KEP Debate in Pundits
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 1:57 pm
Well the debate over in pundits has come back to life while I was gone. Here is what Brent posted two days ago:
Schryver responded to Brent's comment about Brian agreeing Will's transcription was wrong:
Will admittedly doesn't know Brent's reason, yet he professes with more bombastic certitude that it isn't for the same reason. If he doesn't know Brent's reason, then how does he know it isn't the same as Brian's?
Chris Smith commented:
Will responded with the usual bombastic certitude:
ROFL!! Since when? Chris asked him to back this up but I fear we're in for another period of silence. But don't let ignorance prevent Will from making dogmatic assertions as though they wer fact.
Brian responded to Brent's remarks with the following:
Too funny. BRian's presentation was not scholarship, it was apologetics. And because it is obsolete, it shoudl be dispensed with, otherwise it is just more misinformation being sold at FAIR and passed around as valid apologetics. People buy copies of his presentation, not because they want to capture a moment in time from Book of Abraham scholarship, but because they want apologetic answers to the critics. Brian's presentation is obsolete because so much in it has been shown to be wrong. The fact that Brian would admit this, and yet FAIR still sells it, is proof positive that FAIR has no problems selling bad information. But the end justifies the means, as always.
Brent responded to Brian's comment with:
To which Brian responded:
His views have changed because his objective keeps encountering obstacles that require him to go another route. But his predetermined thesis remains fixed. All the rest is just apologetic maneuvering he is trying to pass off as "fluxive nature of academia."
Hi friends,
Brian Hauglid sent me a PM in which he graciously requested that I refrain from referencing flawed transcriptions of the BoAbr manuscripts in his FAIR 2006 presentation—specifically any transcription that he may have provided for Abraham 1:12 (though I'm left wondering why FAIR continues to sell Brian's obsolete presentation in multiple formats). Brian affirmed that he now deems Will Schryver's transcription of the pericope from BoAbr ms. 1a (fldr. 2) inaccurate.
Brain also said that a cast of several are participating in recovering the text of the BoAbr manuscripts. The end product promises to be a monumental contribution to BoAbr studies. I certainly plan on reading it.
Schryver responded to Brent's comment about Brian agreeing Will's transcription was wrong:
Just not for the same reason you think it is inaccurate.
Or at least for the reason we believe you think it is inaccurate. We really can’t be certain, since you’ve never specified what you think the error is.
Will admittedly doesn't know Brent's reason, yet he professes with more bombastic certitude that it isn't for the same reason. If he doesn't know Brent's reason, then how does he know it isn't the same as Brian's?
Chris Smith commented:
My theory is that Abr. 1:1-3 was composed by an almost mechanical use of the Alphabet and Grammar as a sourcebook
Will responded with the usual bombastic certitude:
Quite impossible, I’m afraid. The translation of this portion of the Book of Abraham predates the creation of the various grammar and alphabet documents.
ROFL!! Since when? Chris asked him to back this up but I fear we're in for another period of silence. But don't let ignorance prevent Will from making dogmatic assertions as though they wer fact.
Brian responded to Brent's remarks with the following:
"Obsolete presentation." Do you really believe this? You seem to be missing the fluxive nature of academia here.
Too funny. BRian's presentation was not scholarship, it was apologetics. And because it is obsolete, it shoudl be dispensed with, otherwise it is just more misinformation being sold at FAIR and passed around as valid apologetics. People buy copies of his presentation, not because they want to capture a moment in time from Book of Abraham scholarship, but because they want apologetic answers to the critics. Brian's presentation is obsolete because so much in it has been shown to be wrong. The fact that Brian would admit this, and yet FAIR still sells it, is proof positive that FAIR has no problems selling bad information. But the end justifies the means, as always.
Brent responded to Brian's comment with:
You needn't take my word for it, Brian. With your permission, I'm willing to post your own appraisal of your FAIR 2006 presentation from the several emails that you sent to me—does that meet with your approval?
Yes, your FAIR 2006 presentation is largely obsolete, irrespective of the "fluxive nature of academia."
To which Brian responded:
No need to publish my musings, which will inevitably be more fodder for misinterpretation and derailing of the topic at hand. However, it is worthy to note that those initial emails actually helped to formulate the arguments and improve the research. Of course, through continued research my reflections have evolved and likely do not precisely match those of almost two years ago.
His views have changed because his objective keeps encountering obstacles that require him to go another route. But his predetermined thesis remains fixed. All the rest is just apologetic maneuvering he is trying to pass off as "fluxive nature of academia."