Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

[_sock puppet]

Actually its not, r*****. Nobody made anything up. Somebody used these things to map to text, idiot. And it is ancient.

While hieratics are a parallel development as cursive versions of Egyptian, and not always derived from hieroglyphics, each and every hieratic does indeed map to a hieroglyphic. Idiot.

EdGoble,

The only r******* idiot I see on this thread is an individual who believes that a largely plagiarized, and otherwise very poorly done pseudepigraphical (to be extremely kind) work of ridiculous fiction, produced by a well proven serially adulterous sexual predator and conman, is a suitable basis for one's entire worldview.

And that someone would be you. You clearly have no clue as to how childish, naïve, and willfully ignorant you appear to rational adults.

You should really get a life.

Oh, ok. Here we go again. Another person that thinks that only the critics are rational and can't give other rational individuals enough credit that they are serious thinkers like the rest of humanity trying to seriously get down to the bottom of what is going on. You can either get serious about this conversation with someone else that is serious, or you can butt out. The same goes with the rest of you. You can either get serious here, and stop your stupidity, or you can butt out.

Eddy, is that a disinvite? Universal Rule #1 here is: "Everyone is welcome. Every opinion is welcome. Therefore, do not 'de-invite' anyone or suggest that they go elsewhere. Please do not do this via e-mail or private message, either."

[_EdGoble]

Eddy

You are not welcome to use my nickname. That is reserved only for close family members and friends. None of you have demonstrated your lack of animosity or true desire to be friendly.

[_Lemmie]

When something is art, it is abstract, in that it is not literally what it usually is.

I don't think you read my post then, because your statement does not address the issue I brought up about what you said:

you say the Hebrew alphabet was used in an art-form manner in the Psalms, and then in your second quote, abstractly as an acrostic.

It's my understanding that in the acrostics, the letters of the alphabet represented themselves, and had the same meaning whether they were found at the beginning, as part of the acrostic, or anywhere else in the passage. This is definitely not an abstract use, so how are you using it to explain why the SenSen characters would be used abstractly?

Using the Hebrew alphabet to represent the Hebrew alphabet is not abstract, so how are you using acrostics as an example of how Sensen characters are used?

The iconotropy in what Joseph Smith produced is reproducible, for example, where he consistently used Osiris, over and over again, as a symbol for Abraham.

Again, I don't think you read my post, as you are assuming reproducible refers to a single user, when I clearly stated otherwise:

If your argument regarding being an "art-form" is that it is an example of iconotropy, then it should be reproducible and testable, as my understanding of iconotropy is that it defines how a culture might appropriate meanings of another culture's symbols, not a one-off, non-reproducible, single-use example which is never replicated or re-used.

Are you arguing that Joseph Smith himself, as an example of iconotropy, assigned different meanings to symbols? If he is the only one who ever did that, based on his particular usage, how is that different from just making stuff up?

[_EdGoble]

Not that much else makes sense, but I think Ed may be referring to the text commonly found on breathing permits, not this specific piece of papyrus. If that is correct he should be able to take other similar breathing permits and show how his cipher (?) can also result in a Book of Abraham.

If you would pay attention to the fact that I said that these documents do not contain such things, but the art on them (including the "text") was re-used as art to decorate other documents with other content, then you would know that I cannot reproduce content that I do not have.

I didn't say that the characters used as art can be used in some mechanical method to extract the book of Abraham. I said they were re-used as art, and that they were paired up with things in a clever way. Is that a difficult concept? I don't think it is.

[_EdGoble]

It's my understanding that in the acrostics, the letters of the alphabet represented themselves, and had the same meaning whether they were found at the beginning, as part of the acrostic, or anywhere else in the passage. This is definitely not an abstract use, so how are you using it to explain why the SenSen characters would be used abstractly?

In an acrostic, an artistic pairing between a letter, and a paragraph or sentence of text that starts with that letter is created. A different but comparable type of artistic pairing is happening both in the Facsimiles explanations and in the KEP. In this case, the pairings happen to be more like puns, but they are still artistic pairings not too much different from the type of thing that happens with an acrostic. And so, an acrostic, in our culture, is something people are more commonly familiar with. So it is the example that I used to try to get you to understand what is going on here.

Again, I don't think you read my post, as you are assuming reproducible refers to a single user, when I clearly stated otherwise:

If your argument regarding being an "art-form" is that it is an example of iconotropy, then it should be reproducible and testable, as my understanding of iconotropy is that it defines how a culture might appropriate meanings of another culture's symbols, not a one-off, non-reproducible, single-use example which is never replicated or re-used.

Osiris has been shown in many other instances besides the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and the Facsimiles Explanations to be an example of a generally appropriated symbol for Abraham. So I don't get where you have a problem with this. Just because you are invoking something on a cultural level and trying to invalidate this on that basis simply doesn't invalidate the fact that a more localized appropriation of symbols was happening.

[_Lemmie]

Not that much else makes sense, but I think Ed may be referring to the text commonly found on breathing permits, not this specific piece of papyrus. If that is correct he should be able to take other similar breathing permits and show how his cipher (?) can also result in a Book of Abraham.

If you would pay attention to the fact that I said that these documents do not contain such things, but the art on them (including the "text") was re-used as art to decorate other documents with other content, then you would know that I cannot reproduce content that I do not have.

I didn't say that the characters used as art can be used in some mechanical method to extract the book of Abraham. I said they were re-used as art, and that they were paired up with things in a clever way. Is that a difficult concept? I don't think it is.

Actually you were pretty specific about how they mapped to hieroglyphics, which is in no way the same thing as 'art,' so which is it?

While hieratics are a parallel development as cursive versions of Egyptian, and not always directly derived from hieroglyphics, each and every hieratic does indeed map to a hieroglyphic.

If so, please show other instances where this has occurred with these same hieratics.

There is a whole class of documents called Sensen, any one of them, not just this one, could be used in this fashion.

If so, then there must be other instances where your technique is used. Can you show examples?

[_Lemmie]

It's my understanding that in the acrostics, the letters of the alphabet represented themselves, and had the same meaning whether they were found at the beginning, as part of the acrostic, or anywhere else in the passage. This is definitely not an abstract use, so how are you using it to explain why the SenSen characters would be used abstractly?

In an acrostic, an artistic pairing between a letter, and a paragraph or sentence of text that starts with that letter is created. A different but comparable type of artistic pairing is happening both in the Facsimiles explanations and in the KEP. In this case, the pairings happen to be more like puns, but they are still artistic pairings not too much different from the type of thing that happens with an acrostic. And so, an acrostic, in our culture, is something people are more commonly familiar with. So it is the example that I used to try to get you to understand what is going on here.

So, not an acrostic, but an artistic pairing, albeit a pairing that is actually more a pun than an artistic pairing?

Could you give other examples (i.e. not done by Smith) of where pairings based on puns are used in interpreting papyri?

[_EdGoble]

Actually you were pretty specific about how they mapped to hieroglyphics, which is in no way the same thing as 'art,' so which is it?

Go find an Egyptian grammar at any University and you will see tables showing which hieratics go with which hieroglyphics. You are confusing things. Egyptian hieroglyphics are all pictures and are art just by nature.

If so, then there must be other instances where your technique is used. Can you show examples?

I'm not here to play your game on your terms and never have been.

[Guest]

So, not an acrostic, but an artistic pairing, albeit a pairing that is actually more a pun than an artistic pairing?

Could you give other examples (i.e. not done by Smith) of where pairings based on puns are used in interpreting papyri?

I never claimed that this was an acrostic, but the same class of pairing as an acrostic, in that it is the same type of art as an acrostic, an artistic pairing, constrained writing.

If you don't want to be serious either, then you can continue on with your badgering. You can take the internal evidence from the KEP and the Facsimiles explanations, or you can leave it.

[_Lemmie]

If your argument regarding being an "art-form" is that it is an example of iconotropy, then it should be reproducible and testable, as my understanding of iconotropy is that it defines how a culture might appropriate meanings of another culture's symbols, not a one-off, non-reproducible, single-use example which is never replicated or re-used.

Osiris has been shown in many other instances besides the Kirtland Egyptian Papers and the Facsimiles Explanations to be an example of a generally appropriated symbol for Abraham. So I don't get where you have a problem with this. Just because you are invoking something on a cultural level and trying to invalidate this on that basis simply doesn't invalidate the fact that a more localized appropriation of symbols was happening.

Could you give examples of those "many other instances"?

Could you also explain how a "localized appropriation of symbols" could result in "many other instances"?

The two explanations seem mutually contradictory, do they not?