Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

591 Excellent

About webbles

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Considering that all children under the age of accountability automatically go to the Celestial Kingdom, and considering that in the past, a lot of kids died young, the percentage of those in the Celestial Kingdom is going to be a lot larger than 2%. I, personally, think the number is closer to 50% or higher.
  2. Dr. Ritner had already translated it in his paper 2 years before Dr. Rhodes did his translation. Dr. Ritner wrote it in The 'Breathing Permit of Hor’ Thirty-four Years Later which was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 4 (Winter, 2000). See his translation on page 114 of https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N04_107.pdf.
  3. Thank you. I found it on pages 20-22 of the pdf (page number 45-47 in the document). 10 out of 17 are basically correct. Of those correct, 3 of them (Chaldean, Samaritan, and Hebrew) probably come from primers that Joshua Seixas brought to the Hebrew school. 1 of them (the Western Indian) is from the Lenape tribe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape) and Phelps probably picked it up because of missionary contact with a group that had been relocated to Fort Leavenworth. The other 6 (Greek, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Latin) have only minor issues. Of the 7 that are incorrec
  4. Do you know if any one has actually figured out how many of these languages make sense? I just did a quick Google translate of the English to the supposed language and it looks like many of the translations are wrong. But I'd love to see if someone has actually tried to match them up. Here's each language with what is in the document and the Google Translate of the English text. Chaldean Keed’nauh ta-meroon le-hoam olauhayauh dey-shemayauh veh aur’kau lau gnaubadoo yabadoo ma-ar’gnau oomeen tehoat shemayauh alah (Thus shall ye say unto them: The gods that have not made the
  5. The 5th century Nephites are basically identical to the 5th century Lamanites and they are basically identical to any other group in the area. 4 Nephi 1:17 has everyone in that area become "one". So they would all have the same language. And then 4 Nephi 1:20 has the Lamanites splitting off because of religious differences (roughly 200AD). So I read that as talking about people that he's never met, such as people from across the sea.
  6. I don't see why Nephi and Moroni would have used the same language. Mormon 9:32 says "called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us,". I've read that as Mormon saying that it has been altered over the centuries from when they first got it. It doesn't even say when or where they first got it, so it could have come from Lehi, it could have come from the Mulekites, it could have come from those that were already in the Americas. I'm also not exactly sure if Mormon could read the original small plates without the use of the seer stones. Take English. Go back
  7. Where does it say that it in the Book of Mormon? The only verse I know of that uses the term "reformed egyptian" is Mormon 9:32. That is almost 1,000 years from the time of Lehi. The likelihood that Mormon's "reformed egyptian" is anything like a semetic + egyptian language feels really small.
  8. Since we only have a bare minimum of the knowledge of what "reformed egyptian" even looks like, why can't "reformed egyptian" be one of the actual languages that has been found in the Americas?
  9. That is a cool picture. I'm not sure what that has to do with Facsimile 2, though. Unless you are trying to say that Reuben Hedlock messed up there and that it really should have looked like that? I'm not sure that is a viable answer since Hedlock did a pretty good job in most of his copying (compare Facsimile 1 with the original). In http://www.magicgatebg.com/Books/Joseph Smith Hypocephalus.pdf, Dr. Rhodes notes (starting at bottom of page 11) So, it isn't that odd for different things to be seen in front of the god Min (who is the sitting one).
  10. Considering that Joseph Smith never claimed to be perfect, what's wrong with him boasting? Why do believers have to believe that Joseph was infallible when he never claimed that and in fact explicitly denied it? Accepting Joseph Smith is a prophet doesn't mean that he was a perfect being. It just means that God used him to reveal His truth. There's plenty of precedent for prophets to be fallible.
  11. What can Dr. Rhodes confirm? That the printing plate originally had a snout or that the printing plate was stolen? It sounds like he can confirm the later but, based on what you've said, that doesn't mean the former. Even if the printing plate was stolen, we have the 1842 original printing so it shows us what the original printing plate had.
  12. The author of the thesis doesn't try to re-translate the words. He assumes that Dr. Ritner and Dr. Rhodes correctly translated them. He has their translations on page 40. It includes Dr. Ritner's 2000 translation (“Recitation by Anubis, who makes protection, foremost of the embalming booth(?).”) and Dr. Rhodes' 2002 translation (“Words spoken by Anubis who makes protection Lord of heaven, Foremost of the Westerners.”). He does point out potential issues in their reading. You can read the potential issues for the Anubis hieroglyphs on page 61-62. The last sentence in that section is:
  13. The thesis is talking about Book of the Breathings. You can look in the thesis and see almost all of the Book of Breathings (there is only one missing) and each of them have two ears. Edited to add: Here's the quote from the thesis starting at the bottom of page 90:
  14. I came across a Thesis paper that talks about Facsimile 3 and includes a portion about the Anubis character. It is from last year and even references the website that Unclean Deacon pointed out. You can read the entire paper at https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8598&context=etd. The part about Anubis starts on page 90. The main points that he says are: Anubis is always drawn with two tall, distinct ears. The figure in the facsimile only has one short ear and the hieroglyphic writing doesn't give much room for even one tall ear. In all of the
  15. Then why does the 1842 printing not have a snout? https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-and-facsimiles-1-march-16-may-1842/10. If the printing plate originally had it and then had it removed, the 1842 printing should have the snout.
  • Create New...