More Evidence of reformed Egyptian

[Joseph Antley]

Is that normally how you read, Kerry? Sprawled out on your carpet?

[Hamba Tuhan]

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?

This sounds very much like the situation in pre-modern Southeast Asia. As Anthony Reid has pointed out, early European accounts from the beginning of the sixteenth century suggest that literacy in the region was 'near-universal.'[1] This means that millions of people were using and adapting various scripts over long periods of time. These scripts tended to be extremely localised, many of them 'reformed' versions of the old Brahmi script from India. (Interestingly, 'ome linguists claim that there is are [sic] connections between the Redjang alphabet [which is one of these scripts], Egyptian hieroglyphs and various Semitic languages such as Hebrew.'[2])

At the same time, our knowledge of the writing systems of island Southeast Asia before the arrival of the Europeans is virtually nil since, as Reid has further pointed out, [m]ost of the writing before the sixteenth century appears to have been done in the more Indianized areas on strips of palm leaf (as in India), and elsewhere on long blades of bamboo (as in China before the development of paper.'[3] Palm leaves and bamboo blades--unlike skin, stones, and other engravings--simply do not last, at least not in humid tropical climates. In fact, the primary reasons we're aware of this long history of writing in the region is because Europeans observed the end of it. We have no idea what intermediary scripts may have looked like.

-----

[1]Reid, Anthony. Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450-1608: Volume One, The Lands below the Winds. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. 215-225.

[2]http://www.omniglot.com/writing/redjang.htm

[3]Reid, Anthony. Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce 1450-1608: Volume One, The Lands below the Winds. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. 225.

[rodheadlee]

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

Sure, it's called the Book of Mormon.

[Lachoneus]

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

"Not particularly convincing. Unless one is already predisposed to [dis]believing, as [cks] is."

[John Larsen]

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.

I don't believe the charactors have any established relationship to anything.

[John Larsen]

This sounds very much like the situation in pre-modern Southeast Asia. As Anthony Reid has pointed out, early European accounts from the beginning of the sixteenth century suggest that literacy in the region was 'near-universal.'[1] This means that millions of people were using and adapting various scripts over long periods of time. These scripts tended to be extremely localised, many of them 'reformed' versions of the old Brahmi script from India. (Interestingly, 'ome linguists claim that there is are [sic] connections between the Redjang alphabet [which is one of these scripts], Egyptian hieroglyphs and various Semitic languages such as Hebrew.'[2])

At the same time, our knowledge of the writing systems of island Southeast Asia before the arrival of the Europeans is virtually nil since, as Reid has further pointed out, [m]ost of the writing before the sixteenth century appears to have been done in the more Indianized areas on strips of palm leaf (as in India), and elsewhere on long blades of bamboo (as in China before the development of paper.'[3] Palm leaves and bamboo blades--unlike skin, stones, and other engravings--simply do not last, at least not in humid tropical climates. In fact, the primary reasons we're aware of this long history of writing in the region is because Europeans observed the end of it. We have no idea what intermediary scripts may have looked like.

I'm glad you brought this up. How do we know that these pre-Bali language scripts existed? Two main reasons, there is evidence they existed (like you first hand accounts) and there is a hole that they fill in. The culture and language of the Southeast Asian people are a merging of two peoples and cultures. The peoples themselves migrated south out of China which was a literate people. Then, as you point out, Southeast Asia encounter Buddhism emerging out of the West. The scripts of Modern Thai, Khmer, Lao and Burma all trace their scripts back to old Bali in the same manner that the Romance and Germanic languages trace their scripts back to Latin.

It is very likely that a written form of language existed based on culture achievements and other evidences, as you point out. However, if we were to find evidence of the missing script during the pre-Bali period, it would be very difficult to argue that there was yet another script that was in use that was derived from a non-Chinese, non-Bali source, such as--oh, I don't know-- Egyptian. That is the very thing that proponents of the Book of Mormon are arguing in Meso-America. We have evidence of writing systems during the supposed Book of Mormon period, but none of these show any real relationship between Hebrew or Egyptian.

Arguing for the Book of Mormon model would be the same as arguing your pre-Bali language in Southeast Asia was Ancient Gaelic.

As to the relationship between Hebrew and Sanskrit is not surprising since these language derive from ancient Proto-Indo-European.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't believe the charactors have any established relationship to anything.

Hmm, then perhaps you could induldge me just abit here. Were in teh BoM were the charactors claimed to have come from? Which part of teh BoM? You do no need believe in the BoM to answer this question. If the question can't be answer because there is no historical data on it, then I would like to know that too. Thanks

[John Larsen]

Hmm, then perhaps you could induldge me just abit here. Were in teh BoM were the charactors claimed to have come from? Which part of teh BoM? You do no need believe in the BoM to answer this question. If the question can't be answer because there is no historical data on it, then I would like to know that too. Thanks

That's my point, I am unaware of any claim they came from anywhere in the book. I believe the only thing that was said is that they were copied from the plates. I don't think there was even a suggestion that they were copied sequentially.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's my point, I am unaware of any claim they came from anywhere in the book. I believe the only thing that was said is that they were copied from the plates. I don't think there was even a suggestion that they were copied sequentially.

Bummer. Well shoot. I am not about to make any arguments from silence. Since nothing more seems to be known I can't further my theory.

[notHagoth7]

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

Based on the timing of the manuscript, the most common claim I've heard is that it was an extract from the section we know as the 116 pages (Lehi's record).

[John Larsen]

Shirts has posted a response to Criticism:

I'm not sure why he hasn't posted it here yet.

My first question to Kerry, who is it that denies the possibility of the language "Reformed Egyptian"? What critic are you responding to?

[John Larsen]

Shirts has posted a response to Criticism:

I'm not sure why he hasn't posted it here yet.

My first question to Kerry, who is it that denies the possibility of the language "Reformed Egyptian"? What critic are you responding to?

One more thought. When critics say there is not such thing at "Reformed Egyptian" they are not denying the mechanical possibility of such a thing, they are denying that an evidence exists of the language, and the conditions under which the language would have to exist make it very improbable.

[mapman]

I found this website: http://www.reformed-egyptian.com/. This guy has identified some of the characters with Egyptian ones. I don't know much about things Egyptian, so I can't tell if this is any good or not. I'm guessing there are people on here that no more than me, so I wonder if they could enlighten me?

[Thoth]

One more thought. When critics say there is not such thing at "Reformed Egyptian" they are not denying the mechanical possibility of such a thing, they are denying that an evidence exists of the language, and the conditions under which the language would have to exist make it very improbable.

This is why the first part of Shirts' argument is immaterial, and shows his lack of understanding of the problems he is trying to address. Reformed Egyptian, a language written by "Nephites" in ancient America is not necessarily the same as Egyptian that has been reformed. There has never been any question that Egyptian evolved, and with it some of the scripts were altered and evolved. I guess you could say they were reformed, whatever floats your boat. The point is, the fact that Hieratic script and Demotic evolved form Egyptian has never been in question, and I don't know who Shirts is trying to impress or rebut in his video. If he posted what the critics supposedly say, it would be helpful and make him sound like less of a rambling apologist.

The Anthon transcript is the only part of the video that is relevant. I have not viewed the evidence of Egyptian characters being present on the transcript, as I don't have the Improvement Era article in question. However, if the characters are taken scatter shot from a wide array of languages in the Semitic language family, and not shown for all characters, then it seems like only a half-proof, and needs to be investigated further. Hardly the definitive proof that Shirts claims it is.

What Shirts doesn't address is the lack of Hebrew/Egyptian scripts found in the supposed Book of Mormon locales (is it Northern New York? Mesoamerica? Zelph's home near the Mississippi?). Now that would be actual proof of Reformed Egyptian. But where is this evidence? Plenty of evidence of Mesoamerican glyphs survives, but nothing Egyptian or Hebrew related.

Interestingly, the same time that Smith brought forth "Reformed Egyptian," there were many ideas in America about who built the massive mounds that dot the landscape, and many thought it was some east Asian people, or ancient Egyptians, or a lost tribe of Israel. Rocks were produced with Hebrew writing on them that claimed to be from the ancient inhabitants of the continent, but were later proved to be hoaxes. The point is, its interesting that Smith would produced a story about Hebrew writing and "Reformed Egyptian" at the same time.

[Kevin Christensen]

For a comparison of the Anthon ms characters with two Mesoamerican cylinder seals:

http://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[LeSellers]

When critics say there is not such thing at "Reformed Egyptian" they are not denying the mechanical possibility of such a thing, they are denying that an evidence exists of the language, and the conditions under which the language would have to exist make it very improbable.

This is why the first part of Shirts' argument is immaterial, and shows his lack of understanding of the problems he is trying to address. Reformed Egyptian, a language written by "Nephites" in ancient America is not necessarily the same as Egyptian that has been reformed.

CFR that there is any reason to identify "reformed Egyptian" as a language.

The text of Mormon 9 clearly distinguishes between the Egyptian characters (which had undergone reformation) and the Hebrew language (which they had also altered such that no one could recognize it, either):

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.

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

Therefor, it is wholly incorrect to speak of "reformed Egyptian" (please note the capitalization) as a language. It was not

[Thoth]

CFR that there is any reason to identify "reformed Egyptian" as a language.

The text of Mormon 9 clearly distinguishes between the Egyptian characters (which had undergone reformation) and the Hebrew language (which they had also altered such that no one could recognize it, either):

Therefor, it is wholly incorrect to speak of "reformed Egyptian" (please note the capitalization) as a language. It was not

[USU78]

Therefore, the language written was an altered (reformed?) Hebrew that was written in altered (reformed!) Egyptian script or glyphs? Also, the Nephites had a separate script for their altered Hebrew language, which was a reformed Hebrew script. But somehow their Hebrew script got too wordy compared to the Hebrew spoken and written in the Old World, (perhaps they started including vowels?) so they had to used their reformed Egyptian script? This of course ignores that fact that in the Old World, the Hebrew alphabet has remained virtually the same for 2300 years due to Jews beliefs in the preserving of something they believe to be sacred and divine, yet Lehi and his band who were all good Jews somehow lost the ability to speak and write Old World Hebrew, which would have most likely been shorter than their reformed Egyptian? I just don't see it.

And Shirts' personal discovery of Hieratic proves this how? Is there evidence that Hieratic was ever extensively used to write Hebrew prior to the date of Lehi's departure? Have reformed Egyptian and Hebrew scripts ever been found in America and validated by both linguists and archaeologists as being genuine?

I think we're making this too complicated.

There was an early criticism of the concept of "reformed Egyptian" as a script for writing in Hebrew or a Hebrew derivative.

That criticism has persisted amongst the ignorant.

Kerry addresses this criticism by showing that the criticism itself is far too silly to give much thought to: and he reduces it ad absurdam, showing that even our own alphabet could reasonably be called a kind of "reformed Egyptian."

Why make it hard when it's easy?

[John Larsen]

CFR that there is any reason to identify "reformed Egyptian" as a language.

What is it?

[John Larsen]

I think we're making this too complicated.

There was an early criticism of the concept of "reformed Egyptian" as a script for writing in Hebrew or a Hebrew derivative.

That criticism has persisted amongst the ignorant.

Kerry addresses this criticism by showing that the criticism itself is far too silly to give much thought to: and he reduces it ad absurdam, showing that even our own alphabet could reasonably be called a kind of "reformed Egyptian."

Why make it hard when it's easy?

I think Kerry is refuting a criticism that doesn't exist.

[USU78]

I think Kerry is refuting a criticism that doesn't exist.

I've been following these kinds of discussions online since about '93, give or take, when I first discovered alt.religion.mormon.

It was an infrequent but definitely present criticism then . . . we see it infrequently now, but it definitely exists among the ignorant, as I pointed out in my prior post.

[LeSellers]

When critics say there is not such thing at "Reformed Egyptian" they are not denying the mechanical possibility of such a thing, they are denying that an evidence exists of the language, and the conditions under which the language would have to exist make it very improbable.

This is why the first part of Shirts' argument is immaterial, and shows his lack of understanding of the problems he is trying to address. Reformed Egyptian, a language written by "Nephites" in ancient America is not necessarily the same as Egyptian that has been reformed.

CFR that there is any reason to identify "reformed Egyptian" as a language.

What is it?

Did you not read the rest of the message to which you responded?

The text of Mormon 9 clearly distinguishes between the Egyptian characters (which had undergone reformation) and the Hebrew language (which they had also altered such that no one could recognize it, either):

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.

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

Therefor, it is wholly incorrect to speak of "reformed Egyptian" (please note the capitalization) as a language. It was not

[volgadon]

This of course ignores that fact that in the Old World, the Hebrew alphabet has remained virtually the same for 2300 years due to Jews beliefs in the preserving of something they believe to be sacred and divine, yet Lehi and his band who were all good Jews somehow lost the ability to speak and write Old World Hebrew, which would have most likely been shorter than their reformed Egyptian? I just don't see it.

You don't see it possibly because you are ascribing to the Jews a belief they did not hold. Seems a frequent anti-Mormon fallacy.

The Hebrew alphabet you seem to be thinking of is actually an ARAMAIC script which deliberately replaced the old, pre-exilic scripts. Also, I wonder, have you seen Rashi script or modern Hebrew cursive?

[LeSellers]

When critics say there is not such thing at "Reformed Egyptian" they are not denying the mechanical possibility of such a thing, they are denying that an evidence exists of the language, and the conditions under which the language would have to exist make it very improbable.

This is why the first part of Shirts' argument is immaterial, and shows his lack of understanding of the problems he is trying to address. Reformed Egyptian, a language written by "Nephites" in ancient America is not necessarily the same as Egyptian that has been reformed.

CFR that there is any reason to identify "reformed Egyptian" as a language.

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You don't see it possibly because you are ascribing to the Jews a belief they did not hold. Seems a frequent anti-Mormon fallacy.

The Hebrew alphabet you seem to be thinking of is actually an ARAMAIC script which deliberately replaced the old, pre-exilic scripts. Also, I wonder, have you seen Rashi script or modern Hebrew cursive?

I suspect all we will hear is the crickets now.

I remember talking to one of my Evangelical friends. We were talking about possible errors in the bible. He told me that it was not possible for their to be errors in the bible because the Jews didn't believe in messing with the sacred text or scriptures. I just shook my head.