Mayan Numerals in the "Anthon Transcript"?

[hagoth7]

...It also seems that martin must have showed much more to Athon then just the transcropt. Because anthon describes it as a cirlcular document with compartments.

Zak,

For a possible explanation, see post #17.

[Cold Steel]

All this talk of reformed Egyptian and there has never been shown any such language to have existed....

How do you know? Aren't hieratic and demotic each a type of reformed Egyptian? And how about Meroitic, which was devised around the same time (circa 600 B.C.)? As has been pointed out, "reformed" simply means "altered." Since these cursive forms of Egyptian were altered, each could be called "reformed."

The idea of altering Egyptian was largely unknown in the days of Joseph Smith, especially altering it to facilitate writing in other languages. But now we know that such was the case. That we haven't found the exact alterations used by the authors of the Book of Mormon (nor are we accounting for the changes made to it in subsequent generations since it was first kept) isn't necessary to show that people did alter the language and for the same reasons used by the authors of the book.

[Joseph Antley]

I've not-so-recently come to the conclusion that some people are just dumb.

Also, is the AT supposedly copies from a single plate, does it actually form a narrative, or is it just random symbols that were copied down in no particular order?

[Lightbearer]

All this talk of reformed Egyptian and there has never been shown any such language to have existed...

How do you know? Do you consider yourself omniscient? How can you say that an unknown language never existed unless you knew all things... which from all of your posts I can safely say you do not.

[LeSellers]

All this talk of reformed Egyptian and there has never been shown any such language to have existed...

Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. You are attacking a straw man.

The reformed Egyptian was never portrayed as a "language". Once again, the relevant passage is:

32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. 33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

Please point out where, in the actual text, it says anything about "the reformed Egyptian" being a language.

Lehi

[Joseph Antley]

I've not-so-recently come to the conclusion that some people are just dumb.

Also, is the AT supposedly copies from a single plate, does it actually form a narrative, or is it just random symbols that were copied down in no particular order?

Bump question.