New Book of Abraham Research Group

[_EdGoble]

That wasn't what you said the first time, so I'm not sure why you are saying AGAIN, but in any case, not necessary.

Actually, what I said was not in contradiction to what you were saying at all. You just interpreted it as if it did. I was just saying, in the most simple case, where nothing else is involved, if you say, x = 2, or where in a computer program you say Let x=2, then later, x will still equal 2, because nothing else acted on it, and nothing else was involved. There was the simple, straight forward assignment of value. And therefore, if there is no process involved where there is a value change, in this context, x will always be equal to two, and the two will be SUBSTITUTABLE.

[_EdGoble]

Please read what I said about academic honesty. Your accusations are inappropriate.

Your complications of the matter are not necessary, and your accusations of misuse of terminology are inaccurate.

[_Lemmie]

That wasn't what you said the first time, so I'm not sure why you are saying AGAIN, but in any case, not necessary.

Actually, what I said was not in contradiction to what you were saying at all. You just interpreted it as if it did. I was just saying, in the most simple case, where nothing else is involved, if you say, x = 2, or where in a computer program you say Let x=2, then later, x will still equal 2, because nothing else acted on it, and nothing else was involved. There was the simple, straight forward assignment of value. And therefore, if there is no process involved where there is a value change, in this context, x will always be equal to two, and the two will be SUBSTITUTABLE.

Wow, you are really losing your mind over this. Please re-read my first post, but from a professional, academic standpoint, not as a thin-skinned apologist.

[_EdGoble]

Wow, you are really losing your mind over this. Please re-read my first post, but from a professional, academic standpoint, not as a thin-skinned apologist.

Nice.

[_EdGoble]

So, not algebra then. Hence my suggestion, to leave mathematics out of your analogies.

There is nothing incompatible or inaccurate in what I have described in the context of algebra. I will continue to use it, and your demand for me to leave algebra out of my analogies is simply a thing to continue to create the perception that I don't know what I'm talking about. I would ask you to stop.

[_Lemmie]

Wow, you are really losing your mind over this. Please re-read my first post, but from a professional, academic standpoint, not as a thin-skinned apologist.

Nice.

Good. Glad we can move on. There's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree with someone. In my best estimation, you would do better to leave math, algebra, and consequent definitions of the principle of substitution out of your theory as they are misleading. You disagree, ok. See what other people say. I'm not 'demanding' anything, so there's no reason for you to keep fighting this imaginary battle.

[_EdGoble]

Good. Glad we can move on. There's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree with someone. In my best estimation, you would do better to leave math, algebra, and consequent definitions of the principle of substitution out of your theory as they are misleading. You disagree, ok. See what other people say. I'm not 'demanding' anything, so there's no reason for you to keep fighting this imaginary battle.

There is no basis whatsoever for your disagreement, and you started the imaginary battle with an invented problem that didn't exist. I responded, and you continued to assert a baseless accusation. If there is anything imaginary, it was imagined up by you.

[_Lemmie]

Good. Glad we can move on. There's nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree with someone. In my best estimation, you would do better to leave math, algebra, and consequent definitions of the principle of substitution out of your theory as they are misleading. You disagree, ok. See what other people say. I'm not 'demanding' anything, so there's no reason for you to keep fighting this imaginary battle.

There is no basis whatsoever for your disagreement, and you started the imaginary battle with an invented problem that didn't exist. I responded, and you continued to assert a baseless accusation. If there is anything imaginary, it was imagined up by you.

I said I disagree, you explained yourself, I explained myself. End of story. What you are doing now is ludicrous, and is utterly beyond the realm of a normal scholastic discussion of ideas. Your behavior here explains to me why you can't seem to manage a discussion with anyone. It is unbelievable to me that you say you want to present and discuss your ideas but you literally cannot function as a thinking person when you are disagreed with. Tantrums are for two-year-olds.

[_Maksutov]

[

Notwithstanding you will continue to make fun of it, but the Mormon description of a being that is a member of an already-known species (i.e. man), and that this man is a fully-formed and fully mature member of that species, and has sired more of his species and is trying to get them to also fully mature, is certainly less irrational than a space blob without body parts or passions. And notwithstanding your laughing, being a member of the large and spacious building that you are, this is in perfect harmony with Transhumanist descriptions of Post-Humanity.

Of course I'll make fun of people who claim to translate using magic rocks. It's irrational, magical, superstitious and STUPID. The issue has nothing to do with buildings in visions or transhumanism. It's more to do with the tarot reader down at the strip mall. Keep piling on the irrelevancies and the pretentious pieties. It's what you've got. If you're feeling sorely used in Celestial, just step into Terrestrial for a reality check.

[_Themis]

You are getting closer. I am suggesting that in ancient times there was a separate document from the Sensen Papyrus and Hypocephalus. And this separate document employed characters/hieroglyphs/iconography from the Sensen Papyrus, vignettes and Hypocephalus in creative ways, where specialized meaning assignments were made to pictures, and those specialized meaning assignments to those characters and pictures make up parts of the Abrahamic story and Abrahamic concepts.

I thought you meant this separate document was part of Joseph's collection, but now I think you are suggesting it was never part of Joseph's collection or put in with the mummy that had the Sensen Papyrus. Is that correct?

Now given that all the text and pictures used are from the sensen papyrus, and that these papyrus are unique to some extent are you suggesting that the person or persons were the same people that made the sensen papyrus for Hor?

Yes. And so, this ancient document serves as a sort of key for meaning assignments, something akin to code-tables in a code-book, where symbols have meaning assignments for a code. And when I say code, I don't mean that things were somehow hidden or encrypted in this thing, or meanings jammed in to the symbols. In other words, the symbols don't do a whole lot to know what was meant by the symbols. To know what was meant by them, you must have the key to know. I mean that it is something akin to a simple substitution cipher. Google substitution cipher if you want and you will see what I mean.

It sounds as though you are saying one document/key was made that just has text and pictures taken from the sensen papyri in which they were written on one side with the adjacent meaning written next to them. So this key or document would be needed to get the Book of Abraham story without God's help, and that Joseph never had the key anyways.

I cannot help but think you are presenting a catalyst theory with an unnecessary step in hopes of salvaging the KEP and that Joseph was being told by God what each hieroglyph and picture meant. This theory has zero evidence since you suggest Joseph never had this key document, or why someone would even create one when they could just write down the story like everyone else does. It is a key that can only be used for one document, the sensen papyri, but why since it already has a normal story and no way to get another story unless you have the document that someone copied from the sensen papyri and created new meanings. May as well have buried it with the sensen document, but then if you are going to take some of the text and pictures from the sensen document and add meanings why not just remove the legend which has no real value and you have the Book of Abraham story.


I don't think this shows how Joseph was presenting what he claimed to know about Egyptian and how their writing supposing had different levels of meaning. He wasn't presenting how to translate this one document, but how to translate any Egyptian writing. He claimed that each hieroglyph was made up of various levels of meaning that could result in quite a bit of English text or meaning. This is why they assign so much text to each hieroglyph in the KEP.