Egyptian Names In The Book Of Mormon

[Noggin]

Please point out where I at all reference my theism.

sure thing.

Makelan writes:

That there are similarities between 19th century culture and the BoM is not unexpected. The Book of Mormon can be shown to have real 19th Century influences in it and still come from an ancient text. It cannot, however, be shown to have real ancient Near Eatern influences in it and still be a 19th century creation. We have shown those correlations. The burden is upon you to show them to be false.

There, you posit that the book of Mormon is true. By default, you therefore must sign up to the creed and codes of Mormonism. That makes you a theist.

Then point out where I explain that I have approval from God.

actually, Joseph Smith did it for you when he allegedly saw god, and god told Smith that all other religious creeds were in error. Mormonism claims to be the only religion on the planet that is capable of saving a human soul. Assuming you sign up to Smith's religion, aka Mormonism, I am therefore justified in attributing the quality of a plumped up exclusivity claim to your side of the fence. You know, you should try out agnosticism, no claims made... no need for such defensive posturing... kind of nice.

Then, if you don't mind actually reading what I had to say, why don't you respond to it instead of formulating mindless insults?

Hope that helps! btw, there were no insults. Just outsider observations on what is happening in the world wide stage of religion. Try to tone that persecution complex down a notch.

Noggin

[maklelan]

There, you posit that the book of Mormon is true. By default, you therefore must sign up to the creed and codes of Mormonism. That makes you a theist.

This is ridiculous. It's not difficult to see that I'm a theist, but I never reference it or submit it as any kind of evidence, which is what you imply. That is an element of my understanding that I have deliberately excluded from any and all discussion on this board. It has no place in an academic discussion. My statement, by the way, does not indicate explicitly that I believe the book to be true. The statement simply makes it clear that one argument is exclusive, and the other is not. One must, therefore, carry the burden of proof.

Then point out where I explain that I have approval from God.

actually, Joseph Smith did it for you when he allegedly saw god, and god told Smith that all other religious creeds were in error. Mormonism claims to be the only religion on the planet that is capable of saving a human soul. Assuming you sign up to Smith's religion, aka Mormonism, I am therefore justified in attributing the quality of a plumped up exclusivity claim to your side of the fence. You know, you should try out agnosticism, no claims made... no need for such defensive posturing... kind of nice.

Yeah, I tried that for twenty years, and I was tired of saying "I don't know," all the time. I prefer understanding to Pyrrhonism. By the way, what on earth does this have to do with my assertion about the burden of proof or my divine approval?

Hope that helps!

No, it doesn't. You still haven't responded to my assertion about where the burden of proof lies.

btw, there were no insults. Just outsider observations on what is happening in the world wide stage of religion. Try to tone that persecution complex down a notch.

You insulted my intelligence and you labelled me as claiming a stamp of divine approval. I have never claimed that status and I was asking for your opinion on the statement I made regarding who has the burden of proof, which comment you skipped over to respond to a different comment on the burden of proof. I was simply asking for your opinion and you ejaculated a ridiculous post about how I claim I know better than you because I have God on my side. I have never even come close to making that statement, and your above appeal to Joseph Smith is a silly attempt to pin such a statement to me. I'm not claiming persecution, I'm asking that you take responsibility for you porst. If you're gonna run around taking cheap shots with your tail between your legs I'm gonna point it out. When you finally display the maturity to take responsibility for a stupid post I'll back off.

Now, what is your opinion about my post regarding who carries the burden of proof.

[Noggin]

Look. Are you a believing Mormon or not? If the shoe fits, wear it. Why hide what's inside? I deduced you believe. You called me on the carpet for that deduction. Now tell me I am wrong about what I observe about you and I will back off. Because if you are a theist, even a Mormon Theist, my posts make perfect sense as to why and how I responded the way I did. No need to get defensive, unless you know I have a point that weakens your argument.

And again, from the top... as I posted before recently... A theist posits a god's existence. Many of said theists posit that their god is the only true god... i.e. Islam, Catholicism, JW, Eckankar, Mormon. If they all prove that their god is a true and Only True God (and they do), and I, and outsider wish to believe in one of them...

to whom do I appeal for clarification? You? On what basis? Feelings? How do you know your assertion is correct? How do the rest know theirs is correct (true)???

And why in the heck is it my burden of proof, as you claim, to go about proving that all of these other gods are false except one? That is nonsense. I challenge you to pray about the Koran. What? You won't pray about the Koran? Why won't you? By your logic, you have the burden of proof to prove Islam is false and how have you done that? Oh yes, I remember, you prayed to your Mormon god who told you that Mormonism is true.. and therefore by default, Islam et al is false. That is brilliant proof. No confirmation biases there.

You are making the claim that your Mormon god, or whatever god you believe in, is the True God, therefore the burden of proof lies on you to prove it... else how can I distinguish yours from everyone elses? They all say the same thing.

Too bad you don't live in the glory days... where God cleared up messes like this by having a

Whose God Is the Truest God

contest. When the priests of Baal lost the contest, the True God burnt them all up and killed all 400 of them sending the local townsfolk to their knees in worshipful attitude.

Now that is proof!

Noggin

[Jaybear]

Now, what is your opinion about my post regarding who carries the burden of proof.

This "burden of proof" assertion has no validity.

The burden of proof exists in a rules based system, where a judge or jury is called upon to render a verdict.

Where this is not judge, no jury, no rules of admissible evidence, there in no burden of proof.

Your cry that so and so has failed to meet the burden of proof is a empty rhetorical device, devoid of value, other than to give you the illusory satifisfaction of having "won" the argument.

[The Dude]

the burden of proof is a empty rhetorical device

Exactomundo!

[consiglieri]

I just reviewed this thread to see how things were going, and it seems to have become somewhat derailed over burdens of proof, theism v. atheism, etc.

My experience has been that, when a thread gets derailed into subjects such as burdens of proof, it is because a good deal of proof has already been adduced and some posters would rather deal with peripheral issues than engage the actual subject.

The actual subject here is not burdens of proof; nor is it theism v atheism; it is simply what to make of the presence of documented Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon.

Nobody has argued that Joseph Smith somehow knew these names were Egyptian and purposefully inserted them into the narrative in order to give it versimilitude. This is largely because that argument is about as implausible as Joseph Smith's version of receiving the book from an angel.

Further, nobody has argued that the Book of Mormon names linked to ancient Egyptian names are not really Egyptian names. This is largely because they demonstrably are ancient Egyptian names.

The camps seem to have split between (1) The presence of authentically ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon is evidence that the Book of Mormon is ancient; and, (2) The presence of authentically ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon proves nothing because it is merely "coincidence."

A number of non-LDS scholars have been cited who fall into category number one above.

I am not saying that the presence of authentically ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon proves the Book of Mormon is true. My position is more modest than that.

All I am saying is that the presence of authentically ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon is evidence, to some degree, that the Book of Mormon is ancient.

It is hard for me to understand how a reasonable person cannot agree with this position.

Can we all agree on this proposition underlined above? What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

By the way, I am pleased to see that this thread has somehow merited five gold stars.

How does this thread merit so grand an accolade? Is it bestowed from above or from beneath?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[charity]

consiglieri, I thought I was the most naive person on the board. But you get the crown. No, there will not be agreement on the underlined part of your post. Why? Because the critics cannot take the shock to their system (or belief system) if there is anything that argues for an ancient origin of the Book of Mormon. The stakes are too high for them. If they have to admit this, then they have to also admit that the Book of Mormon might really be true, and if it is, then Joseph Smith is a prophet, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restored church. They would either then have to conform their lives to God's order and will or be in open rebellion. So, they will fall back on the dude's universal answer. "It is only coincidence."

[consiglieri]

consiglieri, I thought I was the most naive person on the board. But you get the crown. No, there will not be agreement on the underlined part of your post. Why? Because the critics cannot take the shock to their system (or belief system) if there is anything that argues for an ancient origin of the Book of Mormon. The stakes are too high for them. If they have to admit this, then they have to also admit that the Book of Mormon might really be true, and if it is, then Joseph Smith is a prophet, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restored church. They would either then have to conform their lives to God's order and will or be in open rebellion. So, they will fall back on the dude's universal answer. "It is only coincidence."

Sweet Charity,

I don't know if you are right. I hope you are not. I think that the Dude, if he chooses to weigh in, may actually agree with my modest proposition, though he will peg the degree of evidence to be incredibly low. I have faith in the intellectual honesty of the Dude, and will not hasten to judge him. I think that he is a righteous Dude. I further think that he will say that it is his belief that it is only coincidence, but that he will allow for the possibility, however slight, that the presence of documented ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon could be evidence that the Book of Mormon is ancient.

Only time, and the Dude, will tell.

Naively yours,

--Consiglieri (Italian for "The one who wears the crown")

[Jaybear]

Further, nobody has argued that the Book of Mormon names linked to ancient Egyptian names are not really Egyptian names. This is largely because they demonstrably are ancient Egyptian names.

No they are not demonstratably ancient egyptian names.

You have demonstrated that two of the names match Egyptian names, (3 letter words) and the rest of the list of names are similar, but both sound differnent and are spelled different. These include:

Nephi, Nefri

Paanchi, Pianki

Pahoran, Pahuru

Deseret, Teshret

In other words, no, Nephi, Paanchi, Pahoran, and Deseret are not demonstrably Egyptian names.

At best, they are demonstrably similar to Egyptian names.

By the way, I agree with conclusion:

All I am saying is that the presence of authentically ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon is evidence, to some degree, that the Book of Mormon is ancient.

[consiglieri]

Further, nobody has argued that the Book of Mormon names linked to ancient Egyptian names are not really Egyptian names. This is largely because they demonstrably are ancient Egyptian names.

No they are not demonstratably ancient egyptian names.

You have demonstrated that two of the names match Egyptian names, (3 letter words) and the rest of the list of names are similar, but both sound differnent and are spelled different. These include:

Nephi, Nefri

Paanchi, Pianki

Pahoran, Pahuru

Deseret, Teshret

In other words, no, Nephi, Paanchi, Pahoran, and Deseret are not demonstrably Egyptian names.

At best, they are demonstrably similar to Egyptian names.

By the way, I agree with conclusion:

All I am saying is that the presence of authentically ancient Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon is evidence, to some degree, that the Book of Mormon is ancient.

Dear Jaybear,

I respect your input and appreciate your agreement with the conclusion.

Is there anyone out there who disagrees with the conclusion? I am naively seeking unity of opinion on this modest proposition.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. Let's not forget "Sam," "Aha," and "Kherihor," though.

[Gervin]

One such person, after writing a series of infammatory letters designed to elicit negative comments about LDS scriptures from prominent Near Eastern scholars, received a response from William F. Albright of Johns Hopkins University, who expressed doubts that Joseph Smith could have learned Egyptian from any early nineteenth century sources. Albright first explained that he was a Protestant and hence not a believer in the Book of Mormon, but then observed, "It is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor[an] which appear in the book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language being 'Reformed Egyptian.'" Puzzled at the existence of such names in the obscure book published by Joseph Smith in 1830, Albright vaguely suggested that the young Mormon leader was some kind of "religious genius."

Is this evidence for authentic ancient Egyptian influence in the Book of Mormon ...

I don't agree with your underlined conclusion, and I was suspcious from the get-go; this quote attributed to Albright seems to get trotted out quite a bit by faithful LDS ... but I've never seen a copy of the letter. Do you possess or have you seen a copy of the letter, consiglieri?

If you are just quoting someone's quote then I would say that 1) I'd like to see a copy of the letter, 2) I'm not convinced by your quote that Albright is supporting your position, 3) I have my doubts that a scholar of Albright's renown would endorse the ancient pedigree of the Book of Mormon's in a letter - and nowhere else, and 4) I'm not too impressed that you trot out a vague reference from 1966 to support your claims for Egytian connections. Have there been any non-LDS Egyptologists in the last 40 years who have written a letter, made a statement, or presented a paper agreeing with Albright?

No, this is certainly not evidence for authentic ancient Egyptian influence in the Book of Mormon.

[consiglieri]

Entire post deleted due to computer malfunction. I try again below.

[maklelan]

Look. Are you a believing Mormon or not? If the shoe fits, wear it. Why hide what's inside? I deduced you believe. You called me on the carpet for that deduction. Now tell me I am wrong about what I observe about you and I will back off. Because if you are a theist, even a Mormon Theist, my posts make perfect sense as to why and how I responded the way I did.

So this makes sense to you:

Me: I feel this way about the burden of proof.

You: In response to the earlier post about the burden of proof, I think this.

Me: What do you think about my feelings?

You: You claim since you believe in God you are therefore superior to me, and I am under under no obligation to respond to such a fallacious assertion.

Me: What on earth are you taling about? I asked about my comments on the burden of proof.

You: You want to get into a spitting contest about who has the superior beleifs!

Me: What on earth are you talkign about?!?

I challenge you to pray about the Koran. What? You won't pray about the Koran? Why won't you? By your logic, you have the burden of proof to prove Islam is false and how have you done that? Oh yes, I remember, you prayed to your Mormon god who told you that Mormonism is true.. and therefore by default, Islam et al is false. That is brilliant proof. No confirmation biases there.

I did pray about the Q'uran when I was investigating the church. I also prayed about the Chuang-Tzu, the Bible, the Celestine Prophecy and the Bhagavad Gita. Thanks for making another mindless assumption about my faith. You have no idea what my logic is, and I never brought my theism up. I wanted to know about how you understood my concern over who carries the burden of proff, but your asinine comments have obliterated my desire to hear your thoughts on anything. The idiocy of your arguments astounds me, and your presumptuousness makes you look ridiculous.

You are making the claim that your Mormon god, or whatever god you believe in, is the True God, therefore the burden of proof lies on you to prove it... else how can I distinguish yours from everyone elses? They all say the same thing.

PLease point out where I said anything at all about God on this thread.

Too bad you don't live in the glory days... where God cleared up messes like this by having a

Whose God Is the Truest God

contest. When the priests of Baal lost the contest, the True God burnt them all up and killed all 400 of them sending the local townsfolk to their knees in worshipful attitude.

Now that is proof!

Noggin

You're the one who wants to have this contest! I just wanted to know what your thoughts were on my argument about the burden of proof. Do you have the capacity for objective thought at all?!?

[consiglieri]

One such person, after writing a series of infammatory letters designed to elicit negative comments about LDS scriptures from prominent Near Eastern scholars, received a response from William F. Albright of Johns Hopkins University, who expressed doubts that Joseph Smith could have learned Egyptian from any early nineteenth century sources. Albright first explained that he was a Protestant and hence not a believer in the Book of Mormon, but then observed, "It is all the more surprising that there are two Egyptian names, Paanch and Pahor[an] which appear in the book of Mormon in close connection with a reference to the original language being 'Reformed Egyptian.'" Puzzled at the existence of such names in the obscure book published by Joseph Smith in 1830, Albright vaguely suggested that the young Mormon leader was some kind of "religious genius."

Is this evidence for authentic ancient Egyptian influence in the Book of Mormon ...

I don't agree with your underlined conclusion, and I was suspcious from the get-go; this quote attributed to Albright seems to get trotted out quite a bit by faithful LDS ... but I've never seen a copy of the letter. Do you possess or have you seen a copy of the letter, consiglieri?

If you are just quoting someone's quote then I would say that 1) I'd like to see a copy of the letter, 2) I'm not convinced by your quote that Albright is supporting your position, 3) I have my doubts that a scholar of Albright's renown would endorse the ancient pedigree of the Book of Mormon's in a letter - and nowhere else, and 4) I'm not too impressed that you trot out a vague reference from 1966 to support your claims for Egytian connections. Have there been any non-LDS Egyptologists in the last 40 years who have written a letter, made a statement, or presented a paper agreeing with Albright?

No, this is certainly not evidence for authentic ancient Egyptian influence in the Book of Mormon.

Dear Gervin,

You seem most decided in your response. Am I to understand that if the Albright letter were authenticated, and if the Albright letter indeed says what I have quoted it as saying (not a "vague reference" by any stretch), that you would still be of the position that this is "certainly not evidence for authentic ancient Egyptian influence in the Book of Mormon"?

I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly before proceeding to the dissecting room.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jaybear]

Dear Gervin,

You seem most decided in your response. Am I to understand that if the Albright letter were authenticated, and if the Albright letter indeed says what I have quoted it as saying (not a "vague reference" by any stretch), that you would still be of the position that this is "certainly not evidence for authentic ancient Egyptian influence in the Book of Mormon"?

I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly before proceeding to the dissecting room.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I would like to see the letter. Above, I expressed suspicion with the inclusion of [] within the quote, thereby altering words in the actual letter. Is there some reason that you need someone to jump through hoops before you produce the document.

Would I also be going out on a limb to surmise that Albright is dead, and there is no followup correspondence from him to confirm what you think he intended to convey in the letter?

[Gervin]

Dear Gervin,

You seem most decided in your response. Am I to understand that if the Albright letter were authenticated, and if the Albright letter indeed says what I have quoted it as saying (not a "vague reference" by any stretch), that you would still be of the position that this is "certainly not evidence for authentic ancient Egyptian influence in the Book of Mormon"?

I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly before proceeding to the dissecting room.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I don't doubt that Albright wrote a letter so there's no need to authenticate. And perhaps the letter says what was quoted - that is certainly one question. Another question I have relates to the entire letter - what is the context? That would cover my points 1) and 2). With that covered I would then move on to 3) and 4), the latter which is separate and apart from the Albright letter. Hope that helps. /G

[Olavarria]

Nephi, Nefri

Paanchi, Pianki

Pahoran, Pahuru

Deseret, Teshret

In other words, no, Nephi, Paanchi, Pahoran, and Deseret are not demonstrably Egyptian names.

Wrong! We would expect there to be differences in pronounciation with the names in the BoM and the names in old world egyptian. Why? Because the Nephites were divided from the ancient near east in both space and time. Ill give you an example:

petros

the original greek meaning "rock"

Pedro(Spanish)

Pierre(French)

Peter (English)

Pietro (Italian)

Petra(Roman Latin)

Pers (Swedish)

Yeshua

Iosis (Greek)

Jesus (English)

Isa (Arabic)

Jesu (german)

ye su (mandarin)

Yosef

hebrew

Yusuf (arabic)

Jose (spanish)

Joe (english)

As you can see, the farther a name goes from its original place and time, the more it changes. No one expectes, or should expect BoM names to be exactly the same as the egyptian. The fact that there is variation from Nefri to Nephi, Pahuru to Pahuran, Mittani to Middoni, is consistant whith what would be expected to such names as they are completly separated from their original source for almost 1,000 years.

[veritasvocat]

In terms of the romance languages and the name Petros, we have a provable connection and evolution of the changes between greek and latin, and the romance languages that developed from them. we have no such evidence for book of mormon names and Egyptian.

secondly, if the book of mormon truely was ancient, and wrotten in "reformed egyptian," and if smith truely could translate such things "by the power of god," then why is his translation of those papyri scrolls that became the "book of Abraham" regarded as manifestly fictitious by egyptologists?

In the case of the book of Abraham, we have the originals to compare with, and the word is that Smith was full of it.

[Olavarria]

secondly, if the book of mormon truely was ancient, and wrotten in "reformed egyptian," and if smith truely could translate such things "by the power of god," then why is his translation of those papyri scrolls that became the "book of Abraham" regarded as manifestly fictitious by egyptologists?

In the case of the book of Abraham, we have the originals to compare with, and the word is that Smith was full of it.

Nice red herring. Please read the Lost Book of Abraham thread. Especially, the exchange between Noggin and I.

My point was that just becaue the BoM names and egyptian names arent exactly phonologically identical, that does not mean that they are not the same.

[consiglieri]

Dear Gervin,

You seem most decided in your response. Am I to understand that if the Albright letter were authenticated, and if the Albright letter indeed says what I have quoted it as saying (not a "vague reference" by any stretch), that you would still be of the position that this is "certainly not evidence for authentic ancient Egyptian influence in the Book of Mormon"?

I just want to make sure I am understanding you correctly before proceeding to the dissecting room.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I don't doubt that Albright wrote a letter so there's no need to authenticate. And perhaps the letter says what was quoted - that is certainly one question. Another question I have relates to the entire letter - what is the context? That would cover my points 1) and 2). With that covered I would then move on to 3) and 4), the latter which is separate and apart from the Albright letter. Hope that helps. /G

Well, Gervin, I admit your asking to see the entire Albright letter is a fair request, and perhaps we could make it a FAIR request. I do not have a copy of the letter, but excerpted the original quote from an article written by John Tvetdness, which already contained the quote as it stands in my original post.

Is there anybody out there in FAIR-land who can produce the original letter in its entirety?

There is a genuine gold-plated no-prize for anyone who can locate it!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jaybear]

Nephi, Nefri

Paanchi, Pianki

Pahoran, Pahuru

Deseret, Teshret

In other words, no, Nephi, Paanchi, Pahoran, and Deseret are not demonstrably Egyptian names.

Wrong! We would expect there to be differences in pronounciation with the names in the BoM and the names in old world egyptian. Why? Because the Nephites were divided from the ancient near east in both space and time.

Sure we would expect the names to evolve. I didnt say otherwise. But once you change the names to reflect a culture outside of Egypt, they are no longer Egyptian names. In other words, Nephi, Paanchi, Pahoran, and Deseret are not demonstrably Egyptian names.

It one thing to say that names are similar to Egyptian names, and therefore MAY have evolved from Egyptian names, and its quite another to boldly claim that all the names listed "are demonstrably Egyptian names."

To assert the latter, is to overstate the evidence.

[cdowis]

>this quote attributed to Albright seems to get trotted out quite a bit by faithful LDS ... but I've never seen a copy of the letter.

The letter is irrevelant. Whether these are authentic Egyptian names is what is at issue.

A staunch critic of the church, a moderator for one of the archeology groups, Doug Weller, was also skeptical and went to an egyptologist to check it out. He then publically admitted that they are authentic. His post is buried somewhere in alt.religion.mormon several years ago in response to posts by cdowis.

Why don't you simply check it out by a few phone calls, and let us know, if you are still skeptical.

>.... Paanchi, Pahoran, .... are not demonstrably Egyptian names.

And your creditials are..... ?

[Noggin]

Noggin wrote: Look. Are you a believing Mormon or not? If the shoe fits, wear it. Why hide what's inside? I deduced you believe. You called me on the carpet for that deduction. Now tell me I am wrong about what I observe about you and I will back off. Because if you are a theist, even a Mormon Theist, my posts make perfect sense as to why and how I responded the way I did.

So this makes sense to you:

Me: I feel this way about the burden of proof.

You: In response to the earlier post about the burden of proof, I think this.

Me: What do you think about my feelings?

You: You claim since you believe in God you are therefore superior to me, and I am under under no obligation to respond to such a fallacious assertion.

Me: What on earth are you tal[k]ing about? I asked about my comments on the burden of proof.

Noggin responds: I am trying to relate to the words you placed in my mouth but am having difficulty. You aren't making much sense. It's probably because I truly am dense. I admit it. Okay. Here goes. You think I think you are superior to me since you believe in god? Okay... If you come out and say that you believe in the Mormon god, which btw, you have already inadvertantly done, my posts then make all the sense in the world. I suppose you can feign ignorance if it helps you avoid addressing the points, but it looks bad. At least I come out and admit I am ignorant.

I have addressed your comments on the burden of proof. Did you ignore them?

You: You want to get into a spitting contest about who has the superior beleifs!

Me: What on earth are you talkign about?!?

???? What. I think we should just agree to disagree here. Obviously we aren't hitting at the same target. I don't even have the energy to go back and re read how it is you got to where you are at this point. You are apparently spinning in infinity over this. Let's just disagree and call it good.

I challenge you to pray about the Koran. What? You won't pray about the Koran? Why won't you? By your logic, you have the burden of proof to prove Islam is false and how have you done that? Oh yes, I remember, you prayed to your Mormon god who told you that Mormonism is true.. and therefore by default, Islam et al is false. That is brilliant proof. No confirmation biases there.

I did pray about the Q'uran when I was investigating the church. I also prayed about the Chuang-Tzu, the Bible, the Celestine Prophecy and the Bhagavad Gita. Thanks for making another mindless assumption about my faith.

Well congratulations then. Seriously. You have figured out what I have not been able to. Hats off to you. Let me guess, you feel that your faith is true while the faith of Islam and Buddhism and Catholicism is lacking. My view is that Feelings for or towards "proof" are nothing more than hunches and all religious people have them. I assert that Feelings do not prove anything. I claim that Feelings are an unreliable basis on which one should make any final judgement. I believe that Feelings are assuagers. They trick us half the time, hence, the unreliability. Feelings are at the core of belief structure, your testimony. Sail on sailor. Actually, I applaud that you can follow something as amazing as Mormonism on pure feelings. That is amazing. I congratulate you.

I wonder though how it is that these people of other faiths can be so assured in Christ, Buddha, Vishnu, Eck, Allah. They feel just as strongly as you do. Many of them give their life as tokens of devotion. But, I forgot, they (all 6.495 billion of them) are the fools, the ones not quite in tune with god as you are. How daunting that must be to have that world view. Don't blame me if you feel superior (per the words you placed into my mouth). Blame Joseph Smith who started the ball rolling back in 1820.

You have no idea what my logic is, and I never brought my theism up.

Ah sure you did. (but you did not have to). You challenged me. Your words "And what about my assertion?" Your assertion was simple:

1. that those who do not believe in your faith have the burden of proof to prove it false...

of which assertion I have already thoroughly trounced in my last post to you (I think you forgot to read it sans emotions).

If I am wrong, then clarify. Or help me see where I have erred. I am completely open to making retractions and apologies as needed. I have no problem with that at all, if it is merited. If I am wrong, be kind to me as I have admitted I am not with the fortitude to go delving back into what you actually wrote so this post is generated off of memory only.

I wanted to know about how you understood my concern over who carries the burden of proff, but your asinine comments have obliterated my desire to hear your thoughts on anything.

exhaling........................................

My assenine comments are only such (in your opinion) assenine because they make complete sense and cut your argument off at the knees. Else... instead of slapping at me with emotion riddled ridicule, you would have tried to refute my argument.

The idiocy of your arguments astounds me, and your presumptuousness makes you look ridiculous.

okay. and your counter argument is... an emotion laden tirade? Hm. Shrugging my shoulders over here, boss. You know, I must have gotten under your skin. Usually you are more collected and logical that this from what I recall in the past.

You are making the claim that your Mormon god, or whatever god you believe in, is the True God, therefore the burden of proof lies on you to prove it... else how can I distinguish yours from everyone elses? They all say the same thing.

PLease point out where I said anything at all about God on this thread.

I already did that. But thanks for saying "Please".

Too bad you don't live in the glory days... where God cleared up messes like this by having a

Whose God Is the Truest God

contest. When the priests of Baal lost the contest, the True God burnt them all up and killed all 400 of them sending the local townsfolk to their knees in worshipful attitude.

Now that is proof!

You're the one who wants to have this contest! I just wanted to know what your thoughts were on my argument about the burden of proof. Do you have the capacity for objective thought at all?!?

I guess I don't. Surely, and Truly, if you cannot see how I addressed your argument on the burden of proof, it hasn't been done. Like I said, I am pretty dense. Don't hate on me because of it. Just ignore me, I'll eventually go away. Then feel free to gloat in my absence. I won't mind.

Noggin

[Jaybear]

>this quote attributed to Albright seems to get trotted out quite a bit by faithful LDS ... but I've never seen a copy of the letter.

The letter is irrevelant. Whether these are authentic Egyptian names is what is at issue.

The letter is only relevant to support the conclusory statements made about the content of the letter.

>.... Paanchi, Pahoran, .... are not demonstrably Egyptian names.

And your creditials are..... ?

Cute. Redefine "demonstrably Egyptian names" to create the illusion of a dispute, then make an appeal to authority.

Lets make it simple. I don't care to dispute the contention that Pianki and Pahuru are authentic Egyptian names. If it is your contention that Paanchi and Pahoran are also authentic Egyptian names rather than as I suggest arguably derived from similar and demonstrably authenthic Egyptian names, then I have not seen any evidence to support that claim. I don't even know how one could possible go about proving that assertion.