It is currently Thu Sep 21, 2017 1:05 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:21 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 2:01 am
Posts: 6365
Quote:
When the Book of Abraham was first published to the world in 1842, it was published as “a translation of some ancient records that have fallen into [Joseph Smith’s] hands from the catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called ‘The Book of Abraham, Written by his Own Hand, upon Papyrus.’” The resultant record was thus connected with the papyri once owned by Joseph Smith, though which papyrus of the four or five in his possession was never specified. Those papyri would likely interest only a few specialists except that they are bound up in a religious controversy. This controversy covers a number of interrelated issues, and an even greater number of theories have been put forward about these issues. Given the amount of information available, the various theories, and the variety of fields of study the subject requires, misunderstandings and misinformation often prevail. Introduction to the Book of Abraham makes reliable information accessible to the general reader.

https://bookstore.fairmormon.org/featur ... 8194439406

“Reliable information...” Okay, sure....

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:10 am 
Regional Representative
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 9:14 am
Posts: 641
Location: Sweden
I wouldn't recommend buying a used car from John Gee. The car you would end up with would be "one of the four of five in his possession".

YMMV.

_________________
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:16 am 
God

Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:56 pm
Posts: 1382
Actually the Gee-man has been given a free pass in every interview as he spouts with a straight face that the answer is "missing papyrii"- and every interviewer justs says "Oh wonderful Professor/Dr Gee thank you you are so knowledgeable and we love your explanation blah blah blah!"

Gee has been slammed down so often outside the Mormon sphere( kevin graham caught him in lie after mistruth) that at one point he seemed so depressed and ready to hand off the Book of Abraham to a successor, so he could be the elder statesman and just blather at the top level. i guess he needed another pub to keep his chair at BYU so i would bet that this book will be a huge loser as he will continue to fake the truth.

john gee- move on nothing truthful to see here!

k


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 7:33 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16318
Location: Northern Virginia
What really bothers me is that, when anyone points out where Gee has played fast and loose with the evidence, the other apologists call it character assassination. They then vilify the person without ever dealing with what that person said. Gee's track record speaks for itself, and it's not character assassination to note that he's manipulated sources, at the very least.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 11:25 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 4890
FAIRMORMON BOOKSTORE wrote:
This controversy covers a number of interrelated issues

For example:

"Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head."

This certainly is controversial and definitely an issue.

FAIRMORMON BOOKSTORE wrote:
greater number of theories have been put forward about these issues

None of these theories have been able to validate Joseph Smith's claim that a king's name is given in the characters above his head.

FAIRMORMON BOOKSTORE wrote:
Given the amount of information available, the various theories, and the variety of fields of study the subject requires, misunderstandings and misinformation often prevail

Joseph Smith claimed that a king's name was written in the characters above the head. What is there to misunderstand? What misinformation prevails in hindering Egyptologist John Gee in confirming Joseph Smith's claim and reading the name for himself?

FAIRMORMON BOOKSTORE wrote:
Introduction to the Book of Abraham makes reliable information accessible to the general reader

Fantastic! So, what is the king's name?

_________________
"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:23 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:22 pm
Posts: 1279
Does Gee respond to the analysis of his theory by Andrew Cooke and Chris Smith?

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf

_________________
John Stewart - Bill O'Reilly could be a candidate for Pope - He is Catholic and he believes he is infallible.
Maklelan " It's my belief that the Book of Mormon is the word of God. I've not reached many firm conclusions about its historicity."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:34 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am
Posts: 7300
Location: Somewhere between bemused and curious.
aussieguy55 wrote:
Does Gee respond to the analysis of his theory by Andrew Cooke and Chris Smith?

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/ ... of-Hor.pdf

John Gee responded with Formulas and Faith in which he demonstrates a complete lack understanding of basic mathematics. To which Cook and Smith responded with Formulas and Facts: A Response to John Gee

Seriously, if Gee had even bothered to have an undergrad student in math at BYU cross check what he said against what Cook & Smith wrote, Gee could have saved himself a lot of embarrassment, but it is clear Gee's response was only designed to be used as something the faithful could point to as a response, as long as they didn't bother to read it.

_________________
"Joseph's book is a great deal more useful to a student of the intellectual preoccupations and the folkways of New York State in the third decade of the nineteenth century than to a scholar who would reconstruct the pre-Columbian history of America."
Dale Morgan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 2:54 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 17733
Location: Koloburbia
If you view this book as an exercise in Let's Pretend, then there is no problem imagining a missing scroll written with some impossible to be actual Egyptian characters and hitherto unknown language structure. Once you feel comfortable, you might as well sit down with the White Rabbit for tea and read about the adventures of Abraham in Egypt as told to John Gee.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:06 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 4890
I'm sure that Chris Smith had fun and a certain amount of satisfaction in spending so much time and effort determining scroll length using mathematics and logical formulas. But, in the end, it's ultimately kind of pointless because it really just doesn't matter. Everyone can agree that there are some missing portions of papyrus but more importantly there is extant papyrus which was used by Joseph Smith to produce his Book of Abraham. Apologists have argued for the missing roll theory until blue in the face and they think they won. But, never, ever, has an apologist ever been able to refute or deny that Joseph Smith used the actual characters in the Facsimiles to produce the Explanations attached thereto. There is absolutely no question or doubt that Joseph Smith was looking at the very Egyptian characters written in the upper registers of Facsimile No. 3 when he gave the following so-called translations and revelations in revealing what the writing contained:


Fig. 1. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.

Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.

_________________
"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:18 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 4890
moksha wrote:
If you view this book as an exercise in Let's Pretend, then there is no problem imagining a missing scroll written with some impossible to be actual Egyptian characters and hitherto unknown language structure. Once you feel comfortable, you might as well sit down with the White Rabbit for tea and read about the adventures of Abraham in Egypt as told to John Gee.


I'd love to look John Gee square in the eyes and challenge him to identify the name of the king which is supposedly written in the characters above the head in Fig. 2. I'd ask him to please explain how a royal king's name is not contained within a cartouche. That's an absolute standard in literary Egyptian conventions. To deviate from that is just absolute nonsense. But, let's make one thing perfectly clear, Joseph Smith didn't know about the royal cartouche and had no idea that a king's name must be contained within a sacred iconic symbol of royal Egypt.

It's proof that Joseph Smith didn't know what he was talking about and had no business attempting to convince his followers that he could read Egyptian. The whole thing was a sham!

But, I'm sure zerinus would disagree because he doesn't believe conventional Egyptology but embraces Joseph Smith's fairyland version of false Egyptology. Everything Joseph Smith ever said has been proven false.

_________________
"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:19 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm
Posts: 5765
Shulem wrote:
Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.


Sorry for the dumb question after all these years of not knowing.

What is actually written above his head?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:29 pm 
Bell Ringer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 7:11 pm
Posts: 11502
Location: Notre-Dame de Paris (bell tower)
RockSlider wrote:
Shulem wrote:
Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.


Sorry for the dumb question after all these years of not knowing.

What is actually written above his head?


Jumping in (apologies to Shulem), it says: King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Joe, reading from the Bible, thought Pharaoh was the King's name instead of the Egyptian word for "King." Translated, it means King King. Maybe it's one of the best proofs that JSjr was making it up as he went along.

_________________
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 4890
RockSlider wrote:
Shulem wrote:
Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.


Sorry for the dumb question after all these years of not knowing.

What is actually written above his head?


"Label for Isis (text to the right of figure 2 of Facsimile No. 3): Isis the great, the god's mother."

Ritner, Robert K. (July 2003), "'The Breathing Permit of Hôr' Among the Joseph Smith Papyri", Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_appraisal_of_the_Book_of_Abraham

_________________
"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:45 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 4890
Quasimodo wrote:
Jumping in (apologies to Shulem), it says: King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Joe, reading from the Bible, thought Pharaoh was the King's name instead of the Egyptian word for "King." Translated, it means King King. Maybe it's one of the best proofs that JSjr was making it up as he went along.


Joseph Smith's incorrect usage of the word Pharaoh proved he didn't know what he was talking about and the anachronism clearly exposes him as a charlatan who thought he could fool his followers into thinking he was translating the long lost Egyptian language. The saints were amazed and credited Joseph Smith for once again handling the ancient Egyptian language as he did with the golden plates.

Really though, the term "King Pharaoh" is a ridiculous way to label a king of Egypt. It's unEgyptian and makes zero sense.

_________________
"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 3:51 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm
Posts: 5765
So do I understand this correctly?

1. Joseph Smith's given label of 'king king' was a blunder in the first place.
2. King King's name, pointed to by Joseph Smith is "Isis the great, the god's mother."


So after all these years I can answer Paul's question: "what is the kings name?"

Isis the great, the god's mother, damnit


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: John Gee flogs the missing scroll theory, again.
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2017 4:30 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 4890
RockSlider wrote:
So do I understand this correctly?

1. Joseph Smith's given label of 'king king' was a blunder in the first place.
2. King King's name, pointed to by Joseph Smith is "Isis the great, the god's mother."


So after all these years I can answer Paul's question: "what is the kings name?"

Isis the great, the god's mother, damnit



You got it. Joseph Smith's whacky explanations turn ancient Egypt on its head. Girls will be boys and gods will be slaves, it's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world.

Lo lo lo lo Lola

:lol:

_________________
"Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 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