The "adieu" Argument

[MormonMason]

...

Are the characters that were allegedly copied from the plates and subsequently denounced by Dr. Charles Anthon accurate examples of the reformed Egyptian characters to which you are referring?

O would state that they probably are about as accurate as a relatively uneducated farmboy/day-laborer with no understanding of any language but of English at the time could make. I've been seeing some interesting things in the transcript (so far I have only seen what appear to me to be numeric phrase, the phoneme "mn" and the phrase "this the writing," or in more idiomatic English, "this writing," "this document," or "this book") but I also understand that this one may be a copy of a copy or worse. I do not know Demotic or Hieratic very well (not being a professional Egyptologist) so could be mistaken in anything I say about this transcript. I do find it interesting in the light of a few facsimilies of genuine Demotic Egyptian texts and a few phrases in Demotic that I have seen. Here are a couple just for fun, next to the Anthon transcript for comparison purposes.

While not identical, these two examples have similar "crosses and flourishes, letters and numbers," etc., reported by Anthon as one of his objections to the contents of the transcript he saw. However, the current transcript that we possess does not match his description as to the layout and does not have with it an English translation as reported by Harris or Smith. Because of the structure, it is difficult to determine which symbols should connect with which as the characters are separated from one another in odd ways. Some, I believe, should be combined instead of being separated out as they are in this copy.

In other cases, I believe it will be impossible for the 'D' shaped characters ever to be translated as I believe that these are names in cartouches. The problem is that notwithstanding they look a similarly to how names are enclosed and drawn in Demotic, I believe that Joseph Smith so poorly copied these that the individual strokes and marks within these are now lost and that they only now represent parts of the small originals in the fine engravings on the plates. Also a possibility is that we may need not to look at this as a purely Egyptian text. It may well be written in a Semitic dialect using Egyptian characters. Examples of such texts have fairly recently been found in Egyptian texts on the walls of certain sites and on papyri such as P. Amherst 63.

[soren]

Even more impressive is the fact that soren is not LDS, yet is comfortable with admitting obvious realities.

Sargon

And it's not that big of an admission. After all, if I were to insist that you prove the validity of your faith to me, how then could I defend my own unprovable religion from reasonable arguments against it? Double-standards are a kind of hypocrisy, and are the apologetic equivalent to Phariseeism.

[Pahoran]

Obiwan:

The farce is strong in you:

By the way, if you can see the "obvious" idocy of the argument, did you ever consider that while some of the other arguments while not so blatantly stupid, could still in fact be stupid based on higher reasoning and facts, such as understanding the idocy of this argument is based on a certain level of intellectual comprehension skills (2nd grade). Understanding most of the other arguments require middle school or high school comprehension skills which are lacking in anti-mormons.

Some very instructional rhetoric, there, dude. Do/did you mention this to potential converts while on your mission?

I understand Obiwan's statement to simply be the equivalent of: the validity of anti-Mormon arguments varies inversely as a function of how much a person knows about the subject matter.

An observation that is borne out by my experience. I read Walter Martin and Fawn M. Brodie in my mid teens. I was able to see some of their errors even then. And the more I have learned, the more errors I see.

Pahoran:

2. Did Joseph Smith, go through the same thought processes that any translator goes through in searching for the correct words to best communicate the meaning of the original text in another language? In other words, was Joseph Smith actually doing the work of translation?

That's what I understand the scriptures to be telling us, yes. See section 9, verses 8 and 9.

So then all of the words in the BOM came from Joseph Smith?

And you complain when I notice that you are trying to trap us in a snare. I didn't say anything about "all of the words." For one thing, the proper nouns were clearly read off, as all the witnesses report. The Book of Mormon translation was a collaborative effort: the Lord condescended to work with a mortal, as he always does when he gives revelation. It seems that the Lord made sure that Joseph got the meaning right, but left specific word choices up to him.

But, as you of course know, the mechanics of the translation process is a complete red herring. The fact is that neither "adieu" nor any other word choice can be faulted on translational grounds.

*Note: the quotes are necessary to indicate I'm using your terminology. "anti-mormon" is perjorative in that it implies bigotry and prejudice against a group of people and its use reinforces the negative stereotype you have developed for church/Joseph critics.

That's false, of course.

"Anti" simply means "opposed."

"Mormon" means The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

An anti-Mormon, therefore, is one who opposes The Church of Jesus Christ.

But if you insist on the extra baggage you have chosen to load onto it, I'll let you. It still applies to you in any case.

I believe Joseph Smith was a con-man, plain and simple,

An utterly worthless and baseless opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to hold it.

and I bring up valid reasons why I believe that to be true.

Well no, you don't.

You bring up accusations to bolster your unfaith that are in the end unproven and unprovable, but they don't constitute valid reasons.

I am not prejudice against Latter-day Saints.

Which explains why you speak of "the typical Mormon" in the singular, and utter negative stereotypes such as "Mormons are notorious" etc.--how, exactly?

I am not "anti-Mormon." I am anti-Joseph Smith.

A meaningless distinction if ever there was one.

Are the characters that were allegedly copied from the plates and subsequently denounced by Dr. Charles Anthon accurate examples of the reformed Egyptian characters to which you are referring?

Is the letter in which Anthon denied giving Martin Harris a certificate, or the letter in which he admitted it, the alleged denunciation to which you are referring?

Regards,

Pahoran

[4truth]

Pahoran:

And you complain when I notice that you are trying to trap us in a snare. I didn't say anything about "all of the words." For one thing, the proper nouns were clearly read off, as all the witnesses report. The Book of Mormon translation was a collaborative effort: the Lord condescended to work with a mortal, as he always does when he gives revelation. It seems that the Lord made sure that Joseph got the meaning right, but left specific word choices up to him.

But, as you of course know, the mechanics of the translation process is a complete red herring. The fact is that neither "adieu" nor any other word choice can be faulted on translational grounds.

So then, from this, is it fair to say that the way you see the translation process working boils down to God inspiring Joseph Smith by supplying and even spelling some of the specific words, but not all of them. Therefore some of the words come directly from God while others come from Joseph Smith?

Is that fair or not?

If that's accurate, and since you quoted an aproximate figure of something like 238,000 words total, would you venture to guess how many of the those words came from God and how many came from Joseph Smith?

That's false, of course.

"Anti" simply means "opposed."

"Mormon" means The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

An anti-Mormon, therefore, is one who opposes The Church of Jesus Christ.

But if you insist on the extra baggage you have chosen to load onto it, I'll let you. It still applies to you in any case.

Do personal attacks add weight to your arguments?

An utterly worthless and baseless opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to hold it.

Thanks, that's big of you. I certainly hope you never have to fulfill that promise.

Well no, you don't.

You bring up accusations to bolster your unfaith that are in the end unproven and unprovable, but they don't constitute valid reasons.

I wonder how B. H. Roberts would respond to that. I will simply avoid comment.

Which explains why you speak of "the typical Mormon" in the singular, and utter negative stereotypes such as "Mormons are notorious" etc.--how, exactly?

Pahoran, your attempts to paint me as a bigot are comical. I've said "Christians are notorious for speaking 'Christianese'" on many occasions... so I guess that makes me a bigot against Christians too! I've said my kids are notorious for failing to clean their rooms! I've said my cats are notorious for vomiting on the carpet! Get the point? And how exactly is: "the typical Mormon" a bigoted comment? Ever hear of persecution complex?

A meaningless distinction if ever there was one.

I'm starting to think discussion with you is a waste of time.

It's a quite meaningful distinction. That you can't or won't see it is revealing.

Are the characters that were allegedly copied from the plates and subsequently denounced by Dr. Charles Anthon accurate examples of the reformed Egyptian characters to which you are referring?

Is the letter in which Anthon denied giving Martin Harris a certificate, or the letter in which he admitted it, the alleged denunciation to which you are referring?

Regards,

Pahoran

Okay, this is becoming pathetic. I'm going to ask one more time. It's a serious question. If you can't answer it just say so. I see no reason why it can't be answered with either yes or no.... (although I'm sure you'll enlighten me as to why it can't!)

Are the characters that were allegedly copied from the plates and subsequently denounced by Dr. Charles Anthon accurate examples of the reformed Egyptian characters to which you are referring?

I'm well aware that Mormons claim Anthon verified the characters until he learned more about how they were obtained and then he allegedly changed his tune. Okay? My question to you is are those characters an accurate representation of the types of characters on the plates or not?

[MormonMason]

...I am not prejudice against Latter-day Saints. I am not "anti-Mormon." I am anti-Joseph Smith....

Well, Joseph Smith was the first Mormon and also was a Latter-day Saint. Therefore, you are exactly what you deny being--an anti-Mormon.

[AKS]

Well, Joseph Smith was the first Mormon and also was a Latter-day Saint. Therefore, you are exactly what you deny being--an anti-Mormon.

Thats absurd. The fact that you oppose a single member of a group does not make you oppose the entire group.

[AKS]

While on the subject of Japanese parting salutations, in my work, I've translated "abayo" into English as "adios" before. I seem to remember choosing it, not because the speaker was saying goodbye in Spanish, but because the context required something short, yet more colloquial than just "goodbye." And in context, it fit the situation perfectly.

This makes perfect sense because you actually know japanese and english.

[Notquitewetyet]

Thats absurd. The fact that you oppose a single member of a group does not make you oppose the entire group.

If I were anti-Jesus, wouldn't I be anti-Christian?

If I were anti-Mohammed, wouldn't I be anti-Muslim?

If I were anti-Moses, wouldn't I be anti-Jewish?

If I were anti-Buddha, wouldn't I be anti-Buddhist?

[AKS]

If I were anti-Jesus, wouldn't I be anti-Christian?

If I were anti-Mohammed, wouldn't I be anti-Muslim?

If I were anti-Moses, wouldn't I be anti-Jewish?

If I were anti-Buddha, wouldn't I be anti-Buddhist?

no

no

no

and no

especially in the context of this thread. But I think you know that.

[Notquitewetyet]

no

no

no

and no

especially in the context of this thread. But I think you know that.

If you oppose the foundational claims of the founders of major religions, not disagree, but call them "lying conmen", in essence, you are an "anti-(insert your favorite prejudice)"

Why especially in the context of this thread?

[grego]

Do you know what you are talking about? How many languages you can speak?

I can confortably speak and understand 5 of them and can guarantee you there is no such Reformed Egyptian word equivelent to Adieu, I am sure about this because JS never showed us this words original sounding or how it is written.

Where is this word?

I think I can discern, I can be well qualified to translate, since I can speak so many languages.

Well, *I* speak reformed Egyptian, and I tell you there *is* a direct translation!!

-=-=-=

My question to you is are those characters an accurate representation of the types of characters on the plates or not?

Maybe you missed this (or not)?:

O would state that they probably are about as accurate as a relatively uneducated farmboy/day-laborer with no understanding of any language but of English at the time could make. I've been seeing some interesting things in the transcript (so far I have only seen what appear to me to be numeric phrase, the phoneme "mn" and the phrase "this the writing," or in more idiomatic English, "this writing," "this document," or "this book") but I also understand that this one may be a copy of a copy or worse. I do not know Demotic or Hieratic very well (not being a professional Egyptologist) so could be mistaken in anything I say about this transcript. I do find it interesting in the light of a few facsimilies of genuine Demotic Egyptian texts and a few phrases in Demotic that I have seen. Here are a couple just for fun, next to the Anthon transcript for comparison purposes.

...

While not identical, these two examples have similar "crosses and flourishes, letters and numbers," etc., reported by Anthon as one of his objections to the contents of the transcript he saw. However, the current transcript that we possess does not match his description as to the layout and does not have with it an English translation as reported by Harris or Smith. Because of the structure, it is difficult to determine which symbols should connect with which as the characters are separated from one another in odd ways. Some, I believe, should be combined instead of being separated out as they are in this copy.

In other cases, I believe it will be impossible for the 'D' shaped characters ever to be translated as I believe that these are names in cartouches. The problem is that notwithstanding they look a similarly to how names are enclosed and drawn in Demotic, I believe that Joseph Smith so poorly copied these that the individual strokes and marks within these are now lost and that they only now represent parts of the small originals in the fine engravings on the plates. Also a possibility is that we may need not to look at this as a purely Egyptian text. It may well be written in a Semitic dialect using Egyptian characters. Examples of such texts have fairly recently been found in Egyptian texts on the walls of certain sites and on papyri such as P. Amherst 63.

What exactly were you looking for? (Not that I'll answer--just helping others this time.)

-=-=-=

I'm starting to think discussion with you is a waste of time.

You're lucky Pahoran notices your comments and responds to them. It's possible that some other folks have put you on "ignore" mode or such since your first thread...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

no

no

no

and no

especially in the context of this thread. But I think you know that.

Simply by saying "no" it now must be. I wish I had your magical powers.

[gmormon]

If I were anti-Jesus, wouldn't I be anti-Christian?

If I were anti-Mohammed, wouldn't I be anti-Muslim?

If I were anti-Moses, wouldn't I be anti-Jewish?

If I were anti-Buddha, wouldn't I be anti-Buddhist?

no

no

no

and no

especially in the context of this thread. But I think you know that.

Simply by saying "no" it now must be. I wish I had your magical powers.

I think he meant:

know

know

know

and know

especially in the context of this thread. But I think you know that.

That darn English language

[MormonMason]

partly yes

yes

yes

and yes--infinity!

[Doctor Steuss]

Actually, the issue with Jacob is Hebrew, not Greek. It would be better if you could provide

examples from the Old Testament.

Bernard

Post #51 has several examples of French words in the KJV OT.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran:

So then, from this, is it fair to say that the way you see the translation process working boils down to God inspiring Joseph Smith by supplying and even spelling some of the specific words, but not all of them. Therefore some of the words come directly from God while others come from Joseph Smith?

Is that fair or not?

If that's accurate, and since you quoted an aproximate figure of something like 238,000 words total, would you venture to guess how many of the those words came from God and how many came from Joseph Smith?

No.

Do personal attacks add weight to your arguments?

Personal attacks? You are an anti-Mormon. This is not a big deal, in this forum. You also deny your anti-Mormonism. This is SOP. The only reason we are wasting any bandwidth on this red herring is because you are making an issue of it.

Admitting your anti-Mormon agenda up front will not hinder it, and may actually be helpful to you, in that it will enhance your credibility.

I wonder how B. H. Roberts would respond to that. I will simply avoid comment.

B. H. Roberts, the stalwart defender of the faith? He would probably advise me not to waste any time on someone who is clearly making no attempt to dialogue in good faith.

Pahoran, your attempts to paint me as a bigot are comical. I've said "Christians are notorious for speaking 'Christianese'" on many occasions... so I guess that makes me a bigot against Christians too! I've said my kids are notorious for failing to clean their rooms! I've said my cats are notorious for vomiting on the carpet! Get the point?

Yes.

You use the same word in different contexts and with different levels of prejudicial weight.

You asserted that "Mormons"--a class of people whom oppose and clearly despise--"are notorious for" a specific negative behaviour, and you claimed that in justification of your underhanded dealings.

And how exactly is: "the typical Mormon" a bigoted comment? Ever hear of persecution complex?

Yes.

How is that relevant?

You mentioned "the typical Mormon" in order to ascribe negative behaviours, i.e. to denigrate us as a class. This is not a "persecution complex," it is a reality.

I am not "anti-Mormon." I am anti-Joseph Smith.

A meaningless distinction if ever there was one.

I'm starting to think discussion with you is a waste of time.

Take another look at the OP. Observe who made it.

It was your decision to participate in this thread; I didn't drag you into it.

It's a quite meaningful distinction. That you can't or won't see it is revealing.

No, it is meaningless.

It is not as if you are opposing Joseph Smith's candidacy for the US presidency. You are opposing his religious truth claims. That is anti-Mormonism and nothing else.

Is the letter in which Anthon denied giving Martin Harris a certificate, or the letter in which he admitted it, the alleged denunciation to which you are referring?

Okay, this is becoming pathetic. I'm going to ask one more time. It's a serious question. If you can't answer it just say so. I see no reason why it can't be answered with either yes or no.... (although I'm sure you'll enlighten me as to why it can't!)

As you perfectly well know, you've asked a complex question. I have no intention of saying either "yes" or "no" to the whole package, given the fact that you have admitted trying to trap us in a snare.

Are the characters that were allegedly copied from the plates and subsequently denounced by Dr. Charles Anthon accurate examples of the reformed Egyptian characters to which you are referring?

Is the letter in which Anthon denied giving Martin Harris a certificate, or the letter in which he admitted it, the alleged denunciation to which you are referring?

I'm well aware that Mormons claim Anthon verified the characters until he learned more about how they were obtained and then he allegedly changed his tune. Okay?

Are you also aware that Anthon "changed his tune" in his account of the Harris interview in circumstances that cannot be blamed upon what "Mormons [boo, hiss] claim?" Specifically, that in one letter he wrote, he denied giving Martin any written opinion about the characters, but in another he essentially confirmed Martin's version of events?

My question to you is are those characters an accurate representation of the types of characters on the plates or not?

Is it?

In that case, why did you insist on tying Anthon's (impeached) denunciation to your question?

And why does it matter anyway?

However, I am interested in where you are going with this; I'd like to be there when you try to spring your trap. So for the purposes of this discussion, I will say yes, I believe that the seven lines of characters, sometimes referred to as the Anthon Transcript, are faithful copies of characters from the original plates.

Will that do?

Regards,

Pahoran

[4truth]

Pahoran:

Is it?

In that case, why did you insist on tying Anthon's (impeached) denunciation to your question?

And why does it matter anyway?

However, I am interested in where you are going with this; I'd like to be there when you try to spring your trap. So for the purposes of this discussion, I will say yes, I believe that the seven lines of characters, sometimes referred to as the Anthon Transcript, are faithful copies of characters from the original plates.

Will that do?

Yes, but, sheesh, pulling your teeth out with a set of long-nose pliers would have been easier.

Since you believe the Anthon characters are an accurate representation of the types of characters on the plates, can anyone read them? Are there any non-LDS language experts that are willing to identify them (as found in the Anthon transcript) as authentic characters in an authentic language?

[Pahoran]

Pahoran:

Yes, but, sheesh, pulling your teeth out with a set of long-nose pliers would have been easier.

Given that this is my thread, and given that your latest waffling has nothing to do with the discredited "Adieu" argument, there's actually no reason to give it any notice at all.

I am indulging you. Instead of whining about it, how about you thank me nicely.

Since you believe the Anthon characters are an accurate representation of the types of characters on the plates, can anyone read them? Are there any non-LDS language experts that are willing to identify them (as found in the Anthon transcript) as authentic characters in an authentic language?

Well let's see.

Based upon the only credible and unimpeached account of the Harris/Anthon interview, Professor Anthon did.

Which immediately explains, of course, why you tried to poison the well against it in advance. No wonder you were annoyed that I failed to fall for it.

And if you look a little farther up in this thread, you will see images of the characters juxtaposed with some Demotic Egyptian. Please note that Demotic is also a "reformed" script, and the resemblances are quite striking.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MormonMason]

Just as an aside, in case anyone else would like to set his or her hand at attempting to translate the transcript, the text of the current rendition of the Anthon Transcript should be read from right to left, notwithstanding it was not copied that way. The characters were copied from left to right.

However, the characters that look like twos and threes (as well as several other characters in the transcript) help indicate the direction of reading because they only appear to face left. In genuinely authentic Demotic Egyptian texts similarly shaped characters appear to face left but really face toward the right. One reads Egyptian by reading "into the faces" of hieroglyphic characters. The same is true for Demotic and derivatives. So, if the characters face the right, one reads from right to left.

My only wish is that Joseph Smith would have rubbed a paper with a pencil over the plates to get the characters as they were written. Unfortunately he did not do that and we have a rather badly copied text with which to work. Equally sadly, all that can be determined from the current version of the transcript is certain phonemes and numerical words, and possibly one portion of a line of text at the end of the first line, but even that is not yet certain.

There have been several attempts but many of these attempts read the text the wrong way and do not represent the meaning. Some have tried to match it up to the title page. Others to something from the Book of Ether. Others have speculated that it might be the first section of the lost Book of Lehi. Barry Fell thought it might be the first chapter of 1 Nephi and made a botched attempt at reading and translating it accordingly. Someday, someone might truly crack the code but that day is not this day.

Notwithstanding, the connections of the characters on the transcript to actual Demotic and/or Hieriatic characters do look remarkably "Egyptianish". However, it may not be written in Egyptian at all and the text may just be phonetic Egyptian characters representing an underlying Hebrew text for all we know. I recall that an Egyptologist looked at the transcript in recent years and stated that he could not read or translate it but that the characters resembled actual Egyptian characters. Unfortunately, I do not recall who that was or when he said it. Anyone else remember who or when?

[4truth]

Pahoran:

Which immediately explains, of course, why you tried to poison the well against it in advance. No wonder you were annoyed that I failed to fall for it.

I never realized how evil I actually am until I started interacting with you.

The real reason is simply so you would know what I was talking about. It worked.

I am indulging you. Instead of whining about it, how about you thank me nicely.

Thank you, oh great, benevolent and wise one.

And if you look a little farther up in this thread, you will see images of the characters juxtaposed with some Demotic Egyptian. Please note that Demotic is also a "reformed" script, and the resemblances are quite striking.

Yes indeed. Now would you be so kind as to answer:

...can anyone read them? Are there any non-LDS language experts that are willing to identify them (as found in the Anthon transcript) as authentic characters in an authentic language?

MM:

My only wish is that Joseph Smith would have rubbed a paper with a pencil over the plates to get the characters as they were written. Unfortunately he did not do that

...which makes me wonder why he didn't.

Equally sadly, all that can be determined from the current version of the transcript is certain phonemes and numerical words, and possibly one portion of a line of text at the end of the first line, but even that is not yet certain.

That is a shame. So then, bottom line, despite the knowledge of actual Egyptian, nobody knows anything about how to read, "reformed Egyptian." Is that correct?

[charity]

And reformed Egyptian characters give us insight into the "adieu argument" exactly how? What a derail.

Why would we expect the Anthon characters to be readable by an expert in Egyptian when they were "altered by us" for over a thousand years? Heck, I'll bet you can't even read old English which was altered less than 500 years ago.

[MormonMason]

...

That is a shame. So then, bottom line, despite the knowledge of actual Egyptian, nobody knows anything about how to read, "reformed Egyptian." Is that correct?

Attempts have been made. These are of interest but inconclusive at this time. Even the Rosetta Stone had much more text on it than what we have on this little, torn scrap of paper, and the Rosetta Stone had two dialects of Egyptian and text in Greek on the stone. This makes things a whole lot easier in deciphering the Rosetta Stone. There is not enough text on the Anthon Transcript to do anything like what could be done with the Rosetta Stone, and no other language text with which to compare it. If we had had the English translation still attached to the transcript, it would have been a whole lot easier but still not necessarily confirmable.

I have gotten out of part of it the phrase "(In the) ... year of the reign" and another part that seems to say "...this is written..." (or, something like that) but nothing concrete as of yet. It seems that the text is very abbreviated, making it all the more difficult. I am not sure that I ever will solve it, although I every once in a while try to work on it when I have nothing else to do. I have been able to come to conclusions on only parts of the transcript (my Demotic is horrible but even if I were an expert in the field it still would make little difference). Joseph Smith was a poor copyist of things Egyptian, particularly when the engravings on the plates are described by witnesses as being fine and the transcript is so coarsely written, which makes things very, very difficult for anyone attempting to translate this small snippet of text.

Now, to bring the thread back on topic, there is a term in modern Hebrew that is a rough equivalent of adieu. It is lehitra'oth. In my modern English-Hebrew dictionary there is even an entry for adieu, which is given as shalom. But, so far as Egyptian goes, we do not yet know the full vocabulary, only that which has been discovered in texts so far found. We are learning all the time. New texts are found all the time. Some previously found texts that are undecipherable become readable once we get past our assumptions. We do not even know all the Hebrew vocabulary that once existed. Someone told me that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain Hebrew words that are not found in the Bible and I have managed to confirm that. But, the point of all this is, one cannot argue from silence.

We are getting closer, though. Consider this: New Light: "Anthon Transcript" Writing Found?

[Pahoran]

Pahoran:

I never realized how evil I actually am until I started interacting with you.

Okay.

The real reason is simply so you would know what I was talking about. It worked.

Really?

Is it your contention that the seven lines of "Caractors" comprise only one of a number of documents purporting to be samples from the plates? Are you suggesting that this set alone, out of all the competing ones, has been positively identified as the actual document Martin Harris showed Anthon? Is it your position that Anthon's discredited denunciation serves as a reliable way to distinguish which one we are talking about?

Or perhaps not?

Did you really think I'd have no way of knowing that you were talking about that particular set of 225 characters unless you mentioned that Anthon had denounced it?

Did you?

If so, you were wrong.

Or were you, in fact, trying to smuggle Anthon's discredited denunciation into the discussion as if it carried some weight?

And if you were, would you now admit it?

Yes indeed. Now would you be so kind as to answer:

...can anyone read them? Are there any non-LDS language experts that are willing to identify them (as found in the Anthon transcript) as authentic characters in an authentic language?

Asked and answered. See above.

Do we take it, then, that you have given up trying to support the fatuous "adieu" argument?

Regards,

Pahoran

[4truth]

Pahoran:

Really?

Is it your contention that the seven lines of "Caractors" comprise only one of a number of documents purporting to be samples from the plates? Are you suggesting that this set alone, out of all the competing ones, has been positively identified as the actual document Martin Harris showed Anthon? Is it your position that Anthon's discredited denunciation serves as a reliable way to distinguish which one we are talking about?

Or perhaps not?

Did you really think I'd have no way of knowing that you were talking about that particular set of 225 characters unless you mentioned that Anthon had denounced it?

Did you?

If so, you were wrong.

Ya know, I have been know to be wrong, on occasion. More than I care to admit.

Or were you, in fact, trying to smuggle Anthon's discredited denunciation into the discussion as if it carried some weight?

And if you were, would you now admit it?

For Pete's sake, Pahoran, chill! You're either taking yourself way too seriously or me, I don't know which.

All I am familiar with is the Anthon transcript... and it's been a while since I've read anything about it. All I know is that some characters were copied (how many I don't know) and shown to Anthon. From there, the TBM version has it that Anthon confirmed the characters and then denied ever confirming them. The skeptic's version has it that Anthon never confirmed anything. Being a skeptic I like that version. Are you telling me you have solid evidence that Anthon did confirm the characters?

Do we take it, then, that you have given up trying to support the fatuous "adieu" argument?

Actually, if you recall, I was never very much into defending the "adieu" argument from the beginning... note my words:

First, as you all seem well aware, this is probably the least persuasive criticism of the BOM. Perhps that's why you bring it up? Easier to shoot down than other, more serious problems perhaps?

I went on to argue that...

Of course the problem is not that Jacob would use a French word....

but that...

the problem is in the alleged "translation." Note the apologist's sentence:

was probably the best equivalent of Jacob's words of which Joseph Smith was aware.

This has been my contention all along... not the rather trite "adieu" argument at all but rather the TBM idea (as embodied in the quote above) that the word "adieu" was chosen, not by God, but by Joseph Smith.

I agree with at least part of that assessment, because I believe every word in the BOM was chosen by Joseph Smith (or plagiarized). God had nothing to do with it.

That "adieu" appears in the BOM is no surprise to me, nor apparently to the LDS apologist quoted above, who makes the case that the word appears in the BOM because it was "probably the best equivalent of Jacob's words of which Joseph Smith was aware."

[4truth]

MM:

Thank you for your reply....

Attempts have been made. These are of interest but inconclusive at this time. Even the Rosetta Stone had much more text on it than what we have on this little, torn scrap of paper, and the Rosetta Stone had two dialects of Egyptian and text in Greek on the stone. This makes things a whole lot easier in deciphering the Rosetta Stone. There is not enough text on the Anthon Transcript to do anything like what could be done with the Rosetta Stone, and no other language text with which to compare it. If we had had the English translation still attached to the transcript, it would have been a whole lot easier but still not necessarily confirmable.

I have gotten out of part of it the phrase "(In the) ... year of the reign" and another part that seems to say "...this is written..." (or, something like that) but nothing concrete as of yet. It seems that the text is very abbreviated, making it all the more difficult. I am not sure that I ever will solve it, although I every once in a while try to work on it when I have nothing else to do. I have been able to come to conclusions on only parts of the transcript (my Demotic is horrible but even if I were an expert in the field it still would make little difference).

I dont' know how I missed it, but I missed your earlier post. I went back and found it and opened each example you posted.

Okay so, as a skeptic, but certainly not an Egyptologist (and it appears you are not either)... my first reaction is quite different from yours... I see a definite English influence in the AT characters... you don't?

BTW, do you read Demotic? Are you a scholar?

I'm going to go back to your earlier post....

O would state that they probably are about as accurate as a relatively uneducated farmboy/day-laborer with no understanding of any language but of English at the time could make. I've been seeing some interesting things in the transcript (so far I have only seen what appear to me to be numeric phrase, the phoneme "mn" and the phrase "this the writing," or in more idiomatic English, "this writing," "this document," or "this book") but I also understand that this one may be a copy of a copy or worse. I do not know Demotic or Hieratic very well (not being a professional Egyptologist) so could be mistaken in anything I say about this transcript. I do find it interesting in the light of a few facsimilies of genuine Demotic Egyptian texts and a few phrases in Demotic that I have seen. Here are a couple just for fun, next to the Anthon transcript for comparison purposes.

Okay, so again, you acknowledge that anything you say could be wrong... so we're just speculating here, which is fine, that's all I can do. But, correct me if I'm wrong, that is really all the AT characters have going for them at this point---speculation--correct? Are there any bona-fide Egyptologists or linguists who recognize them as authentic characters in a bona-fide language?

While not identical, these two examples have similar "crosses and flourishes, letters and numbers," etc., reported by Anthon as one of his objections to the contents of the transcript he saw. However, the current transcript that we possess does not match his description as to the layout

How does it differ?

So then are you suggesting this is not the paper Anthon actually saw?

and does not have with it an English translation as reported by Harris or Smith.

Why not? Was it removed?

Because of the structure, it is difficult to determine which symbols should connect with which as the characters are separated from one another in odd ways. Some, I believe, should be combined instead of being separated out as they are in this copy.

And the skeptic in me would say, well that makes sense, since Joseph Smith didn't know how to combine authentic Egyptian characters!

On the other hand, on what basis can you make such a claim? Isn't the typical LDS defense that this is not actually Egyptian? ...rather reformed Egyptian? How then do you know enough about reformed Egyptian to assert that:

the characters are separated from one another in odd ways.

In other cases, I believe it will be impossible for the 'D' shaped characters ever to be translated as I believe that these are names in cartouches. The problem is that notwithstanding they look a similarly to how names are enclosed and drawn in Demotic, I believe that Joseph Smith so poorly copied these that the individual strokes and marks within these are now lost and that they only now represent parts of the small originals in the fine engravings on the plates.

Isn't it also possible that Joseph Smith didn't actually copy anything? That would account for the odd spacing and the "poor" copying... wouldn't it? On the other hand, if you are correct, one has to wonder why Joseph wasn't more careful in the way he copied these incredible, one of a kind characters--especially given that the purpose of the copying was to get them verified--wasn't it? Why would he be sloppy?

Joseph Smith was a poor copyist of things Egyptian, particularly when the engravings on the plates are described by witnesses as being fine and the transcript is so coarsely written, which makes things very, very difficult for anyone attempting to translate this small snippet of text.

Which again begs the same questions... why would Joseph be sloppy?