Challenge for Will

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Challenge for Will

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Will's presentation is based on false assumptions, not least of which is his misunderstanding about the critical viewpoint. In short, he completely misrepresents our position when he asserts over and over that the GAEL could not have been used as a translation key from which the Book of Abraham was produced, "as the critics have argued."

I knew I had never argued this, and I was pretty sure none of the other critics had either. So I asked Chris earlier last week and he confirmed what I suspected. He only argued that the Alphabet and Grammar were used in the production of Abr 1:1-3 and a few other places where the text was not extant on the papyrus.

So then I noticed Dan Vogel denied believing this early yesterday, and Wade seemed confused that his beloved hero, Will Schryver, could get it so wrong on such a basic point. So instead of providing evidence, Will comes in and essentially tells Wade that he knows what our position is better than we do:

The reason they have now chosen to greatly limit the idea of the Alphabet and Grammar as the modus operandi for the translation of the Book of Abraham (except for verses 1:1 - 1:3) is because of the inconvenient fact that the Abraham manuscripts they insist to be the "dictated translation manuscripts" don't reference any characters from the Alphabet and Grammar.


This is a textbook straw man.

Aside from the ridiculous statement that the manuscripts do not reference any characters from the A&G (which I disproved yesterday) Will is simply afraid to admit he got it wrong. But this is to be expected given his track record of deficient comprehension and failure to obtain even a basic grasp of the relavant documents.

Brent Metcalfe: "I don't know a single scholar who has ever argued that the Egyptian alphabet and grammar project provided a translation key for the entire BoAbr (though I believe a strong case can be made that Abr. 1:1–3 evolved out of the project)."

Dan Vogel: "I certainly don’t think the GAEL and Alphabets were necessary before translation could begin."

Chris Smith: "[I believe the A&G were used to translate] those three verses [Abr 1:1-3] and a few others in chapter 1."

Kevin Graham: "I do not believe the GAEL were used to translate much beyond Abr 1:1-3


We can also include Edward Ashment in this category, which means Will is left with some obscure RLDS figure named Richard Howard.

So I challenge Will or Wade to either come clean and admit they screwed up by misrepresenting our position, or produce evidence that "the critics" have argued this.
_William Schryver
_Emeritus
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:58 pm

Re: Challenge for Will

Post by _William Schryver »

It is stunningly obvious that neither you, nor Vogel, nor Smith, nor Metcalfe ... nor anyone else in this wretched place, have any appreciation whatsoever for what and with whom you are dealing.

All the better. All the better ...
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Challenge for Will

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Well, we know we're dealing with a pretentious hack, an intellectual fraud, and an integrity-free coward who is now relying on people like Englund and McClellan to save him from himself.

Both of whom have no friggin clue what they're talking about. I loved the way you got down on all fours to worship McClellan as the destroyer of Vogel, when he even admitted he hasn't fully developed an argument that makes sense, and has yet to present one either.

I also love the way your sidekick Wade insisted the Facsimiles have nothing to do with the KEP and the way you said none of the characters from the manuscripts are references in the A&G. It is almost as if you are trying to show us just how ignorant you really are. Your BS won't fly over here because the audience is actually informed.

Seriously Will, go run back to your safe zone. We know you have no intentions of answering criticism on even ground.

Or, stick around and tell us which "critics" take the straw man position you've been pummeling. Time to man up.
Last edited by YahooSeeker [Bot] on Sat Aug 14, 2010 4:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
_thews
_Emeritus
Posts: 3053
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 2:26 pm

Re: Challenge for Will

Post by _thews »

William Schryver wrote:It is stunningly obvious that neither you, nor Vogel, nor Smith, nor Metcalfe ... nor anyone else in this wretched place, have any appreciation whatsoever for what and with whom you are dealing.

All the better. All the better ...

Do you ever address the questions, or is simply stating multiple times how smart you supposedly are cover your non-answers?
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth & turn aside to myths
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Challenge for Will

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Will is just pissed because in less than a week of his overhyped presentation he's had to backpeddle on his ridiculous cipher theory, which consumed the majority of his presentation (contrary to his claim).

In a way, I hope Skousen and the other apologists at BYU try to run with this theory. They're making it so much easier for us.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Re: Challenge for Will

Post by _Trevor »

William Schryver wrote:It is stunningly obvious that neither you, nor Vogel, nor Smith, nor Metcalfe ... nor anyone else in this wretched place, have any appreciation whatsoever for what and with whom you are dealing.

All the better. All the better ...


So, in other words, you have been caught in a lie, and now you are resorting to ominous threats to divert people's attention.

Go ahead and tell us whom it is we are dealing with Will. Don't be coy!

Is it Royal Skousen?

Hugh Nibley's ghost?

The Living Christ?

An unappreciated true genius named Will Schryver?

Just cut the crap and deal with the fact that your various bogus claims are being torn to shreds. Maybe you have some solid claims, sure. But they are not being helped when you willfully misrepresent the position of your opponents. Now that they have caught you in at least a handful of these whoppers, you should perhaps just learn your lesson and quit embellishing.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_William Schryver
_Emeritus
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:58 pm

Re: Challenge for Will

Post by _William Schryver »

Trevor wrote:
William Schryver wrote:It is stunningly obvious that neither you, nor Vogel, nor Smith, nor Metcalfe ... nor anyone else in this wretched place, have any appreciation whatsoever for what and with whom you are dealing.

All the better. All the better ...


So, in other words, you have been caught in a lie, and now you are resorting to ominous threats to divert people's attention.

Go ahead and tell us whom it is we are dealing with Will. Don't be coy!

Is it Royal Skousen?

Hugh Nibley's ghost?

The Living Christ?

An unappreciated true genius named Will Schryver?

Just cut the crap and deal with the fact that your various bogus claims are being torn to shreds. Maybe you have some solid claims, sure. But they are not being helped when you willfully misrepresent the position of your opponents. Now that they have caught you in at least a handful of these whoppers, you should perhaps just learn your lesson and quit embellishing.

LOL!

Ignorance: the blissful repose of the befuddled.

There is nothing quite so entertaining as the spectacle of the uninformed basking in what they imagine is the glow of victory.

Incidentally, contrary to the confused claims of the ridiculous faux-experts here, I have not "backed off" from the cipher explanation at all. It will figure prominently--and with greatly enhanced arguments and evidence--in my forthcoming monograph, The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers.

Though it is secondary in importance to the issue of the dependency of the A&G on the Book of Abraham, it is nonetheless fraught with explanatory power, and it will only grow in its explanatory strength in the coming months and years. To be sure, no one here will ever be able to open their eyes long enough to see it, but that will be of little consequence to the juggernaut that is already gaining steam.

You're all standing in the station, oblivious to the fact that the train's already gone ...

LOL! (again)
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Challenge for Will

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Excellent! I'm pleased to hear Will is going to maintain both stupid arguments, instead of just one.

And Will, we're still wating for you to answer the numerous problems that have been raised concerning your presentation, especially the fact that the entire thing was based on a straw man.

Hows it coming trying to dig up those "critics" you were pretending to refute?
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Challenge for Will

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Come on Will, buck up and respond to a simple challenge before you lose what little credibility you managed to fabricate for yourself over there.
_Joseph
_Emeritus
Posts: 3517
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:00 pm

Re: Challenge for Will

Post by _Joseph »

Tell them willieboy is here said: "It is stunningly obvious that neither you, nor Vogel, nor Smith, nor Metcalfe ... nor anyone else in this wretched place, have any appreciation whatsoever for what and with whom you are dealing".

I have an appreciation of who they are dealing with. The joker who chickened out on a debate.
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson

Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?

infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."
Post Reply