Kevin Graham wrote:
Will we all know you're blowing smoke again. You've admitted being wrong so many times on this subject, and have misrepresented even Hauglid so many times it is hard for anyone to take you seriously anymore, especially when you start referring to these mysterious "experts" who have verified YOUR (Someone who doesn't even reach the status of amateur. Someone who didn't even know what the KEP were until I told you a few years ago, and then became an instant "expert" after a few Nibley readings) conclusions! The fact that Hauglid is willing to consider your crazy ideas only tells us how desperate the Book of Abraham apologetic has become.
But it is pointless to even respond without something solid as a reference for your so-called "experts". Experts in what exactly, bull-s***? We're just supposed to take your word for it right? The same way we were supposed to in the link above when you were proved to be flat out incorrect on virtually every point you thought you had made? It isn't even worth dealing with you any more. Your conclusions are testimony-driven, pure and simple. You and Hauglid and Gee approach the matter with an agenda, as Hauglid was good enough to admit. He came to the matter with a conclusion already in mind and his "job" was to defend it because that would be "defending the kingdom of God."
This is all a joke when you pretend to have any sense of scholarship on your side.
I'd consider responding to you, but you are so far out in the "doesn't know what he's talking about field" that it would be impossible to make you understand.
Kevin, you have fallen so far behind in the discussion that it's sad.
Yes, my observations concerning the interlinear insertion at Abr. 1:12 and the dittograph on page 4 of the same document have been confirmed by multiple "experts" in textual criticism and forensic document analysis. Skousen is the only I will name at present, but all will be named.
All of this, plus the stuff Hauglid and his team have been working on, will shortly appear in print.
You can rant and rave all you want about ... whatever
it is you're ranting and raving about.
But you can't change the facts.
And on at least these two significant points (which I have been arguing for almost three years now) my conclusions are going to be vindicated and the critics' arguments to the contrary will be proven false. And the bigger picture: the theory of KEPA #2 and #3 being simultaneous transcripts of an oral dictation will be shown to be entirely untenable.
You might as well deal with it now. Because a year from now, if you keep ranting like this, you're only going to convince rational people that you've lost it completely.