Freedom Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Just dropping in to say I'm posting from phone. On the road and will be returning this weekend.In the meantime, I strongly suggest some of the folks here check out the dictionary for the term "extant." I promise I didn't make it up. It is typical nomenclature in text critical scholarship, so I'm sorry it went over so many heads. And in case you're wondering, nomenclature is an English word too. Tchau for now.Is 'posting' a real word too? Also, I am unfamiliar with the word scholarship as well. But seriously, since there is clear evidence that many people saw the original scrolls, among them many that no longer exist, what is your concern?
Xander Posted November 16, 2011 Author Posted November 16, 2011 Freedom, that is simply not true. Virtually all testimony of the papyri can easily be attributed to what we have today. I'll compile a list of what historical references we have and how it compares to the extant papyri. We know Facsimile 3 is missing for sure, but so what? We have a copy of it along with Joseph Smith's explanations, and know that it was at the end of the Book of Breathings scroll. And you clearly haven't understood my argument. Try carefully rereading what I said in both threads. The main point is there is no reason to believe anything that may be "missing," (whatever little that may be) was important to Joseph Smith. I wrote an apologetic article on this subject for FAIR back in 2002, so I know what exists in the apologetic arsenal. Apologists like Gee and Schryver think that all they have to do is establish that something was missing, and then that should be enough to prove it was important and probably the source for the Book of Abraham. But the apologetic about missing scrolls is wrong, and relies on a misrepresentation the historical evidence. William claimed there were at least four eye witness testimonies to a longer roll, but he absolutely refused to produce them. This was back in 2009, and I'm still calling his bluff.(go here)Ok that was a pain to do with thumbs..I can't do this any longer from a phone, sorry.See ya this weekend.PS: And William, feel free to produce the four eye witness testimonies you were gloating about back in 2009. That is of course, just in case you weren't bluffing
Pahoran Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Freedom, that is simply not true. Virtually all testimony of the papyri can easily be attributed to what we have today. I'll compile a list of what historical references we have and how it compares to the extant papyri. We know Facsimile 3 is missing for sure, but so what? We have a copy of it along with Joseph Smith's explanations, and know that it was at the end of the Book of Breathings scroll.We also know Facs 2 is missing for sure.And you clearly haven't understood my argument. Try carefully rereading what I said in both threads. The main point is there is no reason to believe anything that may be "missing," (whatever little that may be) was important to Joseph Smith.At very least the two facsimiles were important enough for Joseph to have them copied, and go to the trouble of studying and interpreting them.I wrote an apologetic article on this subject for FAIR back in 2002, so I know what exists in the apologetic arsenal. Apologists like Gee and Schryver think that all they have to do is establish that something was missing, and then that should be enough to prove it was important and probably the source for the Book of Abraham.If indeed you do "know what exists in the apologetic arsenal" as you claim, then you know perfectly well that the above is a caricature at best.As you must know, if you are half as well informed as you so loudly and incessantly boast, the real apologetic argument put forward by Gee et al is that a great deal of the papyri Joseph once had is now missing, and therefore, absent any authoritative statement on the subject from Joseph or someone close to him, any speculation about which bit of papyrus was the (or a) source for the Book of Abraham is necessarily inconclusive.Snip some more of your anti-Schryver hate fest.Regards,Pahoran 2
wenglund Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) Can somebody translate his argument into english for me? I am afraid you are on your own with this. Perhaps it may help to use the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar as the modus operandi for affecting your won translation. LOLThanks, -Wade Englund- Edited November 16, 2011 by wenglund
wenglund Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 I'll compile a list of what historical references we have and how it compares to the extant papyri.I can save you some time. I posted a number of historical citations earlier in the thread. Perhaps you can start by addressing the questions I posed along with those citations.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
jskains Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Where are these testimonies he keeps yapping about? And why does he keep dodging rather intelligent replies with emotional outbursts about whammies?
jskains Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 BTW, I still say that if he thought the beginning was the BOA, then he could have used those facsimiles which might not have been the original ones from Abraham, but were used as suitable substitutes.Noticed how the papyri and the KEP were not important in the presentation of the BoA? Why is that? If those were what Joseph thought were godly documents and not just Joseph Smith's personal reverse translation project, why were those documents not more prominently pushed by the Church?
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Just dropping in to say I'm posting from phone. On the road and will be returning this weekend.In the meantime, I strongly suggest some of the folks here check out the dictionary for the term "extant." I promise I didn't make it up. It is typical nomenclature in text critical scholarship, so I'm sorry it went over so many heads. And in case you're wondering, nomenclature is an English word too. Tchau for now.Yes it is used a lot in the military... Condescension is also an English word, along with Adieu.
wenglund Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 (edited) Probably the most significant piece of historical evidence that Mr. Graham may have to present is mention of Joseph Smith pointing to a character on the scroll and telling the observers that it means "Abraham". That character is believed to have been, if not still partially is there, on one of the extant papyri fragments.So, it is not as though Mr. Graham's contention (what I can make of it out of the convolution) is entirely without basis. It is possible that he is in possession of the silver bullet that will put an end to the Church, if not the faith of many members--as was the case with him. We'll see.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited November 16, 2011 by wenglund
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Where are these testimonies he keeps yapping about? And why does he keep dodging rather intelligent replies with emotional outbursts about whammies?Naming a thread “Riddle me this” says much about his motive.
Pahoran Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 In the meantime, I strongly suggest some of the folks here check out the dictionary for the term "extant." I promise I didn't make it up. It is typical nomenclature in text critical scholarship, so I'm sorry it went over so many heads. And in case you're wondering, nomenclature is an English word too. Tchau for now.While you're teaching people to read, I would point out that it is a somewhat pretentious conceit (look at me everyone, I used to live in Brazil) for an English speaker to misspell "Ciao," which is a perfectly good Italian word, in the Brazilian fashion.Regards,Pahoran
Ares Posted November 16, 2011 Posted November 16, 2011 Ratio of personal sniping to content has reached the closed thread level.
Recommended Posts