tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post3875015226854931496..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Kirtland's Rosetta Stone? The Importance of Word Order in the "Egyptian" of the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian LanguageJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-993309507297625222019-07-29T06:26:42.399-05:002019-07-29T06:26:42.399-05:00Just reading through Dan’s responses. The conversa...Just reading through Dan’s responses. The conversation has moved on to the next blog but looks like I’ll have to return to this one 😊JoePeacemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515894816932894540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2558848159615276032019-07-24T16:04:02.873-05:002019-07-24T16:04:02.873-05:00“"In his days" is just one more detail t...“"In his days" is just one more detail that Joseph would not have been able to fabricate, even if he had years to do it, rather than days or weeks.”<br /><br />Too bad it was mistakenly spoken. However, Joe, it is a phrase from both the BofM and Bible. So I’m confused why you find it significant. <br /><br />“The BofA shows a remarkable knowledge of antiquity, the Hebrew and symbolism is well beyond JS:”<br /><br />You can’t know that. It’s a subjective judgment on your part. Plus you are partly basing it on the apologists’ ability to find significance that may not have even been intended. <br /><br />“The four gods (with obvious roots in Abraham’s culture-e.g. The four gods of the 4 directions and 4 colors”<br /><br />This does not appear in the BofA, but in JS’s interpretations of the facsimiles. More likely JS was influenced by his Bible studies, which were quite extensive by 1842. Specifically, his interpretation here was inspired by the current understand of the angels with four faces mentioned in Ezekiel and Book of Revelation. <br /><br />“Kolob, the heart of Heaven.”<br /> <br />Certainly you know Kolob appears in the group of fifteen stars and only became prominent when it was added by WP and JS to the Alphabets and GAEL. It may or may not be related to Hebrew, but you are cherry picking that many names that appear at the end of the GAEL.<br /><br />“Motions measured in cubits from earth at the center (for them, and us, not JS).”<br /> <br />The earth is not the center of Abrahamic cosmology, which I dealt with in my 5th video.<br /><br />‘The plain of Olishem (as you know, likely Aram-Naharaim’s Ulisem), near the primordial hill, offering sacrifices.”<br /><br />Olishem is also dealt with in my last video.<br /><br />“Pharaoh is the crocodile tree at the center of these primordial sky waters, reflected on earth (as with the Maya and Baal worship, and the BofM. Again, as usual, Joseph could not have known).”<br /><br />Pharaoh’s god being the crocodile was mentioned by Adam Clark, which I mentioned in one of my videos.<br /><br />“and Joseph had yet to meet Seixas and to crack open a Hebrew book to begin studying the alphabet. The GAEL, with it’s more simple Hebrew letters and meanings, was beyond President Smith, but not Phelps.”<br /><br />You can’t say this. You don’t know what he knew and did not know. He spent three years working through the Bible with Rigdon, an excellent scholar of the Bible. They were learning out of the best books, and holding regular theological classes in the school of the prophets and otherwise. Such a pronouncement is purely subjective. <br /><br /><br />Dan Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861816737615959061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-20353580871010529162019-07-24T14:16:39.824-05:002019-07-24T14:16:39.824-05:00JoePeaceman: “But, quickly again (quickly for slow...JoePeaceman: “But, quickly again (quickly for slow Jo :)), please remember that the moment we close our minds, and refuse to learn, is the moment we lose track of truth. I’ve spent hours watching your videos, and I’ve learned from you. I began with a mind open to the evidence. I was willing to go either way. My conclusions are based on careful consideration. And, my friend, we've all discovered some things together. Keys to help us move forward. Yet, it seems that you’re still wrestling, and talking in confused circles.”<br /><br />Joe, the personal stuff doesn’t matter to me. I don’t care if your mind is open or closed. I only look at evidence and arguments. <br /><br />May I suggest that you think I’m arguing in circles because you are wrestling with my evidence and arguments. The “confused circles” you speak of were first created by the apologists’ invention of nonexistent documents and wild incoherent half-baked theories. However, I must question your judgment here because you didn’t see that in proposing Bethka in the fifth degree was moved several lines up to make it conform to the translation of Abr. 1:2 wasn’t a problem for your theory. You probably still think it supports it and that I’m arguing in circles. To me, the implication of your discussion of Bethka was so obvious that I was stunned that you didn’t see it, even after I explained it. I’m somewhat pessimistic about future discussions. <br /><br />You still proclaim the BofA came first, but to me you lost that debate. <br /><br />“I’d say the scholar in you can’t deny the evidence that at least some of the GAEL had to be based on and aligned to the BofA.”<br /><br />I only said that part of the GAEL deals with Abraham, not that it came after the BofA. <br /><br />“which luckily ended up making a lot of sense in the context of ancient Abrahamic lore”<br /><br />Of course I don’t believe that the case, but why bring it in unless you think you are losing? It’s not relevant to our discussion.<br /><br />“except for the parts about Noah blessing Pharaoh”<br /><br />As I explained, this part was about the owners of the scrolls, not about Abraham. Note that nothing is said about Abraham in them, and in the context of the BofA, they appear as interpolations added to Abraham for explanation. I imagine some future apologists arguing just that. <br /><br />“(secretly crammed into his hat so WP would’t see)”<br /><br />Makes no sense but apparently an attempt to pursue a well-worn apologetic path. <br /><br />“Part 1 “...is based on the translation of Katumin’s epitaph”; so Katumin was translated first, and Part 1 created “to” it, even though much of the rest of it has nothing to do with Katumin; and on and on…..”<br /><br />JS is mixing things, just as he does in Part 2, but more has to do with Katumin than you think. <br /><br />It doesn't need to work every which way---the simplest solution is that the GAEL and Alphabets may be, in part, "...based on the translation of Katumin", a pure language, and so on, AND almost certainly based, in part, on the BofA.”<br /><br />You haven’t established direction with the BofA. I have. That’s why the discussion of the different parts. It shows how the definitions of each character were developed, from simple to more complex and then to text. You have it backwards. Makes no sense. <br /><br />Dan Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861816737615959061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-2669212024576940172019-07-24T12:33:35.603-05:002019-07-24T12:33:35.603-05:00Dan: "This is completely wrong. While it does...Dan: "This is completely wrong. While it doesn’t matter if WWP wrote Abr. 1:1-3 before or after he wrote the first part of the bound Grammar, it appears a stronger case can be made for the Grammar coming first."<br /><br />Jonathan: “The second sentence is perfectly fine, but the first sentence is striking for its rhetorical overreach. Maybe you do make the stronger case, but being able to make the stronger case doesn't extend to the claim that the case opposing yours is completely wrong.”<br /><br />Nope. I can say that a theory is completely wrong and that my theory is stronger. No contradiction there. The theory that I’m pronouncing wrong isn’t the only one that can even be made for that side of the argument. But even if I were engaging in “rhetorical overreach,” the only reason to point (especially without substantive comment) that out is ad hominem. <br />Dan Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861816737615959061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-85217382758394916962019-07-24T09:14:15.440-05:002019-07-24T09:14:15.440-05:00The best chuckle is Jonathan's insistence he e...The best chuckle is Jonathan's insistence he engaged in a "logical critique", while he attempts to pass his emotions off as thought and an argument. Even better is how Jonathan suggests that hoof-beats means centaur could be walking by, and no one can say with certainty they are not, falsely insisting the topic at hand is mythology not historical documents. Jonathan's thinks repeating what has been exposed to be silly, makes it not silly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1476914664943277362019-07-24T00:47:49.688-05:002019-07-24T00:47:49.688-05:00Dan,💖❤ one more time and then on to the next Abr... <br />Dan,💖❤ one more time and then on to the next <b>Abr. 1:26 (speaking of the ancient context of the BofA).</b> <br />Through several previous posts Jeff has shown us that the “twin” manuscripts probably (evidently a probability of about 95% certainty :)) do not represent Joseph’s original dictation, but were visually or verbally copied from that original. It seems that your best arguments against this are founded on assuming JS was the only one who would try to translate, edit, seek gifts or pure language, etc., and your videos are centered on this idea, even though you know it contradicts the historical record. <br />For example, as you know, it was “not a hard thing for JS to..” quickly translate the BofM, miraculously, yet casually weaving in wonderful, precise, details about the ancient ME and Americas, which he couldn’t have known. <br /><br />I’m now aware that JS discouraged grammatical corrections by the Grandin Printers. However, while preparing the Printers’ Manuscript, Cowdery edited the original text in ways that made it easier to read, but sometimes lost the ancient meaning. This, and other evidence, indicates that President Smith may have been even less likely to edit that other leaders, who felt authorized to do so. <br /><br />I agree with you, that the “kinds of changes” matter. And, while Abr. 1:26 is easier to read as edited in the twin manuscripts, it may have lost some of the meaning of the original. <br /><br />As I explained, this reading shows they were copying and helps clarify: “Now the <first> government of Egypt, was established by Pharaoh the eldest son of Egyptes the daughter of Ham...which was Patriarchal. Pharaoh being a righteous man...seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generation in the days of the first Patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam. And also Noah his father. For in his days HE blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and of... wisdom...Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah through Ham: Therefore, my father was led away by their idolatry.” <br />Yes, Pharaoh was blessed by Noah while Noah was still alive. He was righteous, and of Royal lineage (not "regular" :)...can you still imagine Joseph dictating that?) through Ham, the first born. They had some legitimate claims, which led Terah away, but the right of the fathers was given to Shem, and Abraham was seeking that, so that his children in all nations of the earth, would eventually be able to receive it. That was extreme in the 19thC. <br />"In his days" is just one more detail that Joseph would not have been able to fabricate, even if he had years to do it, rather than days or weeks. <b> The BofA shows a remarkable knowledge of antiquity</b>, the Hebrew and symbolism is well beyond JS: The four gods (with obvious roots in Abraham’s culture-e.g. The four gods of the 4 directions and 4 colors (Libnah=white, interestingly), four circumpolar stars (turning every way around the sides of the North) or earth, moon, sun, sky, etc The nearby throne. Kolob, the heart of Heaven. Motions measured in cubits from earth at the center (for them, and us, not JS). The plain of Olishem (as you know, likely Aram-Naharaim’s Ulisem), near the primordial hill, offering sacrifices. Pharaoh is the crocodile tree at the center of these primordial sky waters, reflected on earth (as with the Maya and Baal worship, and the BofM. Again, as usual, Joseph could not have known). It goes on and on, “and <b>Joseph had yet to meet Seixas and to crack open a Hebrew book to begin studying the alphabet.</b> The <b>GAEL, with it’s more simple Hebrew letters and meanings, was beyond President Smith, but not Phelps.</b> <br /><br /><br />JoePeacemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515894816932894540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-26531541492216121572019-07-24T00:44:30.329-05:002019-07-24T00:44:30.329-05:00Exactly, Anon @10:57. It's amazing he equates ...Exactly, Anon @10:57. It's amazing he equates anonymity with Kafkaesque lunacy and then goes on to trip over his own bushel basket of logical fallacies.<br />It's interesting to do an informal survey of comments from around 10 years ago on this site and see how things have devolved as the blogernacle has collapsed. The dregs have settled to the bottom and they're all too happy to quibble over minutiae with each other, to an audience of whatever talkative rabble is left to obsess over the scraps of this fruitless endeavor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-62482444223299615212019-07-23T22:57:49.285-05:002019-07-23T22:57:49.285-05:00Awesome, Jonathan is bothered by Dan's confide...Awesome, Jonathan is bothered by Dan's confidence, but unfazed by Joe. Jeff has been reduced to encouraging those two?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67560835154967396462019-07-23T22:56:40.383-05:002019-07-23T22:56:40.383-05:00Huh. So I have an anonymous poster talking with a...Huh. So I have an anonymous poster talking with another anonymous poster about how a logical critique is thinly veiled ad hominem and (within the same paragraph, for Pete's sake) then complains about my self-righteousness in a clear ad hominem attack. Little did Kafka know that his great failure was a deficiency in imagination. I'm amazed at what passes for thought in the world today...<br /><br />@Dan:<br /><br />I don't believe that it is quibbling. The reason for that is, as I have said, the application of Occam's Razor does not lead to the correct answer in every case (if you hear hoof-beats, then horses are the way to bet -- but even then it is sometimes zebras). When you are talking religion and supernatural events, then you are by definition dealing with improbabilities. So maintaining that distinction is of some significance. Now I don't render an opinion as to which is more probable, but I think it is important not to go beyond where your argument can take you. So while I see where you are coming from with the quibbling objection, I don't agree with it.<br /><br />"Nothing wrong with saying my reconstruction is superior; that’s what we are trying to determine."<br /><br />Nope, not a thing wrong with that.<br /><br />"Where have I said my theory or reconstruction is absolutely right?"<br /><br />The one that leaps to mind is your sentence:<br /><br />"This is completely wrong. While it doesn’t matter if WWP wrote Abr. 1:1-3 before or after he wrote the first part of the bound Grammar, it appears a stronger case can be made for the Grammar coming first."<br /><br />The second sentence is perfectly fine, but the first sentence is striking for its rhetorical overreach. Maybe you do make the stronger case, but being able to make the stronger case doesn't extend to the claim that the case opposing yours is completely wrong.<br /><br />In any event, this dead horse is sufficiently beaten from my point of view. But I did have a chuckle (though not a nervous one) at Anonymous 1 (or was it Anonymous 2) with his quote:<br /><br />"I imagine Jonathan's retort to such double standards will be more nervous chuckles?"<br /><br />On the contrary, differing standards are entirely appropriate. Me knowing something is quite different than me being capable of proving something logically, and a sound argument is not always true (and a deficient argument not always untrue -- a point I conceded when I recognized Dan could, in the end, be correct). And, as much as I absolutely love reason and logic (and I think they can get us 95% of the way we need to get to), a man with experience is never at the mercy of a man with an argument.Jonathan A. Cavenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04785951085433731808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-59686088608667806972019-07-22T22:32:05.404-05:002019-07-22T22:32:05.404-05:00Dan,❤💖 I appreciate your thoughtful replies. I...<br /> <br />Dan,❤💖 I appreciate your thoughtful replies. I'm trying to spend some time with my family before some travel. I will return for an in depth analysis. But, quickly again (quickly for slow Jo :)), please remember that the moment we close our minds, and refuse to learn, is the moment we lose track of truth. I’ve spent hours watching your videos, and I’ve learned from you. I began with a mind open to the evidence. I was willing to go either way. My conclusions are based on careful consideration. And, my friend, we've all discovered some things together. Keys to help us move forward. Yet, it seems that you’re still wrestling, and talking in confused circles. <br /><br />We (you, Jeff, and I) agree that there is more going on with the KEP than a simple alignment to the BofA. I plan to discuss that soon. But, the facts show that, at the very least, Abr. 1:1-3 came before the GAEL. As we move on, we will see that more than that came first. <br /><br />You Say: “the Alphabets and bound Grammar didn’t come from the BofA, <b>except for a small part on grammar in the GAEL which we have been discussing.</b>” This is important for you. If psychoanalysis is allowed (in Jeff's general direction...and mine), I’d say the scholar in you can’t deny the evidence that at least <b>some </b> of the GAEL had to be based on and aligned to the BofA. They had Joseph to translate the BofA, the GAEL obviously has a more general purpose. But, GAEL pages 1 and 2 clearly came after GAEL pages 22-3, as you acknowledge in your videos. But, to avoid digression, we'll discuss that later. <br /> <br />On the other hand, it may be that the critical YouTube Rock star within you still can’t let go of the illogical assertion that they created some of the GAEL from Abr. 1 (which obviously already existed), BUT then they created more of the BofA from the GAEL, but not exactly from it because Joseph dictated the BofA, and the GAEL isn’t really related, except it is, but the dictation was simply influenced by random GAEL words and order which luckily ended up making a lot of sense in the context of ancient Abrahamic lore, which JS got from researching unavailable sources while working on making up the GAEL so more of the BofA could be influenced by it, but not the rest, because only some of the parts after the 5th degree are related, or not, which proves it is and isn't, so ”The rest of the GAEL has nothing to do with Abraham and so any argument about reverse engineering is pure fantasy.” except for the parts about Noah blessing Pharaoh, etc. etc. etc. (again, apparently Joseph, while dictating the BofA, searched the entire corpus (secretly crammed into his hat so WP would’t see) and picked out random phrases to create a coherent ancient text); but, see, some parts are based on other translations so this proves that page 2 wasn’t- Part 1 <b>“...is based on the translation of Katumin’s epitaph”; so Katumin was translated first, and Part 1 created “to” it, even though much of the rest of it has nothing to do with Katumin; and on and on…..</b> It doesn't need to work every which way---the simplest solution is that the GAEL and Alphabets may be, in part, "...based on the translation of Katumin", a pure language, and so on, AND almost certainly based, in part, on the BofA. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Dan, we love you, I'm hoping we can discuss the missing papyrus theory and etc. SOOOON....we can also solve the meaning of the KEP but, now that we know the BofA came first, it would be nice to move on. JoePeacemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515894816932894540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-24989841702989045302019-07-22T18:25:51.869-05:002019-07-22T18:25:51.869-05:00Jonathan's ad hominem is not so thinly veiled....Jonathan's ad hominem is not so thinly veiled. Though he accuses others of ad hominem, it would be difficult for any commentary about Jonathan to be so, for Jonathan has not presented any clear argument, he has only expressed a distaste for Dan. I would speculate Jonathan's true motive for commenting is Dan's ability to humble Jonathan's sacred cow, Jeff.<br /><br />I doubt we will ever see Jonathan critique the LDS faith the same way for its use of such strong language and certainty in its conclusions. After all, it is probably the worse religion for replacing "I have faith" with "I know".<br /><br />I imagine Jonathan's retort to such double standards will be more nervous chuckles?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-35546127157327903392019-07-22T00:13:17.935-05:002019-07-22T00:13:17.935-05:00Jonathan,
You can play logic games all you want b...Jonathan,<br /><br />You can play logic games all you want but as you astutely pointed out, Dan’s certainty “doesn't make [him] wrong, of course.”<br /><br />The fact that “Dan is using inductive logic;<br />Therefore Dan can only conclude probabilities,” is also a true statement, and I’m sure one he would agree with. Clearly however, his theory is more likely because, as he has shown, it takes less suspension of disbelief to make it fit with the known history. <br /><br />You assert that “Dan argument is claiming certainty.” From what I have read of Dan’s arguments, the only certainty he is claiming is the superiority of his theory over Jeff’s—not that the events necessarily happened as his theory postulates. Dan’s certainty is derived from Jeff’s difficulty in making his own theory fit the historical record. <br /><br />Your attack on the logic of his argument then ends up being simply a veiled ad hominem. Ultimately you “have the measure of [Dan] at this point,” and, by your tone, he obviously doesn’t measure up. You should save your self-righteousness for Sacrament Meeting. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86851306866248309702019-07-21T20:53:57.687-05:002019-07-21T20:53:57.687-05:00Jonathan A. Cavender: You are only quibbling about...Jonathan A. Cavender: You are only quibbling about my use of strong language. Look of quibbling as a point of logic and you will see that you are wasting our time. Look at the list you so kindly compiled and you will see that I am certain that the apologists’ theories are wrong. They can’t even meet the requirements for a strong inductive argument. They deal in invented and far fetch scenarios, ad hoc hypotheses, and non-sequiters. Nothing wrong with saying my reconstruction is superior; that’s what we are trying to determine. Where have I said my theory or reconstruction is absolutely right? Dan Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861816737615959061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-50139424291527339522019-07-21T20:32:21.078-05:002019-07-21T20:32:21.078-05:00JoePeaceman: “When you open your heart and mind- a...JoePeaceman: “When you open your heart and mind- a simple glance at the BofA compared to the GAEL, the logic of Bethka with BofA first, etc. etc. etc. will help you see that this is a false statement, as are many other things that you assume and claim in your videos. The Alphabets and Grammar clearly have something to do with the BofA.”<br /><br />Parts 1 and 2 of the GAEL come from parts 1 and 2 of the Alphabets. The Alphabets are the first degree. This material was transferred to the GAEL and expanded into five degrees. If you just take time and look at the characters in the margins of both documents as well as the translation manuscripts, you will be able to see JS’s method. They don’t only deal with Egyptian. The Egyptian is mixed with the pure or Adamic language as well as invented characters. Part 1 deals with Katumin and her parents, not the BofA. It is based on the translation of Katumin’s epitaph in the Valuable Discovery notebooks, which are copies from the Amenhotep Book of the Dead, not Hor’s Book of Breathings, which JS identified as the record of Abraham. <br /><br />Part 2 deals with the pure language. Some of the characters are identical to WWP’s copy of the pure language. This is followed by characters taken from column 3 flanking Fac. 1, mixed with derivative invented characters. This material expands the themes of the pure language and becomes the discussion of Kolob and Egyptian cosmology in the GAEL. Hence, this material did not come from Fac. 2 in 1835, but from the columns on JSP I. Again, part 2 has nothing to do with the BofA. <br /><br />I hope you get this now. This totally demolishes any reverse translation theory and makes it unnecessary to postulate JS translated the BofA in July 1835. Please feel free to apply that open heart and mind you talk about to what I’m presenting. <br /><br />Dan Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861816737615959061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-44938922026460799262019-07-21T20:01:37.926-05:002019-07-21T20:01:37.926-05:00JoePeaceman: I already responded to Abr. 1:26. So ...JoePeaceman: I already responded to Abr. 1:26. So if I understand you, you are attempting another plausible reconstruction of how the inline correction occurred based on the assumption of a preexisting text. I hope you realize that plausible means nothing in scholarship. You must make a probable case to be taken seriously. At any rate, your theory is that “For in his days” should not have been canceled because the next word was really “he” and not “who”. Very clever, but we are not playing who can be the most clever in getting out of problems game. We are playing the most probable scenario game. After three of these kinds of escapes in a short text, it gets a little eye rolling. All your key evidence is missing. You can’t manufacture it out of your imagination; you need a reason other than it keeps your theory from being rejected. <br /><br />A more likely scenario is that JS drew on the choppy definitions in the Grammar to create the text at Abr. 1:26 and i the process of smoothing out the language changed his mind about the wording. Compare the two:<br /><br />“...seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generation in the days of the first Patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam. And also Noah his father. For in his days who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and of with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the priesthood...notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah through Ham: Therefore, my father was led away by their idolatry” (Abr. 1:26)<br /><br />“Zub Zool eh: In the days of the first patrarch of patriarchs In the reign of Adam; in the days of the first patriarchs; in the days of Noah; in the blessings of Noah; in the blessings of the children of Noah; in the first blessings of men; in the first blessings of the church:” (GAEL, 6)<br /><br />Note that the GAEL definition has more elements than what JS used, which is difficult to explain if the definition was created from Abraham. The character in the margin of the translation manuscripts was partly composed from the Zub Zool eh character that appears not only in the GAEL but also part 1 of the Alphabets. It is an invented character and in the translation manuscripts corresponds to the hole in the Breathing Permit. The definition evolves in meaning through the Alphabets, through each degree of the GAEL, the fifth being the most elaborate and what more closely resembles the final text in the translation manuscripts. In the Alphabets, it is simply defined as “in the begining of the E[a]rth Creation.” Again, this is difficult to explain as coming from Abraham. Then in the first degree of the GAEL it is the same; not much different in the second; in the third it is expanded to include springs, birds, trees, etc.; in the fourth, “The first inhabitenits: Eden > the first generations; in the first church”; and finally, as you see above. The trajectory of development is clear. <br /><br />The verses dealing with the patriarchal priesthood, descendants of Ham, Egypt being discovered while it was still under water, etc., come from part 1 of the Alphabets, which was about the identities of the mummies princess Katumin, her father King Onitas, and her mother. JS decided to use that material in the BofA. <br />Dan Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861816737615959061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-19248877935646760552019-07-21T19:56:35.853-05:002019-07-21T19:56:35.853-05:00Dan's confidence makes Jonathan confident that...Dan's confidence makes Jonathan confident that Dan is wrong. Somebody somewhere may have mis-classified a butterfly a bird, so Jonathan must be right ... Yes, quite the chuckle and Jonathan is clearly not being a troll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-67126541072274899752019-07-21T16:50:21.687-05:002019-07-21T16:50:21.687-05:00Jeff: “errors in creating lists can happen for man...Jeff: “errors in creating lists can happen for many reasons.”<br /><br />I believe you are talking about Bethka being left out of the first four degrees and later inserted. Whatever reason you come up with doesn’t matter. The fact is they were left out, which causes a problem for the way JoePeaceman wants to use it as evidence. <br /><br />Note carefully. They were not inserted until after Bethka was moved in the fifth degree. If you are going to argue that Bethka in the fifth degree was moved so that it would align with Abr. 1:1-2, Bethka has to actually be there before the translation. The fact that it was moved makes it entirely possible for it to have been done after the translation. In other words, for JoePeaceman to argue that WWP was following Abr. 1:1-2, it would have to have been done correctly when the GAEL was first written. Any changes after that nullifies the evidence. <br /><br />My explanation is that only in the fifth degree is the reed character dissected into parts and each part given a meaning based on the Alphabets, although in the Alphabets the characters such as Bethka and Zub Zool oan had entirely different contexts. This is where Bethka showed up and why it didn’t before, which necessitated its being inserted in the first four degrees.<br /><br />“order mattered”<br /><br />Maybe, but the order came too late to use it as JoePeaceman has. This is a simple matter of logic and chronology. Timing matters as well.<br /><br />“the GAEL came after at least a portion of the translation”<br /><br />I don’t think that case can be made for even this portion of the translation (Abr. 1:1-3), but even so it doesn’t matter because it is just this portion and not the entire BofA. The apologetic argument has been that the Alphabets and bound Grammar were produced by reverse engineering the BofA. That can’t be sustained since besides the small part we are discussing in the GAEL, these Egyptian language texts have nothing to do with the BofA. <br /><br />There is therefore no reason to struggle to maintain an Abraham-first model. <br /><br /><br />Dan Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861816737615959061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-86255711778385822022019-07-21T16:15:31.392-05:002019-07-21T16:15:31.392-05:00JoePeaceman: I missed the presentation to which yo...JoePeaceman: I missed the presentation to which you refer where “Jeff has soundly demonstrated that the extant BofA manuscripts are copies of a now lost original.” I read Hauglid’s evidence in his first book of Abraham transcriptions, but even he was tentative and has now abandoned that theory. So I don’t know how you can be so certain.<br /><br />I understand Jeff believes WP and FGW were copying an already existing manuscript of Abraham dating to July 1835, which is a speculation based on less than definitive changes in the manuscripts. He has to believe that to maintain his first theory. He recognizes that there are inline corrections in the documents of both “copyists,” which implies that it could not be visual copies. So to save his first speculation he has to spin an even more elaborate ad hoc theory, violating Occam’s razor. <br /><br />The whole reason Jeff wants the WP and FGW documents to be copies is to have the entire BofA dictated in July 1835, and the reason to have this early text is to argue that the Alphabets and bound Grammar came from it. The problem with that is that the Alphabets and bound Grammar didn’t come from the BofA, except for a small part on grammar in the GAEL which we have been discussing. <br /><br />“He doesn’t need to point out the exact moment when one person took over on reading, or copying, etc. because his point is that they were copying, and he has carefully demonstrated that for any open mind.”<br /><br />He needs to demonstrate it to a critical mind. This isn’t a contest about who has the most open mind. When I say critical, I mean it in a scholarly sense. Jeff has not demonstrated that the WP/FGW documents are copies; he has only argued that they could be copies. That’s very different. You are quibbling here. As I explained above, he needs to account for the inline corrections occurring in two documents simultaneously. He has not done that convincingly because he is trying to put a square peg into a round hole.<br /><br />“I don’t have to know why bethka was originally left out to see that it is aligned to an already existing BofA text.”<br /><br />You don’t know why Bethka was left out of the first four degrees because it contradicts your theory, while my theory explains it perfectly. Bethka did not originally align with the BofA text, it had to be moved. For some reason you are having trouble seeing the implications of that and how it actually contradicts your theory. Your point about the placement of Bethka in the fifth degree would have made sense if it had not been moved. The fact that it had to be moved implies that the translation came after. <br /><br />Either way, you have no salient point here since we are only talking about Abr. 1:1-3, not the entire BofA. The rest of the GAEL has nothing to do with Abraham and so any argument about reverse engineering is pure fantasy. At some point you are going to have to deal with the Alphabets and bound Grammar as translations separate and leading up to the BofA. <br /><br />“so he could claim to have the priesthood that they already claimed to have (years before).”<br /><br />The high priesthood from Adam to Enoch, which JS just added in D&C 107 and promised to reveal in the Book of Enoch. Not everyone was convinced that the high priesthood existed in the OT. Melchizedek was just a priest. High priests came with Aaron, and Jesus was the only high priest after the order of Melchizedek. The BofA provided evidence for a line of high priests among the patriarchs. <br /><br /><br />Dan Vogelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05861816737615959061noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-8699171760072835312019-07-21T11:01:55.219-05:002019-07-21T11:01:55.219-05:00Yes, Jonathan, we all get a good chuckle at how yo...Yes, Jonathan, we all get a good chuckle at how you are floundering in your frustrated attacks on Dan. It is good that you finally looking in the mirror. We are fairly certain that you are now recognizing how irrational, illogical, and flawed each every sentence of what you present is.<br /><br />Simple phrases expose yourself, like "non-believing" / "believing" troll. Non-believing / believing? This thoroughly exposes how what you are attempting to present has nothing to do with reason, but everything to with belief.<br /><br />Yes, Jonathan, we all get the point about probabilities. Your absurdity in the appeal to probability is well understood. It is probable that every molecule in your person can de-materialization, tunnel through a wall, and re-materialize on the other side. To then demand no one speak with certainty about things that make you uncomfortable is absurd. Admitting you are not a physicist, but know enough that materializing on the other side of the wall is possible and therefore physicists should not speak with certainty that it is not possible is absurd.<br /><br />You insist Dan not speak with certainty, but you speak with certainty that Dan's "fatal logical error" (for you which you present no case), and a certainty of his "unwillingness" to "fairly" consider, a certainty you have that few agree with.<br /><br />It is good to see you admit that you feel that if Dan doesn't allow for your appeal to probability and give you the out you demand, then your measure of hims as a more defective person is "fairly confident". It is also good to watch you engage in classic rhetoric where falsely suggesting that if you put a diminutive on an arguement, then you are innocent of presenting attacks on individuals as dispostive to their argument. We are all "fairly confident" (aka certain) that you actually belief you are not engaging in one massive ad hominem attack on Dan. You geninuely do not understand semantics and sound reasoning are not the same thing. Falsely accusing Dan over and over of failure to engage with opposing viewpoints does make it true, no matter how much you wish it did. But yes, chuckling with humor is the best way to deal with your frustration of the rock solid cases Dan makes.<br /><br />"You respond just the way intelligent designers did against those "proselyting" evolution."<br />"This, on the other hand, is strong ad hominem."<br /><br />Finally, you are seeing your reflection, glad I could help you, that made my morning.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-60379515676267447292019-07-21T09:50:21.151-05:002019-07-21T09:50:21.151-05:00@Anonymous:
Thank you for your post -- I got a go...@Anonymous:<br /><br />Thank you for your post -- I got a good chuckle out of it. It isn't uncommon to get an irrational response online, but I think this is the first time I can recall a response where the logic of each and every sentence was fatally flawed. I am not sure whether you are a non-believing troll trying to stir the post or a believing troll trying to make non-believers look bad, but I suppose that there is the off chance you actually think what you wrote and in that off chance I figured I had better respond.<br /><br />"You know you don't know what you are talking about, therefore Dan cannot saying anything with certainty."<br /><br />Nope, my argument is:<br /><br />Inductive logic can only lead to probabilities;<br />Dan is using inductive logic;<br />Therefore Dan can only conclude probabilities.<br /><br />Dan can only conclude probabilities;<br />Dan argument is claiming certainty;<br />Therefore Dan's argument will inevitably fail.<br /><br />I don't need to know anything about the subject matter to opine upon that -- I just need to understand logic (which I do). For example, if someone presented the argument:<br /><br />All birds have wings;<br />Butterflies have wings;<br />Therefore butterflies are birds.<br /><br />I wouldn't need to be an ornithologist to point out the fatal logical error. Likewise I do not need to know anything about the Book of Abraham to point out Dan's fatal logical error. It is not, however, my ignorance that allows me to do so but rather my knowledge of logic.<br /><br />"Jeff is relying heavy on inductive logic, therefore so is Dan."<br /><br />Again, nope. It is hard to present this without a tautology, because Dan is following so closely to the definition of inductive logic. He is aggregating evidences to lead to a conclusion. His certainty, however, is wholly defective -- if nothing else it ignores the inevitable "Black Swan" problem. But at no point do I say that Dan is relying on inductive logical because Jeff is relying on inductive logic.<br /><br />"If Dan doesn't allow for your appeal to probability and give you the out you demand, then your measure of him as defective person is certain."<br /><br />Wow, this gave me a chuckle. Note what I said in my post -- I was "fairly confident" of my measure of Dan. Not certain, because (you cannot make this stuff up) I am using inductive logic in my determination of the kind of person that Dan is. I can have certainty that Dan's argument will fail because, unlike his argument on the main point and my measure of him, that is not based upon inductive reasoning on my part. Different tools yield different results.<br /><br />If I would have gone out to find a more convoluted example of irrational argument, I am not certain I could have come up with anything better than what you have written. If you are a troll, my hat is off to you. If you genuinely believe this is a good argument...<br /><br />"Has whatever argument you were making Jonathan, now been defeated because we are all confident in our measure of you?"<br /><br />Nope, that is a classic logical fallacy where you present attacks on the individual as dispositive as to their argument. But again (and you cannot make this up) I specifically denied your line of reasoning in my post. To save you from having to scroll up, I said:<br /><br />"That doesn't make you wrong, of course, but it does bring your arguments into question as being inadequately tempered by opposing viewpoints."<br /><br />This isn't even using what kind of person he is as evidence of his argument, but rather his demonstrated failure to engage with opposing viewpoints as a data point because it calls into question the exposure of his ideas to scrutiny (self or otherwise). Not only is it not a strong ad hominem, it isn't even an application of weak ad hominem.<br /><br />"You respond just the way intelligent designers did against those "proselyting" evolution."<br /><br />This, on the other hand, is strong ad hominem.<br /><br />Thanks. You made my morning.Jonathan A. Cavenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04785951085433731808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-76370225805410028962019-07-21T09:41:48.042-05:002019-07-21T09:41:48.042-05:00Happy Sabbath all,
Good morning Jeff. Reading you...Happy Sabbath all, <br />Good morning Jeff. Reading your update and want to thank you again, for all you do to help us understand the Abraham and his book, and Joseph, etc. I also want to thank Dan. The fact that he is willing to come here and explain his beliefs and claims shows that he at least believes he is right. I haven’t noticed other critics doing that on this level. <br />And, I believe William Schryver was also first to point out that the historical record informs us that the GAEL was created “to” the BofA. I watched the first part of his FAIR presentation from ten years ago. <br /><br /><b>And, I, also, still believe in the missing scroll theory (but my mind is open), As always, you are way ahead of us on figuring out the relationships of the characters and so on. <br />I agree with Jeff that, in 1835, Joseph may not have known exactly which characters he was translating the BofA from. </b> He could have been relying on the gifts and opinions of WWP, OC, and others to try to determine this, or perhaps he didn’t care, and let them carry the GAEL project. After translating Abr. 1, they’re naturally going to assume that the Breathing Permit is related. But then they skip around a bit, as if trying to figure it out. <br />What do you think, Dan? Blake, Jonathan, OK, others, Anons? <br /><br />JoePeacemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17515894816932894540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-47846753489566412352019-07-21T09:04:26.023-05:002019-07-21T09:04:26.023-05:00Jack -
Yes, that is what Dan has said from the st...Jack -<br /><br />Yes, that is what Dan has said from the start, whether or not the texts are divinely inspired has nothing to do with what Dan is presenting.<br /><br />And yes Jack, the texts are true, as LDS missionaries are now teaching, the texts are true just like the parables of Jesus are made up but true, which of course has nothing to do with the hateful foundations of Mormonism insulting 7 billion people as insincere and lacking real intent because the Spirit does not tell them to join the Mormons in attacking Christian priesthood, which is the theological differentiation of Mormonism according to actual Mormons.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-73493397259929532042019-07-21T09:03:07.528-05:002019-07-21T09:03:07.528-05:00Jack, no text “speaks for itself.” But yes, we do ...Jack, no text “speaks for itself.” But yes, we do have a Book of Mormon and a Book of Abraham, just as we have a slew of other modern American religious texts, from those of Ellen G. White and Mary Baker Eddy right on up to <i>Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health</i>.<br /><br />They’re all products of people living in their times. None of them offers any particularly privileged access to truth. Your preferred texts are nothing special in this regard. Joseph Smith is just one member of a rather crowded pantheon of American religious hustlers.<br /><br />— OKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-88456732581974221412019-07-21T08:53:33.431-05:002019-07-21T08:53:33.431-05:00This is for you Jonathan - Amazing logic. You know...This is for you Jonathan - Amazing logic. You know you don't know what you are talking about, therefore Dan cannot saying anything with certainty. Jeff is relying heavy on inductive logic, therefore so is Dan. If Dan doesn't allow for your appeal to probability and give you the out you demand, then your measure of him as defective person is certain. Has whatever argument you were making Jonathan, now been defeated because we are all confident in our measure of you?<br /><br />You respond just the way intelligent designers did against those "proselyting" evolution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-31782347818511302132019-07-21T08:23:30.704-05:002019-07-21T08:23:30.704-05:00Dan Vogel: "This need to produce evidence is ...Dan Vogel: "This need to produce evidence is JS’s specialty. He did it with the BofM characters, and he was in the process of doing it with the Book of Enoch and the pure language when the Egyptian papyri came along and modified his plan."<br /><br />Ah, but we've got a Book of Mormon and a Book of Abraham. And no amount of evidence (or the lack thereof) having to do with their provenance can diminish their sacred value. The texts speak for themselves--they are true.<br /><br />JackAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com