Intellectual Bankruptcy of Book of Abraham apologetics

[_William Schryver]

Whoa Nellie!

Who let the dogs out?

A guy leaves for a while and the entire gaggle of demons appears for a raucous Saturday night rumble!



OK, well I'm afraid I'm gonna have to pick and choose--no offense to anyone in particular.

The Cracker Man wrote:

You're lying again. ["lying"! Again!] We all discussed your pet theories in detail on my forum for months, ["in detail"!] and you even popped in to make a few snide remarks ["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? ["lying"! Again!] 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. [:lol:]

I have no recollection of ever reading your "detailed explanations" of the repeated paragraph on page 4 of KEPA 2. I can't say as I "checked in" very often in your "forum," and when I did there was never anyone there. If I ever did read your "detailed explanations," then I can only conclude they made little impression on me at the time. Probably my own fault there.

In any case, I would very much welcome them to be "explained in detail" again, if it's not too much trouble. Three or four bullet points should suffice. I then promise to give them due consideration, and even address them, if warranted, in my upcoming short paper (to first appear again in the august environs of the MADB School of the Pundits) that will treat upon the entire subject matter of the dittographs in KEPA 2.

[_Kishkumen]

I then promise to give them due consideration, and even address them, if warranted, in my upcoming short paper (to first appear again in the august environs of the MADB School of the Pundits) that will treat upon the entire subject matter of the dittographs in KEPA 2.

More dilatory tactics from Schryver. How surprising. "I promise... It's upcoming..."

We'll see.

[_William Schryver]

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

Paul,

You seem like a fairly good natured fellow. Well, most of the time. You've had your moments over the years, haven't you?

Anyway, I appreciate your admonition to be more Christ-like. That is the challenge in life, isn't it? I'll see if I can't do a little better tomorrow than I've been doing so far today. That's the best I can hope for, naturally.

As for this very interesting controversy concerning the origins of the Book of Abraham, I do hope that you'll be able to avail yourself of the opportunity to get a copy of the upcoming critical edition of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I expect it to be much like the Rhodes Hor Book of Breathings book in that it will be "just the facts, ma'am." No interpretation in the critical edition--just the transcriptions and images. That will really be something you can sink your teeth into for a few months, don't you think? And, I tell you what, I would even feel privileged to gift you a copy of it. When the time comes, you just PM me an address, and I'll have it shipped to you gratis just so you can get the earliest start possible in soaking up the details of all the stuff you've only seen (for the most part) in poor black and white photocopies up until now.

Is that something you'd be interested in?

As for me "joining forces with those ... you are now fighting with", I really want to set your mind at ease when it comes to that. Rest assured that Cracker Man is pretty much on the mark when he pegs me as someone whose conviction of the truth is pretty bullet-proof. It's what "liberates" me to see things as they really are. If you know what I mean.

So thanks again for your kind words. I hope life is treating you well. And when the book comes out, you fire me off an e-mail or PM, and I'll get you squared away ASAP.

[_William Schryver]

I then promise to give them due consideration, and even address them, if warranted, in my upcoming short paper (to first appear again in the august environs of the MADB School of the Pundits) that will treat upon the entire subject matter of the dittographs in KEPA 2.

More dilatory tactics from Schryver. How surprising. "I promise... It's upcoming..."

We'll see.

What more can I do than say that, if Graham produces his "detailed explanation" of the repeated paragraph in KEPA 2, I will promptly respond to it?

I'm not gonna dance for you, Kissassman.

[_Kishkumen]

Rest assured that Cracker Man is pretty much on the mark when he pegs me as someone whose conviction of the truth is pretty bullet-proof. It's what "liberates" me to see things as they really are. If you know what I mean.

And yet you persist in one of the most wrong-headed, perhaps even dishonest, apologetics in the history of Mormonism. You could learn a thing, hell, hundreds of things about liberation from Paul O. For starters, the liberation of being free from arguing nonsense when faith suffices. If you believe Joseph Smith to be a prophet of God, then it matters very little whether there was an authentic Abrahamic text on that papyrus scroll. Joseph's calling as prophet, for those who actually trust in it with faith, is all that is required to make that book scripture.

[_Kevin Graham]

In any case, I would very much welcome them to be "explained in detail" again, if it's not too much trouble. Three or four bullet points should suffice. I then promise to give them due consideration, and even address them, if warranted, in my upcoming short paper (to first appear again in the august environs of the MADB School of the Pundits) that will treat upon the entire subject matter of the dittographs in KEPA 2.

I don't just want you to address my critique of your dittograph theory, I want you to address the points I raised several times over the past few years. The seven, hard hitting text critical evidences against the copyist theory.

I said you're lying because you frequented the forum. You seem tof orget that I was the administrator, and I monitored IP addresses and knew exactly how many times a poster frequented the forum. The forum has been shut down for more than a year now, and I have all the files saved on my PC in Brasil, but I will do you a deal. I will write up another response that points out the weaknesses in your dittograph argument, if you promise to finally offer an explanation as to how those seven points could possibly make any sense if they were just copies of a mysterious Q document.

Deal?

[_Kishkumen]

I'm not gonna dance for you, Kissassman.

Dancing is all you know how to do, Wee Willy. It is answering real critiques with substantive arguments and evidence that eludes you.

[_Kishkumen]

I have been watching Hauglid's presentation, and a question has come up:

If there are a number of variants in the Phelps passage in Mss. 1, then how can we be confident that homoioteleuton occurs instead of the missing phrase simply being another variant?

[_William Schryver]

Kissassman:

Joseph's calling as prophet, for those who actually trust in it with faith, is all that is required to make that book scripture.

Truer words were never spoken, you secret combiner, you.

But the simple fact is that until I’m persuaded otherwise (and it hasn’t happened yet) I believe there most definitely was an Abraham text on that scroll, and that the “translation” produced by Joseph Smith was a faithful rendition of it into modern idiom.

Furthermore, every time I have looked closely at the critics’ arguments against the Book of Abraham, I have found them wanting or just plain wrong. This last episode with Chap and Chris Smith waxing triumphant over supposedly contradicting John Gee’s “preposterous” arguments for a long scroll of Horos is just the latest in a long line. In fact, it’s become a veritable trend.
.
.
.
Cracker:

I don't just want you to address my critique of your dittograph theory, I want you to address the points I raised several times over the past few years. The seven, hard hitting text critical evidences against the copyist theory.

Put up or shut up Cracker Man. If you’ve got anything, bring it. Otherwise, shut your pie hole on that topic once and for all.

Why is it these people only see through you when you’re taking a stance opposed to them? I find it astounding how they suddenly come to the conclusion that you’re a genius, so long as you’re supposedly “putting Schryver in his place.”

!

So either bring your “detailed explanation” or stop pretending to have one.

[_Kishkumen]

But the simple fact is that until I’m persuaded otherwise (and it hasn’t happened yet) I believe there most definitely was an Abraham text on that scroll, and that the “translation” produced by Joseph Smith was a faithful rendition of it into modern idiom.

I see no reason, outside of testimony, to believe there was. When do we ever see a Joseph Smith translation and text that have been matched and that have therefore confirmed Smith's ability to translate ancient texts? Furthermore, I see no reason to believe there was, even if one has a testimony. It is simply not necessary.

Furthermore, every time I have looked closely at the critics’ arguments against the Book of Abraham, I have found them wanting or just plain wrong. This last episode with Chap and Chris Smith waxing triumphant over supposedly contradicting John Gee’s “preposterous” arguments for a long scroll of Horos is just the latest in a long line. In fact, it’s become a veritable trend.

Obviously you are seeing something that almost every non-believer is failing to see. I wonder why that is.