dartagnan wrote:Anyone else having problems reading my posts? Didn't think so.
Seem Bob is just flustered. He can't figure out a way to defend his fellow brother, so he has to attack me for what.... my "bad English"? What a joke. Bob don't pretend you want to debate me on anything because we know you don't. Ever since you deleted your entire blog, shortly after I made you look stupid on it, you've been trying to gradually work your way back into the scene with more pithy, idiotic statements.
Maybe. I will put the blog back up, but I have a blog: http://rcrockett.blogspot.com/. There you will find all you need to know on the subject of the Book of Abraham.
I would be pleased to debate you on any subject, except the Book of Abraham, where I know really nothing. I will be glad to compare my rhetoric to your hyperbole and love of the word "idiot."
Fellow brother? Never heard of the guy. I am an independent.
Hauglid corrected the misspelling just seconds after you pointed that out.
That proves he is watching this exchange.
It seems this is just de ja vue all over again.
"Déjà vu." You are a horrible writer and grammarian. You can't convey a clear thought. Don't go correcting others' problems until you take a few English classes.
French. A**hat.
Umm -- check an English dictionary, if you have one. Do you have a college degree, by chance?
Hauglid still tries to justify his pedantic reaction to the word:
I got that years ago by one of the most well respected scholars of Islam. He felt "irenic" scholarship in religious studies was too conciliatory and demonstrated an unwillingness to bring out the truth, warts and all. He has a point
So let me get this straight. "One of the most well respected scholars of Islam" described Hauglid as irenic. So does that also mean "one of the most well respected scholars of Islam" doesn't respect Hauglid's scholarship?
If one of the most well respected scholars of Islam "has a point," then maybe Chris does too.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
rcrocket wrote:Maybe. I will put the blog back up, but I have a blog: http://rcrockett.blogspot.com/. There you will find all you need to know on the subject of the Book of Abraham.
I would be pleased to debate you on any subject, except the Book of Abraham, where I know really nothing. I will be glad to compare my rhetoric to your hyperbole and love of the word "idiot.".
So your blog contains "all you need to know on the subject of the Book of Abraham" yet you acknowledge knowing very little on the subject? Why are you even participating in this thread?
Regarding Hauglid's work on things Islam, I have found him to be extremely "irenic" if not borderline incompetent. I wrote up a review of an article he wrote a few years ago but never advertised it because I hadn't finished. It hasn't been edited so there should be plenty for Bob to complain about.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
Hauglid corrected the misspelling just seconds after you pointed that out.
That proves he is watching this exchange.
It seems this is just de ja vue all over again.
"Déjà vu." You are a horrible writer and grammarian. You can't convey a clear thought. Don't go correcting others' problems until you take a few English classes.
French. A**hat.
Umm -- check an English dictionary, if you have one. Do you have a college degree, by chance?
rcrocket wrote:Maybe. I will put the blog back up, but I have a blog: http://rcrockett.blogspot.com/. There you will find all you need to know on the subject of the Book of Abraham.
I would be pleased to debate you on any subject, except the Book of Abraham, where I know really nothing. I will be glad to compare my rhetoric to your hyperbole and love of the word "idiot.".
So your blog contains "all you need to know on the subject of the Book of Abraham" yet you acknowledge knowing very little on the subject? Why are you even participating in this thread?
Phaedrus
A sort of Scratchian mocking -- make statements while having no substantive knowledge on the subject. The subject bores me. Joseph Smith didn't need the papyri to yield the Book of Abraham. It could have said something completely different and indeed did.
You know. I think Beastie is onto something. Mopologists can't be wrong about anything. Ever. They can't risk it in their minds to admit an error because that leads to another admission... Then another... Then another... And then the argument is lost.
I'm absolutely stunned, sometimes, by the incredible level of obstinence on display by Mo's.
Hauglid corrected the misspelling just seconds after you pointed that out.
That proves he is watching this exchange.
It seems this is just de ja vue all over again.
"Déjà vu." You are a horrible writer and grammarian. You can't convey a clear thought. Don't go correcting others' problems until you take a few English classes.
French. A**hat.
Umm -- check an English dictionary, if you have one. Do you have a college degree, by chance?
Oh my god. It's French you incredible moron.
Is it in your English dictionary? You don't want to commit a faux pas, my good recchione, do you?
Joseph Smith didn't need the papyri to yield the Book of Abraham.
Then why didn't he produce the Book of Abraham without using the papyrus? When it came into his possession in 1835 he told everyone it contained the Book of Abraham. He began a translation shortly afterwards and continued using the papyri for this purpose until 1842.
You offer ad hoc nonsense that flies in the face of the historical record. Saying he could have done it without the papyrus doesn't change the fact that he didn't. We already know Joseph Smith used the papyrus for producing the Book of Abraham. Are you really this ignorant on the subject?
If so, then you're part of the problem, not the solution.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein