Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

[_Chap]

Smith himself stated that the papyri were written by the hand of Abraham. ... Smith lied.

(Chuckles condescendingly).

Like all anti-Mormons, you are so out of date and literal-minded! So very Bible-belt.

'Smith', 'written', 'hand', Abraham', 'lied' - even 'himself' - are all deeply polysemic and paradigm contextual expressions. And anyhow they all meant different things in early 19th century frontier America. And as for the parallels in early photo-Elamic? Don't get me started on that!

Anyhow, isn't it time for you to get to your snake-handling session with the other evangelical rednecks?

[_Shulem]

How so, when Smith himself stated that the papyri were written by the hand of Abraham. You have to reject Smith's assertions, witnessed by many, to get your conclusion that it is pseudepigrapha. We know it is, (inspired is in the eye of the beholder) but that is NOT what Smith said it was. That is the big problem here and the ONLY thing that matters. Smith lied.

Bingo!

It all comes down to whether Joseph Smith was telling the truth or not and whether the inspiration of the imaginary holy ghost working his mojo upon Joseph and his followers was based on truth or fantasy. It has been positively shown (by the evidence and testimony) that Joseph Smith was deceiving his people and the Mormons feigned claim to things that were false even though their imaginary friend (holy ghost) was telling them it was true.

Joseph Smith was like Paul H. Dunn – lying to his flock and the flock believed the lies and did so under the inspiration of their imaginary friend, the holy ghost.

That is the bottom line, my friends. All this apologetic nonsense produced by Gobble and others is nothing but smoke and mirrors in a pond of red fish. It means nothing. It's their only way to continue to deny the truth and hold on to their vested testimonies in which they have put so much stock. It's all about what if this or what if that? Could be this or could be that!

Mormon apologetics is nothing but rabbit holes wherein the faithful wonder about in the dark hoping and groping for things that could never be. They deny reality and in their fear, refuse to face the truth. It is so sad.

[Guest]

No, they are not. As Eric Gill has so perfectly stated: ‘Letters are things, not pictures of things’ You are simply a confused buffoon, who wants them to be what YOU want them to be.

They are pictures of things. Their usage makes them representations of acrophonics in the case of an alphabet. It doesn't change their nature. The Proto-Sinaitic Alphabet, the oldest alphabet was the same. Little pictures. Idiot. Yet, representations of sounds, because of the acrophonic principle. Idiot.

No they are not "versions", they are representations of ideas.

Of course they are representations of ideas. Because they were re-used to represent things associated with the pictures of the things that they were used to represent. And when they were used to represent sounds in Egyptian, they were used as puns, idiot. And when they were re-used in the alphabet, they were re-used as acrophonics. It doesn't stop them from being pictures.

The result is always the same. It is MADE to be understood. In your invented fantasy, you come up with an arbitrary text that no one but you can fathom. You can't show ONE example of when this was ever done before, how it was done, or who invented it. You are just a loon who doesn't understand language development, or anything related to it.

Actually its not. Nobody made anything up. Somebody used these things to map to text. And it is ancient.

You are entirely taking what I said out of context, and you don't genuinely want to understand any point I make, and you just want to make light of everything I have produced, and take my name in vain. While hieratics are a parallel development as cursive versions of Egyptian, and not always diretly derived from hieroglyphics, each and every hieratic does indeed map to a hieroglyphic.

[Guest]

Ed, I am not understanding your point here when you say the Hebrew alphabet was used in an art-form manner in the Psalms, and then in your second quote, abstractly as an acrostic.

It's my understanding that in the acrostics, the letters of the alphabet represented themselves, and had the same meaning whether they were found at the beginning, as part of the acrostic, or anywhere else in the passage. This is definitely not an abstract use, so how are you using it to explain why the SenSen characters would be used abstractly?

If your argument regarding being an "art-form" is that it is an example of iconotropy, then it should be reproducible and testable, as my understanding of iconotropy is that it defines how a culture might appropriate meanings of another culture's symbols, not a one-off, non-reproducible, single-use example which is never replicated or re-used.

Your use of the terms "art-form" and "abstract" is confusing, given your acrostic example; could you clarify your meanings?

When something is used art, it is abstract, in that it is not literally what it usually is.
The iconotropy in what Joseph Smith produced is reproducible, for example, where he consistently used Osiris, over and over again, as a symbol for Abraham.

[_EdGoble]

I suspect you are right, and I was waiting to see if he would discuss it. He has no coherent theory on how this is supposed to make sense. All we have is the person who made the papyri assigned like a paragraph of text to each Egyptian hieroglyph. Now you would likely see the same hieroglyph in the papyri being repeated similar as we do with words in English, but now we have the same hieroglyph with a whole different set of text assigned to it. It makes no sense to do this, and he provides zero evidence it is happening.

Sure someone could re-purpose pictures to mean something different, but not all the text that goes with it. They would use the written language(Egyptain) they already know to tell their Abraham story, so you would have an Abraham story that Egyptology could translate from the text, with pictures they would usually translate differently, but with the text they would have to translate the pictures based on the accompanying text. They actually do this as pictures can change meaning over time, or how a different person may want to use the picture. We see text with all three facsimiles giving us the story of what is going on, although in this case it would not have been needed, but makes it perfectly clear what is going on in the facsimiles. So if this person was to re-purpose facsimile 3 into the Abraham story, they wouldn't have to change the picture, but they would need to put in the proper text above their heads to identify, which we see they don't.

They didn't have to, because they were repurposing all of the symbols in the document, including little pictures above the hand, etc.

[_EdGoble]

The author of the sensen papyrus would have buried it shortly after written, so there is no one else to re-purpose it's meaning.

This is another caricature of my claim, as are all of your strawmen trying to misrepresent my claims.
There is a whole class of documents called Sensen, any one of them, not just this one, could be used in this fashion.

[_EdGoble]

Not that much else makes sense, but I think Ed may be referring to the text commonly found on breathing permits, not this specific piece of papyrus. If that is correct he should be able to take other similar breathing permits and show how his cipher (?) can also result in a Book of Abraham.

He can't (how convenient) because he assigns arbitrary "values" to the characters/pictures/whatever. There would be no formula/cipher. That's why he can claim that he isn't trying to prove that the Book of Abraham came from the papyri. Yet, he says that somehow they are "linked" to "concepts" found in the Book of Abraham. So all his posturing about them not being linked is just BS.

If you actually attempted to look at my research on the blog and actually try to refute the actual work there, then you would be making your case. All you have here are just words, not actual attempts to rebut where I'm actually showing what I claim is happening.

[Guest]

Actually its not, retard. Nobody made anything up. Somebody used these things to map to text, idiot. And it is ancient.

While hieratics are a parallel development as cursive versions of Egyptian, and not always derived from hieroglyphics, each and every hieratic does indeed map to a hieroglyphic. Idiot.

EdGoble,

The only retarded idiot I see on this thread is an individual who believes that a largely plagiarized, and otherwise very poorly done pseudepigraphical (to be extremely kind) work of ridiculous fiction, produced by a well proven serially adulterous sexual predator and conman, is a suitable basis for one's entire worldview.

And that someone would be you. You clearly have no clue as to how childish, naïve, and willfully ignorant you appear to rational adults.

You should really get a life.

[Guest]

As I have said before, he is not critical of the sources he finds favorable. I used to do that as a college freshman.

I am critical of all kinds of apologetic materials. All you have to do is read the blog, and you would know that.

[_EdGoble]

Actually its not, r*****. Nobody made anything up. Somebody used these things to map to text, idiot. And it is ancient.

While hieratics are a parallel development as cursive versions of Egyptian, and not always derived from hieroglyphics, each and every hieratic does indeed map to a hieroglyphic. Idiot.

EdGoble,

The only r******* idiot I see on this thread is an individual who believes that a largely plagiarized, and otherwise very poorly done pseudepigraphical (to be extremely kind) work of ridiculous fiction, produced by a well proven serially adulterous sexual predator and conman, is a suitable basis for one's entire worldview.

And that someone would be you. You clearly have no clue as to how childish, naïve, and willfully ignorant you appear to rational adults.

You should really get a life.

Oh, ok. Here we go again. Another person that thinks that only the critics are rational and can't give other rational individuals enough credit that they are serious thinkers like the rest of humanity trying to seriously get down to the bottom of what is going on. You can either get serious about this conversation with someone else that is serious, or you can butt out. The same goes with the rest of you. You can either get serious here, and stop your stupidity, or you can butt out.