KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_beastie]

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. ;-)

My god, you are the most blatant braggadocio I've ever seen on the internet. And that's saying a lot.

I'm sure your friends "high on the ladder" must be very proud of your behavior. I can only wonder if they go around telling females whether or not they'd like to see them naked, as well.

by the way, did you not know that Joseph Smith et al likely believed Masonic figures were Egyptian, or did you just choose to omit that information from your presentation?

[_beastie]

Anyway, I will gladly return the favor and answer your questions.

Now, I have two questions for you:

1. Now that it has been demonstrated that Joseph Smith et al likely believed the characters they were inserting in the KEP were Egyptian, what reason do you have to reject Nibley's back-engineered Rosetta Stone theory?

I don't know that it has been demonstrated. To me, that question is still open to serious debate. But, for the sake of discussion, let's go ahead and grant that it has been demonstrated, in which case I don't know that I would have a reason to reject a reverse-engineered theory. In fact, that was my opinion prior to learning that many of the KEP characters were not Egyptian--though I viewed the KEP more as a linguistic instruction tool rather than a Rosetta Stone.

Bumping up to show Will that he's failed, when even his most ardent supporter admits that there is no reason to reject Nibley's theory if it can be demonstrated that Joseph Smith et al would have believed Masonic figures were, indeed, Egyptian.

[Gadianton]

I am delighted to learn that our good friend, Kevin Graham, has taken on educting himself a bit about ciphers, and has advanced far enough in his studies to be able to tell the difference between cipher, encipher, and decipher. This is akin in math to learning the difference between a set and subsets, or in logic the difference between the whole and its parts.

This little bit of knowledge that he has gained has evidently emboldened him to proclaim: "To decipher, which basically means 'to make out the meaning of something' only pertains to ciphers when used within that context, but in the context of languages it is pretty much synonymous with 'translating.'"

I trust that as Kevin continues his studies, he will realize that ciphers are essentially languages, and that in the context of ciphers, the term "decipher" is also synoymous with "translating". Had he read my paper linked to earlier, he would have already discovered this.

As he also learns more about the Rosetta Stone, he will realize that the stone wasn't a translation key nor did it immediately provide a means for translation--certainly not in the sense that most languages are translated. Rather, the stone made it possible for men to, after years of studying the stone, figure out the meaning of the heiroglyphs. The Egyptian lanuage that was used on the stone couldn't be translated (in the sense that Kevin is using the term) until after the characters had been deciphered or decoded. In short, the Rosetta Stone did have the context of a cipher. In fact, as previously mentioned, the most common idiomatic use of the term "Rosetta Stone" is: to "represent a crucial key to the process of decryption of encoded information, especially when a small but representative sample is recognised as the clue to understanding a larger whole." (See: HERE--emphasis mine)

Kevin was astute enough to realize that in order to decipher, there needs to be a cipher key. And, as it turns out, the Rosetta Stone provided just such a key--and this via the other two of three texts on the stone: "the upper one is in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, the middle one in Egyptian demotic script, and the lower text in ancient Greek."(ibid). By comparing the two Egyptian text to the Greek, and using what little was known of the demotic, men were able to eventually decode the meaning of the heiroglyphs, and from that later create an alphabet and grammer that was then used to translate other Egyptian texts. Again, the Rosetta Stone was very much a cipher context.

Unfortunately, though, Kevin's cipher education only got so far as to inform him about the most simple and basic form of ciphers--i.e. the substitution cipher. And, in spite of his relative ignorance on the matter, he dogmatically exclaimed: "The KEP provides nothing that could reasonably be understood as a 'cipher key'....Moreover, Ciphers do not have an 'alphabet' let alone a 'grammar,' nor do they typically involve 'sounds.'"

The hubris of this declaration is as unwarranted as it is mistaken. If Kevin would take a moment to read my paper (which I linked to earlier), he may discover that not only do I show how the KEP have characters in common with noted ciphers, but they also have the same form as certain ciphers (including alphabets and grammars), but they function like a cipher--including through the use of sounds.

Now, regarding the sounds, it may prove instructive to recall that in the several years leading up to the production of the KEP, there were a few occasions when the "pure language" was SPOKEN, and even interpreted (deciphered). Could that have been the source for some of the KEP sounds? I don't know, but it is something to look into.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

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.

Yes, he did study under Baer.

Nibley studied Egyptian under Klaus Baer from 1959 to 1960 at Berkeley and 1966-67 at the University of Chicago. In 1967, the Joseph Smith papyrus fragments were found, beginning 40 years of Nibley's work on the Book of Abraham.

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1713 ... y-big-book

We're really supposed to believe that Nibley didn't recognize the nonEgyptian characters after formally studying Egyptian AND studying the Book of Abraham for forty years, and yet Will was able to do so?

Will's gone beyond braggadocio into delusions of grandeur. Let's just hope he starts name-dropping his GA friends now. In between telling females whether or not he'd like to see them naked.

by the way, Will, how does your wife - who must be around my age - feel about knowing that you'd like to feel younger by "feeling" younger women?

[_Kevin Graham]

In fact, that was my opinion prior to learning that many of the KEP characters were not Egyptian-

And all because Wilbur came along and pointed this out, as if it were such a hidden fact? We've known this for decades; only the MADBites are just now being exposed to this stuff - through a Schryver lens.

Do you really believe Hugh Nibley, a scholar trained in Egyptology, didn't notice that none of the counting characters were in fact Egyptian?? To argue this is just apologetic suicide. Was Nibley a genius or an idiot? You can't have it both ways.

You have only two ways to go with this. Either 1) Nibley didn't know Egyptian well enough to know Arabic numerals and Masonic ciphers weren't legitimate Egyptian numbers, or 2) Will "circle jerk" Schryver, is just smarter than Nibley. He has more "insight".

Who ever would have thought the critics would be on Nibley's side!

[_beastie]

As he also learns more about the Rosetta Stone, he will realize that the stone wasn't a translation key nor did it immediately provide a means for translation--certainly not in the sense that most languages are translated. Rather, the stone made it possible for men to, after years of studying the stone, figure out the meaning of the heiroglyphs. The Egyptian lanuage that was used on the stone couldn't be translated (in the sense that Kevin is using the term) until after the characters had been deciphered or decoded. In short, the Rosetta Stone did have the context of a cipher. In fact, as previously mentioned, the most common idiomatic use of the term "Rosetta Stone" is: to "represent a crucial key to the process of decryption of encoded information, especially when a small but representative sample is recognised as the clue to understanding a larger whole." (See: HERE--emphasis mine)

Kevin was astute enough to realize that in order to decipher, there needs to be a cipher key. And, as it turns out, the Rosetta Stone provided just such a key--and this via the other two of three texts on the stone: "the upper one is in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, the middle one in Egyptian demotic script, and the lower text in ancient Greek."(ibid). By comparing the two Egyptian text to the Greek, and using what little was known of the demotic, men were able to eventually decode the meaning of the heiroglyphs, and from that later create an alphabet and grammar that was then used to translate other Egyptian texts. Again, the Rosetta Stone was very much a cipher context.

Wade,

You seem to be arguing that Will's theory is really just like Nibley's, just with different terminology. I doubt if you are making such an argument intentionally, but that is what you're doing when you try to convince us that the Rosetta Stone could really be considered a cipher key.

In fact, Will adamantly rejected Nibley's theory, which means that whatever Will imagines his "cipher" is, it isn't like the Rosetta Stone.

[_wenglund]

Bumping up to show Will that he's failed, when even his most ardent supporter admits that there is no reason to reject Nibley's theory if it can be demonstrated that Joseph Smith et al would have believed Masonic figures were, indeed, Egyptian.

First of all, the alleged failure may only occur after the condition I set has been met. It hasn't, and so you are mistaken in claiming that Will has "failed".

Second, I did not say "there is no reason to reject Nibley's theory". I said, "I don't know that I would have a reason to reject a reverse-engineered theory." The former is stated emphatically and with certainty, the later was intentionally stated cautiously and with uncertainty. So, you are also mistaken about what I said.

Two out of two mistakes isn't bad for you, though. I encourage you in your progress.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Gadianton]

We've known this for decades...

Can you point me to where online you have mentioned this for decades--something from say, 1990 and 1995, and 2000, and 2005 for example?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Wade,

You seem to be arguing that Will's theory is really just like Nibley's, just with different terminology. I doubt if you are making such an argument intentionally, but that is what you're doing when you try to convince us that the Rosetta Stone could really be considered a cipher key.

In fact, Will adamantly rejected Nibley's theory, which means that whatever Will imagines his "cipher" is, it isn't like the Rosetta Stone.

First of all, I am not arguing that the KEP is like the Rosetta Stone. I have suggested no such thing. At best I suggested that the Rosetta Stone inadvertantly functioned as a cipher, but it obviously wasn't produced to be a cipher (it was a decree issued on behalf of Ptolemy V); whereas, it is my studied opinion that the KEP were intended as a cipher or "pure language", and was even intentionally used as a cipher.

Second, could you point me to Nibley's text-critical argument for KEP dependancy? And, could you point me to Nibley's hypothesis that the KEP were intended as a cipher or "pure language." I ask because absent those two critical elements, you are yet again mistaken about what "seems" to you to be my argument.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

"revelation"(i.e Smith's FUBARed imagination)

I looked up the acronym above, and it was so offensive as to convince me to discontinue further discussion with Kevin, and to take a break from this board.

Bye.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-