I thought Joseph said this was written in "Reformed Egyptian" before he "translated"
it with his magic peep stone and got every word wrong.
Posted on 07/07/2009 11:45:23 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Reformed Egyptian
William J. Hamblin
This paper is part of a series of FARMS papers intended to give clear, concise answers to criticisms that have raised against the Book of Mormon. As can be seen in the footnotes, much is owed to previous researchers who have addressed these criticisms. The foundation wishes to thank Matthew Roper for his help in gathering and summarizing large portions of the raw material for this series of papers.
Critics of the Book of Mormon maintain that there is no language known as "reformed Egyptian."
What is "reformed Egyptian?"
Critics who raise the objection seem to be operating under the false impression that reformed Egyptian is used in the Book of Mormon as a proper name. In fact, the word reformed is used in the Book of Mormon in this context as an adjective, meaning "altered, modified, or changed." This is made clear by Mormon, who tells us that "the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, [were] handed down and altered by us" and that "none other people knoweth our language" (Mormon 9:32, 34). First we should emphasize that Mormon is describing Egyptian characters, or what we today would call a script or writing system. It is the form or shape of the characters or symbols that was altered by the Nephites. Nephite reformed Egyptian is thus a unique script. It derived from the Egyptian writing systems but then was modified and adapted to suit Nephite language and writing materials.
The fact that modern linguists and philologists don't know of a script known as reformed Egyptian is irrelevant, since Mormon tells us that the script was called reformed Egyptian "by us," that is, by the Nephites; they may have been the only people to use that descriptive phrase. For example, both the terms cuneiform and hieroglyphics are non-Egyptian terms for the scripts of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt.1 The Mesopotamians did not call their writing system cuneiform, nor did the Egyptians call their writing system hieroglyphics.2 Nevertheless, we would not insist that the Mesopotamians and Egyptians never existed because they did not call their writing systems by the same names used by modern historians, philologists, and archaeologists.
Does the Book of Mormon's assertion that the Nephites took Egyptian characters and modified them to write Hebrew words make historical and linguistic sense?3 It is a common phenomenon for a basic writing system to undergo significant changes in the course of time, especially when written with new writing materials.4 Turning specifically to Egyptian, there are numerous examples of modified (or reformed) Egyptian characters being used to write non-Egyptian languages, none of which were known in Joseph Smith's day.
Examples of "reformed Egyptian"
Egyptian hieratic and demotic. The Egyptian language was written in three related but distinct scripts. The oldest is hieroglyphic script, dating to around 3000 B.C.; it was essentially a monumental script for stone inscriptions. Hieratic, a second script, is a modified form of Egyptian hieroglyphics used to write formal documents on papyrus with brush and ink, and demotic is a cursive script.5 Thus, both the hieratic and demotic scripts could be considered "reformed" or modified versions of the original hieroglyphic script. These are both examples of writing the Egyptian language in reformed versions of the Egyptian hieroglyphic script; there are also several examples of the use of reformed or modified Egyptian characters to write non-Egyptian languages.
Byblos Syllabic texts. The earliest known example of mixing a Semitic Ianguage with modified Egyptian hieroglyphic characters is the Byblos Syllabic inscriptions (eighteenth century B.C.), from the city of Byblos on the Phoenician coast.6 This script is described as a "syllabary [that] is clearly inspired by the Egyptian hieroglyphic system, and in fact is the most important link known between the hieroglyphs and the Canaanite alphabet."7 Interestingly enough, most Byblos Syllabic texts were written on copper plates. Thus, it would not be unreasonable to describe the Byblos Syllabic texts as a Semitic language written on metal plates in "reformed Egyptian characters,"8 which is precisely what the Book of Mormon describes.
Cretan hieroglyphics. Early forms of writing in Crete apparently developed from a combination of "Egyptian hieroglyphic, Mesopotamian cuneiform and Phoenician native signs into one single, new pictographic script."9 Note again that there is a mixture of Semitic (Mesopotamian and Phoenician) and Egyptian writing systems, precisely as described in the Book of Mormon.
Meroitic. Meroitic, the script of ancient Nubia (modern Sudan), "was first recorded in writing in the second century B.C. in an 'alphabetic' script consisting of twenty-three symbols, most of which were borrowed or at least derived from Egyptian writing....The script has two forms, hieroglyphic and cursive."10 Meroitic hieroglyphic signs were "borrowed from the Egyptian...[and] the cursive script derived mainly from the Egyptian demotic script."11
Psalm 20 in demotic Egyptian. Scholars have also recently deciphered an Aramaic version of Psalm 20:2—6 that was written in demotic Egyptian characters.12 This is precisely what the Book of Mormon claims existed: a version of the Hebrew scriptures in the Hebrew language, but written using Egyptian characters.
Proto-Sinaitic and the alphabet. Semitic speakers of early second millennium B.C. Syria and Palestine seem to have adopted reformed or modified versions of both Egyptian hieroglyphs and Mesopotamian cuneiform into syllabic and alphabetic systems of writing. Ultimately, this reformed Egyptian script became the basis for the Phoenician alphabet, from which nearly all subsequent alphabets derive.13 "The Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions were written in a Semitic language, and...their letters were the prototypes for the Phoenician alphabet. The letters are alphabetic, acrophonic in origin, and consonantal, and their forms are derived from Egyptian hieroglyphs."14 "Since the Canaanite/Phoenician syllabary formed the basis of the Greek alphabet, and the Greek in turn of the Latin, it means, in the words of Gardiner, that 'the hieroglyphs live on, though in transmuted [or could we not say reformed?] form, within our own alphabet.'"15 In a very real sense, our own Latin alphabet is itself a type of reformed Egyptian, since the ultimate source of our characters is Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Conclusion
There are thus a number of historical examples of Semitic or other languages being written in "reformed" or modified Egyptian script; the Book of Mormon account is entirely plausible on this point.
Notes
1. The term cuneiform was first used in the nineteenth century, while hieroglyphics was the Greek term for the Egyptian writing system.
2. For a general introduction on hieroglyphics, see W. V. Davies, Egyptian Hieroglyphics (London: British Museum Publications, 1987).
3. John Gee summarizes the evidence and analysis on the subject, arguing for a Hebrew-based language written in an Egyptian-based script in his "La Trahison des Clercs: On the Language and Translation of the Book of Mormon," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6/1 (1994): 79—83, 94—99.
4. Michelle P Brown, A Guide to Western Historical Scripts from Antiquity to 1600 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), provides examples of the wide array of scripts of the Roman alphabet, many of which are unrecognizable without training.
5. Davies, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, 21—24.
6. For basic summary and bibliography, see David Noel Freedman, ed., The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:178—80. For a detailed linguistic study and translation, see George E. Mendenhall, The Syllabic Inscriptions from Byblos (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1985). The original publication with full plates and transcriptions is M. Dunand, Byblia Grammata: Documents et recherches sur le deoeloppement de l'ecriture en phenicie (Beirut: Direction des Antiquites, 1945); photographs and transcriptions of all the documents can be found on pp. 71.
7. Anchor Bible Dictionary, 4:178b.
8. Hugh W. Nibley, Lehi in the Desert; the World of the Jaredites; There Were Jaredites, vol. 5 in The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988): 105.
9. Jan Best and Fred Woudhuizen, eds., Ancient Scripts from Crete and Cyprus (Leiden Brill, 1988), 4.
10. Davies, Egyptian Hieroglyphics, 61.
11. Jean Leclamt, "The Present Position in the Deciphering of Meroitic Script," in The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of Meroitic Script (Ghent: Unesco, 1978), 112.
12. Stephen D. Ricks, "Language and Script in the Book of Mormon," Insights (May 1992), 1; Charles F. Nirns and Richard C. Steiner, "A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2—6 from the Aramaic Text in Demobc Script," Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): 261—74; Richard C. Steiner, "The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year's Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash," Journal of the American Orientnal Society 111/2 (1991): 362—63; For a full bibliography, see Gee, "La Trahison des Clercs," 96—97, n. 147. See also John A. Tvedtnes, "Linguistic Implications of the Tel-Arad Ostraca," Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic Archaeology 127 (1971): 1—5.
13. Joseph Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1982). I. J. Gelb, A Study of Writing, 3rd ed. (Chicago: Universiy of Chicago Press, 1969), x—xi, provides a chart illustration the derivation of the Phoenician and all subsequent alphabets from Egyptian hieroglyphics.
14. Benjamin sass, The Genesis of the Alphabet and Its Development in the Second Millennium B.C. (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasawitz, 1988), 106.
15. Davies, Egyptian Heiroglyphics, 60. The same page provides a chart illustration the transformation of heiroglyphics into alphabetic symbols of out Latin alphabet.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
Thin-skinned (emotional, whiney or mercurial temper) posters are the disruptors on open threads.
Another in a series of threads regarding the authenticity (and scholarship) of the Book of Mormon
Ping
I thought Joseph said this was written in "Reformed Egyptian" before he "translated"
it with his magic peep stone and got every word wrong.
REFORMED EGYPTIAN
(with no apologies to the Bangles whatsoever)
All the old paintings on the tombs
They don't mean what you think they do
This guy named Joseph (oh whey oh)
You'd better listen, he's a Mo
Hugh Nibley, Doctor, BYU
Knows more than Egyptologists
Old papyrus (oh whey oh)
It isn't what they say it is
Elder Bill on the bicycle says
Ay oh whey oh, ay oh whey oh
Reformed Egyptian
The missionaries, with neckties
They ride around and knock on your door
Won’t they be shocked (oh whey oh)
When asked, to find they don’t know more
Joseph says he saw a Personage
Oh wait he now says he saw two
Pick up the plates (oh whey oh)
He had a stronger back than you
All the kids in the mission field say
Ay oh whey oh, ay oh whey oh
Reformed Egyptian
Wear beehive jammies on your back
If you sin too much, you’ll turn black
You must do this, (doncha know)
To avoid Terrestrial Heaven, Jack
If you want to find all the wives
Look on the psychiatric couch
Prozac won’t help them (oh whey oh)
Perfection takes it’s toll, hey! Ouch!
Authorities from the Salty Sea say
Ay oh whey oh, ay oh whey oh
Reformed Egyptian
Reformed Egyptian
Detractors’ point was never that there is no script named, “reformed Egyptian,” but that the script Smith called “reformed Egyptian” does not exist. It’s been a century and a half, filled with amazing discoveries, but still no sign of this language.
That’s actually funny.
LOL
"Retroactive continuity is the deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction.[1] The change is informally referred to as a "retcon", and producing a retcon is called "retconning".
LOL...very good!
Unlike the examples of ‘modified’ written languages the article cites, absolutely NOTHING resembling egyptian has been found to substantiate the use of the language here in the americas. IF such a vast civilization existed, there should be an abundance of written evidence. Mayan shows absolutely no affinity to any middle eastern writing or languages.
Yes, Mormonism leaves you with many new words to add to your vocabulary:
retcon
cog dis
kolob
4. The Book of Abraham
There is ongoing work being done on the Book of Abraham, with transcripts and analysis by John Gee, Brian Hauglid, Michael Rhodes, and John Tvedtnes, in conjunction with FARMS.[2]
Ultimately, the primary sources for all the scriptures of the Church will, it appears, be made available to scholars. This is a wonderful development in scriptural research.
From The Earliest Textual Sources for Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the King James Bible
....this thread was inspired by an LDS Caucus thread!
I was told that Smith copied his “reformed Egyptian,” from the “Book of the Dead.” Is there any truth to this?
I found this: Others may have better sources.
"Three facsimiles are published with the text of the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. All are similar to Egyptian illustrations known from other sources.
FACSIMILE NUMBER 1. Representations similar to Facsimile 1 abound in Egyptian religious texts. A typical example appears in the 151st chapter of the Book of the Dead, showing the God Anubis embalming Osiris, who is lying on a lion couch. In some details, such as the posture of the reclining figure, Facsimile 1 differs from other Egyptian texts.
Only for Facsimile 1 is the original document known to be extant. Comparisons of the papyrus fragments as well as the hieroglyphic text accompanying this drawing demonstrate that it formed a part of an Egyptian religious text known as the Book of Breathings. Based on paleographic and historical evidence, this text can be reliably dated to about the first century A.D. Since reference is made to this illustration in the book of Abraham (Abr. 1:12), many have concluded that the Book of Breathings must be the text that the Prophet Joseph Smith used in his translation. Because the Book of Breathings is clearly not the book of Abraham, critics claim this is conclusive evidence that Joseph Smith was unable to translate the ancient documents.
In the historical documents currently possessed by the Church, Joseph Smith never described fully the actual process he used in translating ancient documents. In reference to the Book of Mormon, he said that it was "not expedient" for him to relate all the particulars of its coming forth (HC 1:220; see Book of Mormon Translation By Joseph Smith). He did, in several instances, refer to the book of Abraham as a translation (HC 4:543, 548); and when the installments of the book of Abraham were published in the Millennial Star, it was described as being "translated by Joseph Smith" (July 1842, p. 34). Both Wilford Woodruff (in his journal) and Parley P. Pratt (in the July 1842 Millennial Star ) maintained that the translation was done by means of the Urim and Thummim, although Joseph Smith himself does not mention using this instrument anywhere in the translation.
I wasn't aware that Joseph ever copied any "reformed Egyptian." The sample I posed that Joseph identified as "reformed Egyptian" came from one of the "sacred scrolls" the Saints purchased from Michael Chandler in Kirtland, Ohio in 1834.
In fact, the papyrus writing is a standard funerary text known as "The Book of Breathings." It was written in the first century B.C. for the benefit of a Egyptian priest named Horace.
According to Egyptian mythology, Horace was about to embark on a perilous journey into the afterlife. Horace would be challenged along the way by many pagan gods and evil spirits, and could pass by only upon providing the proper signs, countersigns, passwords, grips and so on. The papyrus document was therefore effectively a "crib sheet." Unfortunately for poor Joseph, it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the patriarch Abraham. And as noted above, Joseph mistranslated every single word.
Much more about the entire episode, told through an award winning video, can be found HERE.
According to sources cited by Fawn Brodie, many people saw Joseph translate the papyrus scroll using his peep stone with both his face and the occult object buried in a hat.
Cowdery and Harris (and Emma perhaps?) also testified Joseph used the same technique to translate the Golden Tablets into the BoM.
I can see where the confusion comes from. Smith produced his copy of 'reformed egyptian' that was presented to a Professor Anton for 'authentication', the suspected document is seen below
Smith got the Book of the Dead - an egyptian prayer scroll for the dead (a very common item found with buried egyptians) much later in his life. It is written in hierglyphics and readily translated today - but in smith's time the Rosetta stone had not fully been analyzed, so heirglyphics were still a mystery. The following site can provide a lot more details:
http://www.bookofabraham.com/
 |
"There are extensive and impressive evidences for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as an ancient document dealing with real people and places, contrary to the endlessly and mindlessly repeated mantras of anti-Mormons."
---Statement by Jef Lindsay 18
|
|
"Archeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon."
---Statement by the National Geographic Society 6
|
|
"...faith in the scriptures—whether the Bible or the Book of Mormon—must rest upon something other than scholarly consensus and archaeological evidence... Ultimately, God will reveal what is true in such matters and we must trust him for our answers."
---The Newsletter of the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), 1997-OCT
|
|
"It can be stated definitely that there is no connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book of Mormon. There is no correspondence whatever between archeological sites and cultures as revealed by scientific investigations and as recorded in the Book of Mormon, hence the book cannot be regarded as having any historical value from the standpoint of the aboriginal peoples of the New World."
---F.H.H. Roberts, Jr, Smithsonian Institution, 1951
|
|
"As long as Mormons generally are willing to be fooled by (and pay for) the uninformed, uncritical drivel about archaeology and the scriptures which predominates, the few L.D.S. experts are reluctant even to be identified with the topic."
---J.L. Sorenson, Brigham Young University, 1966
|
|
Moroni 6:4 |
The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS (Mormon) doctrine, belief and practice.
|
FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice. If you like what FAIR does and you agree with our mission, we invite you to support FAIR in any way you are able. You can make a donation, or visit our Membership page for additional support ideas. FAIR only succeeds through the efforts of our gracious volunteers.
|
|
Welcome | Topical Guide | FAIR Publications | Join & Support FAIR | Message Boards Last Updated December 18, 2007 You can send comments/suggestions using our contact page. |
Oh Brother; Where art thou?
.
.
.
“Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland”
Smithsonian Institute.
As a logic exercise ask yourself why a purported prophet of Israel would have used any form of Egyptian ?
Of course the answer is that Egypt was a hot topic in the world of j.smiths child hood. As even more proof of j.smith fanciful translations he made and printed a book titled "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. It is available in reprint (not from lds) and has no relationship to the real Egyptian language.
” I received this morning your favor of the 9th instant, and lose no time in making a reply. The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be “reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics” is perfectly false. Some years ago, a plain, and apparently simple-hearted farmer, called upon me with a note from Dr. Mitchell of our city, now deceased, requesting me to decypher, if possible, a paper, which the farmer would hand me, and which Dr. M. confessed he had been unable to understand. Upon examining the paper in question, I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. When I asked the person, who brought it, how he obtained the writing, he gave me, as far as I can now recollect, the following account: A “gold book,” consisting of a number of plates of gold, fastened together in the shape of a book by wires of the same metal, had been dug up in the northern part of the state of New York, and along with the book an enormous pair of “gold spectacles”! These spectacles were so large, that, if a person attempted to look through them, his two eyes would have to be turned towards one of the glasses merely, the spectacles in question being altogether too large for the breadth of the human face. Whoever examined the plates through the spectacles, was enabled not only to read them, but fully to understand their meaning. All this knowledge, however, was confined at that time to a young man, who had the trunk containing the book and spectacles in his sole possession. This young man was placed behind a curtain, in the garret of a farm house, and, being thus concealed from view, put on the spectacles occasionally, or rather, looked through one of the glasses, decyphered the characters in the book, and, having committed some of them to paper, handed copies from behind the curtain, to those who stood on the outside. Not a word, however, was said about the plates having been decyphered “by the gift of God.” Every thing, in this way, was effected by the large pair of spectacles. The farmer added, that he had been requested to contribute a sum of money towards the publication of the “golden book,” the contents of which would, as he had been assured, produce an entire change in the world and save it from ruin. So urgent had been these solicitations, that he intended selling his farm and handing over the amount received to those who wished to publish the plates. As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New York, and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the spectacles. On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving, and he then took his leave carrying the paper with him. This paper was in fact a singular scrawl. It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived. I am thus particular as to the contents of the paper, inasmuch as I have frequently conversed with my friends on the subject, since the Mormonite excitement began, and well remember that the paper contained any thing else but “Egyptian Hieroglyphics.” Some time after, the same farmer paid me a second visit. He brought with him the golden book in print, and offered it to me for sale. I declined purchasing. He then asked permission to leave the book with me for examination. I declined receiving it, although his manner was strangely urgent. I adverted once more to the roguery which had been in my opinion practised upon him, and asked him what had become of the gold plates. He informed me that they were in a trunk with the large pair of spectacles. I advised him to go to a magistrate and have the trunk examined. He said the “curse of God” would come upon him should he do this. On my pressing him, however, to pursue the course which I had recommended, he told me that he would open the trunk, if I would take the “curse of God” upon myself. I replied that I would do so with the greatest willingness, and would incur every risk of that nature, provided I could only extricate him from the grasp of rogues. He then left me.
I have thus given you a full statement of all that I know respecting the origin of Mormonism, and must beg you, as a personal favor, to publish this letter immediately, should you find my name mentioned again by these wretched fanatics.
Yours respectfully, CHAS. ANTHON.”
Note Farms/Maxwell apologists claim that this was to protect his reputation, of course the only proof they claim that Anthon ever said that it was true is the words of m.harris a man not known for his veracity nor an impartial witness (ever)
“First we should emphasize that Mormon is describing Egyptian characters, or what we today would call a script or writing system. It is the form or shape of the characters or symbols that was altered by the Nephites. Nephite reformed Egyptian is thus a unique script. It derived from the Egyptian writing systems but then was modified and adapted to suit Nephite language and writing materials.”
Notice this statement from the above: “It was the FORM OR SHAPE OF THE CHARACTERS THAT WAS ALTERED....A UNIQUE SCRIPT...” (caps mine).
So to the ALTERED SHAPES the SOUNDS of whatever language they spoke would be assigned and the same grammar, syntax. and declension of verbs, etc., would continue.
The BOM, Mormon 9:33, says the Nephites spoke Hebrew but had altered it's writing too so that the plates were not
“sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew”.
Their “altered Hebrew” script thus would have taken more space to write than the “reformed Egyptian” using the sounds of the spoken Hebrew.
But since written Hebrew used only consonants and the Nephites were using “reformed Egyptian” letters in place of the Hebrew, it would be one letter Hebrew replaced by one letter “reformed Egyptian”.
How would “reformed Egyptian” be more compact than Hebrew if a letter for letter substitution took place?
The Nephites had a written language, why would it need replacement of its letters?
The description of the “reformed Egyptian” as simply a modified shape of the characters of some form of Egyptian sounds bogus to me.
You caught that, did ya? ;)
I believe not. The first published extracts of the Egyptian Book of the Dead date from 1842, the work of Karl Lepsius, a German egyptologist. Indeed, it was he who gave the work its current name - the Egyptians themselves called it the "Book of Coming Forth by Day" (Reu nu prt m hru). So this is many years after Joseph and the golden plates.
We have some evidence of what Joseph Smith thought might look Egyptian, in the manuscript copy he made of some symbols on the gold plates. You'll find a copy here. Need I say that they look nothing like the Egyptian script in any of its forms?
Some of the symbols resemble those of the Masonic cypher alphabets, which Smith of course would have known. Some of them also resemble the symbols associated with demons in the medieval Grimoires, which Smith definitely should not have known. Unless ...
A tangled tale indeed.
The Egyptian funeral text Smith claimed he translated wasn't in any Nephite “reformed Egyptian” and Smith had no ability to translate anything as his efforts proved. But the linguististic contortions will no doubt continue.
And if the bom was not fictional there would have been nephites in the 384AD.. and not one scrap of this “reformed Egyptian” survived ?
We have good evidence of many cultures and people far older why is the nephites record so utterly blank ?
Not one Steel artifact
Not one stone monument
Not one coin
Nothing.
Just as hobbits and elves of Middle Earth the nephites and jaradites of bom are quite fictional.
“15 In a very real sense, our own Latin alphabet is itself a type of reformed Egyptian, since the ultimate source of our characters is Egyptian hieroglyphics.”
That's why I said earlier that I spoke and wrote “reformed Egyptian”.
Why is there no evidence and any type found in the new world that shows even a tenuous connection to old worlds written languages.
“In a very real sense, our own Latin alphabet is itself a type of reformed Egyptian, since the ultimate source of our characters is Egyptian hieroglyphics”. Is akin to saying that all matter is really just new forms of Hydrogen
it may well be true but it does not make lead the same as gold.
Languages just like genetics leave evidence of previous generations, and just like DNA the languages found in the new world do not support the bom.
A quick search..
English From
Latin From
Cumae (Greek)From
Phoenician From
Proto-Canaanite alphabet 1500bc
Egyptian hieroglyphs
We have examples of every one of those, and NONE of them resemble the written languages found in the Americas.
Of course, we have j.smiths “alphabet and grammar” for Egyptian that shows that he had no understanding of the language.
As well as the “notes” and scroll used to make the book of Abrahan that show a single character of Egyptian, making dozens and even hundreds of characters in English.
e pluribus unum on our money! Does that count for anything?
Well; since we have a Reformed Kenyan in the highest office in the land; look to COUNT out a lot MORE of your money to buy items in the future!
very good!
Just check out the linguististic contortions of the articles posted in caucus threads...
I’m thinking that would be like drinking bad booze, a little bit I could stand but very much and I’d have a head ache and regret it. Besides, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
So tanks but no tanks.
and yes I know its from many one.
:)
I thought it meant, “E, take lots of the unum from the dumb pluribus”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
