Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

[_Kishkumen]

Per our discussion a few days ago, did you ask him (Will) about why Joseph Smith speaks of translating the Book of Abraham, AFTER he was supposed to have received it fully by revelation?

Will lives by the following motto: "Never let the facts get in the way of my version of the truth."

OK, that was catty, but it seemed so apropos here.

[_Paul Osborne]

Coming from someone's who's knowledge and understanding of the subject is as abyssally shallow and tendentious as Red Kevin Graham's, you can ROFLMAO until your eyes glaze over.

These are not the droids we are looking for. Move along.

Paul O

[Guest]

Coming from someone's who's knowledge and understanding of the subject is as abyssally shallow and tendentious as Red Kevin Graham's, you can ROFLMAO until your eyes glaze over.

Yes, and knowing as little about the subject as you do, I am sure everyone should take your word for it. After all, you have displayed such an amazing grasp of the theory that you find to be so convincing and profound. Why, one would think that unless there is a maze of apologetic mystery surrounding an "answer," you feel compelled to dismiss it as shallow.

Will you feel the same way when you have actually read and understood whatever you think it is Will will be writing? Or do you just take it on faith that he has the correct answer to a question that has no bearing on your testimony?

[_beastie]

One can't blame Droopy for not being able to answer the question. It would appear not even Will has a clear grasp on the "meaning and purpose of the KEP."

Now, I firmly believe the evidence is compelling that the effective function of these documents is as some kind of enciphering tool. That said, it was ill-conceived and incoherently executed. In other words, it was not a “functioning cipher” by any means. It merely manifests the effective functions of a cipher, albeit one that was abandoned almost as soon as it was begun. Thus it is incomplete and essentially useless.

Most importantly, the “cipher key thesis” is a secondary finding. It most certainly needs further investigation, and there are many people already looking into that angle of my presentation. I look forward to future elaboration/expansion of the thesis on the part of others.

The primary finding concerns the manifest dependency of the Alphabet & Grammar materials on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

One could completely throw out the cipher thesis, and the dependency thesis would still stand. They are not interdependent whatsoever. And, the important fact to remember is that it is the dependency thesis that effectively renders moot all of the critical arguments from the past forty years concerning “translation manuscripts” and the notion that the Alphabet & Grammar were used as a tool to decipher, or “translate” the Egyptian papyri.

It is the text-critical evidence for dependency that is overwhelming within the Alphabet & Grammar documents.

Those whose exposure to this controversy has been minimal are enchanted by the cipher key thesis. That’s fine with me, and I suppose it’s understandable.

But those who are most knowledgeable about the Book of Abraham/Kirtland Egyptian Papers controversy of the past forty years understand perfectly that it is the question of dependency that represents the finding of paramount importance.

This is what the scholars are most focused on at this point in time. And, to date, among those who understand the precepts of textual criticism, there is no one that has examined the evidence who is not convinced that the Alphabet & Grammar is manifestly dependent on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham.

Bear in mind that, in order to disprove the old critical theories about the KEP, all I need to do is demonstrate that Abr. 1:1 - 2:6 precedes the A&G! Since the so-called “translation manuscripts” go no further than Abr. 2:6, and because Warren Parrish didn’t start writing for Joseph Smith until mid-November 1835, then the “translation manuscript” theory cannot be true if the Alphabet & Grammar is dependent on a pre-existing text of that portion of the Book of Abraham—since we know that the bulk of the A&G was completed before the Parrish document (Ab3 [BA1b]) could have been written.

It matters not one whit if the cipher thesis is correct and stands the test of time. The only thing that matters is whether or not the question of dependency can be established. I am convinced that it has been and will continue to be demonstrated, using nothing but standard text-critical methodologies. Already people like Dan McClellan are applying such methodologies. I look forward to McClellan’s findings as they come forth. I am confident he will confirm everything I have argued to date concerning this issue of dependency.

In the meantime feel free to smack the straw man of whether or not the A&G and Counting documents constitute a functional cipher. I have already made it perfectly clear that it was not and never could have been. Rather, it was an endeavor marked by complex and sometimes conflicting motivations: the desire to encrypt and the desire to produce something that was typical of their eccentric notions of “pure language.”

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... e__st__480

Apparently Will thinks that a dependency on a pre-existing Book of Abraham text somehow passes for explaining "the meaning and purpose of the KEP." It all comes down to that: and yet isn't that what Nibley also proposed?

[_Doctor Scratch]

ROFLMAO!!!

I'll take that as a no.

Coming from someone's who's knowledge and understanding of the subject is as abyssally shallow and tendentious as Red Kevin Graham's, you can ROFLMAO until your eyes glaze over.

Your annoyingly sesquipedalian and pleonastic prose isn't helping you out here, Droopy, nor is your appallingly dumb claim about "large quantities of textual material." That pretty much shows right up front that you don't know what the KEP are. But, of course, I already schooled you on this issue the other night. You blew up in frustration after I pointed out how wrong you were.

[_Kishkumen]

Apparently Will thinks that a dependency on a pre-existing Book of Abraham text somehow passes for explaining "the meaning and purpose of the KEP." It all comes down to that: and yet isn't that what Nibley also proposed?

It appears that he is confused concerning the meaning of the words "meaning" and "purpose," but maybe he'll prove me wrong when his landmark book is published. I won't say it is impossible, increasingly skeptical though I may be.

[_Droopy]

So, does this also mean that Egyptologists are dependent on Joseph Smith's Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 in order to understand the original intentions given by the Egyptian scribe who produced the work?

Why the continual, obsessive fixation on fascimile 3 Paul? What was in the large corpus of textual material that existed in the 19th century, but is not now extant? What was in that material Paul?

I would like to say that Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about. He was an ignorant fool when it came to Egyptology.

Sure he was. But then, he never claimed otherwise, and there is no evidence the text of the Book of Abraham was translated from any presently existing documents, or their remains.

Do you disagree with that, Droopy? If so, please provide evidence to show otherwise.

Otherwise, shut the hell up.

Then came the Paully Wally man, wailing songs of woe...

[_Droopy]

Apparently Will thinks that a dependency on a pre-existing Book of Abraham text somehow passes for explaining "the meaning and purpose of the KEP." It all comes down to that: and yet isn't that what Nibley also proposed?

Even if Will's knowledge was a fraction of what it actually is in this area, that would still be a substantial improvement over the abyssal ignorance, tendentiousness and groupthink that passes for serious discourse about the issue among most in this forum, would it not?

[_Paul Osborne]

Why the continual, obsessive fixation on fascimile 3 Paul? What was in the large corpus of textual material that existed in the 19th century, but is not now extant? What was in that material Paul?

Did you say something, Droopy? Sorry, but my Egyptological skills are not helping me understand you. Are you trying to fake me out? You should know better than that.

Sure he was. But then, he never claimed otherwise, and there is no evidence the text of the Book of Abraham was translated from any presently existing documents, or their remains.

And the name of the king in Facsimile No 3 is ______________.

Then came the Paully Wally man, wailing songs of woe...

I can deal with this. I'm satisfied knowing that your testimony is being destroyed. It give me joy.

Paul O

[_Droopy]

Your annoyingly sesquipedalian and pleonastic prose isn't helping you out here, Droopy,

Sorry that your vocabulary and prose skills are still in the 7th to 8th grade area of general competence Scratch.

Good grief. Paul needs Egyptology textbooks with centerfolds and you need a creative writing class at the local community college.

nor is your appallingly dumb claim about "large quantities of textual material."

Care to elucidate on that?

That pretty much shows right up front that you don't know what the KEP are

.

At one time, we had no idea what the KEP were. Will has given us some idea of what they probably were, or something very close to that. We now at least have a working theoretical framework. That framework, however, does not include the fanciful hope of a KEP dependent Book of Abraham.