Now, however, for the meat of this post. Let's see if you guys read this one and actually try to understand the actual meaning of my words in it. I keep allowing myself to be sucked back in, when I just want this to end. Life is too short, and I don't owe anybody anything, let alone my deference when it is not warranted on every single issue.
Mormons are used to critics throwing straw men up to try to disqualify our positions. It is interesting to have apologists throwing straw men, extremely flawed caricatures, at other apologists to misrepresent their positions out of deliberate ignorance of their positions.
A lot of criticism was leveled at me for daring to critique anything John Gee had to say and find anything whatsoever wrong with it. Sorry. John Gee deserves feedback as any mortal. If he is not given feedback, he can never know how he can improve, if he ever chooses to improve. He is a human, not a Mormon demigod.
This remark also came up:
nor does Ed address Will Schryver's contributions.Will Schryver's contributions are foundational to mine. If you want an explanation for how this is so, I will give it to you in detail. Did you know I was present with a video camera in 2010 with Kerry Shirts in the back, standing right by Kerry when Will did the presentation at the FAIRMormon conference? Then, afterward, I rushed out and talked to Will to try to explain to him how closely his ideas were to mine (code tables with value assignments), with the exception that I place mine in an ancient context, while he was trying to say that modern people like Phelps are responsible for assigning meaning to arbitrary symbols. Will's writings and presentation are so foundational in fact, because my theory derives important aspects from his. You would know this if you had looked at the posts in my blog where I explain this, going back to 2013. And you would know that my theory is like saying that Will Schryver is right, except ancient people who knew the Egyptian language did it instead of Phelps the way Will believed. That is NOTHING like Kirtcher's translation method. This is like an ancient twist on Will Schryver's theory. But you would know that if you had read my blog, right?
The criticism of my work goes on:
Ed claims that Joseph wasn't translating Egyptian scripts the same way that modern Egyptologists do. Rather, he believes that Joseph translated Egyptian scripts as ideograms. Champollion disproved this approach by Kircher and others 200 hundred years ago.That's not true at all. My approach is nothing like Kirtcher's. Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham text is of the text from another language into English, probably from regular old Egyptian. He didn't translate it from the Sensen papyrus at all. He translated it from regular old Egyptian, either in vision the way he did the parchment of John (Doctrine and Covenants Section 7), or by having a papyrus in front of him that we do not have, in REGULAR GOOD OLD EGYPTIAN. The only way Joseph Smith ever produced the Book of Abraham text was through a translation from the regular usage of Egyptian symbols the way John Gee translates Egyptian.
If Joseph Smith had had the Book of Abraham text in front of him in regular Egyptian text, he would have translated it as well as John Gee could if John Gee had that text in front of him, but he more likely saw it in vision, but still translated the regular Egyptian. Now.....
Now, is there text in this picture? No. Did Joseph Smith translate the pictures in this using Kirtcher's method? No. How did Joseph Smith translate these pictures? He interpreted them as pictures as the Egyptians meant them, and told us the story that the Egyptian that painted them meant to convey by it. And he put the interpretations for these as captions for these pictures in the explanation. The captions for these pictures are these:
Fig. 1. The Angel of the Lord.
Fig. 2. Abraham fastened upon an altar.
Fig. 3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.
Fig. 4. The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.
Fig. 5. The idolatrous god of Elkenah.
Fig. 6. The idolatrous god of Libnah.
Fig. 7. The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.
Fig. 8. The idolatrous god of Korash.
Fig. 9. The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.
Fig. 10. Abraham in Egypt.
Fig. 11. Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.
Fig. 12. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.Now, did the Hebrew word Raukeeyang (raqia) appear in figure 12 as text? No. Did the Hebrew term Shaumau? But did Kirtcher's method ever have anything to do with Joseph Smith's translations of Facsimile #1? No.
Now, someone in ancient times focused in on this part of the papyrus:
And this ancient person copied it from the Papyrus into a separate derivative composition, the same way Joseph Smith did in the KEP, since the KEP is a modern translation of this derivative composition. And here is the picture in higher resolution:
And he called it Ho Ha Oop. And he translated it as "An Intercessor, one who has been appointed to intercede for another; invocation." Was this based on Kirtcher's method. No. It's based on the Facsimile method of Joseph Smith when used as a picture. And when used as a picture, it has nothing to do with any text or context it might have been a part of previously, any more than the pictures in the original for Facsimile 1 itself has anything to do with the Sensen Papyrus text. But what it does mean is this symbol was repurposed through ICONOTROPY, assigned a meaning as WILL SCHRYVER SAID PHELPS WAS DOING, except the person that did it knew Egyptian, and this person did it in ancient times. And this person in ancient times chose this meaning because the regular Egyptian meaning of this symbol as a letter or picture is paired with it, and is associated closely with it. In fact the Proto-Sinaitic meaning of this same character in the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet is a person giving praise or a man calling out:
But you would know that if you had read that article on my blog from 2014, right? Over three years ago I posted that article.
I have never once suggested that the Egyptian text of the Sensen Papyrus does not read the way EGYPTOLOGISTS say it does. I only suggest that in derived compositions, they were used as pictures. That means they have more than one usage, nothing like Kirtcher's method, because they have no inherent message encoded in them the way he believed they do. Anything that they are used to symbolize things as pictures is entirely imposed on them from the outside. That's called Iconotropy. Remember that? Kevin Barney's Semitic adaptation principle? Repurposing of symbols? There is nothing new in this concept. Iconotropy and Semitic adaptation are for all intents and purposes identical. People repurposed the symbols in the Facsimiles for use with Abrahamic themes. Similarly, they created derivative compositions using other Sensen Papyrus symbols and repurposed them too. Nobody said that Joseph Smith thought that these symbols spell out the Book of Abraham text. They don't. But when used as pictures like the other pictures in the Facsimiles, they were repurposed to be used differently than they were in the first place.
Yes, my theory is in essence a hybrid between Will Schryver's and Kevin Barney's. In Kevin Barney's theory, an ancient redactor J-Red (or Jewish Redactor) was responsible for the Iconotropy in the Facsimiles. In my theory, not only is Jewish (or Egyptian) Redactor responsible for that, but also the Iconotropy in the code tables using the arbitrary symbols from the text of the Sensen Papyrus that appear in the KEP! So, instead of Phelps being responsible for modern code tables in the KEP, what we have is J-Red being responsible for ancient code tables REPRODUCED IN THE KEP.
So, please don't tell me that I am unaware of other people's research when these people's research is so fundamental to mine. I am quite aware of everyone else's claims in an in-depth manner. And certain individuals that claim to be authoritative do not have the slightest idea that this is what my theory is about, and wouldn't know if they agree with it or not, because they haven't read it.