- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Demotic Egyptian underwent evolution over a long period and some forms are very different in appearance, varying from an Arabic looking script to something more obviously derived from Hieroglyphs. I *didn’t* post the examples to debunk… Far from it… The Anthon transcript contains several symbols which resemble those in the demotic. At first sight, there are a lot of what appear to be numbers but look at the Demotic below and there are plenty of symbols like 3 & 7
dande48 wrote:
EXACTLY, Sam. Anthon Script has been studied by both LDS and non-LDS scholarsrosett, and determined to be gibberish.Yes, some came to that conclusion, but certainly not all. One of the three non-LDS scholars said some of the characters did look Demotic. And one researcher went so far as to show photos from the Demotic dictionary side by side with Joseph Smith’s characters. And Martin Harris did speak with one of the men who worked on the Rosetta stone, and he also believed the characters to be genuine.
I have looked at other old world scripts, and by and large they bear no resemblance to the Anthon script. Why does the Demotic?
http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley/1942_02-IE.PDF So if I can show that the script was probably a type of reformed Egyptian, will those who have less faith cheer or grieve?
Old Timer wrote:
Admin Note: I simply feel the need to stress our mission here, which is support of each other in our individual journeys as we strive to stay LDS to whatever degree possible.
I jumped into several conversations where the topic clearly called for evidence and a conclusion. Was there really a man named Nephi? Is it really possible for Joseph Smith to have written the Book of Mormon? The answers I saw were almost all one-sided, and showed no real scholarship into either question. If you don’t want an answer, then don’t ask the question.I take no issue with letting people discuss the issues that bother them. Nor do I wish to hurt anyone’s feelings. I can be insensitive at times. But if I can show that a fear is unwarranted, then isn’t that the best medicine? Fear – paranoia – is very much like a disease. It spreads by word of mouth. It can change one’s behavior and even lead to death. We live in an age where propaganda is being spread to support the agenda of wicked men. Should we not counter it? Isn’t that the best way to support each other?
nibbler wrote:I think it all comes down to:
Yeah-huh.
Nu-uh.
There are rules to assist us in judging righteously. When it comes to history, rumors have no place. Eye witness testimony is key, and the sooner after the event the better. Expert testimony is better than nothing, but doesn’t rise to the value of an eye witness. These simple rules can help us evaluate truth.
rrosskopf wrote:
Old Timer wrote:
Admin Note: I simply feel the need to stress our mission here, which is support of each other in our individual journeys as we strive to stay LDS to whatever degree possible.
I jumped into several conversations where the topic clearly called for evidence and a conclusion. Was there really a man named Nephi? Is it really possible for Joseph Smith to have written the Book of Mormon? The answers I saw were almost all one-sided, and showed no real scholarship into either question. If you don’t want an answer, then don’t ask the question.I take no issue with letting people discuss the issues that bother them. Nor do I wish to hurt anyone’s feelings. I can be insensitive at times. But if I can show that a fear is unwarranted, then isn’t that the best medicine? Fear – paranoia – is very much like a disease. It spreads by word of mouth. It can change one’s behavior and even lead to death. We live in an age where propaganda is being spread to support the agenda of wicked men. Should we not counter it? Isn’t that the best way to support each other?
You won’t do well arguing with a moderator. Just sayin’. This particular moderator (speaking of myself) said he wasn’t going to interact with you much. I just couldn’t stand by in the heat of the moment. All we really ask is that anyone (you in this case) respect that others have differing opinions while that same respect is offered to them (you). Few things are black and white and while it might be perfectly obvious to you and you might see it as unchallengeable, someone else may see it totally differently. Both of you can be right – it’s not all either/or, sometimes it’s and. Your more orthodox voice is very welcome here (because we can easily get caught up in our own bubble) but not in an “I’m always right and you’re always wrong” sense.
nibbler wrote:
Quote:Joseph Smith Could Not Have Written the Book of Mormon
I think it all comes down to:
Yeah-huh.
Nu-uh.
For whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
:angel:
😈 😈 😈 😆 rrosskopf wrote:
So if I can show that the script was probably a type of reformed Egyptian, will those who have less faith cheer or grieve?
If you could, that would be revolutionary! Even better, if you could translate it.
dande48 wrote:rrosskopf wrote:
So if I can show that the script was probably a type of reformed Egyptian, will those who have less faith cheer or grieve?
If you could, that would be revolutionary! Even better, if you could translate it.
I believe I already did. Did you read the link? A majority of the same characters have been found on Egyptian papyri, and were believed to be Demotic. It is only finding them on Joseph Smith’s gold plates that gives everyone pause.rrosskopf wrote:
I believe I already did. Did you read the link? A majority of the same characters have been found on Egyptian papyri, and were believed to be Demotic. It is only finding them on Joseph Smith’s gold plates that gives everyone pause.
[img=http://www.utlm.org/images/newsletters/43messagep5.gif][/img] We’re going off of the word “probably” here, so I’m going to need something with > 70% certainty. You used a source from the 1940s, citing research funded by the Church for the sole purpose of “proving” what they already believe. I can also find “research” saying that sugar doesn’t contribute to diabetes (funded by Coca Cola), and that tobacco doesn’t cause lung cancer (funded by the tobacco industry). But they go against the vast majority of third party Egyptologists.
To quote one of them,
Quote:Among the squiggles, however, there are random signs that could be Egyptian for the simple reason that the wide range of hieratic signs (cursive hieroglyphs) includes many, many signs (including simple straight lines), so it is always possible to “fantasize” seeing Egyptian in disconnected bits. I’ve “seen” Egyptian Demotic writing in table top designs at the James Coney Island hot dog restaurants in Houston, but that doesn’t mean that the “similarities” are more than simple coincidence.
That being said, if you could find evidence of this “reformed Egyptian” language being used anywhere else, either in ancient america, ancient Israel, or anywhere else for that matter, I would consider that good evidence. If you, or anyone else, can use Demotic (which we have a complete dictionary of, and can translate) to come up with any sort of translation for the manuscript, that would be another.
dande48 wrote:
Anthon Script has been studied by both LDS and non-LDS scholarsrosett, and determined to be gibberish
I don’t believe this statement is entirely true, but it struck me that those experts who have reviewed the Anthon characters did so with a knowledge of their provenance. This knowledge was prejudicial to say the least. A more scientific approach would be to do a double blind study. Mix the characters with similar characters taken from Egyptian papyri and then see if anyone can tell the difference. I can’t. It also occurred to me that there is a well known Egyptian papyri that was part of the collection of the Joseph Smith papyri that no scholar has been able to translate. Would Egytologists still recognize the characters on that papryri as Demotic? Yet here we have the original, and no one doubts its authenticity.[Moderator Note: Just another gentle reminder that discussion, even “vigorous” discussion, is great and welcome. Being that this is a written forum it is sometimes difficult to discern intent, intended meanings, and emotion. There is a fine line between vigorous discussion and argumentation. Let’s do our best to stay on the civil discussion side of the line. Disagreement is fine and so is agreeing to disagree. This is not directed at rrosskopf, who is a newcomer and is still learning his way around, it goes for everyone including reminding myself.] dande48 wrote:We’re going off of the word “probably” here, so I’m going to need something with > 70% certainty. You used a source from the 1940s, citing research funded by the Church for the sole purpose of “proving” what they already believe.
Well, it was another church, but point taken. And as the author pointed out, he started with the more complex symbols first. They don’t look anything like English.
I do know of some similar characters found on Mesoamerican stella. I will look into that.
I know of at least one man who has claimed to have translated the Anthon script. He believes it was taken from the Book of Ether, and it talks about giant waves and such. I don’t know enough about the subject matter to know if he is on the mark or not.
I am new, and I really don’t know the difference between vigorous discussion and argumentation. It seems to me that all discussions have people providing different points of view, and giving the reasons for such. What if we were discussing football? Or any other topic? I’m sorry if that sounds argumentative, but I really don’t know the difference. I have no ill will for anyone. I just love the truth and the search for truth. rrosskopf wrote:
I know of at least one man who has claimed to have translated the Anthon script. He believes it was taken from the Book of Ether, and it talks about giant waves and such. I don’t know enough about the subject matter to know if he is on the mark or not.
I remember seeing a book a while back “Translating the Anthon transcript”, which made that claim. The BYU Maxwell institute did a review on it, which they stated:
Quote:“I regret to report that Stan Johnson does not know Egyptian. Proof of this can be seen in the first two entries in his symbol reference (see p. 70); here the two “Egyptian” signs Johnson examined turn out to be parentheses from the dictionary Johnson was using. “
DarkJedi wrote:
[Moderator Note: Just another gentle reminder that discussion, even “vigorous” discussion, is great and welcome. Being that this is a written forum it is sometimes difficult to discern intent, intended meanings, and emotion. There is a fine line between vigorous discussion and argumentation. Let’s do our best to stay on the civil discussion side of the line. Disagreement is fine and so is agreeing to disagree. This is not directed at rrosskopf, who is a newcomer and is still learning his way around, it goes for everyone including reminding myself.]
No hard feelings here, and I mean none towards rrosskopf. It’s a good discussion, and has given me a good amount to think about. Not convinced, but I appreciate rrosskopf’s willingness to back himself up. As with anything, when the information changes, or better evidence is brought to light, I update my conclusions. It is possible I am wrong, and I fully admit that. Rrosskopf has different information and experiences, so it is reasonable that he would come to different conclusions. I don’t buy it, but that doesn’t make his viewpoint any less valid.
FWIW, if the Anton Manuscript were proven to be authentic… that’d be pretty cool.
🙂 dande48 wrote:Quote:“I regret to report that Stan Johnson does not know Egyptian. Proof of this can be seen in the first two entries in his symbol reference (see p. 70); here the two “Egyptian” signs Johnson examined turn out to be parentheses from the dictionary Johnson was using. “
Oops!😆 rrosskopf wrote:
I am new, and I really don’t know the difference between vigorous discussion and argumentation.
rrosskopf, The difference is generally in the presentation. Much is to be gained by prefacing a statement with “in my opinion”. Also you can pepper your dialogue with variations on “I believe…”, “I understand…”, or “I take ____ to be evidence for….”.
Please check out this link to the rules of Etiquette page:
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.