Facsimile 3 Assessed and found fraudulent

[_EdGoble]

Could you give examples of those "many other instances"?

Could you also explain how a "localized appropriation of symbols" could result in "many other instances"?

The two explanations seem mutually contradictory, do they not?

Your badgering has ended my conversation with you in particular. When you are serious, it will continue. You can take the evidence that exists, or you can leave it.

[_Themis]

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.

He is quoting you quote someone else. I don't think he is referring to you.

[_Xenophon]

Your badgering has ended my conversation with you in particular. When you are serious, it will continue. You can take the evidence that exists, or you can leave it.

If you don't want to be serious either, then you can continue on with your badgering. You can take the internal evidence from the KEP and the Facsimiles explanations, or you can leave it.

I'm not here to play your game on your terms and never have been.

I believe 3 strikes is gonna equal a "NO" to your example requests, Lemmie. Good on you for sticking to him though.

[_Lemmie]

Go find an Egyptian grammar at any University and you will see tables showing which hieratics go with which hieroglyphics. You are confusing things. Egyptian hieroglyphics are all pictures and are art just by nature.

ok. Then the tables will show that you are matching up hieratics with hieroglyphics, according to established patterns. Would that be a correct assessment?

If so, then there must be other instances where your technique is used. Can you show examples?

I'm not here to play your game on your terms and never have been.

Mr. Goble, you are here presenting an hypothesis and I am treating you with the same seriousness I would treat any academic presentation.

If I asked an academic presenter the above question and they responded as you have, the presentation would be over and their paper would be disregarded by all. Please get over this thin skin you have and understand, in order to present your idea, you need to answer questions. Even if it is as simple as "see page 27, I have listed 5 examples," that would suffice.

[Guest]

but the Book of Abraham looks like legit inspired pseudepigrapha at the least and new God-breathed scripture at the most.

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.

The Gospels say by whom they are written but I don't think anybody really believes that who follows New Testament history. I can't defend the BoF because I've never attempted to wade into its complexities, so don't look to me for a defense or a statement of the Church's position. I read it for its canonical status. Which, by the way, describes just about all of the New Testament.

[_Yahoo Bot]

He is quoting you quote someone else. I don't think he is referring to you.

Right. My main criticism of the Backyard Professor is that he likes to collect clippings from sources that he finds, arranges them in order, and cites and quotes them authoritatively. Without any kind of disbelief or critique. So long as it is supportive. It could be a quote from a blog enthusiastic about the Illuminati critical of the Book of Abraham.

[_Lemmie]

Could you give examples of those "many other instances"?

Could you also explain how a "localized appropriation of symbols" could result in "many other instances"?

The two explanations seem mutually contradictory, do they not?

Your badgering has ended my conversation with you in particular. When you are serious, it will continue. You can take the evidence that exists, or you can leave it.

What you call badgering is the simple Q & A that would follow any academic or research presentation. Telling a fellow researcher to take your evidence as is does not constitute a valid presentation technique. You leave readers with no option but to disregard your findings if you are so unwilling to support them.

[_Themis]

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.

I have read some of your blog, but it didn't make sense. You have zero evidence any re-purposing is going on, and will always have zero evidence. Sure someone could have added a dual meaning to each hieroglyph, but why? No one would be able to ever read it, and only God would know your second meaning. The papyri was made for a dead person. It was buried with him, which means no real intent to be read by humans eyes again. Your hypothesis would also have to have another person who created the other papyri for the book of Joseph since they date to different times. Making a dual meaning in your head doesn't really mean much. No one knows but God. It's no different then if I added who paragraph of text to each word of some short story. It makes no sense. I would just write one in the language of the day so that people could read it.

[_Lemmie]

Your badgering has ended my conversation with you in particular. When you are serious, it will continue. You can take the evidence that exists, or you can leave it.

If you don't want to be serious either, then you can continue on with your badgering. You can take the internal evidence from the KEP and the Facsimiles explanations, or you can leave it.

I'm not here to play your game on your terms and never have been.

I believe 3 strikes is gonna equal a "NO" to your example requests, Lemmie. Good on you for sticking to him though.

Hey, he asked to be taken seriously. Honestly, though, I'm being mild. I've heard far more confrontational questions asked of Nobel prize winners--nobody takes offense though, because it's the material being debated, not the person. And if it's your paper, you would want the tough questions to be asked. How else do you strengthen your position or improve your research process?

[_EdGoble]

What you call badgering is the simple Q & A that would follow any academic or research presentation. Telling a fellow researcher to take your evidence as is does not constitute a valid presentation technique. You leave readers with no option but to disregard your findings if you are so unwilling to support them.

If you approached Champollion and told him that you would not accept any of his findings unless he could produce another Rosetta stone, that would not be considered rational, as there is no other Rosetta stone to speak of. And so, neither is this rational or called for. And the fact that you couch your badgering in these terms and hide them as if you are an academic asking me for more evidence is not a case for academic dismissal for lack of evidence, but is actually just artful dodging from where the evidence actually lies, and a hidden and artful ad-hominem in one fell swoop. Sorry. This is nothing of the sort of what you claim it to be.