truth dancer wrote:silentkid wrote:I subscribe to the JDKD* theory.
*Joseph Didn't Know Dick
OMG... this has kept me laughing for the last five minutes!
William Schryver wrote:John said it well:... someone who merely publishes in academic journals cannot hope to compete with those who can actually get their ideas out on internet message boards.
No one commenced any serious formal study of the KEP until 2005.
No one except Metcalfe could have! (And whoever else had copies of his photos.)
No one had access to the originals, nor to quality images of them. That's why, contrary to the often-repeated suggestions that the final judgment has already been made, the fact is that the trial has barely begun.
My only problem with that argument is that Gee is the one who has access to the original papyri, and claims to have made precise measurements to the 1/10th of a millimeter.
Has John published in an academic journal about the Book of Abraham?
William Schryver wrote:Runtu:Has John published in an academic journal about the Book of Abraham?
Mmmmm ... how best to answer this question?
I guess I'll answer in this fashion: Yes, he has.
But only someone able to read between the lines would realize it at this point.
As I stated earlier, John is patient and methodical -- even subtle, if you will, and I, for one, can appreciate what he's doing and why. Beyond that, I will say nothing more. John has a long-term strategic objective that he is working on, and so far I can detect no tactical missteps in his approach.
Gotta go now. My guitar is calling me ...
Is there an apologetic alternative?
William Schryver wrote: To my knowledge, images of the entire collection of documents known as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers will accompany the forthcoming volume.
td:Last I heard, most well informed apologists embraced the CT (catalyst theory), or maybe the MT, (mnemonic theory).
I don't believe that has ever been the case. Of course, I'm not sure there has ever been a significant number of people who could have been characterized as "well informed apologists". But of those I've known, very very few bought into the "mnemonic device" theory. In fact, its original proponent apparently no longer considers it a tenable proposition.
Unfortunately, when you say "catalyst theory" you're making reference to something that manifests itself in very different ways. For example, I believe that the Book of Abraham was produced in the same fashion as the Book of Mormon and D&C 7, but I also remain persuaded that these papyri have a relationship to Ptolemaic Jewish thought and practices, and that an Abraham text did appear on the lost portion of papyrus (the extant portion representing only a mere fraction of the original whole). That, of course, differs from Bokovoy's thinking in a very significant way.
And that's about as much of an answer as you'll ever get from me on this particular message board ...
I think it’s quite safe for people to assume that funerary documents never contain stories that are victoriously antagonistic towards the gods of Egypt! If John Gee can provide an example of that caliber then perhaps his point has merit. This business about a sacrifice on an altar described in the Vandier papyrus is nothing more than a scholarly trick to appease the less informed. Does the story pit two ancient religions (Israel & Egyptian) against each other?
It is Egyptologically incorrect to suggest that the Book of Abraham could be found on a religous scroll containing sacred spells and images of the Egyptian gods. Shall we put the Koran on the altars of the Mormon temple? Shall we include a chapter of Charles Larson's book in the covers of the Doctrine & Covenants?
