Just shows sloppy scholarship. Sloppy here, sloppy there. There are patterns.
You have demonstrated no "patterns." You point to Morris' assertion that Ritner's failure to recognize Rhodes as an Egyptologist, is "sloppy scholarship."
Hilarious.
Talk about jealousy. Ritner is more prominent and more established as a scholar than all the knuckleheads at FARMS put together.
Factual but irrelevant to the translation. So why put it in, except, of course, it shows his total anti-Mormon bias
What is so bias about it? It shows his knowledge, not bias. You're just pissed off because he mentions it and it would otherwise go ignored if all we had to rely upon were LDS publications.
And then that makes his translation suspect.
His translation is "suspect" to whom? Morris? Rhodes? You're a joke.
If he hates Mormons, wants to discredit Mormons, then a translation of the Book of Breathings can show that bias.
He doesn't hate Mormons and there is nothing wrong with his translation. It is hilarious that you would think you or Morris could correct Ritner's Egyptian.
I am not pretending to translate a document. Ritner was.
Oh so now Ritner was only "pretending"? This just gets better and better. This is exactly the kind of thing that drove me out of apologetics. I had to run across idiots like you who thought these types of responses really meant something of consequence. You pretend to care about credentials, and yet here you are treating Ritner's translation with suspicion, because some lame-brained literature professor didn't like his tone.
If as in the case with discussions with me you regularly retreat into name calling I don't take your word for it that you have bested David in anything.
I never said I "bested" him. David can admit that I have caused him to rethink his positions, and this I did without attending a single Hebrew class. That says something about the significance, or lack thereof, in Hebrew knowledge. There is an entire thread in the celestial forum where we had an elaborate debate. I never got the feeling I was out of my league, and I don't think Bokovoy thought I was either.
You just proved my point.
You have no point to prove. You're incoherent meandering waffle doesn't constitute points.
No, it wasn't apologetics where David presented his material. It was before an audience of non-LDS. You are sounding more jealous and sour grapes all the time.
And you are sounding more and more like an idiot. David's apologetic diatribes that appear at MADB are not presented as such before non-LDS audiences. I haven't even attended them and yet I know better than to believe David would ever start off his career by presenting arguments that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, before non-LDS scholars.
This is typical of people who don't have degrees and reputations to think that those that do so have sold out. Assuages their prides.
I do have degrees, but I have never sought a career teaching in American academia. Why you choose to compare me and Bokovoy is a mystery. But Bokovoy's "reputation" is 98% due to his apologetics for a struggling LDS membership who rely on him to come up with new stuff to strengthen their testimonies. Same with Daniel Peterson, who for the most part, is unknown outside LDS circles. The head of the dept at his alma mater didn't even know who he was. So what?
And who told you to fling that "lying for the Lord" line around? I think it was Walter Martin that invented it. You know, the guy who only lied about his "doctorate."
Know he didn't invent it, Mormons did. After all, they are the ones doing it. You're doing it right now. You can't stand it when people come to teh tabel with a balanced perspective of basic facts. You prefer to push them in while convicing them their feelings are what matter.
Unlike you, I can tell what is opinion and what is fact. You seem to have trouble here. Must be a big problem in dealing with the world.
Unlike you, I am smart enough to know opinion and fact are not mutually exclusive. Opinions and facts can be one in the same. You seem to have trouble here. To say X can't be a fact because it is only an opinion, is like saying a man cannot be gay because he is Mexican. You're an idiot.
Your name calling shows the weakness of your arguments. The winner in a fight is the guy whose argument is strong enough he can remain civil.
There is nothing uncivil about noting stupidity where it exists, I'm sorry. You epitomize the stupidity that LDS apologetics has become.