KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_Trevor]

You, sir, have forfeited this debate for lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

Have fun with your ranting and raving and your ridiculous claims of "mopping floors."

Another empty pronouncement.

[_Trevor]

There was no hieratic writing on the original translation manuscript. That's why it wasn't copied.

And your evidence for this is...

[_William Schryver]

The scenario I described occurs frequently in the Book of Mormon manuscripts. It is hardly preposterous.

"Frequently" meaning what? Every chapter, every 30 pages? And how "similaar" are we talking about Will? You won't say, and for good reason. I bet you can't find a single instance where Oliver Cowdery copied a phrase into the Printer's manuscript that consists of four scratched out words. And you are hanging your entire argument on this flimsy Cowdery evidence. Go ahead and produce and stop arguing from silence.

You always play words games like this knowning damn well you're being deceptive. You want people to think Joseph Smith demanded three exact copies of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon but this is bogus and you know it. So what if there were some instances where a tired, inexperienced Oliver Cowdery screwed up and copies down errors in a work as long as the Book of Mormon. You're comparing this to a relatively short document of just a few pages, transcribed by experienced scribes, and the transitional emendations occur several times, something like on every page.

There were no Egyptian characters present in the parent document, and if you would ever answer the question I have posed to you multiple time on the other thread, I would show the evidence for my claim that there were no Egyptian characters in the parent.

Argument via assertion, because that completely disrupts your apologetic, right? I mean these have to be exact copies in your model, except when it comes to things you don't want connected to the original manuscript. In those instances, those things were not copied at all. You can't have it both ways Will. You might be able to pull this crap over at MADB, but not here. You invent evidence as you need to reconstruct your apologetic model, but you never present it. You always refer us to some future presentation/publication that is going to provide it. We've heard this since August 2006.

Look, you can rant and rave all you ..

Oh here you go again with your usual diatribe about how I'm the one ranting when all I am doing is illustrating how ridiculous and improbable your proposed scenarios really are. You never were good with constructive criticism.You fabricate evidence from wherever you can, and you have lied to me one too many times. So keep your little "I have pity on you little apostate" to yourself. We've heard it too many times.

You complain because I'm friend's with Metcalfe, but he doesn't "feed me" what you think. I think I have spoken to him less than a dozen times in the past year. Whereas you're talking about your "movie night" with Royal Skousen, who you've been trying to recruit for your cause. I can see you roaming the halls at BYU pitching your apologetic to the faculty there, trying to get them to sign off on it. Yeah, try selling this anywhere else Will, and see what happens. LOL.

OK, that was your last chance to answer the question.

You clearly don't have an answer.

Therefore you have forfeited this debate for lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

L'hitraot ...

[_Kevin Graham]

Will is so used to his bald assertions being swallowed gladly over at MADB, that he isn't used to people who know how to think critically. Hence, his frustration that we actually require evidence before believing something as ridiculous as his proposals. Keep pushing him and maybe, just maybe, he'll provide the "evidence."

[_Kevin Graham]

Will is taking a page out of the Daniel McClellan "Guide to Debating without Evidence."

Rule #13 - Demand your opponent concede to stupid crap you assert or else pretend you're so far above him that he shoudl feel grateful that you bothered to condescend to his level, and then leave in a huff. Oh, and make sure you go tell everyone he "forfeited the debate" as an added measure.

Real classy, but pretty much what we've come to expect.

We won't be bullied into believing BS here, just because you swap spit, watch movies, and rub elbows with folks at the Y.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I'm sure I will watch the slideshow and follow the "debate" with interest, but I have no real interest in participating in such an exchange. I have no firm position on the subject, and with school starting soon my time is very limited. And to be completely honest, I don't have much confidence that you will really dial down the rhetoric.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing what you will produce. Good luck,

-Chris

[_Kevin Graham]

Will just called Trevor spineless, in Celestial of all places.

Yes, Will is having his usual meltdown. That tends to happen when he can't support his arguments and demands praise from his audience anyway.

[_dblagent007]

Had the correction been made "in transition" while the scribe was taking dictation, "unto" would attest the same tone and volume of ink as does the strikeout of "whereunto". It does not. Although it is obviously an error, "whereunto unto" was written without re-dipping the pen, in a single pass.

Let's take a closer look at this. I have annotated the image below to highlight the end of the strikeout. It clearly shows the same tone and volume of ink as "unto."



The following scenario seems to be the most probable. The scribe writes "whereunto" and is then instructed to strike it out. The scribe dips his pen in the ink since a strikeout is usually done with great emphasis. The scribe strikes it out by drawing two sawtooth shaped lines through "whereunto." The strike out lines have much more pronounced down strokes than upstrokes. After the last strikeout line was drawn, the scribe continues the dictation at "unto" without dipping his pen in ink again. Thus, the ink tone and volume in the last strokes of the strikeout are the same as the word "unto."

[_sock puppet]

Had the correction been made "in transition" while the scribe was taking dictation, "unto" would attest the same tone and volume of ink as does the strikeout of "whereunto". It does not. Although it is obviously an error, "whereunto unto" was written without re-dipping the pen, in a single pass.

Let's take a closer look at this. I have annotated the image below to highlight the end of the strikeout. It clearly shows the same tone and volume of ink as "unto."



The following scenario seems to be the most probable. The scribe writes "whereunto" and is then instructed to strike it out. The scribe dips his pen in the ink since a strikeout is usually done with great emphasis. The scribe strikes it out by drawing two sawtooth shaped lines through "whereunto." The strike out lines have much more pronounced down strokes than upstrokes. After the last strikeout line was drawn, the scribe continues the dictation at "unto" without dipping his pen in ink again. Thus, the ink tone and volume in the last strokes of the strikeout are the same as the word "unto."

Great observation, dblagent007. Also, it is typical for a writer to have more of a downward emphasis on the shaft of the pen/quill when trying to strike through erroneous writing than when then resuming to write characters like "u", "n", "t" and "o" for the next word.

[_Kevin Graham]

The following scenario seems to be the most probable. The scribe writes "whereunto" and is then instructed to strike it out. The scribe dips his pen in the ink since a strikeout is usually done with great emphasis. The scribe strikes it out by drawing two sawtooth shaped lines through "whereunto." The strike out lines have much more pronounced down strokes than upstrokes. After the last strikeout line was drawn, the scribe continues the dictation at "unto" without dipping his pen in ink again. Thus, the ink tone and volume in the last strokes of the strikeout are the same as the word "unto."

In the immortal words of Walter the Vet,

"No, no that can't be true... because that F---ks up our plan"