Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
jskains
God
Posts: 1749
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:06 am

Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by jskains »

So here are my questions and thoughts to the only piece of the Church I do not have a good explanation for.

1. Can you really get that much text from a few characters? The KEP shows a character, then a huge paragraph of English Material.

2. Was the KEP the manuscript for the Book of Abraham or is it possibly a copy of the real manuscript? (IE: the translation was done, then the KEP was a re-write of the english and an attempt to match it with the characters).

3. Why do critics keep ignoring the size of the Papyri? It is often described as unrolling across two rooms, much more than what we have. And then there is the ink issue. Wasn't there also red ink for some of the characters he translated from?

4. What did Joseph Smith say about the Facsimiles exactly? Are they doctrinal or just opinion of the cool pictures he found on the scrolls?

5. Is there an english match for EVERYTHING on the known scrolls? Are there characters on the KEP that are not on the known scolls?

6. Is there really an answer on who wrote the KEP? Has handwriting comparisons been made?

7. Was the method of translation similar to the Book of Mormon in that he never actually touched the source during the transcription? Did he use the hat method, making his understanding of the real characters non-existant?

Lets say the Book of Abraham is true. He translated them from the hat/peep stone, UandT whatever method, then got cocky and tried to match everything. He saw the cool pictures and tried to make sense of them. He thought the material next to the cool pictures was "obviously" what he just translated, and tried to match them. Sure, he was wrong, but that wouldn't put into doubt the Book of Abraham.

The mechanism for the design of the Church is that we operate through Moroni's Promise. That if God tells you the Book of Abraham is true, then you have to accept we don't have enough of the goings on in that translating room to actually dismiss Joseph Smith's claims.

Lets say everything DID match. The KEP mirrors the Papyri and Egyptologists matched the english text. Now what? Would then everyone have needed faith to be a member?
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds - Albert Einstein

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by William Schryver »

jskains wrote:So here are my questions and thoughts to the only piece of the Church I do not have a good explanation for.

1. Can you really get that much text from a few characters? The KEP shows a character, then a huge paragraph of English Material.

2. Was the KEP the manuscript for the Book of Abraham or is it possibly a copy of the real manuscript? (IE: the translation was done, then the KEP was a re-write of the english and an attempt to match it with the characters).

3. Why do critics keep ignoring the size of the Papyri? It is often described as unrolling across two rooms, much more than what we have. And then there is the ink issue. Wasn't there also red ink for some of the characters he translated from?

4. What did Joseph Smith say about the Facsimiles exactly? Are they doctrinal or just opinion of the cool pictures he found on the scrolls?

5. Is there an english match for EVERYTHING on the known scrolls? Are there characters on the KEP that are not on the known scolls?

6. Is there really an answer on who wrote the KEP? Has handwriting comparisons been made?

7. Was the method of translation similar to the Book of Mormon in that he never actually touched the source during the transcription? Did he use the hat method, making his understanding of the real characters non-existant?

Lets say the Book of Abraham is true. He translated them from the hat/peep stone, UandT whatever method, then got cocky and tried to match everything. He saw the cool pictures and tried to make sense of them. He thought the material next to the cool pictures was "obviously" what he just translated, and tried to match them. Sure, he was wrong, but that wouldn't put into doubt the Book of Abraham.

The mechanism for the design of the Church is that we operate through Moroni's Promise. That if God tells you the Book of Abraham is true, then you have to accept we don't have enough of the goings on in that translating room to actually dismiss Joseph Smith's claims.

Lets say everything DID match. The KEP mirrors the Papyri and Egyptologists matched the english text. Now what? Would then everyone have needed faith to be a member?

If you are really interested in answers to these questions, I would invited you to the 2010 FAIR Conference, specifically for the presentation entitled The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

User avatar
George Miller
Priest
Posts: 310
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:41 am

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by George Miller »

jskains wrote:1. Can you really get that much text from a few characters? The KEP shows a character, then a huge paragraph of English Material.

An egyptologist would tell you that you can't get that much english text from an egyptian character. The KEP shows a reasonable rationale for how Joseph Smith and those around him thought that entire sentences were contained in a single character.
jskains wrote:2. Was the KEP the manuscript for the Book of Abraham or is it possibly a copy of the real manuscript? (IE: the translation was done, then the KEP was a re-write of the english and an attempt to match it with the characters).

Chris Smith in his published work provides evidence that the direction was KEP->Book of Abraham.
jskains wrote:3. Why do critics keep ignoring the size of the Papyri? It is often described as unrolling across two rooms, much more than what we have. And then there is the ink issue. Wasn't there also red ink for some of the characters he translated from?

Your confusion here is largely due to the apologists ignoring the Book of Joseph. Clear evidence suggest that along with the Book of Breathing, which Joseph Smith thought was the Book of Abraham was a second scroll, was a Book of the Dead. This scroll was probably much longer than the Hor Book of Breathings texts and was written in red and black ink. Joseph Smith believed that the Book of the Dead was the Book of Joseph. It is probably both of these scrolls spread out that explain the length.
jskains wrote:4. What did Joseph Smith say about the Facsimiles exactly? Are they doctrinal or just opinion of the cool pictures he found on the scrolls?

Is there any reason that they are not more doctrinal than the text itself which makes reference to the vignettes? I can't think of any reason to exclude them.
jskains wrote:5. Is there an english match for EVERYTHING on the known scrolls? Are there characters on the KEP that are not on the known scolls?

Others are more knowledgeable on this matter and can provide a more thorough explanation. To the first question, my understanding is that Joseph only translated a portion of the scroll so the first question would be no. As to your second question, there are characters on the KEP that are absent from the Book of Abraham papyri. However, the characters fit nicely into the holes in the papyrus suggesting Joseph was revealing by revelation the lost characters.
jskains wrote:6. Is there really an answer on who wrote the KEP? Has handwriting comparisons been made?

Yes there are three manuscript which Chris Smith has provided evidence were given at the same time as dictation from Joseph. One is in Joseph Smith's handwriting and the other two are in the handwriting of two of his scribes who regularly worked with him at the time.
jskains wrote:7. Was the method of translation similar to the Book of Mormon in that he never actually touched the source during the transcription? Did he use the hat method, making his understanding of the real characters non-existant?

I don't know but I would imagine since the KEP have the characters from the Hor Book of Breathings on them that they would have been present. Note that Joseph was using the hat and seerstones much less when these documents were produced.

Note I am a relative newbie in my studies of this stuff so I would would be happy to be corrected if I have made any missteps. In other words I don't plan on spending reams of electronic paper on the subject.

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by Kevin Graham »

jskains wrote:So here are my questions and thoughts to the only piece of the Church I do not have a good explanation for.

1. Can you really get that much text from a few characters? The KEP shows a character, then a huge paragraph of English Material.

2. Was the KEP the manuscript for the Book of Abraham or is it possibly a copy of the real manuscript? (IE: the translation was done, then the KEP was a re-write of the english and an attempt to match it with the characters).

3. Why do critics keep ignoring the size of the Papyri? It is often described as unrolling across two rooms, much more than what we have. And then there is the ink issue. Wasn't there also red ink for some of the characters he translated from?

4. What did Joseph Smith say about the Facsimiles exactly? Are they doctrinal or just opinion of the cool pictures he found on the scrolls?

5. Is there an english match for EVERYTHING on the known scrolls? Are there characters on the KEP that are not on the known scolls?

6. Is there really an answer on who wrote the KEP? Has handwriting comparisons been made?

7. Was the method of translation similar to the Book of Mormon in that he never actually touched the source during the transcription? Did he use the hat method, making his understanding of the real characters non-existant?

Lets say the Book of Abraham is true. He translated them from the hat/peep stone, UandT whatever method, then got cocky and tried to match everything. He saw the cool pictures and tried to make sense of them. He thought the material next to the cool pictures was "obviously" what he just translated, and tried to match them. Sure, he was wrong, but that wouldn't put into doubt the Book of Abraham.

The mechanism for the design of the Church is that we operate through Moroni's Promise. That if God tells you the Book of Abraham is true, then you have to accept we don't have enough of the goings on in that translating room to actually dismiss Joseph Smith's claims.

Lets say everything DID match. The KEP mirrors the Papyri and Egyptologists matched the english text. Now what? Would then everyone have needed faith to be a member?


The fact that you, as an apologist, ask questions like these, pretty much reinforces my point that LDS members in general know absolutely nothing about this subject, and the Church likes to keep it this way. Some of the stuff you're asking is similar to the questions Will Schryver asked me in May of 2006, even though he assured us he had studied the KEP as much as anyone. He clearly knew nothing as well, and in fact his line of questioning strongly suggested he thought the KEP and the papyri were synonymous. He said he had examined the KEP as much as anyone - the KEP had not been made available for examination.

Now, he and his superduper, high quality, second-to-none, high-resolution scans are going to show us who's really boss on this subject. He'll render every critical argument "irrelevant" the same way I've become irrelevant to the debate. (grin) Just you wait and see.

jskains
God
Posts: 1749
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:06 am

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by jskains »

I don't think any of us have absolute answers. I don't see anything wrong with asking questions. Do you, Kevin?

JMS
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds - Albert Einstein

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by William Schryver »

George Miller:
The KEP shows a reasonable rationale for how Joseph Smith and those around him thought that entire sentences were contained in a single character.

Really? How so? Please feel free to explain this “reasonable rationale.” I’ve been waiting for years to see someone do it, and apparently you believe you can, so I look forward to your explication of this “reasonable rationale.” Don’t get me wrong, those who prepared the documents to which your comment refers (which form just a portion of the so-called “Kirtland Egyptian Papers”) may have very well believed that “entire sentences [or even paragraphs] were contained in a single character,” but I have yet to see anyone demonstrate the “reasonable rationale” to support that conclusion. I look forward to your attempt.

Chris Smith in his published work provides evidence that the direction was KEP->Book of Abraham.

I have read Smith’s paper several times now. I know it backwards and forwards.

And I will go out on a limb here and now, and declare that I am confident that I can conclusively disprove virtually everything Chris Smith wrote in that paper, come August 6th. Chris was wrong. Absolutely wrong. 180 degrees wrong. And I actually believe he will eventually admit it.

Your confusion here is largely due to the apologists ignoring the Book of Joseph. Clear evidence suggest that along with the Book of Breathing, which Joseph Smith thought was the Book of Abraham was a second scroll, was a Book of the Dead. This scroll was probably much longer than the Hor Book of Breathings texts and was written in red and black ink. Joseph Smith believed that the Book of the Dead was the Book of Joseph. It is probably both of these scrolls spread out that explain the length.

You have no idea what you’re talking about. None. Where do you get this stuff?

Is there any reason that they are not more doctrinal than the text itself which makes reference to the vignettes? I can't think of any reason to exclude them.

Nor can I. I admit I toyed with the idea, but recent developments have changed my mind completely. In fact, I have now concluded that the facsimiles constitute perhaps the strongest evidence of the fact that there was an Abraham text contained on the scroll of Hor.

Others are more knowledgeable on this matter and can provide a more thorough explanation.

You should have stuck with this and said no more.

In response to jskains’ question: “Are there characters on the KEP that are not on the known scolls?” The answer is an emphatic yes.

However, you answered:
As to your second question, there are characters on the KEP that are absent from the Book of Abraham papyri. However, the characters fit nicely into the holes in the papyrus suggesting Joseph was revealing by revelation the lost characters.

You don’t know what you’re talking about, again. Both John Gee and I will be talking about the characters from the KEP and their relationship to the Joseph Smith Papyri. It is a very important topic to address, and the implications that follow from the facts, as we will present them, are significant.

Yes there are three manuscript which Chris Smith has provided evidence were given at the same time as dictation from Joseph.

You don’t even know what documents you’re talking about now. At any rate, Chris provided no such evidence, save his assertion that it was so. But Chris was wrong. 100% wrong. And I believe I can conclusively demonstrate as much, both in my FAIR presentation and in my upcoming book on the topic. Furthermore, as I said above, I honestly believe that Chris will eventually admit that he was wrong, and that my explanation of these things is correct. It might take a year or so, but I believe he will eventually come around. Frankly, I don’t think he’ll have much choice in the end.

I don't know but I would imagine since the KEP have the characters from the Hor Book of Breathings on them that they would have been present. Note that Joseph was using the hat and seerstones much less when these documents were produced.

You don’t understand this stuff at all. And that is no knock on you, personally, since there hasn’t been a lot of opportunity, prior to now, for anyone to really delve into this material. But why act as though you know what you’re talking about when you obviously don’t? I don’t get that.

Note I am a relative newbie in my studies of this stuff so I would would be happy to be corrected if I have made any missteps.

I’m dubious as to how receptive you really are to correction, but you’ll certainly have the opportunity to learn more in the next year or so.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by Kevin Graham »

jskains wrote:I don't think any of us have absolute answers. I don't see anything wrong with asking questions. Do you, Kevin?

JMS


No that wasn't my point. Questions are fine. I had plenty of them on this subject and the only person who tried to answer me was Ben McGuire during several phone conversations. The rest I had to find out the hard way, on my own.

I just got back to the USA and I'm settling in, but I'll have more time later to come back and answer your questions. Suffice it to say you're wrong in your assumptions on a number of points, and I'll explain why later.

Ps: I just saw you sent me a PM

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by William Schryver »

Kevin Graham wrote:
jskains wrote:So here are my questions and thoughts to the only piece of the Church I do not have a good explanation for.

1. Can you really get that much text from a few characters? The KEP shows a character, then a huge paragraph of English Material.

2. Was the KEP the manuscript for the Book of Abraham or is it possibly a copy of the real manuscript? (IE: the translation was done, then the KEP was a re-write of the english and an attempt to match it with the characters).

3. Why do critics keep ignoring the size of the Papyri? It is often described as unrolling across two rooms, much more than what we have. And then there is the ink issue. Wasn't there also red ink for some of the characters he translated from?

4. What did Joseph Smith say about the Facsimiles exactly? Are they doctrinal or just opinion of the cool pictures he found on the scrolls?

5. Is there an english match for EVERYTHING on the known scrolls? Are there characters on the KEP that are not on the known scolls?

6. Is there really an answer on who wrote the KEP? Has handwriting comparisons been made?

7. Was the method of translation similar to the Book of Mormon in that he never actually touched the source during the transcription? Did he use the hat method, making his understanding of the real characters non-existant?

Lets say the Book of Abraham is true. He translated them from the hat/peep stone, UandT whatever method, then got cocky and tried to match everything. He saw the cool pictures and tried to make sense of them. He thought the material next to the cool pictures was "obviously" what he just translated, and tried to match them. Sure, he was wrong, but that wouldn't put into doubt the Book of Abraham.

The mechanism for the design of the Church is that we operate through Moroni's Promise. That if God tells you the Book of Abraham is true, then you have to accept we don't have enough of the goings on in that translating room to actually dismiss Joseph Smith's claims.

Lets say everything DID match. The KEP mirrors the Papyri and Egyptologists matched the english text. Now what? Would then everyone have needed faith to be a member?


The fact that you, as an apologist, ask questions like these, pretty much reinforces my point that LDS members in general know absolutely nothing about this subject, and the Church likes to keep it this way. Some of the stuff you're asking is similar to the questions Will Schryver asked me in May of 2006, even though he assured us he had studied the KEP as much as anyone. He clearly knew nothing as well, and in fact his line of questioning strongly suggested he thought the KEP and the papyri were synonymous. He said he had examined the KEP as much as anyone - the KEP had not been made available for examination.

Now, he and his superduper, high quality, second-to-none, high-resolution scans are going to show us who's really boss on this subject. He'll render every critical argument "irrelevant" the same way I've become irrelevant to the debate. (grin) Just you wait and see.

Josh (that's right, isn't it?),

Rest assured, that of all the people who are ignorant about the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Kevin Graham is at the head of the class.

(I especially love how Graham likes to act as though he tutored me and Brian Hauglid on this stuff back in May 2006. His delusions become deeper and more bizarre with each passing year.)

At any rate, make sure you either come to the FAIR conference, or watch the video that will come out shortly thereafter. I am confident that I will be providing answers to almost all of the questions you posed in the OP.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

Joseph
God
Posts: 3519
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by Joseph »

"The Book of Abraham is a translation of ancient records written on papyrus that came into the possession of the Church in 1835. The Prophet Joseph Smith translated the records by revelation. This book contains truths about the premortal Council in Heaven, the creation of the earth, the nature of God, and the priesthood." TRUE TO THE FAITH, a Gospel Reference, Copr. 2004, Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

There you have it. No more questions please.
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson

Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?

infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."

jskains
God
Posts: 1749
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:06 am

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by jskains »

Kevin Graham wrote:
jskains wrote:I don't think any of us have absolute answers. I don't see anything wrong with asking questions. Do you, Kevin?

JMS


No that wasn't my point. Questions are fine. I had plenty of them on this subject and the only person who tried to answer me was Ben McGuire during several phone conversations. The rest I had to find out the hard way, on my own.

I just got back to the USA and I'm settling in, but I'll have more time later to come back and answer your questions. Suffice it to say you're wrong in your assumptions on a number of points, and I'll explain why later.

Ps: I just saw you sent me a PM


Yeah, cause you seem to have changed... And it caught me off guard.
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds - Albert Einstein

dblagent007
God
Posts: 1068
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 12:00 pm

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by dblagent007 »

Will, have you posted a response to the seven points Kevin makes below?

#1 - Abraham 1:4 "Whereunto" is crossed out and corrected in transition by both scribes.
Book of Abraham– “I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”
Ms1a – “I sought for mine appointment whereunto unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”
Ms1b – “I sought for mine appointment whereunto unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”

#2 - Abraham 1:9
Book of Abraham shagreel, Ms1a - shag = reel, Ms1b- shagreel
If the scribes were copying from a mysterious "source document" then why make spelling errors, and why do such errors tend to involve strange words that are difficult to discern audibly?

#3 - Abraham 1:11
Book of Abraham - “Onitah, one of the royal descent directly”
Ms1a - “Onitah, one of the xxxxxx royal descent directly”
Ms1b- “Onitah, one of the xxxxxx royal descent directly”
xxxxx is an illegible word that was crossed out by both scribes as the corrected term was made in transition. Again, if these were copies then the scribes must have coincidentally made copying errors in the same exact manner in the same exact places. What are the chances?

#4 Abraham 1:12
Book of Abraham - “I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record”
Ms1a - “I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this record.”
Ms1b - "I will refer you to the representation, that is lying before you at the commencement of this record"
"that is lying before you" was crossed out and corrected in transition by William Parrish. The partial mistake was made by Williams who was probably transcribing at a slower pace and was corrected before getting past "that is." But the point here is that Brian and now Kerry Shirts, have argued that these can all be explained as "copying" errors just the same.

Excuse me, but how could anyone visually mistake "at the commencement of this record" for "that is lying before you"? The only sound explanation is that this was dictated as the orator corrected a mistake in transition. It is simply unfathomable that this could possibly be a copying error.

#5 - Abraham 1:13 ; 1:16
Book of Abraham - bedstead, Ms1a – bedsted, Ms1b – bed stead
Book of Abraham kinsfolk, Ms1a – kinsfolk, Ms1b – kin folks
Another strange word that the scribes were not sure how to spell. A copyist would have no excuse for misspelling words like these.

#6 - Abraham 1:17
Book of Abraham – “And this because they have turned their hearts away from me”
Ms1a - “And this because their hearts are turned they have turned their hearts away from me”
Ms1b - “And this because their hearts are turn they have turned their hearts away from me”
The bold area was scratched out in transition. Williams and Parrish again make the same mistake coincidentally? The fact that Parrish didn't quite finish the mistake (turn) is an indicator that the correction was given before he finished the phrase. And again, it is approaching the realm of impossibility, to think these scribes were copying a text, and coincidentally made the same exact mistake again, and mistook "their hearts are turned" for "they have turned their hearts away."

#7 - Abraham 1:26
BoA- “and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him”
Ms1b – “and also of Noah, his father, xx xx xxx xxxx who blessed him”
Ms1b – “and also of Noah, his father, xx xx xxx xxxx who blessed him”
Both scribes wrote four illegible words before crossing them out and replacing them with the corrected text.

jskains
God
Posts: 1749
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:06 am

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by jskains »

Josh (that's right, isn't it?),

Rest assured, that of all the people who are ignorant about the meaning and purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Kevin Graham is at the head of the class.

(I especially love how Graham likes to act as though he tutored me and Brian Hauglid on this stuff back in May 2006. His delusions become deeper and more bizarre with each passing year.)

At any rate, make sure you either come to the FAIR conference, or watch the video that will come out shortly thereafter. I am confident that I will be providing answers to almost all of the questions you posed in the OP.


Well I am willing to listen to both sides. I do think that the Book of Abraham is a mystery and possibly one Joseph Smith tried to resolve incorrectly.

The problem is many LDS act as if every prophet and leader should be perfect, and I never assumed that. :)

If I remember, Joseph Smith also believed in little green men on the moon.

JMS
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds - Albert Einstein

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by Kevin Graham »

Josh, just read through the past debates on this forum where Will runs away when shown to be in error. This thread answers some of the questions you posted: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6504&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

After this publication of theirs I plan to provide a comprehensive history of Book of Abraham/KEP apologetics as it has evolved over the past decade. It won't be Will's happiest moment, I promise.

Will now denies his own words? Will, you're telling me that in the summer of 2006, you didn't say you had examined the KEP as much as anyone had, long before they were available for examination? You didn't say that?

You didn't also make the stupid comment that the critics are basing their arguments on the assumption that we have all the KEP?

You didn't ask me if the people who wrote the KEP were Joseph Smith's scribes? You were asking me all sorts of basic questions one would expect from someone who has just been exposed to it for the first time.

We know what this is Will. I post the evidence and then you run away. We've seen it a million times. You have no credibility. You've been caught lying too many times too count. You're greatest value to apologists is your ability too bore the hell out of the critics and watse their time.

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by Kevin Graham »

dblagent007 wrote:Will, have you posted a response to the seven points Kevin makes below?


Did you just hear that? Will just left skid marks. Back to his sanctuary at MADB again. He won't respond to arguments, he'll just keep saying arguments don't exist. His stupid remark above that he's never seen any evidence that Joseph Smith would have thought one character translated to several words or phrases, is just downright idiotic. We've thrown the evidence in his face for years and he has never done anything to even downplay it. I mean to disagree with it is one thing, but to insist nobody has ever showed him any reveals just what kind of individual we're dealing with.

I mean what's better for an apologist... to say the critics' arguments aren't good or just to say they've never presented any arguments? Clearly the latter, so Will lies. The strange thing is, he lies over here where he knows nobody is going to believe him. I guess he just likes too hear himself rant.

jskains
God
Posts: 1749
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:06 am

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by jskains »

Kevin Graham wrote:Josh, just read through the past debates on this forum where Will runs away when shown to be in error. This thread answers some of the questions you posted: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6504&st=0&sk=t&sd=a


I'll try, but over the years I have seen so many debates and so many opinions it is hard to figure out who to take seriously and who not to. :) Everyone certainly has an opinion. I just wish the Church would make a final stance.

After this publication of theirs I plan to provide a comprehensive history of Book of Abraham/KEP apologetics as it has evolved over the past decade. It won't be Will's happiest moment, I promise.


Why? What goal will that fill? I am curious about your motives.

Will now denies his own words? Will, you're telling me that in the summer of 2006, you didn't say you had examined the KEP as much as anyone had, long before they were available for examination? You didn't say that?

You didn't also make the stupid comment that the critics are basing their arguments on the assumption that we have all the KEP?

You didn't ask me if the people who wrote the KEP were Joseph Smith's scribes? You were asking me all sorts of basic questions one would expect from someone who has just been exposed to it for the first time.

We know what this is Will. I post the evidence and then you run away. We've seen it a million times. You have no credibility. You've been caught lying too many times too count. You're greatest value to apologists is your ability too bore the hell out of the critics and watse their time.


I wonder what would happen if everyone stopped the accusations, the personal attacks, and just sat down and listened to each other. Everyone on this subject is so bullheaded.

JMS
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds - Albert Einstein

jskains
God
Posts: 1749
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:06 am

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by jskains »

Kevin,

I know you didn't write:

What organization can get its people to wear the same underwear... It's all about controlling the crotch. If they can control the crotch they can get your money too."- Paul Osborne


But isn't that like accusing the Jewish leaders of forcing people to wear Yamikas (spelling, I know)? If they can control the head, they can get your money too???

Sorry, don't want to derail the topic, it just caught my eye.

JMS
Great Spirits Have Always Encountered Violent Opposition from Mediocre Minds - Albert Einstein

User avatar
Willy Law
God
Posts: 1623
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 4:53 pm

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by Willy Law »

jskains wrote:So here are my questions and thoughts to the only piece of the Church I do not have a good explanation for.
?


Really? Book of Abraham was not even in my top 10 list of problems when I started digging into the real history of the church.
You have a "good" explanation for:
Joseph Smith's glass looking and treasure hunting
Multiple 1st vision accounts
Confliction accounts of the Moroni visitation
Rock in the hat translation
Book of Mormon anachronisms and other mistakes
The witnesses and "eyes of understanding"
Changing revelations from Book of Commandments to D&C
Kirtland bank
Polygamy in general
Coercing 14 year old girls to have sex
Polyandry
Mountain Meadow
Blacks and the Priesthood
Racism
Masonry and the temple
Changing endowment
Business dealings of the church
Quashing of intellectual discussion and debate
Fighting ERA
Fighting Civil Rights Movement
Promoting Blind Obedience...

All these problems you have a "good" explanation for?
As someone seriously searching I would love you to start a new thread and help me understand these issues.
It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent.
Bruce R. McConkie

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by William Schryver »

dblagent007 wrote:Will, have you posted a response to the seven points Kevin makes below?

#1 - Abraham 1:4 "Whereunto" is crossed out and corrected in transition by both scribes.
Book of Abraham– “I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”
Ms1a – “I sought for mine appointment whereunto unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”
Ms1b – “I sought for mine appointment whereunto unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”

#2 - Abraham 1:9
Book of Abraham shagreel, Ms1a - shag = reel, Ms1b- shagreel
If the scribes were copying from a mysterious "source document" then why make spelling errors, and why do such errors tend to involve strange words that are difficult to discern audibly?

#3 - Abraham 1:11
Book of Abraham - “Onitah, one of the royal descent directly”
Ms1a - “Onitah, one of the xxxxxx royal descent directly”
Ms1b- “Onitah, one of the xxxxxx royal descent directly”
xxxxx is an illegible word that was crossed out by both scribes as the corrected term was made in transition. Again, if these were copies then the scribes must have coincidentally made copying errors in the same exact manner in the same exact places. What are the chances?

#4 Abraham 1:12
Book of Abraham - “I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record”
Ms1a - “I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this record.”
Ms1b - "I will refer you to the representation, that is lying before you at the commencement of this record"
"that is lying before you" was crossed out and corrected in transition by William Parrish. The partial mistake was made by Williams who was probably transcribing at a slower pace and was corrected before getting past "that is." But the point here is that Brian and now Kerry Shirts, have argued that these can all be explained as "copying" errors just the same.

Excuse me, but how could anyone visually mistake "at the commencement of this record" for "that is lying before you"? The only sound explanation is that this was dictated as the orator corrected a mistake in transition. It is simply unfathomable that this could possibly be a copying error.

#5 - Abraham 1:13 ; 1:16
Book of Abraham - bedstead, Ms1a – bedsted, Ms1b – bed stead
Book of Abraham kinsfolk, Ms1a – kinsfolk, Ms1b – kin folks
Another strange word that the scribes were not sure how to spell. A copyist would have no excuse for misspelling words like these.

#6 - Abraham 1:17
Book of Abraham – “And this because they have turned their hearts away from me”
Ms1a - “And this because their hearts are turned they have turned their hearts away from me”
Ms1b - “And this because their hearts are turn they have turned their hearts away from me”
The bold area was scratched out in transition. Williams and Parrish again make the same mistake coincidentally? The fact that Parrish didn't quite finish the mistake (turn) is an indicator that the correction was given before he finished the phrase. And again, it is approaching the realm of impossibility, to think these scribes were copying a text, and coincidentally made the same exact mistake again, and mistook "their hearts are turned" for "they have turned their hearts away."

#7 - Abraham 1:26
BoA- “and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him”
Ms1b – “and also of Noah, his father, xx xx xxx xxxx who blessed him”
Ms1b – “and also of Noah, his father, xx xx xxx xxxx who blessed him”
Both scribes wrote four illegible words before crossing them out and replacing them with the corrected text.

What "points" are you talking about? Do you even know?

You have cited seven instances of common emendations between Ab2 and Ab3. We are well aware of them. As I have noted repeatedly, (where have you been?) they are all secondary emendations. In other words, they were made after the primary text of the documents was copied from a source document. They represent the editing performed after the copies were made. At any rate, Brian Hauglid speaks to this topic quite a bit in his upcoming book. He confirms what I have been arguing for over four years: the emendations in both Ab2 and Ab3 are almost exclusively secondary. They do not represent corrections made during the course of a dictation. And this is just a small part of the evidence that supports the conclusion that these manuscripts are copies.

The bottom line? These two manuscripts are not what many people have believed for 40 years. They are not the simultaneously produced transcripts of Joseph Smith's original oral dictation of the translation of the Book of Abraham. I am confident I can prove it. In fact, I already have. You just don't know about it yet. But, not long from now, I am confident it will be regarded as "common knowledge."
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by Kevin Graham »

jskains wrote:Kevin,

I know you didn't write:

What organization can get its people to wear the same underwear... It's all about controlling the crotch. If they can control the crotch they can get your money too."- Paul Osborne


But isn't that like accusing the Jewish leaders of forcing people to wear Yamikas (spelling, I know)? If they can control the head, they can get your money too???

Sorry, don't want to derail the topic, it just caught my eye.

JMS


Some things Osbourne says are just funny as hell. When I read that I couldn't help but laugh outloud. DOesn't mean I agree with it though.

Kevin Graham
God
Posts: 13029
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:44 pm

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by Kevin Graham »

"I am confident I can prove it. In fact, I already have. You just don't know about it yet."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA

That's prettyy much sums up four years of Will Schryver apologetics!

I've been collecting the instances where Will bails out of conversations with these kinds of statements. I think there are something like two dozen over the span of three years. Boy I can't wait until this book comes out! I'll then start working on my comprehensive history of Book of Abraham apologetics. The twists and turns they take and backtracking techniques are enough to get you dizzy just reading about them. Again, it is all about saving their way of life, it is not about finding truth. They are not interested in the truth. They are only interested in salvaging their religion, which they know very well hinges on the veracity of their silly apologetic arguments.

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: Kirtland Egyptian Paper Questions

Post by William Schryver »

Kevin Graham wrote:"I am confident I can prove it. In fact, I already have. You just don't know about it yet."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA

That's prettyy much sums up four years of Will Schryver apologetics!

I've been collecting the instances where Will bails out of conversations with these kinds of statements. I think there are something like two dozen over the span of three years. Boy I can't wait until this book comes out! I'll then start working on my comprehensive history of Book of Abraham apologetics. The twists and turns they take and backtracking techniques are enough to get you dizzy just reading about them. Again, it is all about saving their way of life, it is not about finding truth. They are not interested in the truth. They are only interested in salvaging their religion, which they know very well hinges on the veracity of their silly apologetic arguments.

You have assiduously ignored all of the arguments and evidence I have produced over the past four years, except to say it's all wrong because I am an idiot. Well, as I have noted before, that is an approach to debating that seems to work just fine here in the GSTP, but it means nothing out where the real war of ideas is taking place.

OK, I've now spent my quota for the week here, and it's time to mow the lawn.

Have a good time in my absence telling each other what an idiot I am. I love that stuff.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 25 guests