Most Frequent Book of Abraham Assertion

[_CaliforniaKid]

There are also four other characters derived from the papyrus that are interpreted in the EAG, of which I'll post images tomorrow. (I guess that makes a total of 13, rather than 11, not counting dissections.)

[_Kevin Graham]

Yeah, I made these graphics shortly after Will's FAIR presentation, pretty much making the same point as Chris. There is no getting around the fact that William misrepresents these documents.











From my count, it seems the EAG provides us with close to a few dozen characters that derive from this papyrus; the papyrus which Will is constantly trying to suggest wasn't important to the project.

[_stemelbow]

Thanks Kevin and Chris. Much obliged.

Considering that there are characters which are not found on the papyrus can we surmise, at all, that Joseph and his partners were using the characters for something else, as Will seems to conclude? My question here suggests, at least to me, that they were perhaps defining the characters themselves rather than attempting to use those characters for translation.

[_stemelbow]

That thread over there reminds me why I stopped posting on this subject. Every time I read a Schryver post I want to cut myself.

If he wasn't such a temperamental fella I think he might be a fairly helpful poster. The idiot had to go after you about some relationship you may or may not have had. What's wrong with him?

The thread is shut down now. I feel each time I pursue this topic some inflamed battle ensues and I lose interest.

[_stemelbow]

Hey Chris,

My mistake on the 4 of the 69 characters thing. I misread him previously. I see now he didn't say 4 of the 69 characters had explanations and where found on the papyrus. My apologies in the whole him taking this out on you affair.

You know, I don't get him. I was hoping he had decided to post again and tone it down. It looked like he was going to to me, then in that thread he just went right back to his over-charged hyper-sensitive posting style. I hate to comment on him, personally, but I just find his whole approach counter-intuitive. But what can I say, most here find the same types of things from me--msjack saying I'm somehow willing to condescend to women when I speak to women and all (I condescend to men sometimes too, just ask DJ). Ah well. These silly battles.

I wish I could settle on people being pathetic, push them aside and never respond to them again. But those that are being pathetic in many cases also carry things worth listening too. We're such a mixed bag--humanity.

[_Drifting]

Hey Chris,

My mistake on the 4 of the 69 characters thing. I misread him previously. I see now he didn't say 4 of the 69 characters had explanations and where found on the papyrus. My apologies in the whole him taking this out on you affair.

You know, I don't get him. I was hoping he had decided to post again and tone it down. It looked like he was going to to me, then in that thread he just went right back to his over-charged hyper-sensitive posting style. I hate to comment on him, personally, but I just find his whole approach counter-intuitive. But what can I say, most here find the same types of things from me--msjack saying I'm somehow willing to condescend to women when I speak to women and all (I condescend to men sometimes too, just ask DJ). Ah well. These silly battles.

I wish I could settle on people being pathetic, push them aside and never respond to them again. But those that are being pathetic in many cases also carry things worth listening too. We're such a mixed bag--humanity.

Stemelbow, have you made these points about Will to Will's 'face' on the board that you are referring to? If not, why not?

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow, have you made these points about Will to Will's 'face' on the board that you are referring to? If not, why not?

Last I checked the thread in question was locked over there. I don't' know why it all matters to you though. On this board I got after Will for his poor behavior. He pretty much knows my take on his behavior. he tried to play it off as playful banter, which I can agree is there in part, but I don't think that's the case on much of it.

[_sock puppet]

Stemelbow, have you made these points about Will to Will's 'face' on the board that you are referring to? If not, why not?

Last I checked the thread in question was locked over there. I don't' know why it all matters to you though. On this board I got after Will for his poor behavior. He pretty much knows my take on his behavior. he tried to play it off as playful banter, which I can agree is there in part, but I don't think that's the case on much of it.

Will reads this board, so I am sure stem's posting it here has not eluded Will's watchful eyes. And since Will is free to post here whenever he likes, I think stem's posting his impressions of Will here is tantamount to saying to Will's "face" just as surely as posting it would be on MD&D (the board formerly known as MAD).

Also, I have no doubt that among the playfulness, Will gets the barb of stem's comments. The humor does not mask it completely.

[_stemelbow]

Will reads this board, so I am sure stem's posting it here has not eluded Will's watchful eyes. And since Will is free to post here whenever he likes, I think stem's posting his impressions of Will here is tantamount to saying to Will's "face" just as surely as posting it would be on MD&D (the board formerly known as MAD).

Also, I have no doubt that among the playfulness, Will gets the barb of stem's comments. The humor does not mask it completely.

He's confirmed to me personally that he's reading my comments over here. So yep, he's got it. No need to worry your pretty little head, Drifting (Buffalo?)

[_CaliforniaKid]

I wish I could settle on people being pathetic, push them aside and never respond to them again. But those that are being pathetic in many cases also carry things worth listening too. We're such a mixed bag--humanity.

Yes, that's how I feel too. When I push him aside it's more because engaging him is bad for my health than because he never has anything useful to say. I've learned a few things from him over the years. And every once in a while he surprises me by saying something genuinely human, like this on the other board:

I have just taken the opportunity to view Chris's late night post concerning characters from the EA on the papyri, and I confess he has convinced me there are several more characters from page 2 (part 2) of the EA that derive from the papyri. I think, if we consider bona fide dissections, there may be 16-18 total characters explained in the EA that appear on the papyri. That's more than the 'very few exceptions' I have thought in the past.

But then in the same post William declares jihad on me in a new thread, so I guess I can't give him too much credit for that.

As a side note, three of the other four characters from the papyri that are explained in the EAG are the ones circled in red, green, and blue in Kevin's last graphic. The red and blue have flaked away from the papyri in modern times, but Egyptologists say they're the first two characters missing from Column 1 of pJS XI, so apparently they were still intact during Joseph's lifetime. (For more detail about that see page 39 here.)

The fourth additional character from the papyri that's interpreted in the EAG is the second-to-last from the bottom in Kevin's second graphic.