New Book of Abraham Research Group

[_Themis]

Here is the evidence for this:
http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogspot.com/p/ancient-letter-puzzles-and-word-games.html

I didn't see anything specific about how Egyptians would do anything close to what you are claiming with the Book of Abraham as I understand it. Do you have any sources from Egyptology that might show how they were doing anything close to it? I do't have a problem that ancient people like words games and such. What you need to do is see if scholars have something even close to being able to add so much text to each symbol. My understanding is that this would be hard to do. Then add the problem of doing it and be able to write dual meanings with the same symbols and have two coherent stories.

I am talking about the ancient and well documented practice of Iconotropy, where iconography/characters were re-appropriated and repurposed for other usages, even though that was not their original intent:

http://egyptianalphabetandgrammar.blogs ... cters.html

We don't see this happening with the papyri as translated by Egyptology. I understand language can change over time including iconography. As an example is fac 3. Egyptology has both text and iconography to identify the scene and the participants as well as the main text which tells us what is going on. All three fac are part of funerary rituals which also happen to be buried with dead people. Joseph got it so wrong that re-purposing meanings just doesn't work since you would have to change the meaning of all the hieroglyphs and icons. All you have is to show how they could make dual meanings and get as much information as Joseph claim and be able to create one set of symbols having two coherent stories.

You know that if you could create a writing system that could put that much information into one simple symbol you would have the best writing system in the world.

It is similar to how in English, we use numbers and letters to number an outline.

So are the hieroglyphs the numbering system of the outline or the text that follows the numbering system? I suspect you may be talking about the KEP where we see individual hieroglyphs with the claimed translation to their right. I am not sure how one can think they are being used as a numbering system.

The evidence from the Kirtland Egyptian Papers clearly shows that he was only saying that a "subject" (i.e. theme) was represented by a character. And so, when I say that a linkage is made between text and character, I'm saying that that linkage is thematic. For example, the Khnum-ra character (Facsimile #2, Figure 1), is the god of Creation. Kolob is the first creation. They share a thematic linkage. You can't extract all the text from the explanation for Facsimile #2, Figure 1 from the Khnum-Ra character. That is an explanation, where like I said, a meaning assignment was made, to be represented by a character that has a thematic tie to it. He was not saying that a whole chunk of text was extractable from a character.

He did with the hieroglyphs. Fac 2 has both characters or little pictures and hieroglyphs, and some parts were missing. It also has clear meanings for Egyptology and are exactly what you expect to find with a mummy.

What I don't get is that you have no evidence of them trying to make a dual meaning or how they could actually accomplish such a long story(Book of Abraham) in so few hieroglyphs. Why would they even bother and not just write such an important story in the common language of their area? Reality is that Joseph claimed it was written in Egyptian. Somehow God being dumb to let Joseph go off half cocked doesn't sound very reasonable to many members. Especially when he claims so much communication from God on a almost daily basis.

[_EdGoble]

mumbling vague threats at people who disagree with you.

Interesting. All I did was offer a burger. Gimme a break.

[_EdGoble]

A picture of your desk? Naw, not necessary. A list of your books, well, yes, that would be informative. And I asked about where you studied because reading Egyptian is damned difficult. Middle Egyptian has about 2000 characters. Hieratic, at one time reached about 7,000 characters. EGyptian was far more than merely letters corresponding to an english alphabet. But Demotic put Egyptian sounds into the Greek alphabet, with an additional 7 to 10 characters that didn't fit any alphabet letter.

I have studied Middle Egyptian, basically reading Hieratic written texts re-written in hieroglypic figures. But the grammar is truly perplexing. I wouldn't have suceeded in translating anything without professional guidance and criticism.

It is my honest opinion that merely reading books is not enough to get complete and correct translations of demotic or Hieratic texts.

It doesn't matter what I do, so I see no point. If I had more people on my side with my theory who did have the training that you value, then the situation would be different, but I make due with what I have on my side (which is only myself).

Beyond the question of not valuing what I have to show, only because of the issue of academic training, the issue of value differences goes deeper, which even makes the situation less productive.

All of you who have chosen to not have faith in Mormonism are not genuinely interested in something that promotes something that you no longer value. If it was of value to you fundamentally, perhaps you would perceive value in something that it has to offer. And that is why there is lack of productivity in this conversation. You who all look at this are at most just entertained by what you see as stupidity, and you all provoke me to anger, which led to profanity.

And so, now if I choose to continue at all, I would want to start over again with you all being cordial once again, but the likelihood of that is not likely. Because if I seek to make a contract with you all in this thread, asking you to be cordial if I start over again and try to be cordial, you will not agree. You can't meet me on the level of rational human to rational human. Because you can't respect something you disagree with, when to you it is foolishness. It is not foolishness at all, because that is just your perception and judgement because of your perception of reality. It is just something that you disagree with in your overconfident opinion. If you perceived reality as it really is, you would be less overconfident, and the reality would humble you more.

Why is your opinion overconfident? Because, even from an atheistic, transhumanist viewpoint, there are likely to be Post-human life forms (extraterrestrial ones) that have a far greater intellect than us. And if they seeded our planet, and one of them has communicated to us as "God", then anything we produce to them is foolishness, like children playing in a sandbox to them. And you risk the possibility that your rationality is foolishness to a Post-Human evolved entity that is your Father, who belongs to a society that has had millions of years to not only overcome death, but to scientifically dwarf anything we have come up with in only a few centuries that we have had science. You risk the possibility that he has communicated with us, and that he is a Lawgiver, and that you are not only uninterested in his communications with the people he as authorized to lead, but also you are uninterested in his laws, and the information that he has to provide. And if his test for us is faith, before he gives information and proof, then not only will your science fail to provide that proof, but also you are in spiritual peril.

And so, given the possibility and plausibility of the scenario above, your dismissal of faith as a position of rationality to start from is actually a weakness on your part. You all do not see faith as a position of rationality. But necessarily, a faithful point of view starts with faith. It doesn't sacrifice it. And therein lies the problem. It considers it a position where faith is a starting point. It is not objective in that sense. But since your mind is made up that it is a position that is not rational already, you cannot suspend disbelief long enough to give place for the possibility that it is real, to then allow the evidences that do exist to show the picture that they show, even though they are not proof of that, because we are not in an environment providing that type of proof on these points by design. This type of proposition is only valuable to a person of faith. So, rather than competing with you over whether your epistemology is better than mine, I would like to say that fundamentally, your system of what you value is different from mine, and that underlies the fact that your epistemology is different. I value starting out within a faith position in Mormonism. You do not. Since we do not share values, we cannot even hope to see eye to eye on the most fundamental of things, let alone have a productive conversation.

[_EdGoble]

pictures of stacks of dictionaries do not constitute credentials.

There you go. That's all you value. Credentials. That's all you care about. I rest my case.

[_Lemmie]

pictures of stacks of dictionaries do not constitute credentials.

There you go. That's all you value. Credentials. That's all you care about. I rest my case.

You clearly stated the case for credentials when you said this:

If I had more people on my side with my theory who did have the training that you value, then the situation would be different, but I make due with what I have on my side (which is only myself).

Or put it to the test using your own words:

Because you can't respect something you disagree with [such as asking for credentials], when to you it is foolishness. [Asking about credentials] is not foolishness at all, because that is just your perception and judgement because of your perception of reality. [Asking about credentials] is just something that you disagree with in your overconfident opinion. If you perceived [the role of credentials] as it really is, you would be less overconfident, and the reality [of the need for credentials] would humble you more.

I sense that the 'contract' you want to have with readers is a little one-sided.

Also, disagreement, even vehement, loud and heated, is not disrespect. It's just disagreement.

[Guest]

Dang, I just wiped out my post here, so I have to start over, when I was trying to edit this.

I didn't see anything specific about how Egyptians would do anything close to what you are claiming with the Book of Abraham as I understand it. Do you have any sources from Egyptology that might show how they were doing anything close to it? I do't have a problem that ancient people like words games and such. What you need to do is see if scholars have something even close to being able to add so much text to each symbol. My understanding is that this would be hard to do. Then add the problem of doing it and be able to write dual meanings with the same symbols and have two coherent stories.

You are talking about classic dual entendre, or putting a hidden meaning in a text. That is not what I said at all. That's not what I claimed at all. I said that these are characters that are being used in a derivative creation. In other words, the KEP is the translation of a derivative work that is not the Sensen Papyrus, but that used Sensen characters in a creative way. If you create a mash-up or cut-up of stuff from a magazine, you have created a derivative work using things that came from that magazine. It is not the magazine now, even though you have created a derivative work. The KEP is a translation of an ancient derivative work.

We don't see this happening with the papyri as translated by Egyptology. I understand language can change over time including iconography.

This is the art of language, not a change in language. This is a specialized usage of the Egyptian characters, similar to how Hebrew characters were used in the acrostics in the psalms in the Old testament.

As an example is fac 3. Egyptology has both text and iconography to identify the scene and the participants as well as the main text which tells us what is going on. All three fac are part of funerary rituals which also happen to be buried with dead people. Joseph got it so wrong that re-purposing meanings just doesn't work since you would have to change the meaning of all the hieroglyphs and icons. All you have is to show how they could make dual meanings and get as much information as Joseph claim and be able to create one set of symbols having two coherent stories.

that's not what I said. I'm saying that the characters were lifted from the Sensen Papyrus and used in a new hybrid document where they were mapped to Abrahamic content.

You know that if you could create a writing system that could put that much information into one simple symbol you would have the best writing system in the world.

You are confusing my theory with the Supercryptogram theory. I would never suggest that it is possible to jam a bunch of information into one character. I am talking about using characters as place-holders for ideas, where the ideas are kept in a key or something like a legend. A Hybrid document that we no longer have that is not extant.

So are the hieroglyphs the numbering system of the outline or the text that follows the numbering system? I suspect you may be talking about the KEP where we see individual hieroglyphs with the claimed translation to their right. I am not sure how one can think they are being used as a numbering system.

There are two separate things in the KEP. Definitions in the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar that look similar to classic dictionary definitions, but that are not. And character markers used as verse/section markers in the Book of Abraham manuscripts. These are both the same in that both the Book of Abraham manuscripts and the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar act as keys, like a legend, that make meaning assignments to characters that are place-holders. These are not classic definitions like in a dictionary where a meaning is inherent in a word. These meanings are assigned to characters like in a legend. And so, no, I never said that the characters "contain" the meaning. I said that the characters are place-holders for assigned meanings. Please study this out carefully and try to understand the difference.

He did with the hieroglyphs. Fac 2 has both characters or little pictures and hieroglyphs, and some parts were missing. It also has clear meanings for Egyptology and are exactly what you expect to find with a mummy.

The characters in Egyptian that are used as "letters" in text, (i.e. the uniliteral or one-consonantal, biliteral or dual-consonantal, and tri-literal or three-consonantal, and determinative or context-givers) are all fundamentally pictographic, meaning that they are all little pictures. And so, there is no difference between assigning meaning to little pictures in a big picture (in the Facsimiles) and assigning meaning to little pictures in a text. They are all little pictures.

What I don't get is that you have no evidence of them trying to make a dual meaning or how they could actually accomplish such a long story(Book of Abraham) in so few hieroglyphs.

They don't contain text. In the way they were used in the derivative composition that is no longer extant, they were place-holders. They didn't "contain" text. They were place holders like variables in algebra.

Why would they even bother and not just write such an important story in the common language of their area?

They did. This missing derivative document likely contained the Book of Abraham text in Egyptian or Hebrew or something, mapped to Sensen characters.

Reality is that Joseph claimed it was written in Egyptian.

It probably was in the no-longer extant Egyptian original for the KEP, which is a document that Joseph Smith never had in the modern day. It was a document that was extant in ancient times.

Somehow God being dumb to let Joseph go off half cocked doesn't sound very reasonable to many members. Especially when he claims so much communication from God on a almost daily basis.

God isn't dumb, and Joseph did the best he could with what he had. And I never claimed that he did what you think he did.

[_EdGoble]

You clearly stated the case for credentials when you said this: . . .

I sense that the 'contract' you want to have with readers is a little one-sided.

Also, disagreement, even vehement, loud and heated, is not disrespect. It's just disagreement.

Taking words out of context seems to be the forté of almost everyone I have dealt with on this thread.

The first statement I made where you took me out of context again is where I was saying that things would be different for me if I had people with credentials on my side, only because that is only what you will give heed to. I didn't state that it is important for me to have credentials to make my case. My case will be self evident to people that actually take my information into proper consideration.

Disagreement that contains the type of demeaning, derogatory and condescending type of language that you have all used against me is NOT just disagreement. It is not cordiality. It is not respect.

[_Lemmie]

You clearly stated the case for credentials when you said this: . . .

I sense that the 'contract' you want to have with readers is a little one-sided.

Also, disagreement, even vehement, loud and heated, is not disrespect. It's just disagreement.

Taking words out of context seems to be the forté of almost everyone I have dealt with on this thread.

The first statement I made where you took me out of context again is where I was saying that things would be different for me if I had people with credentials on my side, only because that is only what you will give heed to. I didn't state that it is important for me to have credentials to make my case. My case will be self evident to people that actually take my information into proper consideration.

Disagreement that contains the type of demeaning, derogatory and condescending type of language that you have all used against me is NOT just disagreement. It is not cordiality. It is not respect.

Then you missed my point, which was the fact that you DO NOT have people with credentials on your side, because if this were an idea credentialed researchers were working on, it would not be the idea you are bringing up here.

And pardon the pun, but taking words out of context seems to be your forté.

[_Lemmie]

Why is your opinion overconfident? Because, even from an atheistic, transhumanist viewpoint, there are likely to be Post-human life forms (extraterrestrial ones) that have a far greater intellect than us.

Could you provide some support for this comment that atheists and transhumanists think it is likely there are post-human ETs?

[_EdGoble]

Then you missed my point, which was the fact that you DO NOT have people with credentials on your side, because if this were an idea credentialed researchers were working on, it would not be the idea you are bringing up here.

And pardon the pun, but taking words out of context seems to be your forté.

Oh ok. Got it. So, an academic would never suggest ancient substitution, yet academics use it all the time. High school math teachers use it all the time. Computer Scientists and Physicists use it all the time. In your mind, its irrational to suggest the principle of substitution as an explanation, in the same way that Latin characters in our alphabet are used as variables in algebra. It must only be literalistic usage of Egyptian characters. It cannot be artistic use of Egyptian characters. The Egyptians were too stupid to understand the fundamentals of character substitution, when the Jews and other ancients used it in iconotropy.

So, mathematics is irrational in its use of alphabetical characters for substitution for numbers? Yet algebra is the root of many things in science, physics equations being just one of the things variables are used in. Computer programming as another example of the usage of variables and substitution. And my Software Engineering background makes me an idiot too I guess.

Yes, indeed, if your people with credentials could never make the connections that somebody without them has made, perhaps they don't deserve the credentials, because the credentials did not help to solve the problem, yet the guy without them did.