Book of Abraham Scroll Length

[_Buffalo]

The papyrus have NOTHING to do with the Book of Abraham.

Or you could say that the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with the papyrus.

There isn't so much as a single scrap of credible evidence to show that Joseph Smith had a genuine Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyrus. On the other hand, all evidence shows that the papyrus he had has nothing to do with Abraham. Yet, the apologists keep on hanging on taking air from a long straw. It's amazing how they can hang on so long and deny the facts. It's a credit to how well the church brainwashes its people and makes them think the warm feelings they get when they think about religion is the Holy Ghost saying Mormonism is true. Even smart people like John gee and DCP have been fooled by the claims that the Spirit says their church is true in light of how the Book of Abraham has been fully exposed as a fraud -- a hoax. But, they have paychecks to collect and commitments to keep.

So sad.

Paul O

Furthermore, the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with authentic history. It's full of anachronisms and plagiarism from The Antiquities of Freemasonry.

[_Shulem]

Furthermore, the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with authentic history. It's full of anachronisms and plagiarism from The Antiquities of Freemasonry.

The book reeks of Joseph Smith and the very text of the story is anything but ancient. Joseph Smith lived a life of a thief. He stole from every source he could and would claim it his own. He really had a problem with the principle of honesty. He was a man that spent his life lying about everything he ever did.

If someone cares to dispute that then they are welcome to tell me the name of the king in Facismile No. 3. But, as it is, Joseph Smith truly was a liar and couldn't read or translate Egyptian.

Can you imagine a news reporter asking Tommy-boy Monson what the king's name is in the Facismile? My God! He would look like a deer in front of headlights.

Paul O

[_Kishkumen]

Scroll length matters because if the apologists can claim we are missing part of the scrolls, they can say the explanations of Facsimile 3 don't match because the explanations are actually referring to a different facsimile on one of the lost parts of the scroll.

It's not the length of the scroll that matters, DarkHelmet; it's how you use it.

[_Droopy]

I've debated the best apologists who were willing to engage this issue and I defeated them soundly. You're not a worthy opponent J, sorry. You've shown time and time again how disinterested you really are in anything we have to say.

ROTFL..

JMS

I think that at this point, Kevin Graham has become much like The Most Interesting Man in the World - living vicariously through himself.

[_Kevin Graham]

I think that at this point, Kevin Graham has become much like The Most Interesting Man in the World - living vicariously through himself.

It is what it is. You and your ilk have shown no interest in the truth on this matter. You're too consumed with apologetic subterfuge for the sake of saving your Church. It is why you will always lose the debate on this issue. Even your precious Egyptologists have proven themselves to be ineffective. John Gee and now Kerry Muhlestein, have flat out lied and deceived. It isn't a moot point. It is an irrefutable fact.

So whatever happened to "by their fruits you shall know them"?

If lying is the only way to salvage belief in the Book of Abraham, then what does this tell us about the value in such belief?

[_Shulem]

It is what it is. You and your ilk have shown no interest in the truth on this matter. You're too consumed with apologetic subterfuge for the sake of saving your Church. It is why you will always lose the debate on this issue. Even your precious Egyptologists have proven themselves to be ineffective. John Gee and now Kerry Muhlestein, have flat out lied and deceived. It isn't a moot point. It is an irrefutable fact.

So whatever happened to "by their fruits you shall know them"?

If lying is the only way to salvage belief in the Book of Abraham, then what does this tell us about the value in such belief?

You're right about that, Kevin. Everytime I ask Droopy-boy to tell me the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3 he spouts off a silly name. Droopy-boy to this day has not confessed that there is no king's name in Facismile No. 3. He refuses to own up. He refuses to be honest about it. That's a serious credibility issue against him.

I assume it bothers him quite a bit. Just think if there really was a king's name therein! The apologists would be ramming that down our throats at every Book of Abraham discussion.

Paul O

[_Kevin Graham]

Droopy is the same moron who thought critics were arguing that the hypocephalus was the source for the Book of Abraham.

LOL!

Talk about being out if your depth.

[_Bond James Bond]

Concerning the debate earlier; I would be fine with Droopy and Jskains tag teaming against Kevin Graham and Season 2 of Mad Men on DVD.

[_Carton]

Has anyone read the John Gee article ("Formulas and Faith") that DCP says is in the recent issue of the JBMORS? It's about the length of the scroll, isn't it? Is it a review of the Cook/Smith article in Dialogue?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Is it a review of the Cook/Smith article in Dialogue?

Yes. Dr. Gee basically uses our formula and Friedhelm Hoffmann's formula on a scroll of known length, and finds that Hoffmann's is generally close to the correct length, whereas our formula vastly underestimates it. Since our formula basically is Friedhelm Hoffmann's formula, I'm puzzled by the discrepancy, and tempted to chalk it up to mathematical error. I also note that Gee didn't use our autocorrelation method for measuring the winding lengths, which was essentially the whole point of our paper.

I visited the Maxwell Institute the other day and had an unexpectedly amiable conversation with him about the paper. It gave me great hope for the prospect of better relations and communication between the two of us in the future. Generally speaking, though, I wasn't able to get much clarification concerning his specific method. He doesn't show his work in the article, and he said he did this work a year and a half ago and isn't sure where he filed it. Without more information, I'm not sure how to respond to this critique. The ideal response would be for us to apply our method to the scroll Gee used, and see if our results differ from the results he obtained. But that would be a very time- and energy-intensive project, and I'm not sure it's worth going to all that trouble.