Craig Criddle on If/And Conditional Sentences

[Daniel Peterson]

Does the study of "reformed Egyptian" carry any attention and/or interest anywhere outside of the Church in the secular area of language or script study in any meaningful environment of academia?

What, exactly, do you imagine would draw the interest of linguists outside the Church to a language or script mentioned in a text but of which essentially no actual examples survive, except for one disputed and theologically-laden text that exists only in translation?

What would there be for them to study? If, say, the Analects of Confucius survived only in Arthur Waley's translation, and if no other specimens or references to Chinese still existed, how far do you think the study of Chinese linguistics would be likely to develop?

[LifeOnaPlate]

What, exactly, do you imagine would draw the interest of linguists outside the Church to a language or script mentioned in a text but of which essentially no actual examples survive, except for one disputed and theologically-laden text that exists only in translation?

Don't most linguists enjoy working with scripts of which they have no reliable examples?

(DanGB, you'll note the phenomena described in the BoM is authentic as per the examples I listed above. Note especially the biblical example. In this case I feel comfortable saying that it ain't likely that JS could have dug this one up in the old Palmyra library.)

[DanGB]

Dan, do you actually read people's posts before you dismiss them?

Yes.

Look, can I be candid and serious here?

I have raised this concept of "reformed Egyptian" many times on my life within the q academien system in my life here in Texas. The number of "eye rolls" tells it all! Perhaps this stuff receives greater respect on the campus of BYU, but I asked my question for the very reality of this issue. Could I ever point a member or prospective member to anything of credible support for a language or "script" called "reformed Egyptian"? No way in anyone right mind! Hence the question I asked.

If we are afraid of the question, we have much bigger issues!

[LifeOnaPlate]

Life,

I take that as a "no". Agree?

I think you missed my point, DanGB.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Yes.

Look, can I be candid and serious here?

I have raised this concept of "reformed Egyptian" many times on my life within the q academien system in my life here in Texas. The number of "eye rolls" tells it all! Perhaps this stuff receives greater respect on the campus of BYU, but I asked my question for the very reality of this issue. Could I ever point a member or prospective member to anything of credible support for a language or "script" called "reformed Egyptian"? No way in anyone right mind! Hence the question I asked.

If we are afraid of the question, we have much bigger issues!

I frankly doubt your question contained enough information to be taken seriously anyway, see DCP's comment above. Or did you bring up other examples of reformed Egyptian scripts like this: Charles F. Nirns and Richard C. Steiner, "A Paganized Version of Psalm 20:2-6 from the Aramaic Text in Demotic Script," Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983): 261-74; Richard C. Steiner, "The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year's Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash," Journal of the American Oriental Society 111/2 (1991): 362-63.

Why do you think I bring that example up, DanGB?

[John Larsen]

The Recovery Board appeals to camaraderie over reason. It makes for some great chest-bumping but also for some real flops like this. Their inability to feel embarrassment is probably nature's compassionate gift.

Is there any discussion board out there to which this statement does not apply to the "in group?"

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is there any discussion board out there to which this statement does not apply to the "in group?"

Oh snap, high five!

[Daniel Peterson]

Could I ever point a member or prospective member to anything of credible support for a language or "script" called "reformed Egyptian"? No way in anyone right mind!

Have you read the articles to which you've been directed?

There is excellent evidence for phenomena that can quite justly be called "reformed Egyptian." I don't think that any knowledgeable linguist or historian acquainted with the ancient Near East could really deny this.

[Olavarria]

Fortunately, we're right, and you're wrong.

What about the 1830 edition of Moroni 10:4-5?

Thats a better example of if/and IMHO.

[scooby]

Is there any discussion board out there to which this statement does not apply to the "in group?"

I don't know how you'd define an "in group," and I certainly can't speak for individual posters, but I would say that there are plenty of discussion boards that appeal to reason over camaraderie, this one included.

[Daniel Peterson]

What about the 1830 edition of Moroni 10:4-5?

Thats a better example of if/and IMHO.

Certainly it seems less amenable still to Chris Smith's attempted explanation . . .

[Hamba Tuhan]

Dan, I don't mean to sound harsh, but do you actually read people's posts before you dismiss them? I realise it's possible that you do, but, in the several months you've been asking questions here, I've yet to see any evidence that this is the case.

Yes.

OK, so, after you read LOAP's first list of examples which are exactly analogous to what the Book of Mormon refers to as 'reformed Egyptian,' how exactly did you arrive at, 'I take that as a "no"'??? I think it's this intermediary step I may be having trouble with.

So far, I think we have this:

Step 1: DGB asks--Does anyone outside of the Church take the issue of writing in reformed Egyptian seriously?

Step 2: LOAP replies--Here are several examples of ancient peoples using shorthand variations of Egyptian for composing Semitic-language (and often religious) texts, all taken very seriously by non-Mormon scholars, and all exactly parallel to the Book of Mormon's 'reformed Egyptian,' which, according to Nephi, consisted of 'the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians'(1 Nephi 1:2).

Step 3: DGB does something with this information which I still don't understand.

Step 4: DBG says--So I take it the answer is no.

If you would be so kind as to help me fill in Step 3, I think it would go far toward helping me understand where you're coming from. Many thanks in advance!

[volgadon]

Yes.

Look, can I be candid and serious here?

That would be a refreshing change.

I have raised this concept of "reformed Egyptian" many times on my life within the q academien system in my life here in Texas. The number of "eye rolls" tells it all! Perhaps this stuff receives greater respect on the campus of BYU, but I asked my question for the very reality of this issue. Could I ever point a member or prospective member to anything of credible support for a language or "script" called "reformed Egyptian"? No way in anyone right mind! Hence the question I asked.

If we are afraid of the question, we have much bigger issues!

Every Israeli I know of who has heard of the 'learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians' considered it eminently plausible, given the Jewish predilection for hybrid languages. This is born out by Hebrew-Egyptian hybrids found in the Negev, roughly contempraneous with Lehi. I wonder just what sort of academics you did ask, or was it limited to college football coaches?

[DanGB]

What, exactly, do you imagine would draw the interest of linguists outside the Church to a language or script mentioned in a text but of which essentially no actual examples survive, except for one disputed and theologically-laden text that exists only in translation?

i think I agree with you here. It's exactly why I asked the question. It goes to the very issue of why anyone should beleve that ancient Jewish civilization would be so willing to suddenly develope or practce something called "reformed Egyptian".

What would there be for them to study? If, say, the Analects of Confucius survived only in Arthur Waley's translation, and if no other specimens or references to Chinese still existed, how far do you think the study of Chinese linguistics would be likely to develop?

You may be right again. I was just asking.

It seems what you are saying is the lack of interest in anyone taking "reformed Egyptian" seriously as an ancient language runs parallel to the acceptance of taking the historicity f the the BOM. But it just seems we always blame the lack of inteest on lack of understanding as opposed to what I think the real issues is, lack of credible and convncing support or scholarship.

Within the Church, we seem to be more motivated in trying to find places to fit the people, places and cultures of the BOM into without any reasonable or credible acceptance nor support from our secular academic community. I just don't find this same need nor attitude with respect to parallel claims of the Bible. I have just hoped our LDS scholars in this area would become more credible or convincing over the years.

And for Volgy: I have no doubt that the "football coaches" you refer to that I know are far ahead of your perceived mental capacities, let alone leadership abilities. Just check the resumes and references of coaches Edwards, Mendenhall and Reid. Then check your arrogance!

[Calm]

It goes to the very issue of why anyone should beleve that ancient Jewish civilization would be so willing to suddenly develope or practce something called "reformed Egyptian".

To be clear...

Are you claiming the above belief is not consistent with current academic understanding? That the Jews would not have developed such a thing?

[Hamba Tuhan]

To be clear...

Are you claiming the above belief is not consistent with current academic understanding? That the Jews would not have developed such a thing?

DanGB, once again I think there is a missing step here where you could help some of us out. LOAP offers you a half dozen or so examples of known Semitic/Egyptian hybrid languages from ancient times--all exactly analogous to the Book of Mormon's description of 'reformed Egyptian'--but then you claim there is no credible evidence that such a way of writing ever existed, exactly as though you never read what LOAP wrote. Then Volgadon points out the existence of a known Egyptian/Hebrew hybrid dating from around the time of Lehi, and, yet again, you claim there is no credible secular support for the Book of Mormon's claim that Jews would do such a thing, exactly as though you never read what Volgadon wrote (well, except for the part about football...). Help us out here, please. What exactly do you do with the information people provide you after you read it but before you write your next post claiming that no such information exists?

[Mordecai]

What exactly do you do with the information people provide you after you read it but before you write your next post claiming that no such information exists?

Maybe he's got special software to protect his computer from "offensive" material, like anything that would contradict his anti-Mormon beliefs. It edits our posts for him. That would almost certainly sell, I think, among anti-Mormons... except I think the software is hardwired into their brains already.

[LifeOnaPlate]

First, you are making the false assumption that interest "anywhere outside of the Church" would determine accuracy or relevance. Perhaps for you.

Non-Mormon scholars have discovered examples of Egyptian script depicting Hebrew or other Semetic languages in hybrid scripts that are theoretically similar to the Book of Mormon's reformed Egyptian. Examples of Egyptian/Semetic hybrid scripts and their sources include, but are not necessarily limited to, an Egyptian hieratic and demotic script[11], Byblos Syllabic texts (written on copper plates)[12], Cretan hieroglyphics [13], and Meroitic [14]. Non-Mormon scholars have deciphered an Aramaic version of Psalm 20:2-6 that was written in demotic Egyptian characters."[15] The joining of an Egyptian script with Hebrew scripture in this manner is similar to the claim of reformed Egyptian in the Book of Mormon.

11^ W. V. Davies, Egyptian Hieroglyphics (London: Trustees of the British Museum by British Museum Publications, 1987), 21

[LifeOnaPlate]

i think I agree with you here. It's exactly why I asked the question. It goes to the very issue of why anyone should beleve that ancient Jewish civilization would be so willing to suddenly develope or practce something called "reformed Egyptian".

Who said anything about "suddenly"?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Within the Church, we seem to be more motivated in trying to find places to fit the people, places and cultures of the BOM into without any reasonable or credible acceptance nor support from our secular academic community. I just don't find this same need nor attitude with respect to parallel claims of the Bible.

It seems to me you are forgetting a lot of biblical studies.

I have just hoped our LDS scholars in this area would become more credible or convincing over the years.

It seems you dismiss recent Mormon studies with a wave of the hand. Given your unfamiliarity with LDS views of reformed Egyptian I don't have much confidence in your familiarity with "our LDS scholars in this area."

Here's an example of a non-LDS scholar DanGB might be interested in (though I suspect not).

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2010/01/open-mindedness-alert-non-lds-observer.html

[Muc'ul Ajwalil]

DanGB, once again I think there is a missing step here where you could help some of us out. LOAP offers you a half dozen or so examples of known Semitic/Egyptian hybrid languages from ancient times--all exactly analogous to the Book of Mormon's description of 'reformed Egyptian'--but then you claim there is no credible evidence that such a way of writing ever existed, exactly as though you never read what LOAP wrote. Then Volgadon points out the existence of a known Egyptian/Hebrew hybrid dating from around the time of Lehi, and, yet again, you claim there is no credible secular support for the Book of Mormon's claim that Jews would do such a thing, exactly as though you never read what Volgadon wrote (well, except for the part about football...). Help us out here, please. What exactly do you do with the information people provide you after you read it but before you write your next post claiming that no such information exists?

On a Spanish board that I frequent I run into those types of people...it used to be that the critics actually 'honorably' had good questions about faith and why we did stuff, and then they might say something to the tune of "well, I believe my Christ is ..."

Now the only critics on that board are the rabid antis. I will probably be posting here a little more often, given that there is no Spirit felt there...it makes the other frequently quoted board here look tame by comparison...

And afterwards the antis remain as convinced as ever that we are just programmed bots, despite their responses that suggests that they are the programed ones.

[LifeOnaPlate]

edit, see my post #43.

[volgadon]

And for Volgy: I have no doubt that the "football coaches" you refer to that I know are far ahead of your perceived mental capacities, let alone leadership abilities. Just check the resumes and references of coaches Edwards, Mendenhall and Reid. Then check your arrogance!

MY arrogance? This is rich, considering the source. I included the dig about football coaches because you have football on the brain, not because they are idiots. Never implied that. They don't, however, usually have much to do with, say, ANE archaeology or related issues. You also constantly see the need to denigrate academics because they aren't football coaches. Anyway, nice dodge, ad hominem seems your style.

I, BTW, am an autodidact. You put way too much stock in resumes and the like, yet to hurl those accusations at me, of having limited mental capacities and leadership abilities, that isn't arrogant?

[volgadon]

I could also point out in the Bible some Hebrew idioms adapted from Egyptian.

[Daniel Peterson]

It goes to the very issue of why anyone should beleve that ancient Jewish civilization would be so willing to suddenly develope or practce something called "reformed Egyptian".

I don't believe that anybody (apart from you, perhaps) believes that anybody "suddenly" developed (let alone "practiced") "reformed Egyptian."

Colonies of a given language that are separated from one another and embedded in different environments will, like Darwin's finches, evolve in different ways. They will separate. That's why B