My pleasure. It didn't take long, though. As soon as he introduced a piece with 11 characters but only used 10 in his conclusion, it was clear something had gone wrong.
Ed has ZERO (0) credibility as a PRETEND Egyptologist want-to-be, and is a total crackpot. His looney translations have been positively debunked. Nobody is drinking his childish Cool-Aid. Ed's drink of choice is poison Kool-Aid, like a kid who won't grow up, pretending to be Abraham himself in the flesh. The Mormons will NOT drink his poisonous cocktail. His attempt to serve poison-translation beverages have been repeatedly rejected by everyone, both in and out of the church!. Hence, poor Ed, drinks alone. And he's a drunken fool. And there he lies, drunk in the ditch, passed out. Will someone please help him? God.
How sad. What a waste of a mind.
I thought his recent attack on Philo Sofee was also in very bad taste. He accused him of abandoning him to the apologists by 'throwing out both the baby and the bathwater', whatever that means.
I thought his recent attack on Philo Sofee was also in very bad taste. He accused him of abandoning him to the apologists by 'throwing out both the baby and the bathwater', whatever that means.
Religious fanatics since the dawn of time have a habit of pointing their fingers at others and threatening those who reject their religion with death and destruction, whether physical or spiritual. It's the ugly face of religion and the self-righteous pious nonsense it promotes. Goble is swallowed up in all that pride and nonsense and is drowning in Mormonism. He won't go down until he points his fingers at others and accuses everyone of apostasy. It's a spiritual murderous mindset that fanatics fall into. It's very sad. I for one would not want to be in the same room with Ed as we are not vibrating on any kind of frequency that enjoys harmony. He has a very bad spirit, mind you.
Also, I think it's obvious that Philo doesn't want to waste his time dealing with Ed's lunatic apologetics. Ed's stuff is so far out in space that he has given up reality altogether in order to defend Smith's lost cause. This business of naming Thutmose as the King's name in Facsimile No. 3 and displacing him hundreds of years from firmly dated chronology that is set in stone is Velikovsky-like insanity. Ed has no credibility. He perverts Egyptology and slams Egyptian history through his ignorance and lack of regard. He totally disrespects history as he attempts to recreate it to meet his agenda and silly ideas. If he had any kind of following I would label him as dangerous but since he just a lone wolf howling in the wind and NOBODY believes him then it's just well to let him do his thing and ignore him. Believe me, you can ignore him and you won't miss anything.
Also, I think it's obvious that Philo doesn't want to waste his time dealing with Ed's lunatic apologetics. Ed's stuff is so far out in space that he has given up reality altogether in order to defend Smith's lost cause. This business of naming Thutmose as the King's name in Facsimile No. 3 and displacing him hundreds of years from firmly dated chronology that is set in stone is Velikovsky-like insanity. Ed has no credibility. He perverts Egyptology and slams Egyptian history through his ignorance and lack of regard. He totally disrespects history as he attempts to recreate it to meet his agenda and silly ideas. If he had any kind of following I would label him as dangerous but since he just a lone wolf howling in the wind and NOBODY believes him then it's just well to let him do his thing and ignore him. Believe me, you can ignore him and you won't miss anything.
Agreed. It is an interesting object lesson, though, in what happens when a person assumes their conclusions and then feels compelled to grossly and outrageously manipulate every possible detail to maintain that. Throw in a jealously guarded veneer of science --well, scientism, really, and apparently some mental illness, and what you get is papers like the one analyzed here. It's a shame.
Agreed. It is an interesting object lesson, though, in what happens when a person assumes their conclusions and then feels compelled to grossly and outrageously manipulate every possible detail to maintain that. Throw in a jealously guarded veneer of science --well, scientism, really, and apparently some mental illness, and what you get is papers like the one analyzed here. It's a shame.
The possibility of the nine hieroglyphs in the register above Isis's head being the name "Thutmose" as Ed Goble claims is no more possible than if they bore the name "Ed Goble". You see, Ed is seeing what he wants to see because he's a loony. There is a zero chance that he is right. Those are pretty bad odds, wouldn't you say? Have you ever noticed how Ed drops these papers off in our laps and then tells us to read them with real consideration? People actually take the time to read his garbage and then tell him what they think and yet he stands behind his work even though he has NOBODY to endorse his work and NOBODY to lend any credibility to his work. You'd think a collective group of readers telling him that his work is crap would be enough for him to give it up but we aren't dealing with a normal person in this regard. I suppose he will keep writing crap but I can assure you I will not read or consider anymore of his materials. It's all crap. No more chances for him. He's toast.
I recommend you don't further subject yourself to his material. Unless of course you're looking for a good laugh and a human look into a loony mindset. Then have it! As for me, I'm done with Ed.
Also, I think it's obvious that Philo doesn't want to waste his time dealing with Ed's lunatic apologetics. Ed's stuff is so far out in space that he has given up reality altogether in order to defend Smith's lost cause. This business of naming Thutmose as the King's name in Facsimile No. 3 and displacing him hundreds of years from firmly dated chronology that is set in stone is Velikovsky-like insanity. Ed has no credibility. He perverts Egyptology and slams Egyptian history through his ignorance and lack of regard. He totally disrespects history as he attempts to recreate it to meet his agenda and silly ideas. If he had any kind of following I would label him as dangerous but since he just a lone wolf howling in the wind and NOBODY believes him then it's just well to let him do his thing and ignore him. Believe me, you can ignore him and you won't miss anything.
Agreed. It is an interesting object lesson, though, in what happens when a person assumes their conclusions and then feels compelled to grossly and outrageously manipulate every possible detail to maintain that. Throw in a jealously guarded veneer of science --well, scientism, really, and apparently some mental illness, and what you get is papers like the one analyzed here. It's a shame.
Ooooooooo, this is actually the main sub-theme of my upcoming Sunday Night Live session discussing Kevin Barney's ingenious theory on the Semitic Adaptation in his effort to save Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham! It doesn't work, of course, but the idea is just sort of dang groovy! I will be showing detailed evidences for why it doesn't work.
Ooooooooo, this is actually the main sub-theme of my upcoming Sunday Night Live session discussing Kevin Barney's ingenious theory on the Semitic Adaptation in his effort to save Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham! It doesn't work, of course, but the idea is just sort of dang groovy! I will be showing detailed evidences for why it doesn't work.
Make sure you open a new thread here at Discuss Mormonism and provide the proper LINK so Dr. Shades and everyone else can click it and watch the show. The new thread will be the OFFICIAL Kevin Barney Semitic Adaptation thread here at Discuss Mormonism -- ground zero, wherein we can drop bombs on his apologetics and blow everything up. It will be the end of Barney's wild ideas.
Barney is welcome to come join us. I'm sure that RFM would love that opportunity to question him.
Ooooooooo, this is actually the main sub-theme of my upcoming Sunday Night Live session discussing Kevin Barney's ingenious theory on the Semitic Adaptation in his effort to save Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham! It doesn't work, of course, but the idea is just sort of dang groovy! I will be showing detailed evidences for why it doesn't work.
Make sure you open a new thread here at Discuss Mormonism and provide the proper LINK so Dr. Shades and everyone else can click it and watch the show. The new thread will be the OFFICIAL Kevin Barney Semitic Adaptation thread here at Discuss Mormonism -- ground zero, wherein we can drop bombs on his apologetics and blow everything up. It will be the end of Barney's wild ideas.
Barney is welcome to come join us. I'm sure that RFM would love that opportunity to question him.
It actually isn't all that wild of an idea, it's just wrong is all. I think the theory is ingenious, which is why I want to discuss it. But, in the long run, it simply cannot work. It is, on my take of it, the best thing going, but no apologists have taken it all out to its logical conclusion based on all the evidences we possess. Once again, most unfortunately for apologists, it is a careful selection of a limited amount of evidence. I think Barney was excited to finally find a way to refute Thompson's article on the problems with the Book of Abraham from an Egyptological point of view. And... truthfully, who can blame him? Thompson is very solid! See ya on Sunday!
Agreed. It is an interesting object lesson, though, in what happens when a person assumes their conclusions and then feels compelled to grossly and outrageously manipulate every possible detail to maintain that. Throw in a jealously guarded veneer of science --well, scientism, really, and apparently some mental illness, and what you get is papers like the one analyzed here. It's a shame.
Ooooooooo, this is actually the main sub-theme of my upcoming Sunday Night Live session discussing Kevin Barney's ingenious theory on the Semitic Adaptation in his effort to save Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham! It doesn't work, of course, but the idea is just sort of dang groovy! I will be showing detailed evidences for why it doesn't work.
I am really not a podcast guy (my shortcoming, I know) but dang if you haven't piqued my interest with this topic. Be sure to drop a link, I'll be there Sunday!!
Ooooooooo, this is actually the main sub-theme of my upcoming Sunday Night Live session discussing Kevin Barney's ingenious theory on the Semitic Adaptation in his effort to save Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham! It doesn't work, of course, but the idea is just sort of dang groovy! I will be showing detailed evidences for why it doesn't work.
I am really not a podcast guy (my shortcoming, I know) but dang if you haven't piqued my interest with this topic. Be sure to drop a link, I'll be there Sunday!!
I call it podcast, but it's actually LIVE video streaming... it's like a movie, only you don't see Clint Eastwood, it's just me....Sigh........see you Sunday amigo!
