Jump to content

More Evidence of reformed Egyptian


e=mc2

Recommended Posts

I love this video! At the part towards the end of the video when you started laughing and said, "ah sweet delicious irony, I love it", I couldn't help but join you in laughter and clap my hands. :P

Link to comment

That was indeed a great video. I really enjoyed the parts about the Anthon Transcript. That was something I never knew until you pointed it out.

It is obvious that JS just went to the Palmyra lybrary and just copied some egyptian text down and tried to pass that off as authentic BoM writtings, right?

Link to comment

Well good video backdoor professor. Something for you to add in your future thoughts. When the missonaries brought the bible, and hymn books to Hawaii. The Hawaiians were so amazed at the mana (power) that sounds uttered out of the mouth could be put to words. In doing so and working with the missionaries they developed their own alphabet. With different ways to pronounce the constants and vowels.

Hawaiian alphabetA aE eI iO oU u? ?? ?? ?? ?'?'?'?'?'?'? k?'? k?'? k?'? k?? ?H hK kL lM mN nP pW w''? k?h?k?l?m?n?p?w?/v?'okina

This little article will help.

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/hawaiian.htm

Languages don't die they just evolve. Even today though I speak Hawaiian, English, Japanese and Spanish there is a more common language that replaces both English and Hawaiian plus several others as the island is more culturally diverse. We call it pidgin to da max.

Nani (Japanese) bit (English) da kine (Hawaiian) on the(English) okole (Hawaiian)! Translates= What bit me on the butt!

Note: "da kine" is used as a substitute for any word in a sentence meaning anythig in relation to the subject.

Example: Da kine took da kine to da kine, but where stay da kine, so as da kine can go da kine! Get da kine? Two locals will understand completely what is talked about.

Here's another example;

Go da kine to the da kine to da kine a da kine!

Go tell to the critics to take a leap! tongue.gif

Aloha bruddahhhh! E pili mau na pomaikai me oe a hui hou!

hi.gif

Link to comment

That was hilarious! All this time I've actually known the secret of writing Deformed Egyptian and I didn't even know it! ;):crazy::fool::P

By the way, if anyone's interested, the Improvement Era article referenced can be found at http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley/Anthon_Transcript-Crowley.htm

OUTSTANDING! I didn't know it was available in electornic format. This is sensational! Take a look at these articles folks. Seriously, take a look.

Link to comment

Language change is a macro process that is both regular and understandable. Language change occurs as a natural process of many speakers of a language collectively altering the acceptable sounds over time. It is not a guided or controlled process but is an emergent property of language production by humans. Like Shirts shows, you can reconstruct those changes by look at the symbol changes through time and observed the genealogy of the characters. So if you had a written language that had characters that were Japanese, Cyrillic, Arabic and Roman you would know that the language was either a created Pidgin or a made up language. There is no way for a language to have naturally evolved to have characters that have those lineages. The Anton Transcript shows no evolutional relationship to any known language. No one can reconstruct how the language derived from an one parent language (or two for that matter).

The problem with the Anton Transcript is that it is a complete isolate. It has no parents and contains no derivational information. For a language script to evolve over times there would have to have been 1000s of people writing and copying documents over long periods of time. What is the likelihood that not a single skin, stone or engraving survived?

Written languages tend to change along two moving forces, first simplicity. Writers like to expel as little effort as possible in producing symbols. This is why when you look at the historical evolution of characters they tend toward greater and greater simplicity. The second is distinctiveness. This is a counter force on simplicity, because characters must be readily distinguishable from other characters in the alphabet. If you examine modern and ancient alphabets, the characters tend to use the fewest number of strokes to maximize distinctiveness. The Anton transcript lacks these characteristics.

There are only so many ways to write a squiggle. The fact that you can find similar characters in different languages proves nothing. For example you might find all of the Latin alphabet stroke patterns inside of Chinese logograms. However, this does not prove that Roman characters are in any way related to each other. The only connection it likely establishes is that both languages were developed by people with hands. Shirts claims that all the characters can be shown in other language systems. But unless he can show regular systems of derivation, this means absolutely nothing.

If, as Shirts, argues, that we have all of the characters on the Anton Script, I have a rather simple question. What does it say? The reason we can

Link to comment

Rebuttle of what? The idea that scripts evolve? That they may be adapted for use with other languages? I don't see anything to rebut there.

So what you are saying is that what Kerry is saying is that that is the truth. The the idea of reformed egyptian isn't so far fetched as some critics claim?

Sounds good to me.

Link to comment

Language change is a macro process that is both regular and understandable. Language change occurs as a natural process of many speakers of a language collectively altering the acceptable sounds over time. It is not a guided or controlled process but is an emergent property of language production by humans. Like Shirts shows, you can reconstruct those changes by look at the symbol changes through time and observed the genealogy of the characters. So if you had a written language that had characters that were Japanese, Cyrillic, Arabic and Roman you would know that the language was either a created Pidgin or a made up language. There is no way for a language to have naturally evolved to have characters that have those lineages. The Anton Transcript shows no evolutional relationship to any known language. No one can reconstruct how the language derived from an one parent language (or two for that matter).

The problem with the Anton Transcript is that it is a complete isolate. It has no parents and contains no derivational information. For a language script to evolve over times there would have to have been 1000s of people writing and copying documents over long periods of time. What is the likelihood that not a single skin, stone or engraving survived? Written languages tend to change along two moving forces, first simplicity. Writers like to expel as little effort as possible in producing symbols. This is why when you look at the historical evolution of characters they tend toward greater and greater simplicity. The second is distinctiveness. This is a counter force on simplicity, because characters must be readily distinguishable from other characters in the alphabet. If you examine modern and ancient alphabets, the characters tend to use the fewest number of strokes to maximize distinctiveness. The Anton transcript lacks these characteristics.

There are only so many ways to write a squiggle. The fact that you can find similar characters in different languages proves nothing. For example you might find all of the Latin alphabet stroke patterns inside of Chinese logograms. However, this does not prove that Roman characters are in any way related to each other. The only connection it likely establishes is that both languages were developed by people with hands. Shirts claims that all the characters can be shown in other language systems. But unless he can show regular systems of derivation, this means absolutely nothing.

If, as Shirts, argues, that we have all of the characters on the Anton Script, I have a rather simple question. What does it say? The reason we can

Link to comment

Not necessarily true, if it were a "sacred" or holy language taught and known only to the initiates its disemination and use would be very limited.

A few weeks back Nothagoth7 made a plausible case for a Roman shorthand system. Kerry Shirts recent posts and presentation is also quite plausible. I think your assertion that there has to be a regular system of derivation has either been answered or is not correct, depending on which tack you take. Or perhaps both.

Merely establishing plausibility proves nothing. Do you have any evidence of this "holy language" taught on to "initiates".

If I remember from the last time I looked at instances of these sacred languages, they tend to be very conservative in changes over time. So that argument has its own problems, namely explaining why the language had such large degrees of change.

Link to comment

Merely establishing plausibility proves nothing. Do you have any evidence of this "holy language" taught on to "initiates".

If I remember from the last time I looked at instances of these sacred languages, they tend to be very conservative in changes over time. So that argument has its own problems, namely explaining why the language had such large degrees of change.

I did NOT prove plausibility, I PROVED Egyptian has changed, period. It HAS been modified or reformed exactly as the Book of Mormon contends is possible. Now the Npehites changes would certainly be different in some cases than the old world Egyptians changes, to be sure, but the argument I have absolutely refuted with the archaeological evidence is that reformed Egyptian is not a myth, it is not stupidity on Joseph Smith's part, it is real. Critics say nothing like ti exists except in Mormon minds. I have proven otherwise. That is all I have established. What the Anthon transcript says is a completely different issue. I asked critics who argue for its non-existence to prove it didn't exist. So far I have had no takers whatever, and for good reason. We have the proof that it did exist. I SHOWED numerous examples of it, and in many languages.

Link to comment

I did NOT prove plausibility, I PROVED Egyptian has changed, period. It HAS been modified or reformed exactly as the Book of Mormon contends is possible. Now the Npehites changes would certainly be different in some cases than the old world Egyptians changes, to be sure, but the argument I have absolutely refuted with the archaeological evidence is that reformed Egyptian is not a myth, it is not stupidity on Joseph Smith's part, it is real. Critics say nothing like ti exists except in Mormon minds. I have proven otherwise. That is all I have established. What the Anthon transcript says is a completely different issue. I asked critics who argue for its non-existence to prove it didn't exist. So far I have had no takers whatever, and for good reason. We have the proof that it did exist. I SHOWED numerous examples of it, and in many languages.

I think you might be overstating your case a tad, but I think I understand your point. If a critic tries to argue that no such language modification/derivation is possible then they are completely up in the night.

I don't think you have established that "reformed Egyptian" as referenced in the Book of Mormon is not a myth. It is clear that Nephi is referring to a distinct language, at least in writing and is not referring to the general plausible notion of any future script such as English. Critics say that no heretofore unknown derivation of Egyptian has been discovered. I don't know of any apologist who would argue that the Book of Mormon was actually written in a know form of Egyptian, such as Demotic.

Link to comment

I think you might be overstating your case a tad, but I think I understand your point. If a critic tries to argue that no such language modification/derivation is possible then they are completely up in the night.

I don't think you have established that "reformed Egyptian" as referenced in the Book of Mormon is not a myth. It is clear that Nephi is referring to a distinct language, at least in writing and is not referring to the general plausible notion of any future script such as English. Critics say that no heretofore unknown derivation of Egyptian has been discovered. I don't know of any apologist who would argue that the Book of Mormon was actually written in a know form of Egyptian, such as Demotic.

The new question then becomes, what did BoM reformed egyptian look like?

I also don't believe that any "apologist would argue that the BoM was actually written in a known form of egyptian, such as Demotic". Why would they? The BoM makes a claim that it is unknown, but only to the Nephites is it known and altered by them to suite their needs.

Link to comment

The new question then becomes, what did BoM reformed egyptian look like?

I also don't believe that any "apologist would argue that the BoM was actually written in a known form of egyptian, such as Demotic". Why would they? The BoM makes a claim that it is unknown, but only to the Nephites is it known and altered by them to suite their needs.

I think Joseph Smith would have us believe it looks like the Anton Transcript. Shirts seems to be validating this theory.

Link to comment

I don't think you have established that "reformed Egyptian" as referenced in the Book of Mormon is not a myth. It is clear that Nephi is referring to a distinct language, at least in writing...

You seem to try to conflate language and script here, or un-dichotomize them, or something. Can you be more specific about what you mean, and show me how you reached this conclusion from the BoM?

Link to comment

I think Joseph Smith would have us believe it looks like the Anton Transcript. Shirts seems to be validating this theory.

Ah I see. Let me grab some popcorn and let me watch this unfold then. I cannot make any claims as to what Kerry is or was trying to do, other than to show that that Anthon transcript seemed to have valid egyptian charactors on it.

I have another question though, that I would like do discuss. From what portion of the BoM did the Anthon Transcript come from?

Meaning, did they come from 1st Nephi or 2nd Nephi, or was it later on in the BoM say like 3rd Nephi?

I have a theory but I think I need more info before I proceed to tell it yet.

Link to comment

You seem to try to conflate language and script here, or un-dichotomize them, or something. Can you be more specific about what you mean, and show me how you reached this conclusion from the BoM?

Nephi says he is using the language of the Egyptians. I believe the script to be a reflection of the spoken language as is commonly expected. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Link to comment

As much as I love good evidence I love to see how this stands up against our critics.

I would love to see a good rebuttle.

Hi Mola:

Here's my response:

1. His initial "argument" is based on common knowledge. What Kerry goes on breathlessly about during the first part of the video is actually common knowledge, at least for anyone interested in the history of the alphabet (like myself); such folks are already well aware of such things. It's not a new discovery. Kerry didn't "[PROVE] Egyptian has changed, period." He showed the work of others who demonstrated it quite a while ago. It's a noncontroversial claim and not one that's particularly probative of the true value of the claim "BoM was written in reformed Egyptian."

He states in the video: "There's no question that hieratic is simply a 'reforming' of the hieroglyphic." Indeed (we'll allow "reformed" to stand in for the common term, "modified"). So, one wonders, then, why he intones this truism as if he's solved Fermat's last theorem.

There's a significant "so what?" factor at this point, at least for me.

2. His "conclusion" that English is justifiably termed "reformed Egyptian" is completely facile. Kerry states: "The English script that our critics are writing in claiming that there is no reformed Egyptian can justifiably be said to be reformed Egyptian themselves. Now, there is the deepest of ironies." What is truly ironic is that some otherwise intelligent folks will take such a pronouncement seriously.

If one does take him seriously at this point (and I highly recommend against it), Kerry's argument proves too much. If English, for Kerry, is an instance of reformed Egyptian, then every alphabet ultimately derived from Egyptian (even via separate, distinguishable writing systems)--and perhaps, for good measure, we should throw in all known derivatives of the Proto-Sinaitic alphabet as well--is an instance of reformed Egyptian. Wow! Now that "reformed Egyptian" means everything, it means nothing specific or particular at all. Kerry has so generalized the term as to relieve it of any possible discriminatory application it might once have possessed for him.

Perhaps he was just momentarily carried away by his own hyperbolic rhetoric? Apparently not. Shortly later, he declares it again: "The very letters, script that anti-Mormons scream against reformed Egyptian are themselves reformed Egyptian, [intones ominously] and they don't even know it." :P

Taxonomically, this is a silly claim--laughable on its face. But, apparently, for Kerry, I'm actually, really, making my charge of inanity on his part in what he has identified as "reformed Egyptian." YMMV. Greatly.

3. With regard to the Anthon Transcript, Kerry repeatedly appeals to a "fact" for which he doesn't provide either evidence or any references to evidence.

Let's examine his claims.

Kerry confidently states: "Every single one of these figures have been found in scripts in the Sinai desert, or in Egypt anciently. They exist. These aren't chicken scratchings; these aren't just make-believe doodles for Joseph Smith to try to impress somebody. Every single one of these characters has an example, as a real script, in the ancient world."

And, then, shortly later, referencing Ariel Crowley's article: "Ariel Crowley, in his article on the Anthon Transcript, in the Improvement Era February for 1942 showed parellels to every single character."

Actually, Ariel Crowley did no such thing, that I can tell. By my accounting, he shows purported parallels to between 97-109 characters in the Anthon Transcript. As the Anthon Transcript presents approximately 225 characters (many of which are, admittedly, repeated) one wonders where the other approximately 116 parallels (minus repetitions) are to be found. Certainly not in the Crowley article. Does the repetition account for the numerical discrepancy? Who knows? But, I doubt it. Perhaps Kerry can show that it, in fact, does; or, alternately, he can retract his pronouncement that the Crowley article shows parallels to every single character."

Conclusion: One shouldn't take Kerry's pronouncement (purportedly via Crowley) at all seriously until he ponies up the data. And, then we'll see what we can see.

Note also that the Crowley article draws from any and all potential parallels: here from Egyptian, there from proto-Sinaitic, here from hieratic, there from Phoenician. There is just no hierarchy of linguistic change over time in play here. No, it's just a catch-as-one-can mish-mash of whatever exemplar of any given alphabetical system that might purportedly furnish an apologetically useful parallel to a caractor found in the Anthon Transcript.

Not particularly convincing. Unless one is already predisposed to believing, as Kerry is.

And, he says it again: "What we call English letters, is reformed Egyptian."

And, I say it again: on Kerry's view, reformed Egyptian means everything and nothing. Not to put to fine a point on it, but this is irresponsible.

And, then he issues his completely meaningless and ridiculous "challenge": The non-ridiculous portion of which is noncontroversial; the "gotcha" portion of which is just ridiculous.

The Crowley article is interesting. The rest is balderdash, at least to any reasonably informed critic of Mormonism.

I guess Kerry is aiming low.

cks

EDIT: Removed some unnecessarily charged language.

Link to comment

Nephi says he is using the language of the Egyptians. I believe the script to be a reflection of the spoken language as is commonly expected. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Nope.

I just want to clarify, do you believe or is there sufficent evidence for the charactors on the Anthon Transcript, were they claimed to have come from 1st or 2nd Nephi? IOW I thought these charactors represented teh scripture from the eariler pages in teh BoM.

I am not all that familiar with it's history, other than what is stated in the Church History.

Link to comment

Hi Mola:

And, he says it again: "What we call English letters, is reformed Egyptian."

And, I say it again: on Kerry's view, reformed Egyptian means everything and nothing. Not to put to fine a point on it, but this is stupid.

And, then he issues his completely meaningless and ridiculous "challenge": The non-ridiculous portion of which is noncontroversial; the "gotcha" portion of which is just breathlessly ridiculous.

This is an instance of grade school apologetics at best.

The Crowley article is interesting. The rest is absolute balderdash, at least to any reasonably informed critic of Mormonism.

I guess Kerry is aiming low.

cks

Hey, at least if nothing else you will have spiced up the thread even more. You know, I just live for this stuff.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...