Zub Zool oan and Abraham 1:2b?????3

[_Nomad]

dblagent-

This is how I imagine the scenario. Joseph was dictating to Parrish and Williams. For some reason Parrish stops writing the dictation where his manuscript ends (maybe he had to leave or something). Joseph continued dictating to Williams until he finishes. Joseph, thinking that he doesn't want a repeat of the 116 pages fiasco, tells Williams to make a copy of the material dictated after Parrish stopped.

Let's see if I've got this straight. Joseph Smith is thinking about the lost 116 pages. Doesn't want that to happen again! So he has Williams make a copy of one paragraph, and one paragraph only. But he has him do it on the same page! That way, if this page gets lost ...

Wait a second. Something's wrong with this theory. What can it possibly be?

Can you folks really be this dumb?

[_dblagent007]

Let's see if I've got this straight. Joseph Smith is thinking about the lost 116 pages. Doesn't want that to happen again! So he has Williams make a copy of one paragraph, and one paragraph only. But he has him do it on the same page! That way, if this page gets lost ...

Wait a second. Something's wrong with this theory. What can it possibly be?

Can you folks really be this dumb?

Nomad, uh, I want to put this as nicely as possible . . . your reading comprehension really sucks.

[_Kevin Graham]

I thought you could be more objective about this. You have failed to support your assertion, but you refuse to be rational and professional about it. This debate is over, and you lost.

Is Chris or Brent willing to take up this dictation argument where Kevin left off, or shall we just consider this particular case closed?

Excuse me, but you said you were not even getting into the dictation argument, and now suddenly you want to pretend this is what we were debating? You said you were only dealing with Abr 1:1-3 for the time being, except of course for the instances when you chose to veer off onto the dittograph in chapter 2. Every time I tried to get your attention on the dictation aspect, you insisted we focus only on your demands while accusing us of circular reasoning. Nice.

I suspect Chris and Brent wouldn't allow you to get away with this kind of "debating" either. Your knowledge of the relevant materials is abysmal, and your overconfidence in your irrelevant expertise is just a sideshow that does nothing but attempt to argue from a false sense of authority.

I also notice you have no response to the thorough refutation of your assertion that the characters have nothing whatsoever to do with the EAG. You just revealed your inability too even pretend to be objective, which is quite ironic given your initial declaration that you're a pure scholar who doesn't let his personal presuppositions get in the way of his "scholarship." By the way, were you typing that with a straight face?

I think I've been gracious and respectful towards you, but apparently you want to be treated as royalty. You refuse to answer questions and respond to valid criticisms. You asked me about the relatiionship between the characters and the EAG and I spent ten minutes on photoshop illustrating the connection. I even emailed you copies of the entire KEP so you could educate yourself on the matter further. So I can only conclude this little spectacle of indignance has more to do with you being too embarrassed to admit being wrong. Pretend all you want that you've actually won a debate. This is a common trait among your ilk, and is hardly surprising.

By the way, did you look up the word "transcribe" in the dictionary? Was being corrected on the meaning of an English term fundamental to this discussion, by someone so intellectually inferior, just to much for your ego to bear?

Good grief Mak, we expected better things from you.

[_Kevin Graham]

It has nothing to do with intention!

In the context of textual criticism, it most certainly refers to a scribal ERROR, which means it was not intentional. You can't declare something an error if it was intentional, moron.

Stop making an ass of yourself.

Better yet, keep going. This is funny stuff.

Now that your cleanup hitter has stomped off in a huff, might as well have fun beating up the water boy.

[_maklelan]

Your question makes an assumption that is unsupported

No it does not.

that Joseph wanted the section copied twice on a single piece of paper. What if Joseph only communicated that he wanted the material copied without explaining his motives (e.g., he was worried he would lose a copy like he did with the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon). Williams, not knowing why Joseph wanted it copied, simply followed instructions and copied it on the same piece of paper.

Too many "what ifs" to assert that this scenario is more likely than a common transcription error. The Law of Parsimony utterly precludes your rationale.

This is how I imagine the scenario. Joseph was dictating to Parrish and Williams. For some reason Parrish stops writing the dictation where his manuscript ends (maybe he had to leave or something). Joseph continued dictating to Williams until he finishes. Joseph, thinking that he doesn't want a repeat of the 116 pages fiasco, tells Williams to make a copy of the material dictated after Parrish stopped.

Joseph then leaves or moves on to other more pressing matters. Williams takes a look at Parrish's manuscript, finds where Parrish stopped writing, and makes another copy of that material on his own manuscript. Joseph didn't tell Williams why he wanted the material copied so Williams simply follows orders by coying the material at the end of his paper.

Doesn't work. The text is repeated right after the phrase, "therefore he continued in Haran." That copied text, however, continues on unbroken after passing that mark. The page ends in the middle of v. 6, but the text that was repeated only goes to the end of verse 5. The text very clearly continues on another no longer extant manuscript. If Joseph told him to copy what he had just dictated, Williams continued past where Joseph stopped. Joseph would have had to dictate to Williams what was copied and he would have had to continue past the point where Parrish stopped, or Williams was transcribing from a written text and continued on past what Joseph told him to copy. Either way, your assumption is far, far less reasonable than the conclusion that this constitutes a simple transcription error. The fact that the word "Haran" begins and ends the copied portion of text (right at the end of the line of text) is too clear an indicator.

Aren't you flippantly tossing Kevin's concerns aside by refusing to discuss them until Kevin provides a satisfactory answer on this one issue?

Absolutely not. No answer even approaching satisfactory has been provided.

As I understand Kevin, one of his points is that all of the other evidence informs the analysis of the dittograph so that you cannot simply view the dittograph in isolation. The dittograph needs to be interpreted in a context that fits the rest of the evidence.

That's not a legitimate methodology. One cannot simply a priori reject the possibility that both transcription and dictation took place. If evidence for transcription in one section exists, evidence for dictation in another section cannot simply override the former. That a priori presupposes a single method of copy where the evidence flat contradicts it.

I already explained the bottom line. In order for Kevin's claim to even break even with the evidence in favor of homoioteleuton, Kevin needs to show that Smith had a reason to want the text copied on the same sheet of paper. Kevin cannot show that, nor can anyone else. No such reason exists.

[_maklelan]

Excuse me, but you said you were not even getting into the dictation argument, and now suddenly you want to pretend this is what we were debating?

You wanted to press this issue, not me. You've lost that particular debate. If you'd like to continue with the other line of discussion then just state that you were mistaken about the homoioteleuton. I will apologize for doubting your objectivity and sincerity and we can continue. If you cannot show me that you are capable of conceding a simple point when it has absolutely unquestionably been proven to you, I have no reason to continue debating with you at all. Like I said, I am interested in a respectful, objective, and professional debate. Ignoring the facts here and belligerently asserting that you're right just because is a quite clear indicator that you cannot meet those standards. I made that quite clear when I first responded to you about this issue.

I will only read one more post of yours. If it does not satisfy the criterion I've outlined above, I have no further use of you.

[_dblagent007]

Now that your cleanup hitter has stomped off in a huff, might as well have fun beating up the water boy.

Nomad's ignorant certitude is eerily similar to Will's from three or four years ago.

[_Kevin Graham]

Anyone with a brain can see that maklelan has completely destroyed you and Smith. Buried you under Mt. Doom, so to speak. lol! It's not even a competition.

You're right, it isn't a competition really, because Mak is too ignorant of the material. I know because I just emailed it to him two nights ago. Mak is more interested in touting himself as an authority, which is pretty funny given his expertise is in the Hebrew Bible! I've had many debates with scholars far more established than Mak, few of whom were as full of themselves as he is. And how established is he anyway? He's still a student.

Mak stomped off probably because I embarrassed him on more points than he was willing to address. He doesn't even know what the word "transcribe" means for crying out loud. I could have pummeled him on this point but I was nice about it. I would have let it slide, but the meaning of that word was crucial to the debate. But he couldn't stand to be corrected on any point. Even when I presented the graphic illustration (literally "drawing a picture" for him!) proving he was wrong about the Egyptian characters and their relationship to the EAG, his only response was indignance. What business does anyone, with his dearth of knowledge, have starting threads attempting to analyze Zub Zool? He sees what he wants, and focuses only on portions that might have apologetic value. You can't debate people who think they have nothing to learn and everything to teach.

[_Kevin Graham]

Let it go Mak, I have no interest "debating" someone who demands that I agree with his point before the debate can continue. I don't know what world you live in, but there is nothing objective, respectful or "professional" about this.

Live long and prosper.

[_maklelan]

mak,

I have been meaning to say something similar, but I wanted to stay out of the debate, mainly because I am not a KEP expert. But from the point of view of an observer you seem to admit to the following things:

1) You have just started looking at the KEP documents.
2) You are only focusing on a narrow part of the KEP documents.
3) You are only using one toolset, text criticism, to analyze the KEP documents.

At this stage of my research the above are true, but in a short period of time none will be true.

I might also add, and this is probably going to sound offensive, but you seem really anxious to throw your weight around as a text critical expert. The insistence on being right about the homoioteleuton almost to the exclusion of everything else seems indicative of this. Yes, it is a piece of data that you may be right about it being homoioteleuton, but at this point you seem to have staked the entire debate on acceptance of your analysis of ONE thing, the homoioteleuton.

Not at all. The vast, vast majority of this thread revolves around Abr 1:1-3 and Zub Zool oan. This homoioteleuton was a tangent until Kevin decided to emphasize it.

It seems silly to essentially say that you are going to take your ball and play at home if people don't concede one point you are trying to make. Especially since by your own admission you have just started looking at this stuff.

That's irrelevant in light of the fact that my conclusion is the only logical conclusion. My opponent cannot even provide a reason to think his conclusion is anything but utterly irrational. My argument is what is relevant, not how long I've been studying these data.