Replies

If one were going to make up names for Book of Mormon stories, one would not have chosen those Book of Mormon names. For example, Alma for a man’s name. Now when I went to San Diego to see the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit, one of the “scrolls” was of interest to Mormons as it contained “Alma, Son of Judah” which was the first time the name of Alma was known to be used as a man’s name.

But I suppose you think the exhibiters of the Dead Sea Scrolls are a bunch of liars and charlatons, right?

- - - - - - - -
Not at all, I am good friends with Risa Levitt Cohen (curator of the SD exhibit) and she is personally appalled at the LDS misinterpreting the data to support their ‘fairy tales’.

She says that nothing there supports Mormon doctrine in any way and laughed hysterically when I told her.

The LDS pseudo-archaeologists are the liars and charlatans.

Oh come on Sandy. You started your response to me politely as mine was to you and then you ended with: But I suppose you think the exhibiters of the Dead Sea Scrolls are a bunch of liars and charlatons, right?

But I suppose you think the exhibiters of the Dead Sea Scrolls are a bunch of liars and charlatons, right?

I have it on GOOD authority that the FOLLOWing was written by a charlaton and conman!

The "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Smith's story.

No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim... only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.

Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."

Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quckly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up wih a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them!

*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.

Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)

Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:

.

What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.