.

[Lem]

And what use is your response, except to show that you are a critic and you are provoked by something that was not intended as a provocation? I changed the wording yet again now, but of what value to me is your response? And what is its nature meant in this conversation except as a continued provocation? And of what value is your continued provocation? Do you enjoy making provocations? Is it entertaining to you? Is it of value to you to create contention? Do you thrive on contention? Is provoking fellow human beings a game to you? Certainly you aren't doing what you are doing to be of service somehow. But you intend to be of disservice.

Unbelievable. You ASKED me to look at your changes and respond, and so I did. Your responses are increasingly irrational.

[Lem]

I know, and I agree. His assumptions about hieroglyphs are very inconsistent and cherry-picked, and don't seem to be supported by any standard approach.

Ed cherry picks certain aspects taken from Smith's Egyptian Alphabet wherein the earth, moon, and sun, are drawn in the left register with the explanation and definition of the glyphs to the right of the characters. The bogus names Smith used are NOT Egyptian and therefore don't belong in an Egyptian Alphabet. The signs he uses in those instances are either wrong or corrupt. Smith pretended to translate a dead language into English and he was wrong on every account. There is not a single Egyptologist in the world today that will stand by those signs and definitions given by Smith as correctly representing the Egyptian. Only Ed does. And his knowledge of Egyptian is lacking, apparently. Yet he comes to this board and acts like he's an Egyptologist but peddles garbage.

In one case he argues that the crossing symbol for 'city' actually means earth, to match Smith's rotated symbol, but later in his analysis, he uses the actual symbol for earth, to match a different Smith symbolization.

Also, his argument that rotating slightly varying symbols 45 or 90 degrees preserves their meaning doesn't seem supported. Even to a layperson, that clearly doesn't hold up. A cursory look at Gardiner's list shows many cases where a rotated symbol means something entirely different. For example, the reed symbol counterclockwise rotated 45 degrees is the symbol for a butcher's knife.

[Ed1]

.

[Lem]

Let me know if the new wording is something that you like better. Thanks.

Okay, I took a look. Here is your new version, below, as compared to the two passages above. <My second review snipped>

You asked me to comment again on the passage you adjusted, did you see my response?

And what use is your response, except to show that you are a critic and you are provoked by something that was not intended as a provocation? I changed the wording yet again now, but of what value to me is your response? And what is its nature meant in this conversation except as a continued provocation? And of what value is your continued provocation? Do you enjoy making provocations? Is it entertaining to you? Is it of value to you to create contention? Do you thrive on contention? Is provoking fellow human beings a game to you? Certainly you aren't doing what you are doing to be of service somehow. But you intend to be of disservice.

Unbelievable. You ASKED me to look at your changes and respond, and so I did....

I rest my case. Provocation after provocation.

I see we've reached the keystone cops portion of the article review.

At this point, I think he was looking to take offense to get out of engaging some good points people have brought up. I won't lose any sleep over it.

Agreed, unfortunately.

[Shulem]

Lem,

Ed’s claim that the Egyptian sign for city or town is also the earth is just flat out wrong. The sign represents crossroads or an intersection that designates an urban place and when used with others signs the name of the place is spelled out. It’s a sign used to represent a local geographical place.

Ed doesn’t seem to get that. He thinks it means the earth. That was strike one!

[Themis]

"the likes of any of you"? "You people"???

This is a really unstable post, Ed. It's a little scary to imagine what a person must be feeling that would cause them to so viciously lash out at a disparate group of people as though they all boil down to one single, hated and despised thing. Your words are not rational.

I sense a little immaturity or insecurity coming from his posts. He doesn't seem to see in many cases he accuses people here and then gets mad if people accuse him of the same thing. How we react to criticism says a lot about a person, and I hope Ed can eventually learn to take constructive criticism a little better.

[Shulem]

I sense a little immaturity or insecurity coming from his posts. He doesn't seem to see in many cases he accuses people here and then gets mad if people accuse him of the same thing. How we react to criticism says a lot about a person, and I hope Ed can eventually learn to take constructive criticism a little better.

Ed doesn't seem to take criticism too well and doesn't know how or is unwilling to roll with the punches. He's a big baby, that's for sure. I never really got past square one. His paper began with trying to marry Smith's earth and moon to Egyptology. Well, that was an utter failure and when he tried to defend Smith's black Flos-isis to me, things just went totally south from there.

You know what, screw you, Ed. You don't want me to grade the rest of your paper? That's fine by me. I won't lose any sleep over it. You can take your paper to the grave for all I care.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, you big fat baby!

[clbruno]

I just read this paper today and I found it to have an interesting thesis that I had never heard before in all my reading on book of Abraham apologetics. I am sorry this thread degenerated before you got to your critique of what I found was the interesting part...the description of the horizontal lines and the tally marks etc. being metadata. Would like to hear what others have to say about that. I can't quite accept the final conclusions in the paper, but I think he makes a good case for the "catalyst theory" which Dan Vogel is so dismissive of.

[Themis]

I can't quite accept the final conclusions in the paper, but I think he makes a good case for the "catalyst theory" which Dan Vogel is so dismissive of.

The catalyst theory is what I call "Joseph and God dumb and dumber theory". Joseph makes some very specific claims that are false according to the catalyst theory. Why? Joseph supposedly talks to God. Would he be dumb and just make it up? If God was the one telling him, it makes God the dumber. Why have anything to do with a document God would know had nothing to do with Abraham and that it would make Joseph look like a total fraud?

[Moksha]

You are not my friend.

Don't be so hasty. I have been there when you've had meltdowns on a couple of boards and I've felt sympathy each time. Shulem is happy to banter with you on just about any subject. Lem will give you good solid feedback. As message board friendships go that is a good start. Nobody has asked you to hit the road because you have had differing opinions. That has happened to me a number of times on religious message boards. We might not be sweethearts, but we certainly are not villains.

When you're weary
Feeling small
Then come to Mormon Discussions
And have a ball.
We'll hear your side.