Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Ed Ashment kindly verified that the red-box restorations (from our paper) are Egyptologically correct and that the character beginning the second line is transliterated as Wsir.


That's good stuff, MM. Thanks for the heads up!
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Kevin Graham »

does kevin's work actually contain the smoking gun blowing away the "missing papyrus" theory?


If it doesn't, then Chris Smith's upcoming publication surely will.
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Kevin Graham »

The mopologists need to distant JSJr from those characters in the left hand margins of Ms2 being placed there and then establish that there was no indication from JSJr to the scribes that caused them to add them to those margins. Those are just a couple of dozens of points that mopologists must win, each and every one, for the salvage effort to prevail.

The sequencing of those characters in the margins of Ms2 matching the sequencing of those characters on the papyrus is just one insurmountable problem for the mopologists. Gee has tried to divert the attention of onlookers, much like pointing out the passing ice cream truck to divert attention away from a traffic accident fatality laying on the highway before the ambulance arrives.


Pretty much. Something I've said for years is that all the historical references to the papyrus refer specifically to the extant papyri. From journal entries, to LDS publications, to canonized scripture, everything refers specifically to one scroll.

Chris Smith's upcoming paper has been accepted for publication and it effectively decimates any attempt to argue for a missing roll upon which anything related to the Book of Abraham could be a part. What are the chances that the actual source for the Book of Abraham slipped through the historical record without nary a comment? No historian would buy this nonsense, but the apologists have to because they are left with no other choice.

As I have said so many times before, even if they manage to establish the existence of a missing 40 ft scroll, all the evidence still points to the extant portion as the source for the Book of Abraham.

Even if the dictated manuscripts turn out to be copies of some mysterious Q document, they still have to explain why so many scribes were involved in making meaningless copies of error-ridden texts.

If Maklelan's theory is true that they were transcribing from dictation while someone was reading off the original copy, he'd still have to explain why the original copy (presumably the original manuscript) contained characters from the wrong scroll (we know they were written in sequence with the English text).

Even if the "scribes did it" they still have to explain why they thought the Book of Abraham came from the wrong roll, when Joseph is on record showing everyone who wanted to see, which roll was the writings of Abraham.

Even if Will somehow manages to prove Abr 1:12 was a secondary emendation, he still has to deal with the obvious fact that it was added for a reason, and Joseph Smith had to have known about it since he is the one who presented the final draft for publication. Meaning, Joseph Smith knew Abr 1:12 would be referring to the facsimile at the "commencement of the record", effectively proving the "critics" were right all along in saying the Sensen text was what Joseph Smith used.

I mean we could go on and on all day with every fatomable apologetic attempt over the past decade, and we could concede points to them just for the sake of taking it to the next level where they would be forced to deal with that pesky elephant in the room. As it is, the past decade of Book of Abraham apologetics has been nothing b ut a game of smoke and mirrors to confuse people into thinking the matter is so complex that no one can really say anything conclusively one way or the other - of course leaving just enough room for blind faith.
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Pahoran »

And thus we see what constitutes "DECEYAPSHUN!!" in the weird little world of Kevin Graham evangelism.

A scholar makes some mistakes in the transcription of some characters. The mistakes are plausible enough that a colleague at first thinks they are correct, but subsequently takes a different view. We have yet to hear whether the first scholar, having had these mistakes pointed out to him, agrees that he was wrong.

This is absolutely par for the course in the world of scholarly investigation. But does Mr Graham take this into account?

Not for a picosecond!

As soon as he sees it, with all the predicability of a knee jerk -- or an anti-Mormon jerk -- his demonology reflex kicks in. Other scholars may misread, miscopy, misconstrue or otherwise mistake the documents they are studying; but not a Mormon scholar! Especially not one of the (growing) set who have incurred Kevin Graham's special wrath. (That doesn't seem to be very hard to do.)

So the next time you see Mr Graham ranting that someone is a "proven liar," or that they are guilty of "deception," remember this thread. Remember that all it takes for someone to come under this particular anathema is for them (1) to be a Mormon, or otherwise a legitimate ideological target, and (2) to have written something Mr Graham disagrees with.

It probably also helps if they are more honest than Mr Graham; but that is not a very exclusive club either.

Regards,
Pahoran
_aussieguy55
_Emeritus
Posts: 2122
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:22 pm

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _aussieguy55 »

Pahoran, at least Kevin Graham cuts through all the fluff the defenders of the Book of Abraham throw up. Deal with his arguments and I'll listen. Perhaps you should do a DCP and refuse to interact with him.
Hilary Clinton " I won the places that represent two-thirds of America's GDP.I won in places are optimistic diverse, dynamic, moving forward"
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Runtu »

It's pretty simple: one does not need to be an Egyptologist to see that Gee is completely and obviously wrong in these assertions. One only needs to look at the papyri. So, we are left to determine whether Gee made a series of stupid mistakes or was being intentionally dishonest.

Meanwhile, all Pahoran can do is splutter that Kevin is evil and dishonest. Bravo.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Prove I have lied about a single thing, scumbag. I dare you. Your buddy John Gee is a proven liar as I and others have demonstrated for years. You're always here to make excuses for him, but don't think for a second this is a fluke. Gee has a history riddled with misrepresenting document evidence and lying about what other sources have said. You probably don't hear much about it because you confine yourself to that echo chamber called MAD, where such revelations are anathema.

John Gee lied about a Seyffarth citation to argue that the Book of Abraham was attached at the end of the scroll. Proven fact.

He lied about his measurements to come up with a missing 40 ft of scroll. Proven fact.

He lied about the circumstances in which Ritner left his dissertation committee. Proven fact.

He lied about his two ink argument only because he didn't know Brent had color photos and could easily disprove it - which he quickly did. Proven fact.

He lied about Joseph Smith not doing any translating in 1842, insisting that all he did was "revision"- proven fact.

He manipulated the KEP photos in his silly book to give credence to his idiotic "overrunning" and "two ink" argument. Proven fact.

Now he lies about there being no consistent linear sequence, in which his own presenter refuses to accept - Proven fact.

He lied about Fascimile 2 having anything significant to say about astronomy, therefore there must be missing translations to which Joseph Smith referred. Proven fact.

That's just off the top of my head, but I know there are more.

Of course you've regurgitated these same apologetic talking points so you have a vested interest in seeing Gee excused or vindicated. Like most brain-dead apologists you just take his stuff for granted without checking it out for yourself. You save all your criticism for non-LDS folk who dare ask problematic questions. You can't vindicate Gee so you have to make excuses for him. When does it end? He doesn't just make a slip here and there as real scholars are expected to do, because these types of errors are central to the arguments he makes. In fact they represent the lynchpins for his various apologetic theories. Without them his house of cards falls. Dan Peterson doesn't peer review anything, he just lets these nimrods publish whatever the hell they want.

So what do you do? You come here to attack me for calling a liar a liar? Fine. But nothing you can say will change the fact that John Gee is an apologist dressed up in academic attire. Virtually everything he has published is apologetic. His own teacher couldn't stand the idea of putting his name on Gee's PhD (and before Dan tries to say Ivy league schools never give degrees to those who don't earn them, then look no further than George Bush). He was promised a job at BYU before he ever got his doctorate, and the necessary political channels were pressured to see that it happened. He is a pathetic scholar who refuses to defend his own arguments. We have to hear from the grapevine that he finally abandoned some of his older arguments, such as the two ink theory. But up until we refuted it, it was considered apologetic gospel, and proof that the critics were sinful liars. That is the neverending circle it seems.

But your defense of a liar is predictable since you are a liar too. You lied about having sent JP Holding an apology for using his real name in publication, but then when I shared your email from that period, it proved you were anything but apologetic. LDS apologists will lie at the drop of the hat so long as they think they can get away with it. That's something I learned during my time as one of them. What matters isn't truth, what matters is loyalty to the fold.
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Pahoran »

Kevin Graham wrote:Prove I have lied about a single thing, scumbag.

Learn to behave in a civilised manner, and I may consider addressing the few substantive points in your rage-filled rant.

Regards,
Pahoran
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Pahoran wrote:
Kevin Graham wrote:Prove I have lied about a single thing, scumbag.

Learn to behave in a civilised manner, and I may consider addressing the few substantive points in your rage-filled rant.

Regards,
Pahoran


Lol.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed

Post by _Runtu »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:Learn to behave in a civilised manner, and I may consider addressing the few substantive points in your rage-filled rant.

Regards,
Pahoran


Lol.


My irony meter just exploded.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
Post Reply