Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6578
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Philo Sofee »

Robert Ritner has demonstrated after translating and assessing facsimile 3 that it is totally erroneous. Here is his statement on page 171 of his book "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, a complete edition."(2013)

" Smith mistook Osiris, Isis, and Anubis as human rather than gods. Isis and Maat as male, and the Jackal Anubis as human. Anubis was also mistaken as human in facsimile 1 and Smith frequently misidentified images of Ta-sherit- Min as male in Papyri Joseph Smith 2. In the book of Abraham Smith's explicit references to texts in the facsimiles and his use of the subtitle "translated the Papyrus" by Joseph Smith can mean only that he misrepresented or did not understand the concept of translation. There is no other choice and I have no reason to regret my earlier description of his translations as "outlandish," "nonsense" "hopeless" and "uninspired fantasies." These are factual assessments derived from scholarly analysis not "partisan language" as asserted in the truly partisan (in other words based on pre-existing religious bias) defended by Morris and Muhlestein. as I noted in 2003 true personal attack and the vituperative language (in the words of Muhlestein p. 479) was the hallmark of Nibley's anti Egyptological approach now adopted by FARMS. In sum, Smith's pseudo Egyptological work (rather than his person) deserves no greater respect than that of Charles Piazzi Smyth (Our inheritance in the Great Pyramid), Immanuel velikovsky (Oedipus and Akhenaten, etc.), Erich von Daniken (Chariots of the Gods) and John Anthony West (Serpent in the Sky, etc.) which have all been rightly disparaged by Scholars." P. 171, note 350.

He also says in the main body of the text on page 171 the explanations of facsimile three offered by Joseph Smith are fanciful in the extreme and are now abandoned in the Mormon sponsored publication by Rhodes. As several of Smith's explanations state explicitly that they are based on his understanding of text "given in the characters above his head," "as written above the hand" or "as represented by the characters above his hand," facsimile three provides indisputable evidence that Smith had absolutely no abilities to read or translate Egyptian or even deride accurate information from Egyptian images. He could not distinguish deities from humans females from males or even human from animal figures!

John Gee published his article "Facsimile 3 and the Book of the Dead 125" in the book "Astronomy, Papyrus and Covenant," (2005) and proceeded to say "Most of what has been said about this facsimile is seriously wanting at best, and highly erroneous at worse."(p. 95) He further said "What an ancient Egyptian understood by a vignette and what a modern egyptologist understands by the same vignette are by no means the same thing. Until we understand what the Egyptians understood by this scene we have no hope of telling whether what Joseph Smith said about them matches what the Egyptians thought about them" (p. 95-96). He ends up by saying "The real parallels to facsimile 3 have not yet been publicly identified. Having established what facsimile 3 is not, however, we are free to look for those real parallels to facsimile 3." (P 101)

This is all very interesting, however, it is fundamentally irrelevant to the only point that matters. Did Joseph Smith understand and translate this facsimile correctly? No he did not. John Gee's exposition here reminds me of William Hamblin's attempting to refute Phil Jenkins with all the background gobbledygook trying to take our eye off the point of view that we have absolutely no evidence of any kind for either the Nephites or Lamanites reality. John Gee, as well as William Hamblin, as well as Daniel C Peterson, and pretty much most apologists, always seem to fall into this pattern. They attempt to build up so much background that we lose track of the only essential question. Hugh Nibley was the absolute master of this and in fact that was his entire approach to the papyri.

Every time an egyptologist takes a look at the papyri or the facsimiles and Joseph Smith interpretations of those manuscripts, end up saying Joseph Smith got it wrong. This is simply not the kind of evidence we would expect to have or see if Joseph Smith got it correct. Facsimile 3 really is the silver bullet against Joseph Smith prophetic abilities. He absolutely, completely messed up on every single figure in this facsimile. And he claimed to be directly translating the hieroglyphs in the facsimile by those figures. Apologists exacerbate this problem by claiming that God inspired Joseph Smith in his translations. Historically and linguistically as well as religiously, Joseph Smith completely blew it with facsimile 3.

I predict this is going to get the attention of Paul O. :biggrin:
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Fence Sitter
God
Posts: 8852
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Fence Sitter »

Somewhere Shulem is yelling;

"I didn't need no stinking Ph.D. in Egyptology to figure that out!"

:lol: :lol: :lol:
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Shulem »

The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 stare the First Presidency in the face and challenges the very foundations and credibility of Mormonism. The First Presidency cannot cope with these matters at all. They are cowards and hide behind their white shirts and ties and pretend to be prophets and translators having divine gifts from God. The First Presidency go from house to house receiving starry eyed acclamations of praise from the members to include free meals at every turn. They have no power other than what the membership at large gives them. They are clueless on what to do about Facsimile No. 3.

Facsimile No. 3 really is a silver bullet that I love to shoot right in the head of the church. Ram it right down the throats of lying Mormons. The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are lies and the Mormons continue to cover their shameful lies by lying to themselves and everyone else while all along living in denial.

EdGoble
Priest
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by EdGoble »

Philo Sofee wrote:Robert Ritner has demonstrated after translating and assessing facsimile 3 that it is totally erroneous. Here is his statement on page 171 of his book "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, a complete edition."(2013)


If the underlying reality of the situation was a simple literal, straight-across translation of the facsimiles that the Holy Ghost was trying to inspire Joseph Smith to produce, you would be correct. But it is not the only option, and there is no reason to assume that it must be, other than the fact that you as a "partisan" newly-hatched-from-the-egg critic insist that it must be. And Because Iconotropy/Adaptation by the ancients is well documented, and you know it, and there is nothing wrong with applying this concept to it. To deny that it is not also a good option is pure dishonesty. Sorry Kerry. You are being dishonest. As dishonest as you once accused Matthew Brown of in his take on the lambskin apron. And so, this is the fundamental question here for not apologetics or criticism but pure scholarly honesty. More than one plausible explanation exists, and nothing compels me or anyone else to accept Ritner's "partisan" stance any more than any apologist "partisan" stance. The truth of the matter is, I am not compelled by any kind of "fact" to accept Ritner's extremely shallow dismissal of other existing facts.

You were a brilliant defender of truth once upon a time. You are a dismal critic.

User avatar
Fence Sitter
God
Posts: 8852
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Fence Sitter »

Ed,

Have you applied Iconotropy/Adaptation to the Ta-sherit-Min scroll?

If you actually have a viable theory here you should be able to produce the Book of Joseph or parts at least.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."

User avatar
Quasimodo
Bell Ringer
Posts: 11784
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:11 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Quasimodo »

EdGoble wrote:
Philo Sofee wrote:Robert Ritner has demonstrated after translating and assessing facsimile 3 that it is totally erroneous. Here is his statement on page 171 of his book "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, a complete edition."(2013)


If the underlying reality of the situation was a simple literal, straight-across translation of the facsimiles that the Holy Ghost was trying to inspire Joseph Smith to produce, you would be correct. But it is not the only option, and there is no reason to assume that it must be, other than the fact that you as a "partisan" newly-hatched-from-the-egg critic insist that it must be. And Because Iconotropy/Adaptation by the ancients is well documented, and you know it, and there is nothing wrong with applying this concept to it. To deny that it is not also a good option is pure dishonesty. Sorry Kerry. You are being dishonest. As dishonest as you once accused Matthew Brown of in his take on the lambskin apron. And so, this is the fundamental question here for not apologetics or criticism but pure scholarly honesty. More than one plausible explanation exists, and nothing compels me or anyone else to accept Ritner's "partisan" stance any more than any apologist "partisan" stance. The truth of the matter is, I am not compelled by any kind of "fact" to accept Ritner's extremely shallow dismissal of other existing facts.

You were a brilliant defender of truth once upon a time. You are a dismal critic.


There are only two options.

1. Joseph Smith was inspired by God to make accurate translations from the Papyri.

2. Joseph Smith was making it all up as he went along.

It's up to everyone to decide for themselves which is more likely. There is no tap dance that will get apologists around this very simple fact.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6578
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Philo Sofee »

EdGoble wrote:
Philo Sofee wrote:Robert Ritner has demonstrated after translating and assessing facsimile 3 that it is totally erroneous. Here is his statement on page 171 of his book "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, a complete edition."(2013)


If the underlying reality of the situation was a simple literal, straight-across translation of the facsimiles that the Holy Ghost was trying to inspire Joseph Smith to produce, you would be correct. But it is not the only option, and there is no reason to assume that it must be, other than the fact that you as a "partisan" newly-hatched-from-the-egg critic insist that it must be. And Because Iconotropy/Adaptation by the ancients is well documented, and you know it, and there is nothing wrong with applying this concept to it. To deny that it is not also a good option is pure dishonesty. Sorry Kerry. You are being dishonest. As dishonest as you once accused Matthew Brown of in his take on the lambskin apron. And so, this is the fundamental question here for not apologetics or criticism but pure scholarly honesty. More than one plausible explanation exists, and nothing compels me or anyone else to accept Ritner's "partisan" stance any more than any apologist "partisan" stance. The truth of the matter is, I am not compelled by any kind of "fact" to accept Ritner's extremely shallow dismissal of other existing facts.

You were a brilliant defender of truth once upon a time. You are a dismal critic.

If you have actual evidence of this that justifies getting the book of Abraham out of that papyri that we possess like Joseph Smith did then publish your result in a peer-reviewed journal so that it gives you credibility and then I'll pay attention. You're wrong about me being a dishonest critic. I have finally become honest and accepted the consequences of the actual evidence we have. Just because you don't like the consequences doesn't make me dishonest. I stopped invoking faith and that is why you think I'm dishonest. I go with the evidence. And I'm quite comfortable in doing so.

You don't get to self certify your own personal pet Theory. That's not how it works. It takes objective outside experts and sources to verify a theory. That is why peer review process is set up and that is why refereed valid journals are the best way to demonstrate that you're serious about your theory.

Ed

Because Iconotropy/Adaptation by the ancients is well documented, and you know it, and there is nothing wrong with applying this concept to it. To deny that it is not also a good option is pure dishonesty. Sorry Kerry. You are being dishonest. As dishonest as you once accused Matthew Brown of in his take on the lambskin apron. And so, this is the fundamental question here for not apologetics or criticism but pure scholarly honesty. More than one plausible explanation exists, and nothing compels me or anyone else to accept Ritner's "partisan" stance any more than any apologist "partisan" stance.

I fundamentally agree with you here. That is what you don't understand. There isn't anything wrong with supposing there is another approach. It just has no valid evidence to justify us believing that other approach yet, so we always follow where the evidence leads us. If there is a more plausible explanation then please, and I'm quite serious here, please get it published in a valid proper journal or publish a book through a valid publishing press and get it out there, and let the critics also confirm that view.

Without outside confirmation you don't have a leg to stand on. I am entirely justified in going with the egyptological experts at this point in time. Yes, new evidence could change my mind but not from a blog. If you've a lovely theory, produce it and other experts verify and agree with your methods, your materials, and your conclusions. Then, and only then, are we properly compelled to say hey that is another plausible alternative. Until then, you have nothing to go with and neither does anyone else.

Pure honest scholarship insists stridently on getting it published properly and have it convincing enough that experts also publicly acknowledge your ideas and tests them. For instance a good theory gives you a chance to also make predictions on how to falsify your theory. What are your predictions on how your theory can be falsified How can you predict what evidence will verify your theory? I want to see what your predictions are for future research as to the validity or falsity of your theory.

I think quite frankly the point of view that says if your view is correct you ought to then be able to show the book of Joseph in the papyri. I would like to see that book of Joseph and I would like to see if your theory can produce it. And if not why can't it? Because Joseph Smith claimed the book of Joseph was there, and we even have a match of the description of the fragment of papyri that Oliver Cowdery described as the book of Joseph in one of those papyri, the one with the walking snake and the trinity godhead. Therefore, if your theory is correct on how he produced The Book of Abraham, your theory should justifiably be able to produce the book of Joseph. I think that is a very valid point of view, quite frankly. And if an expert or two or ten can agree with you and also produce that book of Joseph then buddy you have some serious legitimacy going on with that. Until that time comes you don't have a lot to hang my hat on.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote: I have finally become honest and accepted the consequences of the actual evidence we have. Just because you don't like the consequences doesn't make me dishonest. I stopped invoking faith and that is why you think I'm dishonest. I go with the evidence. And I'm quite comfortable in doing so.


The problem with Mormons is they base their world view of what is true because of their testimonies that they are led by a living prophet and in this they must obey or face the displeasure of the so-called Holy Ghost that will punish them. This is the power of the cult and the influence it has on its members, as you well know.

How wonderful it is to break free from the cult and to dismiss the Holy Ghost by telling him to DEPART! How wonderful it is to deny Jesus and his blood cult atonement and the god of the Old Testament who is nothing but pure evil.

How wonderful it is to face the truth and reject faith in things that cannot be proven or seen! How wonderful it is to just admit that the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are nothing but pure lies made up by a man who is undeserving of any praise whatsoever, a man who abused women and lied to his people at every turn.

How wonderful it is to be free! How interesting it is to watch people still stuck in the cult who because of their own dishonestly and unwillingness to face reality continue to pay homage to the cult and place their trust in uninspired man while all along they think there is a god doing miraculous things. Such is faith. What a waste of time!

The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 tendered by Joseph Smith are completely false. I know this with every fiber of my heart and mind. I have a testimony of this based on fact and reason -- based on science and Egyptology -- based on everything I know Joseph Smith and his lying companions claimed. I am 100% sure. There is no faith involved here. It is sure knowledge. Pure knowledge.

User avatar
Equality
God
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:44 am

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Equality »

EdGoble wrote:
Philo Sofee wrote:Robert Ritner has demonstrated after translating and assessing facsimile 3 that it is totally erroneous. Here is his statement on page 171 of his book "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, a complete edition."(2013)


If the underlying reality of the situation was a simple literal, straight-across translation of the facsimiles that the Holy Ghost was trying to inspire Joseph Smith to produce, you would be correct. But it is not the only option, and there is no reason to assume that it must be, other than the fact that you as a "partisan" newly-hatched-from-the-egg critic insist that it must be. And Because Iconotropy/Adaptation by the ancients is well documented, and you know it, and there is nothing wrong with applying this concept to it. To deny that it is not also a good option is pure dishonesty. Sorry Kerry. You are being dishonest. As dishonest as you once accused Matthew Brown of in his take on the lambskin apron. And so, this is the fundamental question here for not apologetics or criticism but pure scholarly honesty. More than one plausible explanation exists, and nothing compels me or anyone else to accept Ritner's "partisan" stance any more than any apologist "partisan" stance. The truth of the matter is, I am not compelled by any kind of "fact" to accept Ritner's extremely shallow dismissal of other existing facts.

You were a brilliant defender of truth once upon a time. You are a dismal critic.


It's eerie how much Ed sounds like these guys in attacking Philo:
Leah Remini has become what she once declared she never wanted to be known as: “this bitter ex-Scientologist.” As USA Today wrote, Ms. Remini is “as famous for being an ex-Scientologist as she is as an actress.” She needs to move on with her life instead of pathetically exploiting her former religion, her former friends and other celebrities for money and attention to appear relevant again.

Sadly, bitterness and anger are common threads through Ms. Remini’s life. Ms. Remini is showing herself to be a spoiled entitled diva who still obsessively complains about such petty matters as her seating placement, limo ride, five-star hotel accommodations and the paparazzi’s failure to recognize her nearly a decade ago. She also inserts herself uninvited into the family matters of others. Rather than take responsibility for self-inflicted problems, she is quick to blame others. When her firing from The Talk erupted into a public embarrassment for her in 2012, we tried to help pick her up off the floor. But she treated everyone around her in a degrading, bullying manner. Her behavior was intolerable.

Leah Remini knows the truth she conveniently rewrites in her revisionist history. The real story is that she desperately tried to remain a Scientologist in 2013, knowing full well she was on the verge of being expelled for refusing to abide by the high level of ethics and decency Scientologists are expected to maintain. Her repeated ethical lapses and callous treatment of others led to an ecclesiastical review which resulted in her being expelled. She now regurgitates the tired myths the Church has repeatedly debunked, circulated by the same tiny clique of expelled former staffers bitter at having lost the positions they enjoyed before their malfeasance and unethical conduct were uncovered. Ms. Remini is now joined at the hip with this collection of deadbeats, admitted liars, self-admitted perjurers, wife beaters and worse.

Ms. Remini also continues her obnoxious efforts to harass the leader of the Church of Scientology and his wife, with whom Ms. Remini has been obsessed and has stalked for years. This culminated in a scandalous report filed in 2013 with the Los Angeles Police Department that her book shows was a fraud from the outset. It was solely intended to get publicity and harass the leader of the religion and his wife, who had refused contact with Ms. Remini because of her disgraceful behavior that was both abusive and unethical. Ms. Remini also outrageously touts that the LAPD failed to do its job when it investigated her phony report and within hours unambiguously declared it “unfounded,” causing her stunt to blow up in her face. Anyone knowingly making a false report to law enforcement is a bald-faced liar who should be held accountable for diverting police from protecting the public.

Scientology is the only major religion to be founded in the 20th century and emerge as a major religion in the 21st century. The Church has grown more in the past decade than in its first 50 years combined under the ecclesiastical leadership of Mr. Miscavige, a visionary parishioners and Church staff hold in the highest regard for carrying out the legacy of the Scientology Founder through the renaissance the religion is now experiencing. Mr. Miscavige works tirelessly for the parishioners and their benefit and to aid millions through support and participation in global humanitarian initiatives and social betterment programs. The real story of the Church of Scientology, what it does, its beliefs and practices, is available at http://www.scientology.org.

"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain
"The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo

User avatar
Mormonicious
God
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:59 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Mormonicious »

EdGoble wrote:
Philo Sofee wrote:Robert Ritner has demonstrated after translating and assessing facsimile 3 that it is totally erroneous. Here is his statement on page 171 of his book "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, a complete edition."(2013)


If the underlying reality of the situation was a simple literal, straight-across translation of the facsimiles that the Holy Ghost was trying to inspire Joseph Smith to produce, you would be correct. But it is not the only option, and there is no reason to assume that it must be, other than the fact that you as a "partisan" newly-hatched-from-the-egg critic insist that it must be. And Because Iconotropy/Adaptation by the ancients is well documented, and you know it, and there is nothing wrong with applying this concept to it. To deny that it is not also a good option is pure dishonesty. Sorry Kerry. You are being dishonest. As dishonest as you once accused Matthew Brown of in his take on the lambskin apron. And so, this is the fundamental question here for not apologetics or criticism but pure scholarly honesty. More than one plausible explanation exists, and nothing compels me or anyone else to accept Ritner's "partisan" stance any more than any apologist "partisan" stance. The truth of the matter is, I am not compelled by any kind of "fact" to accept Ritner's extremely shallow dismissal of other existing facts.

You were a brilliant defender of truth once upon a time. You are a dismal critic.


Once again Horny Holy Joe did/didn't translate the scrolls.
Revelation 2:17 . . give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. Thank Google GOD for her son eBay, you can now have life eternal with laser engraving. . oh, and a seer stone and save 10% of your life's earning as a bonus. See you in Mormon man god Heaven Bitches!!. Bring on the Virgins

User avatar
grindael
Dragon
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by grindael »

But it is not the only option, and there is no reason to assume that it must be, other than the fact that you as a "partisan" newly-hatched-from-the-egg critic insist that it must be.


It is the only option because that is what the actual EVIDENCE shows, not the made up jargon and psychobabble you pedal. You wouldn't know what "scholarly honesty" is, if it rose up and slapped you silly.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.

User avatar
Mormonicious
God
Posts: 1522
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:59 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Mormonicious »

Why? Why come to this Board and defend Mormoronism?

The entirety of PROOF is that Mormoronism is FALSE and that Horny Holy Joe made up anything and everything about his BULL ____ religion so he could ____ other men's wives and little girl and steal the Rube members money.

So Why come here and even TRY to persuade enlightened people about the "TRUTHFULNESS" of Horny Holy Joe's BULL ____?
Revelation 2:17 . . give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. Thank Google GOD for her son eBay, you can now have life eternal with laser engraving. . oh, and a seer stone and save 10% of your life's earning as a bonus. See you in Mormon man god Heaven Bitches!!. Bring on the Virgins

User avatar
grindael
Dragon
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by grindael »

Philo Sofee wrote:I fundamentally agree with you here. That is what you don't understand. There isn't anything wrong with supposing there is another approach. It just has no valid evidence to justify us believing that other approach yet, so we always follow where the evidence leads us. If there is a more plausible explanation then please, and I'm quite serious here, please get it published in a valid proper journal or publish a book through a valid publishing press and get it out there, and let the critics also confirm that view.

Without outside confirmation you don't have a leg to stand on. I am entirely justified in going with the egyptological experts at this point in time. Yes, new evidence could change my mind but not from a blog. If you've a lovely theory, produce it and other experts verify and agree with your methods, your materials, and your conclusions. Then, and only then, are we properly compelled to say hey that is another plausible alternative. Until then, you have nothing to go with and neither does anyone else.

Pure honest scholarship insists stridently on getting it published properly and have it convincing enough that experts also publicly acknowledge your ideas and tests them. For instance a good theory gives you a chance to also make predictions on how to falsify your theory. What are your predictions on how your theory can be falsified How can you predict what evidence will verify your theory? I want to see what your predictions are for future research as to the validity or falsity of your theory.

I think quite frankly the point of view that says if your view is correct you ought to then be able to show the book of Joseph in the papyri. I would like to see that book of Joseph and I would like to see if your theory can produce it. And if not why can't it? Because Joseph Smith claimed the book of Joseph was there, and we even have a match of the description of the fragment of papyri that Oliver Cowdery described as the book of Joseph in one of those papyri, the one with the walking snake and the trinity godhead. Therefore, if your theory is correct on how he produced The Book of Abraham, your theory should justifiably be able to produce the book of Joseph. I think that is a very valid point of view, quite frankly. And if an expert or two or ten can agree with you and also produce that book of Joseph then buddy you have some serious legitimacy going on with that. Until that time comes you don't have a lot to hang my hat on.


I predict that the brilliance of your comments here will be lost on Mr. Gobble. I also predict that he will not be able to produce ANY EVIDENCE to support his esoteric jargon. So far he's batting a thousand in that department.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3560
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Dr Exiled »

Ed:

In addition to what was said above, merely disagreeing with a religious claim doesn't make one biased or an anti-mormon as you and your apologist friends wish were true. Sometimes, as with the book of abraham, the conclusion that it's false and/or made up is so obvious, that to not admit so, clearly demonstrates your cognitive bias.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

nevazhno
Nursery
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:22 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by nevazhno »

Ed has a great opportunity here. We have lots of Egyptian papyri that could be translated using his method. Forget the Joseph Smith Papyri for now. If it's a valid method -- and, per Ed, this kind of translation method was apparently well-known by the ancients -- then it should work for other ancient Egyptian papyri. Go find another ancient document and translate its secret book to us, please!

If, on the other hand, despite how well-known this method was to the ancients, it is only the Joseph Smith Papyri that require this kind of translation, then the entire hypothesis is one big heap of special pleading. Using the Book of Abraham to back out a "translation" from the JSP, which only needs to be done once, for this particular document, accomplishes nothing.

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 21629
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

I think we're going on a dozen requests now by various posters for Ed to pony up sources, evidence, answer questions, flesh out concepts, what have you.

He slinks out of every thread he posts on. Every. One.

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3560
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Dr Exiled »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:I think we're going on a dozen requests now by various posters for Ed to pony up sources, evidence, answer questions, flesh out concepts, what have you.

He slinks out of every thread he posts on. Every. One.

- Doc


They don't call him the drive-by apologist for nothing
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

EdGoble
Priest
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by EdGoble »

Philo Sofee wrote:Just because you don't like the consequences doesn't make me dishonest. I stopped invoking faith and that is why you think I'm dishonest. I go with the evidence. . .And if an expert or two or ten can agree with you and also produce that book of Joseph then buddy you have some serious legitimacy going on with that. Until that time comes you don't have a lot to hang my hat on.

If you understood my material, you would not be suggesting that I produce text of the Book of Joseph when the Egyptian hieroglyphics don't *contain* the text to produce it. Clearly, if you were half the critic of the stature of apologist you once were, you would take the time to understand where I'm coming from. Remember, I have continually said that there is a fundamental difference between me and all other apologists, and that is, I actually build on the same evidence you claim that you are using to come to your conclusion. You don't understand my position to be able to be critical of it. I suggest you read it. You think that I'm arguing for the same old stupidity as the supercryptogram nonsense. Clearly you got that impression when I first started emailing you and talking to you years ago. You don't understand at all my current position. Time to understand it.

nevazhno wrote:Ed has a great opportunity here. We have lots of Egyptian papyri that could be translated using his method. Forget the Joseph Smith Papyri for now. If it's a valid method -- and, per Ed, this kind of translation method was apparently well-known by the ancients -- then it should work for other ancient Egyptian papyri. Go find another ancient document and translate its secret book to us, please!

If, on the other hand, despite how well-known this method was to the ancients, it is only the Joseph Smith Papyri that require this kind of translation, then the entire hypothesis is one big heap of special pleading. Using the Book of Abraham to back out a "translation" from the JSP, which only needs to be done once, for this particular document, accomplishes nothing.

Same with you. If you understood my position, you would know that you can't produce material from the Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead that it does not contain. All of you are refuting something you don't understand. Go read it and actually refute it.
Last edited by EdGoble on Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3560
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Dr Exiled »

EdGoble wrote:
nevazhno wrote:Ed has a great opportunity here. We have lots of Egyptian papyri that could be translated using his method. Forget the Joseph Smith Papyri for now. If it's a valid method -- and, per Ed, this kind of translation method was apparently well-known by the ancients -- then it should work for other ancient Egyptian papyri. Go find another ancient document and translate its secret book to us, please!

If, on the other hand, despite how well-known this method was to the ancients, it is only the Joseph Smith Papyri that require this kind of translation, then the entire hypothesis is one big heap of special pleading. Using the Book of Abraham to back out a "translation" from the JSP, which only needs to be done once, for this particular document, accomplishes nothing.


Same with you. If you understood my position, you would know that you can't produce material from the Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead that it does not contain. All of you are refuting something you don't understand. Go read it and actually refute it.


Why don't you give us an outline or at least a summary of your position? Why the reading assignment? Why not just state your position and how it differs from the other apologists? If it is as enlightening as you claim, then it should shine forth in a few sentences, right?
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

nevazhno
Nursery
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:22 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by nevazhno »

EdGoble wrote:
nevazhno wrote:Ed has a great opportunity here. We have lots of Egyptian papyri that could be translated using his method. Forget the Joseph Smith Papyri for now. If it's a valid method -- and, per Ed, this kind of translation method was apparently well-known by the ancients -- then it should work for other ancient Egyptian papyri. Go find another ancient document and translate its secret book to us, please!

If, on the other hand, despite how well-known this method was to the ancients, it is only the Joseph Smith Papyri that require this kind of translation, then the entire hypothesis is one big heap of special pleading. Using the Book of Abraham to back out a "translation" from the JSP, which only needs to be done once, for this particular document, accomplishes nothing.


Same with you. If you understood my position, you would know that you can't produce material from the Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead that it does not contain. All of you are refuting something you don't understand. Go read it and actually refute it.


Gotcha. Special pleading it is. You have a method of producing a text from a source document that cannot be used to produce a different text from a different source document. It only exists for this one special case. How is anyone supposed to verify your theory if the only thing it can produce is the Book of Abraham from the JSP?

Look, I'm neither an Egyptologist or an ancient historian. I am an academic, but economics doesn't help much in understanding the Book of Abraham. So, like many of us here, I am unqualified to either verify or refute your theory. So I'm in a position of having to rely on experts to filter out the pseudoscience from actual science. Egyptologists have a method of translating ancient documents that appears to be reliable and consistent, and independently verifiable -- I'm comfortable relying on their interpretations of the JSP. You have a claim that fits outside the mainstream. That does not make it wrong, but it does mean I, as a non-expert, have no reason to give it any credence until you can find someone qualified to agree you're on to something. Not to simply be Kerry's parrot, but go publish something in a peer-reviewed outlet. Hell, get other apologists to at least back you up. Otherwise we'll just sit here and quote Ritner all day, because he can back up what he's saying.

All that said, I am an academic and I do understand how the process works. I understand falsifiability. I understand burden of proof. It is not on any of us to refute your theory just because you think you can back into a Book of Abraham translation. It's incumbent on you to give us a reason to give your theory any attention. Show that your theory predicts something, then show that the prediction is true. Or get a peer-reviewed publication. Get accepted to present your theory at an academic conference. Something. Anything, but whining about a bunch of assholes on a message board not giving your theory the time of day.

Themis
God
Posts: 13353
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Themis »

EdGoble wrote:And Because Iconotropy/Adaptation by the ancients is well documented, and you know it, and there is nothing wrong with applying this concept to it. To deny that it is not also a good option is pure dishonesty.


It's not a good option. Adaptation of iconography certainly does happen, but you wouldn't know it if not for the scholars such as Egyptologists. They wouldn't know it unless they had evidence for it. We don't see this with the papyri. Fac 2 and 3 both have text that tells us about what is going on in. They are well understood. There is no evidence of adaptation involving Abraham from the papyri. Fac 1 image was rediscovered. It has text with it that translates into what Egyptology told us before it was found. This is rock solid evidence this is the intended meaning of those who created the papyri.

I found it interesting that the missing sections for fac 1 in the rediscovered papyri were exactly where egyptologists had problems with fac 1. People don't seem to get this important part. It also tells us it was missing in Joseph's day as well as the fact similar pieces were missing in other sections of the papyri telling us they were torn out on removal from their initial casing. This adaptation is just a believers hope without support. Don't blame members who can see this.
42

Post Reply