Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Themis
God
Posts: 13142
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Themis »

harmony wrote:I'm still not clear as to what difference the KEP, etc. makes, since we know the papyri doesn't come close to matching the Book of Abraham.


You are right that the papyri by itself provides enough evidence that it does not translate into the Book of Abraham. Some of the KEP is still damaging to Joseph Smith claims of divine translation, so Will and others need to try and show it was just a project after the translation, and that they mistakenly thought they could identify the hieroglyphs with the text of the Book of Abraham(although I think Will is going for some cipher theory here), and that Joseph Smith was not really the instigator of this project. So you should see that this is an effort to protect Joseph Smith and the church's claims about the Book of Abraham.

More and more Apologists are moving to the catalyst theory because they realize the papyri has nothing to do with Abraham, although I think in their haste they haven't really thought the catalyst theory through.
42

Paul Osborne

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Paul Osborne »

harmony wrote:I'm still not clear as to what difference the KEP, etc. makes, since we know the papyri doesn't come close to matching the Book of Abraham.


The KEP does aid in showing that the BofA is a fraud but isn't a magic bullet. Indeed, the papers are strong evidence in making a case against the BofA. However, it's appropriate to take all the evidence into consideration before condemning the BofA. I'm afraid that the General Authorities don't want church members to weigh all the evidence and make an intelligence determination outside the bounds of a testimony received by an invisible ghost.

The church wants its members to believe the BofA is true based soley on getting warm feelings about the church. Never mind the evidence. The thinking has already been done.

Paul O

User avatar
truth dancer
High Goddess of Atlantis
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by truth dancer »

IMO, this whole discussion is sort of irrelevant, (although lots of fun), because the Book of Abraham is not a true story. Catalyst or not, cipher or not, translation or not, pure language or not, Abraham as original author or not, written by Joseph Smith or not, whatever... the bottom line is that it is not a true story, and certainly not God given or inspired or revealed.

Now, if someone could demonstrate (not, make up stuff), how the sun borrows its light, or how Kli-flos-is-es and Hah-kkau-beam receive light from the revolutions of Kolob, or how floeese (moon) is governed by Kae-e-vanrash the grand key, well, then there may be something to discuss!

;-)

~td~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj

Paul Osborne

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Paul Osborne »

truth dancer wrote:Now, if someone could demonstrate (not, make up stuff), how the sun borrows its light, or how Kli-flos-is-es and Hah-kkau-beam receive light from the revolutions of Kolob, or how floeese (moon) is governed by Kae-e-vanrash the grand key, well, then there may be something to discuss!
;-)
~td~


The prophets have said nothing about these matters to the church. No further light and knowledge at all has come forth. Continued revelation ceased after Joseph Smith died. General conference is a bore-fest with the same old tiresome speeches.

Briefly, however, we saw Mormon inspiration in action when President Kimball and his gang purchased false documents from Mark Hoffman with sacred church money. That was an inspiration! Certainly no less inspiring than the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3.

Thank you President Kimball for clearly demonstrating the power of the holy ghost working in you.

Paul O

sock puppet
The Outcast
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by sock puppet »

truth dancer wrote:IMO, this whole discussion is sort of irrelevant, (although lots of fun), because the Book of Abraham is not a true story. Catalyst or not, cipher or not, translation or not, pure language or not, Abraham as original author or not, written by Joseph Smith or not, whatever... the bottom line is that it is not a true story, and certainly not God given or inspired or revealed.

Now, if someone could demonstrate (not, make up stuff), how the sun borrows its light, or how Kli-flos-is-es and Hah-kkau-beam receive light from the revolutions of Kolob, or how floeese (moon) is governed by Kae-e-vanrash the grand key, well, then there may be something to discuss!

;-)

~td~

Hi, Truth Dancer,

I understand your point to be that however the Book of Abraham came to be, it contains numerous assertions that have proven false. Such as the sun borrowing light, or light being received from revolutions of Kolob, etc.

Not much by way of principles to draw from. I did however like the part in the second chapter where the Lord thought Sariah was pretty hot and because the Egyptians would kill her husband, Abraham, for her, the Lord told them to lie and tell the Egyptians that they were brother and sister. Joseph Smith wasn't going to leave that part of Genesis 12 out of his retelling of Abraham's story. It has both lust and lying, both of which seemed to be major themes for Joseph Smith.

User avatar
truth dancer
High Goddess of Atlantis
Posts: 4792
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by truth dancer »

Hey SP,

Not much by way of principles to draw from. I did however like the part in the second chapter where the Lord thought Sariah was pretty hot and because the Egyptians would kill her husband, Abraham, for her, the Lord told them to lie and tell the Egyptians that they were brother and sister. Joseph Smith wasn't going to leave that part of Genesis 12 out of his retelling of Abraham's story. It has both lust and lying, both of which seemed to be major themes for Joseph Smith.


Well, yes this part does have some drama.

The thing is sock puppet, I never understood why the Egyptians would kill a man to get his wife, but they would NOT kill a brother to get his sister. Really? This makes absolutely no sense to me. In addition, in the story, they didn't seem to even ask to purchase Sariah... I mean what is up with this? :-)

I'm sure apologists would come up with some way to justify this... oh, you know, the Egyptians would never kill a brother because of their laws and rules yada, yada, yada but come on, they would KILL a husband to get a woman? This would not be breaking a law or rule? ;-)

And, God couldn't watch over Sariah? He couldn't protect her? God required Abraham lie? OK then... (smile).

~td~
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by William Schryver »

onandagus wrote:Will,

I badly misinterpreted your comment. :-( And I apologize for that. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

I'd be happy to discuss my thoughts on direction of dependence with you. This hasn't been an area of emphasis for me; so my thoughts may not be of great detail and heft, but I would be willing to discuss the issue. I'll be most brushed up on it when I get back to work on the translation chronology, perhaps over Christmas break. And I'd be willing to offer critique of your more fully laid out case, of which I got only a foretaste at the FAIR conference.

Don

Don,

Thanks for your gracious reply. I look forward to corresponding with you concerning these things. I believe I have a substantial and highly persuasive case to make concerning the dependency of the KEP on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. My 50 minute FAIR presentation (of which only half focused on the question of dependency) did little more (as you observed) than provide a "foretaste" of the case I could have and will yet make. I will continue, between now and the end of the year, to fully "flesh out" that aspect of my arguments. My first article in the JBMORS will be focused exclusively on this aspect of my KEP findings, although even that article will--despite being somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 pages in length--not be able to include the full body of my detailed research products, which will have to wait until the book-length treatment appears. (The document I have been building [EAllusion/GAEL--Analysis by Character] has now grown to over 100 pages in length, and I estimate it will ultimately be around 150 pages when finished.)

When you get a chance, send me an e-mail to the address linked with my MormonDiscussions.com account, and I will then have your e-mail and will open up with you what I hope turns out to be a continuing correspondence. Again, I sincerely seek your views/criticisms of my findings.

-WS
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by William Schryver »

sock puppet wrote:
onandagus wrote:Will,

I badly misinterpreted your comment. :-( And I apologize for that. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

I'd be happy to discuss my thoughts on direction of dependence with you. This hasn't been an area of emphasis for me; so my thoughts may not be of great detail and heft, but I would be willing to discuss the issue. I'll be most brushed up on it when I get back to work on the translation chronology, perhaps over Christmas break. And I'd be willing to offer critique of your more fully laid out case, of which I got only a foretaste at the FAIR conference.

Don

My suspicions, Don, are that you and the other FAIR attendees got more than a foretaste. Will's inability to identify any other factors or evidences for his claimed direction of dependence suggests you got the 'whole enchilada' at FAIR. That is, Will noted that both texts share a fair number of 'substantial'/'unique' pronouns (which of itself does not indicate the direction(s) of dependence, just that there was some dependence) and that the Book of Abraham has a more developed story than does the EAllusion&G--which one would expect if the EAllusion&G were in essence work papers of Joseph Smith and scribes to the eventual production of the Book of Abraham. Think along the lines of the Book of Abraham being the final of a series of expansions of the story in development with the first four expansions being contained in the EAllusion&G itself as they went from the first degree to the second, and so on until the fifth degree. Indeed, the Book of Abraham appears to be the 6th degree of the EAllusion&G, woven into a single narrative.

I encourage you to continue to study the EAllusion/GAEL. Although it is probably not reasonable for me to expect you to divorce yourself from your deeply rooted and stubbornly held preconceptions, you would still do well to examine these things in far greater detail than you have--as indicated by your consistently manifest ignorance of the relevant materials.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by William Schryver »

Paul Osborne wrote:
harmony wrote:I'm still not clear as to what difference the KEP, etc. makes, since we know the papyri doesn't come close to matching the Book of Abraham.


The KEP does aid in showing that the BofA is a fraud but isn't a magic bullet. Indeed, the papers are strong evidence in making a case against the BofA. However, it's appropriate to take all the evidence into consideration before condemning the BofA. I'm afraid that the General Authorities don't want church members to weigh all the evidence and make an intelligence determination outside the bounds of a testimony received by an invisible ghost.

The church wants its members to believe the BofA is true based soley on getting warm feelings about the church. Never mind the evidence. The thinking has already been done.

Paul O

It continues to amaze me how darkened in mind you have become in such a short period of time. In some ways, it's as though you have almost instantly lost any understanding of the KEP that you ever had (as flawed as it was).

For all of the good resource material you had once assembled on your myegyptology website, it is shocking to me that you are so ignorant of the contents and text critical aspects of the KEP. It's as though you never even really read the material at all! What a tragedy. You might have been one of the few people who would have immediately profited from my findings (in terms of your understanding of the KEP). Instead, you threw it all away just months before your many years of longing to understand these things would have finally been rewarded with real clarity.

<sigh of sadness>
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

sock puppet
The Outcast
Posts: 17063
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:52 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by sock puppet »

onandagus wrote:Will,

I badly misinterpreted your comment. :-( And I apologize for that. Your explanation makes perfect sense.

I'd be happy to discuss my thoughts on direction of dependence with you. This hasn't been an area of emphasis for me; so my thoughts may not be of great detail and heft, but I would be willing to discuss the issue. I'll be most brushed up on it when I get back to work on the translation chronology, perhaps over Christmas break. And I'd be willing to offer critique of your more fully laid out case, of which I got only a foretaste at the FAIR conference.

Don
sock puppet wrote:My suspicions, Don, are that you and the other FAIR attendees got more than a foretaste. Will's inability to identify any other factors or evidences for his claimed direction of dependence suggests you got the 'whole enchilada' at FAIR. That is, Will noted that both texts share a fair number of 'substantial'/'unique' pronouns (which of itself does not indicate the direction(s) of dependence, just that there was some dependence) and that the Book of Abraham has a more developed story than does the EAllusion&G--which one would expect if the EAllusion&G were in essence work papers of Joseph Smith and scribes to the eventual production of the Book of Abraham. Think along the lines of the Book of Abraham being the final of a series of expansions of the story in development with the first four expansions being contained in the EAllusion&G itself as they went from the first degree to the second, and so on until the fifth degree. Indeed, the Book of Abraham appears to be the 6th degree of the EAllusion&G, woven into a single narrative.
William Schryver wrote:I encourage you to continue to study the EAllusion/GAEL. Although it is probably not reasonable for me to expect you to divorce yourself from your deeply rooted and stubbornly held preconceptions, you would still do well to examine these things in far greater detail than you have--as indicated by your consistently manifest ignorance of the relevant materials.

Thank you, Will. I will continue to study the EAllusion&G, as I am sure you will too. My preconceptions are not nearly so deeply rooted or stubbornly held as yours. For you see, I do not think that my eternal salvation depends on my clinging tight to the rod of any preconceptions about the Book of Abraham, as you do. It is to your credit that you could see the COJCOLDS someday jettisoning the Facsimiles and Explanations from the scriptural canon. Do you think God is trying to tell the FP/12 to do so, but just as it took well over a 100 years before the FP/12 could make out and understand what God was telling them about the ban of blacks from the priesthood, it may well take decades more before the FP/12 will hear God's voice on this issue?

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 20909
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kishkumen »

William Schryver wrote:It continues to amaze me how darkened in mind you have become in such a short period of time. In some ways, it's as though you have almost instantly lost any understanding of the KEP that you ever had (as flawed as it was).


I just find it amusing that Will continues to imply that only people with LDS testimonies can see the KEP clearly, particularly when he also wants us to believe that he does not think that one's position on the subject bears on one's salvation or faithfulness. You are pretty lucky that Don is a "forgive and forget" kind of Christian.
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

Themis
God
Posts: 13142
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Themis »

Kishkumen wrote:
I just find it amusing that Will continues to imply that only people with LDS testimonies can see the KEP clearly,


He doesn't mean clearly, as in a open mind, but with a pre-determined conclusion that the church is true, although any who disagree and are believing members are really apostates in the making. I've learned that these kind of people do this almost always because they don't really have the evidence to back them up. We have all seen this time and time again with Will over the years. At least Don is honest when evaluating the evidence.
42

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 20909
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kishkumen »

Themis wrote:He doesn't mean clearly, as in a open mind, but with a pre-determined conclusion that the church is true, although any who disagree and are believing members are really apostates in the making. I've learned that these kind of people do this almost always because they don't really have the evidence to back them up. We have all seen this time and time again with Will over the years. At least Don is honest when evaluating the evidence.


Don is honest when evaluating the evidence. When it comes to analyzing Will's sly implications about his faithfulness, Don obviously lets charity blur the details.
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by William Schryver »

sockpuppet:
It is to your credit that you could see the COJCOLDS someday jettisoning the Facsimiles and Explanations from the scriptural canon. Do you think God is trying to tell the FP/12 to do so, but just as it took well over a 100 years before the FP/12 could make out and understand what God was telling them about the ban of blacks from the priesthood, it may well take decades more before the FP/12 will hear God's voice on this issue?

Your entire statement is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of my words. You would also do well to determine the pronounced difference between what I have actually said about these things, and the greatly distorted reports of them perpetuated on this message board. You would also do well to locate and read my greatly expanded elucidation of my opinions concerning the "Facsimiles" canonized with the Book of Abraham. You would discover that my continuing-to-expand understanding of these things has led me to an even greater conviction of the inspired reasoning behind their canonization than I had previously supposed.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would cease, forthwith, from suggesting that I believe the facsimiles should be removed from the canon. I do not believe that. I have never proposed it. At this point in time (as I explained during the Q&A session after my FAIR conference address) I view the facsimiles as persuasive evidence of the fact that there was definitely some form of authentic Abraham-related text on the papyri Joseph Smith acquired from Michael Chandler in July 1835.

You would also do well to obtain and carefully consider the publications of John Gee (in mainstream Egyptological journals) over the course of the past two or three years (and into the foreseeable future, as well). John has produced some findings of significant import which, when considered in their entirety, will eventually demonstrate the very unique aspects of the Joseph Smith Papyri, and the inspired nature of the understanding Joseph Smith received concerning them.

It is quite a popular thing on this message board for ignoramuses to portray Professor Gee as a bumbling fool. I assure you he is far from a fool--rather more sly as a fox. The arguments and evidence he has quietly been erecting over the course of the past few years will eventually take shape in such a way as to, once and for all, put to rest the ignorant rantings of bona fide fools like the would-be Egyptologist Paul Osboner, not to mention others such as Robert Ritner.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 20909
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kishkumen »

William Schryver wrote:I assure you he is far from a fool--rather more sly as a fox. The arguments and evidence he has quietly been erecting over the course of the past few years will eventually take shape in such a way as to, once and for all, put to rest the ignorant rantings of bona fide fools like the would-be Egyptologist Paul Osboner, not to mention others such as Robert Ritner.


ROFLMAO!!! Oh yes, Will, be assured that we are fully aware of the slyness of John Gee.
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by harmony »

William Schryver wrote:It is quite a popular thing on this message board for ignoramuses to portray Professor Gee as a bumbling fool. I assure you he is far from a fool--rather more sly as a fox.


This is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Sly? Hmmmm...
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.

User avatar
William Schryver
God
Posts: 1671
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 9:58 am

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by William Schryver »

Kishkumen wrote:
William Schryver wrote:It continues to amaze me how darkened in mind you have become in such a short period of time. In some ways, it's as though you have almost instantly lost any understanding of the KEP that you ever had (as flawed as it was).


I just find it amusing that Will continues to imply that only people with LDS testimonies can see the KEP clearly ...

Of course, I believe no such thing, nor have I ever implied such a thing. But you will, no doubt, continue your attempts to misrepresent me at every opportunity. I have come to expect nothing less from you.

I have observed that hardened apostates, such as yourself and others on this message board, are utterly incapable of objectively assessing the validity of my findings--or even of understanding them!

That said, not only do I believe it possible that people without "LDS testimonies" can assess and concur with my findings, but it shall shortly be demonstrated that such people do agree with my findings. I have and will confidently submit my findings to any experts in text criticism willing to consider them.

Remember, my findings do nothing to establish the historicity, antiquity, or inspired nature of the Book of Abraham. These things are questions that can be considered utterly irrespective of one's faith persuasions. Text critical methodologies can be applied to the questions absent any religious beliefs whatsoever. It shall yet be seen that non-Mormons, with no religious stake whatsoever in the issue, will entirely concur with my findings purely on the basis of objective text critical considerations.
... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

Themis
God
Posts: 13142
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Themis »

Kishkumen wrote:
Don is honest when evaluating the evidence. When it comes to analyzing Will's sly implications about his faithfulness, Don obviously lets charity blur the details.


Don is a good example of a Christ like individual.
42

Themis
God
Posts: 13142
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Themis »

William Schryver wrote:
Of course, I believe no such thing, nor have I ever implied such a thing.


Your posting history tell a different story. Even your words after this imply it.

I have observed that hardened apostates, such as yourself and others on this message board, are utterly incapable of objectively assessing the validity of my findings--or even of understanding them!


That said, not only do I believe it possible that people without "LDS testimonies" can assess and concur with my findings, but it shall shortly be demonstrated that such people do agree with my findings. I have and will confidently submit my findings to any experts in text criticism willing to consider them.


I have no problem with looking at your results or hearing from the experts, especially any as you say who do not have LDS testimonies.
42

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 20909
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Kishkumen »

William Schryver wrote:Of course, I believe no such thing, nor have I ever implied such a thing. But you will, no doubt, continue your attempts to misrepresent me at every opportunity. I have come to expect nothing less from you.


Will, you do a fine job of misrepresenting yourself. You need no help from me. You really ought to leave off of your bellyaching about how persecuted you are. Not only does it sound pathetic, but it is utterly at odds with your otherwise aggressive behavior.

William Schryver wrote:I have observed that hardened apostates, such as yourself and others on this message board, are utterly incapable of objectively assessing the validity of my findings--or even of understanding them!


In other words, you continue to act like a complete prick toward people whom you view as apostates, and you have no compunction about doing so. Your characterization of me as a hardened apostate is completely farcical, as Don Bradley will happily attest, even if he will, on the other hand, forgive you for acting like a slimeball toward him.

What it takes to assess the validity of your findings is exposure to them in a complete and coherent form, preferably in an edited publication. Since thus far no "hardened apostate" (as defined according to your whim of the moment) has had that opportunity, I have no idea what you are whining about, other than to continue your pity party when it comes to your entirely deserved unpopularity around here.

William Schryver wrote:Remember, my findings do nothing to establish the historicity, antiquity, or inspired nature of the Book of Abraham.


Yes, we are well familiar with your mantras. How could we forget?

William Schryver wrote:These things are questions that can be considered utterly irrespective of one's faith persuasions.


As we well understand.

William Schryver wrote:Text critical methodologies can be applied to the questions absent any religious beliefs whatsoever.


Duh.

William Schryver wrote:It shall yet be seen that non-Mormons, with no religious stake whatsoever in the issue, will entirely concur with my findings purely on the basis of objective text critical considerations.


We'll see. Maybe some will. Maybe others will not. And maybe you'll be surprised to find who falls into which camp. It could very well be that the distribution will defy your prejudices.
“God came to me in a dream last night and showed me the future. He took me to heaven and I saw Donald Trump seated at the right hand of our Lord.” ~ Pat Robertson
“He says he has eyes to see things that are not . . . and that the angel of the Lord . . . has put him in possession of great wealth, gold, silver, precious stones.” ~ Jesse Smith

Paul Osborne

Re: Metcalfe Schryver Debate Set to Go

Post by Paul Osborne »

William Schryver wrote:It is quite a popular thing on this message board for ignoramuses to portray Professor Gee as a bumbling fool. I assure you he is far from a fool--rather more sly as a fox. The arguments and evidence he has quietly been erecting over the course of the past few years will eventually take shape in such a way as to, once and for all, put to rest the ignorant rantings of bona fide fools like the would-be Egyptologist Paul Osboner, not to mention others such as Robert Ritner.


You're positively mad, Schryverass. Should John Gee try to vindicate Facsimile No. 3 using his skills as an Egyptologist I can assure you that I will go after his ass and call upon other Egyptologists worldwide to do something about it. I won't stand around to watch that kind of slander against the Egyptian religion. If John Gee wants war -- he will get war, otherwise he needs to keep his mouth continuously shut regarding the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. Anything he says can and will be used against him.

Paul O

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Analytics, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 7 guests