Philo Sofee wrote: ↑Wed Jun 28, 2023 10:58 pm
It is going to be fun to see if they try to do anything with it.
You can expect they won't do much of anything because how can they? To my knowledge it's not something they've ever addressed before. Do you ever recall Nibley offering an apologetic to explain the difference between Smith's biblical 6,000 year timeline and that of modern Egyptology and science that extends Egyptian history by hundreds and thousands of years? I don't recall anything. What about John Gee? How about pussy-Muhlestein? What does Gee's lapdog have to say? What about baby-Smoot? What's in his soiled diapers?
How about
Anubis's snout that was hacked out of Facsimile No. 3? Has Gee stepped forward with any kind of explanation on that? Has Gee done jack-crap to defend the god Anubis? Nope! John Gee is a traitor to the Egyptians and he hates genuine Egyptology. So, it wouldn't surprise me if it's nothing but crickets with regard to the
3000 BC vs. 2300 BC establishment of the Egyptian kingdom.
It sucks to be a Book of Abraham apologists more than ever! The game is over, yeah baby! We win and now we can cram it down their throats and watch them choke on it and vomit up Mormon nonsense. Perhaps they will come up with the idea that
Ham-man was Osiris and lady
Egyptus was Isis.
So, I've already taken that into consideration and can squash them no matter what they come up with. You can rely on Shulem to get the job done and squish John Gee and his minions like bugs. I'm out for blood. This is big time, yeah baby!
