Will, I am still waiting patiently for you to back up your claim that Pokatator's list of your own greatest hits contains some complete fabrications. I really don't expect you to respond because I know you were only saying that to save face with your better-mannered friends on MAD.
William Schryver wrote:
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”?
.
.
.
dlbagent007:
Same question as above for you.
Okay, here are some examples of your extreme judiciousness on display.
From
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... ing-to-me/William Schryver wrote:
And don't believe anyone who tells you that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers demonstrate that the Book of Abraham was believed (by Joseph Smith and his associates) to derive from the extant fragments of papyri. Forthcoming scholarship will persuasively demonstrate that the text of the Book of Abraham was received before the production of the KEP, and that neither Joseph Smith nor his associates knew what Egyptian text corresponded to the revealed text the Prophet had received before they commenced an effort to decipher the contents of the scrolls in their possession.
My advice to you is to withhold all judgment on these questions for at least two more years. If, after that period has transpired, you still believe there is not a formidable set of apologetic arguments to address every aspect of the critics' arguments, you may then feel free to abandon your faith in the restored gospel, should you be so inclined.
William Schryver wrote:
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?
How can you believe I believe such a thing when I never said such a thing. I know you have been involved in the "some kind of study." I think you will realize your arguments stink and will drop the idea of publishing them.
William Schryver wrote:
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.
You have made some "findings" and I believe I have acknowledged them before. However, they aren't very significant when it comes to the evidence you have to refute.
Quote:
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 series.
Yes, your ratio of unsupported conclusions (such as this one) to actual "findings" is impressively high. I don't give any credence to your promises of future "findings."
William Schryver wrote:
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.
Whatever. Books, papers, it doesn't matter. I'll believe you produced them when I actually see them in print. You've been telling us about imminent papers for so long, it's getting hard to take you seriously.
Quote:
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?
If it wasn't a smokescreen to help doubters hold on a little longer, then why don't you actually put your devastating arguments/findings out on the forums for people like Brent and Chris to evaluate? Instead, you promise great things, but actually deliver very little.
Quote:
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]).
Well, I'm glad to see that not having a full collection of images didn't stop you from confidently predicting the demise of the critics' arguments.
Quote:
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.
I don't know why Metcalfe has taken so long. As for Hauglid and Gee, I think we all know why they haven't (because they don't have very good arguments).
Quote:
Consistent with the logic of your argument, do you also conclude that Metcalfe will never publish anything at all?
Honestly, I don't know if Metcalfe ever will.
Quote:
I am entirely confident that no one has any idea at all concerning my theory of the production of the Book of Abraham.
Truer words have never been spoken - since you won't tell anyone what it is. After enough butt kickings, even someone like you learns not to repeat the behavior, hence we have no idea what your theory is (although you said last fall that you thought Jay Todd and Nibley's theories were largely correct).
William Schryver wrote:
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.)
Well, you will get the chance to back up this assertion since their paper will be published.
Quote:
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.
It's nice to see you coming around. This is really the only unfalsifiable theory you've got.
William Schryver wrote:
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.
Complex and multi-faceted. I think that is the rallying cry for Book of Abraham apologetics. It's strange how the critics' arguments are so simple.
Quote:
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.
No doubt. You have already been taken to the woodshed too many times over the Book of Abraham.