KEP: A Quasi-Forensic, non-theory-ladened, Analysis

[_Dwight Frye]

For those who believe the EA predates the KN's...

Very curious as to who you have in mind here. Thanks.

[_wenglund]

For those who believe the EA predates the KN's, is it just coincidental that the elements the KN' translations that match those in the EA, are all in Part 1 of the EA?

Who said the whole EA predated the KNs? Not I.

Who used the word "whole"? Not I. The point I made applies to parts as well as to the whole EA.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

For those who believe the EA predates the KN's...

Very curious as to who you have in mind here. Thanks.

At the very least Chris has argued that some of the EA predates the KN's? See the article he posted earlier in the thread.

Also, I get the sense that other critics on this thread were sympathetic to Chris' argument. Am I wrong?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_CaliforniaKid]

Who used the word "whole"? Not I. The point I made applies to parts as well as to the whole EA.

I don't follow.

You asked if it was just a coincidence that only the first part of the first degree was used. In my opinion, it's not a coincidence. Only the first part was used because only the first part was completed at the time.

[_wenglund]

I don't follow.

You asked if it was just a coincidence that only the first part of the first degree was used. In my opinion, it's not a coincidence. Only the first part was used because only the first part was completed at the time.

Interesting. When you say that "only the first part was completed at the time", are you speaking about all three EA's, or just Joseph Smith's EA?

Whatever the case, the "puzzle" issue still applies. Let me restate it this way: I mean if, in producing Part 1 of the EA, Joseph or whoever is just grabbing characters and pieces of characters randomly from hither and yon to comprise what they intend to be an alphabet and grammar, and then they indiscriminately make up sounds, for the most part, to go with those characters, and then they whimsically pull out of their imaginations and assign explanation to those characters, what are the odds that this cobbled amalgam of Part 1 would match up with character sets extracted from the papyri, and this in such a way as to form the brief narrative in the KN translations?

To me, the odds are still somewhat against it (see my puzzle analogy earlier in the thread)?

It makes far more sense that the production sequence for Part 1, and the subsequent parts, went as follows: a partial translation produced, then assigned in a graduated way to characters (as with the KN's), then selectively broken apart and combined with pieces from other prior translations, then assigned sounds where needed, to form Part 1 of EA, and the same for other parts--using other previous translations. If so, then the KN's predate Part 1 of the EA's.

But,I suppose it is possible that it may have occurred the other way around as you suggest.

Again, though, it would be interesting to hand Part 1 of EA Joseph Smith to people unfamiliar with the KEP, have them come up with a translation of some of the characters found on KNA page two (writting the translation on the preceeding page), and then break those characters and associated translations into three sets and write them in a separate notebook, and see how close it matches the KN's. More to the point, then try and come up with a logical explanation for why you proceeded in that way (why take randomly and supposedly imagined elements to then form a complete translation, in reverse order with the translation preceeding the characters being translated, which is then broken done into sub parts in a separate notebook).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

By my count, there are 23 characters in EA J.S., Part 1, of which all but two represent specific nouns or pronouns, namely: first being, first man, a man of great dominion, pharoah, queen, virgin, Kah tou man, unmarried woman, prince, daughter, crown, earth, eye, Egypt while under water, other person, government, beginning, creation, first instance, period of time (From the first to any stated period after), period of time (From a fixed period of time back to the beginning).

The KN translations contain 17 different nouns and pronouns: Katumin, princess, daughter, On-i-tas, pharoah, king, Egypt, year, world, 2962, 30th, reign, her, father, she, 28 years old, 3026.

Of the 17 KN nouns and pronouns only 4 have matches in the EA J.S., Part 1. They are (using the sequence in the EA): pharoah, Katumin (or Kah tou man), daughter, and earth (world).

With this in mind, are we to understand that these 4 nouns were used to derive the 43 word (17 of which were nouns and pronouns) translations in the KN's?

Seems a bit far fetched to me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_sock puppet]

You know, Wade, there is something romantic about El Don Quixote tilting at wind mills, isn't there?

[_wenglund]

You know, Wade, there is something romantic about El Don Quixote tilting at wind mills, isn't there?

Does it seem that way to the "What? Me worry?" mindset of the Alfred E Newmans of the world?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

By the way, has anyone posited a hypothesis for who may have written the double-underlined page numbers or letters on many of the KEP documents and when he or she may have written them?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

You know, Wade, there is something romantic about El Don Quixote tilting at wind mills, isn't there?

I can't seem to get interested in this subject. If Wade/Will are correct, the KEP are a trivial bit of nonsense. If the critics are correct, the KEP are a trivial bit of nonsense.