Will Schryver wrote:
I am pleased to see you add another flawed argument to your growing repertoire. I hope to see you put more of such arguments in print.
You're saying you, too, believe there was a knife on the papyrus when Joseph Smith had it? Even though there are no fibers stuck to the paper backing here? Even though there's a pencil mark on the backing paper right at the current edge of the papyrus, where someone started to restore the missing arm and hand but stopped? Even though a knife has been drawn into Anubis's right
hand on the backing paper, which would have been totally unnecessary if there was already a knife in the left?
Well, that's... interesting
. I hope to see you put more of such arguments in print.
It is apparent that you are not very observant. That's what happens when your conclusions are always so agenda-driven.
Oh, I know very well that we
(all apologists in general, and John Gee and I in particular) are routinely accused of suffering from that unique strain of blindness. But in my 5+ years of exposure to anti-Mormon evangelists such as congregate here, I have concluded that, generally speaking, just the opposite is the case. Your JWHA Abr. 1:1-3 paper, and this newer one in Dialogue,
are revealing examples of what happens when one looks at the data longingly enough for long enough until it magically transforms itself to produce the desired conclusions.
I will continue to watch your developing career in anti-Mormon publishing, but I won't expect a whole lot to change in terms of your being able to objectively and accurately
assess bodies of evidence.
I do expect that you will always have a core of acolytes among the exmormon crowd, but your long-term hopes for broad respectability will inevitably be dashed by careful scrutiny of your "scholarship" by those willing to take the time and effort necessary to methodically assess its accuracy.
Today, you and Andrew are flush with the accolades being heaped upon you by an indiscriminate coterie of the willfully uninformed, similar to what Metcalfe has enjoyed during the quarter-century period of his literary indolence. Enjoy it while you can. The tide of events is against you.
Will, why don't you send this to me in a Masonic supercryptogram? At least it would look good. You could even stroke your manhood by referring to me as "little man" again! LOL. What a tool.
I know you fancy yourself a 21st century manifestation of the noble Aristotelian tradition, as you (figuratively speaking) palm the broad leather arms of your imagined academic throne, and raise the snifter to your lips. I can picture you deliberately measuring your words and punctuating their delivery with a certain arrogant detachment, confident that everyone within earshot is hanging on each and every profound utterance.
Ah ... self-delusion is the sweetest wine of all, is it not?
Well, at the very least, you can reliably revel in the "respect" that flows to you from your sycophants here. You should remember, however, that I have actually been able to peek behind the curtain of your manufactured reputation, only to find a frumpy mediocrity cowering in the corner of his own deeply rooted insecurities.
/snip another reflexive rant/
Speaking of the indiscriminate coterie of the willfully uninformed …
/snip rambling observations about the Dendera relief/
You are laboring under the false impression that these lion couch vignettes (there are many that have been discovered) manifest some kind of universal consistency in terms of the elements portrayed within them. They don’t.
All three of the vignettes included in the published Book of Abraham are unique productions based on generic
templates. Your strained conclusions are therefore nonsensical.
And with that, I must take my leave again. I trust your customary gnashing of teeth will shortly ensue, and it always engenders within me a certain degree of voyeuristic curiosity, but the unpleasant aftertaste has grown wearisome for me, and therefore I shall permit it to proceed in my absence.