Fair'S New Book Of Abraham Dvd, Part Deux

[volgadon]

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?

I was moved to tears by the grandeur of it all.

[William Schryver]

The only "magic" of which I am aware is that by which you and Chris transformed the measurements of the winding lengths of the scroll of Hor. I twice examined the papyrus in person, once in conjunction with Professor Gee at which time we confirmed that the high-resolution scans of the papyrus matched exactly the physical dimensions of the papyrus. Using then the precision measurement tools in Photoshop, we were able to precisely determine the winding lengths.

We also employed a high-precision digital instrument to measure the thickness of the papyrus.

With these measurements, we were then able to reliably calculate the original length of the scroll -- ~500 cm.

I know your measurements cannot be accurate, and I'm fairly certain of the reasons why.

When our article is finally available to the public, I am confident that the methodology we utilized will be immediately recognized as superior to yours, and that our results will become widely accepted--except among the most stubborn and blind anti-Mormons.

Edited October 16, 2011 by William Schryver

[Mortal Man]

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?

I don't know where you got that quote, but I suspect you're misreading it. As written, it is completely ambiguous, but it should probably read, "...reconsider pulling William's work."

I am a strong proponent of free speech and open debate. And, like William, I recognize that what goes down on these mostly anonymous message boards is all "part of the game." Board rhetoric should be met with board rhetoric and nothing more.

Will is the

of LDS apologetics.

[wenglund]

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!

Assuming correct calculations, I am wondering if the wide discrepancy may be a function of not only mistaken assumptions about the average thickness of the papyri (as you have mentioned previously on related threads), but more so the assumption that there is one significant lacuna per wrap, rather than multiple lacuna (as I and others have discussed with Andrew in the past)? But, I can wait to find out when your article is published. I am only asking so as to pique interest. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mortal Man]

The only "magic" of which I am aware is that by which you and Chris transformed the measurements of the winding lengths of the scroll of Hor.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke

I twice examined the papyrus in person, once in conjunction with Professor Gee at which time we confirmed that the high-resolution scans of the papyrus matched exactly the physical dimensions of the papyrus.

Why don't you plot our data to scale and see how well they match your scans?

Using then the precision measurement tools in Photoshop, we were able to precisely determine the winding lengths.

I've used that tool myself, on numerous occasions.

We also employed a high-precision digital instrument to measure the thickness of the papyrus.

That's nice as a sanity check, but it won't help you determine the scroll length.

With these measurements, we were then able to reliably calculate the original length of the scroll -- ~500 cm.

Once again, unless your numbers have changed from what you previously reported, they don't yield a length of 500 cm. And 500 cm is still too short to fit both the BoB and BoA. You might want to pick new anchor points until you get a length closer to 700 cm.

I know your measurements cannot be accurate,

Is this a testimony meeting?

and I'm fairly certain of the reasons why.

I can't wait to hear them.

How do you know that Mr. Slack's measurements aren't, um, slack?

When our article is finally available to the public, I am confident that the methodology we utilized will be immediately recognized as superior to yours, and that our results will become widely accepted--except among the most stubborn and blind anti-Mormons.

I think you should state that explicitly in your conclusion, in case people don't get the message.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Mortal Man

[Anijen]

deleted, I don't know what I am saying.......

Edited October 17, 2011 by Anijen

[Mortal Man]

Assuming correct calculations, I am wondering if the wide discrepancy may be a function of not only mistaken assumptions about the average thickness of the papyri

We don't make any assumptions about the average thickness of the papyri.

but more so the assumption that there is one significant lacuna per wrap, rather than multiple lacuna (as I and others have discussed with Andrew in the past)?

Suppose we have all made an egregious error and there are actually two lacunae per wrap. That would not only double the scroll length but it would also double the effective thickness (from 0.7 mm to 1.4 mm). With four lacunae per winding, the effective thickness would be 2.8 mm. You would need 9 lacunae per wrap to get the length needed for the BoA. That would make the outer circumference of the scroll over 3 feet with an effective thickness of 6.3 mm.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

I’ve watched the FAIR DVD and in my view it meets many of the expectations of its

testimonial tone.

For me, the project most often stumbles on matters of scholarship. BYU Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein's depiction of papyrus Leiden I 384 is illustrative.

And the text says—it's got a picture of a man on a lion couch—and the text says, "this," er, "Abraham upon his couch."

[Kerry Muhlestein interview, in A Most Remarkable Book: Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Abraham (n.p.: FAIR, 2011), DVD, beginning at ~24:48.]

Less than a minute later Kerry reaffirms:

And so it’s not a surprise that in at least one case that we know of, they’ve [i.e., the Egyptians] substituted Abraham for Osiris on that lion-couch scene.

[Muhlestein interview, in A Most Remarkable Book (n.p.: FAIR, 2011), DVD, beginning at ~25:33.]

Here are a few things that scholars would agree on about this papyrus:

• Muhlestein's phrase "Abraham upon his couch"—or anything even remotely like it—appears nowhere in the document, much less in proximity to the vignette of Anubis with his bier.
  
• In the vignette, which is an inverted sketch of more typical lion-couch scenes, Anubis attends to a prone deceased female, not a live male.
  
• The sole occurrence of "Abraham" (sans, of course, Kerry's extra wording) that does appear in the text is not part of a caption for the vignette.
  
• P Leiden I 384 is a bilingual magical text; hence, its PDM (papyri demoticae magicae) and PGM (papyri graecae magicae) designations.
  
• "Abraham" is one of several thaumaturgic names/words that are being invoked in a spell.

How this is "Evidence for the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Abraham" escapes me.

Food for thought...

Best regards,

</brent>

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(© 2011 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)

——————————

The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.

—Raymond E. Brown

[Nathair/|\]

The only "magic" of which I am aware

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke

Obviously, neither side knows anything about magic.

The apotheosis of this sort of thinking is Arthur C. Clarke’s famous Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I mean no disrespect whatsoever to Clarke, who was among the best of SF authors; it’s hardly blameworthy that he shared misunderstandings of magic that were all but universal in his culture. The point remains that since magic does not do what technology does, and vice versa, the Third Law should properly be renamed Clarke’s Fallacy; no matter how advanced a technology may be, it does the kind of thing technologies do—that is to say, it manipulates matter and energy directly, which again is what magic does not do. I’d like to propose, in fact, an alternative rule, which I’ve modestly titled Greer’s Law: "Anyone who is unable to distinguish between magic and any technology, however advanced, doesn’t know much about magic."

--John Michael Greer

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/

Edited October 17, 2011 by Nathair

[Mortal Man]

Mortal Man I am not a mathematician (anti-math) but it seems you are implying that thickness is not important in determining scroll length?

There are two types of "thickness". Physical thickness, which tells you how tight the scroll could have been wound, and effective thickness, which tells you how it was actually wound. The only certain relationship between the two is the fact that physical thickness must be smaller than effective thickness. Williams physical thickness of ~125 microns is not inconsistent with our effective thickness of 700 microns. The rate of decrease in winding lengths is related to the effective thickness not the physical thickness. It appears that Williams is plugging the physical thickness into the winding length formula, which is simply not valid. There's also the desiccation issue...

My only argument is that I see those who are not experts in Egyptology write as if they were.

What does this have to do with Egyptology?

For example I have read Michael Coe's comments on the Book of Mormon, now he is an expert on Mesoamerica but not so the Book of Mormon so I believe he is giving his opinion and not from an experts point of view because he does not know the Book of Mormon. I see you and Chris and Grahm criticize Gee, Nibley, Rhodes etc., But to me all I see is an alternate opinion being given and not any expertise.

You seem to place a high premium on "expertise". I hate bringing up credentials but if you must know, my Ph.D. is in an area far more relevant to this type of investigation than Gee's.

Another thing as far as I can tell Shryver and Gee have examined and took measurements of some of the parchment in person while you guys are basing your data on photos,

We took our data directly from the originals. Why not read our paper before criticizing it?

it just seems to me they are more credible.

Probably because they are believing members of the church, like you.

Although Chris is the most polite out of the three of you with you in the middle and Kevin a ways from polite, but the attitude toward Shryver seems to come glaringly through that you guys hate him and that also takes away from credibility (mostly you and Kevin, Chris not so much because he is polite).

I agree that Chris is more polite than I am but what you are interpreting as hatred on my part is really just good-natured ribbing.

However I am entirely inept on this subject and could be totally wrong, which would not surprise me. It is how I perceive this relationship of yours and Williams that makes me take his side over yours and Chris, and Kevins.

I wouldn't lump us into the same pile. We are three separate people.

[Loran Blood]

For me, the project most often stumbles on matters of scholarship.

Whether or not this claim holds any substantial body of water, I'll leave to those better versed than I on the specific details you mention. However, the question of the nature and ultimate provenance of the Book of Abraham is not a question of scholarship at all, and its resolution does not lie within its precincts, nor can it, given the central tasks of the mortal probation and certain ordinal questions within it, such as the nature and provenance of that which is considered scripture. The deeply inconclusive and open nature of the ongoing text critical project - and the substantial dearth of textual material sufficient to come to any degree of certainty, on either side, through purely scholarly means, regarding its ultimate status as a text, makes clear that little is going to be further gained by continued quibbling with the KEP.

The critic's arguments thus far, some forty years of them, have been, in both broad generality and fine detail, left stranded. Neither side can provide a strong degree of certainty, given the limitations of the tools of scholarship and the available evidence alone, enough to settle the questions revolving around the KEP and its relation to the BofA. Few Mormons have ever believed this would, or should be the case.

What the text actually says, and the relation of that to known ancient traditions, patterns, and motifs, would seem a far more fruitful field of BofA studies than the ongoing surgical text critical forensics over the corpse of the KEP, EAG, etc.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Xander]

Kevin doesn't hate Will. Kevin merely points out Will's own comments that serve to embarrass and discredit him. Period. That's all Kevin has ever done. Anijen, you should really get informed on these matters before speaking. It makes you look silly. So does blindly defending someone, without any idea what he has said or done, simply because he goes to your Church. I'm confident that is half of Will's defenders knew what he has said and done, then they'd be going the way of Brian Hauglid and several respectable LDS members who have chosen to distance themselves from Schryver and his antics.

Now, Brent pointed out a perfect example of the things that has bugged me about this DVD. It isn't just one or two examples. This stuff consumes the entire video from start to finish. The fact is the papyrus referenced above doesn't say "Abraham on his couch." Nothing even close. In fact, nothing in the apologetic literature covering this piece, has asserted such nonsense. It is something new Kerry just came up with without justification. So how is asserting such falsehoods, "honest"? I mean the guy is supposed to be an Egypytologist, so he obviously knows what it says. So why does he tell a falsehood in the video taped interview? How can apologists possibly justify such errors? The only way to wriggle out of this is to appeal to ignorance. This might work for the LDS believers who don't know better, but how could this possibly absolve Kerry? This isn't a moot point. It is an indisputable fact that this papyrus doesn't say what he says it says. Does truth mean nothing in these apologetic videos?

[Kevin Christensen]

I just watched it this afternoon. I liked it. Not a replacement for reading the relevant books studies, but nicely done as an introduction to the main issues. I hope FAIR does more. I'm giving a talk in Pittsburgh in November on the assigned topic of Kolob, and I'll fine time to mention it.

I expect that the best way to impress the critics would be to do a DVD called "The Joseph Smith Papyrus, the Egyptian Papers, and Nothing about the Book of Abraham which doesn't bear talking about: You Were Right. We Were Wrong. Now let us never speak of this again"

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[ERayR]

The fact is the papyrus referenced above doesn't say "Abraham on his couch." Nothing even close. In fact, nothing in the apologetic literature covering this piece, has asserted such nonsense. It is something new Kerry just came up with without justification. So how is asserting such falsehoods, "honest"? I mean the guy is supposed to be an Egypytologist, so he obviously knows what it says. So why does he tell a falsehood in the video taped interview? How can apologists possibly justify such errors? The only way to wriggle out of this is to appeal to ignorance. This might work for the LDS believers who don't know better, but how could this possibly absolve Kerry? This isn't a moot point. It is an indisputable fact that this papyrus doesn't say what he says it says. Does truth mean nothing in these apologetic videos?

Indisputable in your mind but quite obviously not indisputable.

[Hestia]

Since personal digs have not let up this thread is closed.