Fair'S New Book Of Abraham Dvd, Part Deux

[William Schryver]

FAIR was not involved in the publication of my article.

Furthermore, as you well know, I was not guilty of the lies, misrepresentations, and propaganda concocted by your friends, and that is now recognized by those who were initially fooled by the classic ad hominem gambit played by your friends in an unsuccessful attempt to silence the rebuttal to your fatally flawed paper. Alas, that is always the result of blatant ad hominem attacks. Now the issue will come down to the strength of the respective arguments.

Frankly, I consider it rather pathetic that you continue to try to play the ad hominem card. Sorry, Chris, but the jig is up on that sad attempt to silence the arguments of your opponent. We shall now see how invulnerable your arguments really are.

Edited October 15, 2011 by William Schryver

[William Schryver]

P.S. As to the pencil tracing, I was merely reporting what I was told by Glenn Rowe. If instead you used a marker and transparencies, I don't see how that improves the situation. And the fact remains that the Cook/Smith formula returned a value less than 25% of the actual length of the scroll against which it was tested.

[Chris Smith]

And the fact remains that the Cook/Smith formula returned a value less than 25% of the actual length of the scroll against which it was tested.

I look forward to seeing your published data. If your paper does what you say it does, I'll happily concede the point. But until then, this is just another unfulfilled promise in a long line of unfulfilled promises.

Furthermore, as you well know, I was not guilty of the lies, misrepresentations, and propaganda concocted by your friends

I wasn't interested in those discussions, didn't follow them, and have no desire to discuss their merits or demerits with you. But based on my own experience dialoguing with you, it came as no surprise that others found your rhetorical style objectionable. Good luck with the publication,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

Chris,

Your disingenuousness is disgraceful. I have made only one unfulfilled promise: that a rebuttal to your scroll-length paper was about to be published. And, as you well know, it WAS about to be published; was already typeset and was to have been the cover article of the most recent issue of The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture when your friends and cohorts in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park produced their Schryver Smear Sheet in a one-shot desperation attempt to silence your opponent's arguments. Of course, you know all of this and were no doubt quite pleased with the results of your friends' endeavor, for it permitted you to proclaim victory in this debate. So congratulations on your friends having bought you a few months of illusory triumph.

[Mortal Man]

Let's just say that, notwithstanding the best efforts of your cohorts to prevent it, a forthcoming article will "definitively" demonstrate, using precision measurements of the extant fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri, and confirmed by comparison with a surviving contemporary scroll of known dimensions, that the original scroll of Hor was a little less than 500 cm (15.8 ft.) long, of which (as you know) only 68 cm has survived.

I'm glad to see that Dan was able to pull some strings on your behalf.

Be forewarned that your numbers are not consistent with a 500 cm scroll. You're probably okay though, since I doubt anyone but Chris and I will bother to check your math. And who's going to believe a "career anti-Mormon" like Chris or a "black-hearted fifth-columnist apostate of the first order" like myself?

[Mortal Man]

In any event, our measurements of the papyri were not dependent on a piece of paper laid over the top of the mylar-encased papyrus, upon which a pencil was used to trace the lacunae edges.

The proper way to make this argument, William, would be to demonstrate a systematic error in our data. In the meantime, people are free to examine the traced-papyrus images in our paper to get a feel for the method.

Our measurements of the lacunae are accurate to at least .5 mm. Our measurements of the papyrus thickness are accurate to at least .01 mm (10 μ).

Will, there is an important relationship between these two error estimates which you have not addressed. You might begin by answering the following question. Given the 0.5 mm error in the lacunae measurements, what are the expected and maximum errors in the effective thickness?

Edited October 17, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Mortal Man]

ETA: Not only is the Cook/Smith methodology flawed, but spectacularly so. It was tested against a scroll of known dimensions, and predicted a length less than 25% of the actual length of the scroll! The Schryver/Slack methodology performed much better, predicting a length about 90% of the actual.

Alas, it's unwise to give toddlers keys to the Ferrari.

[Nemesis]

Guys have a discussion and less pot shots at each other.

Nemesis

[volgadon]

Is it passed off as those non-LDS Eqyptologists being tricked by the devil?

Of course!

[Mortal Man]

P.S. As to the pencil tracing, I was merely reporting what I was told by Glenn Rowe. If instead you used a marker and transparencies, I don't see how that improves the situation.

LOL! I thought so. Will, if you still refuse to read our paper, you could at least look at the pictures.

And the fact remains that the Cook/Smith formula returned a value less than 25% of the actual length of the scroll against which it was tested.

Do you realize that the "Cook/Smith formula" is just a cleaner version of the Hoffmann formula, which Gee has acclaimed and lauded?

[Mortal Man]

Chris,

Your disingenuousness is disgraceful. I have made only one unfulfilled promise: that a rebuttal to your scroll-length paper was about to be published. And, as you well know, it WAS about to be published; was already typeset and was to have been the cover article of the most recent issue of The Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture when your friends and cohorts in The Great and Spacious Trailer Park produced their Schryver Smear Sheet in a one-shot desperation attempt to silence your opponent's arguments. Of course, you know all of this and were no doubt quite pleased with the results of your friends' endeavor, for it permitted you to proclaim victory in this debate. So congratulations on your friends having bought you a few months of illusory triumph.

Chris played no role whatsoever in getting your paper canceled. Given his numerous statements about how he was looking forward to reading your work, I'm sure he was as disappointed as I was when it got quashed. He's been nothing but polite, respectful and encouraging of your research. Even Kevin Graham came to your defense when this went down, going so far as to suggest we petition the MI to reconsider their decision. Beyond that, Brent Metcalfe has expressed to me privately his desire to see your work published. We're not trying to silence you Will, in fact, it's just the opposite.

[volgadon]

Chris played no role whatsoever in getting your paper canceled. Given his numerous statements about how he was looking forward to reading your work, I'm sure he was as disappointed as I was when it got quashed. He's been nothing but polite, respectful and encouraging of your research. Even Kevin Graham came to your defense when this went down, going so far as to suggest we petition the MI to reconsider their decision. Beyond that, Brent Metcalfe has expressed to me privately his desire to see your work published. We're not trying to silence you Will, in fact, it's just the opposite.

You say you are going to Pinsk in order to make me believe you are going to Minsk. But I know you are going Pinsk. So whom are you trying to fool?

[jskains]

The biggest flaw with Chris's paper is it supposes that the scrolls were singular, not multiple or fragmented. It also assumes that those were the originals and not re-writes with reuses by the Egyptions of Abraham's original documents. If Abraham's original documents were damaged, the collection could have been far more than one scroll of which Joseph Smith was to translate the pieces back to a whole. There is no reason that the facsimiles could not have been reused, even perhaps intensionally by the Egyptians, and that is why they were attached to incorrect documents.

A key elements in my opinion are:

1. The descriptions of the scrolls being long, even before the need for them to be long was as powerful as they are today.

2. The fact Joseph Smith seems ignorant of the documents (IE: not trying to con people) because he took the documents to Egyptologists of the time to see if they could verify his work.

IMHO, element #2 is very interesting, but often ignored. This does not demonstrate a pattern of a person who was trying to con people. And if he was not conning people, he genuinely thought he was translating something. And if he was translating similarly to how he was translating the Book of Mormon, he was NOT being taught by God how to read the Book of Abraham or the Egyptian scrolls, but in fact translated the scrolls first, then tried to match them to the symbols.

That is why I believe in the Missing Papyrus theory. It seems to me that there is ample evidence the translation came far before KEP, and that he was not only trying to make the BoA match the scrolls, but was trying to get help from scholars to see if his matches were correct.

This does not seem to me the correct pattern of someone who knowingly created a fraud. Hence why I believe in the Book of Abraham.

[jskains]

Another possibility is that there simply was NO text whatsoever. That the only thing the Papyrus was used for was to give Joseph a visual copy of the visual images the Egyptians stole from Abraham. If that was the case, than the length doesn't even matter, because the text was never there.

JMS

[livy111us]

Chris played no role whatsoever in getting your paper canceled. Given his numerous statements about how he was looking forward to reading your work, I'm sure he was as disappointed as I was when it got quashed. He's been nothing but polite, respectful and encouraging of your research. Even Kevin Graham came to your defense when this went down, going so far as to suggest we petition the MI to reconsider their decision. Beyond that, Brent Metcalfe has expressed to me privately his desire to see your work published. We're not trying to silence you Will, in fact, it's just the opposite.

Yet, someone recalls you giving the idea to write to the Maxwell Institute asking them to pull Schryvers article...

"I vaguely recall someone---I think it was Mortal Man---suggesting that I should write to the Maxwell Institute and ask them to reconsider publishing William's work."

Is that true?

[Chris Smith]

The biggest flaw with Chris's paper is it supposes that the scrolls were singular, not multiple or fragmented.

I'm not sure what you mean. I argue in my paper that several pieces separated from the outer portion of the Hor scroll even before Joseph Smith acquired it. I also argue that the Tshemmin Book of the Dead may have been completely fragmented by the Nauvoo period. Nor are these mere "suppositions", but rather conclusions I've drawn from the physical and documentary evidence.

It also assumes that those were the originals and not re-writes with reuses by the Egyptians of Abraham's original documents.

Although Joseph does seem to have thought his papyri were Abraham's original autographs, I don't discuss this in the paper, and my findings would not be materially affected if it were proven otherwise.

If Abraham's original documents were damaged, the collection could have been far more than one scroll of which Joseph Smith was to translate the pieces back to a whole. There is no reason that the facsimiles could not have been reused, even perhaps intentionally by the Egyptians, and that is why they were attached to incorrect documents.

The fact that the KEP translate specific characters from the scrolls would seem to belie this thesis. But I actually see this argument as a step in the right direction, because it recognizes that there was never any literal Abrahamic document on the scrolls Joseph Smith owned. (Assuming I'm understanding you correctly.)

1. The descriptions of the scrolls being long, even before the need for them to be long was as powerful as they are today.

There is only one such description.

2. The fact Joseph Smith seems ignorant of the documents (IE: not trying to con people) because he took the documents to Egyptologists of the time to see if they could verify his work.

He did?

It seems to me that there is ample evidence the translation came far before KEP

There isn't.

Peace,

-Chris

[William Schryver]

jskains:

It seems to me that there is ample evidence the translation came far before KEP

Chris Smith:

There isn't.

And yet, there is.

No matter how boldly you (and your posse of shady friends) assert otherwise, the evidence remains: The Meaning and Purpose of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers

[William Schryver]

Chris played no role whatsoever in getting your paper canceled.

I never said he did.

Given his numerous statements about how he was looking forward to reading your work, I'm sure he was as disappointed as I was when it got quashed.

No, he wasn't. And his statements on this thread confirm that.

He's been nothing but polite, respectful and encouraging of your research.

Chris is the most polite career anti-Mormon I know.

Even Kevin Graham came to your defense when this went down, going so far as to suggest we petition the MI to reconsider their decision.

Beyond that, Brent Metcalfe has expressed to me privately his desire to see your work published.

Speaking of unfulfilled promises ... I'm touched by Brent's private desires.

We're not trying to silence you Will, in fact, it's just the opposite.

I never suggested that you were, now did I?

In any event, the plan failed. But how much would you like to bet that it will be resurrected at some point in the future? I guarantee it will be. Aside from bald assertion, ad hominem is the only card in their deck.

It remains to be seen how successful it will be the next time ...

Edited October 16, 2011 by William Schryver

[hammermil405]

I know from my university studies a little about the Egiptian text and language. I have also read parts of the BoA, There are an increadible amounts of in accuracys in the translation by JS. I am also a seeker of the TRUTH. One thing I have learned about the truth is that there are 2 sides to it. To know the truth is to listen to each side not just one. I would invite everyone to watch this video and then to pray and ask God for the truth.

link removed

Read our board rules before you post again. Do not post links to sites that contain temple content.

I am curious as to why you would not allow a post to allow peope to see another viewpoint that does not come "approved" by the corporat LDS. Is there something to hide??? God gave people the ability to reason and to know the truth about something. However truth can not be known if bolth sides are not presented. Would you not agree?

[hammermil405]

I received my copy yesterday and skimmed through it as I didn't have time to watch it all.

It is precisely as I expected, which is a collection of all the failed apologetics wrapped in video format.

It was essentially bouncing back and forth between testimonies of the only three Egyptologists in Church (and the world) who think the Book of Abraham is anything of value. (Rhodes, Gee and Mulhstein).

They essentially skimmed over ever point that undermined their thesis. For example, they never actually quote the Book of Abraham in areas where they assert that it is supported in ancient texts. They merely assert it and we're supposed to just take their word for iit. They resurrected all sorts of failed apologetics, such as the 40ft length of the scroll, along with Nibley's unreliable account of a scroll stretching out through several rooms. The level of misinformation that was being dished out by credentialed scholars was not just disturbing, but also nauseating. But I was particularly disappointed in Michael Ash, because he had always struck me as one of the more reasonable fellows in the apologetic lot. He asserted on at least two occasions that Joseph Smith got "hits" on things that were very very unlikely for Joseph Smith to have known about and then he said it was "impossible based on odds." Really? It was impossible or very unlikely that he read books which he owned? Of course he doesn't specify which parallels he has in mind so it is impossible to figure out what exactly he is talking about. He just asserts that these parallels exist and that the critics (while grinning) "have problems" dealing with the text. This is a popular apologetic straw man that is nothing short of deceptive. Critics have dealt with every single thing these guys have thrown at us.

Then Kerry goes on in another segment to use the so called discovery of Olishem as proof that Joseph Smith was a prophet. Let me be perfectly clear. No scholar outside Brigham Young believed this inscription reads Olishem or translates as Olishem. A honest approach to this issue would at the very least share information that undermines the assertion, but again, they're not interested in any of that. They're only interested in throwing the apologetic kitchen sink at their audience, refusing to address or acknowledge any established problems with their assertions. For example, even the apologist Dave Stewart has issues with the apologetic attempt to twist Ulisim to mean Olishem and then to relocate it with a wave of the hand: http://www.cumorah.c...rch&story_id=38

There is so, so much wrong with this DVD, but I'll probably sift through it and write up a review at some future point. Right now I have too much on my plate. I'll just provide the opening statements by the expert apologists:

There is simply an incredible wealth of ancient Egyptian and other NE historical documents that substantiate what JS said. He simply could not have guessed correctly so many times. He was actually translating from an ancient text and he was a prophet of God. - Michael Rhodes

In places where I've had questions about whether Joseph Smith got something right (long pause) and I've done my homework...he's never been wrong. - John Gee

Amazingly dishonest. John Gee knows very well Joseph Smith got virtually everything wrong in his translation of the facsimiles. But he glosses over that with dismissive comments about how Egyptology is still changing. He is careful to word his statement above so he can later wriggle his way out of it when called on it. He can say, "well what I said was that he never got anything wrong in the areas where I questioned whether he got something right." So Gee can later say he always acknowledged Joseph Smith got things wrong as well. But this is just ambiguous enough to deceive his audience into thinking Joseph Smith got everything right and nothing wrong. Amazingly deceptive. You'd think this think was produced by some political party or something.

As much as he and Rhodes keep referring to these numerous examples of Joseph Smith getting remarkable hits, you'd think they'd actually provide several examples with evidence, references, citations, etc. Instead, all we got was assertions of silly paraallels between some of his stuff and genuine Hebrew, which overlapped in some creative way with some other Egyptian words. What they don't share with their readers is the fact that at this point in his life, Joseph Smith had a working knowledge of Hebrew, so it should hardly be any surprise that he used legitimate Hebrew or at the very least, Hebrew souding words, and that some of these words overlap in some way with the "Ancient world." Good grief!

There's enough evidence from Egyptology and traditions about Abraham that tie into what Joseph Smith just couldn'y possibly have known, yet hit right on target. - Michael Rhodes

Examples?

Ancient sources verify that Abraham was almost sacrificed that he was saved by God that he intervened that he prayed for salvation and all these things, uh very very unlikely that Joseph Smith could have known about them. To get so many of them right just seems impossible on odds alone. - Michael Ash

Oh really Mike? Is it really, really "unlikely" that Joseph Smith would have read Bible Commentaries which he purchased and stored in his library for the "School of the Prophets"? Is it really "impossible"?? I've already dealt with numerous examples of these so called parallels existing in books we know Joseph Smith owned. The works of Josephus is a popular example, and apologists used to fall back on the "prove he read that" argument until the critics pointed out to them that Oliver Cowdery actually cited Josephus in the Church published Times and Seasons. The attempted sacrifice of Abraham is mentioned in numerous ancient works, sure. Rhodes keeps saying "that's not in the Bible." But what they don't tell you is that it was in other books Joseph Smith most likely read.

The text is uh (grinning) a more difficult target for the critics, because there is some very interesting evidences that support the text. What JS could have known about what couldn't he have known about. There were writings floating around in the country that talked a little bit about Abraham or talked about some of the things that we find in the BoA but what is the liklihood that Joseph Smith could have known these and collected all the right pieces from libraries or archaic sources.. - Michael Ash

Name me one thing in this video that hasn't already been addressed by critics, Mike.

And then of course the usual gossip stories about how people leave the Church over minor issues that turned out to be evidence for Joseph Smith as a prophet. Yes, Kerry Muhlstein had the audacity to assert this without providing ANY support for it. And then he goes on to call those who leave the faith fools for doing so. So don't pretend you guys didn't draw blood first with the critics. I'd rather be a fool than dishonest, and one thing is most certain about this video, and that is these guys are totally dishonest. Or at the very least, the editor is since it is clear these interviews were constantly being snipped and clipped together. I've already proved beyond any reasonable doubt that John Gee was a dishonest person who would lie about a source if he thought he could get away with it. But I never felt that way about Rhodes or Ash.

Bokovoy's piece was a rather innocuous commentary about parallels with the divine council. Nothing we haven't heard before. There really isn't much to argue with there except to point out that Smith's knowledge of the divine council corresponded to his Hebrew learning at the time. He even admitted that he learned of the plural nature of elohim from learned Jews, and then he immediately incorporated that doctrine into his upcoming Book of Abraham. But it contradicts his previous "inspired" translation of the Book of Moses.

What did surprise me is that after spending 98% of the time trying to prove the BoA true via evidences (which mostly consisted of bald assertions we were supposed to just take on the authority of the usual suspects in the Church) the video takes an occasional twist by telling the audience that ultimately you can know it is true by praying about it. Gee, you'd think that if they really had much faith in that method then they would have just said this at the beginning and then left it at that.

I know for a certainty that God doesn't need people to lie in order to prove something he did is true. Therefore, God had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham.

No attempt to deal with the KEP of course, which is (grinning) something the apologists obviously have a hard time dealing with. By ignoring the KEP it becomes much easier for Gee and Rhodes to make the ludicrous assertion that the existing papyri had nothing to do with the Book of Abraham translation. For them, the original source must have been burned up or lost at some point because obviously what exists now doesn't support the Prophet's claims. How convenient! None of the dozen or so historical references pointing to the extant portions are dealt with. At least Brian Hauglid has the integrity to publish these in his recent book. None of these examples can be said to be referring to some missing papyri. None. No attempt to acknowledge the problems with Gee's pathetic 40ft scroll theory.

Again, this video does everything apologists frequently complain about with anti-Mormon productions. Just go back and read FAIR reviews of things like, Luke Wilson's video on the book of Abraham. The biggest gripe was that none of the apologetic responses were dealt with and that no acknowledgment was given to credentialed opinions to the contrary. Well, pot meet kettle.

I completely agree with you on this issue. I tried to post a link that was removed as if someone didnt want another view point to be made. The truth is not one sided

[jskains]

There isn't.

Peace,

-Chris

All hail Chris. He hath spoken. Bow before his knowledge, for we must all be humbled by his absolutes.....

*toll of a large bell*

JMS

[jskains]

As for the other point, Chris, again, the only way for you to make an absolute guess using such dramatic calculations to guess the scroll's length require that there be one scroll and no possibility others were wrapped around the ones currently accessible.

I just feel there are too many variables for your calculations to work with absolute certainty as you appear to believe they do. (Including thickness assumptions)

Edited October 16, 2011 by jskains

[volgadon]

I am curious as to why you would not allow a post to allow peope to see another viewpoint that does not come "approved" by the corporat LDS. Is there something to hide??? God gave people the ability to reason and to know the truth about something. However truth can not be known if bolth sides are not presented. Would you not agree?

Has nothing whatsoever to do with hiding truth or being one-sided. It boils down to elementary respect.

[Calm]

I am curious as to why you would not allow a post to allow peope to see another viewpoint that does not come "approved" by the corporat LDS. Is there something to hide??? God gave people the ability to reason and to know the truth about something. However truth can not be known if bolth sides are not presented. Would you not agree?

If you read the rules you will note that certain aspects of the temple are not to be discussed on the board or linked to. This is because LDS hold the temple in high respect and because we have made covenants with the Lord-some of which we commit to keeping solely between God and ourselves--- it is extremely sacred to us and to discuss certain aspects in public, with those who have not attended or to treat it as if it were just another topic to be analyzed and dissected and criticized is seen as inappropriate (something you had better realize if you end up marrying an LDS is that it would be extremely unkind for you to push her to speak of the temple beyond what she is comfortable discussing). The temple is the House of the Lord where we may encounter God, we therefore treat it with the reverence it deserves.

If you want to discuss the temple there are plenty of places you can go to, there likely will be very few devout LDS there as most LDS I know choose not to stomach the disrespect just as they would not choose to listen to their loved ones being verbally abused or view pictures of their family that were pornographic, for example.

All other topics can be discussed if done with respect (politics in general is restricted because it invariably leads to disrespect).

[Mortal Man]

You say you are going to Pinsk in order to make me believe you are going to Minsk. But I know you are going Pinsk. So whom are you trying to fool?

I'm not trying to fool anyone; I just feel entitled to my entertainment. William is a masterful entertainer whose feats of magic never fail to impress. His exploits at Mt. Doom are legendary. His labyrinthine constructs of apologetic obliquity put Rube Goldberg to shame. While the rank-and-file architects of apologetics fuss over structural foundations, William builds gargantuan Escher monuments supported by a single strand of vermicelli. Why would I want to miss out on that?