Especially if Marcus remembers correctly and they retracted 70% of what they claimed initially.Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 10:13 pmSomeone made a lot of money off this silly project. Tom or Dr. Scratch posted the financials a few years ago that showed Skousen received almost $300,000.00 for one year's work on the project. That's insane.
William Davis' paper in Dialogue evaluates Skousen and Carmack's Early Modern English model
-
- God
- Posts: 2147
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am
Re: William Davis' paper in Dialogue evaluates Skousen and Carmack's Early Modern English model
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
- Tom
- Prophet
- Posts: 877
- Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:41 pm
Re: William Davis' paper in Dialogue evaluates Skousen and Carmack's Early Modern English model
It was actually about $329,000 over six years.Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 10:13 pmSomeone made a lot of money off this silly project. Tom or Dr. Scratch posted the financials a few years ago that showed Skousen received almost $300,000.00 for one year's work on the project. That's insane.
viewtopic.php?p=18288#p18288
“But if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or wrong.” Heber C. Kimball, 8 Nov. 1857
-
- God
- Posts: 6780
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm
Re: William Davis' paper in Dialogue evaluates Skousen and Carmack's Early Modern English model
I was close!! In Feb 2021:I Have Questions wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 11:05 pmEspecially if Marcus remembers correctly and they retracted 70% of what they claimed initially.Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑Wed Jul 02, 2025 10:13 pmSomeone made a lot of money off this silly project. Tom or Dr. Scratch posted the financials a few years ago that showed Skousen received almost $300,000.00 for one year's work on the project. That's insane.
Lem wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:10 pm..but just as a reminder, based on the recent retractions published by the Interpreter, here is the count as it currently stands:
Section 1, Archaic Vocabulary: 26 proposed as archaic [out of 41 originally proposed, 37% have been retracted]
Section 3, Archaic Phrases: 14 proposed as archaic [out of 29 originally proposed, 52% have been retracted]
Section 4, Archaic Grammar: 2 proposed as archaic[out of 15 originally proposed, 87% have been retracted]
Section 7, Archaic Expressions: 7 proposed as archaic [out of 37 originally proposed, 81% have been retracted]
For an average retraction of 60% of previously published results, most or all included in the sales of hardcover, expensive publications.
-
- God
- Posts: 7255
- Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am
Re: William Davis' paper in Dialogue evaluates Skousen and Carmack's Early Modern English model
It’s funny how DCP is completely silent on hard hitting criticisms like this.
But the second after Noel posts a comment on SeN he stops everything he is doing to address it.
But the second after Noel posts a comment on SeN he stops everything he is doing to address it.
-
- God
- Posts: 2147
- Joined: Tue May 23, 2023 9:09 am
Re: William Davis' paper in Dialogue evaluates Skousen and Carmack's Early Modern English model
Turkeys don’t promote Thanksgiving
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.