Will Challenges Chris Smith to a Formal Public Debate

[_Droopy]

Joseph got the translations of the facsimiles wrong.

Actually, this had and still is an open and live question, given the deep ambiguities and gaps in knowledge regarding the Egyptian hieroglyphic language (religious language, take note, the language of ancient Egyptian temple drama, ritual, and cosmology and infused with multiple layers and levels of meaning, some of which continued to change and mutate over time) and what has been shown regarding the possibilities here.

In point of fact, Joseph hit bulls-eye after bulls-eye after bulls-eye in his renderings of the facsimiles, depending upon which Egyptologists you are consulting as your source for possible interpretations of the various motifs and symbols.

The Egyptian religions language will bear much more than critics, who have a vested interest in corralling and delimiting for their own particular purposes, will allow it (and we still have nothing like a full, comprehensive understanding of the hieroglyphic language in all its layered, symbolic potential).

[_Rambo]

Actually, this had and still is an open and live question, given the deep ambiguities and gaps in knowledge regarding the Egyptian hieroglyphic language (religious language, take note, the language of ancient Egyptian temple drama, ritual, and cosmology and infused with multiple layers and levels of meaning, some of which continued to change and mutate over time) and what has been shown regarding the possibilities here.

In point of fact, Joseph hit bulls-eye after bulls-eye after bulls-eye in his renderings of the facsimiles, depending upon which Egyptologists you are consulting as your source for possible interpretations of the various motifs and symbols.

The Egyptian religions language will bear much more than critics, who have a vested interest in corralling and delimiting for their own particular purposes, will allow it (and we still have nothing like a full, comprehensive understanding of the hieroglyphic language in all its layered, symbolic potential).

Are you having fun with that mental gymnastics? Dude it is soooo clear! It's so obvious! Name these damned bulls-eyes. I haven't heard of any. All I have seen is a bunch of big time misses.

[_Droopy]

The fact is wherever Joseph's translations can be checked, it turns out he couldn't translate a single word.

Nice work, Mr. Wizard. As Joseph never claimed to be able to translate a speck of Egyptian in the manner in which secular scholars translate it, your statement here is less than moot.

Secondly, a great deal of it has, in point of fact, "checked out," but I am far past the point of giving intellectual poseurs such as certain present interlocutors the benefit of the doubt in having bothered to honestly seek out and apprise themselves of that information.

[_Buffalo]

Joseph got the translations of the facsimiles wrong.

Actually, this had and still is an open and live question, given the deep ambiguities and gaps in knowledge regarding the Egyptian hieroglyphic language (religious language, take note, the language of ancient Egyptian temple drama, ritual, and cosmology and infused with multiple layers and levels of meaning, some of which continued to change and mutate over time) and what has been shown regarding the possibilities here.

In point of fact, Joseph hit bulls-eye after bulls-eye after bulls-eye in his renderings of the facsimiles, depending upon which Egyptologists you are consulting as your source for possible interpretations of the various motifs and symbols.

The Egyptian religions language will bear much more than critics, who have a vested interest in corralling and delimiting for their own particular purposes, will allow it (and we still have nothing like a full, comprehensive understanding of the hieroglyphic language in all its layered, symbolic potential).

Nothing is less ambiguous than Joseph's complete failure to translate a single word of Egyptian. No legitimate Egyptologist concurs with Joseph's embarrassing translation attempts.

[_Rambo]

Nice work, Mr. Wizard. As Joseph never claimed to be able to translate a speck of Egyptian in the manner in which secular scholars translate it, your statement here is less than moot.

What! Wasn't the facsimiles in eqyptian and didn't Joesph claim to translate them?

You are making no sense to me.

[_Buffalo]

The fact is wherever Joseph's translations can be checked, it turns out he couldn't translate a single word.

Nice work, Mr. Wizard. As Joseph never claimed to be able to translate a speck of Egyptian in the manner in which secular scholars translate it, your statement here is less than moot.

Secondly, a great deal of it has, in point of fact, "checked out," but I am far past the point of giving intellectual poseurs such as certain present interlocutors the benefit of the doubt in having bothered to honestly seek out and apprise themselves of that information.

If you're done abusing your thesaurus for the day, would you be so kind as to quote Joseph claiming his translation meant something other than a literal, word for word translation?

[_Droopy]

Are you having fun with that mental gymnastics? Dude it is soooo clear! It's so obvious! Name these f*****g bulls-eyes. I haven't heard of any. All I have seen is a bunch of big time misses.

I'm tired, really, really tired, of attempting serious discourse with closed, uninformed adolescent minds.

But, look where we are...

[_Chap]

The fact is wherever Joseph's translations can be checked, it turns out he couldn't translate a single word.

Nice work, Mr. Wizard. As Joseph never claimed to be able to translate a speck of Egyptian in the manner in which secular scholars translate it, your statement here is less than moot.

Yup. When Smith used a word like 'translate', you could never tell what he meant by it until at least a century later. The real meaning of a word used by Smith is only ever revealed when a critic uses the common or garden sense of the word in making his or her point. Then, and only then, is the special Smithian sense of the word revealed. It is usually rather different from what dull secular scholars expected ...

Such are prophets.

[_Buffalo]

Are you having fun with that mental gymnastics? Dude it is soooo clear! It's so obvious! Name these f*****g bulls-eyes. I haven't heard of any. All I have seen is a bunch of big time misses.

I'm tired, really, really tired, of attempting serious discourse with closed, uninformed adolescent minds.

But, look where we are...

We're tired, really tired, of your disingenuous ad hoc arguments and word twisting.

[Guest]

If you're done abusing your thesaurus for the day, would you be so kind as to quote Joseph claiming his translation meant something other than a literal, word for word translation?

But, of course, you beg the question. Neither Joseph nor any of his associates left any documentation of just how the Book of Abraham was produced at all. Hence, perhaps you could provide the documentary evidence of that production process?

Of course, I can't quote Joseph saying that this was not what he meant. I also cannot quote Joseph claiming any particular process or technique through which the Book of Abraham was translated. However, there is strong circumstantial evidence that, as Joseph used the Urim and Thummum for both his work on the Book of Mormon and his translation of the New Testament, that this was likely also the means Joseph used in his production of the Book of Abraham.

There is no historical documentation anywhere that mentions the EA/GAEL as a working template for the creation of the text of the Book of Abraham.