Jump to content
snowflake

No record of "scribes" in the Book of Mormon.

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Just Google Mayan book burning by Diego de Landa and you'll see what happened to the records

Diego de Landa didn't come along until over a thousand years later.....do you think he was able to collect all the BOM writings and destroy them? 

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Do you think there was a scribal class creating the many different records or was it mainly the prophets?

In order to read the Brass Plates and to write their Nephite records, both Lehi and Nephi had to have been trained scribes -- fully trained in ancient Egyptian.  They clearly kept records on perishable materials (Jacob 4:1-2), and Nephi doesn't even begin his plates until 20 years after arrival in the New World (2 Ne 4:14-15).

See Brant Gardner, “Nephi as Scribe,” FARMS Review, 23/1 (2011):45-55, available online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=23&num=1&id=818 ; Gardner, “Musings on the Making of Mormon’s Book: Preliminary: Nephi as Author,” InterpreterBlog, July 4, 2013, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/musings-on-the-making-of-mormons-book-preliminary-nephi-as-author/#more-3075 ; Karl van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Harvard, 2007); O. Goldwasser, “An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms,” Tel Aviv, 18 (1991):248-253.

Quote

The records that existed the Old World were typically papyri or animal skins...referred to as scrolls....why switch to the gold plates? 

For the reasons stated in Jacob 4:1-2.  Hugh Nibley and other scholars have discussed the various inscribed copper, bronze, silver, and gold plates used in ancient times in Egypt, Byblos, Palestine, etc., including Orphic gold plates buried with the dead, a Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi (Pyrgi Tablets), Metal Documents in Stone Boxes, an Etruscan Gold Book from 600 B.C. (a six-page 24-carat gold book bound with rings, found in a tomb in Bulgaria ca. 1943), an eight-page cuneiform golden codex found in 2005 in Teheran, Iran (from the Achaemenid period and bound with four rings), and a recent find of gold plates of about the same size as the Book of Mormon plates in a royal tomb in China.  Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 2nd ed., CWHN V:105-107, citing (among others) W. F. Albright, "A Hebrew Letter of the Twelfth Century," BASOR, 73 (Feb 1939):9-13; E. Budge, Book of the Dead (London: British Museum/Longmans & Co., 1895), xix, n. 3; cf. C. Wilfred Griggs, “The Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book,” BYU Studies, 22/3 (1982): 259–278 (Orphic gold plates buried with the dead); Philip C. Schmitz, "The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 115/4 (Oct - Dec 1995):559-575 (Pyrgi Tablets); H. Curtis Wright, "Ancient Burials of Metal Documents in Stone Boxes," in J. Lundquist & S. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, 2 vols. (FARMS/Deseret, 1990), II:273-334; H. Curtis Wright, Modern Presentism and Ancient Metallic Epigraphy (SLC: Wings of Fire, 2006); John A. Tvedtnes, “Etruscan Gold Book from 600 B.C. Discovered,” Insights, 23/5 (2003):1,6 (6-page 24-carat gold book bound with rings, found in a tomb in Bulgaria ca. 1943); William J. Hamblin, "Sacred Writing on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean,” FARMS Review,19/1 (2007):37-54; an 8-page cuneiform golden codex found in 2005 in Teheran, Iran (from the Achaemenid period and attached with four rings), can be seen online at http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2005/October2005/11-10.htm ; Jenny Stanton, “Gold plates and coins among valuable haul unearthed by archaeologists at 2,000-year-old royal tombs in China ,” Daily Mail Online, Dec 27, 2015, online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3375474/Gold-plates-coins-valuable-haul-unearthed-archaeologists-2-000-year-old-royal-tombs-China.html .

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Spanish destroyed all the writings they found?  Certainly it is reasonable to assume that the Spanish could not have destroyed writing in areas they never discovered, perhaps areas like this  Sprawling Maya network discovered under Guatemala jungle.

Yes, although I thought that was implied since I mentioned writings not destroyed. <grin>

So far as I know no paper writings were found in the recent buildings that have been found. Although I do believe there are writings on the walls. It'd be wonderful if we found some writings since our knowledge of Mayan is so limited due to the lack of records. We have some of course but not many. 

12 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Is there any surviving scrolls, plates, or manuscripts today or have they all been lost? 

There's no surviving Nephite ones. There are surviving Maya codices though. The Dresden Codex is the most famous example.

8 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Diego de Landa didn't come along until over a thousand years later.....do you think he was able to collect all the BOM writings and destroy them? 

It's possible that there still are writings that will be found one day. We don't know. It's also possible that all but the gold plates were destroyed when the Nephites were destroyed as an independent polity.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yes, although I thought that was implied since I mentioned writings not destroyed. <grin>

So far as I know no paper writings were found in the recent buildings that have been found. Although I do believe there are writings on the walls. It'd be wonderful if we found some writings since our knowledge of Mayan is so limited due to the lack of records. We have some of course but not many

Obviously if you have responded to me in Hebrew, there wouldn't have been any misunderstanding. 😉 If fact, that gives me an idea. You should hold future conversations you have with Mark in Hebrew.  😄

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In order to read the Brass Plates and to write their Nephite records, both Lehi and Nephi had to have been trained scribes -- fully trained in ancient Egyptian.  They clearly kept records on perishable materials (Jacob 4:1-2), and Nephi doesn't even begin his plates until 20 years after arrival in the New World (2 Ne 4:14-15).

See Brant Gardner, “Nephi as Scribe,” FARMS Review, 23/1 (2011):45-55, available online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=23&num=1&id=818 ; Gardner, “Musings on the Making of Mormon’s Book: Preliminary: Nephi as Author,” InterpreterBlog, July 4, 2013, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/musings-on-the-making-of-mormons-book-preliminary-nephi-as-author/#more-3075 ; Karl van der Toorn, Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible (Harvard, 2007); O. Goldwasser, “An Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms,” Tel Aviv, 18 (1991):248-253.

For the reasons stated in Jacob 4:1-2.  Hugh Nibley and other scholars have discussed the various inscribed copper, bronze, silver, and gold plates used in ancient times in Egypt, Byblos, Palestine, etc., including Orphic gold plates buried with the dead, a Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi (Pyrgi Tablets), Metal Documents in Stone Boxes, an Etruscan Gold Book from 600 B.C. (a six-page 24-carat gold book bound with rings, found in a tomb in Bulgaria ca. 1943), an eight-page cuneiform golden codex found in 2005 in Teheran, Iran (from the Achaemenid period and bound with four rings), and a recent find of gold plates of about the same size as the Book of Mormon plates in a royal tomb in China.  Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 2nd ed., CWHN V:105-107, citing (among others) W. F. Albright, "A Hebrew Letter of the Twelfth Century," BASOR, 73 (Feb 1939):9-13; E. Budge, Book of the Dead (London: British Museum/Longmans & Co., 1895), xix, n. 3; cf. C. Wilfred Griggs, “The Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book,” BYU Studies, 22/3 (1982): 259–278 (Orphic gold plates buried with the dead); Philip C. Schmitz, "The Phoenician Text from the Etruscan Sanctuary at Pyrgi,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 115/4 (Oct - Dec 1995):559-575 (Pyrgi Tablets); H. Curtis Wright, "Ancient Burials of Metal Documents in Stone Boxes," in J. Lundquist & S. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, 2 vols. (FARMS/Deseret, 1990), II:273-334; H. Curtis Wright, Modern Presentism and Ancient Metallic Epigraphy (SLC: Wings of Fire, 2006); John A. Tvedtnes, “Etruscan Gold Book from 600 B.C. Discovered,” Insights, 23/5 (2003):1,6 (6-page 24-carat gold book bound with rings, found in a tomb in Bulgaria ca. 1943); William J. Hamblin, "Sacred Writing on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean,” FARMS Review,19/1 (2007):37-54; an 8-page cuneiform golden codex found in 2005 in Teheran, Iran (from the Achaemenid period and attached with four rings), can be seen online at http://www.cais-soas.com/News/2005/October2005/11-10.htm ; Jenny Stanton, “Gold plates and coins among valuable haul unearthed by archaeologists at 2,000-year-old royal tombs in China ,” Daily Mail Online, Dec 27, 2015, online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3375474/Gold-plates-coins-valuable-haul-unearthed-archaeologists-2-000-year-old-royal-tombs-China.html .

Do any of these relics refer to the BOM narrative?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:
15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the Spanish destroyed all the writings they found?  Certainly it is reasonable to assume that the Spanish could not have destroyed writing in areas they never discovered, perhaps areas like this  Sprawling Maya network discovered under Guatemala jungle.

Yes, although I thought that was implied since I mentioned writings not destroyed. <grin>

So far as I know no paper writings were found in the recent buildings that have been found. Although I do believe there are writings on the walls. It'd be wonderful if we found some writings since our knowledge of Mayan is so limited due to the lack of records. We have some of course but not many. 

18 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Is there any surviving scrolls, plates, or manuscripts today or have they all been lost? 

There's no surviving Nephite ones. There are surviving Maya codices though. The Dresden Codex is the most famous example.

14 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Diego de Landa didn't come along until over a thousand years later.....do you think he was able to collect all the BOM writings and destroy them? 

It's possible that there still are writings that will be found one day. We don't know. It's also possible that all but the gold plates were destroyed when the Nephites were destroyed as an independent polity.

Do you find it odd/troubling that there are tens of thousands of OT and NT manuscripts that have been found all over the old world and none for the BOM? It seems to me that something would have survided. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Do you find it odd/troubling that there are tens of thousands of OT and NT manuscripts that have been found all over the old world and none for the BOM? It seems to me that something would have survided. 

Nope. There were reportedly thousands and thousands of writings destroyed by the Spanish. If you followed that link I provided you'll note that only four major codices survived the Spanish. Archaeologists have found others such as in tombs but they have been destroyed by time and elements. Even there though only six were found. That's not exactly good odds. And that even assumes they'd survived to the point of the Spanish conquest. The odds likely weren't great even for that.

I'd add that no full Hebrew OT manuscript has been found in the ancient world. The oldest is the Aleppo Codex from 920 CE. To say the least that's well after the OT was purportedly compiled. Now to be fair we find fragments of passages that are older but it highlights the problem. We know there were thousands of copies of the Tankh (the Old Testament) but none survived. Even when you turn to fragments the oldest we have are the silver scrolls in paleo-Hebrew from around 587 BCE containing part of Numbers. Nearly all the other fragments are from the Ptolemic or Roman eras. The earliest complete Greek Old Testament is 4th century.

The "tens of thousands of OT" manuscripts that are found are all very late - typically from the late mediaeval or Renaissance periods.

Ancient writings even though we know they were abundant just don't survive often.

Edited by clarkgoble
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Mayan is a broad category. Whether the Nephites or Lamanites were among the Mayans gets debated. And of course not everyone buys into the Mexico-Guatalmala location for the Book of Mormon. A common view is that particularly the Lamanites were Mayan. Exactly how the Nephites were related to the Mayans of the pre-classical period differs depending upon the figure in question. .....................

Neither the Nephites nor Lamanites need be Maya, even if the Lamanites eventually mixed with the Maya in highland Guatemala.  Since the most likely scenario has the Nephites in the Chiapas River basin of southern Mexico (a non-Maya area), it might be more productive to focus on that culture.

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

With the existing papyri we have where Hebrew was written with Egyptian such as the Papyrus Amherst exactly how does the length compare were the text to have been translated into Egyptian?

Nibley could see no reason why Hebrew would need to be written in Egyptian characters, and I agree.  The PAmherst example provides no advantage in length since it uses alphabetic Egyptian.  The advantage only obtains when one goes whole hog for logographic writing.

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd also say that while Hebrew is a priestly language there's no indication it was a lingua franca. Indeed I'd argue on the basis of Mosiah 1:2 where King Benjamin teaches his sons "in all the language of his fathers" it implies that the language the people spoke was non-Hebrew. It was unique to be able to speak Hebrew and read Egyptian. So it functioned more the way Latin did for centuries even when the people writing in Latin spoke a different language like English or German.

Yes, of course, but I was thinking of the spoken language of the scribal elite at least, although I think that a much broader level of understanding was available -- as you yourself indicate by citing the distribution of King Benjamin's speech to those gathered around the temple in Zarahemla.  Someone was reading a  language of some kind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Do any of these relics refer to the BOM narrative?

No, but then why would they?  The point is that metal provides a more permanent medium for precious records.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Is there any surviving scrolls, plates, or manuscripts today or have they all been lost? 

I believe there are some (I think most that has been discovered are on rock or ceramic but I'm not really sure.  I've never studied the topic).

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Neither the Nephites nor Lamanites need be Maya, even if the Lamanites eventually mixed with the Maya in highland Guatemala.  Since the most likely scenario has the Nephites in the Chiapas River basin of southern Mexico (a non-Maya area), it might be more productive to focus on that culture.

Yup that's what I was alluding to by not everyone agreeing they were Maya.

56 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nibley could see no reason why Hebrew would need to be written in Egyptian characters, and I agree.  The PAmherst example provides no advantage in length since it uses alphabetic Egyptian.  The advantage only obtains when one goes whole hog for logographic writing.

That seems a change in your position. Before when I was discussing this relative to the lengths of the plates I'd mentioned the plates being ideograms and you'd pointed to phoenetic hieratic being more than long enough. That's significant since of course writing in ideograms is a lossy writing leading to at best a loose translation being possible.

58 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, of course, but I was thinking of the spoken language of the scribal elite at least, although I think that a much broader level of understanding was available -- as you yourself indicate by citing the distribution of King Benjamin's speech to those gathered around the temple in Zarahemla.  Someone was reading a  language of some kind.

Yup. It's not clear if the writing of say King Benjamin's speech would have been done in Hebrew or whatever language they spoke. I'd assume the latter as otherwise you're translating from say the variant of Mayan they spoke to Hebrew and then back to Mayan. Further I'd assume the Nephites for their trade would need to be able to write the Mayan languages.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Diego de Landa didn't come along until over a thousand years later.....do you think he was able to collect all the BOM writings and destroy them? 

No just the ones he got his hands on.

I think it was probably typical of the conquerors of these various city-states to do the same thing destroy the records of the previous people. They like to write themselves in as the heirs to the Kingdom.

Edited by rodheadlee
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Mosiah 2:8

8 And it came to pass that he began to speak to his people from the tower; and they could not all hear his words because of the greatness of the multitude; therefore he caused that the words which he spake should be written and sent forth among those that were not under the sound of his voice, that they might also receive his words.

 

Mosiah 25:5-7

And it came to pass that Mosiah did read, and caused to be read, the records of Zeniff to his people; yea, he read the records of the people of Zeniff, from the time they left the land of Zarahemla until they returned again. And he also read the account of Alma and his brethren, and all their afflictions, from the time they left the land of Zarahemla until the time they returned again. And now, when Mosiah had made an end of reading the records, his people who tarried in the land were struck with wonder and amazement.

 

///////

These were two spots that came to my mind that concern the layman reading or at least getting read to.  I feel like there is another place in the Book of Mormon that describes religious records being prepared for the masses, but I can't even remember where to start looking.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, snowflake said:

"the plates weren't big enough and we changed the Hebrew...that's why the record we made isn't perfect"......sounds good enough for me!  I'm glad the Hebrew scribes in the Old World had a little higher standard!

Wait, are you suggesting the text should be read that they altered their Hebrew over the last millennium because the plates Mormon and Moroni had were too small?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

...................................

That seems a change in your position. Before when I was discussing this relative to the lengths of the plates I'd mentioned the plates being ideograms and you'd pointed to phoenetic hieratic being more than long enough. That's significant since of course writing in ideograms is a lossy writing leading to at best a loose translation being possible.

Very odd.  That is not a position that I recall ever taking.  Not clear what was at issue.  Nibley himself long ago gave some examples of the spelling in cursive Egyptian being much shorter than in hieroglypohic (Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd ed., CWHN VII:149, in which he showed the extreme shorthand version of hieroglyphic  image.png.687e28bfebceaa38aba5232b78000b4d.png, in which four hieroglyphs are reduced to no more than one small squiggle).

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yup. It's not clear if the writing of say King Benjamin's speech would have been done in Hebrew or whatever language they spoke. I'd assume the latter as otherwise you're translating from say the variant of Mayan they spoke to Hebrew and then back to Mayan. Further I'd assume the Nephites for their trade would need to be able to write the Mayan languages.

The people of Zarahemla constituted a mixture of the Hebrew-speaking Nephites and the local descendants of Mulek and his associates (possibly Jews who accompanied him, and a possibly Phoenician or Egyptian crew), and any indigenous peoples who might have been present. All that took place in an area occupied by non-Maya Mixe-Zoque people today and likely in the past as well.  I see no reason why the Nephites should have given up their native Hebrew.

As in the Middle East, so in Mesoamerica, there were always multi-lingual specialists who assisted with trade and diplomacy.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Very odd.  That is not a position that I recall ever taking. 

I almost certainly just misunderstood then. My apologies.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nibley himself long ago gave some examples of the spelling in cursive Egyptian being much shorter than in hieroglypohic (Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd ed., CWHN VII:149, in which he showed the extreme shorthand version of hieroglyphic  image.png.687e28bfebceaa38aba5232b78000b4d.png, in which four hieroglyphs are reduced to no more than one small squiggle).

That's the heiratic, right? But that's still phonetic and not ideograms which would reduce it further assuming no other short hand techniques.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The people of Zarahemla constituted a mixture of the Hebrew-speaking Nephites and the local descendants of Mulek and his associates (possibly Jews who accompanied him, and a possibly Phoenician or Egyptian crew), and any indigenous peoples who might have been present. All that took place in an area occupied by non-Maya Mixe-Zoque people today and likely in the past as well.  I see no reason why the Nephites should have given up their native Hebrew.

Main reason to assume Nephites gave up Hebrew is that you have the small Hebrew speaking group merging with an indigenous populace which was much larger. Plus for trade they'd have to speak the other language as well. This likely happened numerous times. We know it happened when they mix with the mysterious Mulekites and likely happened as well sometime in the period of last 2 Nephi. But that passage in Mosiah seems the strongest indicator since King Benjamin seems to suggest learning Hebrew is unusual.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

...............................................................

That's the heiratic, right? But that's still phonetic and not ideograms which would reduce it further assuming no other short hand techniques.

We need to ask how a written ideogram/logogram might be rendered by the seerstone for the Book of Mormon text.  Would it reflect the written or enunciated text?  In Amarna cuneiform, for example, the Egyptian scribes often used frozen or habitual renderings which did not comport with proper grammar or pronounciation, and the Canaanite recipients did not read them as Akkadian, but in their own tongue.  Thus, the written text might take three separate forms in the  minds of writers and recipients.  In addition, written ideograms were often used as determinatives (same as in Egyptian), but not pronounced.  An example in Egyptian is the ideogram for -ites, which would not be pronounced in Egyptian, but is in English.  Another example is Sumerian SHE, SHE.UM, SHE.AM, etc., meaning "grain, wheat, barley, pinion pine nut," over time.  Akkadian cuneiform also used SHE, but only as a determinative attached to the Akkadian word for "grain, wheat, barley," -um.  Whether we take it as Sumerian cuneiform, or as Akkadian cuneiform (SHE)-um, it is the likely source of sheum in Mosiah 9:9 -- probably from a Jaredite source.

image.png               image.png

Quote

Main reason to assume Nephites gave up Hebrew is that you have the small Hebrew speaking group merging with an indigenous populace which was much larger. Plus for trade they'd have to speak the other language as well. This likely happened numerous times. We know it happened when they mix with the mysterious Mulekites and likely happened as well sometime in the period of last 2 Nephi. But that passage in Mosiah seems the strongest indicator since King Benjamin seems to suggest learning Hebrew is unusual.

Some sort of survival of Hebrew and Egyptian took place in nearby Zapotec (Sawi-Zaa) in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, as I point out in my  “*Sawi-Zaa,” 2016 version 3, online at  http://www.scribd.com/doc/56696298/SAWI-ZAA .  Then there is Moroni's comment at Mormon 9:32-33, and the long survival of Hebrew within many Jewish communities, even if only as a learned language, such as you indicated with Latin.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2019 at 10:40 AM, snowflake said:

This has to be one of the most bizaare verses in the BOM!! This makes no sense whatsoever!

Uh, gold which is very durable and would- and did! - last for thousands of years is kind of expensive.  

The expense exceeded the Stake budget.  ;)

And, as Robert says, is why they used what I will call "Egyptian picture writing".  More information per square inch on a very expensive medium made to last thousands of years.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/10/2019 at 10:38 AM, snowflake said:

Thank you for your answer...I definitely think you are on the right track that there must have been some kind of scribal class as in the biblical narrative.  Having come from the old world,  any idea why these scribes started recording on plates as opposed to the tradition animal skin or papyri? Possibly a newer technology? 

 

On 1/10/2019 at 10:46 AM, snowflake said:

Do you think there was a scribal class creating the many different records or was it mainly the prophets? The records that existed the Old World were typically papyri or animal skins...referred to as scrolls....why switch to the gold plates? 

The Hebrews of Qumran did actually use some copper/slightly brass scrolls. They were supposedly a treasure record. They were found with the other Qumran scrolls. So it is not like scribes just decided to do this in the new world. Other recent finds have verified the previous essentially unknown practice of writing on metals/plates after Joseph Smith brought forth the golden plates. So archaeology has since confirmed the practice. Why did they do it? Because they wanted to preserve their record. There is little doubt that the golden plates were actually an alloy of copper and gold called tumbaga used the Americas. This is also archaeologically proven after the days of Joseph Smith. So archaeology now reluctantly confirms that American cultures had metal-working capabilities, and weren't simply a bunch of savages running around in loincloths. To make this alloy you need 1000 deg+ temps. As for golden plates with writing on them from the Americas, you can literally go see them hidden away in the Peabody Museum of Harvard if you have the right pull. Why switch? They just did sometimes for various reasons.

Scribes were essentially copyists. They were knowledgeable about the scriptures since they copied them. That was a Jewish practice to preserve the written record. They aren't needed for a record made on metallic plates. 

Edited by RevTestament
typos
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

There is little doubt that the golden plates were actually an alloy of copper and gold called Kumbaga used the Americas.

Correct.  This is also the basis for the song Kum Ba Yah, which, translated, means "Come By Here."  Anthropologists have determined that the alloy plates were so special and unique that people would travel from hundreds of miles away to "Come By" and see the Kumbaga plates with scripture engraved upon them.  The song, still sung by indigenous people in Mexico and Guatemala, recounts the days of brass plates and the religious teachings therein. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/14/2019 at 10:19 AM, Gervin said:

Correct.  This is also the basis for the song Kum Ba Yah, which, translated, means "Come By Here."  Anthropologists have determined that the alloy plates were so special and unique that people would travel from hundreds of miles away to "Come By" and see the Kumbaga plates with scripture engraved upon them.  The song, still sung by indigenous people in Mexico and Guatemala, recounts the days of brass plates and the religious teachings therein. 

Yes I think that was confirmed in a book by Shirley Youjest, right?

Most people think it is a plea for the Lord to "come by here" since it is addressed directly to God- as in "Come by here, my Lord, come by here" - as pronounced in Creole English - but of course that is a huge error.

They actually wanted to see the plates, right?

Uh huh. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya

 

 

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I think that was confirmed in a book by Shirley Youjest, right?

Most people think it is a plea for the Lord to "come by here" since it is addressed directly to God- as in "Come by here, my Lord, come by here" - as pronounced in Creole English - but of course that is a huge error.

They actually wanted to see the plates, right?

Uh huh. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya

 

 

Seriously, with all that knowledge of metallurgy, numerous metals, and the use of breastplates (and armor for head and arms) described in the Book of Mormon, one would think that there might have been some plates laying around for inscribing a Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian character or two.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Gervin said:

Seriously, with all that knowledge of metallurgy, numerous metals, and the use of breastplates (and armor for head and arms) described in the Book of Mormon, one would think that there might have been some plates laying around for inscribing a Hebrew or Reformed Egyptian character or two.

You really just don't know. You think you are being smart...

Here you go. You are writing in reformed Egyptian even as you type. It was apparently the Hebrews who invented the alphabet using Egyptian characters. The Greek Alpha Bet comes from the older Hebrew Aleph Beit. And it is basically settled that the at least some of the paleo-Hebrew letters, came from Egyptian characters. The Aleph came from the oxhead character, which has gotten turned 180deg into our A. So while you intend to be smart and poke fun about "reformed Egyptian", you don't even realize you are writing in reformed Egyptian. The Alphabet took the world by storm. The Phoenicians and the Greeks adopted it, but it was the Egyptians who used certain characters for certain sounds. Ironically, it is to them that we owe our alphabet.... I mean our reformed Egyptian - beginning with this "reformed Egyptian Character" you asked for.... A.... and if you need two... I think I can dig up another....:)

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×