Three things

[_Kishkumen]

William is asking for you, in your own words, to analyze and articulate Gee's arguments, and explain why you disagree.

OK, Kissassman, put your money where your mouth is. Demonstrate your knowledge of the issues by describing a few arguments Professor Gee has made, vis-a-vis the Book of Abraham, that you believe have "not borne scrutiny."

Three should suffice.

Note the difference between Drippy's version of Willy's request and the original.

But why do this when you can just wave your hand as dismiss everything as beneath your effervescent intellectual perspicuity Ah, I see, the thinking has already been done eh?

Because I am not Willy's student and I do not do his homework assignments. I have been following various threads on the Book of Abraham for years now. I have read just about everything Gee has written on the subject. I have nothing to prove to Willy or you, and certainly not when it consists of repeating old issues. Willy is simply aping greater minds, like Gee, when he comes up with little tests and warns us of the steep learning curve involved in Book of Abraham scholarship. That is patently obvious.

With critics such as this, its no wonder the Church continues to grow apace regardless.

With apologists like Drippy, it is a miracle it does in spite of his "efforts."

[_Yoda]

All I ever admitted to was a "healthy appreciation" of God's creations.

Most men I know have a similar "appreciation". LOL You're in good company.

[_Droopy]

Droopy:

William is asking for you, in your own words, to analyze and articulate Gee's arguments, and explain why you disagree.

William:

OK, Kissassman, put your money where your mouth is. Demonstrate your knowledge of the issues by describing a few arguments Professor Gee has made, vis-a-vis the Book of Abraham, that you believe have "not borne scrutiny."

Three should suffice.

Sockpuppet of who-knows-who:

Note the difference between Drippy's version of Willy's request and the original.

No, actually I don't really.

But why do this when you can just wave your hand as dismiss everything as beneath your effervescent intellectual perspicuity Ah, I see, the thinking has already been done eh?

Because I am not Willy's student and I do not do his homework assignments. I have been following various threads on the Book of Abraham for years now. I have read just about everything Gee has written on the subject. I have nothing to prove to Willy or you, and certainly not when it consists of repeating old issues. Willy is simply aping greater minds, like Gee, when he comes up with little tests and warns us of the steep learning curve involved in Book of Abraham scholarship. That is patently obvious.

I don't know quite why people like you really believe that you can both run and hide like this.

You clearly have no sufficient knowledge of the relevant issues with which to engage William, (and I'm no textual expert. I prefer to discuss the parallels to ancient Israelite religious texts; the whole pre-Josiah reform religion of Israel that exists only in shadowy form in the Old Testament but which the Book of Abraham brings to vivid life etc., as well as Joseph numerous bull's eyes in reconstructing his extent facsimiles), or other knowledgeable apologists on these subjects.

But pretending you do is fun, isn't it?

Of course, in ex-Mormonism, the less one knows about a subject, the more qualified one becomes.

[_Kishkumen]

No, actually I don't really.

Because you have a reading problem.

I don't know quite why people like you really believe that you can both run and hide like this.

Maybe because we aren't and don't.

You clearly have no sufficient knowledge of the relevant issues with which to engage William, (and I'm no textual expert. I prefer to discuss the parallels to ancient Israelite religious texts; the whole pre-Josiah reform religion of Israel that exists only in shadowy form in the Old Testament but which the Book of Abraham brings to vivid life etc., as well as Joseph numerous bull's eyes in reconstructing his extent facsimiles), or other knowledgeable apologists on these subjects.

This is hilarious for a number of reasons. First of all, you have no idea what I do or do not know. All you can do is sit there, make demands, and hurl insults. You are the one who has nothing to add here, Drippy, as was proven in spades when you had to run to MAD to get help (which never came) the last time you dug yourself a hole on this issue. Now you need to cya by telling us what your "real" interests are before you have to prove anything here. I have asked legitimate questions in these threads, and whaddya know? I have not received answers from Willy or you.

The truth is that on the most basic issues, like Joseph Smith's actual ability to translate Egyptian, there is no question or defense. The man was not "translating" as most people understand the term. We have no proof that there ever was a "Book of Abraham" on the supposed missing papyrus. It is not at all clear that the Book of Abraham narrative does belong in a Ptolemaic or Roman-Egyptian context. So what happens, people focus on the marginalia, like the GAEL or the KEP. Sure, these are interesting in their own right, but they do not prove that the Book of Abraham is an authentic ancient text. At best Book of Abraham apologetics are trying to hold critics at bay by focusing on the issues critics hope will put the last nails in the coffin.

In my world, one has to provide compelling evidence to back up amazing claims. I make no apologies for that, and I doubt anyone would argue that compelling evidence for the antiquity of the Book of Abraham exists. It's all about testimony and plausibility, period.

[_Droopy]

This is hilarious for a number of reasons. First of all, you have no idea what I do or do not know.

Based in your exchanges with William thus far, whatever you do know, Book of Mormon scholarship and what the text actually says and how this relates to ancient non-BofM traditions, not to mention ancient Egyptian funerary (really an ancient endowment; preparation for death, resurrection, and continuance of life in another world) is clearly not a part of that corpus.

All you can do is sit there, make demands, and hurl insults. You are the one who has nothing to add here, Drippy, as was proven in spades when you had to run to MAD to get help (which never came) the last time you dug yourself a hole on this issue. Now you need to cya by telling us what your "real" interests are before you have to prove anything here. I have asked legitimate questions in these threads, and whaddya know? I have not received answers from Willy or you.

This is either Scratch, or Memorex.

[_Kishkumen]

[Based in your exchanges with William thus far, whatever you do know, Book of Mormon scholarship and what the text actually says and how this relates to ancient non-BofM traditions, not to mention ancient Egyptian funerary (really an ancient endowment; preparation for death, resurrection, and continuance of life in another world) is clearly not a part of that corpus.

This is incoherent. You sound like Palin in a Couric interview: "And then there's the thing and the whatchamacallit, under the provision of the, and you know it's all about creating jobs and growing the economy, and Egyptian endowments with Hugh Nibley and John Gee in a happy chorus and Schryver and Hauglid watching in awe..."

This is either Scratch, or Memorex.

Proving once again that you have nothing to add. You should stick to political theory. At least there you sound like you know something.

[_Droopy]

Based in your exchanges with William thus far, whatever you do know, Book of Mormon scholarship and what the text actually says and how this relates to ancient non-BofM traditions, not to mention ancient Egyptian funerary (really an ancient endowment; preparation for death, resurrection, and continuance of life in another world) is clearly not a part of that corpus.

This is incoherent. You sound like Palin in a Couric interview: "And then there's the thing and the whatchamacallit, under the provision of the, and you know it's all about creating jobs and growing the economy, and Egyptian endowments with Hugh Nibley and John Gee in a happy chorus and Schryver and Hauglid watching in awe..."

Incoherent? OK, the short version: Whatever it is that you know, Book of Abraham issues, either textual or historical, are not among that class.

You've made that, at least, perfectly clear.

[_Kishkumen]

Incoherent? OK, the short version: Whatever it is that you know, Book of Abraham issues, either textual or historical, are not among that class.

You've made that, at least, perfectly clear.

Lacking knowledge, Droopy draws a conclusion. As usual.

[_Droopy]

Incoherent? OK, the short version: Whatever it is that you know, Book of Abraham issues, either textual or historical, are not among that class.

You've made that, at least, perfectly clear.

Lacking knowledge, Droopy draws a conclusion. As usual.

You've made it perfectly clear. You run away whenever William has asked you to articulate actual knowledge or critique an argument. You then dump it in someone else's lap and flee the arena of ideas.

That arena's not for you Scratch, I'll be the first to admit.

[Guest]

You've made it perfectly clear. You run away whenever William has asked you to articulate actual knowledge or critique an argument. You then dump it in someone else's lap and flee the arena of ideas.

That arena's not for you Scratch, I'll be the first to admit.

Willy asked me once (not the many times "whenever" implies) to list things that have been discussed here ad nauseam for some time now, as though repeating these simple facts demonstrated requisite knowledge to engage in any discussion... as though he were setting the terms for the discussion. I dumped nothing in anyone's lap. I simply refused his little "assignment."

His request came as a non-response to my posts, and then when someone else bothered to provide him something, for whatever reason I do not know, he essentially said, "see, I told you so." That, Drippy, is not how one discusses anything. That is how one evades discussion. The fact that you follow up to harangue me for not falling for the ruse is hilarious. Willy is a talented dodger. You are a moron.