John Gee up to Bat at Fair Conf.

[_Who Knows]

If anyone can give any updates, please do so.

Thanks.

[_dartagnan]

I hope he remembers to bring a bat this time.

[_CaliforniaKid]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=26527 - being updated live by Kerry Shirts

[_Who Knows]

He's still pushing the missing scroll theory? What's up next, the earth is actually only 6,000 years old?

[_Brackite]

Hi! Here we go, From that Discussion Thread:


e=mc2 (Kerry) wrote:

I'm just letting you know that Gee is at it again, obfuscating matters on the papyri........ this ought to make the critics happy.

Her Amun wrote:

Hey, try to sum up his arguments

e=mc2 wrote:

He is discussing the eyewitness descriptions of the rolls of papyrus. There were at least two rolls, and some fragments with astronomical data on them.

There is an actual mathematical formula that Egyptologists have developed in order to calculate what amount of rolls of papyrus are missing. Gee just showed that some rolls of the fragments we now have may be missing as much as 12 feet.

CaliforniaKid wrote:

Ack! I missed the mathematical formula argument! Lord Kerry, do be a good chap and get a paper copy with footnotes for your friend the chimp, pretty please? *bats eyelashes*

As for the eyewitness descriptions, boy would I like to be there for question-and-answer at the end. ;-)

e=mc2 wrote:

He also showed that many Egyptian papyri which have illustrations of lion couches are about sacrificing, slaughtering of enemies, etc. We can't get away from the idea in the ancient Egyptian ideas. The implications, are, of course, that Joseph Smith was not off base in showing this idea of sacrifice, even though he felt it was illustrating that of Abraham.

LifeOnaPlate wrote:

alas, if only we could persuede you to analyze biblical texts with such alacrity!

e=mc2 wrote:

Who, me, or California Kid?

LifeOnaPlate wrote:

Me? Celestial Kingdom.

CaliforniaKid wrote:

He wouldn't happen to be drawing this conclusion based on Min's epithet "he who slaughters his enemies", which appears in one of the columns accompanying facs 1 and probably also appears near other lion couch scenes, would he? Because that epithet is not intrinsic to the meaning of the vignette.

Perhaps he is also referring to the sed festival, a ritual in which the king is divinized by being killed (by someone dressed like Anubis with a large knife) on a lion couch. (Or rather, a bull is probably substituted for him. A few authors think it was originally humans that were substituted for the king, but others have hotly disputed that conclusion.) It should be noted that in this case, the king sits on the altar in a sphinx-like position.

There are also alabaster altars that sometimes had lion couches inscribed. These were probably for sacrificing bulls, though some think they are merely offering-tables. Margaret Murray thinks the bulls are substituted for what were originally human victims. The evidence she cites, however, seems to depict the human victims bound and kneeling with a sword at their throat.

The BoB lion couch scene does not have the person on the couch kneeling or sitting like a sphinx. Moreover, it is much too late for human sacrifice to be there depicted. Even Abraham is too late for human sacrifice, which is mostly pre-dynastic/1st dynasty.

Human sacrifice, if I understand correctly, is still a matter of much debate among Egyptologists. But the ones who do advocate the idea, I think, would still strongly disagree that "Joseph Smith was not off base in showing this idea of sacrifice, even though he felt it was illustrating that of Abraham."

-CK

CaliforniaKid wrote:

If by this you mean "if only you could be persuaded to read biblical texts with such skepticism," you may rest assured that I do. I attend an evangelical church, but that doesn't mean I buy much of it. Heck, I have serious doubts that "Abraham" ever even existed.

( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=26527 )

[_Brackite]

Here are a few more Posts, from that Discussion Thread:


LifeOnaPlate wrote:

But oddly I haven't seen any of your recent threads talking about the problems you find with the Bible; only the Book of Abraham.

CaliforniaKid wrote:

This is a forum about Mormonism. If you want to hear about my beefs with the Bible you should have been in my Bib Studies classes a few years ago. I turned more than a few people's faces red.

I essentially reject the entire Old Testament as man-made. I think several books have interesting insights to offer, and I suppose it's possible that a few Old Testament authors were "inspired" to some limited degree, but I'd just as well throw the whole thing out as a relic of a bygone age. I like the teachings of Jesus a lot, and I do tend to think of him as a divine or otherwise "special" figure, though I couldn't say so with any real certainty. The New Testament authors I accept insofar as I think their teachings reflect those of Jesus; in a number of cases I suspect they do not. I also have a special place in my heart for the writings of Zoroaster, Nanak, Kabir, Confucius, and (last but not least) Donald Miller.

If you'e ever read anything by John Hick, then you know roughly where I stand.


This post has been edited by CaliforniaKid: Today, 12:29 PM

Luigi wrote:

Wow, it's almost like the proverbial fish that got away-it gets longer every year(j/k).

jerryp48 wrote:

I got the impression that Gee is rather disinterested in the whole Book of Abraham topic. Just my thoughts as I listened to him.

Sargon wrote:

I've only seen pictures of him, but he certainly doesn't exude enthusiasm in his FARMS picture.

Sargon

( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=26527 )


I am very glad that I didn't pay any money to go and see LDS Apologist John Gee speak about the already discredited missing papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham. If I wanted to go pay and see a real Egyptologist speak, I would go pay and see Dr. Robert Ritner speak about Egyptology.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Man, Ritner has a downright obscene number of publications.

[_Paul Osborne]

I can't imagine John Gee having anything to contribute that will advance the LDS apologetic cause regarding the Book of Abraham. His glass is more than half empty and no one need flock to him to quench their thirst. They will get little more than b***s*** excuses – the same old tired song and dance! I am sick to death of his missing roll theory and will not stand for it for one single second. Away with the missing roll theory!

I will not abide the missing roll theory! Do you hear me BYU? The answer is, "No"! Quit pushing Hugh Nibley's failed apologetics on the Latter-day Saints. You foolish scholars! You swallow the KEP not knowing what you have! A precious work is right in front of your blind eyes. The pride of the scholars have blinded them from the truth. Surely Isaiah saw your day - the day of pride, when the scholars think they know so much but are as worldly as ever. I think the barn will be cleaned out before the Savior comes - indeed he will clean his house and all those who are lifted up in pride will be humbled. (I supose that includes me to, to some degree)

I don't think the professors know nearly as much as they claim to. So many of them enjoy the praise of the world, or, in our case, the LDS world.

Paul O

oops, sorry about the language on the terrestial board. I was mad.

Paul O

[_Blixa]

I will not abide the missing roll theory!

Wow, beautiful sig line material.

[_Polygamy Porter]

I can't imagine John Gee having anything to contribute that will advance the LDS apologetic cause regarding the Book of Abraham. His glass is more than half empty and no one need flock to him to quench their thirst. They will get little more than b***s*** excuses – the same old tired song and dance! I am sick to death of his missing roll theory and will not stand for it for one single second. Away with the missing roll theory!

I will not abide the missing roll theory! Do you hear me BYU? The answer is, "No"! Quit pushing Hugh Nibley's failed apologetics on the Latter-day Saints. You foolish scholars! You swallow the KEP not knowing what you have! A precious work is right in front of your blind eyes. The pride of the scholars have blinded them from the truth. Surely Isaiah saw your day - the day of pride, when the scholars think they know so much but are as worldly as ever. I think the barn will be cleaned out before the Savior comes - indeed he will clean his house and all those who are lifted up in pride will be humbled. (I supose that includes me to, to some degree)

I don't think the professors know nearly as much as they claim to. So many of them enjoy the praise of the world, or, in our case, the LDS world.

Paul O

oops, sorry about the language on the terrestial board. I was mad.

Paul O

Hey big mouth, call up Fair and offer to SPEAK at their conference.

Never mind, from the interactions on this board, I bet you are too scared of facing all of those real apologists who are backed by LDS Inc.