Book of Abraham and the Latest Apologetics

[_William Schryver]

Will we all know you're blowing smoke again. You've admitted being wrong so many times on this subject, and have misrepresented even Hauglid so many times it is hard for anyone to take you seriously anymore, especially when you start referring to these mysterious "experts" who have verified YOUR (Someone who doesn't even reach the status of amateur. Someone who didn't even know what the KEP were until I told you a few years ago, and then became an instant "expert" after a few Nibley readings) conclusions! The fact that Hauglid is willing to consider your crazy ideas only tells us how desperate the Book of Abraham apologetic has become.

But it is pointless to even respond without something solid as a reference for your so-called "experts". Experts in what exactly, bull-s***? We're just supposed to take your word for it right? The same way we were supposed to in the link above when you were proved to be flat out incorrect on virtually every point you thought you had made? It isn't even worth dealing with you any more. Your conclusions are testimony-driven, pure and simple. You and Hauglid and Gee approach the matter with an agenda, as Hauglid was good enough to admit. He came to the matter with a conclusion already in mind and his "job" was to defend it because that would be "defending the kingdom of God."

This is all a joke when you pretend to have any sense of scholarship on your side.

I'd consider responding to you, but you are so far out in the "doesn't know what he's talking about field" that it would be impossible to make you understand.

Kevin, you have fallen so far behind in the discussion that it's sad.

Yes, my observations concerning the interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12 and the dittograph on page 4 of the same document have been confirmed by multiple "experts" in textual criticism and forensic document analysis. Skousen is the only I will name at present, but all will be named.

All of this, plus the stuff Hauglid and his team have been working on, will shortly appear in print.

You can rant and rave all you want about ... whatever it is you're ranting and raving about.

But you can't change the facts.

And on at least these two significant points (which I have been arguing for almost three years now) my conclusions are going to be vindicated and the critics' arguments to the contrary will be proven false. And the bigger picture: the theory of KEPA #2 and #3 being simultaneous transcripts of an oral dictation will be shown to be entirely untenable.

You might as well deal with it now. Because a year from now, if you keep ranting like this, you're only going to convince rational people that you've lost it completely.

[_William Schryver]

by the way, if I am so intellectually dishonest, etc., etc., then why is that my findings vis-a-vis the KEP keep getting confirmed by the experts? Are they all intellectually dishonest, too?

What about the forensics lab? Are you going to call their results intellectually dishonest?

Pardon us for not simply taking your word for all of this.

You can do whatever you damn well please, Kissassman. Doesn't matter to me.

I have the luxury of actually knowing what's going on. You don't.

[_Kishkumen]

I have the luxury of actually knowing what's going on. You don't.

And when we see the goods, we'll acknowledge them. Your propensity to trade on accomplishments that remain to be verified is suggestive of the weakness of your position and your low status among apologists.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

I think the anonymous Jewish redactor theory is still alive.

The nice part about The Missing Scroll theory is that theoretically the missing scrolls can never be found. If they actually existed how could anyone know. As we can see from the facsimiles printed in the PoGP that Joseph clearly didn't know how to translate Egyptian.

By the same measure I don't know why critics and apologists need to keep going back and forth on theories. The 3 facsimiles and their translations are pretty good evidence that Joseph didn't know Jack Squat about translating Egyptian.


Phaedrus

[_Runtu]

I think the anonymous Jewish redactor theory is still alive.

The nice part about The Missing Scroll theory is that theoretically the missing scrolls can never be found. If they actually existed how could anyone know. As we can see from the facsimiles printed in the PoGP that Joseph clearly didn't know how to translate Egyptian.

By the same measure I don't know why critics and apologists need to keep going back and forth on theories. The 3 facsimiles and their translations are pretty good evidence that Joseph didn't know Jack Squat about translating Egyptian.
Phaedrus

Yup. The facsimiles suggest that Joseph was trying (and failing) to do exactly what most people think a translator should do: translating. The facsimiles tie the translation to the papyri, so they tend to rule out the catalyst or "revelation" theory, leaving only the direct translation (the critics' choice) and the closely related reinterpretation theory (David B's preference).

As you say, if there were missing scrolls, there's no guarantee that Joseph's attempts at translation would have been any more successful than his efforts at the facsimiles.

There really isn't much left to defend of the Book of Abraham, sadly.

[_Mad Viking]

I think the anonymous Jewish redactor theory is still alive.

The nice part about The Missing Scroll theory is that theoretically the missing scrolls can never be found. If they actually existed how could anyone know. As we can see from the facsimiles printed in the PoGP that Joseph clearly didn't know how to translate Egyptian.

By the same measure I don't know why critics and apologists need to keep going back and forth on theories. The 3 facsimiles and their translations are pretty good evidence that Joseph didn't know Jack Squat about translating Egyptian.


Phaedrus

It seems like some of the theories employed do not require him to be able to. Some even seem to allow him not having the slightest clue what was going on (with regard to the production of the Book of Abraham), and that his statements concerning the the whole process are not found to be accurate.

[_harmony]

Just because something is published doesn't mean it's reliable or valid... or even right. Everything in FROB is "published". That doesn't mean diddly about the veracity.

[_William Schryver]

Just because something is published doesn't mean it's reliable or valid... or even right. Everything in FROB is "published". That doesn't mean diddly about the veracity.

Similarly, just because something is posted on a message board doesn't mean it's reliable or valid.

I know that's hard for you to accept, but this latest episode with the alleged overturning of the scroll length calculations should be a lesson to you.

I know it has been to me.

[_karl61]

that one part that was missing the head that Joseph drew in - I would have put a big there.

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Will,

You aver:

My conclusion is not based on anything Gee has said.

...

It is, rather, based on "documentary evidence." I have identified several pieces of historical evidence that suggest that at least all of the third chapter was produced in Kirtland, almost certainly with Warren Parrish as scribe.

Since you have "several pieces of historical evidence that suggest that at least all of the third chapter was produced in Kirtland, almost certainly with Warren Parrish as scribe," can you provide just three such pieces of historical evidence?

My best,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2009 Brent Lee Metcalfe. All rights reserved.)
——————————
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown