Vogel's new video response to John Gee

[dan vogel]

I just uploaded a new video response to John Gee. Let me know what you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEfSaOvxl7g

[Shulem]

Now THIS just made my day. I'm on it right now.

And to go along with it there is this little thread:
John Gee FAIR interview with Scott Gordon

[drumdude]

I see we've entered poisoning-the-well inception. John Gee calls any criticism of him poisoning-the-well, thus poisoning-the-well. Gee doesn't even acknowledge the actual criticism of the book of Abraham that has nothing to do with Gee except Gee is the face for the same old tired bad arguments.

Well done Gee. You're a masterful scholar!

[Shulem]

That was a great production. Very well done. I support the pious fraud theory and encourage others to do so as well.

[Rivendale]

Here is a summary:

TLDW:

* Gee claims his internet critics use ad hominem and poisoning the well.

* Vogel does not dispute Gee's scholarship in Egyptology. But does dispute his explanations regarding the Book of Abraham scholarship.

* Gee claims religious persecution

* Claiming there is missing parts to the scroll is a historical claim not an Egyptologist claim. Their sources are polemical

* "Written by his own hand" diminishes the catalyst theory

* A brief summary of the sources for the long scroll eyewitnesses

* There is no proof that the interpretations on the manuscripts is Joseph Smith

* Vogel shows evidence of the relationship between English text to the characters

* Vogel claims the pattern of characters taken from the lacuna is spurious

* Gee claims training in reading hieratic allows him to see matches from other parts of the papyri to fill in the missing parts of line two

* Vogel claims Gee operates under fantasy and wishful thinking using convoluted logic and speculation

[Shulem]

It's important to note that Gee makes it clear that he rejects the Catalyst theory as his number 1 pick because he hasn't been able to identify evidence to support it and with that, I AGREE! Gee has sifted through all of the historical information available about how the saints perceived the translation and in considering Smith's claims it is readily apparent that there is nothing to suggest that any of the saints believed in a Catalyst theory but were 100% in favor of a direct translation of the scroll of Abraham from Egyptian into English. That is the message from Kirtland and Nauvoo.

Gee has another problem. There is no evidence to show or support that Smith actually translated Egyptian hieroglyphics from a so-called Abrahamic roll into the English language. I see nothing in the records that provides evidence that Smith actually had a roll containing the Book of Abraham on it whereby he could take those writings and convert it to English. The Egyptian Papers have a great deal of copied characters from various papyri but none of it is published Book of Abraham content; not a single word! Everything I have studied about Smith's handling of hieroglyphics points to the obvious conclusion that he couldn't translate a single Egyptian word, let alone the KING'S NAME in Facsimile No. 3.

Gee's back is against the wall and he has nowhere to go other than embrace the pious fraud theory which is supported by all of the collective evidence.

[Rad]

I just uploaded a new video response to John Gee. Let me know what you think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEfSaOvxl7g

Dan, I thought you did a great job of evaluating each of Gee's claims, one by one, and demonstrating exactly how each one was misleading. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.

[Philo Sofee]

Bravo Dan Vogel! Just watched the video and it was very, very straight forward and well, well, WELL done. Step by step simple language, POWERFUL refutation. I so love these kinds of videos. I will be bringing this up in my Backyard Professor Live tonight. Starts 6 p.m. Mountain time. Lots of new news to get out so I am looking forward to doing it. Your work is seriously good, because of the main factor... it is seriously accurate, in all the details. I think you have hit on a key factor here Dan. The apologetic attempts at making so much as either/or. Yes we do not dispute a missing scroll, nor that the Book of Abraham could have been on a scroll as some witnesses indicate (I have been through them all as well, and they DO indicate this), but this does not by logic insist the Book of Abraham was therefore not on the fragments which were mounted also! Man the way you presented this was stellar. Because witnesses absolutely (as you point out, and I have also read the witnesses and know what you said is accurate here) do say the Book of Abraham was in those mounted fragments along with his actual signature. I think you pointedly and powerfully show that it is not either one or the other, but can and is both. Very well done.

[Shulem]

Bravo Dan Vogel!

And here is the link for the Backyard Professor praising Vogel's new book and slamming the apologists. It's one of the first items of business he brought up.

The Backyard Professor: 02: Sunday Library Hour LIVE!

It's over for the Book of Abraham. Over! The apologists have lost the war. The critics are resting in their glory. The war is over. The Book of Abraham is fiction.

Yep.

[Brack]

My favorite Vogel's video is his response to the missing papyrus theory.

Book of Abraham (Part 7)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_7haq-PdjU&t=25s