Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Olavarria

Yet Another Egyptian Man's Name, Form The Right Time Period In The Bom.

Recommended Posts

The onlything bogus is your strawman and your willingness to accept a fact which has been pointed out by Gee, that being that egyptian "nfr" is rendered "npy" in aramaic and phonecian(2 semetic languages).

Nefer in egyptian=NPY(pronounced nfy) in when transliterated into semtic languages.

thus Sennefru would be rendered as Zenephi in a semetic languages, when egyptian Nfr turns into Npy in semetic languages.

Okay. If this is a perfect transliteration, I've got some beach front property on Mars to sell you. Cite Gee till the cows come home. You've haven't got a "perfect" transliteration here.

You just don't. Or do you really think this is really how a semitic writer would transliterate a name (given the fact that our hypothetical interpreter doesn't know his own language well enough to actually transliterate the Egyptian here?!?)

He knows enough to give you a hint, but he can't actually transliterate consonantally-equivalent sounds between the two languages?

Yes, I'm afraid the OP can't rescue your claims. I would be satisfied if you were to say, this is suggestive. But, to claim that this is "exactly" how a semitic speaker would transliterate this name?!? No. It's not. Or, can you provide some sort of disinterested party's transliteration of similar sound patterns from the Egyptian language to a Semitic language?

You're grasping at straws here, Her Amun. There is no perfect parallel here. To suggest that there is, is patently dishonest.

Best.

CKS

Share this post


Link to post
Okay. If this is a perfect transliteration, I've got some beach front property on Mars to sell you. Cite Gee till the cows come home. You've haven't got a "perfect" transliteration here.

I only cite Gee so that you may read the article. Tell me , where is he wrong?

You just don't. Or do you really think this is really how a semitic writer would transliterate a name
It doesnt matter what I think, they fact is this is how egyptian names bearing the nfr element were transliterated into semetic languages. The questian is: how would Sennefru sound in a semetic tongue? Well, since nfr turned to npy(pronounced nfy in aramaic and phonecian) then Sennefru would be Sennfy, or something along those lines. And what do you know, the name Zenephi appears in the BoM, a text claiming egyptian as its original script, who first contributors were jews who cited egyptian as the langauge of their fathers. Then again, maybe your right. Maybe Isa the son of Maryiam in the Koran isnt Jesus the son of Mary from the Bible. Maybe Musa(koran), Moshe(hebrew) and Moses arent the same person. Could it be that millions of mexicans are wrong when they say Jose was the step father of Christ and not Yosef? :crazy:Ai Yai Yai.
(given the fact that our hypothetical interpreter doesn't know his own language well enough to actually transliterate the Egyptian here?!?)
IF you are referring to me, I'll have you know you that I speak 3 languages fluently:english,spanish and mandarin. I also scored within the 87th percentile in the verbal section of the GMAT.

He knows enough to give you a hint, but he can't actually transliterate consonantally-equivalent sounds between the two languages?

Yes, I'm afraid the OP can't rescue your claims. I would be satisfied if you were to say, this is suggestive. But, to claim that this is "exactly" how a semitic speaker would transliterate this name?!? No. It's not.
Then can you tell me how it would be transliterated?
Or, can you provide some sort of disinterested party's transliteration of similar sound patterns from the Egyptian language to a Semitic language?

ah yes....the disinterested, code for non-mormon, party. When it comes to the BoM, there is no such thing as a disinterested party.

So are you telling me that the egyptian nfr-element does not appear as npy in aramaic/phonecian tranliterations of egyptian names, which tranliterations were found in elephantine egypt?

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Her Amun,

Assuming Gee's information is correct, I can see how one might conclude that Nephi is a Semiticized form of the Egyptian name Nfr. (I still think it came from the apocrypha, but that's just me.) However, Gee does not demonstrate that Zenephi is a valid transliteration of Egyptian Sennefru. Even if we permit the dropping of the final vowel on the basis of Gee's Phoenician precedent (Ktm-nfr.w -> KNPY; I'm assuming the w stands for a "u", but I'm no expert in Egyptian transliteration so I might be wrong), that still doesn't alleviate the problem of "s" becoming "z". As cksalmon pointed out, these two letters are not the same in Hebrew.

-CK

Share this post


Link to post
Hi Her Amun,

Halleluyah!!!!! CK IS BACK!!!!!!!! The one man actually willing to play ball.

Assuming Gee's information is correct, I can see how one might conclude that Nephi is a Semiticized form of the Egyptian name Nfr. (I still think it came from the apocrypha, but that's just me.)

Thank you! But you know my problem with the apocrypha use theory is that the one hit wonder fuel "nephi" is not accompanied by Judith,Tobit, Ptolomy, Macabee, Baruch,Sirach and the like. Why the sparse use?While the biblical Jacob,Isaiah and Lehi are all up in that mug. But that is another issue.

However, Gee does not demonstrate that Zenephi is a valid transliteration of Egyptian Sennefru.

Oh No. That is my idea.

Even if we permit the dropping of the final vowel on the basis of Gee's Phoenician precedent (Ktm-nfr.w -> KNPY; I'm assuming the w stands for a "u", but I'm no expert in Egyptian transliteration so I might be wrong),
I think your right, though I too confess a lack of expertise in this area.
that still doesn't alleviate the problem of "s" becoming "z". As cksalmon pointed out, these two letters are not the same in Hebrew.
but what about egyptian? Then again, we run the problem of uncertianty in regards to reformed egyptian. How reformed was reformed egyptian? Dunno.

But if the S --->Z is the only snag then I think my theory is in pretty good shape. I think the sounds are close enough, given the wigle room of the reformed egyptian issue. At least its not S--->B :P

Share this post


Link to post

Her Amun, I'm afraid I don't see your point.

Why doesn't this surprise me?

I think the point is rather obvious. Joseph Smith once again places a name in the Book of Mormon with correct historical, epic, and linguistic background for it.

Now you may act as though its just another coincidence or try to dismiss it. But the fact is, there are only so many names Joseph could hit with coincidence before it becomes improbable for Joseph to just have made it up. There is only so many doctrines Joseph could be right on the money with before it becomes improbable that he was making things up as he goes.

At some point a rational person is going to look at the building evidence of "Coincidences" and realize that either Joseph was being completely honest about the source of the scriptures he brought forth or that he is the luckiest man on earth who has ever lived. And then of course that person would necessarily conclude that the only way to find out which one is to experiment on the Word as Alma taught, and to ask God as Moroni challenged. Because while evidence will point towards the restoration of the Gospel, it's only the witness of the Holy Ghost that can confirm it and bring to life in the indivudual.

Like I said, it's pretty obvious. Not sure why it's do difficult to understand.

Share this post


Link to post

True, an S->Z shift isn't difficult to imagine. However, given the importance of Nephi in Nephite lore, it's not hard to imagine the Nephites contructing their own names modeled on the name of their founder. Given that we encounter "Zenephi" in 400 AD (a thousand years after the journey from the Old World), I think it's unlikely that it reflects a Nephite transliteration of an Egyptian name. More likely, it would be a uniquely Nephite name modeled on the name of the patriarch of their civilization.

EDIT: As for sparse use of the apocrypha, the Tanners have made some interesting arguments for the use of the apocrypha in the creation of the BoM. Among other things, Maccabees refers to writing on tables of brass.

Share this post


Link to post
However, given the importance of Nephi in Nephite lore, it's not hard to imagine the Nephites contructing their own names modeled on the name of their founder. Given that we encounter "Zenephi" in 400 AD (a thousand years after the journey from the Old World),

Interestingly enough, the OW seems to have the something similiar going on. Nefer(good beutiful) was a personal name as was Sennefru(to make beutiful).

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps if we understood the nature of Nephite language a little better, we could make a case for the function of the Z-prefix in the name Zenephi. However, the Book of Mormon is so ambiguous on this point as to allow a virtually infinite variety of suggestions. We can draw from both Hebrew and Egyptian lexica, the vowelization of which is uncertain. When that fails, we can allow for unspecified modifications to both these tongues and can also refer to other Semitic languages like Phoenician, Arabic, Ugaritic, etc. Given this flexibility, I am not surprised to find that there are many Book of Mormon names that can be fit somewhere into this ancient context. I'm also not surprised to find that in some cases there have been many different etymologies or parallels suggested for a single Book of Mormon name.

Share this post


Link to post

True, an S->Z shift isn't difficult to imagine. However, given the importance of Nephi in Nephite lore, it's not hard to imagine the Nephites contructing their own names modeled on the name of their founder. Given that we encounter "Zenephi" in 400 AD (a thousand years after the journey from the Old World), I think it's unlikely that it reflects a Nephite transliteration of an Egyptian name. More likely, it would be a uniquely Nephite name modeled on the name of the patriarch of their civilization.

EDIT: As for sparse use of the apocrypha, the Tanners have made some interesting arguments for the use of the apocrypha in the creation of the BoM. Among other things, Maccabees refers to writing on tables of brass.

Wow... am I in the wrong thread. I just figured out that you all are not just misspelling "translation"!! :P

Share this post


Link to post

Wow... am I in the wrong thread. I just figured out that you all are not just misspelling "translation"!! :P

TRANSLATE THIS!!!

Sakuraba-royce.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

TRANSLATE THIS!!!

20040101201722.jpeg

It's my invitation to your party!!! Am I right??

Share this post


Link to post

Ah....so now I am dishonest. Allow me to present you with the 2007 Tom Murphy award for Calling Mopologist Liars. You deserve it.

Ah, Her Amun. I'm just stirring the pot. I didn't mean nothin' by it.

I officially declare you Truthfully Honest and I should never have suggested otherwise.

Best to you.

CKS

P.S. I should have paid more attention to the Gee article earlier. (That's secret code for 'I should have read the Gee article before I commented on your argument.' Don't tell anyone I didn't, huh?)

Share this post


Link to post

Joseph Smith had no access to a history of ancient Egypt?

(Incidentally, how come it's only the antis who get in trouble for calling Joseph Smith "Ole Joe"...?)

Don't call me cracker if you are not one yourself.

Share this post


Link to post

My Last name is Olavarria, that doesnt mean I speak Basque.

Euskaraz badakizu? Ez? Ze pena!

Share this post


Link to post

You might want to read the Gee article at the OP so as to see how egyptian "nfr" is rendered "npy" (medial "p" pronounced as f) in semetic languages. I am not playing sound alike here, the sound shift in the OP has been demonstrated in actual phonecian and aramaic transliterations of egyptian names containing the element "nefer". The BoM follows a convention attested in the OW, from the same time period as Lehi.

here it is again:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=amJtcw==

This also occurs in the shift from Syriac to Arabic and Syriac words compose a lot of the religious vocabulary of Arabic.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, Her Amun. I'm just stirring the pot. I didn't mean nothin' by it.

I officially declare you Truthfully Honest and I should never have suggested otherwise.

Best to you.

CKS

P.S. I should have paid more attention to the Gee article earlier. (That's secret code for 'I should have read the Gee article before I commented on your argument.' Don't tell anyone I didn't, huh?)

I accept your recognition of my honesty and offer the peace pipe to you, but I cannot inhale as I am LDS. As for the Gee article, it sure is an interesting one. It makes me wish I actually knew egyptian. Your secret is safe with me. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I dont know what the flood has to do with this. Who said anything about Noah?

You gave the dates for Senefru between(2613-2589bc). If Genesis is correct, the flood would probably date between 2500 and 2300 BC, depending on how accurate the genealogies are. So Senefru would pre-date the flood. You could argue for a localized flood that didn't wipe out Egypt, but what's the point of invoking a non-literal Old Testament reading to support a literal Book of Mormon reading?

Share this post


Link to post

IMHO I have no idea how languages could change so much, lol, it's just :P to tell you the truth. I hope y'all enjoy... ttyl.

leet2.gif

Just for fun.

One could assume that it is a shift in society norms, or just an anomaly among a select group. Given that Lehi is a descendent of royalty, Joseph, second to Pharaoh, one could safely assume that his posterity lived a more privileged lifestyle when compared to the rest of the Hebrew nation. How literate the vast majority of Nephites and Lamanites were is unknown.

L33t speak:

oNE c0uLd 455umE [email protected]+ it I5 A 5h1PHT 1N 50C1ETY NORM5, OR Ju5+ @N 4n0M4ly @M0Ng @ sELeC+ 9r0UP. g1VeN [email protected]+ LEHI 15 A DE$c3nd3NT 0f RoY4l+Y, JO53ph, s3CoNd +0 [email protected], 0n3 C0ulD 5AFELY a$5um3 +H4+ h15 pO5TeR1Ty LIV3D @ m0r3 PRiVILegEd lif35+yL3 wheN [email protected] +0 +H3 Re$t oPH tEH h3bREW N4TI0N. h0w L1+eR4+E THe [email protected]+ [email protected]+Y OF nEph1T3$ 4ND l4M4n1T35 WErE 15 UNkn0WN.

Share this post


Link to post

You gave the dates for Senefru between(2613-2589bc). If Genesis is correct, the flood would probably date between 2500 and 2300 BC, depending on how accurate the genealogies are. So Senefru would pre-date the flood. You could argue for a localized flood that didn't wipe out Egypt, but what's the point of invoking a non-literal Old Testament reading to support a literal Book of Mormon reading?

"If Genesis is correct"...thats a mighty big IF.

Share this post


Link to post

"If Genesis is correct"...thats a mighty big IF.

Foundational claims of the church are a "BIG IF"? Adam and Eve the first parents, a maybe? The fall and the need for a savior, perhaps?

Her amun, it is astounding to what degree apologists will cast doubts on foundational claims: Adam and eve, Garden of Eden, global flood, just to try and prove a theory or idea of theirs.

You can't wave away decades of literal church teachings. This is why critics call this type of apologetics, "mental gymnastics". Believers have to discount one teaching to accept another. The church either is what it says it is and what it has taught with one literal teaching building on another, or the whole house of cards falls when you pull out a teaching that is now out of favor.

To attempt to prove the BoM you prove the church has been wrong since day one?

Share this post


Link to post
Foundational claims of the church are a "BIG IF"? Adam and Eve the first parents, a maybe? The fall and the need for a savior, perhaps?
Have I discounted the literal existance of father Adam and mother Eve? Did I negate the Fall? When and where did I do this?
Her amun, it is astounding to what degree apologists will cast doubts on foundational claims: Adam and eve, Garden of Eden, global flood, just to try and prove a theory or idea of theirs.
Please show me when I did this? I dont doubt the global flood, the fall or Adam and Eve. But I am open to the idea that the geneologies in Geneis might be incorrect. Lets not forget, as a LDS I dont belive in the infallibility of the Bible. Or am I supposd to? Tell me, if the genoelogies in Genesis are incorrect and the flood happend more than 5,000 ago, how does that discount Adam and Eve, The Fall and the Flood?
You can't wave away decades of literal church teachings.

Im not trying to. If anything im only holding to those same teachings by being open to the possibility that the Flood happened alot longer than 5,000 yrs ago.

This is why critics call this type of apologetics, "mental gymnastics". Believers have to discount one teaching to accept another.
Call it what you want but I am not guilty of this.

The church either is what it says it is and what it has taught with one literal teaching building on another, or the whole house of cards falls when you pull out a teaching that is now out of favor.

Show me which teaching I have pulled out? The one about an infallible bible? that never existed.

To attempt to prove the BoM you prove the church has been wrong since day one?

Oh no!! :P The genologoies in Genesis might be wrong? Damn, Im quiting the church and becoming a moonie.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...