Kishkumen wrote:Yes, I get that, but, as I said, it demonstrates nothing. The hurdle to get over in moving from missing papyrus to Book of Abraham on said papyrus is Everest.
Agreed. For whatever reason, these people believe they are protecting Joseph Smith with their tactics.
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
Kishkumen wrote:I still can't get over the fact that a missing scroll proves exactly nothing. Same with a long missing fragment. So much energy invested in demonstrating nothing. It boggles the mind.
[Raising hand wildly] I know, I know, I have heard this before ... hum ... gold plates?
Absolutely brilliant response Andrew. This is exactly how to respond to something as pathetic as Gee and his paper. I love it and love how you handled this. Great work.
How far we have fallen with the Provo group since a real Egyptologist like Stephen Thompson worked in Utah County. These guys really need some reality.
Well if you ask me Gee's response is devastating on two fronts.
First of all he has two really neat charts that have triple digit unlabeled numbers in a column at the left edge and single to double digit unlabeled numbers in a row along the bottom. I know I am impressed with all those numbers and how the lines are in different colors and such. I wonder if his printer did not have enough ink to provide a label on what those numbers actually mean but that must be part of the fun, randomly assigning meaning to those numbers.
Secondly is his brilliant rebuttal to the here to fore devilish problem regarding what Facsimile#2 actually is. This problem is so complex that many of us were unaware it was even a problem.
Let’s move on to Facsimile 2. Now, many of you now that Facsimile 2 is also known as a hypocephalus. Hypocephali are known as round disks that are put under the heads of mummies to create a fire under the heads. As it turns out, none of these three things are true. Hypocephali are not necessarily put under the heads of the mummies. The instructions in the Book of the Dead only say that they are to be placed at the head, not under the head. So we find them both under the heads of mummies and atop the heads of mummies. The term that’s translated a “flame” one of the textual variants shows that this should be a “lamp” or a “torch”. And the other thing that turns out to be false is that they are round. They can be round but they can also be rectangular or this one which is three-dimensional.
Now he has shown that a hypocephalus does not have to be round, that it can be either a flame or a torch, and it can placed on top of the head. What do the critics have left to attack? This is a major blow to them. I can see why including information like this was way more important that providing any data on his charts.
Last edited by Guest on Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Cicero wrote:Silly me for ever believing what Joseph said about the Book of Abraham and the facsimiles literally.
I enjoy his pronouncements about what LDS people do or do not believe without really saying anything. I wasn't aware that there was a doctrinal position or that no LDS people believe what he is saying simply because it would make people vulnerable to criticism of some kind.
This presentation is extremely problematic in numerous ways.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Fence Sitter wrote:Now that he has shown that a hypocephalus does not have to be round, that it can be either a flame or a torch, and it can placed on top of the head. What do the critics have left to attack? This is a major blow to them. I can see why including information like this was way more important that providing any data on his charts.
On the one hand, I think the implicit message is that, because there is so much scholars are still learning about this stuff, there is no telling what faith-confirming discoveries may yet come forth. On the other hand, he may just be sharing nifty new information.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
dblagent007 wrote:Did I misunderstand or did Gee say that the scroll is actually shorter than Cook/Smith calculated it to be (314 cm vs 513 cm)? Is that right? In other words, there was even less room on the scroll for the Book of Abraham, then what Cook/Smith calculated. Didn't Gee just concede the point that the scroll was too small to hold the Book of Abraham?
We calculated 56 cm of missing papyrus. We said it would take 511 cm of papyrus to accommodate the main text of the Book of Abraham.
Also, it looks like Gee is shifting tactics with this argument: "according to a newfound non-Mormon eyewitness account, the Book of Abraham seems to have been on a very long and completely intact roll and therefore not even on the same scroll as the fragments we have.
This is essentially claiming that Hor made a Xerox copy of his scroll. The scroll was intact when Joseph bought it and it was "long" compared to paper "manuscript", which would have served as their frame of reference.
Does anyone have any idea what source he is talking about?
Facsimile 3 has often been neglected in discussions of the facsimiles and I have an extensive article on Facsimile 3 in this volume, another international conference, this one in Paris, and I show that there is a connection between Facsimile 3 and Abraham and have a lot of discussion about some of the things that are associated with that particular facsimile. It turns out to be very interesting and you can read it.
Does anyone have any idea where this article may be found?
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Certain denizens of the LDS apostate intellectual slums of the internet claim that my friend John Gee, a professor at Brigham Young University, lacks all credibility in professional Egyptological circles. (This accusations, by the way, come from people with no advanced degrees in any relevant field, no academic positions, and no peer-reviewed publications of their own. These are mere hacks and cranks who spend their days ranting against Mormonism on internet bulletin boards.)
Some of you may have noticed that I really don’t like it when my friends are slandered by anti-Mormons and apostates. So, to hopefully silence this idiocy and slander of my friend, I forthwith present to you John Gee’s non-LDS-related Egyptological publications. Notice that he has published 30 articles in the past decade or so, all in peer reviewed technical Egyptological journals and books. He has also served as editor for the Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities for three years (2008-2010). (This list does not count reviews and professional presentations at Egyptological conferences, which would greatly expand it.) And this is a man the anti-Mormons and apostates claim has no credibility in professional Egyptological circles? Really? These people are simply delusional.
Hey Bill, stop "slumming" around with us and go repent of your slander of all the "nincompoops' that attend Sunstone. I don't like it when you slander my friends either pal. And when are you going to apologize for your slandering of Mike Quinn?
ETA: Please be sure the check out the comments for several delightfully mature and lucid descriptions of the quality of people that frequent this board.
