William Schryver wrote:
… the ground breaking evidence that will put all of this to rest.
I assume this statement was made in relation to something I have said in the past. What precisely did you have in mind? When have I ever
made reference to “groundbreaking evidence”? Granted, I may very well believe that there is persuasive evidence that will serve to explain the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, but I’ve been extremely
judicious in my public discussion of these things. So, again, I ask you: upon what basis do you make reference to my having claimed possession of “groundbreaking evidence that will put all of this to rest”?
Yeah, we all can't wait to see his ground breaking evidence.
Same question as above for you.
I'll be shocked if he publishes anything much less something that puts the controversy to rest.
I’ve just been pretending
—for almost four years now—to be involved in some kind of study of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, right? How can you possibly believe such a thing? What, in your judgment, would be the point of such a blatant deception?
In any event, when have I ever claimed to be able to “put the controversy to rest”? I assure you I have no such illusions. Quite to the contrary, while I believe what I have to say—assuming I can support my claims—will represent a watershed moment in Book of Abraham studies, I am certain that it will not change the minds of people like you.
Even so, I have frequently heard it claimed by you and others, that I have yet to produce anything
in the way of specific findings, supported by evidence. That is so demonstrably untrue that I am left to marvel at how the notion continues to be believed by so many.
I have been very specific
and have supported with extensive evidence
every argument I have made to date. The Pundit’s Forum at the MADB contains the discussions of at least five very specific findings I have made concerning the “Abraham” manuscripts of the KEP. While those findings represent only a mere fraction of the larger body of findings that have been made, by both me and Brian Hauglid, they are very significant in their import.
In addition, I have recently made the claim, quite specific in its nature, that I believe I can demonstrate that at least the first three chapters of the published Book of Abraham were received/revealed/recorded in the first two weeks of July 1835—prior
to the production of any of the documents now known as the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I will also demonstrate that the entire published portion of the Book of Abraham, as well as parts never published, were received/revealed/recorded prior to the end of 1836. The evidence to support that claim will not be presented via online forums, but will be published as a volume in the Maxwell Institute’s Studies in the Book of Abraham
I noticed that he recently admitted on MAD that he won't be able to publish his paper until 2011 at the earliest.
I conjectured, with good reason (since I have become familiar with how slowly the wheels of the publishing process grind), that my book
concerning the KEP would probably not appear in print this year, but more likely in early 2011. I said nothing about a “paper” unless it was in reference to a summary paper that will most certainly appear during this calendar year. Indeed, I currently have three papers in process, on three separate and distinct aspects of the production of the Book of Abraham.
You are seeing it begin with a little timeline slip. Pretty soon he won't be publishing anything at all.
Right. Again the notion (also expressed by Dr. Shades) that I’m just pretending. Shades even goes so far as to suggest that no one
among the apologists is actually doing anything vis-à-vis the Book of Abraham or the KEP. It’s all a smokescreen of some sort—but to what end?
You have to remember that I have only possessed the full collection of high-resolution images of the papyri and KEP for less than two months
! (My previous findings were based on either the Marquardt transcriptions of the KEP or my possession of only two of the many documents that comprise the KEP (Ab2 [KEPA-2] and Ab3 [KEPA-3]).
Hauglid and Gee have had them for about five years. Metcalfe has had his photographs for 25 years! Neither Gee, Hauglid, nor Metcalfe have published any
studies, as of yet, concerning the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Metcalfe has mentioned a “forthcoming” publication of his findings for many, many years.
Consistent with the logic of your argument, do you also conclude that Metcalfe will never publish anything at all?
I think that Will Schryver's theory is along the lines of parts of the papyri missing.
I am entirely confident that no one
has any idea at all concerning my
theory of the production of the Book of Abraham.
It is true that only 10% – 20% of the original quantity of papyrus has survived to the present day. Cook’s and Smith’s confidence to the contrary notwithstanding, I am persuaded that my upcoming scroll-length study will put their’s “down for the count.” (I do think it’s fascinating that, completely independent of one another, Andrew and I formulated an almost identical plan to analyze the lacunae! [As indicated by Chris’s recent description of the methodology they employed.] However, after much thought and consultation with many very smart professors, we concluded that the methodology was hopelessly incapable of producing sufficiently accurate results.)
At any rate, even if the original scroll was 100 feet long, that does not necessarily mean that there was an Abraham text on the lost portion, nor that the papyri themselves could not have served as a catalyst for the receipt, via revelation, of the text of the Book of Abraham.
That said, contrary to my original expectations, I have now developed what amounts to a “unified theory” that explains the meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. The meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers is a complex and multi-faceted question that necessarily requires a complex and multi-faceted answer.
OK, that is all I have to say at present on the topic. It would be in vain for anyone to expect me to engage in a protracted discussion of these things in this venue. It will not happen. If Rockslider desires to discuss the question at MADB, that is up to him.