William Schryver wrote:As I suspected.
Nibley was talking about the A&G, and your quote does not support your assertion. Nibley did recognize that many of the characters given explanations were not found on the papyri, but he did not, as you suggested, ever make the claim that the characters were not Egyptian at all.
At any rate, it's a minor point, but just another example of how you quite frequently fail in the area of reading comprehension.
LOL. Poor Wee Willie, desperately looking for any "win" he can score.
The fact is, dear Wee Willie, that it was YOU who demonstrate poor reading comprehension. My question and response, was quite clear:
beastie's earlier question
Did or did not Nibley recognize that there were nonEgyptian characters on the KEP?
My answer to myself:
Although I haven't had time to read the entire paper, and likely will not do so tonight, a quick skim revealed that yes, Nibley knew there were nonEgyptian characters used on the KEP. And yet he still believed it served as a Rosetta Stone, reverse engineered. Go figure. What a dummy.
Will, eager to score some win, asked:
Please do cite the relevant portion of the article where Professor Nibley states that there were non-Egyptian characters used in the A&G.
Even after pointing out my question was originally about the entire KEP, and even after I tried to accommodate his question by skimming the article quickly, Will still pretends to score a hit.
Nibley did, indeed, recognize there were nonEgyptian characters in the KEP.
The Richards text ("Bk. of Abr. Ms. #4") is dated 1841—the date is written on the back of it in the hand of Thomas Bullock—and contains no Egyptian characters.
by the way, I'm unconvinced you are correct in your assertion that Nibley didn't know there were nonEgyptian characters in the A&G, but I will have to read more to find out.
Now, it's obvious why you ignored the other part of my citation from Nibley:
It was not the habit of Joseph Smith to suppress his revelations. He made every effort to see to it that each excerpt from the book of Abraham was published to the world the moment it was presentable. "One cannot read the pages of the early periodicals of the Church," writes James R. Clark, " . . . without being impressed with the fact that to Joseph Smith, availability of the new revelations of God where people could read them and immediately profit by their instruction was more important than the technicality of having acomplete text of these ancient records at the start . . . " Hence, Clark notes, it was his custom to publish them in the form of extracts as he went along.30
This directly contradicts your cipher thesis.
Well, at least you actually tried to score a real "win", as meager as it was, instead of just insulting my looks and (incorrect) age. Progress.