DiscussMormonism.com

beastie wrote:

beastie wrote:One more thing: I've alluded to this before, but I'm hoping now someone will directly answer this question:

Did or did not Nibley recognize that there were nonEgyptian characters on the KEP?

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.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... ts/?id=121

Please do cite the relevant portion of the article where Professor Nibley states that there were non-Egyptian characters used in the A&G.

William Schryver wrote:Please do cite the relevant portion of the article where Professor Nibley states that there were non-Egyptian characters used in the A&G.

I’m pressed for time right now, but will quickly note this, that immediately stood out to me in skimming Nibley’s paper (I will read it more carefully later this week when I have time).

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

Indeed. Why would Smith decide to suppress this revelation – the portion of the Book of Abraham on the KEP - by putting it in a secret code, in contradiction with his other past behavior?

Now to Will's question:

My question wasn’t limited to the A&G, but rather the entire KEP. Clearly he knew there were nonEgyptian characters in the KEP. But this statement seems to indicate he knew there were nonEgyptian characters in the A&G, specifically:

Stranger still, the signs that are explained are not found in the real Egyptian documents, where no system is in evidence of the placing of one, two, or three strokes above a sign, for example, and where there is nothing whatever to indicate the remarkably Ogam-like arrangement of symbols in the A. & G.

Once again, I haven’t had time to read the article yet, and am only skimming it, so it’s possible I misunderstood what he meant. Of course, my question was not specific to the A&G in the first place.

An interesting speculation.

Wouldn't it be great if there were actually some evidence to support it? Then you'd really be on to something, huh?

ROFL!

What an idiot. He just presented the evidence. But like a typical blind apologist, Will can't accept it if it goes against his preconceived notions. Joseph Smith was very interested in ancient languages, and so was Phelps. The evidence for this is plentiful which makes this the most reasonable aassumption. Why the hell does anyone develop an alphabet and grammar from an unknown, yet legitimate laanguage"?

To encipher it? God I pray that FARMS publishes his stupidity on this. It will go along well with the rest of their hall of shame, including their praise for nut-jobs like Wells Jakeman.

On the flip side, we have no evidence whatsoever to support Will's idiotic theory that the KEP was intended to encipher scripture.

I see the coward is back, but for how long this time? Surely not long enough to explain how he could misrepresent the documents so badly.

It is also funny that the "critics" give Nibley the benefit of the doubt here by assuming he knew some of these characters were not Egyptian. I mean didn't he study Egyptian under Klaus Baer? Of course he knew they were not Egyptian. What apologetic value is there to argue otherwise? Will has to niggle about every little point, demanding evidence, while at the same time entertaining these delusions about a monumental enciphering effort, with no evidence whatsoever.

beastie wrote:Now to Will's question:

My question wasn’t limited to the A&G, but rather the entire KEP. Clearly he knew there were nonEgyptian characters in the KEP. But this statement seems to indicate he knew there were nonEgyptian characters in the A&G, specifically:

Stranger still, the signs that are explained are not found in the real Egyptian documents, where no system is in evidence of the placing of one, two, or three strokes above a sign, for example, and where there is nothing whatever to indicate the remarkably Ogam-like arrangement of symbols in the A. & G.

Once again, I haven’t had time to read the article yet, and am only skimming it, so it’s possible I misunderstood what he meant. Of course, my question was not specific to the A&G in the first place.

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.

Salve, Fratello Schryver!

Thank you for dropping by. I appreciate your latest signature lines here and on MADB. It is gratifying to see you acknowledge that I am the measure of your importance.

Have you talked to Dr. Peterson about being published in the Ensign? I hope so. He has connections, you know. And although the Ensign did recognize the work of Warren P. Aston in footnotes, the Ensign unfortunately did not also mention Brother Aston's important work in researching extraterrestrials living on the Earth disguised as humans.

If there is anything further I can do to ensure that you are recognized as the tip of the spear in Mormon apologetics, and your character as a defender of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is known far and wide, please do not hesitate to ask.

Kevin Graham wrote:

An interesting speculation.

Wouldn't it be great if there were actually some evidence to support it? Then you'd really be on to something, huh?

ROFL!

What an idiot. He just presented the evidence. But like a typical blind apologist, Will can't accept it if it goes against his preconceived notions. Joseph Smith was very interested in ancient languages, and so was Phelps. The evidence for this is plentiful which makes this the most reasonable aassumption. Why the hell does anyone develop an alphabet and grammar from an unknown, yet legitimate laanguage"?

To encipher it? God I pray that FARMS publishes his stupidity on this. It will go along well with the rest of their hall of shame, including their praise for nut-jobs like Wells Jakeman.

On the flip side, we have no evidence whatsoever to support Will's idiotic theory that the KEP was intended to encipher scripture.

I see the coward is back, but for how long this time? Surely not long enough to explain how he could misrepresent the documents so badly.

It is also funny that the "critics" give Nibley the benefit of the doubt here by assuming he knew some of these characters were not Egyptian. I mean didn't he study Egyptian under Klaus Baer? Of course he knew they were not Egyptian. What apologetic value is there to argue otherwise? Will has to niggle about every little point, demanding evidence, while at the same time entertaining these delusions about a monumental enciphering effort, with no evidence whatsoever.

I know I shouldn't, but I confess I find it somewhat entertaining to watch Graham continue his death spiral into inanity.

Well if beastie misunderstood Nibley, that should be put into context with the fact that she admitted upfront she had not read the entire paper and only skimmed it.

So what's your excuse for misrepresenting the documents? Are you going to explain yourself or are you going to run away to look for your gonads, as usual?

You've been working on it for about a year, you're giving presentations, posturing yourself as an authority, and gloating about your upcoming publication. It seems you should be held more accountaable for completely misrepresenting the documents than beastie's off the cuff remark on a message forum, about Nibley's obvious ability to discern between Egyptian and Masonic ciphers.

Just because Nibley didn't mention it only means he didn't think it was important, and it isn't. Nibley probably knew it would just go down as another example of Joseph Smith not knowing how to translate ancient documents. He filled in the gaps with imaginative crap, wherever the lacunae were, and this is a fact that apologists aren't likely to share with their listeners because you're not about educating them. You're all about shaping their opinion for them by being highly selective in what you tell them.

Darth J wrote:Salve, Fratello Schryver!

Thank you for dropping by. I appreciate your latest signature lines here and on MADB. It is gratifying to see you acknowledge that I am the measure of your importance.

Have you talked to Dr. Peterson about being published in the Ensign? I hope so. He has connections, you know. And although the Ensign did recognize the work of Warren P. Aston in footnotes, the Ensign unfortunately did not also mention Brother Aston's important work in researching extraterrestrials living on the Earth disguised as humans.

If there is anything further I can do to ensure that you are recognized as the tip of the spear in Mormon apologetics, and your character as a defender of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is known far and wide, please do not hesitate to ask.

Thanks for the generous offer, DaftJ. But I have friends much higher on the ladder than the inimitable Dr. Peterson. I know it has been commonly assumed that I've gotten this far on the basis of my good looks alone, but I'm afraid that's just not the case. ;-)

P.S. Fratello Schryver, when the Lord answers my prayers and your theories are published in the Ensign, I hope that you will acknowledge my assistance under your pet name for me, "Daft J," as you have promised to do in the respected academic journal(s) we will be looking forward to seeing you in. Think of all the testimonies that can be rescued or strengthened, and the investigators who will become convinced of the truthfulness of the restored gospel, when you mention me so that one and all will come here and see what the torch bearer of defending the true church is really like.

William Schryver wrote:Thanks for the generous offer, DaftJ. But I have friends much higher on the ladder than the inimitable Dr. Peterson. I know it has been commonly assumed that I've gotten this far on the basis of my good looks alone, but I'm afraid that's just not the case. ;-)

Oh, I hope you are referring to the Bretheren. If we could show that you have the backing of the Bretheren in the way you have defended the Church here on the internet, that would be beyond even my wildest dreams.