The Missing Papyrus Equation

[_Kishkumen]

That's why I've already gone on record stating that, if Gee is mistaken, there can only be two possibilities as I see it:

1- He is lying.

2- He is inept.

Or both. Just saying. :)

William does not believe in the concept of confirmation bias. The idea that he can only be lying or inept is Willy's way of saying that really the only option open is that Gee is right. Clearly William is just as given to confirmation bias as Gee is, if more crudely so.

[_Droopy]

William does not believe in the concept of confirmation bias.

1. Dismissing everything LDS apologists claim as a figment of "confirmation bias" is simply a debate circumvention tactic, and obviates any further need to discuss the actual evidence.

2. Confirmation bias would also have to apply to much that was claimed by people such as Mr. Scratch.

[_Dr. Shades]

That's why I've already gone on record stating that, if Gee is mistaken, there can only be two possibilities as I see it:

1- He is lying.

2- He is inept.

That's correct. Are either of those two options somehow untenable to you? If so, why?

[_harmony]

Why is it so hard to admit that someone like Dr Gee could be wrong? We admit that prophets are wrong all the time... why not extend that possibility to someone like Dr Gee?

[_Kishkumen]

1. Dismissing everything LDS apologists claim as a figment of "confirmation bias" is simply a debate circumvention tactic, and obviates any further need to discuss the actual evidence.

2. Confirmation bias would also have to apply to much that was claimed by people such as Mr. Scratch.

1. Dismissing confirmation bias as a way of not acknowledging the human frailty of even brilliant people is a wrongheaded enterprise.

2. I very much believe that confirmation bias applies as much to Scratch as it does Gee. I have not seen any such willingness to apply a uniform standard on your part.

[_William Schryver]

That's why I've already gone on record stating that, if Gee is mistaken, there can only be two possibilities as I see it:

1- He is lying.

2- He is inept.

That's correct. Are either of those two options somehow untenable to you? If so, why?

Not hardly.

I'm not John Gee. And I haven't made this argument concerning a 1200cm scroll. In fact, I've never been entirely comfortable with it because I didn't really understand it, and it seems like a 40ft. roll of papyrus would have been larger in circumference, when rolled up, than 9.7cm. But, again, I haven't felt like I was in a position to either confidently confirm it, or to reject it. So I really haven't worried too much about it. In my judgment, the defense of the Book of Abraham does not depend on the argument of a 1200cm scroll.

On the other hand, if Gee is wrong on this, then he's made -- in my judgment -- a huge mistake that will cost him a boat load of credibility. At least in my eyes. I don't think he has credibility to lose in the eyes of most of the people on this particular message board.

[_Kishkumen]

I just want to document for all of you the interesting shift I have seen here.

Will starts out with this posture:

Besides, if Ritner wants to dispute Gee's calculations about the length of the scroll (which now place the total length of the scroll not at 320cm, but rather 1200cm!), as based on the lacunae, his argument is not with Gee, but rather with Hoffman, whose widely-accepted calculations Gee is using.

And ends with this one:

I'm not John Gee. And I haven't made this argument concerning a 1200cm scroll. In fact, I've never been entirely comfortable with it because I didn't really understand it, and it seems like a 40ft. roll of papyrus would have been larger in circumference, when rolled up, than 9.7cm. But, again, I haven't felt like I was in a position to either confidently confirm it, or to reject it. So I really haven't worried too much about it. In my judgment, the defense of the Book of Abraham does not depend on the argument of a 1200cm scroll.

On the other hand, if Gee is wrong on this, then he's made -- in my judgment -- a huge mistake that will cost him a boat load of credibility. At least in my eyes.

[_Chap]

I'm not John Gee. And I haven't made this argument concerning a 1200cm scroll. In fact, I've never been entirely comfortable with it because I didn't really understand it, and it seems like a 40ft. roll of papyrus would have been larger in circumference, when rolled up, than 9.7cm.

As my calculations show, you are entirely right about that!

Suppose the scroll is made of papyrus of thickness t, and that it has a total of N wraps.

That means that if it is tightly wound, the radius of the scroll must be New Testament. Thus the outer circumference must be:

C = 2πNt

Now the average length of a wrap is halfway between the outer value, C, and the value of the innermost wrap, which is effectively zero. It is therefore

C/2 = 2πNt/2 = πNt

The total length is thus:

L = NC/2 = π(N^2)t

Suppose we have L = 1200 cm

so 1200 cm = π(N^2)t,

=> N^2 = 1200 cm/ πt

Let us take the plausible value of 0.05cm (half a mm) for the papyrus thickness t

Then N^2 = 1200 cm/ (π*0.05cm)

=> N^2 = 7650 (3 sig figs, probably not justified)

=> N = 87 (2 sig figs)

Using our previous result that

C = 2πNt

we have C = 2π*87*0.05cm = 27 cm

So the outermost wrap should be about three times the length we actually find (about 9 cm), if want a tight roll of papyrus 1200 cm long and about 0.05 cm thick.

[_Kevin Graham]

On the subject of the Book of Abraham Gee has no credibility outside TBM circles. He is the equivalent of a Scientologist who just happens to be a credentialed astronomer. One who thinks evidence for his religion is manifest in the stars. How many other astronomers agree with him? As many as there are non-LDS Egyptologists who think the Book of Abraham has anything whatsoever to do with Abraham.

Zilch. Zero. Nada.

Will's smoke and mirrors won't change this fact.

Will has been digging his own grave over the past few years because he keeps marrying himself to Gee, insisting he should be taken seriously on the matter when he has already proven to be the fool. Why the hell would anyone take him seriously after what he has done?

When "amateurs" point out things that make him look stupid, all Will can do in response is appeal to his authority with junk like,"Well when you have been published in peer reviewed journals, only then, maybe you can respond to Gee." Anyone remember Gee's challenge to anyone who wanted to argue against him? He said we had to be able to translate Egyptian! What an idiot.

Will actually thinks this guy is above reproach. Even his own teacher can't offer criticism without it being dismissed as "anti-Mormon." Logic and fairness dictate that Gee be dismissed on the same grounds since he is more subjective from the other end of the spectrum. He is a devout Mormon whose entire universe would collapse if Joseph Smith were not truly a prophet who could translate ancient documents. Gee needs the Book of Abraham to be true more than Ritner needs it to be false.

Yes, Gee has an established track record of getting things wrong, even in his tiny booklet on the subject. I pointed out his dishonest usage of the "color" examples of the KEP and Chris and Brent have mopped the floors with him on other points he got wrong. I have taken a break from the subject for a year now and probably won't get back into it until something new is published.

Proof that John Gee cannot be Trusted

Proof that William Schryver cannot be Trusted

Proof that William Schryver is Intellectually Dishonest

[_Chap]

It is good to see you back and apparently in full vigor.

I can now go to bed, safe in the knowledge that Gee's views on the Book of Abraham will not surge back into plausibility the minute I shut my eyes.