Graham:

The scenario I described occurs frequently in the Book of Mormon manuscripts.

It is hardly preposterous.


You are wrong.

There were no Egyptian characters present in the parent document, and if you would ever answer the question I have posed to you multiple time on the other thread, I would show the evidence for my claim that there were no Egyptian characters in the parent.

Look, you can rant and rave all you want, and I’m going to leave you to yourself before long, and you can rant to your heart’s delight, telling everyone how you “mopped the floors” with everyone who has engaged you on these matters.

I’ve only stuck around this long to prove an important point: you don’t know what you’re talking about. When it comes to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, as of August 21, 2010, you are so far behind in terms of your understanding that it is utterly futile for me to attempt to converse with you.

The fact of the matter is that I don’t believe there is anyone who has a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of these documents than I presently do, including Metcalfe the Mighty Myth. That is why I am so willing to debate him on these issues in the high stakes setting I have proposed. I have spent literally hundreds and hundreds of hours examining the documents, with superb images that permit me to look at things in ways no one has previously been able to do. I have produced hundreds of pages of detailed analysis, organizing and sorting the extracted data in ways that have permitted me to derive more understanding of these things than anyone who has gone before me.

You, on the other hand, have been spoon-fed tidbits of Metcalfe minutia, and looked at a snippet here and a snippet there of the documents, never able to view and consider the whole.

Though I am certain I will continue to add details and expand my understanding of these things in the coming months and years, I can already provide a comprehensive explanation for the meaning of these documents. My findings will constitute the foundation of all future understanding of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Period.

You will merely continue to cut the figure of the angry, ranting ex-mormon here in the Great and Spacious Trailer Park©.

It’s too bad. You showed so much promise at one point in time—only to now be lost in the vortex of your own wilfull ignorance.

At any rate, if you don’t soon provide something in the way of substantive argumentation and evidence, I will consider you to have forfeited this debate for lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

Of course, this does not mean that Joseph Smith et al knew that there were no Egyptian characters, does it?

This is false. There is no evidence that the original, error-ridden manuscript of the Book of Mormon, was the basis for the later production of three exact copies (which is effectively what we get with the KEP + Will's missing manuscript theory). In fact, there wasn't even one copy like that, as the Prineter's manuscript was much cleaner than the Original. Will is being deceptive here pretending his argument hangs on known historical facts about the Book of Mormon.


More convoluted nonsense. There is nothing in this photo that changes the fact that "whereunto" was erased and corrected in transition, as evidenced by the fact that "unto" appears right beside it and not above it. So you have a couple of darker marks in the cross outs. So what? That could have been the result of the writing over the preexisting ink, or perhaps someone decided to make the cross out more obvious at a later time. It still doesn't chaange the fact that it was corrected in transition.

And I don't know why I didn't see this already, but if Will is arguing that these emendations are the result of scribes copying the errors as they appeared in a mysterious original text, then this is effectly the same thing as "transitional emendations." I mean why the hell would they copy the original manuscript without the scratch outs and scribbles, and then insert them all in at a llater time? Will's theory is just getting more and more ridiculous.

What???

Sorry, you've lost me with that question.

Let me attempt to clarify: there were no characters of any kind in the parent document from which the Abraham manuscripts were produced. There are multiple elements of evidence to support this conclusion, and I will present at least a small portion of it if Kevin Graham will simply answer the question I have posed to him multiple times in the other thread about the dittograph.

As I suspected, you are not able to respond in a substantive fashion. All you have in your repertoire is "no it's not!"

You don't know what you're talking about, Graham. You're an ignoramus when it comes to this stuff.

Yes, the Book of Mormon manuscripts attest precisely what I am describing with Ab2 in relation to its parent document. Your saying "This is false" will not change the facts as they are.

You, sir, have forfeited this debate for lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

Have fun with your ranting and raving and your ridiculous claims of "mopping floors."

Will, what is your evidence that the Q document didn't contain the Egyptian writing? If it was such a close copy that all the errors made it through, why wouldn't the hieratic writing be there too?

Oh for crying out loud. Just quit playing around and post it already.

"Frequently" meaning what? Every chapter, every 30 pages? And how "similaar" are we talking about Will? You won't say, and for good reason. I bet you can't find a single instance where Oliver Cowdery copied a phrase into the Printer's manuscript that consists of four scratched out words. And you are hanging your entire argument on this flimsy Cowdery evidence. Go ahead and produce and stop arguing from silence.

You always play words games like this knowning damn well you're being deceptive. You want people to think Joseph Smith demanded three exact copies of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon but this is bogus and you know it. So what if there were some instances where a tired, inexperienced Oliver Cowdery screwed up and copies down errors in a work as long as the Book of Mormon. You're comparing this to a relatively short document of just a few pages, transcribed by experienced scribes, and the transitional emendations occur several times, something like on every page.

Argument via assertion, because that completely disrupts your apologetic, right? I mean these have to be exact copies in your model, except when it comes to things you don't want connected to the original manuscript. In those instances, those things were not copied at all. You can't have it both ways Will. You might be able to pull this crap over at MADB, but not here. You invent evidence as you need to reconstruct your apologetic model, but you never present it. You always refer us to some future presentation/publication that is going to provide it. We've heard this since August 2006.

Oh here you go again with your usual diatribe about how I'm the one ranting when all I am doing is illustrating how ridiculous and improbable your proposed scenarios really are. You never were good with constructive criticism.You fabricate evidence from wherever you can, and you have lied to me one too many times. So keep your little "I have pity on you little apostate" to yourself. We've heard it too many times.

You complain because I'm friend's with Metcalfe, but he doesn't "feed me" what you think. I think I have spoken to him less than a dozen times in the past year. Whereas you're talking about your "movie night" with Royal Skousen, who you've been trying to recruit for your cause. I can see you roaming the halls at BYU pitching your apologetic to the faculty there, trying to get them to sign off on it. Yeah, try selling this anywhere else Will, and see what happens. LOL.

There was no hieratic writing on the original translation manuscript. That's why it wasn't copied.

Another empty pronouncement.

And your evidence for this is...

OK, that was your last chance to answer the question.

You clearly don't have an answer.

Therefore you have forfeited this debate for lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

L'hitraot ...

Will is so used to his bald assertions being swallowed gladly over at MADB, that he isn't used to people who know how to think critically. Hence, his frustration that we actually require evidence before believing something as ridiculous as his proposals. Keep pushing him and maybe, just maybe, he'll provide the "evidence."

Will is taking a page out of the Daniel McClellan "Guide to Debating without Evidence."

Rule #13 - Demand your opponent concede to stupid s*** you assert or else pretend you're so far above him that he shoudl feel grateful that you bothered to condescend to his level, and then leave in a huff. Oh, and make sure you go tell everyone he "forfeited the debate" as an added measure.

Real classy, but pretty much what we've come to expect.

We won't be bullied into believing BS here, just because you swap spit, watch movies, and rub elbows with folks at the Y.

I'm sure I will watch the slideshow and follow the "debate" with interest, but I have no real interest in participating in such an exchange. I have no firm position on the subject, and with school starting soon my time is very limited. And to be completely honest, I don't have much confidence that you will really dial down the rhetoric.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing what you will produce. Good luck,

-Chris

Will just called Trevor spineless, in Celestial of all places.

Yes, Will is having his usual meltdown. That tends to happen when he can't support his arguments and demands praise from his audience anyway.

Let's take a closer look at this. I have annotated the image below to highlight the end of the strikeout. It clearly shows the same tone and volume of ink as "unto."



The following scenario seems to be the most probable. The scribe writes "whereunto" and is then instructed to strike it out. The scribe dips his pen in the ink since a strikeout is usually done with great emphasis. The scribe strikes it out by drawing two sawtooth shaped lines through "whereunto." The strike out lines have much more pronounced down strokes than upstrokes. After the last strikeout line was drawn, the scribe continues the dictation at "unto" without dipping his pen in ink again. Thus, the ink tone and volume in the last strokes of the strikeout are the same as the word "unto."

Great observation, dblagent007. Also, it is typical for a writer to have more of a downward emphasis on the shaft of the pen/quill when trying to strike through erroneous writing than when then resuming to write characters like "u", "n", "t" and "o" for the next word.

In the immortal words of Walter the Vet,

"No, no that can't be true... because that F---ks up our plan"

I thought that was odd. And I really couldn't understand why. I mean, I have been preoccupied with maklelan's notion of the dictation of a prepared manuscript, which, homoioteleuton or no, simply does not make sense. Or, at least, unless it can be shown that this was the kind of thing Smith et al. did when transmitting revelations and translations, it has little to recommend it.

If anything, I have tentatively decided that it has to be transcription or dictation, but it is unlikely to have been mak's Franken-transmission of the dictated manuscript.

Well, Will takes pride in his list, racking up academics who support his crazy theses, and he was insulted that you, an academic, weren't convinced.

Logically, that makes you spineless. Right? ;)

I mean it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that only BYU academics are backing him up.