dartagnan wrote: Clearly Will, Brian and even Nibley had already noticed this erasure.
Will doesn't actually have a scan of MS 1, so the imputation of dishonesty in his case is misplaced. Nibley didn't really discuss whether the characters were later than the text, I don't think. It's Gee who has made this argument, and he doesn't appear to have studied these papers for more than a few minutes. So I doubt he has noticed the erasure.
Will doesn't actually have a scan of MS 1, so the imputation of dishonesty in his case is misplaced.
Will has declared himself a reliable authority. He has assured us on more than one occassion that he has studied these manuscripts in their details, "as much as anyone" ever has. Now he wants to say he hasn't? He constantly implies he has seen and studied the color visuals because he rubs elbows with Hauglid.
He wants everyone to take it for granted he is right, but he doesn't want to accept the consequences when he is wrong. I'm personally sick of this shell game of "hide the culprit" behind the stupid apologetic. Gee did the sae thing and everyone at FAIR insisted Gee should be accepted before Brent because Gee had actually handled the mss. Juliann said this on a number of occassions for two years, and nobody questioned or corrected her. And then once Brent proved Gee had been lying about the two ink theory, we hear from the apologists that Gee never really had access to the mss to begin with! Why? So he couldn't be accused of lying! He was simply given bad photos from some other mystery liar.
WHAT EVER.
Nobody ever wants to be held accountable for discredited apologetics. It is always passed off onto someone else. I was the patsy back in 2002, and now Will has willingly accepted the role with his eyes wide open. He should be held accountable, especially because of his constant rants about how he has more familiarity with the mss than anyone here. How many times do we have to see this isn't the case?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
No, there isn't the slightest evidence of a character.
Hi Kevin,
Yes, the notion that placement of the characters was unimportant to Joseph Smith or his scribes is entirely without merit.
Hi Robert,
When you say "blotter," what are you referring to?
The most common methods of blotting in early-19thC America were sprinkling freshly inked text with sand or pressing the writing surface with a special porous paper. I'm very familiar with a variety of blotting techniques (I've used them to test my hypotheses about certain phenomena in 19thC manuscripts), and I can't see how any of these techniques relate to what you describe.
OK I measured the distance from the highest points of each set.
Notice the difference in length. I estimate the gap between the two is about 30% difference.
This seems to kill the blotter theory.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
rcrocket wrote:As far as Chap's comment following mine about the missing blotter, perhaps he does not realize (because perhaps he hasn't read much) that before the ball point pen (a steel or plastic ball rolling in a fluted cylinder) there were quivers and ink pots and that as easily as he could be blotted out of the Book of Life, so could drying ink leave a reverse imprint on blotting paper -- particularly if somebody chose merely to use parchment or paper as a blotter. His attempt to nail down his joking comment reminds me of the comedian who has to explain his joke.
You mean people managed to make marks on paper before there were laser printers? You have to be making this up!
[Missing papyrus theory -> Missing blotter theory -> LOL]
OK I measured the distance from the highest points of each set.
Notice the difference in length. I estimate the gap between the two is about 30% difference.
This seems to kill the blotter theory.
Oh, look at those pretty little green arrows. That's it, I'm having my name taken off the records...
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
Droopy wrote:Oh, look at those pretty little green arrows. That's it, I'm having my name taken off the records...
Dear God, NO! What can we do to keep Coggy in the LDS Church? Someone think of something quick! We critics get far too much mileage off his lowbrow shenanigans to let him come to his senses!
“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.”
FYI, I've corrected a few items in my notes to match my latest typographical facsimiles (see here.)
I think perhaps you should revisit your transcriptions. Your transcription of the “repeated paragraph” in Ms. #2 (your BoAbr ms. 1a) is inaccurate, and it's obvious that you don't know why.
... 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 ...
FYI, I've corrected a few items in my notes to match my latest typographical facsimiles (see here.)
I think perhaps you should revisit your transcriptions. Your transcription of the “repeated paragraph” in Ms. #2 (your BoAbr ms. 1a) is inaccurate, and it's obvious that you don't know why.
How is it inaccurate? (I'm not ashamed of admitting that I have NO IDEA why you think it might be.)
FYI, I've corrected a few items in my notes to match my latest typographical facsimiles (see here.)
I think perhaps you should revisit your transcriptions. Your transcription of the “repeated paragraph” in Ms. #2 (your BoAbr ms. 1a) is inaccurate, and it's obvious that you don't know why.
How is it inaccurate? (I'm not ashamed of admitting that I have NO IDEA why you think it might be.)
I'll be more than happy to identify the errors (there are at least three of them) -- as soon as Brent elaborates on the error(s) he claimed were present in my partial "transcription" of Ms. #2, 1:37 - 1:38.
... 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 ...
