DiscussMormonism.com

Pahoran wrote: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.

How long ago did Schryver distance himself from Gee's analysis? It is not "par for the course" for a reputable scholar to remain silent for this long after his analysis has been called into question.

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.

I will remember this thread as a case where Kevin did an excellent job of cutting through apologetic misinformation.

CaliforniaKid wrote:

Kevin Graham wrote:If it doesn't, then Chris Smith's upcoming publication surely will.

I guess you liked it, then? :)

Good stuff. Congrats on another upcoming publication. Keep em comin...

How long ago did Schryver distance himself from Gee's analysis?

Will left the forums for good within something like a week of his talk, and he rejected Gee's arguments on the forums, so I'm guessing he figured out the BS rather quickly, probably as he was giving the talk and looking at the photos Gee used to make his case. He rushed through it as it only lasted about 10 minutes. Of course this doesn't mean Will Schryver is shy about lying, it just means he realized Gee's arguments wouldn't stand the test of scrutiny and he didn't want to go down with that ship. John Gee has become an insignificant relic of Book of Abraham apologetics already. He is the Joe Biden of the lot. He should make them all nervous whenever he wants to start talking about his new "research." Having said that, Will has been caught red handed trying to lie to the public just the same as Gee. He just happens to be sneakier about it.

It is not "par for the course" for a reputable scholar to remain silent for this long after his analysis has been called into question.

Gee hides his responses to critics in obscure Egyptological publications, usually published in French or German. We have to hear about their existence from folks like Dan Peterson, who when asked which publications, will generally tell you to go find it yourself. Gee doesn't like to come right out and face his critics on open ground, and for good reason.

I will remember this thread as a case where Kevin did an excellent job of cutting through apologetic misinformation.

Glad you liked it.

Bumping for a friend.

Bumpers

The Book of Abraham really is the smoking gun.

It is noticeable that, in the 3/4 years since this thread was started nobody has offered a rebuttal of the OP.
Dr Gee should be all over this slander of his professional capability as an Egyptologist...but he hasn't been.
That tells us something.

Bazooka wrote:The Book of Abraham really is the smoking gun.

It is noticeable that, in the 3/4 years since this thread was started nobody has offered a rebuttal of the OP.
Dr Gee should be all over this slander of his professional capability as an Egyptologist...but he hasn't been.
That tells us something.

Well, if even Will doesn't support Gee's honest mistake, I can't imagine anyone would attempt to rebut what Kevin wrote.

I noticed the following thread on the other board:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/629 ... -schryver/

Not surprisingly, it was locked before anyone responded.

I didn't realize Will was still posting over there that recently.

So did Gee retract his paper? Prahran was implying that as an honorable person he would correct this honest mistake in due course, and that KG was jumping the gun in accusing Gee of dishonesty.

Was there any follow up by the apologists?

Not only has Gee not retracted his argument or ask that FAIR stop selling his presentation to the naïve, but I just noticed that Kevin Barney was propagating this same nonsense just eight months ago!

http://bycommonconsent.com/2013/06/27/t ... f-abraham/

the Egyptian symbols used in the KEP manuscripts don’t come in any discernible sequence, but seem to come from various locations on the papyri seemingly at random; (ii) most of the symbols are not even Egyptian at all, but are symbols that appear to have been simply made up, or in some cases the symbols are derived from Masonic ciphers; and (iii) the KEP is not concerned exclusively with material in the English Book of Abraham, but also with some of Joseph’s earlier revelations, including in particular D&C Sections 76 and 88.

Seriously, Kevin Barney? It appears as if Barney is just repeating some of the stuff Gee and Schryver argued years ago, and hasn't bothered to update himself on the facts, including Gee and Schryver's alleged disavowing of said theory.