Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

[_grindael]

Book of Abraham apologetics is nothing more than a circus freak show produced out of the brainwashed minds of people who refuse to face reality.

And of course when you analyze their statements and theories and show the utter confused buffoonery being pawned off on people you are called a retard. Yet, it doesn't change what they themselves wrote. Bottom line for all of them:

Ignore all actual evidence that Jo said he legitimately translated the Egyptian into English.

Claim that,

Jo got the Book of Abraham from the "Holy Ghost".
Use any wacky theory to try and explain this.

Raise you one Boo! and call.

[_Fence Sitter]

My claim has to do with how the Sensen Papyrus and its symbols were used with the book of Abraham by people that did this stuff a long time after the Sensen Papyrus was first written. They decided to re-use it different from the way the author of the Sensen Papyrus intended for its use. That's called Iconotropy.

The author of the sensen papyrus would have buried it shortly after written, so there is no one else to re-purpose it's meaning.

Not that much else makes sense, but I think Ed may be referring to the text commonly found on breathing permits, not this specific piece of papyrus. If that is correct he should be able to take other similar breathing permits and show how his cipher (?) can also result in a Book of Abraham.

[_grindael]

Not that much else makes sense, but I think Ed may be referring to the text commonly found on breathing permits, not this specific piece of papyrus. If that is correct he should be able to take other similar breathing permits and show how his cipher (?) can also result in a Book of Abraham.

He can't (how convenient) because he assigns arbitrary "values" to the characters/pictures/whatever. There would be no formula/cipher. That's why he can claim that he isn't trying to prove that the Book of Abraham came from the papyri. Yet, he says that somehow they are "linked" to "concepts" found in the Book of Abraham. So all his posturing about them not being linked is just BS.

It's just a convenient way to promote his BS without having to account for it in any of it at all. Just vague theories about how the ancients might have done so based on his crazy parallelomania.

[_Themis]

Not that much else makes sense, but I think Ed may be referring to the text commonly found on breathing permits, not this specific piece of papyrus. If that is correct he should be able to take other similar breathing permits and show how his cipher (?) can also result in a Book of Abraham.

He can't (how convenient) because he assigns arbitrary "values" to the characters/pictures/whatever. There would be no formula/cipher. That's why he can claim that he isn't trying to prove that the Book of Abraham came from the papyri. Yet, he says that somehow they are "linked" to "concepts" found in the Book of Abraham. So all his posturing about them not being linked is just BS.

It's just a convenient way to promote his BS without having to account for it in any of it at all. Just vague theories about how the ancients might have done so based on his crazy parallelomania.

I suspect you are right, and I was waiting to see if he would discuss it. He has no coherent theory on how this is supposed to make sense. All we have is the person who made the papyri assigned like a paragraph of text to each Egyptian hieroglyph. Now you would likely see the same hieroglyph in the papyri being repeated similar as we do with words in English, but now we have the same hieroglyph with a whole different set of text assigned to it. It makes no sense to do this, and he provides zero evidence it is happening.

Sure someone could re-purpose pictures to mean something different, but not all the text that goes with it. They would use the written language(Egyptain) they already know to tell their Abraham story, so you would have an Abraham story that Egyptology could translate from the text, with pictures they would usually translate differently, but with the text they would have to translate the pictures based on the accompanying text. They actually do this as pictures can change meaning over time, or how a different person may want to use the picture. We see text with all three facsimiles giving us the story of what is going on, although in this case it would not have been needed, but makes it perfectly clear what is going on in the facsimiles. So if this person was to re-purpose facsimile 3 into the Abraham story, they wouldn't have to change the picture, but they would need to put in the proper text above their heads to identify, which we see they don't.

[_Lemmie]

That's not at all what the claim is. In the Psalms in the Hebrew Bible you have acrostics which are literary mappings of single Hebrew characters to paragraphs of text. This is akin to what is going on in the KEP, where you have mappings to characters for artistic purposes, for decorating text with characters for artistic, literal purposes. Don't be a retard. I ask you to really think about what I just said in this paragraph. If you can't get what I just said, you are truly a retard. I ask any of you who claim to be academics to think about what I just said, really carefully in contrast to Mr. Retard grinadel here that thinks he knows what I'm saying, who doesn't know the first thing about what he thinks he is criticizing. Where in this statement did I state that these characters "contained" anything, or had some "alternate" meaning to them? Don't be an idiot. The Hebrew Alphabet does not translate to the Psalms, and in like manner, the Sensen Papyrus characters do not translate to the Book of Abraham. They are used in an art-form manner in the same stinking kind of way that the Hebrew Alphabet is used in the Psalms. This is not a hard concept. But to Mr. Grinadel, it is lost on him, because he truly is a retard. Mr. Grinadel must think the Hebrew Alphabet can magically translate to the Psalms and this is what Biblical Scholars must be thinking when they suggest that there is an acrostic in the Psalms. Don't be an idiot.

You really are stupid. It is as abstract usage of Sensen characters as the usage of the Hebrew Alphabet is abstract when used as an acrostic. You are a stupid idiot and have no stinking idea what you are criticizing. I have no problem calling you a retard. And if the rest of you can't get it, the rest of you are stupid idiots too. Listen to what I'm saying, and read it. If you can't comprehend, its because you are all true idiots. If you aren't, and you truly are academicians as you claim, then act like it and read what I just wrote here. Otherwise, I say you are all idiots. It is the most simple concept in the world to comprehend. Read it.

[my bolding added.]

Ed, I am not understanding your point here when you say the Hebrew alphabet was used in an art-form manner in the Psalms, and then in your second quote, abstractly as an acrostic.

It's my understanding that in the acrostics, the letters of the alphabet represented themselves, and had the same meaning whether they were found at the beginning, as part of the acrostic, or anywhere else in the passage. This is definitely not an abstract use, so how are you using it to explain why the SenSen characters would be used abstractly?

If your argument regarding being an "art-form" is that it is an example of iconotropy, then it should be reproducible and testable, as my understanding of iconotropy is that it defines how a culture might appropriate meanings of another culture's symbols, not a one-off, non-reproducible, single-use example which is never replicated or re-used.

Your use of the terms "art-form" and "abstract" is confusing, given your acrostic example; could you clarify your meanings?

[_Yahoo Bot]

You were a brilliant defender of truth once upon a time. You are a dismal critic.

As I have said before, he is not critical of the sources he finds favorable. I used to do that as a college freshman.

The Facsimile business is really beyond me, and I admit it is problematic, but the Book of Abraham looks like legit inspired pseudepigrapha at the least and new God-breathed scripture at the most. But I admit that requires a certain amount of faith, just like it takes faith the accept the Four Gospels even though there's lots of doubt engendered by the lack of contemporary references to Jesus Christ.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

inspired pseudepigrapha

God-breathed pseudepigrapha.

- Doc

[_Shulem]

Here are two specific translations given directly by Joseph Smith (the pretended translator) as published in the Times & Seasons. You will note that both claims are totally fictitious. Although Joseph Smith claimed to translate by the gift and power of God we can be sure that his inspiration was false as was the influence of the holy ghost which was nothing more than a bad spirit of dilution and lies. Both Joseph Smith and his holy ghost are the spirit of a lie.

1. Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O the earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.]

2. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Bottom line:

Fear not Joseph Smith or his holy ghost. They are liars. I rebuke the testimony of Joseph Smith and his lying spirit. No modern man has done more harm to the memory of the ancient Egyptians than Joseph Smith. The man is guilty of a crime against a race of people and slandering those things that were sacred to them. Joseph Smith had a heart and mind of slander. He was evil. I know it. And I rebuke him in the name of modern Egyptology!

[_Themis]

inspired pseudepigrapha

God-breathed pseudepigrapha.

- Doc

I prefer a good God. Inspired?

[_grindael]

but the Book of Abraham looks like legit inspired pseudepigrapha at the least and new God-breathed scripture at the most.

How so, when Smith himself stated that the papyri were written by the hand of Abraham. You have to reject Smith's assertions, witnessed by many, to get your conclusion that it is pseudepigrapha. We know it is, (inspired is in the eye of the beholder) but that is NOT what Smith said it was. That is the big problem here and the ONLY thing that matters. Smith lied.