Is Nomad attempting to disavow William Schryver's work?
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:43 am
In Buffalo's thread here titled "Will back to using his Nomad alt at MAD," he links us to the following post at the Mormon Dialogue & Discussion board by Nomad:
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/563 ... 1209068019
The portion upon which I'd like to focus is this:
Wait, what? I was under the impression that the entire point of Will Schryver's 2010 FAIR presentation was to convince us that the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar project was to create a cipher as opposed to a translation.
In FAIRness, though, Nomad did add the following:
Is that a distinction without a difference? You decide.
Anyway, Kevin Graham helpfully showed up a little later to correct Nomad vis-à-vis Schryver's intent. Kevin quoted Mr. Schryver himself as having said:
So, what do you think? Assuming for a moment that Buffalo is correct and Nomad and William Schryver are one and the same, does this mean that William is attempting to disavow, deny, or otherwise overturn his own much-ballyhooed "game changing" presentation at the 2010 FAIR conference? Because that sure is what it's looking like to me.
Corrections, clarifications, and alternate viewpoints welcome.
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/563 ... 1209068019
The portion upon which I'd like to focus is this:
Nomad wrote:Will Schryver’s hypothesis never suggested that the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was intended to be used as a cipher.
Wait, what? I was under the impression that the entire point of Will Schryver's 2010 FAIR presentation was to convince us that the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar project was to create a cipher as opposed to a translation.
In FAIRness, though, Nomad did add the following:
He only argued that it had qualities similar to a cipher in that they were taking existing texts and giving them substitute values.
Is that a distinction without a difference? You decide.
Anyway, Kevin Graham helpfully showed up a little later to correct Nomad vis-à-vis Schryver's intent. Kevin quoted Mr. Schryver himself as having said:
William Schryver wrote:...the Alphabet, Grammar, and Counting documents appear to have been intended to render the English text of the Prophet’s revelations into some kind of cipher that these men apparently believed to be typical of language as practiced by “the ancients.”
So, what do you think? Assuming for a moment that Buffalo is correct and Nomad and William Schryver are one and the same, does this mean that William is attempting to disavow, deny, or otherwise overturn his own much-ballyhooed "game changing" presentation at the 2010 FAIR conference? Because that sure is what it's looking like to me.
Corrections, clarifications, and alternate viewpoints welcome.