As of now, we have evidence that he did think it was possible--you know the papers formerly known as the Kirtland Egyptian ones.  

[ttribe]

39 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I’ve tried to think of a clever rejoinder that won’t result in my being banned. I couldn’t think of one. That said, Your comment is interesting in light of the fact that I have no idea who you are nor can I recall ever interacting with you on this board. I’ve decided to assume that you’re just having a bad day and needed someone to take it out on. Glad I could help. 

That's Ahab's attempt at humor. It generally falls quite flat. 

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's Ahab's attempt at humor. It generally falls quite flat. 

Everyone has a sense of humor and the only way anyone can sense someone else's sense of humor is to have a sense of humor that is able to sense when someone else is using theirs.  It's kind of like knowing when someone else knows what is mutually known..