I find it stunning how John Gee uses the comparison between Saint Paul's letters being distributed to the Christians in his day as a salutation to the churches to that of Abraham's papyrus written by his own hand but in the form of a copy many centuries later. The two do not compare. The genuine letters penned by the dusty hand of St Paul were actually delivered to the churches as an autograph from the apostle himself. His sweat and skin cells were actually in the fibers of the paper. The same cannot be said for the Book of Abraham papyrus which essentially claims the same thing via Joseph Smith. The papyrus and mummies are firmly dated to Ptolemaic times -- and yet Joseph Smith said they were original to the time of the Patriarchs -- some 3,500 years prior.
The comparison that John Gee makes is utterly stupid and retarded. Gee isn't just a dope, he's a retard! He's so brainwashed that he can't think straight!
OMFG. Give it up Gee. You're utterly wasted, dude.
The podcast thinks to score points with Newtonian astronomy in the Book of Abraham! How could Joseph have known?
Joseph Smith didn't know how the Egyptians perceived the universe any more than he knew genuine Egyptian words and names. All of the astronomy expressed in the text and the Facsimiles is Joseph Smith attempting to mimic and decipher what he thought the ancient Egyptians would have thought. And yet, he knew the language was dead and nobody would be able to disprove his translations so he was safe to come up with whatever ideas he wanted to explain what the Egyptians thought of astronomy and provide all kinds of fake names and words to that effect. Smith felt it was safe to intermingle Hebrew with Egyptian because nobody would know better because nobody could read Egyptian. So all those crazy words are really nothing but BS.
John Gee, you're stupid. You are brainwashed and surrounded by sycophants. You're a retard, dude.
My question is why if there was a real Book of Abraham why were the symbols that appear juxtaposed next to the manuscripts of the Book of Abraham were from the Book of Breathings and not the "missing scroll"
My question is why if there was a real Book of Abraham why were the symbols that appear juxtaposed next to the manuscripts of the Book of Abraham were from the Book of Breathings and not the "missing scroll"
That's a good question and we've been answering it for years. All of the characters used by President Joseph Smith who was the OWNER & TRANSLATOR of the papyrus & manuscripts were taken from the roll of Abraham.
I listened to the whole interview. It was nothing new whatsoever. Just Gee repeating his typical talking points, including one outright lie which has been discussed here a few times.
The problem with the Book of Abraham is that everybody wants to talk about how he got it rather than what's in it. ... And this seems to be a trend where people would rather read about something than actually read it. The text of the Book of Abraham is the best witness to the world that it came from. And it's a world that's very different from ours, very different from Joseph Smith's.
Gee goes on to make numerous ludicrous claims about the astronomy of the Book of Abraham and completely ignores the totally made-up Egyptian history in the book. He knows this is the weak point of his argument and so rather than even try to address it, he hopes that his gullible listeners don't even see.
I listened to the whole interview. It was nothing new whatsoever. Just Gee repeating his typical talking points, including one outright lie which has been discussed here a few times.
The problem with the Book of Abraham is that everybody wants to talk about how he got it rather than what's in it. ... And this seems to be a trend where people would rather read about something than actually read it. The text of the Book of Abraham is the best witness to the world that it came from. And it's a world that's very different from ours, very different from Joseph Smith's.
Gee goes on to make numerous ludicrous claims about the astronomy of the Book of Abraham and completely ignores the totally made-up Egyptian history in the book. He knows this is the weak point of his argument and so rather than even try to address it, he hopes that his gullible listeners don't even see.
I can just picture Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson or Stephen Hawking expressions when informed about Hah-ko-kau-beam.
Mopologists are proof that smart people can believe stupid things and make sophistical, bad arguments. As people, I generally like them, but their arguments in favor of their beliefs? Not so much.
“The past no longer belongs only to those who once lived it; the past belongs to those who claim it, and are willing to explore it, and to infuse it with meaning for those alive today.”—Margaret Atwood
I listened to the whole interview. It was nothing new whatsoever. Just Gee repeating his typical talking points, including one outright lie which has been discussed here a few times.
I noticed that too. Nothing new was presented other than the same old song and dance and Gee imagining a long roll that is now missing on which contains the real Book of Abraham. The interviewer was a dope and acted like there are no real problems to the Book of Abraham and how everything has been settled or solved. He talked like everything critical about the Book of Abraham on the Internet could be construed as misinformation.
Gee goes on to make numerous ludicrous claims about the astronomy of the Book of Abraham and completely ignores the totally made-up Egyptian history in the book. He knows this is the weak point of his argument and so rather than even try to address it, he hopes that his gullible listeners don't even see.
It seems that Gee is right back to square one and hasn't gotten anywhere.
Mopologists are proof that smart people can believe stupid things and make sophistical, bad arguments. As people, I generally like them, but their arguments in favor of their beliefs? Not so much.
I actually enjoy mopologist arguments because they are useful illustrations of how one can make arguments that might be logically valid but have absurd premises. They really are no different than someone constructing talking points that actually the Iliad is a true story or that The Lord of the Rings was divinely inspired.
Their arguments also have a lot in common with Trump supporters who know that there was no widespread fraud in 2020 but who will nonetheless lend support to foolish people who believe this, and do so on the basis that "well the election laws were changed" so therefore that meant the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate.
The unfortunate problem of making obviously bad-faith arguments is that it can rot your soul over time. I think we've seen that with Peterson and Gee who routinely engage in suppression of critics and outright dishonesty as a means of avoiding to really think about their actions.
