The comedic value of Schryver's idiotic contributions never ceases. Will's recent statement at MAD:
As one who is probably as familiar with the extant original source materials as anyone, I cannot see how--outside of personal revelation--one could confidently reach any kind of "scientific conclusion" concerning the accuracy of the translation of the Book of Abraham.
Funny talk coming from a guy who goes out of his way to avoid all the evidence proving precisely that. Will's argument to his choir is a familiar one that LDS apologists are adopting more and more. It essentially goes something like this:
"I know a lot about this and I don't agree with what the critics have said."
This is just another form of testimony bearing that has no place in intellectual fora. It is pretty much all they're left with. Well, that and dishonesty. I mean compare Will's statement here to what he said previously:
if I were an outsider looking in at all of this, I find it difficult to believe that I could be persuaded that the production of the Book of Abraham was anything other than a clumsy imposture perpetrated by Joseph Smith upon his followers. But, of course, I’m not. I came into the discussion already possessing a conviction that the Book of Abraham was divinely-inspired scripture.
Will admitted that the only reason to believe Joseph Smith was anything other than a fraud, was his presuppositional stance in the form of the testimony.
To the extent it derived from revelation (similarly to the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses), then what test might one apply to determine its accuracy?
Is Will truly this stupid? Yes, he is. He wants us to believe that Joseph Smith never claimed to have translated from the Egyptian language, which makes it falsifiable in every way. He is banking on the abject ignorance of his MAD crowd, which he can usually do with confidence, but he knows he could never get away with this kind of intellectual terrorism on this forum. This is why he ignores so many people who call him out on this.
I am not aware of any definitive evidence sufficient to disprove the authenticity and historicity of the Book of Abraham.
ROFL! Again, let me reiterate what Will said to me previously:
if I were an outsider looking in at all of this, I find it difficult to believe that I could be persuaded that the production of the Book of Abraham was anything other than a clumsy imposture perpetrated by Joseph Smith upon his followers. But, of course, I’m not. I came into the discussion already possessing a conviction that the Book of Abraham was divinely-inspired scripture.
Again, Will pulls this stunt all the time: "I've studied this as much as anyone and I can say the critics have no case."
He tried this gambit with me in the spring of 2006, when it was clear Will had not the faintest clue what the KEP were (he thought they referred to the papyri!). He said he had studied the documents more than anyone, while little did he know, they had not been released for independent study. He then came across the only apologetic piece on the subject written by Nibley and treated it as the final word on the matter. This is why Will can never be taken seriously. He cannot be trusted. His goal is to write up a testimony and try to sound as confident and as authoritative as possible, just for the sake of supporting those dying for reasons to keep believing, despite all the evidence to the contrary.