The KEPA Manuscripts as Oral Dictation Transcripts

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_CaliforniaKid
_Emeritus
Posts: 4247
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am

Post by _CaliforniaKid »

Canucklehead wrote:
CaliforniaKid wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:However, I wonder if someone could explain to me why the KEPA documents matter in evaluating the Book of Abraham. Isn't this discussion missing the point here a bit? I mean, we have the facsimiles published directly in the Mormon canon alongside Joseph Smith' "translations" and, surprise surprise, they don't match up. Isn't that enough direct evidence to conclude that Joseph Smith was simply pulling stuff out of his butt to impress gullible audiences?


I think it's easier to shrug off one or two nails-in-the-coffin than a whole lot of them. The KEP are just another nail.


Yes, I suppose that's true. Thank you (and Who Knows) for answering.

Would either of you also mind explaining another basic aspect of this to me? Will is claiming (if I understand) that the KEP are not transcriptions of oral dictation, but are re-copies of another document. So, does anyone suggest what other document the scribes were copying from?


The problem for the apologists is that Manuscripts 2 and 3 have in their left-hand margin sequential characters from the Hor Book of Breathings that are paired up with discrete units of English text. This makes it quite clear that the English text was thought to be a translation of the Hor Book of Breathings. Abraham 1:12, which places the Hor vignette "at the commencement" of the Abrahamic record, also points to the Breathings text as the Book of Abraham's source. The apologists know that if they can establish the existence of a shadowy "Q" document, they can deny that it possessed the same problematic characteristics as the extant ones. They can deny that it had characters in the margin. They can deny that it contained Abraham 1:12. Basically, they can deny that the inspired, first-generation document was in any way connected to the Hor Book of Breathings. They can allege that only in the second-generation documents did Joseph and his scribes mistakenly connect the papyrus to the revelation and attempt to reverse-engineer an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

-Chris
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Post by _Chap »

CaliforniaKid wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:
CaliforniaKid wrote:
Canucklehead wrote:However, I wonder if someone could explain to me why the KEPA documents matter in evaluating the Book of Abraham. Isn't this discussion missing the point here a bit? I mean, we have the facsimiles published directly in the Mormon canon alongside Joseph Smith' "translations" and, surprise surprise, they don't match up. Isn't that enough direct evidence to conclude that Joseph Smith was simply pulling stuff out of his butt to impress gullible audiences?


I think it's easier to shrug off one or two nails-in-the-coffin than a whole lot of them. The KEP are just another nail.


Yes, I suppose that's true. Thank you (and Who Knows) for answering.

Would either of you also mind explaining another basic aspect of this to me? Will is claiming (if I understand) that the KEP are not transcriptions of oral dictation, but are re-copies of another document. So, does anyone suggest what other document the scribes were copying from?


The problem for the apologists is that Manuscripts 2 and 3 have in their left-hand margin sequential characters from the Hor Book of Breathings that are paired up with discrete units of English text. This makes it quite clear that the English text was thought to be a translation of the Hor Book of Breathings. Abraham 1:12, which places the Hor vignette "at the commencement" of the Abrahamic record, also points to the Breathings text as the Book of Abraham's source. The apologists know that if they can establish the existence of a shadowy "Q" document, they can deny that it possessed the same problematic characteristics as the extant ones. They can deny that it had characters in the margin. They can deny that it contained Abraham 1:12. Basically, they can deny that the inspired, first-generation document was in any way connected to the Hor Book of Breathings. They can allege that only in the second-generation documents did Joseph and his scribes mistakenly connect the papyrus to the revelation and attempt to reverse-engineer an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

-Chris



Oh, you mean this is not a 'lost papyrus' argument, but a 'lost scripture' argument?

The Book of Abraham as we have it today is not the original inspired scripture (now lost), but a mere reworking of the said inspired scripture, made by Joseph Smith and his scribes under mistaken assumptions about the role of the papyri. Right?

But that would be a stroke of pure genius. It would mean that the horribly embarrassing, hardly-ever-mentioned-nowadays Book of Abraham as originally published in Times and Seasons and now in the Pearl of Great Price is NOT SCRIPTURE!

So we can finally forget about it, and it cannot be used against the CoCJoLDS.

Neat.
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Brent Metcalfe wrote:Hi CaliforniaKid,

Please post Brian's comments here. Evidently to prevent me from responding to Brian, I've been banned from the MAD board. (FYI: Brian never replied to my email.)

My best,

</brent>


Brent:
You have not been banned from the MAD board. Here's your profile. You are not listed as banned and can post as pundit anytime.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... wuser=3649
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_Canucklehead
_Emeritus
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:57 pm

Post by _Canucklehead »

Chap wrote:Do you by any chance have a link to the thread in which my nervous brilliance was so tellingly demonstrated?


No problem, it's the one that was linked to at the top of this page:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... c&start=21

The problem about effective posting against apologists on this board is that they do just as Mr Schryver seems to have done in the case you mention - they say nothing, and just go away for a while. When they eventually come back, they act as if the hit had never been made.


I'm wondering if Will will make a return to this thread...
_Canucklehead
_Emeritus
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:57 pm

Post by _Canucklehead »

CaliforniaKid wrote:
The problem for the apologists is that Manuscripts 2 and 3 have in their left-hand margin sequential characters from the Hor Book of Breathings that are paired up with discrete units of English text. This makes it quite clear that the English text was thought to be a translation of the Hor Book of Breathings. Abraham 1:12, which places the Hor vignette "at the commencement" of the Abrahamic record, also points to the Breathings text as the Book of Abraham's source. The apologists know that if they can establish the existence of a shadowy "Q" document, they can deny that it possessed the same problematic characteristics as the extant ones. They can deny that it had characters in the margin. They can deny that it contained Abraham 1:12. Basically, they can deny that the inspired, first-generation document was in any way connected to the Hor Book of Breathings. They can allege that only in the second-generation documents did Joseph and his scribes mistakenly connect the papyrus to the revelation and attempt to reverse-engineer an Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.

-Chris


Thanks, that clears things up for me quite a bit.
_Canucklehead
_Emeritus
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:57 pm

Post by _Canucklehead »

dartagnan wrote:Canucklehead if you are interested in reading up on the Book of Abraham stuff over the past few years, you might want to try this corner of the web. I set it aside to discuss the basics and the latest in the online debates.

Book of Abraham Forum

You see the same thing over and over. Check out the thread in response to coggins. The guy really thought nothing had changed in 40 years.

My discovery of the Book of Abraham controversy is what led to me abandoning faith in the LDS Church.


Thanks, dartagnan.

In another thread (I don't remember which one), someone mentioned that the old debate between you and Brent Metcalfe (when you were an apologist, If I recall correctly) was one for the ages. Do you know if it's archived anywhere?
_dartagnan
_Emeritus
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm

Post by _dartagnan »

Yea, I think it is somewhere on ZLMB.

I felt like a black soldier in Vietnam who was asked to walk ahead of the pack in case there were any booby traps. I was in conversation with Gee via email at the time. And a few others too. I was pretty much relaying what they were telling me and Metcalfe shot everything down with facts. I looked like a complete idiot, and I later thanked Metcalfe for doing that. The apologists who were walking me through the discussion in email, pretty much left me for dead.

I was a patsy for them to test Gee's arguments. Nothing more.

But I am grateful for the event anyway.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

dartagnan wrote:I was a patsy for them to test Gee's arguments. Nothing more.


At the time, did you think to ask Gee to just show up on the thread himself?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Post by _Chap »

Canucklehead wrote:
Chap wrote:Do you by any chance have a link to the thread in which my nervous brilliance was so tellingly demonstrated?


No problem, it's the one that was linked to at the top of this page:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... c&start=21

The problem about effective posting against apologists on this board is that they do just as Mr Schryver seems to have done in the case you mention - they say nothing, and just go away for a while. When they eventually come back, they act as if the hit had never been made.


I'm wondering if Will will make a return to this thread...


Thanks for finding that thread!

Well, if Mr Schryver does visit us again, here is something for him to comment on:

Chap wrote:Will Schryver:

I don’t recall ever actually reading where Joseph Smith claimed he could translate Egyptian. I may be mistaken, but I don’t recall ever seeing such a thing. Perhaps you could dig it up for our mutual benefit.


See http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/History ... rch/Vol_II.

On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit
some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some
two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and
devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought
me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a
gentleman, he gave me the following certificate:

KIRTLAND, July 6, 1835. This is to make known to all who may be
desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in
deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession,
which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and,
from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I and that of
Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters. MICHAEL
H. CHANDLER,

Traveling with, and proprietor of, Egyptian mummies.

Sunday 5.--I preached in the afternoon. Michael H. Barton tried to
get into the Church, but he was not willing to confess and forsake all his
sins--and he was rejected.

Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies
and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W. W.
Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, I commenced the translation of some
of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of
the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of
Joseph of Egypt, etc.,--a more full account of which will appear in its
place, as I proceed to examine or unfold them. Truly we can say, the Lord
is beginning to reveal the abundance of peace and truth.


If someone says, in effect "He had been told I could translate Egyptian, so he brought me some to translate, and I translated it for him", then
that sounds like a claim to be able to translate Egyptian to me.


Also this:

http://www.irr.org/mit/Books/BHOH/bhoh4.html



Additional evidence shows that Joseph Smith consistently represented the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar and all the material related to it as a serious matter. A good example of this is found in a small pamphlet published in 1844 entitled The Voice of Truth.21 In it, Smith was quoted at length as he demonstrated his linguistic prowess by quoting brief phrases from seventeen different languages, in quick succession:

Were I a Chaldean I would exclaim, Keed'nauh to-me-roon lehoam elauhayauh dey - ahemayana veh aur'hau lau gnaubadoo, yabadoo ma-ar'gnau comeen tehoat sheamyauh allah (Thus shall ye say unto them: The gods that have not made the heaven and the earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from these heavens.) An Egyptian, Su-e-eh-ni (What other persons are those?) A Grecian, Diabolos basileuei (The Devil reigns.) A Frenchman, Messieurs sans Dieu (Gentlemen without God.) . . .

And on Smith goes, quoting brief clips of Turkish, German, Syrian, Spanish, Italian, Hebrew, Danish, Latin, and other languages. It is notable that the phrases Smith uses from various languages do not constitute the related thoughts of a single message, but appear to be randomly selected phrases from various dictionaries. Even the Chaldean quoted is no more than an approximate translation of the Hebrew of Jeremiah 10:11, apparently copied from Smith's Hebrew Bible. The "Egyptian" he quotes, however, comes directly from the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar, page A: Sue-e-eh-ni "What other person is that? Who?"22

Of course, a skeptic might question whether Joseph Smith actually uttered such strange words. Did he really write or talk in this manner?

Yes, the evidence shows that he definitely did. On November 13, 1843, Smith wrote a letter that appeared in the newspaper Times and Seasons (of which he had served as editor) which stated in part:

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.]

These words were taken directly from pages 29 and 30 of the Grammar material:

Jah-oh-eh: The earth under the government of another or the second of the fixed stars, which is called Enish-go-on-dosh or in other words the power of attra[c]tion it has with the earth. Flo-ees: The moon -- signifying its revolutions, also going between, thereby forming an eclipse. Flos-is-is: The sun in its affinity with Earth and moon -- signifying their revolutions showing the power the one has with the other.23

It is also interesting that the words Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Floeese, and Kli-flos-is-is occur in the "Explanation" of Facsimile No. 2 in the Book of Abraham (see p. 103 of this book).



So according to Joseph Smith, this is Egyptian:

Su-e-eh-ni


And he tells us it means:

What other persons are those?



This is Egyptian too:

Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is



And according to Joseph Smith it means:


O the earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.


Doing a translation of an alleged bit of Egyptian in print surely amounts to a claim to be able to do it, no? (For the present purpose I leave aside the question of whether Joseph Smith's words here are real Egyptian or not.)

Will Schryver:

Even so, I entirely concur with the consensus opinion in the matter: Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian. At least not as I understand the term “translation.”


You're right. He couldn't translate Egyptian. But he certainly was happy for people to think that he could. and indeed wrote things that could have had no other object than to give that impression.
_Who Knows
_Emeritus
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 6:09 pm

Post by _Who Knows »

Ok. So Will doesn't think Joseph Smith could translate egyptian. Yet, at the same time, he doesn't want to concede that the Book of Abraham came from the extant papyri.

So Will, you think Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from a missing scroll, yet, you'd probably concede that even if we had this scroll, it still wouldn't translate into the Book of Abraham? Is this correct? And if it is, how would we know if we in fact found the missing scroll?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Post Reply