Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Astronomy?

Post by Shulem »

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote:Gee also provides valuable insights into the Abrahamic covenant and Abraham’s teachings on astronomy, the preexistence, and the Creation.

I presume you mean Gee’s insights come via Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham and Facsimile No. 2, rather than other sources because you lump “preexistence” in the middle of your list and a Newtonian type of astronomy seems to fit the definitions described by Smith. What part of these astronomy teachings if any have been adopted by science today? Newton’s science is outdated and rusty. Einstein and modern science is par for the course. The astronomy teachings of Facsimile No. 2, to my knowledge are not adopted into scientific journals and books of our day. There is nothing in there that gives me insight in understanding astronomy from a scientific point of view. Several strange words (sound foreign) claim to be Egyptian but are not anything I learned while studying Egyptian grammar and researching Egyptian ideas of earth and heaven.

With that said, whatever insight Gee claims to receive from Smith’s “astronomy” is beyond me and I have to ask you if these things are published in professional journals not sponsored by Mormon apologetics? I have the impression that there isn’t anything pertaining to astronomy in the Book of Abraham chapters and Facsimile No. 2, that has been embraced by modern scientists or incorporated into scientific literature as worldview truths. My impression is that Smith’s astronomy is entirely outside the bounds of professionalism. Am I correct in stating that?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Shulem »

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote:He closes with a look at the role of the Book of Abraham as a part of LDS scripture, and finally provides a succinct but excellent set of answers to frequently asked questions.

I’ve been asking repeatedly on Mormon Discussions for the past 15 years the same question:

What’s the king’s name in Facsimile No. 3?

That is a frequently asked question that John Gee should consider answering in a very succinct way and demonstrate how Fig. 2, is a king of Egypt, as expressed by the name in the writing above the head.

Is that too much to ask?

Yes, it is too much to ask and we both know the reason why, isn’t that right, Jeff?
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem
Newton’s science is outdated and rusty. Einstein and modern science is par for the course.
Not accurate. Newton's science is very much alive and thriving! Einstein didn't destroy Newton's physics, he added to it, not in outdating fashion, but in providing a more complete use. Newton is used absolutely every single day in physics and math classes around the world. There is nothing old and rusty about it. I'm just lettin ya know is all... Perhaps a better way to put it is Newton's view has been refined, but it's definitely not old, and most definitely not at all rusty.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Newton

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:20 pm
Shulem
Newton’s science is outdated and rusty. Einstein and modern science is par for the course.
Not accurate. Newton's science is very much alive and thriving! Einstein didn't destroy Newton's physics, he added to it, not in outdating fashion, but in providing a more complete use. Newton is used absolutely every single day in physics and math classes around the world. There is nothing old and rusty about it. I'm just lettin ya know is all... Perhaps a better way to put it is Newton's view has been refined, but it's definitely not old, and most definitely not at all rusty.

I don't know what to say on that, Philo. There are conflicting opinions in expressing Newton with Einstein and Newton is often demeaned. However, one cannot deny the contributions of Newton. He was an amazing scientist and a pioneer for sure. I love watching science shows on Netflix and Newton is always respectively presented and his work acknowledged but then comes Einstein and everything changes or advances forward on a quantum like level. Astronomy is taken to new heights that Newton could not comprehend seeing he was on ground level, so to speak.

But thanks for your input on that. I will keep that in mind next time I mention Newton with less brilliance. When you have time (no rush) send me a link that explains why Newton is often slammed. I would like to see the reasoning behind that argument.

here for reference
Wikipedia wrote:Albert Einstein kept a picture of Newton on his study wall alongside ones of Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell. In a 2005 survey of members of Britain's Royal Society (formerly headed by Newton) asking who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Einstein, the members deemed Newton to have made the greater overall contribution. In 1999, an opinion poll of 100 of the day's leading physicists voted Einstein the "greatest physicist ever," with Newton the runner-up, while a parallel survey of rank-and-file physicists by the site PhysicsWeb gave the top spot to Newton.
Vs.
Forbes wrote:Isaac Newton's Most Acclaimed Work Was Out Of Date As Soon As He Wrote It
Newton’s Principia is hideously out of date, and it bears no relation to how physics is done by anyone today, or for the last couple of hundred years. It’s not even clear that it bears much relation to how Newton did physics.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Shulem »

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote:The book is nicely illustrated with samples of the Joseph Smith papyri, original documents from Joseph Smith and his peers related to the Book of Abraham, the facsimiles, and related images from Egypt and other areas. It is well organized and tightly written to deliver what often seems like just the right level of detail to help a non-specialist understand important issues without getting caught up in unfruitful detours.

I can’t imagine these important issues would exclude Joseph Smith’s bombshell Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. Do you consider it an unfruitful detour to press these issues? I want to know how Gee’s book solves the problems with Facsimile No. 3. Does his book provide a tight response to explosive controversies pertaining to the publication of Facsimile No. 3?

Jeff, I trust you are aware of the anomalies involved in particular with the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. There are a great many ways to describe the problems therein as Smith’s explanations do not line up with that of Egyptology let alone what is written and drawn on tomb walls below the surface in Egypt. One only need read the writing in the tombs as it relates to the iconic figures of the gods to know that Smith and Egyptology are at odds.

There are many ways to express the concerns involving Facsimile No. 3, and I have to wonder how much Gee has addressed them in his introductory book. The following is a sampling of those concerns:

1) Abraham assumes Osiris’s image and throne
2) Abraham wears a god’s crown
3) Abraham usurps authority from Osiris
4) In reality the throne scene is in heaven NOT on earth as Smith claims
5) What’s the king’s name in the writing?
6) Fig. 3 (Fig. 10 of Fac No. 2) signify being in Egypt when it’s really in heaven above
7) What’s the name of the Prince written above the hand in Fig. 4?
8) How do you spell Shulem as shown above the hand of Fig. 5?
9) Anubis is a god not a slave.
10) Is the name Olimlah written anywhere in the writing of the Facsimile?
11) What happened to the nose of Anubis?
12) Are men really dressed up like women?
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Shulem »

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote:The book is distilled from a lifetime of research into issues related to the Book of Abraham, including his expertise in Egyptology. It will be a valuable addition to the library of almost anyone with an interest in LDS issues or in the Book of Abraham.

Gee’s lifetime of research has certainly not ended. He will write more! How much of his research in the Book of Abraham is included in academic journals and books written by Egyptologists who are not members of the Mormon faith? You suggest that Gee’s book is an asset to anyone’s library who has interest in Abrahamic affairs in Egypt but I wonder how many of Gee’s fellow Egyptologists support or endorse his book? I think it’s safe to say that his original mentor and teacher, the late Dr. Ritner, did not support him at all in his Book of Abraham apologetic endeavors. I think it safe to say that the World Body of Egyptologists don’t support Gee’s book as something they would keep in their own libraries let alone in the libraries of the universities that teach Egyptology.

In other words, Gee’s book is hardly endorsed outside of Mormonism as something that should be reviewed by up and coming students of Egyptology. It is strictly a Mormon affair for those who have faith in the face of controversy and contradiction.

Am I correct?
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9568
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: Newton

Post by Res Ipsa »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 2:49 pm
Philo Sofee wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 12:20 pm


Not accurate. Newton's science is very much alive and thriving! Einstein didn't destroy Newton's physics, he added to it, not in outdating fashion, but in providing a more complete use. Newton is used absolutely every single day in physics and math classes around the world. There is nothing old and rusty about it. I'm just lettin ya know is all... Perhaps a better way to put it is Newton's view has been refined, but it's definitely not old, and most definitely not at all rusty.

I don't know what to say on that, Philo. There are conflicting opinions in expressing Newton with Einstein and Newton is often demeaned. However, one cannot deny the contributions of Newton. He was an amazing scientist and a pioneer for sure. I love watching science shows on Netflix and Newton is always respectively presented and his work acknowledged but then comes Einstein and everything changes or advances forward on a quantum like level. Astronomy is taken to new heights that Newton could not comprehend seeing he was on ground level, so to speak.

But thanks for your input on that. I will keep that in mind next time I mention Newton with less brilliance. When you have time (no rush) send me a link that explains why Newton is often slammed. I would like to see the reasoning behind that argument.

here for reference
Wikipedia wrote:Albert Einstein kept a picture of Newton on his study wall alongside ones of Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell. In a 2005 survey of members of Britain's Royal Society (formerly headed by Newton) asking who had the greater effect on the history of science, Newton or Einstein, the members deemed Newton to have made the greater overall contribution. In 1999, an opinion poll of 100 of the day's leading physicists voted Einstein the "greatest physicist ever," with Newton the runner-up, while a parallel survey of rank-and-file physicists by the site PhysicsWeb gave the top spot to Newton.
Vs.
Forbes wrote:Isaac Newton's Most Acclaimed Work Was Out Of Date As Soon As He Wrote It
Newton’s Principia is hideously out of date, and it bears no relation to how physics is done by anyone today, or for the last couple of hundred years. It’s not even clear that it bears much relation to how Newton did physics.
I don't see the Quora post you linked to as slamming Newton. Yes, the Principia is out of date. Like any work, it is bound by time and culture. There are much better sources today to teach Newtonian physics from than the Principia. That's just the progress of science, including better methods of expressing the concepts Newton discovered (i.e., using calculus rather than geometry).

If you're going to play pool, Newtonian physics works just fine. Nothing Einstein added will make you a better pool player. If you want to design a GPS system using satellites, you have to use Einstein's theory of special relativity to account for the speed of the satellites.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Shulem »

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote:One of the most interesting and original portions that draw upon Gee’s extensive scholarship is his discussion of the ancient owners of the papyri in Chapter 5. The owners “were among the most literate and educated people of Ptolemaic Egypt” and one of them, Horos, “served as prophet in three different temples in the Karnak temple complex” (p. 59). Situated in Thebes, he would have had access to grant “Theban temple libraries, containing narratives, reference works, and manuals, as well as scrolls on religion, ritual, and history” (p. 61). Further,

Ptolemaic Thebes had a sizable Jewish population; some of them served as the tax collectors. The Egyptian religion of the time was eclectic. Foreign elements like deities and rites—including those from the Greek religion and Judaism—were added to Egyptian practices. The papyri owners also lived at a time when stories about Abraham circulated in Egypt. If any ancient Egyptians were in a position to know about Abraham, it was the Theban priests. (p. 61)

You do realize that Gee is contradicting solemn and authoritative statements made by Joseph Smith in that the papyrus and mummies were much older than the Ptolemaic era? I realize that Gee is trying to align the evidence of the age of the papyrus and the mummies they possessed with conventional Egyptology but Smith is officially on record for having declared his own wisdom through God. Smith is on record for stating that the mummies and the papyrus on their persons were entombed for some 3,500 years. Smith stated this knowledge as having come from the supreme source of the Holy Ghost and sealed his declaration by the authority of the priesthood and in the name of Jesus Christ.

So, you see, Gee’s argument is with Joseph Smith. Here is indisputable black and white proof to that effect:

JOSEPH SMITH wrote:
Image

Now let me ask one for facts: was there ever such a place on the earth as Egypt? Geography says yes; ancient history says yes; and the Bible says yes . . .

Besides these tangible facts, so easily proven and demonstrated by simple rules of testimony unimpeached, the art (now lost) of embalming human bodies, and preserving them in the catacombs of Egypt, whereby men, women and children as mummies, after a lapse of near three thousand five hundred years, come forth among the living, and although dead, the papyrus which has lived in their bosoms, unharmed, speaks for them, in language like the sound of an earthquake: Ecce veritas! Ecce cadaveros. Behold the truth! Behold the mummies!


followed by:

Image

Image

Image
Last edited by Shulem on Thu Sep 09, 2021 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Newton

Post by Shulem »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Sep 08, 2021 6:56 pm
If you want to design a GPS system using satellites, you have to use Einstein's theory of special relativity to account for the speed of the satellites.

In which I totally agree!

But if an apple falls from a tree and bonks me on the head then I will use Newton's theory.

;)
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Jeff Lindsay praises John Gee's book “Introduction to the Book of Abraham” as a tool to save his testimony

Post by Shulem »

Jeff Lindsay | Nov 10, 2017 wrote:Gee’s discussion of the various roles Horus would have played implicitly suggests he would have had interest and familiarity with various temple themes, creation stories, rituals and other elements found in the Book of Abraham and its facsimiles.

Yes, indeed, Horus most certainly has a divine function within a variety of funerary scenes displayed by the ancient Egyptians in order to honor their religious rites and beliefs. Curious, however, Horus is not specifically mentioned in the Book of Abraham in any temple scene or rite. The name of Horus is not invoked and no mention of him is found within the chapters or specifically in the Explanations of the Facsimiles. The creation story of the Book of Abraham is little more than a plagiarized version of the Genesis account and isn’t Egyptian at all. No mention of Horus in that record so why would the Egyptian god Horus have an interest in a religious account from Asiatics of the north who fail to invoke his supreme name? Mentioning the name is everything to the Egyptians! Without the name it’s damnation so it makes no sense to me. I have to disagree with John Gee on that respect.

Now, we can be sure that Horus would have interest in the Facsimiles seeing his fellow gods are piously represented therein and Egyptian religion is expressed in a clean fashion and the gods are honored and revered in word and in symbol. It should be noted that the “temple themes” you suggest that Horus would have interest in are based on Smith’s Explanations given in Facsimile No. 2, which refer to the Mormon temple themes of Kirtland and Nauvoo but not that of ancient Egypt. Smith didn’t credit ancient Egyptian temple rituals with the Hypocephalus but likened the whole thing to the Mormon temple. In a nutshell, Smith usurped the rich symbolism and imagery to his own Christian understanding which he related to Mormonism and his new temple rites based on Masonry: “Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.”
Post Reply