And O.J. told you he didn't do it, either, right? Why should you chose to believe Ritner?
Because unlike Dan Peterson, Ritner was intimately involved in his alleged "removal."
Because when Ritner threatened to post emails that would prove Peterson and Gee were lying, both Gee and Peterson shut their mouths on the subject.
The better question would be, why should I believe Gee when he has a documented history of deception?
What is really sad is that there are some people who will look at your "I made Gee look absolutely stupid" claim, and not look at the material itself to see how whistling in the dark it really is.
Then prove it. I encourage people to look at the "material itself." You discourage it. You assume that what I say about Gee is verifiably false but neither you nor any other apologist is willing to take that challenge and prove it. What is really sad is that there are plenty of struggling LDS who would look at your claim and not look at the material itself to see how whistling in the dark it really is.
I bumped the Gee thread so you can provide your point by point analysis on why I am wrong and Gee is right.
Andyour charges of lying because he doesn't agree with you?
Not because he doesn't agree with me. He is a liar because he lies. I have proved this. None of you can refute it. It isn't a matter of agreeing... and agreeing with what exactly? You don't even know. You obviously have no grasp on the issue if you are ignorant as to think it can be boiled down to Egyptology and two sides disagreeing.
Little boys throwing rocks and yelling insults isn't academic discussion. Grow up.
Oh so now I'm a little boy? Yet, when Brent metcalfe is called a liar by Gee and the gang, this is considered scholarly investigation? You cannot handle a debate with me any more than your mentors can bear to watch one. Your stupid comments aren't going to hide this fact.
Now can you justify Gee's lies or can't you? It is a simple question. I laid out examples. So explain them or shut up.
Since the return of the fragments a large part of the argument has been that the facsimilie recovered as translated by Egyptologists doesn't match the translation as it appears in the Book of Abraham.
No it isn't. That isn't the argument anymore since both sides already concede the point. It is beyond dispute. It became indisputable shortly after they were discovered thirty years ago.
And that the recovered fragments were very common Book of Breathing documentn
No, that isn't it either. You really are an idiot. You don't even know what the critical argument is, yet you're cock sure that it is refuted!
And your continued "Ashment destroyed it all" argument is cockamamie. Don't you even try keep up?
Continued? Stop pretending to have a clue about the subject charity. All you ever do is wait until serious debate on a subject blows over, before you then attempt to resurrect it by mischaracterizing the debate and focusing on straw man themes in order to make the apologetic position seem somewhat plausible. It isn't plausible, and this is true for anyone with the capacity to grasp the issues beyond a superficial level. Unfortunately, that doesn't, nor has it ever, included you.
Ashment was selected by the Church to analyze these texts. He was the most qualified at the time to do so apparently. Now when he leaves the Church because his analysis proves Joseph Smith was a fraud, suddenly he becomes a nobody whose opinion carries no weight. Calling it cockamamie isn't an argument. You don't even know what the argument is. You represent the norm in the Church, even among apologists. If people knew the full skinny about the Book of Abraham controversy I'd venture to say baptisms would drop by 99%. Even Will Schryver had to admit that as a testimonyless outsider, he would have to conclude Smith was a fraud.
You know it, I know and the Church knows it.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein