Gee's scholarship/honesty

[_Bond...James Bond]

Shades can move it there if he wants.

I tend to stay out of the celestial forum. My hypocrisy only goes so far.

Just asking....here it shall stay................and may I also LOL at that last bit :)

[_Analytics]

Here is a color scan from a page in Gee's book....

Enter Brent Metcalfe, who owns high quality photo copies of the original documents. Here is a color copy of Gee's example #1, whereby he argues that this indicates 1) that two different inks were used and 2) that the Egyptian "runs over" the English text.

Of course the text clearly shows that the ink is precisely the same on both sides of the margin, and it is clear that the English text has not been "run over." This is why Gee gets a well deserved hard time from critics.

Hi Kevin,

Very interesting; thanks for sharing this!

For the sake of being an honest and fair critic of Gee, I’m going to challenge half of this specific criticism.

He doesn’t argue that example #1 indicates that two different inks were used; he is only claiming that examples 2, 3, 4, and 6 indicate that.

But I do agree with you that this doesn’t appear to be “running over the English text”. To me, it looks like the English text was written around it, or more likely immediately after it.

[_Paul Osborne]

QUESTIONS FOR DR. JOHN GEE:

1. What is the name of king pharaoh in Facsimile No. 3?

2. Can you transliterate Shulem as shown in Facsimile No. 3?

3. Why is the slave in Facsimile No. 3 black?

4. Can an Egyptian god masquerade as a slave?

Paul O

[_Paul Osborne]

Dear John Gee,

Will you stand behind the prophet and agree with him? Or would you tell him he doesn't know what he is talking about it? Do speak up, I can't hear you!

“Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.]”

(Times & Seasons; November 1, 1843)

Paul O

[_Who Knows]

For the sake of being an honest and fair critic of Gee, I’m going to challenge half of this specific criticism.

He doesn’t argue that example #1 indicates that two different inks were used; he is only claiming that examples 2, 3, 4, and 6 indicate that.

But examples 3 and 6 are from the same mss. as example 1. Same story there.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Paul,

You are a dirty anti-mo'pologist.

You can all fight it out in hell, cuz you all are headed there!

[_CaliforniaKid]

notice that all Gee's examples come from the latter half of the manuscript. The characters in the first half are not so bold and are quite clearly in the same ink as the accompanying text.

[_Paul Osborne]

Chapter 4 ends with a bomb shell. Dr. Gee uses a cheap trick to convert our dear godesses into conventional men in a vain effort to conventionally fit Joseph Smith's interpretation into conventional Egyptology. Here is the last paragraph:

"Facsimile 3: Facsimile 3 has received the least attention. The principal complaint raised by the critics has been regarding the female attire worn by figures 2 and 4, who are identified as male royalty. It has been documented, however, that on certain occasions, for certain ritual purposes, some Egyptian men dressed up as women."

And there you have it, EGEEyptology! What a trick and it started with Nibley! Gee wants his readers to quickly dismiss the idea that the prophet was incorrect in his conventional interpretation and wave off the critics with one swift stroke. What Gee fails to mention is that the chief complaint is that the artist who drew the characters in the funerary papyrus was actually drawing two godesses with no thought of them being men - this is attested by the writing above their heads and the very nature of an Osiris scene wich always keeps within the conventions of the Egyptian religion.

I'm afraid Gee's little trick doesn't work with me. It's deceit, outright.

Paul O

[_truth dancer]

Why not get the originals into the hands of some real experts to evaluate?

Has anyone actually asked the church if they are willing to allow document experts to analyze them?

Personally I think Brent's photos give us a clear picture, but still, expert evaluation would be beneficial.

And... anyone know when we can expect Brent's book? I'm impatiently waiting! LOL!

~dancer~

[_Paul Osborne]

notice that all Gee's examples come from the latter half of the manuscript. The characters in the first half are not so bold and are quite clearly in the same ink as the accompanying text.

You will note that Book of Abraham LDS apologists don't play with a full stack of cards. If they laid everything out on the table in full living color for everyone to see they know that they would loose their argument hands down. Believe me, if they really thought they could win the argument they would have shown all their cards years ago. The only reason this saga drags on is because they are stalling for time and don't have a very good hand. Can a two pair beat a royal flush?

It amazes me how much Nibley tried to make his two pair look unbeatable. That is the result of popular LDS Book of Abraham paradigm. They have lost and they only need to admit it. Then, after they dump Nibley, they can move on to a better paradigm, such as mine. :-)

All the LDS apolgists need to do is let go of their pride. Until they do that they are bound up in Nibley's errors. But some university scholars are not quick to lay aside their pride because they tend to think they are above it all. Oh how great they are because of their degrees! What good is a degree if their entire apologetic paradigm is built on a wrong foundation?

Paul O