Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
EdGoble
Priest
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:37 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by EdGoble »

Lemmie wrote: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.

Lemmie wrote: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
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Lemmie »

EdGoble wrote:
Fence Sitter wrote: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?
EdGoble wrote: 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.

EdGoble wrote: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
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Lemmie »

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

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by EdGoble »

Lemmie wrote: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.

Lemmie wrote: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.

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

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by EdGoble »

Lemmie wrote: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.
Last edited by EdGoble on Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Lemmie »

EdGoble wrote:
Lemmie wrote: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.

EdGoble wrote: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?

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

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by EdGoble »

Lemmie wrote: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?


Your badgering has ended my conversation with you in particular. When you are serious, it will continue. You can take the evidence that exists, or you can leave it.

Themis
God
Posts: 13345
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Themis »

EdGoble wrote:
Yahoo Bot wrote:As I have said before, he is not critical of the sources he finds favorable. I used to do that as a college freshman.


I am critical of all kinds of apologetic materials. All you have to do is read the blog, and you would know that.


He is quoting you quote someone else. I don't think he is referring to you.
42

User avatar
Xenophon
God
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Xenophon »

EdGoble wrote:Your badgering has ended my conversation with you in particular. When you are serious, it will continue. You can take the evidence that exists, or you can leave it.


EdGoble wrote: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.


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


I believe 3 strikes is gonna equal a "NO" to your example requests, Lemmie. Good on you for sticking to him though.
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Lemmie »

EdGoble wrote: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.

ok. Then the tables will show that you are matching up hieratics with hieroglyphics, according to established patterns. Would that be a correct assessment?

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

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

Mr. Goble, you are here presenting an hypothesis and I am treating you with the same seriousness I would treat any academic presentation.

If I asked an academic presenter the above question and they responded as you have, the presentation would be over and their paper would be disregarded by all. Please get over this thin skin you have and understand, in order to present your idea, you need to answer questions. Even if it is as simple as "see page 27, I have listed 5 examples," that would suffice.

Yahoo Bot
God
Posts: 3211
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Yahoo Bot »

grindael wrote:
but the Book of Abraham looks like legit inspired pseudepigrapha at the least and new God-breathed scripture at the most.


How so, when Smith himself stated that the papyri were written by the hand of Abraham. You have to reject Smith's assertions, witnessed by many, to get your conclusion that it is pseudepigrapha. We know it is, (inspired is in the eye of the beholder) but that is NOT what Smith said it was. That is the big problem here and the ONLY thing that matters. Smith lied.



The Gospels say by whom they are written but I don't think anybody really believes that who follows New Testament history. I can't defend the BoF because I've never attempted to wade into its complexities, so don't look to me for a defense or a statement of the Church's position. I read it for its canonical status. Which, by the way, describes just about all of the New Testament.
Last edited by Yahoo Bot on Tue Feb 21, 2017 11:54 am, edited 2 times in total.

Yahoo Bot
God
Posts: 3211
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:37 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Yahoo Bot »

Themis wrote:
He is quoting you quote someone else. I don't think he is referring to you.



Right. My main criticism of the Backyard Professor is that he likes to collect clippings from sources that he finds, arranges them in order, and cites and quotes them authoritatively. Without any kind of disbelief or critique. So long as it is supportive. It could be a quote from a blog enthusiastic about the Illuminati critical of the Book of Abraham.

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Lemmie »

EdGoble wrote:
Lemmie wrote: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?


Your badgering has ended my conversation with you in particular. When you are serious, it will continue. You can take the evidence that exists, or you can leave it.


What you call badgering is the simple Q & A that would follow any academic or research presentation. Telling a fellow researcher to take your evidence as is does not constitute a valid presentation technique. You leave readers with no option but to disregard your findings if you are so unwilling to support them.

Themis
God
Posts: 13345
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Themis »

EdGoble wrote:
Themis wrote: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.

He can't (how convenient) because he assigns arbitrary "values" to the characters/pictures/whatever. There would be no formula/cipher. That's why he can claim that he isn't trying to prove that the Book of Abraham came from the papyri. Yet, he says that somehow they are "linked" to "concepts" found in the Book of Abraham. So all his posturing about them not being linked is just BS.


If you actually attempted to look at my research on the blog and actually try to refute the actual work there, then you would be making your case. All you have here are just words, not actual attempts to rebut where I'm actually showing what I claim is happening.


I have read some of your blog, but it didn't make sense. You have zero evidence any re-purposing is going on, and will always have zero evidence. Sure someone could have added a dual meaning to each hieroglyph, but why? No one would be able to ever read it, and only God would know your second meaning. The papyri was made for a dead person. It was buried with him, which means no real intent to be read by humans eyes again. Your hypothesis would also have to have another person who created the other papyri for the book of Joseph since they date to different times. Making a dual meaning in your head doesn't really mean much. No one knows but God. It's no different then if I added who paragraph of text to each word of some short story. It makes no sense. I would just write one in the language of the day so that people could read it.
42

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Lemmie »

Xenophon wrote:
EdGoble wrote:Your badgering has ended my conversation with you in particular. When you are serious, it will continue. You can take the evidence that exists, or you can leave it.


EdGoble wrote: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.


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


I believe 3 strikes is gonna equal a "NO" to your example requests, Lemmie. Good on you for sticking to him though.

Hey, he asked to be taken seriously. Honestly, though, I'm being mild. I've heard far more confrontational questions asked of Nobel prize winners--nobody takes offense though, because it's the material being debated, not the person. And if it's your paper, you would want the tough questions to be asked. How else do you strengthen your position or improve your research process?

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

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by EdGoble »

Lemmie wrote:What you call badgering is the simple Q & A that would follow any academic or research presentation. Telling a fellow researcher to take your evidence as is does not constitute a valid presentation technique. You leave readers with no option but to disregard your findings if you are so unwilling to support them.


If you approached Champollion and told him that you would not accept any of his findings unless he could produce another Rosetta stone, that would not be considered rational, as there is no other Rosetta stone to speak of. And so, neither is this rational or called for. And the fact that you couch your badgering in these terms and hide them as if you are an academic asking me for more evidence is not a case for academic dismissal for lack of evidence, but is actually just artful dodging from where the evidence actually lies, and a hidden and artful ad-hominem in one fell swoop. Sorry. This is nothing of the sort of what you claim it to be.

User avatar
DrW
God
Posts: 7222
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:57 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by DrW »

EdGoble wrote: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.

Fair enough. Let's see just how rational you really are. Please consider the following.

Fact: Joseph Smith was a self-admitted, and duly convicted, glass looker and treasure hunter.

Fact: Joseph Smith had sex with multiple females to whom he as not married.

Fact: Several of these females were minors, some of them only 14 or 15 years old.

Fact: Extended passages found in the Book of Mormon were copied, word for word, from the King James version of the Bible known to be in the possession of the Smith family.

Fact: The narrative for the "coming forth" of the Book of Mormon is fraught with internally inconsistent and wildly imaginative claims regarding non-existent golden plates, magical rocks, supernatural apparitions and other cult magic nonsense.

Fact: There is not a shred of credible physical evidence in the New World (or the Old) to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Fact: There is overwhelming and internally consistent evidence, from multiple scientific disciplines that, time after time, directly contradicts and falsifies affirmative and falsifiable statements made in the Book of Mormon.

Fact: No credible mainstream non-LDS scientist, in any discipline, publicly supports the Book of Mormon narrative.

Fact: Multiple credible mainstream scientists, from any number of disciplines, have considered the Book of Mormon and shown it to be fiction.

Question: Given all the evidence cited above invalidating the claimed provenance and veracity of the Book of Mormon and its purported author, and in the absence of any shred of supporting physical evidence, could any individual who believes that the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be really be considered rational - let alone a "serious thinker"?
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."

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

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by EdGoble »

Themis wrote:I have read some of your blog, but it didn't make sense. You have zero evidence any re-purposing is going on, and will always have zero evidence. Sure someone could have added a dual meaning to each hieroglyph, but why? No one would be able to ever read it, and only God would know your second meaning. The papyri was made for a dead person. It was buried with him, which means no real intent to be read by humans eyes again. Your hypothesis would also have to have another person who created the other papyri for the book of Joseph since they date to different times. Making a dual meaning in your head doesn't really mean much. No one knows but God. It's no different then if I added who paragraph of text to each word of some short story. It makes no sense. I would just write one in the language of the day so that people could read it.


It isn't new dual meanings that somehow take on that meaning generally outside the place where they are used that way. That is the nature of this type of mapping. If you write an acrostic, the only place the mappings take on any meaning to you is in the document where you used them. You didn't just add a new meaning to the letter A generally.

You are once again assuming that the people that originally wrote the Papyri were the ones to use them this way. That is not the case. The Sensen class of papyrus was created long before the people that ended up using it this way. The same is so with the Book of the Dead, which was used the same way, artistically, to decorate the Book of Joseph.

It makes perfect sense, and it is the explanation to fit the evidence.

User avatar
Xenophon
God
Posts: 1823
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:50 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Xenophon »

EdGoble wrote:If you approached Champollion and told him that you would not accept any of his findings unless he could produce another Rosetta stone, that would not be considered rational, as there is no other Rosetta stone to speak of. And so, neither is this rational or called for. And the fact that you couch your badgering in these terms and hide them as if you are an academic asking me for more evidence is not a case for academic dismissal for lack of evidence, but is actually just artful dodging from where the evidence actually lies, and a hidden and artful ad-hominem in one fell swoop. Sorry. This is nothing of the sort of what you claim it to be.


That analogy doesn't quite hold water. What Lemmie is asking you to do would look more like this. Champollion claims he has deciphered Ancient Egyptian using the Rosetta stone. Skeptical, the scientific community asks for proof. He then translates heretofore non-deciphered texts, repeatedly. Also, individuals can take his discovery and replicate the translations for themselves.
"If you consider what are called the virtues in mankind, you will find their growth is assisted by education and cultivation." -Xenophon of Athens

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by Lemmie »

EdGoble wrote:
Lemmie wrote:What you call badgering is the simple Q & A that would follow any academic or research presentation. Telling a fellow researcher to take your evidence as is does not constitute a valid presentation technique. You leave readers with no option but to disregard your findings if you are so unwilling to support them.


If you approached Champollion and told him that you would not accept any of his findings unless he could produce another Rosetta stone, that would not be considered rational, as there is no other Rosetta stone to speak of. And so, neither is this rational or called for. And the fact that you couch your badgering in these terms and hide them as if you are an academic asking me for more evidence is not a case for academic dismissal for lack of evidence, but is actually just artful dodging from where the evidence actually lies, and a hidden and artful ad-hominem in one fell swoop. Sorry. This is nothing of the sort of what you claim it to be.

Champollion deciphered the Rosetta Stone, and then followed it up by using his technique to successfully read many other hieroglyphic texts. He gave examples.

So I ask again:
...there must be other instances where your technique is used. Can you show examples?


ETA: I see Xenophon already explained this very clearly.

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

Re: Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

Post by EdGoble »

DrW wrote:
Fact: Joseph Smith was a self-admitted, and duly convicted, glass looker and treasure hunter.

Fact: Joseph Smith had sex with multiple females to whom he as not married.

Fact: Several of these females were minors, some of them only 14 or 15 years old.

Fact: Extended passages found in the Book of Mormon were copied, word for word, from the King James version of the Bible known to be in the possession of the Smith family.

Fact: The narrative for the "coming forth" of the Book of Mormon is fraught with internally inconsistent and wildly imaginative claims regarding non-existent golden plates, magical rocks, supernatural apparitions and other cult magic nonsense.

Fact: There is not a shred of credible physical evidence in the New World (or the Old) to support the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

Fact: There is overwhelming and internally consistent evidence, from multiple scientific disciplines that, time after time, directly contradicts and falsifies affirmative and falsifiable statements made in the Book of Mormon.

Fact: No credible mainstream non-LDS scientist, in any discipline, publicly supports the Book of Mormon narrative.

Fact: Multiple credible mainstream scientists, from any number of disciplines, have considered the Book of Mormon and shown it to be fiction.

Question: Given all the evidence cited above invalidating the claimed provenance and veracity of the Book of Mormon and its purported author, and in the absence of any shred of supporting physical evidence, could any individual who believes that the Book of Mormon is what Joseph Smith claimed it to be really be considered rational - let alone a "serious thinker"?


Yes, because my beliefs and commitments have no reflection on my ability to think, aside from the fact that belief creates a black box around issues like this, where I am willing to believe and set aside things for the time being, on a personal level. While critics believe that each and every item in that black box must be all proven at once through science to have any standing, there are individuals out there that deal with things using a different method, a different epistemology, one by one, with patience and faith. It is not irrational to take a wait and see approach, and not let these things affect my commitments and covenants or my behavior.

One could suggest that critics have an irrational amount of impatience for issues to be resolved immediately when their resolution is not rationally something that is forthcoming. The critic may overconfidently declare victory at a certain point in time, when there is nothing to indicate that an issue is indeed resolved or come to an end of any sort. Therefore, a believing person is willing to have patience as his virtue, while a critic is not, and only has impatience for his vice. It is only in hindsight after issues truly resolve themselves where either the critic knows whether he was the fool for his impatience, or whether the believer was a fool for his patience and belief. Neither has a view in hindsight. Yet the critic finds fault with the virtues of the believer, when the critic may be the one to end up being the fool, just as much.

Now, if you want to deal with this issue and not be overcome with details of things that have nothing to do with it, you must take it bit by bit.

Extraneous issues that all have their own set of apologetic arguments for, and critical arguments against, do not have bearing on the current issue at hand, any more than evolutionary biology has an immediate bearing on plate tectonics. While both are issues that eventually have something to do with each other from a 100,000 foot view, when you are focused on one, and not on the other, they have nothing to do with each other at that point in time, because it is necessary to have some sort of focus to get anything done.
Last edited by EdGoble on Tue Feb 21, 2017 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply