Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: brigidbarnes ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 03:55AM

How to refute this? Haven't the non-Mormon Egyptologists said a firm "No"?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Heartless ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 10:36AM

This is very simple.

Demotic was developed around 600 BC.

Just google Demotic and find samples of the writing.

The google Anthon Script. Find a picture of it.

The stare and compare. The two look nothing alike.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: brigidbarnes ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 07:15PM

I have heard the claim that Demotic and the Anthon Transcript characters look almost exactly the same. This clarifies that they do not! Some people are terribly desperate to keep believing that their beloved church is true. After many years of sacrifice and devotion...who wants to feel that they wasted their life? I struggle with these feelings of waste all the time, but I cannot and will not slide back into belief in that fake church with its fake prophets.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: grudunza ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 10:51AM

Have you seen Jerry Grover's attempt at translating the Caractors doc? It’s a valiant effort. Assumes connections with a few languages, including Mayan. I can’t remember if Demotic was one of them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Ghost of Hales ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 11:14AM

Not familiar with demotic, but no, i kind of don't think so, as the book of mormon is baloney

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tom Padley ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 11:25AM

Demotic was one of the three languages on the Rosetta Stone. The others were Greek and Egyptian hieroglyphs.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: MarkJ ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 11:27AM

Why use another language when the Jews of that time period were well and widely literate in Hebrew?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/210694

At the time the BoM came out, there was a popular frenzy for anything related to ancient Egypt. Smith was just catering to the market.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: grudunza ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 11:38AM

Right, and he incorrectly assumed that hieroglyphics were symbolic (each picture/glyph representing a large phrase) and not phonetic. He picked just the right time, barely, to be able to do that, as the Rosetta Stone translation hadn’t been disseminated worldwide yet. Clever con, but still a con.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: slskipper ( )
Date: October 09, 2017 08:18PM

In fact, the very reason they are called hieroglyphics- sacred writing- is that form the middle ages on it was widely believed that not only were they symbolic, but that they were mystical, and that they held the key to the Western version of Nirvana/satori, which one could attain by meditating while gazing intently upon them. Rosetta burst a lot of bubbles.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Facsimile 3 ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 11:54AM

Use the BoM text itself to refute the claim.

Mormon 9:33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.


Introducing "imperfection" into a sacred record is kind of a big deal. Was Demotic more space efficient than Hebrew? No.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Chicken N. Backpacks ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 12:11PM

"...and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record."

In other words: "Hey, Sidney, maybe we should put in a line about possible mistakes, because I can't keep track of what the hell's in this damn manuscript any more."

"Good idea, Joseph, future apologists will have a catch-all excuse in case we messed up somewhere--because frankly, I can't keep track of it either, especially after that idiot Harris lost 116 pages."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tom Padley ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 12:45PM

Chicken N. Backpacks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...and if we could have written in Hebrew,
> behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our
> record."
>
> In other words: "Hey, Sidney, maybe we should
> put in a line about possible mistakes, because I
> can't keep track of what the hell's in this damn
> manuscript any more."
>
> "Good idea, Joseph, future apologists will have
> a catch-all excuse in case we messed up
> somewhere--because frankly, I can't keep track of
> it either, especially after that idiot Harris lost
> 116 pages."


Maybe not in those exact words, but I'm sure that's how the conversation went. The production of the BoM wasn't the smoothest process. And printing deadlines made it worse. There was money to be had (or so they thought).

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 12:15PM

I've always had difficulty with the "not enough tablets" notion and the recital of the Isaiah scriptures...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Heartless ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 01:50PM

Here is how it was explained to me 50 years ago in Sunday School.

First lets write the word before

BEFORE

Now we draw a honey bee (I'll use the & to represent the bee) followed by the number 4.

&4

Now both say before but we reduced it from 5 letters to two character. So using picture writting like egyptian reduces the space needed to write.


I know now that in neither Egyptian, Mayan or any other picture writing system that each possible word has a single glyph. But when I was 10 I didn't know better.
.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Chicken N. Backpacks ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 07:18PM

I thought you were translating a ziller post.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: You Too? ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 02:07PM

JS possibly (possibly, not absolutely) knew that glyphs had been discovered in Central America but did not know exactly what they looked like. But he understood them to be similar, but not identical to, Egyptian hieroglyphs.

He made some shit up so the Native American mound builders in his book could have a written language and called it Reformed Egyptian.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Heartless ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 07:33PM

The Micmac tribes of Canada had a written language simular to Egyptian hieroglyphics but not directly related to the Egyptian.

They also look nothing like the Anthon Script.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: brigidbarnes ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 07:51PM

Rodney Meldrum keeps teaching people that the MicMac writing is almost exactly the same as the Anthon Transcript. Thus a misinformed people continue "knowing" that the LDS church is true. They keep telling people outside the church that there's lots of evidence for the church. They don't understand why so few want to join up, when it is so "obvious" to them. I myself was a gullible and naive teenager. I was so excited when the missionaries taught me about the fulfilled Isaiah prophecy! "I cannot read a sealed book". But even though gullible, I wasn't stupid. If the internet had been around, I would have looked it up.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: You Too? ( )
Date: October 09, 2017 01:40PM

Thanks for the info.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: October 09, 2017 08:12PM

Mikmak writing (which almost certainly has a 16th-17th century origin):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi%27kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing#/media/File:Micmac_hieroglyphs_1866.svg

'caractors' writing:
https://beggarsbreaddotcom.files.wordpress.com/2031/12/43anthontranscript.gif

Nothing alike, other than "both have curly squiggles."

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: baura ( )
Date: October 10, 2017 09:00PM

You Too? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JS possibly (possibly, not absolutely) knew that
> glyphs had been discovered in Central America but
> did not know exactly what they looked like. But
> he understood them to be similar, but not
> identical to, Egyptian hieroglyphs.
>
> He made some shit up so the Native American mound
> builders in his book could have a written language
> and called it Reformed Egyptian.

"View of the Hebrews" mentions hieroglyphs found among the
ancient American sites. Just one example:

"And it is as natural an event that their brethren, in the wilds
of America, should place them in their silent hieroglyphical
paintings. Whence could have been derived the knowledge of the
accurate hieroglyphical paintings, which this most learned
author exhibits as found among some of the Indians; unless they
had learned them from people to whom the knowledge of
hieroglyphics had been transmitted from Egypt, its original
source?"
--Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrews, 2nd ed. 1825, p 140

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: desertman ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 07:36PM

This is commonly referred to as "grasping at straws"

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: October 07, 2017 07:42PM

How do you say that in Demotic?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: brigidbarnes ( )
Date: October 09, 2017 11:36PM

I keep finding scholars in different places online who laugh at the concept of Reformed Egyptian. "No such possible language", Egyptologists and linguists will say. If Demotic were Reformed Egyptian, someone among them would have a sense of it. I know from experience that Rod Meldrum and Wayne May can't be trusted, yet so many Mormons are deceived by them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **  **      **  ********   ********    ******  
 **     **  **  **  **  **     **  **     **  **    ** 
 **     **  **  **  **  **     **  **     **  **       
 **     **  **  **  **  **     **  ********   **       
 **     **  **  **  **  **     **  **         **       
 **     **  **  **  **  **     **  **         **    ** 
  *******    ***  ***   ********   **          ******