Lemmie wrote:Calling that source evidence is problematic. It is an apologetic blog entry that references Maxwell institute publications, apologist discussion boards and Wikipedia. Do you have a source that is based on Egyptian studies that are recognized and accepted in the academic world?
That is my blog, and the references are solid. And you have a bias against good information, just because its source is perceived to you to be apologetic.
No, I said that Maxwell Institute publications, apologist discussion board threads and Wikipedia sources cannot be considered 'evidence'. If you would like to be personally offensive about that by attacking me rather than addressing the issue that is certainly your right, but all that does is make your process look even more suspect.
If your references are solid, why not use ones that are more acceptable across the board, rather than from non-peer-reviewed sources, online discussion board threads and error-prone Wikipedia? I don't mind my students using Wikipedia to quickly get information, but I don't accept it as a reference because there are far better and more reliable sources to use in research. If you want to make your point seriously and effectively, using Wikipedia as a reference is not the way to do it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jun 22, 2016 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lemmie wrote:Funny, my issue is with your delivery of your disagreement as well! I totally agree people don't have to listen to you proclaim your right to verbally abuse others. Plus, I'm not your father, you are not a kid, and being disagreed with is not verbal abuse.
Why not just focus on the debate and quit having such a thin skin?
LOL. Either be cordial, or don't expect a further response from me.
LOL. I would say ditto but I'm not quite as thin-skinned as you.
EdGoble wrote:LOL. Either be cordial, or don't expect a further response from me.
I may have missed it, but I don't remember reading where you studied Egyptian. Which university or college. I ask because I know Egyptian grammar is extremely difficult.
I myself have not yet made it beyond my second year, I must re-take an exam on verb forms. I still have trouble with causative and anomalous verbs.
Causatives and Anomalous Verbs
Causatives are formed by taking one of the root classes above and adding an s before the root. For instance, the word wsḫ wsx - widen“widen” can be written as the causative swsḫ swsx - causative - widen “cause to widen.” Since the causative is formed by adding a s to the 3-lit verb wsḫ, swsḫ is considered a caus. 3-lit verb.
Causatives are sometimes difficult to identify, because not all words that begin with s are causatives. The easiest way to identify causatives is to remove the s and see if the remaining root is an actual verb. If it is not a verb after removing the s, then it is not a causative.
Anomalous verbs are irregular verbs that do not follow the same patterns of the verbs in their same class. There are three anomalous verbs: rdi rdi - anomalous verb, iw iw - anomalous verb, and ii ii - anomalous verb.
(Unfortunately, I could not copy the hieroglyph characters that came with the above text, but for those who want to see the complete text, inclusive the hieroglyphs, go to: http://www.egyptianhieroglyphs.net/egyp ... /lesson-9/
I'm not going to bite again after what you did to me over at MormonDialogue with your ad-hominems there. It's called Ad-hominem to shoot to messenger, regardless of how you try to shoot the messenger. Trying to call into question one's ability to deal with Egyptian based on schooling is the regular tactic. I don't remember ever seeing anyone that is an Ex-Mormon question Brent Metcalfe's conclusions on the Kirtland Egyptian papers, but even the Exmo foundation invites him to speak, etc., yet he is no credentialed Egyptologist. My conclusions in my research are the question. Not my schooling. I've had enough of you over there. I refuse to deal with you here. You are as uncharitable as they come.
Chap wrote:So Mr Goble has tried to form a group to do research, but basically he already knows the answer. And he only wants to talk to people who agree with him on religious grounds.
It's research, Jim, but not as we know it ...
That's what I don't get. Why do this type of work but only ask that it be discussed by people who already believe through faith? What would someone be trying to accomplish with that kind of self-referential, self-indulgent, self-absorbed 'research'? How do you call it research if it is only done within the academic vacuum of faith-based beliefs?
EdGoble wrote: LOL. Either be cordial, or don't expect a further response from me.
LOL. I would say ditto but I'm not quite as thin-skinned as you.
Be careful, Lemmie. Our cordial friend is a master of Egyptian culture, language, history and the historical era of Joseph Smith, Jr. as well. And he's armed with powerful arguments and evidence for Book of Abraham authenticity.
Chap wrote:So Mr Goble has tried to form a group to do research, but basically he already knows the answer. And he only wants to talk to people who agree with him on religious grounds.
It's research, Jim, but not as we know it ...
That's what I don't get. Why do this type of work but only ask that it be discussed by people who already believe through faith? What would someone be trying to accomplish with that kind of self-referential, self-indulgent, self-absorbed 'research'? How do you call it research if it is only done within the academic vacuum of faith-based beliefs?
Lemmie wrote: No, I said that Maxwell Institute publications, apologist discussion board threads and Wikipedia sources cannot be considered 'evidence'. If you would like to be personally offensive about that by attacking me rather than addressing the issue that is certainly your right, but all that does is make your process look even more suspect.
If your references are solid, why not use ones that are more acceptable across the board, rather than from non-peer-reviewed sources, online discussion board threads and error-prone Wikipedia? I don't mind my students using Wikipedia to quickly get information, but I don't accept it as a reference because there are far better and more reliable sources to use in research. If you want to make your point seriously and effectively, using Wikipedia as a reference is not the way to do it.
I know what you said. You are not looking at the references and seeing the credentialed Egyptologists that I mostly quote from in my foundational articles. You just think that because Mormon scholars are apologists that their credentials are worthless. You are not looking at the foundations of their conclusions. All you see is that they are apologists.
My quotations from Wikipedia are few and far between, and even when used are not used for much other than to give background on undisputed small points.
This is the difference between myself and regular apologists. I only quote apologists when their conclusions are well-based and evidence-based.
EdGoble wrote:LOL. Either be cordial, or don't expect a further response from me.
I may have missed it, but I don't remember reading where you studied Egyptian. Which university or college. I ask because I know Egyptian grammar is extremely difficult.
I myself have not yet made it beyond my second year, I must re-take an exam on verb forms. I still have trouble with causative and anomalous verbs.
Causatives and Anomalous Verbs
Causatives are formed by taking one of the root classes above and adding an s before the root. For instance, the word wsḫ wsx - widen“widen” can be written as the causative swsḫ swsx - causative - widen “cause to widen.” Since the causative is formed by adding a s to the 3-lit verb wsḫ, swsḫ is considered a caus. 3-lit verb.
Causatives are sometimes difficult to identify, because not all words that begin with s are causatives. The easiest way to identify causatives is to remove the s and see if the remaining root is an actual verb. If it is not a verb after removing the s, then it is not a causative.
Anomalous verbs are irregular verbs that do not follow the same patterns of the verbs in their same class. There are three anomalous verbs: rdi rdi - anomalous verb, iw iw - anomalous verb, and ii ii - anomalous verb.
(Unfortunately, I could not copy the hieroglyph characters that came with the above text, but for those who want to see the complete text, inclusive the hieroglyphs, go to: http://www.egyptianhieroglyphs.net/egyp ... /lesson-9/
EG wrote:I'm not going to bite again after what you did to me over at MormonDialogue with your ad-hominems there. It's called Ad-hominem to shoot to messenger, regardless of how you try to shoot the messenger. Trying to call into question one's ability to deal with Egyptian based on schooling is the regular tactic. I don't remember ever seeing anyone that is an Ex-Mormon question Brent Metcalfe's conclusions on the Kirtland Egyptian papers, but even the Exmo foundation invites him to speak, etc., yet he is no credentialed Egyptologist. My conclusions in my research are the question. Not my schooling. I've had enough of you over there. I refuse to deal with you here. You are as uncharitable as they come.
How is asking for background knowledge shooting the messenger?? It is absolutely normal in the world of research to ask the credentials of someone who has presented their work as evidence.
Think of it this way, you are hiring a young person to babysit your kids and you ask him/her if they are experienced, and he/she goes berserk accusing you of being uncharitable and telling you it is their future babysitting with you that matters, not what experience or training they have had in the past that matters. Do you hire this person?
That's what I don't get. Why do this type of work but only ask that it be discussed by people who already believe through faith? What would someone be trying to accomplish with that kind of self-referential, self-indulgent, self-absorbed 'research'? How do you call it research if it is only done within the academic vacuum of faith-based beliefs?
Because the foregone conclusion is that people like you reject it out of hand only because you don't believe, not because you are willing to discuss it objectively. I already know that you are unwilling to discuss it objectively, only because it contains faith-based elements, so I wasn't looking to talk to people like you about it. I am searching for people like me, and didn't come here to talk with ANY of you of your ilk, because I know that you have nothing substantive to say about it, only that you question its worth because it has elements of belief.
So, since my primary reason for this thread has failed, in that I am trying to find people like me, and none are to be found, if any do find this, my contact information is on my blog.
Think of it this way, you are hiring a young person to babysit your kids and you ask him/her if they are experienced, and he/she goes berserk accusing you of being uncharitable and telling you it is their future babysitting with you that matters, not what experience or training they have had in the past that matters. Do you hire this person?
I wasn't applying to you to be hired by you. Farewell
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jun 22, 2016 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
