KEP Dictation Argument: The Evidence

[_William Schryver]

Put a pack of Marlboros, Busch(not Busch light), a Red bong, and a ponytail on the picture and you have the REAL Willbilly Schryver.

Really?

When did you last see me with "a pack of Marlboros, Busch(not Busch light), a Red bong, and a ponytail"?

[Guest]

Would that every LDS scholar in history had the stellar record for correctness that Nibley left behind.

Oh, his track record isn't great, but he is the 900 pound gorilla in Mopologetics.

For that matter, the KEP are not even well adapted to the typical training of an expert in text criticism--the issues and questions are just not the same as they are when dealing with, for example, a series of successively copied New Testament manuscripts.

Please inform maklelan that he is unqualified to analyze these documents and identify homoioteleuton. This should save him lots of time both at MADB and here; he will no longer need to spend hours composing messages telling how qualified he is as a text critic. Because, in your opinion, it isn't relevant.

Indeed (seeing it in retrospect, of course) the questions posed by the KEP lend themselves quite well to the unique skills of a computer programmer accustomed to dealing with a large assortment of diverse details in need of being arranged/sorted/selectively analyzed/etc.

Speaking as a computer programmer myself, I know that computer programmers are prone to delusions of grandeur. Thanks for adding another data point to that conclusion, i.e. you are full of crap. But, please post whatever code (database schemata included) you used to "arrange/sort/selectively analyze" the data.

Have a nice day!

[_sock puppet]

For that matter, the KEP are not even well adapted to the typical training of an expert in text criticism--the issues and questions are just not the same as they are when dealing with, for example, a series of successively copied New Testament manuscripts.

So is that why maklelan got pulled off the job?

[_beastie]

Would that every LDS scholar in history had the stellar record for correctness that Nibley left behind.

Nevertheless, over the course of the past four years of my studies of the KEP, I have identified several errors that he committed. Working with the numerous details of textual criticism was not his forté, and his deficiencies are more evident in his KEP work than in anything else he did. Someone should have realized early on that the KEP do not constitute an Egyptological problem. For that matter, the KEP are not even well adapted to the typical training of an expert in text criticism--the issues and questions are just not the same as they are when dealing with, for example, a series of successively copied New Testament manuscripts.

Indeed (seeing it in retrospect, of course) the questions posed by the KEP lend themselves quite well to the unique skills of a computer programmer accustomed to dealing with a large assortment of diverse details in need of being arranged/sorted/selectively analyzed/etc.

LOL. The error we were just discussing: whether or not Joseph Smith attempted to share excerpts from the Book of Abraham as soon as possible, versus your theory in which he wanted to hide it in a cipher, has nothing to do with the skills of a computer programmer. And if you're correct, and Nibley made such a basic error, he truly was an incompetent historian.
.
.
.

beastlie,

I'm sorry you just can't seem to comprehend why it is your questions are irrelevant to my theses, but I have given you all the answers anyone should need to "get it."

So, the bottom line is this: I never cared if you understood in the first place, and now I don't care twice as much as I never cared before.

You really think I still won't notice you refuse to answer such a simple question? Did or did you not know about the Masonic/Egyptian connection?

[_Kishkumen]

Joseph Smith et al. (yes, "al." is an abbreviation for "alli", and should have a period after it)

Not only should it be followed by a period, but it should also be spelled correctly when it is not abbreviated: alii, from the Latin alius, which means "an other."

It would be one thing if you were both pedantic and correct, but it is really sad that you are pedantic and wrong.

For your further education:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alius

Next time you're going to be a prick, do a better job.

[_Kishkumen]

Please inform maklelan that he is unqualified to analyze these documents and identify homoioteleuton. This should save him lots of time both at MADB and here; he will no longer need to spend hours composing messages telling how qualified he is as a text critic. Because, in your opinion, it isn't relevant.

It took me all of 5 minutes to arrive at that conclusion. I am glad to see the apologists are finally coming around.

[_beastie]

Not only should it be followed by a period, but it should also be spelled correctly when it is not abbreviated: alii, from the Latin alius, which means "an other."

It would be one thing if you were both pedantic and correct, but it is really sad that you are pedantic and wrong.

For your further education:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/alius

Next time you're going to be a prick, do a better job.

snicker

Well, look at it this way: at least he didn't just make another vulgar insult. Perhaps that's progress.

[_Kevin Graham]

For that matter, the KEP are not even well adapted to the typical training of an expert in text criticism--the issues and questions are just not the same as they are when dealing with, for example, a series of successively copied New Testament manuscripts.

This is so funny because this is precisely what I tried telling Will on several occasions over the past few years, and I explicitly said the same thing to Maklelan when he tried trotting out his credentials as a text critic. But for years Will never hestitated to throw up "text critics" like Hauglid and Skousen as proof that his arguments were right. So long as he had "text critics" behind him, his arguments were supposed to carry some credibility.

Now that he has diminished the significance of having text critics on any given side, he's essentially left us with an obvious question: by what authority does Will propose to sell his idiotic arguments now?

So what kind of authorities will he rely on now? Ciphering experts? LOL. Funny how expertise in some fields become relevant/irrelevant only when Wilbur declares it so.
I love how Will pretends to come up with so many things on his own.

[_Kishkumen]

But for years Will never hestitated to throw up "text critics" like Hauglid and Skousen as proof that his arguments were right. So long as he had "text critics" behind him, his arguments were supposed to carry some credibility.

So, having dismissed the pertinence of the expertise of his expert supporters, Will has left us with his skills as a computer programmer, which, evidently, give him results that everyone is expected to place more confidence in than the expertise behind all of the other computer word studies that have been done on the Book of Mormon. This should be interesting.

[_Paul Osborne]

Really?

When did you last see me with "a pack of Marlboros, Busch(not Busch light), a Red bong, and a ponytail"?

Oh William, all you have to do is cut your hit of blotter acid into two halfs and it will be just like the old days. The red bong filled with sweet red wine -- or perhaps a little whiskey. You're dirty William! Once dirty, always dirty! I just know it and it makes me rub my hands with glee! Hahahahahahaha!!!

Dirty William has a past. Take a deep hit and hold it in. Wowwww man, I'm seeing colors!!

Paul O