Zub Zool oan and Abraham 1:2b?????3

[_grindael]

Bump.

[_maklelan]

Mak -

Is there anything (earlier statements or analysis) that you've posted within this thread that you have significantly modified or no longer agree with, or have subsequently drawn conclusions on that are not yet stated?

Surprised to see this thread is still around. I've moved this research project forward a bit, but mainly in how I'm organizing the presentation. I'm not going to read through the whole thread, and if anything's been said since this thread originally went dormant I haven't read it, but I can't think of anything I've substantially changed my mind on.

[_Kevin Graham]

Chris told me he bumped into Dan a few years ago at a library and he told him he was working to prove Will Schryver's cipher theory. Dan and I are Facebook friends and have had several conversations over the years completely unrelated to religion, so he hasn't said anything to me about any of this since.

[_moksha]

Sometimes secret Masonic words work their way into the modern world. Like the One Ring of Sauron, they want to be found. Consider the original words for Dion's song, Abraham, Martin and John. There was a verse that asked, "has anybody here seen zub zool oan?", but that was changed to "my old friend Martin" simply because the songwriter did not possess the grand key. Likewise, the song Follow the Yellow Brick Road was changed from Zubbity Zoolity Oan to the main title. Even Shakespeare used this masonic message in his play, Julius Caesar. When the character Brutus stabbed him, Julius responded, "Zub zool oan" but it ended up being changed to "et tu Brute?" There are undoubtedly other times this sacred word combination broke through the aether and inserted itself into the common consciousness as with the movie Ghostbusters.

[_Philo Sofee]

Thanks for bumping this thread. Reading like this is good to do once a year or so. You guys n gals ROCK! For a bunch of "trailer trash" idiots, you do yer community proud!

[_Choyo Chagas]

Volapük (/ˈvɒləpʊk/ in English; [volaˈpyk] in Volapük) is a constructed language, created in 1879–1880 by Johann Martin Schleyer, a Roman Catholic priest in Baden, Germany. Schleyer felt that God had told him in a dream to create an international language.

god can tell you strange things to do
if you are a catholic priest or if you are a Mormon prophet

The word Volapük is also used to mean "nonsense" and "gibberish" in certain languages, such as Danish in the expression Det er det rene volapyk for mig ("It's pure Volapük to me"). In Esperanto, "volapukaĵo" is also a slang term for "nonsense", and the expression Tio estas volapukaĵo al mi ("That's a Volapük-ation to me") is sometimes used like the English "it's Greek to me" (that is, "I can't understand this" or "this is nonsense").

ok, i know i know this is nothing to do with zub zool oan (or curelom, cumom, ziff, neas, sheum even pay-lay-ale...)
- or with deseret alphabet -

[_Philo Sofee]

It's interesting to watch the enthusiasm of defenders of the faith on this issue. Do they really imagine this is going to 'save' the Book of Abraham in some way?

I keep comparing this to the polyandry issue, because it's so apt. When a believer first finds out that Joseph Smith married other mens' wives, that believer will turn to defenders of the faith in the hopes that those defenders can demonstrate that it isn't true. What they want and hope to hear is "no, Joseph Smith did not marry other mens' wives." Period. Full stop. Instead they're treated to debates about whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with the other mens' wives that he married.

Likewise, on this issue, when a believer first finds out that the papyri don't match the Book of Abraham, they turn to defenders of the faith in the hopes that those defenders can demonstrate that it isn't true. What they want and hope to hear is "Yes, the papyri match the Book of Abraham!" Period. Full stop. Instead, they're treated to debates about the chronology of the KEP.

You people involved in this have lost perspective. This is a minor issue of an interest to a handful of people who have studied the documents for years. It's not going to make one whit of difference to the vast majority of believers troubled by the Book of Abraham. Why? Because the end game is this: Joseph Smith didn't even use the papyri to "translate" the Book of Abraham, so it doesn't matter if it doesn't match. Likewise with the Book of Mormon. After being taught by the LDS church that Joseph Smith "translated" ancient documents through the power of God, this is only going to appease a very small number of troubled believers - namely those so deeply invested in the church that nothing, literally nothing, could alter their belief.

Beastie said it the very best! I have never seen someone cut through all the red tape and argument better than this. This is exactly what happened with me and my enthusiasm for the Book of Abraham. It got to the point to where I asked "is it worth all this time and investment of energy?" The NO answer astonished me. But, it's what helped break my shelf. Now don't get me wrong, it's been helpful and fun to read both sides and I appreciate that, but it's till such a frickin muddle.

[_Jersey Girl]

Beastie said it the very best! I have never seen someone cut through all the red tape and argument better than this. This is exactly what happened with me and my enthusiasm for the Book of Abraham. It got to the point to where I asked "is it worth all this time and investment of energy?" The NO answer astonished me. But, it's what helped break my shelf. Now don't get me wrong, it's been helpful and fun to read both sides and I appreciate that, but it's till such a frickin muddle.

Here is what I would like to see happen right now. I'd like to see you critique one of your old apologetic papers/articles on the Book of Abraham on the screen before my very eyes.

I'd pay 500 Monopoly bucks to see you critique you.

[_Res Ipsa]

Beastie said it the very best! I have never seen someone cut through all the red tape and argument better than this. This is exactly what happened with me and my enthusiasm for the Book of Abraham. It got to the point to where I asked "is it worth all this time and investment of energy?" The NO answer astonished me. But, it's what helped break my shelf. Now don't get me wrong, it's been helpful and fun to read both sides and I appreciate that, but it's till such a frickin muddle.

Here is what I would like to see happen right now. I'd like to see you critique one of your old apologetic papers/articles on the Book of Abraham on the screen before my very eyes.

I'd pay 500 Monopoly bucks to see you critique you.

Throw in a pony. He'll totally go for it!

Seriously, I'd love to see that, too.

[_Jersey Girl]

Here is what I would like to see happen right now. I'd like to see you critique one of your old apologetic papers/articles on the Book of Abraham on the screen before my very eyes.

I'd pay 500 Monopoly bucks to see you critique you.

Throw in a pony. He'll totally go for it!

Seriously, I'd love to see that, too.

This has been on my mind ever since the new Book of Abraham threads began. I will now sweeten the deal to 500 Monopoly bucks and Pinkie Pie!

I'm dead dog serious about this.

Deal or not, Philo Sofee?