Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

[_grindael]

But it is not the only option, and there is no reason to assume that it must be, other than the fact that you as a "partisan" newly-hatched-from-the-egg critic insist that it must be.

It is the only option because that is what the actual EVIDENCE shows, not the made up jargon and psychobabble you pedal. You wouldn't know what "scholarly honesty" is, if it rose up and slapped you silly.

[_Mormonicious]

Why? Why come to this Board and defend Mormoronism?

The entirety of PROOF is that Mormoronism is FALSE and that Horny Holy Joe made up anything and everything about his BULL crap religion so he could “F” other men's wives and little girl and steal the Rube members money.

So Why come here and even TRY to persuade enlightened people about the "TRUTHFULNESS" of Horny Holy Joe's BULL crap?

[_grindael]

I fundamentally agree with you here. That is what you don't understand. There isn't anything wrong with supposing there is another approach. It just has no valid evidence to justify us believing that other approach yet, so we always follow where the evidence leads us. If there is a more plausible explanation then please, and I'm quite serious here, please get it published in a valid proper journal or publish a book through a valid publishing press and get it out there, and let the critics also confirm that view.

Without outside confirmation you don't have a leg to stand on. I am entirely justified in going with the egyptological experts at this point in time. Yes, new evidence could change my mind but not from a blog. If you've a lovely theory, produce it and other experts verify and agree with your methods, your materials, and your conclusions. Then, and only then, are we properly compelled to say hey that is another plausible alternative. Until then, you have nothing to go with and neither does anyone else.

Pure honest scholarship insists stridently on getting it published properly and have it convincing enough that experts also publicly acknowledge your ideas and tests them. For instance a good theory gives you a chance to also make predictions on how to falsify your theory. What are your predictions on how your theory can be falsified How can you predict what evidence will verify your theory? I want to see what your predictions are for future research as to the validity or falsity of your theory.

I think quite frankly the point of view that says if your view is correct you ought to then be able to show the book of Joseph in the papyri. I would like to see that book of Joseph and I would like to see if your theory can produce it. And if not why can't it? Because Joseph Smith claimed the book of Joseph was there, and we even have a match of the description of the fragment of papyri that Oliver Cowdery described as the book of Joseph in one of those papyri, the one with the walking snake and the trinity godhead. Therefore, if your theory is correct on how he produced The Book of Abraham, your theory should justifiably be able to produce the book of Joseph. I think that is a very valid point of view, quite frankly. And if an expert or two or ten can agree with you and also produce that book of Joseph then buddy you have some serious legitimacy going on with that. Until that time comes you don't have a lot to hang my hat on.

I predict that the brilliance of your comments here will be lost on Mr. Gobble. I also predict that he will not be able to produce ANY EVIDENCE to support his esoteric jargon. So far he's batting a thousand in that department.

[_Dr Exiled]

Ed:

In addition to what was said above, merely disagreeing with a religious claim doesn't make one biased or an anti-mormon as you and your apologist friends wish were true. Sometimes, as with the book of abraham, the conclusion that it's false and/or made up is so obvious, that to not admit so, clearly demonstrates your cognitive bias.

[_nevazhno]

Ed has a great opportunity here. We have lots of Egyptian papyri that could be translated using his method. Forget the Joseph Smith Papyri for now. If it's a valid method -- and, per Ed, this kind of translation method was apparently well-known by the ancients -- then it should work for other ancient Egyptian papyri. Go find another ancient document and translate its secret book to us, please!

If, on the other hand, despite how well-known this method was to the ancients, it is only the Joseph Smith Papyri that require this kind of translation, then the entire hypothesis is one big heap of special pleading. Using the Book of Abraham to back out a "translation" from the JSP, which only needs to be done once, for this particular document, accomplishes nothing.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think we're going on a dozen requests now by various posters for Ed to pony up sources, evidence, answer questions, flesh out concepts, what have you.

He slinks out of every thread he posts on. Every. One.

- Doc

[_Dr Exiled]

I think we're going on a dozen requests now by various posters for Ed to pony up sources, evidence, answer questions, flesh out concepts, what have you.

He slinks out of every thread he posts on. Every. One.

- Doc

They don't call him the drive-by apologist for nothing

[Guest]

Just because you don't like the consequences doesn't make me dishonest. I stopped invoking faith and that is why you think I'm dishonest. I go with the evidence. . .And if an expert or two or ten can agree with you and also produce that book of Joseph then buddy you have some serious legitimacy going on with that. Until that time comes you don't have a lot to hang my hat on.

If you understood my material, you would not be suggesting that I produce text of the Book of Joseph when the Egyptian hieroglyphics don't *contain* the text to produce it. Clearly, if you were half the critic of the stature of apologist you once were, you would take the time to understand where I'm coming from. Remember, I have continually said that there is a fundamental difference between me and all other apologists, and that is, I actually build on the same evidence you claim that you are using to come to your conclusion. You don't understand my position to be able to be critical of it. I suggest you read it. You think that I'm arguing for the same old stupidity as the supercryptogram nonsense. Clearly you got that impression when I first started emailing you and talking to you years ago. You don't understand at all my current position. Time to understand it.

Ed has a great opportunity here. We have lots of Egyptian papyri that could be translated using his method. Forget the Joseph Smith Papyri for now. If it's a valid method -- and, per Ed, this kind of translation method was apparently well-known by the ancients -- then it should work for other ancient Egyptian papyri. Go find another ancient document and translate its secret book to us, please!

If, on the other hand, despite how well-known this method was to the ancients, it is only the Joseph Smith Papyri that require this kind of translation, then the entire hypothesis is one big heap of special pleading. Using the Book of Abraham to back out a "translation" from the JSP, which only needs to be done once, for this particular document, accomplishes nothing.

Same with you. If you understood my position, you would know that you can't produce material from the Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead that it does not contain. All of you are refuting something you don't understand. Go read it and actually refute it.

[_Dr Exiled]

Ed has a great opportunity here. We have lots of Egyptian papyri that could be translated using his method. Forget the Joseph Smith Papyri for now. If it's a valid method -- and, per Ed, this kind of translation method was apparently well-known by the ancients -- then it should work for other ancient Egyptian papyri. Go find another ancient document and translate its secret book to us, please!

If, on the other hand, despite how well-known this method was to the ancients, it is only the Joseph Smith Papyri that require this kind of translation, then the entire hypothesis is one big heap of special pleading. Using the Book of Abraham to back out a "translation" from the JSP, which only needs to be done once, for this particular document, accomplishes nothing.

Same with you. If you understood my position, you would know that you can't produce material from the Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead that it does not contain. All of you are refuting something you don't understand. Go read it and actually refute it.

Why don't you give us an outline or at least a summary of your position? Why the reading assignment? Why not just state your position and how it differs from the other apologists? If it is as enlightening as you claim, then it should shine forth in a few sentences, right?

[_nevazhno]

Ed has a great opportunity here. We have lots of Egyptian papyri that could be translated using his method. Forget the Joseph Smith Papyri for now. If it's a valid method -- and, per Ed, this kind of translation method was apparently well-known by the ancients -- then it should work for other ancient Egyptian papyri. Go find another ancient document and translate its secret book to us, please!

If, on the other hand, despite how well-known this method was to the ancients, it is only the Joseph Smith Papyri that require this kind of translation, then the entire hypothesis is one big heap of special pleading. Using the Book of Abraham to back out a "translation" from the JSP, which only needs to be done once, for this particular document, accomplishes nothing.

Same with you. If you understood my position, you would know that you can't produce material from the Book of Breathings and Book of the Dead that it does not contain. All of you are refuting something you don't understand. Go read it and actually refute it.

Gotcha. Special pleading it is. You have a method of producing a text from a source document that cannot be used to produce a different text from a different source document. It only exists for this one special case. How is anyone supposed to verify your theory if the only thing it can produce is the Book of Abraham from the JSP?

Look, I'm neither an Egyptologist or an ancient historian. I am an academic, but economics doesn't help much in understanding the Book of Abraham. So, like many of us here, I am unqualified to either verify or refute your theory. So I'm in a position of having to rely on experts to filter out the pseudoscience from actual science. Egyptologists have a method of translating ancient documents that appears to be reliable and consistent, and independently verifiable -- I'm comfortable relying on their interpretations of the JSP. You have a claim that fits outside the mainstream. That does not make it wrong, but it does mean I, as a non-expert, have no reason to give it any credence until you can find someone qualified to agree you're on to something. Not to simply be Kerry's parrot, but go publish something in a peer-reviewed outlet. Hell, get other apologists to at least back you up. Otherwise we'll just sit here and quote Ritner all day, because he can back up what he's saying.

All that said, I am an academic and I do understand how the process works. I understand falsifiability. I understand burden of proof. It is not on any of us to refute your theory just because you think you can back into a Book of Abraham translation. It's incumbent on you to give us a reason to give your theory any attention. Show that your theory predicts something, then show that the prediction is true. Or get a peer-reviewed publication. Get accepted to present your theory at an academic conference. Something. Anything, but whining about a bunch of assholes on a message board not giving your theory the time of day.