The "missing Papyrus" Theory

[John Williams]

If you want to see where the thinking has been done take a trip to the FAIR Obsession Board where they carefully and masterfully analyze what is said here. You can learn how it really is without having to lift a page in a book.

And CA tells us what he really thinks over there...we are all just brainless liars, you see. Why go further? What else would anyone ever need to know?

And for a little fluff, we have this from Jersey girl and pal:

So there we have it. Why think when you can just call the other side stupid, dishonest, brainless people who have wasted their lives getting an education? Only on that site could they put those two things together and draw the same conclusions. But that is what happens when the thinking stops.

Were you reading the same thread I was? I don't know how you got what you did out of that thread.

[juliann]

Talk about apologetics. Does any of this quibbling about what you guys really say make one whit of difference? Saying someone checks their brains at the door is significantly different than saying they are brainless. Good grief. And Jersey Girl...the last thing you should want people to see is your insulting post in its entirety...but then every thread has to be about you, eh?

The point is that the defense of the countermo is exactly this kind of bomb throwing at the people who do do the real work. And that in your minds...is "thinking". Just call the other side stupid and you are done. You participate in pages of this kind of "thinking" on other boards. Why be coy here? When do you get around to putting up something of substance other than what a big joke it all is? Yuk yuk.

[John Williams]

Talk about apologetics. Does any of this quibbling about what you guys really say make one whit of difference? Saying someone checks their brains at the door is significantly different than saying they are brainless. Good grief. And Jersey Girl...the last thing you should want people to see is your insulting post in its entirety...but then every thread has to be about you, eh?

The point is that the defense of the countermo is exactly this kind of bomb throwing at the people who do do the real work. And that in your minds...is "thinking". Just call the other side stupid and you are done. You participate in pages of this kind of "thinking" on other boards. Why be coy here? When do you get around to putting up something of substance other than what a big joke it all is? Yuk yuk.

Nobody likes a board nanny...try talking about the topic instead of evaluating posters. Good grief.

[juliann]

Juliann, you have misrepresented what I stated. Nowhere in the above did I imply or assert that people have wasted their lives in getting an education. I simply stated that some have invested nearly their whole lives, time and money in defending. The remainder of my comments build on that thought.

Jersey Girl

Yeah, I see it now. It was a compliment. Investing their whole lives has nothing to do with their education. That part was ok even though it is the basis of what they are doing. The real problem is they are stupid and don't know the truth when they see it.

Yes, the thinking has been done! You now have their entire lives figured out and discounted. Kudos!

[Jersey Girl]

Talk about apologetics. Does any of this quibbling about what you guys really say make one whit of difference? Saying someone checks their brains at the door is significantly different than saying they are brainless. Good grief. And Jersey Girl...the last thing you should want people to see is your insulting post in its entirety...but then every thread has to be about you, eh?

The point is that the defense of the countermo is exactly this kind of bomb throwing at the people who do do the real work. And that in your minds...is "thinking". Just call the other side stupid and you are done. You participate in pages of this kind of "thinking" on other boards. Why be coy here? When do you get around to putting up something of substance other than what a big joke it all is? Yuk yuk.

Juliann,

It's not about me until you make it about me by posting partial excerpts of my posts and misrepresent them for divisive purposes. You'll recall that my re-entry to this board was based on the same principle. I pose my question to you once again, why engage in apologetics?

Jersey Girl

[juliann]

Nobody likes a board nanny...try talking about the topic instead of evaluating posters. Good grief.

So John Gee isn't a stupid liar anymore or you just don't want me talking about him? I'm not quite clear on that. (He has posted here, you know).

[John Williams]

So John Gee isn't a stupid liar anymore or you just don't want me talking about him? I'm not quite clear on that. (He has posted here, you know).

No, I just thought your post was rather ironic. Quoting you seemed to be the best way to gently point that out.

Cheers.

[Jersey Girl]

Yeah, I see it now. It was a compliment. Investing their whole lives has nothing to do with their education. That part was ok even though it is the basis of what they are doing. The real problem is they are stupid and don't know the truth when they see it.

Yes, the thinking has been done! You now have their entire lives figured out and discounted. Kudos!

You have once again, misrepresented what I wrote. If the thinking has been done, I would not have posed a series of questions. I ask you for the third time to engage on point:

Why engage in apologetics?

Jersey Girl

[Chris Smith]

Saying someone checks their brains at the door is significantly different than saying they are brainless. Good grief.

Like I said, they're all competent scholars. They just suspend critical thinking when they approach the BoA. Kind of like how you suspend critical thinking when you read posts by people you're predisposed to think are idiots.

[juliann]

Why engage in apologetics?

Why indeed? It is so much easier to just call the other side lying dupes. (Which is what you did say, dear). That way you don't have to take on the topic! The thinking has been done!

A refresher of what you said: What disturbs me is the thought that they either knowingly know their products lack good reason and are pedaling it off on their own tribe, or that they truly believe their products are well reasoned and are pedaling it off on their own tribe...and themselves.

Their, oftimes, unwillingness to allow challenge tells me that they care little about truth.

You packed quite a bit in there. We are pedaling lies and know it or are just stupid. Now that is a winning apologetic! Unless one likes to think things through...

Like I said, they're all competent scholars. They just suspend critical thinking when they approach the BoA. Kind of like how you suspend critical thinking when you read posts by people you're predisposed to think are idiots.

Oh! They are only brainless lying dupes when they get into the BOA! Well that makes it all better. THanks for clarifying. I also have to wonder why they waste their lives defending stuff when they could just do it all in one sentence like you do!

[phaedrus ut]

This is completely annoying. A few posters were having a decent conversation and keeping on topic. Then one poster comes in and completely derails the thread with her comments. If it was anyone else, a moderator would have come in and said

Please keep your comments on topic or start another thread.

That apparently, isn't' going to happen so we have to put up with a bunch on inane rants and attacks on other posters. Now the thread is scattered and barely readable.

Maybe we can make a separate forum exclusively for such derailments?

Phaedrus

[John Williams]

This is completely annoying. A few posters were having a decent conversation and keeping on topic. Then one poster comes in and completely derails the thread with her comments. If it was anyone else, a moderator would have come in and said

Please keep your comments on topic or start another thread.

That apparently, isn't' going to happen so we have to put up with a bunch on inane rants and attacks on other posters. Now the thread is scattered and barely readable.

Maybe we can make a separate forum exclusively for such derailments?

Phaedrus

Sorry for responding to the derailment.

[Jersey Girl]

Juliann,

I'm not going to allow you to engage me in bitterness. I will respond to this last series of comments that you've made.

I asked:

Why engage in apologetics?

And you replied:

Why indeed? It is so much easier to just call the other side lying dupes. (Which is what you did say, dear). That way you don't have to take on the topic! The thinking has been done!

QUOTE

A refresher of what you said: What disturbs me is the thought that they either knowingly know their products lack good reason and are pedaling it off on their own tribe, or that they truly believe their products are well reasoned and are pedaling it off on their own tribe...and themselves.

Their, oftimes, unwillingness to allow challenge tells me that they care little about truth.

You packed quite a bit in there. We are pedaling lies and know it or are just stupid. Now that is a winning apologetic! Unless one likes to think things through...

To which I now reply: Is there a third alternative explanation beyond those which I listed? For example, what better way to hone one's position and articulation of that position than to subject it to challenge? How does one know if one's product is well reasoned if one does not allow challenge? When I write professional papers, my work is subject to evaluation. The evaluative process often includes reflective analysis initiated by questioning. Should that not be the case when one engages in apologetics? Challenges that I have atttempted to offer have almost always been in that questioning form. When one fails to engage in examination of their work via that process, it leaves me to conclude that they are unwilling to accept challenge. If my thoughts are off base and you'd like to engage regarding that process, feel free to begin a new topic thread as a moderator has already intervened and placed emphasis on remaining on topic.

Jersey Girl

[Chris Smith]

Sorry for responding to the derailment.

Me too.

[phaedrus ut]

Me too.

Maybe I'm just being too picky and to make it clear I'm not pointing the finger at you. I was enjoying reading the points made by yourself and others along the topic. It reminds me of the news clip I saw recently where Tibetian buddhist monks had spent days making a sand painting and some little kid goes under the ropes and dances on it.

Phaedrus

// It may be hypocritical to complain about people derailing threads with a post that does just that.

[John Williams]

We're talking about something like fifteen or twenty sequential characters from the papyrus that are also sequential in the margins of the manuscript. Where there are holes or missing portions in the papyrus, they are invented or borrowed characters in the manuscript margin.

http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/BOA/BOA_5.html

-CK

Thanks for that link. I'm no expert on the BofA, but I enjoy reading the discussions between people who know more than I do (that's not difficult).

[John D the First]

We're talking about something like fifteen or twenty sequential characters from the papyrus that are also sequential in the margins of the manuscript.

Thanks CK, the argument against the missing manuscript theory makes more sense now.

[William Schryver]

CaliforniaKid continues to approach the outskirts of libel with his repeated public denunciations of John Gee. And yet, all he will say in response to Geeâ??s arguments about Seyffarthâ??s description of the scroll of Hor is that he (Gee) is jumping to conclusions. Never mind that Gee is probably the foremost living expert on Seyffarthâ??s papers â?¦ if CaliforniaKid tells us that Gee doesnâ??t know what heâ??s talking about â?? then I guess weâ??re compelled to take CKâ??s word over that of the laughing-stock Gee â?? right?

Not only that, but my arguments concerning missing portions of the scrolls doesnâ??t depend on Geeâ??s analysis of Seyffarthâ??s observations. We know that there are significant portions of the original papyri that are now missing. The undeniable absence of Facsimiles #2 and #3 proves that!

And there is considerable testimony in the historical record to support the argument that the total volume of scroll material was many times that of the surviving fragments.

If someone wants to start a new thread on why the KEPA manuscripts have characters from the scroll of Hor in the left-hand column, I am willing to go there again. I have continued to learn more and refine my views about that topic, but it is not relevant to the question of whether or not there are â??missingâ? portions of the original papyri. And I was under the impression that this thread was asking that simple question.

Therefore, I will respond as at first:

The surviving fragments of the so-called â??Joseph Smith Papyriâ? represent a fraction of the original collection of Egyptian scrolls purchased in July 1835 by Joseph Smith from Michael Chandler.

That is a simple, undeniable fact.

[Olavarria]

The surviving fragments of the so-called â??Joseph Smith Papyriâ? represent a fraction of the original collection of Egyptian scrolls purchased in July 1835 by Joseph Smith from Michael Chandler.

That is a simple, undeniable fact.

No they dont, they are the smoking gun

[Chris Smith]

if CaliforniaKid tells us that Gee doesnâ??t know what heâ??s talking about â?? then I guess weâ??re compelled to take CKâ??s word over that of the laughing-stock Gee â?? right?

Will,

Before you accuse me of engaging in summary dismissals, you might want to read the link I provided earlier in this thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208098112

It includes a discussion of Gee's Seyffarth extrapolation.

Therefore, I will respond as at first:

The surviving fragments of the so-called â??Joseph Smith Papyriâ? represent a fraction of the original collection of Egyptian scrolls purchased in July 1835 by Joseph Smith from Michael Chandler.

That is a simple, undeniable fact.

The original post asked about the "missing papyrus" theory of the BoA. The missing papyrus theory holds not just that there is missing papyrus (which is a given), but that-- with the exception of facsimile 1-- the Book of Abraham was produced entirely from papyrus that is no longer extant.

Of course, you knew that. But it's more fun to do a one-two punch on the straw-man, isn't it?

-CK

[William Schryver]

CK:

The original post asked about the "missing papyrus" theory of the BoA. The missing papyrus theory holds not just that there is missing papyrus (which is a given), but that-- with the exception of facsimile 1-- the Book of Abraham was produced entirely from papyrus that is no longer extant.

1. At least you are acknowledging the fact that the surviving papyri only represent a fraction of the original collection. That, of course, was the entire thrust of my initial post in this thread.

2. The question as to what Egyptian text is the source for the Book of Abraham is, of course, the much-disputed issue. No one has ever established the source for the Book of Abraham. The fact that we only have fragments of the original body of papyri leaves open the distinct possibility that the source for the BoA is among the large amount of lost scroll material.

3. You have apparently misunderstood Geeâ??s arguments vis-

[Olavarria]

may I remind everyone that a liar is someone who knowingly says something that he knows is untrue.

For example:

I am an overwieght white woman*.

*huge lie.

[Orpheus]

But to libel Gee as a â??liarâ? on the basis of your disagreement with his arguments is unwarranted, to say the least. Indeed, I have been requested to inform you that you may find yourself subjected to legal action in the near future on the basis of your continued insistence on publicly impugning the character of the good professor.

MADB will not fight any legal requests for the identities of posters who have a habit of calling poster-scholars names, smearing their honesty or questioning their integrity on this board or any other board. The next person who does it here will be banned. We aren't going to turn this board into a sewer. Anybody who has to leave the topic for verbal abuse on a steady basis doesn't have anything to offer us.

Added: This thread went downhill when Noel slammed and insulted others who disagreed with his theory. Others responded in kind. Then Journeyman started up the ultimate insult of the thinking being done. Others responded in kind. California Kid then started maligning Gee professionally and personally. The Mormons didn't start this folks and those of you who think you can come here and talk like this with impunity need to reaquaint yourselves with our board policy. It matters who starts it.

[Skylla]

No, I just thought your post was rather ironic. Quoting you seemed to be the best way to gently point that out.

Cheers.

It's not your responsibility to point that out. We graciously gave you another chance on this board and we expect good behavior from you.

To all:

I've said this before. The moderators don't see every post of every thread. Send a report if you think a rule has been violated. I have noticed a lot of whining from certain posters who rarely call anything to our attention.

Skylla

[Chris Smith]

OK, folks, I was out of line to ever use the word "lie." No matter what I may think of a person's intentions, I am not a mind reader and should not be slinging around accusations like that. I apologize to Gee and whoever else may have been offended by it, and I will edit any posts that intimate such a thing. Intentional or not, the main point is that Gee's assertion is not correct, and that I think I can say here without getting myself in trouble. I will keep further discussion where it belongs: on the issues.

No one has ever established the source for the Book of Abraham.

"Established" is an ambiguous term. That the source is the sensen fragment has certainly been established to my satisfaction, and I also think the evidence more than meets any secular standard of credibility. See my link above.

3. You have apparently misunderstood Geeâ??s arguments vis-