It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:44 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6112
As most of you probably already know, the "critics" have argued the Book of Breathings which followed Facsimile #1 is the source for the Book of Abraham. The strongest piece of evidence for this, aside from Abr 1:12, is in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, where the Book of Abraham manuscripts place Egyptian characters in sequence which mostly come from the papyrus in question. Other characters were divined by Joseph Smith as they fell into the lacuna:

William S. West said in 1837, "These records were torn by being taken from the roll of embalming salve which contained them, and some parts entirely lost; but Smith is to translate the whole by divine inspiration, and that which is lost, like Nebuchadnezzar's dream, can be interpreted as well as that which is preserved"

So we know Joseph Smith restored what was lost in the deteriorated portions of the papyrus.

The graphics below illustrates the 27 characters used, as they appear in Manuscript 2 of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. I will show the first four lines from the papyrus and how they line up in sequence in the Book of Abraham manuscripts:

Image
Image

In August, William Schryver presented John Gee's research at the FAIR Conference arguing that the assumption that these characters were taken in sequence, is just a "fantasy." Will then begins a PowerPoint presentation of "Reality vs. Fantasy."

But the sequence seems perfectly obvious, right? So how did they manage to pull this off? You're not going to believe this. According to Gee/Schryver, the characters numbered 13, 14, 15, 16 and 23 are actually copies from other areas on the papyrus! If you look above, these are precisely the characters that fall into the lacuna. So according to Gee/Schryver the sequencing actually goes as follows:

Image

So do they have a case? No. BUt first I want to touch on the most deceptive portion of his talk. It was when he goes across from the first character and points out a linear sequence up until character 11. He then pulls a typical straw man and says: "This is about as far as anyone (i.e. critics) feels the need to go. What is happening seems pretty clear. But it isn't. The next one is clear and pulled from two lines down."

Now at the moment he said, "the next one is clear and pulled from two lines down" (alluding to character 13) the Power Point slide was showing character #12 on line one, along with a blown up image of the character as it appears in both the papyrus and the manuscript. Of course the copy is a faithful replica of the original, which led people to think his argument was sound. As if to think, "Wow, this was taken from two lines down completely out of sequence." But it wasn't. Will was just expecting to rush along through another deceptive presentation because he knew no one in the audience would catch what he was doing.

In reality, the character Will referred to was character #13 which he believes was copied from a character "two lines down," but when compared side by side, it is clearly a huge stretch to say they resemble anything at all. And a character that, ironically, looks exactly like the number 13! Here are the characters Gee'Schryver claim are copied from other areas of the papyrus. You tell me if any of these resemble one another.

Image

It takes a creative leap of the imagination just to connect these two in even the most superficial of ways. But Gee/Schryver insist they are the copies because they need them to be. Amazing, especially when you consider the fact that virtually all of the other copied characters represent clear replicas of the character in question. So you have to seriously question Gee and Schryver's credibility here by expecting us to believe these characters derived from the portions they claim. These aren't even close!

What's worse, they want us to believe that #23 was a copied from both #19 and #20 while at the same time the scribes recognize 18 and 20 as separate characters. How does this even begin to make sense? They're just jumping all over the place in order to do their "zig-zags" and say, "see, the critics are fantasizing about a sequence."

Image

This is Book of Abraham apologetics running backwards at full speed.

Anyway, there is more to come...

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Last edited by Kevin Graham on Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:49 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:40 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:47 am
Posts: 4000
Location: The Ivory Tower
In fairness to William, he later agreed that Gee was wrong about all this.

(BTW, I just noticed I had a voice mail from you. I'll give you a call tomorrow. For now, I had better get to bed before the sun rises.)

_________________
Worlds Without End
Mild-Mannered Musings
Smidgens on Religion


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:49 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6112
So he gave a presentation on something he disagreed with? I guess that proves he's more interested in loyalty to the tribe instead of the truth.

Were you able to listen to the presentation? The way he was speaking gave me no reason to believe he was in disagreement with it, and it was Will, not John, who used character 12 to represent character 13 which he said was "two lines down."

Don't worry about calling me back, this message was way before our email chat. And what the hell are you doing up so late?

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:52 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:47 am
Posts: 4000
Location: The Ivory Tower
Kevin Graham wrote:
So he gave a presentation on something he disagreed with? I guess that proves he's more interested in loyalty to the tribe instead of the truth.

Were you able to listen to the presentation? The way he was speaking gave me no reason to believe he was in disagreement with it, and it was Will, not John, who used character 12 to represent character 13 which he said was "two lines down."

I didn't try the link you sent. Hearing it the one time at the FAIR Conference was more than enough.

My impression was that William agreed with Gee at the time he read the paper, but later looked a little more closely and realized Gee was mistaken.

_________________
Worlds Without End
Mild-Mannered Musings
Smidgens on Religion


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:54 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6112
Has he gone on record with this, or did he tell you this privately?

I hear Nomad's footsteps already demanding a CFR.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 5:20 am 
Priest
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:41 am
Posts: 310
Location: East Lansing, MI
Thanks a million for putting that all together. The way it is presented here makes what is going on so simple and easy to understand what Gee presented. Thanks for spending the time putting this together.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:14 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 5707
Hello,

I nominate Mr. Graham for a chair at Cassius University. Well done.

V/R
Dr. Cam

_________________
http://www.strategycenter.net/doclib/20080107_coughlin_extremistjihad.pdf

www.cesletter.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:15 am
Posts: 1058
Kevin, thank you for your work. As usual your work is totally professional and makes it easy for the Tator to understand. This thread is going into my archives. I eagerly await more.

_________________
aka Pokatator joined Oct 26, 2006


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:22 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6112
Gee/Schryver also seem to have problems identifying character #3, which tell us just how unfamiliar they are with the GAEL. Look at the yellow highlighted portion from the GAEL below as it corresponds to the papyrus.

Image

Here is a link to Ashment's article.

Image

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:29 am 
\m/ \m/
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 11844
Location: Anywhere but Nuanced Hill
At the risk of causing Simon to once again post the picture of guys high-fiving one another, your OP is very, very helpful Kevin. Thank you.

I am not a Book of Abraham expert like you, Kevin, but I found a couple of items telling. For reference, here is an excerpt from your OP:

Kevin Graham wrote:
I want to touch on the most deceptive portion of his [Gee's talk, presented by Schryver]. It was when he goes across from the first character and points out a linear sequence up until character 11. He then pulls a typical straw man and says: "This is about as far as anyone (i.e. critics) feels the need to go. What is happening seems pretty clear. But it isn't. The next one is clear and pulled from two lines down."

Now at the moment he said, "the next one is clear and pulled from two lines down" (alluding to character 13) the Power Point slide was showing character #12 on line one, along with a blown up image of the character as it appears in both the papyrus and the manuscript. Of course the copy is a faithful replica of the original, which led people to think his argument was sound. As if to think, "Wow, this was taken from two lines down completely out of sequence."

1-Characters 13, 14, 15, 16 and 23 are, in the words of Gee presented by Schryver, "pulled" and "taken" from lower lines of the Book of Breathings papyri. Who pulled them? who took them? from the other parts of the Book of Breathings papyri? If it wasn't JSJr himself, as part of his "translation" then it was his scribes. If his scribes, then why would they think that JSJr was interpreting that papyri rather than another piece? Perhaps because JSJr was examining that very piece of papyri while orally "translating" for the scribes to take down as dictation.
2-Set aside for the moment your point about the stretch that it is to match up, as Gee suggests, characters 13, 14, 15, 16 and 23. Gee is attempting to tie five more of the characters in the left hand margins of the pages of Ms2 to the papyri, which do not translate into the corresponding paragraphs of English on Ms2. Does he really think it helps his mopologetic cause to draw a greater tie-in between Ms2 and the Book of Breathings papyri?
3-How do they ignore the near statistic impossibility that 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are in order, compounded by 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 an 22 are in order, and 24, 25, 26, and 27 are too?

_________________
I'm so happy 'cause today
I've found my friends ...
They're in my head
...

And I'm not scared
Light my candles in a daze ...
'Cause I've found god
Lithium, Nirvana (aka, Cobain's Ode to JSJr)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:39 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6112
Another way of showing the characters lining up as they appear in the ten page manuscript 2.

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 9:52 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6112
Quote:
1-Characters 13, 14, 15, 16 and 23 are, in the words of Gee presented by Schryver, "pulled" and "taken" from lower lines of the Book of Breathings papyri. Who pulled them? who took them? from the other parts of the Book of Breathings papyri? If it wasn't JSJr himself, as part of his "translation" then it was his scribes.


Yes, that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with this is important part of their apologetic. What Gee is doing now is trying to argue that there was no method here, and that the scribes were just pulling characters at random, therefore the KEP manuscripts could represent a systematic attempt to translate that papyrus.

Quote:
If his scribes, then why would they think that JSJr was interpreting that papyri rather than another piece?


He doesn't attempt to explain why, he only attempts to show what they couldn't have been doing. At this point he is moving away from the traditionaal apologetic that says the scribes were confused and erroneously thought the Sensen text was the source for the Book of Abraham. Now, it seems, he wants to say these documents suggest nothing of the sort, as if the characters were placed there for the heck of it with no real significance.

Quote:
Perhaps because JSJr was examining that very piece of papyri while orally "translating" for the scribes to take down as dictation.


Well this is obvious to us, and anyone else who isn't desperately trying to do apologetics for the LDS Church.

Quote:
2-Set aside for the moment your point about the stretch that it is to match up, as Gee suggests, characters 13, 14, 15, 16 and 23. Gee is attempting to tie five more of the characters in the left hand margins of the pages of Ms2 to the papyri, which do not translate into the corresponding paragraphs of English on Ms2. Does he really think it helps his mopologetic cause to draw a greater tie-in between Ms2 and the Book of Breathings papyri?


He can't avoid this anymore as the majority of characters are indisputably copied from that papyrus. But I think it is funny that he left it up to Will to give such an embarrassing presentation, and then shortly after even Schryver himself denies its validity.

Quote:
3-How do they ignore the near statistic impossibility that 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are in order, compounded by 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 an 22 are in order, and 24, 25, 26, and 27 are too?


As apologists, ignoring refuting data is crucial to the way they operate. Gee and Schryver have a lot of experience with this.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:05 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18167
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
CaliforniaKid wrote:
My impression was that William agreed with Gee at the time he read the paper, but later looked a little more closely and realized Gee was mistaken.


Can we get this in one of those cross-stitch kits so we can frame it and hang it on the living room wall?

_________________
(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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:10 pm 
\m/ \m/
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 11844
Location: Anywhere but Nuanced Hill
Just to keep readers aware of the significance, if JSJr instructed which characters were to be put in the left hand margins of the Ms2, one each at the beginning of each English "translation" paragraph, then it shows that JSJr thought he was conducting an actual linguistic translation of those characters into English (or JSJr knew he was not, but wanted to mislead his scribes into thinking he was performing an actual linguistic translation). However, since the 'code' for translating ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics and hieratics has, since JSJr's time, been cracked (thanks to the Rosetta Stone and Champollion), we know that what was taking place by JSJr was not a linguistic translation of those characters.

Gee and other Book of Abraham apologists acknowledge that three strings of characters (7-8-9-10-11-12, 17-18-19-20-21-22 and 24-25-26-27) appear in the same sequences in the Ms2 manuscript (left margins) as they do around the lacunae of the papyri (acknowledged due to the near statistical impossibility that the bulk of the characters in three strings are mere coincidence). In light of that, what do Gee & Co. gain from pointing out that some of the characters for the missing areas (lacunae) on the second and third character lines of the Book of Breathings papyri have a corollary (albeit a stretch) elsewhere on that papyri 13, 14, 15, 16 and 23? How does that in anyway suggest that it was the scribes' and not JSJr's work in "taking" or "pulling" those characters from yet lower lines on that same papyri?

And a related question, since Gee & Co. have not even argued for character corollaries from that papyri for characters 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, who per their theory supplied those five 'lacunae' area characters on the top line? Per their theory, where did 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 come from? Gee's observation (requiring the stretching) does not explain where 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 came from, much less dispel the notion that it was JSJr who supplied the characters 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the lacunae area in the top line.

I guess I ask these questions because if Gee & Co. concede that the characters in three sequential strings (7-8-9-10-11-12, 17-18-19-20-21-22 and 24-25-26-27) that line up in the same order on the Ms2 left margins as they appear on that papyri makes inescapable the conclusion that the characters in the Ms2 left margins were taken by someone from that papyri, how does showing other characters (13, 14, 15, 16 and 23) were 'taken' or 'pulled' from lower lines of that papyri demonstrate or suggest it was the scribes alone, without instruction from JSJr, decided which characters to put at the beginning of those English paragraphs in Ms2?

I think Gee/Schryver hoped that by their pointing out that some of the lacunae characters (13, 14, 15, 16, and 23) were drawn from other parts of the papyri, that even looking at the extant/preserved papyri and that there is not perfect 7-27 sequencing of characters from that papyri, the listeners (the 'home town' crowd at the FAIR conference) would extrapolate that to mean there is no sequential relationship at all between that papyri and the characters in the left hand margin of Ms2. That seems their plausible purpose, one to mislead but pump up their own 'troops', since Gee/Schryver gained no yardage, intellectually or scholarly, in attempting to distance JSJr from those reproduced characters in the left hand margins of Ms2.

That is, it appears that Gee's 2010 FAIR conference presentation, delivered by Schryver, is an example of one of those particularly stinky aims of apologetics: Keep the questioning (i.e., intellectual) faithful contented through smoke-and-mirrors deception, making it look as though they've successfully countered a critical argument, when in fact the apologists have not and they know they have not--just so long as those teetering faithful within earshot do not realize that the critical argument remains intact and damning of JSJr's divine translation claims.

_________________
I'm so happy 'cause today
I've found my friends ...
They're in my head
...

And I'm not scared
Light my candles in a daze ...
'Cause I've found god
Lithium, Nirvana (aka, Cobain's Ode to JSJr)


Last edited by sock puppet on Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:47 am
Posts: 4000
Location: The Ivory Tower
Kevin Graham wrote:
Has he gone on record with this, or did he tell you this privately?

I hear Nomad's footsteps already demanding a CFR.

It was on this board, but I'm too lazy to go looking for it right now. In one of those long threads about his cipher theory, no doubt.

_________________
Worlds Without End
Mild-Mannered Musings
Smidgens on Religion


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:30 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6112
Quote:
And a related question, since Gee & Co. have not even argued for character corollaries from that papyri for characters 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, who per their theory supplied those five 'lacunae' area characters on the top line? Per their theory, where did 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 come from? Gee's observation (requiring the stretching) does not explain where 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 came from, much less dispel the notion that it was JSJr supplying characters for the lacunae area in the top line


Gee argues that he can tell what characters should have been there by comparing it with similar papyri texts in European museums. As such, he agrees with critics that characters 1-5 correspond to the first lacuna area, but character six remains the only character they're willing to call a mystery. They agree it was in the lacuna but they don't know where it could have come from.

But this raises another question. For the most part, the lacuna was there in 1835, with the exception of characters 1-2. So by claiming characters 3-5 are legitimate Egyptian characters not pulled from the Joseph Smith papyri, is Gee trying to suggest this is evidence that Joseph Smith was a real prophet? By restoring legitimate Egyptian characters? He doesn't say one way or another in the presentation, but that seems to be the logical conclusion if he is consistent.

Quote:
I guess I ask these questions because if Gee & Co. concede that the characters in three sequential strings (7-8-9-10-11-12, 17-18-19-20-21-22 and 24-25-26-27) that line up in the same order on the Ms2 left margins as they appear on that papyri makes inescapable the conclusion that the characters in the Ms2 left margins were taken by someone from that papyri, how does showing other characters (13, 14, 15, 16 and 23) were 'taken' or 'pulled' from lower lines of that papyri demonstrate or suggest it was the scribes and not JSJr himself?


He's trying to show not who was responsible, but rather the person responsible couldn't have possibly been trying to translate that papyrus, since there was no consistent linear sequencing throughout the manuscript. This puts Joseph Smith in the clear because obviously Joseph Smith would have translated a papyrus by going right to left consistently throughout.

Quote:
That is, it appears that Gee's 2010 FAIR conference presentation, delivered by Schryver, is an example of one of those particularly stinky aims of apologetics: Keep the questioning (i.e., intellectual) faithful contented through smoke-and-mirrors deception, making it look as though they've successfully countered a critical argument, when in fact the apologists have not and they know they have not--just so long as those teetering faithful within earshot do not realize that the critical argument remains intact and damning of JSJr's divine translation claims.


Pretty much.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6112
CaliforniaKid wrote:
Kevin Graham wrote:
Has he gone on record with this, or did he tell you this privately?

I hear Nomad's footsteps already demanding a CFR.

It was on this board, but I'm too lazy to go looking for it right now. In one of those long threads about his cipher theory, no doubt.


You little, lazy bastard.

I think this is funny because wade just informed me in celestial that we have no business questioning a bonafide Egyptologist on these matters. According to him, trusting anyone else is like taking someone with heart disease to a computer programmer instead of a cardiologist.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:38 am
Posts: 1996
Location: Egbert Bratt Grandin Chair of Textual Criticism at Cassius University
Kevin, thanks for the summary and refutation of Gee/Schryver. It's no wonder that Gee was MIA at the last FAIR conference and that Schryver either volunteered or was put up to do the dirty work.

I have a theoretical question for you. Suppose the church gave you an offer you couldn't refuse to defend the BofA. They give you reassurances that you would only have to privately deliver a paper to LDS Inc., that your name would be kept confidential, and that they wouldn't expect you to personally defend the BofA after the paper. Once you are done with the paper, you can wash your hands of the whole thing. Now, for whatever reason you decide to take up the church on that offer. How or what would you do to defend the BofA, what's the best case the apologists can possibly make?

I'm just trying to see what's left for apologists to actually work with. It seems that Joseph Smith slammed the door shut to so many explanations that a believer could use to wiggle out of BofA problems, defending the BofM seems to be a cake walk compared to defending the BofA.

Also, CK, feel free to also answer this question.


Last edited by Aristotle Smith on Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:39 pm 
\m/ \m/
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 11844
Location: Anywhere but Nuanced Hill
Kevin Graham wrote:
Gee argues that he can tell what characters should have been there by comparing it with similar papyri texts in European museums. As such, he agrees with critics that characters 1-5 correspond to the first lacuna area, but character six remains the only character they're willing to call a mystery. They agree it was in the lacuna but they don't know where it could have come from.

But this raises another question. For the most part, the lacuna was there in 1835, with the exception of characters 1-2. So by claiming characters 3-5 are legitimate Egyptian characters not pulled from the Joseph Smith papyri, is Gee trying to suggest this is evidence that Joseph Smith was a real prophet? By restoring legitimate Egyptian characters? He doesn't say one way or another in the presentation, but that seems to be the logical conclusion if he is consistent.


Thanks, Kevin. Do you have a theory about where characters 3-5 came from? Is there any evidence of perhaps JSJr also having a shard of papyri that fits in that lacunae area of line one of the Book of Breathings papyri?

_________________
I'm so happy 'cause today
I've found my friends ...
They're in my head
...

And I'm not scared
Light my candles in a daze ...
'Cause I've found god
Lithium, Nirvana (aka, Cobain's Ode to JSJr)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Another Gee/Schryver Deception Exposed
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 1:02 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6112
Quote:
Thanks, Kevin. Do you have a theory about where characters 3-5 came from? Is there any evidence of perhaps JSJr also having a shard of papyri that fits in that lacunae area of line one of the Book of Breathings papyri?


As far as I'm aware, both sides agree that the first two characters were extant at the time Smith purchased the papyri, so there is no surprise that they are genuinely Egyptian. But Smith's constant poking at the second character (which he kept telling everyone referred to Abraham) probably didn't help with preservation, so through time that portion was lost. The other characters 4-6 Smith claimed to divine via revelation, just as William West said he did. Naturally he had to fill in the missing areas with something. If he had the ability to produce b***s*** in English, why not in Egyptian too? Of course, these characters are not Egyptian at all save the first three characters. The third was taken from another portion of the same papyrus preceding the Facsimile (albeit highly manipulated). I address this in a subsequent visual above that you may have missed. Gee tries to claim the fourth character is Egyptian by comparing it to a related text containing a character resembling it. But that character is actually flipped over. So the bogus character #4 looking like this _______| Gee claims was a Genuine Egyptian character that actually looks something like this: |_______

I mean yeah, I can see the resemblance he alludes to only if we spend five minutes rearranging graphemes, adding some, inverting various portions and deleting entire sections. With this kind of license one can pretty much say these characters were borrowed from Japanese.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Gee/Schryver Deception
PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 1:07 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:16 pm
Posts: 2859
Location: Unassigned Lands
Kevin Graham wrote:
I think this is funny because wade just informed me in celestial that we have no business questioning a bonafide Egyptologist on these matters. According to him, trusting anyone else is like taking someone with heart disease to a computer programmer instead of a cardiologist.


Oh, that's a great analogy.

Here's another: like Tarski using Google to diagnose his own rhabdomyolysis instead of waiting for a specialist to tell him.

_________________
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aussieguy55, Google [Bot], hank rearden, Juggler Vain and 65 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group