Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

[_Kevin Graham]

Another way of showing the characters lining up as they appear in the ten page manuscript 2.

[_Kevin Graham]

1-Characters 13, 14, 15, 16 and 23 are, in the words of Gee presented by Schryver, "pulled" and "taken" from lower lines of the Book of Breathings papyri. Who pulled them? who took them? from the other parts of the Book of Breathings papyri? If it wasn't JSJr himself, as part of his "translation" then it was his scribes.

Yes, that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with this is important part of their apologetic. What Gee is doing now is trying to argue that there was no method here, and that the scribes were just pulling characters at random, therefore the KEP manuscripts could represent a systematic attempt to translate that papyrus.

If his scribes, then why would they think that JSJr was interpreting that papyri rather than another piece?

He doesn't attempt to explain why, he only attempts to show what they couldn't have been doing. At this point he is moving away from the traditionaal apologetic that says the scribes were confused and erroneously thought the Sensen text was the source for the Book of Abraham. Now, it seems, he wants to say these documents suggest nothing of the sort, as if the characters were placed there for the heck of it with no real significance.

Perhaps because JSJr was examining that very piece of papyri while orally "translating" for the scribes to take down as dictation.

Well this is obvious to us, and anyone else who isn't desperately trying to do apologetics for the LDS Church.

2-Set aside for the moment your point about the stretch that it is to match up, as Gee suggests, characters 13, 14, 15, 16 and 23. Gee is attempting to tie five more of the characters in the left hand margins of the pages of Ms2 to the papyri, which do not translate into the corresponding paragraphs of English on Ms2. Does he really think it helps his mopologetic cause to draw a greater tie-in between Ms2 and the Book of Breathings papyri?

He can't avoid this anymore as the majority of characters are indisputably copied from that papyrus. But I think it is funny that he left it up to Will to give such an embarrassing presentation, and then shortly after even Schryver himself denies its validity.

3-How do they ignore the near statistic impossibility that 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are in order, compounded by 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 an 22 are in order, and 24, 25, 26, and 27 are too?

As apologists, ignoring refuting data is crucial to the way they operate. Gee and Schryver have a lot of experience with this.

[_harmony]

My impression was that William agreed with Gee at the time he read the paper, but later looked a little more closely and realized Gee was mistaken.

Can we get this in one of those cross-stitch kits so we can frame it and hang it on the living room wall?

[Guest]

Just to keep readers aware of the significance, if JSJr instructed which characters were to be put in the left hand margins of the Ms2, one each at the beginning of each English "translation" paragraph, then it shows that JSJr thought he was conducting an actual linguistic translation of those characters into English (or JSJr knew he was not, but wanted to mislead his scribes into thinking he was performing an actual linguistic translation). However, since the 'code' for translating ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and hieratics has, since JSJr's time, been cracked (thanks to the Rosetta Stone and Champollion), we know that what was taking place by JSJr was not a linguistic translation of those characters.

Gee and other BoAbr apologists acknowledge that three strings of characters (7-8-9-10-11-12, 17-18-19-20-21-22 and 24-25-26-27) appear in the same sequences in the Ms2 manuscript (left margins) as they do around the lacunae of the papyri (acknowledged due to the near statistical impossibility that the bulk of the characters in three strings are mere coincidence). In light of that, what do Gee & Co. gain from pointing out that some of the characters for the missing areas (lacunae) on the second and third character lines of the Book of Breathings papyri have a corollary (albeit a stretch) elsewhere on that papyri 13, 14, 15, 16 and 23? How does that in anyway suggest that it was the scribes' and not JSJr's work in "taking" or "pulling" those characters from yet lower lines on that same papyri?

And a related question, since Gee & Co. have not even argued for character corollaries from that papyri for characters 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, who per their theory supplied those five 'lacunae' area characters on the top line? Per their theory, where did 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 come from? Gee's observation (requiring the stretching) does not explain where 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 came from, much less dispel the notion that it was JSJr who supplied the characters 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the lacunae area in the top line.

I guess I ask these questions because if Gee & Co. concede that the characters in three sequential strings (7-8-9-10-11-12, 17-18-19-20-21-22 and 24-25-26-27) that line up in the same order on the Ms2 left margins as they appear on that papyri makes inescapable the conclusion that the characters in the Ms2 left margins were taken by someone from that papyri, how does showing other characters (13, 14, 15, 16 and 23) were 'taken' or 'pulled' from lower lines of that papyri demonstrate or suggest it was the scribes alone, without instruction from JSJr, decided which characters to put at the beginning of those English paragraphs in Ms2?

I think Gee/Schryver hoped that by their pointing out that some of the lacunae characters (13, 14, 15, 16, and 23) were drawn from other parts of the papyri, that even looking at the extant/preserved papyri and that there is not perfect 7-27 sequencing of characters from that papyri, the listeners (the 'home town' crowd at the FAIR conference) would extrapolate that to mean there is no sequential relationship at all between that papyri and the characters in the left hand margin of Ms2. That seems their plausible purpose, one to mislead but pump up their own 'troops', since Gee/Schryver gained no yardage, intellectually or scholarly, in attempting to distance JSJr from those reproduced characters in the left hand margins of Ms2.

That is, it appears that Gee's 2010 FAIR conference presentation, delivered by Schryver, is an example of one of those particularly stinky aims of apologetics: Keep the questioning (i.e., intellectual) faithful contented through smoke-and-mirrors deception, making it look as though they've successfully countered a critical argument, when in fact the apologists have not and they know they have not--just so long as those teetering faithful within earshot do not realize that the critical argument remains intact and damning of JSJr's divine translation claims.

[_CaliforniaKid]

Has he gone on record with this, or did he tell you this privately?

I hear Nomad's footsteps already demanding a CFR.

It was on this board, but I'm too lazy to go looking for it right now. In one of those long threads about his cipher theory, no doubt.

[_Kevin Graham]

And a related question, since Gee & Co. have not even argued for character corollaries from that papyri for characters 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, who per their theory supplied those five 'lacunae' area characters on the top line? Per their theory, where did 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 come from? Gee's observation (requiring the stretching) does not explain where 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 came from, much less dispel the notion that it was JSJr supplying characters for the lacunae area in the top line

Gee argues that he can tell what characters should have been there by comparing it with similar papyri texts in European museums. As such, he agrees with critics that characters 1-5 correspond to the first lacuna area, but character six remains the only character they're willing to call a mystery. They agree it was in the lacuna but they don't know where it could have come from.

But this raises another question. For the most part, the lacuna was there in 1835, with the exception of characters 1-2. So by claiming characters 3-5 are legitimate Egyptian characters not pulled from the Joseph Smith papyri, is Gee trying to suggest this is evidence that Joseph Smith was a real prophet? By restoring legitimate Egyptian characters? He doesn't say one way or another in the presentation, but that seems to be the logical conclusion if he is consistent.

I guess I ask these questions because if Gee & Co. concede that the characters in three sequential strings (7-8-9-10-11-12, 17-18-19-20-21-22 and 24-25-26-27) that line up in the same order on the Ms2 left margins as they appear on that papyri makes inescapable the conclusion that the characters in the Ms2 left margins were taken by someone from that papyri, how does showing other characters (13, 14, 15, 16 and 23) were 'taken' or 'pulled' from lower lines of that papyri demonstrate or suggest it was the scribes and not JSJr himself?

He's trying to show not who was responsible, but rather the person responsible couldn't have possibly been trying to translate that papyrus, since there was no consistent linear sequencing throughout the manuscript. This puts Joseph Smith in the clear because obviously Joseph Smith would have translated a papyrus by going right to left consistently throughout.

That is, it appears that Gee's 2010 FAIR conference presentation, delivered by Schryver, is an example of one of those particularly stinky aims of apologetics: Keep the questioning (i.e., intellectual) faithful contented through smoke-and-mirrors deception, making it look as though they've successfully countered a critical argument, when in fact the apologists have not and they know they have not--just so long as those teetering faithful within earshot do not realize that the critical argument remains intact and damning of JSJr's divine translation claims.

Pretty much.

[_Kevin Graham]

Has he gone on record with this, or did he tell you this privately?

I hear Nomad's footsteps already demanding a CFR.

It was on this board, but I'm too lazy to go looking for it right now. In one of those long threads about his cipher theory, no doubt.

You little, lazy bastard.

I think this is funny because wade just informed me in celestial that we have no business questioning a bonafide Egyptologist on these matters. According to him, trusting anyone else is like taking someone with heart disease to a computer programmer instead of a cardiologist.

[Guest]

Kevin, thanks for the summary and refutation of Gee/Schryver. It's no wonder that Gee was MIA at the last FAIR conference and that Schryver either volunteered or was put up to do the dirty work.

I have a theoretical question for you. Suppose the church gave you an offer you couldn't refuse to defend the Book of Abraham. They give you reassurances that you would only have to privately deliver a paper to LDS Inc., that your name would be kept confidential, and that they wouldn't expect you to personally defend the Book of Abraham after the paper. Once you are done with the paper, you can wash your hands of the whole thing. Now, for whatever reason you decide to take up the church on that offer. How or what would you do to defend the Book of Abraham, what's the best case the apologists can possibly make?

I'm just trying to see what's left for apologists to actually work with. It seems that Joseph Smith slammed the door shut to so many explanations that a believer could use to wiggle out of Book of Abraham problems, defending the Book of Mormon seems to be a cake walk compared to defending the Book of Abraham.

Also, Celestial Kingdom, feel free to also answer this question.

[_sock puppet]

Gee argues that he can tell what characters should have been there by comparing it with similar papyri texts in European museums. As such, he agrees with critics that characters 1-5 correspond to the first lacuna area, but character six remains the only character they're willing to call a mystery. They agree it was in the lacuna but they don't know where it could have come from.

But this raises another question. For the most part, the lacuna was there in 1835, with the exception of characters 1-2. So by claiming characters 3-5 are legitimate Egyptian characters not pulled from the Joseph Smith papyri, is Gee trying to suggest this is evidence that Joseph Smith was a real prophet? By restoring legitimate Egyptian characters? He doesn't say one way or another in the presentation, but that seems to be the logical conclusion if he is consistent.

Thanks, Kevin. Do you have a theory about where characters 3-5 came from? Is there any evidence of perhaps JSJr also having a shard of papyri that fits in that lacunae area of line one of the Book of Breathings papyri?

[_Kevin Graham]

Thanks, Kevin. Do you have a theory about where characters 3-5 came from? Is there any evidence of perhaps JSJr also having a shard of papyri that fits in that lacunae area of line one of the Book of Breathings papyri?

As far as I'm aware, both sides agree that the first two characters were extant at the time Smith purchased the papyri, so there is no surprise that they are genuinely Egyptian. But Smith's constant poking at the second character (which he kept telling everyone referred to Abraham) probably didn't help with preservation, so through time that portion was lost. The other characters 4-6 Smith claimed to divine via revelation, just as William West said he did. Naturally he had to fill in the missing areas with something. If he had the ability to produce BS in English, why not in Egyptian too? Of course, these characters are not Egyptian at all save the first three characters. The third was taken from another portion of the same papyrus preceding the Facsimile (albeit highly manipulated). I address this in a subsequent visual above that you may have missed. Gee tries to claim the fourth character is Egyptian by comparing it to a related text containing a character resembling it. But that character is actually flipped over. So the bogus character #4 looking like this _______| Gee claims was a Genuine Egyptian character that actually looks something like this: |_______

I mean yeah, I can see the resemblance he alludes to only if we spend five minutes rearranging graphemes, adding some, inverting various portions and deleting entire sections. With this kind of license one can pretty much say these characters were borrowed from Japanese.