Intellectual Bankruptcy of Book of Abraham apologetics

[_William Schryver]

You spent a lot of time making a detailed response to a passing comment I made about some of the characters not having an apparently discrete relationship to specific blocks of English text.

I never argued further on the issue because I quickly concluded that it didn't matter either way. If it's so (and it is in a couple cases) I could never see what significance it might have anyway. So I dropped the issue. Simple as that.

If you want to talk about any of the 4 specific text-critical findings I have listed numerous times on this board in the past few weeks, I might consider responding to you -- assuming you come up with anything substantive. Or if you'd like to talk about the scroll-length arguments as carefully laid out in my paper posted on the MAD board, I might consider engaging you.

Otherwise, you're wasting your breath and Shades' bandwidth with these endless postings of three-year old threads.
.
.
.
OK, I've gotta go for the time being. Gotta head to Home Depot for some evaporative cooler parts, and then risk life and limb on the 10/12 pitch roof above my head.

[_Kevin Graham]

You spent a lot of time making a detailed response to a passing comment I made about some of the characters not having an apparently discrete relationship to specific blocks of English text

Because it highlights just how willing you are to lie. If you think you can get away with stateing falsehood, you'll do it. Frankly I couldn't believe what I was readinbg when i read your post because I had the manuscript page right beside me and it was completely opposite of what you were saying.

I never argued further on the issue because I quickly concluded that it didn't matter either way.

No, you quickly read what I had posted on my forum so you dropped the subject, hoping nobody at MADB would call you out on your duplicity. And it worked, because unfortunately, Don Bradly never did.

If it's so (and it is in a couple cases) I could never see what significance it might have anyway. So I dropped the issue. Simple as that.

Hell most of the stuff you spout has no significance. It is your job as an apologist to invent significance using rhetoric.

If you want to talk about any of the 4 specific text-critical findings I have listed numerous times on this board in the past few weeks, I might consider responding to you -- assuming you come up with anything substantive.

Oh, but you still refuse to address the various text critical evidences listed above? How convenient. You knwo I have addressed your so called evidences. I've been doing it for years now, off and on, according to my mood.

Or if you'd like to talk about the scroll-length arguments as carefully laid out in my paper posted on the MAD board, I might consider engaging you.

You've yet to illustrate any significance worth discussing. You first have to provide reasonable doubt that the extant material is what Smith and his scribes were using. Until you do, you can fabricate 20 miles of missing papyri from the scroll and it doesn't make any difference.

Otherwise, you're wasting your breath and Shades' bandwidth with these endless postings of three-year old threads.

Hey, you came here and claimed I have not address your stuff. I proved that I have. Now you get to show you've got the balls to address the text critical evidence provided above. Or maybe you don't. It is up to you, but I suspect you'll tuck tail and run again.

[_William Schryver]

Cracker:

You knwo I have addressed your so called evidences. I've been doing it for years now, off and on, according to my mood.

I knew you would avoid dealing with the specific arguments again. Of course, you can’t. You know little or nothing about the issues. You’ve NEVER even attempted to rebut my arguments on the interlinear insertion or the dittograph. Never! All you’ve ever done is pop in long enough to say “what he said” when Metcalfe would post something.

You’re a rhetoric production module run amok. The discussion has left you far behind, and you’re left with nothing to say.

Now you get to show you've got the balls to address the text critical evidence provided above.

I’ve seen nothing that addresses my specific points.

And I’ve seen nothing to indicate that any interaction with you can be profitable to me or to our readers. Therefore I will leave you to rant to your heart’s delight. Should Metcalfe choose to respond to my text-critical evidence on the large dittograph, I will engage him accordingly. At this point, it is futile to discuss these things with you. You are not only ignorant of the source material itself, but you’re incapable of substantive exchange. I knew this would be the outcome of any attempt to address you directly, and my expectation has been confirmed.

I will therefore leave you to your permanent state of irrelevance.

[_Kevin Graham]

I knew you would avoid dealing with the specific arguments again. Of course, you can’t. You know little or nothing about the issues. You’ve NEVER even attempted to rebut my arguments on the interlinear insertion or the dittograph. Never! All you’ve ever done is pop in long enough to say “what he said” when Metcalfe would post something.

You're lying again. We all discussed your pet theories in detail on my forum for months, and you even popped in to make a few snide remarks. I provided my own edited images and even created a chart to explain why the dittograph might appear. So why are you lying? I provided detailed explanations that accounted for the dittograph at the tail end of page 4 of Ms1a. I have also addressed your other claims you say are based on "text-critical analysis." What a laugh.
And what's worse, you came to this forum in November of 2007, and said:

I’ve started this thread for the express purpose of inviting people like Kevin Graham, Chris Smith, Brackite – and anyone else who is so inclined – to delineate to the best of their ability the arguments that they believe support the premise that the KEPA Mss. #2 and #3 (Metcalfe’s 1a/1b) are the simultaneously-produced transcripts of Joseph Smith’s original dictation of the first chapter and a half of the Book of Abraham.

I want to do it here instead of on the MA&D board so that Kevin and others can participate who can’t do so over there. And I figured I’d do it in the Celestial Kingdom in order to encourage everyone to just keep it dispassionate and as scholarly as possible.

Uh huh. Well, guess what I responded with. Yep, the seven points I just mentioned above. And guess who refused to address them? You did. If you don't believe me, then here is the link: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3836
So it has been established that I have addressed these issues on numerous occasions, whereas you are still trying to divert so you won't have to address the indisputable evidences for dictation.

The discussion has left you far behind, and you’re left with nothing to say

There is no "discussion" you idiot. The real discussion ended shortly after I was banned from MADB and Hauglid was scared to say anything else online because he knew I would hold him accountable elsewhere. Who the hell do you think is having a "discussion" with you? Brent? He doesn't think you're worthy of his time, and the only time he does make an appearance it is to provide a very short comment that usually throws your wishful thinking into a tailspin. All you ever do is walk over here with your silly taunts every once in a while, essentially ranting about the same things just to stroke your ego. That's all you ever do.

I’ve seen nothing that addresses my specific points.

You're lying again. You've seen plenty, but because you're now on this mission to prove I'm "irrelevant" to a non-existent discussion, you can't allow yourself to accept the fact that I am the only one who has actually taken the time out to provided detailed rebuttals.

And I’ve seen nothing to indicate that any interaction with you can be profitable to me or to our readers.

That is a bad excuse for avoiding me because you know I don't pussy-foot around. I won't let you get away with lies and deception the way Chris does. I call it like I see it.

Therefore I will leave you to rant to your heart’s delight.

Stop pretending you're leaving for any reason other than the fact that you cannot address the criticisms of your position and you cannot address the specific irrefutable evidences listed above that completely destroy your silly copyist theory. You don't have the background knowledge nor the intellectual fortitude to carry on in a serious debate, which is precisely why you have to hide out at MADB where you know the mods have your back.
So go slink back off to MADB as you always do.

[_Paul Osborne]

Will,

Pack it up and go home or find a different paradigm to build your cause. You have turned the Book of Abraham papyrus and KEP into a damn circus. I hope for your sake you get another paradigm (like mine) or I think you’ll go completely nuts and lash out at everyone and everything – including the church. Perhaps, it won’t be too long and you’ll be joining forces with those who you are now fighting with!

Forget about the whole thing and move on to something else. You’re upset, very upset – but I still love you and everyone else too, I think. The manner in which you are engaging your opponents is very unJesus like. It's taking you down.

Paul O

[_Kishkumen]

So, in short, Will has no answers for the questions posed here. His position is that Kevin must answer his questions. Not a very convincing apologetic, I must say.

[_Dr. Shades]

I’ve seen nothing that addresses my specific points.

WTF?? Of what do you think Kevin's entire opening post specifically consisted?

[_harmony]

Perhaps, it won’t be too long and you’ll be joining forces with those who you are now fighting with!

There goes the neighborhood.

[_Kishkumen]

#4 Abraham 1:12
Book of Abraham - “I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record”
Ms1a - “I will refer you to the representation that is at the commencement of this record.”
Ms1b - "I will refer you to the representation, that is lying before you at the commencement of this record"

"that is lying before you" was crossed out and corrected in transition by William Parrish in Ms1b. The partial mistake was made by Williams who was probably transcribing at a slower pace and was corrected before getting past "that is."

Excuse me, but how could a copyist, or anyone for that matter, possibly mistake "at the commencement of this record" for "that is lying before you." The only sound explanation is that this was dictated as the orator corrected a mistake in transition.

I have to say, how on earth does one see a copying error in the insertion of the phrase, "is lying before you." It seems to me that the natural inference to draw from this is that someone taking dictation wrote down a phrase that was not intended to be part of the translation, or that was corrected with "at the commencement of this record," but not crossed out by the scribe. In any case, what would be the explanation for a copyist including this?

[_Kevin Graham]

As I said, don't hold your breath.

Testimony based reasoning first requires a testmony. Will's explanation for this reasoning is to go pray about it. Will admitted this himself when he said that if he had no testimony guiding him, he would be forced to admit Joseph Smith didn't know what the hell he was doing. Mormon apologists reside in an alternate universe they create for themselves. Logic doesn't apply.