Vogel Responds to John Gee 

I was quite disappointed with my friend Dan. It seems he found a few things that Gee was mistaken on, and used those to push a multitude of things Dan is mistaken on (not only on the BofA, but also stating Gee’s motivations etc.). I expected some progress over his series and over the years…

@@Joe-ty2jp Well go on Joe, enlighten us. Just one example will do. I see your youtube channel has zero content, same as your comment above.

@@Joe-ty2jp And?

@@jimgreen242 assuming you mean an example of something Dan is mistaken on? (Since you may believe him on Gee being wrong?)--Dan is wrong on almost everything that mattes. The characters are sequential, that's clear, but the GAEL was created "to the Book of Abraham," and is, therefore, dependent upon previously translated BofA text. The characters are created to the BofA, that's how the sequence goes. Also, there is clearly a missing long roll source for the BofA, and so on. : )

@@Joe-ty2jp Thanks Joe. Hoping others will respond to your comments and you to there's.

I guess you haven't heard about this Paul guy who has some amazing incites to the book of Abraham supporting Joseph Smith. He is frightening the critics who have actually blocked him from commenting on several sites. He has some brilliant evidence to explain why Joseph was adding characters that didn't match Egyptian. like we see in the facsimile 2 their were likewise Lacunas in the missing Abraham scroll. The dead sea scrolls had the same problems wherein they had to invent greek words and character's to fill in certain holes in the scrolls. Joseph and the scribes were likely using the book of breathings characters to fill several lacunas in an attempt to match the English translation with the Egyptian character's. What he proposes explains everything the critics question and supports the reality that Smith was actually translating. Don't miss this new evidence. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--ZCk6jX1CIY.html

Paul Gregersen debunked the Egyptologists.

I guess you haven't heard about this Paul guy who has some amazing incites to the book of Abraham supporting Joseph Smith. He is frightening the critics who have actually blocked him from commenting on several sites. He has some brilliant evidence to explain why Joseph was adding characters that didn't match Egyptian. like we see in the facsimile 2 their were likewise Lacunas in the missing Abraham scroll. The dead sea scrolls had the same problems wherein they had to invent greek words and character's to fill in certain holes in the scrolls. Joseph and the scribes were likely using the book of breathings characters to fill several lacunas in an attempt to match the English translation with the Egyptian character's. What he proposes explains everything the critics question and supports the reality that Smith was actually translating. Don't miss this new evidence. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--ZCk6jX1CIY.html

I guess you haven't heard about this Paul guy who has some amazing incites to the book of Abraham supporting Joseph Smith. He is frightening the critics who have actually blocked him from commenting on several sites. He has some brilliant evidence to explain why Joseph was adding characters that didn't match Egyptian. like we see in the facsimile 2 their were likewise Lacunas in the missing Abraham scroll. The dead sea scrolls had the same problems wherein they had to invent greek words and character's to fill in certain holes in the scrolls. Joseph and the scribes were likely using the book of breathings characters to fill several lacunas in an attempt to match the English translation with the Egyptian character's. What he proposes explains everything the critics question and supports the reality that Smith was actually translating. Don't miss this new evidence. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--ZCk6jX1CIY.html

real life john gee kind of is a Jethro Tull song in some respects lmao

What is your response to the reality of Paul Gregersen debunking the Egyptologists?

Thanks, Maven, it was nice to hear your story on Mormonism Live.

@@danvogel6802 Thanks Dan! Excited to have you on next week!

@@BackupChannel329 yes it was nice to hear your story. Thanks for being part of Bill and RFM world. No way! Dan is next week! Looking forward to hearing you Dan.

Paul Gregersen debunked the arrogant Egyptologists back in 2014.

Yesss!!😂

Google Book of Abraham pt 14 Paul Gregersen you tube.

The evidence seems to support Gee's overall theory. True, the characters are sequential, but the BofA clearly came before the GAEL, and the GAEL is reverse translated to it, just as the characters in the margins of the later manuscript copies are. Nibley was basically right (although not the miffed part) and Gee is right also, about reverse translation...I think Dan knows this...so, I'm curious, you seem to be leaning toward believing him, rather than the evidence, why?

@@Joe-ty2jp oh…no. My comment was a polite way of saying that I gave Gees theories much more credibility than they ever should have because he has a PhD. I expected academic integrity. When in fact, after further study, I found in his academic career he has failed to publish any of his Mormon related research in credible scientific journals outside Mormon affiliated journals. They are not published because he cannot get his articles passed the peer review process. When he realized no one in his field agrees with his biased interpretations he outwardly criticized the peer review process itself. Such an attack on peer review only exposes how far off his theories really are. The peer review process has functioned exactly as designed and has blocked his theories from gaining any sort of credibility by being printed in academic journals. I applaud the integrity of the scientific community. It is regrettable that I had to waste so much of my time sifting through the narratives brought forward by gee. He doesn’t not bring clarity to the book of Abraham, he only seems to confuse the history with his theories. Perhaps that’s his goal, to stir up and make it sound like we just cannot know what really happened with the book of Abraham translation. In the end I feel like gee is dishonest. He is not behaving as someone with his level of academic training should. Frankly, in front of lds audiences he is bold and overstates the evidence. Yet when pressed on those same claims by experts and those who are not ignorant he back-peddles considerably. Quite frankly that is dishonest in my opinion and it pisses me off that someone who claims to defend faith and truth needs to behave without integrity.

@@matthewfullmer3739 Oh, I appreciate the politeness. The scientific method will always involve some false assumptions. Dan makes them, Ritner is almost always wrong about the important things on the BofA, etc. John is sometimes wrong, but, the evidence leads me to believe he's generally correct, and those who attack him generally wrong e.g.; the BofA came first, the GAEL is reliant upon it and is a reverse translation to it; the Nov. manuscripts are, therefore, also reverse associations to characters; there is a missing papyri source; the facs. are correct as far as the subject of the BofA... : )...so, then, the ad hominem may be distraction...

The Egyptologists were debunked by Paul Gregersen back in 2014.

I have never seen Randy live, but admire his work. Mike Quinn sent me the documentary "An Honest Liar" previous to his death that Quinn got from the producer. Magic was a hobby in my youth and Houdini was one of my heroes.

@@danvogel6802 OMG looking forward to hearing you and RFM next week. Make sure to carve out a chunk of time to talk magic!

@@jimgreen242 It's going to me and Brent Metcalfe, so I'm not sure magic will come up.

Words that come to mind for Gee" lugubrious, lethargic, listless, disingenuous, evasive, circumlocutious, a creator of Rube Goldberg Linguistic Devices.

The two instances of the same character are from the top margins of the Book of Abraham manuscripts in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams and Warren Parrish. These are labeled A and B in the Joseph Smith Papers. See www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-manuscript-circa-july-circa-november-1835-a-abraham-14-26/1 and www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-manuscript-circa-july-circa-november-1835-b-abraham-14-22/1

I agree. His passing has left a void in critiquing the apologists from an Egyptological perspective.

@@danvogel6802 Have you reached out to either one and offered a scholarly public debate? Maybe you and Charles Larson could team up together. That would be epic. I will be more than willing to financially contribute to offset some of the cost.

Your Egyptologist friends have been proven wrong. Google Book of Abraham pt 14 Paul Gregersen you tube.

I think he saw the papyri as an opportunity to translate something that everyone could see and handle.

Thanks for the suggestion.

He doesn't even know Egyptian, so how could he do that?

@@danvogel6802 The Book of Abraham revelation/explanation from the obvious true prophet Joseph Smith is to be interpreted spiritually, not intellectually.

@@danvogel6802 In other words, the Egyptologists were debunked due to false assumptions.

@@richardholmes5676 What false assumptions? They can translate and Gregersen cannot.

@@richardholmes5676 Who says? JS claimed to translate specific characters in a way that makes no sense because he was only pretending. However, scholars can't say if the Book of Abraham is inspired or not.

If you are talking about the Book of Abraham being attached to the end of Hor's Book of Breathings, no, it's not a valid claim.

But where does that claim leave us? It just drips with desperation when every bit of scroll and pictograph we have lends zero credibility to the original claim of Joseph Smith. So yeah, it’s all got to be on some “missing” bit that may, or may not, exist. How convenient. It’s like the gold plates all over again. I remember telling investigators on my mission about Joseph and the translation of the plates. I would always get the question: “so where are the plates now?” My answer: “well, um, they’re in heaven. An angel took them back when the transition was done.” Never liked having to tell that. How convenient again that the thing we need to compare is gone, again.

@@OuttaMyMind911 Don't be fooled. We do have the source of the Book of Abraham.

@@danvogel6802 Hi Dan! I’m sure we have everything we need to show where the “translation” came from. It’s the original post that wants us believe that somehow the important stuff is somehow missing.

Yes but we do have Papyri [The facsimiles] that is currently in the BofA and that translation is completely wrong. How is that explained? Did he just use it as inspiration? If that is the case, then even if there was a 'missing' papyri it would most likely not relate at all to the BofA as well.

@@michaelgrey7854 Assuming "yes" means you agree on reverse translation...The facsimiles are translated correctly for the "case" of the BofA. The explanations were most likely created using the GAEL, and are only indirectly related to revelatory material, but you might notice that they don't really translate anything directly. : ) Keep searching and you'll find answers...if you really want them.

Nothing supports your he claim of another papyrus roll being used.

​@@shawnbradford2243 Not sure what you mean by "used" but scholars have been pointing out for nearly half a century (Nibley) that eyewitnesses described the writings of Abraham as being on a long roll with red writing etc. This is not extant and hasn't been translated by anyone (so all claims by JD, Ritner, etc. to have "translated the Book of Abraham" are misleading at best). This Abraham source scroll was most likely the 12" x 4" roll described-12" tall by 4" wide when rolled up, and, evidently, when unrolled, simply described as "long" etc. because it was never unrolled all the way for tourists, etc. Still, Haven's frame of reference is a "long" table (which may have filled the entire room). And, in Seyffarth's case, the frame of reference for the "large fragments of Egyptian papyrus scrolls" sold to the museum is a 60 foot papyri in Turin. Those "large" fragments are no longer extant.

We know facsimiles 2 and 3 are missing, no one has disputed that. But that doesn’t mean a real Book of Abraham is also missing. There is no evidence that the Hor papyrus contained anything other than the Book of Breathings. So far, you have committed the straw man fallacy and the possible proof fallacy. Are you sure you are equipped to assess the validity of the various arguments? You follow this with the accusation that the “anti-Mormons” can’t prove the Book of Abraham wasn’t on the long scroll. Seriously? I’ve seen some of your videos years ago. Not impressed. Don’t want to waste any more time. But just because something can’t be debunked doesn’t mean it’s true. The burden of proof is on you. Good luck.

@@danvogel6802 I think the word burden of proof is uniplicable on both my part and likewise yours. The absence of something not seen cannot possibly prove it's non existence, nor does the existence of one thing prove the non existence of other things in relation to it. Unless you had a time machine and could go back as an eye witness it becomes improbable that you could possibly know everything about a matter. Speculation and assumptions can almost always become self fulfilling conclusions by what only seems to be related evidence. More times than not one's conclusions can still turn out wrong because of the faulty arrangement of apparent evidence. This happens because of what is missing or not known in full. The burden of proof requires 100 percent. Therefore as sure as you might feel about your conclusions your explanations may be misleading. I see you leaving a lot of evidence out of your conclusions. Such as Joseph Smith's challenge to find the truth about his translation by finding the numbers or codes like 9 through 11 in facsimile 2. He says the translation is found in a number code not in any language to language translation. You ignore chapter 1:14 where the facsimiles are added to the book to demonstrate how false God's are fashioned or counterfeited. Is it not possible that you as well as BYU scholars are venturing down the wrong context and barking up the wrong tree? I've demonstrated that the number codes convert Egyptian Idolatry back into a biblical context. In other words convert what the Egyptians got wrong by translating it back into what it should be before the Egyptians corrupted it. I explain this exact mathematical arrangement which matches a predetermined outcome that seems to surpass the odds of coincidence. However, I admit there could still be more to my conclusions that remain open to added learning. See "Book of Abraham part 13"

@@paulgregersen3570 So you think you have taken a position that can neither be proved nor disproved because we can’t go back in a time machine. As historical theories or reconstructions go, the one that gets the most respect is the one that makes the most sense, has the most evidence, is the most defensible, and has the least speculation. Because it’s not like a scientific theory that can be tested and verified, doesn’t mean that all historical theories/reconstructions are equal. The test of competing theories is going on right now. So far, your theory lacks any credible evidence and appears to be a desperate attempt to avoid the most straightforward interpretation of the evidence. Your number-code theory is wrong, totally a weird, and a demonstration of how far believers will go to avoid the obvious.

@@danvogel6802 I might say that the number code in facsimile 2 is likewise not provable either but logically demonstrates a timeline that math wise fits the Priesthood sequences of Noah, Abraham, Isaak Jacob, Joseph and his son Ephraim which adds to number 7 after adding Joseph Smith. It's the birthright of Israel and not Egypt. Watch the last half of my video 13, and not just the opening portion of my video 13! The book of Abraham delineates the brightest stars of the heavens being separated from the borrowed light of the lesser stars by describing Noah and Abraham as brighter stars of priesthood light. Seven stars are counted on facsimile two. Number eight is the temple. The stars are obviously used as an object lesson for pre-existing prophets before their birth. ( Birthrights) (Abraham and others chosen before they were born on earth.) Joseph doesn't talk about Egyptian characters nor count them at all in his translation process. Why? Because they don't exist! They are no more true than silly cartoon image's. That's why you can't find them anywhere in Joseph's translation, J. Smith is obviously converting false deities back into Abraham's birthright stars and not relating anything to Osiris or Horus. Is he not converting Egyptian names into Hebrew names in the text? God told Abraham that the stars were Abraham's seed only, not any of the Egyptian personalities which are non-existent. Joseph never intended to translate fake cartoons as Egyptian characters. He says they represent Idolatry, he explains this clearly right in chapter one. Egyptian figures never existed as real gods or realities! God clearly commanded Abraham to preach to the Egyptians about one thing only! God tells Abraham his children will be numbered as stars in heaven are numbered." See "Abraham 3" verses 14 and 15" God commanded Abraham to teach the Egyptians nothing else but Israel's future posterity. (Stars related to his posterity not Egypt's.) It has nothing to do with Egyptian astronomy and it never did. Listen to this! The Lord clearly tells Abraham how the listed astronomy sequences by number order work. Abraham is commanded to teach the Egyptians about Abrahamic astronomy as related to Abraham's birthright only. Using the stars as an object lesson God tells Abraham to declare "THESE truths" (only) to the Egyptians. "Abraham 3:15. Teach only that specific astronomy relating to Abraham's posterity. (no other!) God gave him this directive only, however, few notice it! See the exact verses and the books own wording! Therefore Dr. Gee and the BYU guys are trying to make Egyptian astronomy fit with Abraham's astronomy, is wrong headed. God told Abraham to teach the Egyptians about astronomy but once again the Egyptians Paganized what Abraham taught them just as they did with Noah's priesthood order. Suddenly the stars were about Egyptian gods rather than God's family through Abraham. God clearly commanded Abraham to teach them Abraham's order and never Osiris in chapter 3! God commands Abraham to teach the Egyptians how that astronomy was about future Israel, not Egypt. Egypt once again counterfeited God's teachings about astronomy making it all about them. They obviously didn't like Abraham telling them how their counterfeited astronomy and birthright to the priesthood was wrong, They later tried to kill Abraham. Chapter one tells you how the Egyptians copied and counterfeited the gospel taught by Noah. Read it carefully! Joseph Smith tells us how the Egyptian astronomy represents a false astronomy and false priesthood heavenly order. Josephus declared that the Egyptians learned their arithmetic system from Abraham. Therefore facsimile 2 must represent that accurate math taught by Abraham even though it's been paganized. Joseph Smith said Abraham taught them this arithmetic. Therefore, Joseph Smith understood this perfectly, He wasn't ever going to translate Egyptian Idolatry into English. It was a false mythology that was arranged together by Abraham's true math. Therefore my facsimile arrangement of math works even the Egyptian characters are wrongly placed. God never commanded Joseph to translate anything false like what the Egyptians taught nor agree with anything they taught. God told Abraham to teach the Egyptian people about Israel's birthright ONLY! Therefore, all of the critics seek to find errors in a translation that never existed in the first place. Joseph and Abraham were translating what the Egyptians got wrong back into what God commanded only. In other words it was a conversion process taken from a fake religion back into a true religion. That's why you can't find a match for Egyptian gods with biblical characters. That notion was never about the books context! The alphabet and grammar material failed for one reason, it was never sanctioned by the church after Smith died. It ended abruptly because like the others realized, this couldn't be translated by men the same way God intended. God's ways are higher, he translated a false religion back into what it was before the Egyptians corrupted it. Both Joseph and his scribes thought they could combine the Egyptian characters with the translation they got from the Lord. It could never ever be transcribed because God never had any intention to translate anything about the Egyptian religion. Why? It was all fake! Book of Abraham 8 demonstrates why this effort produced nothing for the churches use even back then. I see yourself and others ignoring the book's instructive context and imposing foreign motives that sidestep the entire reasons listed in the book's text. God's translation used the Egyptian characters as a catalyst to convert what the Egyptians got wrong back into what he originally wanted to explain about Israel. You forget Egyptologists study mythical cartoons no more real than an Elmer Fudd cartoon. Trying to find truth from that perspective is the laughable part of all anti Mormon arguments. I see this as a far more desperation of their reasoning for grabbing at straw man arguments on their part..

@@paulgregersen3570 You still claiming the apostle John Comes to you and teaches you this stuff right, or has that changed?

Trust the evidence. Can you speak to that?

I'm neither a pot nor a kettle. Your argument is not logical. Each claim to miracles and the supernatural stands alone. Joseph Smith's claim to translate Egyptian can be checked against the papyri. We can't check Moses' claims, but if you could and you found that the stone tablets bore the marks of a chisel wouldn't you doubt the claim that the commandments were written by the finger of God?

@@danvogel6802 Joseph Smith also claims to have translated the Book of Mormon, but oft times he simply mouthed words which were appearing before him with his head in his hat while looking at a little river-rock (according to you.) So you either believe he was the Lord's mouthpiece and a Prophet, or you don't. The Gold Plates, ancient papyrus and things, were simply tangible links to the past. The whole story is a spiritual one and not unlike all biblical stories. It's called "faith and religion" and no religion stands up to scientific cross-examination. It's unfair to single-out one religion over another and subject their matters of faith, to scientific cross-examination, without holding all religions up to the same standards. Your scrutinization of every aspect of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is only fair, if you likewise subject all religious sects and denominations, to the same. Where are your critical RU-vid-videos on other religions besides mine?

@@jamesbaldwin7676 do you know how many religions exist? Why is Dan responsible for speaking about all of them? He has expertise on Mormonism not the thousands of others. Stop trying to shift from his points.

@@SploinkyDH. Why is Dan singling-out my faith when there are are 45,000 to choose from?

@@jamesbaldwin7676 Like I said "He has expertise on Mormonism not the thousands of others."