Why Schryver's apologetics cannot be trusted

[_truth dancer]

Hi Kevin,

First if I am not mistaken doesn't the church have the originals? And high resolution photographs? I have a difficult time when apologists claim Brent is being sneaky and not showing the world the photographs because of some nefarious intent when THE CHURCH has the papyri. Why not ask the CHURCH why they don't publish photographs for the world to see?

Secondly, Brent is meticulous and honest and forthright. Some apologists throw out all sorts of accusations without even a remote piece of supporting evidence. They of course do not have any. It is as if they just don't like Brent because they can't argue with him. I have found however that there are those apologists who deeply respect Brent and clearly know he knows about what he speaks! :-)

Reasons for not discussing the Book of Abraham with Brent:

1. He doesn't have a degree in Egyptology.
2. He ascribes to non-faith promoting ideas.
3. He knew Mark Hoffman.
4. He has a copy of the photographs and is keeping them from the rest of the world.

All I can say is I am anxiously awaiting his book!

:-)

~dancer~

[_dartagnan]

Will is that your real photo?

You look like the dude who played Hellboy!

[_dartagnan]

Yes TD there are a few people who have color photos and of course the church has the originals, which it allows only a few hand selected faithful to analyze first hand.

[_dartagnan]

And another thing. I am skeptical about Will's constant bragging about these super duper hi-res photos, as if they are going to tell us something Brent's photo's couldn't. Volor photos made the difference because of Gee's two ink theory. We needed good quality color photos to determine if it held water, in which case Brent's photos proved to be the death of this once popular apologetic. But I don't know of any current apologetic argument that would rely on hi-res imagery of the manuscripts to make any crucial apologetic more credible.

Besides, Brent's photos were professionally done. Yes, these were taken twenty years ago, but even today there is debate over which is better, 35mm or digital. His photos are already so crisp in detail and vivid in color - and this is from viewing them online, which is always lesser quality - that I cannot imagine how they could be any higher in quality. And even still, if they could be raised in quality, I can't see any argument that hinges on any data we could possibly ascertain because of the diference in photo quality.

I think Will is just window-dressing again.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I like it. It's like Mormondiscussions deathmatch.

[_Pokatator]

I'm betting on the guy on the left.

[_Dr. Shades]

Thanks for this, Kevin!

Great stuff.

[_dartagnan]

[_Gazelam]

I thought the exact same thign when I saw that picture.

[_Trevor]

I wonder just what that might eventually turn out to be?

Cue theme to Twilight Zone...