This is the single stupidest thing you've said today. How can we be said to “refuse to address them” because we don’t want to “draw more attention to them” when I have done nothing but talk about these things for three years now?
Because you don't. Oh you might tell your audience that the critics believe in dictation, but you don't explain why, other than to offer some blase synopsis of what you think our reasoning is. You never once mention the 7 points listed, even though I throw them up in yoru face every year. You're afraid to.
And yes, during his FAIR presentation he flat out LIED and said he wasn't even AWARE of ANY evidence that would support a dictation model.
I understand that you believe the common emendations are evidence for dictation. (That’s really your only “evidence” for dictation.)
No, there you go again proving you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. That is hardly the "only evidence" there is, and you just proved my point that you never give our position full credit. And whenever you do discuss any "emendations" you are always careful not to explicate which emendations the dictation model uses for evidence. You prefer instead to point out punctuation marks, but you don't want to discuss the emendations that could only have been made
in transition. For example, the fact that both manuscripts have words crossed out and emended, in transition, which throws a wrench in yoru ridiculous copyist scenario. Unless of course you want to argue that for some weird reason, Joseph Smith decided to hire two scribes to make two different copies of the same exact "Q" document, and then let it slide when they misspelled words differently. The argument is an intellectual fraud. Nobody will believe this tripe, which is why you continuously hide the evidence we allude to. Hauglid was careful not to mention it either in either of his presentations.
I have talked, and will talk yet again, about those common emendations, and explain them within the copying scenario.
WHERE?? Prove it. Show us a link. I dare you. Why not give us your explanation HERE? Stop stalling and go find your balls.
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
I know exactly what I am talking about. The KEP were under wraps for decades until Brent showed a page or two that completely discredited John Gee and proved he was like you, someone willing to lie for the sake of the Church. Then Hauglid, an expert in Islamic studies (not ink analysis, or forensic document analysis), decided he would become the lead authority on the KEP and he managed to convince the Church his testimony wouldn't falter as did Ashment, when he was granted access to the materials. He came into this thing with the stated intention of defending the Church at all costs. No amount of evidence could EVER prove to him that the KEP represented translation manuscripts, because then he along with the rest of the Church would have to come to grips with the fact that their founding "prophet" was a fraud.
Brent Metcalfe has no record of scholarship on the topic of the Book of Abraham and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.
You think just because a couple of apologists managed to publish a couple of apologetic pieces for FARMS, that this makes them superior to someone who hasn't? Brent has studied these documents for twenty years, and knows them like the back of his hand. You guys are babies compared to him. And Brent has been refuting and correcting so many of these guys who "published scholarship," it is amazing you would still rely on them for anything. He has made mincemeat of both Gee and Nibley, and then there was Michael Rhodes who looked like a fool when Brent showed him a page from the KEP during a FAIR conference and got him to back down fron a position he had just spoke about.
Hauglid did no such thing. He has always acknowledged Ashment’s contribution in this matter.
You're lying again. I am watching the film YOU EDITED you moron, and he makes no mention of Ashment and instead tries to imply that it was discovered by those at BYU.
He is very much a text critic, albeit a newly-minted one with only about five years or so of experience.
No he isn't. He is an apologist who rushed into teh field so he could wear that particular badge, to giev authorit to his predesigned apologetic conclusions.
He has benefitted greatly from being able to consult with others in the field with greater experience than he. He is not alone in his findings. A “team” has been working on this project. You are ignorant of what has been going on. I am not.
Including which LDS experts? Why not release the documents for independent analysis? I'm sure teh folks at more prestigious institutions like teh UofChicago or Brown, would like to take a look. We know why. The conclusion has to be determined by the Church, and you guys know it.
You are correct that Brian Hauglid is not a forensic document expert. I never said he was. He’s never claimed to be one. Brian, as the leader of the project, has employed trained professionals for that aspect of the research.
Oh I'm sure they were carefully hand selected, too.
How do you know? Because Edward Ashment told Brent Metcalfe it was so and Brent Metcalfe told you it was so?
No, because I was finally privy to more information that the Church had hidden from me. I certainly wasn't going to hear about it from Gee, Nibley, or anyone else at FAIR. They hide it the way you're being deceptive right now. You lie shamelessly, because for you the end justifies the means. That's a swell religion you've got there bud!
That’s the only way you could know, because it’s quite obvious you don’t understand the issues yourself.
Like what? What is it that I don't understand? This is just rhetoric for diversionary purposes. You don't want to address the matter at hand and deal with the evidence against you. Your claim that you have a gag order against you is hilarious. What are they afraid of, that if you tell us the evidence, it won't sell as many books? It makes no sense.
You’re simply expressing your endorsement of the Ashment model. We get that. But I know that the preponderance of the evidence is clear on the question.
And we know you're a liar who has a history of exagerration, back peddling when all is said and done.
demonstrates that Ashment was wrong, and you and Metcalfe along with him.
Three years you've been saying this. Who do you think you're impressing?
