First of all, the size ofteh original collection is irrelevant since we know the Book of Abraham derived from one particular roll, in which we have its beginning, middle and a copy of its ending. All three portions of this roll refer to a man named Hor, and nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. Gee is trying to argue that this particular roll must have had an attachment to it (presumably the Book of Abraham) which is why he is trying to stretch this particular roll out to twelve feet.
Do you really expect me to genuflect to this recycled anti-Mormon schlock that's been long discredited by competent LDS scholarship? This is pure conjecture, and nothing more than that.
. This claim is a claim, nothing more, that has never been substantiated empirically and cannot be, at this juncture, and you have conveniently danced around the wild cared here; primary sources indicate much greater quantities of material than we now have.
We do not know that the hypocephalus was the source of the BofA. That is pure conjecture; it is a theory that has been plausibly answered for a generation or more. It has something to do with the BofA to be sure, but we do not know what, you do not know what, and I do not know what. Neither Joseph or any of his associates left any mention of just what the relationship is.
Stay in the shallow end if you can't do any better than this.
“Far more extensive” is a dubious claim that has since been refuted.
U.S.D.A. prime gibberish. So you aren't conversant with the primary sources? Fine.
And virtually every historical account describes papyri which are extant. The web is full of apologetic crap. This is one of the losing points for the Church. Big time.
No, they patently do not. All we have is the Joseph Smith Papyri, 11 fragments from what is known to have been a much larger collection, the Sensen
text, which is not known, (except in anti-Mormon theoretical structures) to be directly related to the BofA in a direct textual way, and the Book of the Dead fragments. Bare assertions of facts that do not exist and the confusion of theory and hypothesis with certainty bodes ill for your analysis. Eyewitnesses saw and described long rolls of papery which contained scriptural writings, papyri and writings we do not have. Your claim above is a patent falsehood. Direct, eyewitness accounts indicate much greater material existing in the nineteenth century.
How you refute direct, eyewitness testimony of the handling of empirical objects I'm not sure, but your way over stating the degree of certainty in your case to the point of disingenuity. We have only a tiny fraction of this today, and since we don't know as a matter of fact that the book of breathings was the source (indeed, Joseph never claimed it was), the critics claims, thought they may be plausible in a strictly intellectual way, cannot be conclusively be demonstrated with any degree of certainty.
Indeed, outside of anti-Mormon polemical circles, it is actually doubtful that the present papyri have a direct connection to the Abraham text. We do have facsimile 1, but that's the end of any clear connection. Contrary to your assertions, critic's claims that the BofA is a direct translation from the KEP, including entire sentences or paragraphs from single characters, has been debunked by LDS scholarship for quite sometime now.
Oh, but you didn't know that...
And those people had no way to anticipate the Chicago fire, the loss of those documents in other ways, or Mormndiscussions.com.
If it is true that we only have a fraction of the original collection, then why do virtually all evidence point to this small fraction as the source for the Book of Abraham?
They don't, and asserting and asserting that they do, over and over and over again, recycling now long discredited theories and wishful (hopeful) speculations does not make your case any stronger.
We know that there was much greater material because of direct, eyewitness accounts of that which existed, and, at the same time, the connections of the KEP to the BofA are strictly inferential, substantiated by no direct documentary evidence. There are other specific points that could be made regarding the sheer unlikelihood of our present fragments having much direct connection to the BofA, but enough for now.
Keep rearranging the deck chairs...