Throw Out The Dates, Mayan Mystery

[Rob Osborn]

I find your logic confusing, Rob.

We need to get at on the same page, 

 

You say:

• Limhi's group left the land of Nephi (in the land southward), searching for Zarahemla.
• They missed Zarahemla (in the land southward, but north of Nephi)
• They found some of the destroyed Jaredites.
• They didn't go to the hill Cumorah, in what is now NY (nor did they go to the land of Ripliancum).
• They "went maybe as far as southern Mexico" (and Ether might have traveled to there with his 24 gold plate record).

  then ...

   

• ":They [Limhi's party] got lost before they found the narrow neck."

Please tell me where you think the follow Book of Mormon locations fit in our western hemisphere.

• The land of Nephi
• The land of Zarahemla (north of Nephi)
• The narrow neck of land (north of Zarahemla)
• The hill Cumorah (north of the narrow neck, and by the east sea)

 

Thanks.

The land of Nephi in the land suthward was in Peru. Zarahemla (the city) was in the Magdalena river valley. The narrow neck is Panama, Costa Rica. He hill Cumorah is in New York.

[Robert F. Smith]

There is that and that the characters on what we have of what is called the Anthon Transcript have the appearance of a modified transitional phase of Egyptian, with a mix of Hieratic and mostly Demotic characters.

Yeh, and that too.

Care to offer any decipherment of it?

[Robert F. Smith]

They were all the same family of language.

Yes, they were, and elites from one Mayan city-state would conduct war on other Mayan city-states and then rule those city-states.  There was never any Mayan empire.  Only competing large and small Mayan city-states within a contiguous Mayan area.  Outside that area were other peoples, Mixe-Zoque, Sawi-Zaa, Teotihuacanos (who had the largest city in Mesoamerica, and whose elites did rule over Mayan city-states), etc., all long before the Nahautl peoples came into Mexico.  The Nephites subsisted almost entirely inside Mixe-Zoque territory, which means  that any contact they had with Mayan peoples would have been only with an occasional trader, and that long before the Maya Classic period.

[Robert F. Smith]

And what about the Book of Mormon? Its the most accurate and truthful history of the ancient Anerican peoples

It would be nice if you would study both the Book of Mormon and the facts about the various Amerinds of Mesoamerica.  How else are you going to be able to have anything to compare one with the other?  Since you insist on understanding neither, the result of your lack of concern with factual discussion is the kind of fairyland pastiche one would expect from a sociopath, i.e., one who couldn't care less.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

The Mayan "influence" was a much bigger area than just the green. We know that Mayan influence was all of mesoamerica. We cannot be sure if all of mesoamerica spoke a Mayan dialect or just the more "dominant" parts of the land.

We know that Maya languages were spoken in the same well-defined area they exist in today.  Not outside.  Most of Mesoamerica was and is non-Mayan.  Olmec influence was once immense, probably due to widespread trade.  And Teotihuacano (Toltec) influence was also tremendous later.  The Maya were just not that influential, even in the Classic period (after the Book of Mormon).  When Cortes arrived, he found the Nahuatl peoples (Aztecs) dominant in most of Mexico, not the Maya.

Maya languages were used only by the Maya peoples.

 

As usual, Rob, you're just making stuff up, rather than dealing with fact.

[Calm]

 sociopath, i.e., one who couldn't care less.

A sociopath isn't one who couldn't care less (about anything), but rather someone who doesn't care about other people's feelings and personal situations.

 

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

 

For a more concise...the dictionary definition:

 

a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks asense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

 

 

 

Just saying...I think your criticism of his ignoring what he wants to is dead on otherwise.  I just tend to be picky about psychology terms...probably my training acting up.

Edited October 6, 2013 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

 

David T, on 01 Oct 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:  I think it might be more accurate to say "Reformed Egyptian" is a term applied to the otherwise undescribed writing system used by an extinct line. We know that it is not Egyptian, but only 'called such among us'.  Joseph himself tended use Egypt and Egyptian as stand-ins for something 'Ancient and Hidden'.  I would be very surprised if Mormon's composition wasn't far more similar to contemporary local writing systems. What is clear is that Mormon did not write in what Nephi wrote in.  Because only the Nephite plate-keeping line would have had any reason to call it 'Reformed Egyptian' for sacred continuity, we shouldn't expect for any such writing system when/if discovered to be linguistically classified anything like an Old World Egyptian writing system. The text itself shows that we shouldn't expect that.  What we do know is that it wasn't in and of itself clearly written in a popular general public writing system (Mormon knew that a 'key' would be needed to interpret it), but perhaps written in what would be considered a cypher of sorts. He probably assumed the general public language would continue on - his writing in this Sacred Writing thus wouldn't be 'sealed up' by his use of that language then.

 

Robert F. Smith, on 03 Oct 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:  Sheer nonsense, David.  The reason we know that "reformed Egyptian" bears some relationship to ancient Egyptian is that the Brass Plates of Laban were in Egyptian, and that Nephi and his successors were trained in Egyptian in order to be able to read them and to continue to write in that same language and script.  Finally, Moroni informs us that both the Hebrew and Egyptian have been altered, but that "reformed Egyptian" is better for space-saving.  No hint of some other language here.  Were this not part of an explicit stream of tradition, your speculation on it might be useful.

 

The history of the sacred language in the Book of Mormon is one of hybrid, and one of change. How exactly King Nephi's record was written is in itself not so simple. "Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians." - is this a simple reference to characters in use in Egypt to represent Hebrew words? Likely, but we actually don't know for certain.

 

As dominant spoken language shifted, did later scribes and Nephite priests earlier in the tradition prepare 'targums' of sorts for the popular language of the people based on the Brass Plate tradition? Were the Brass Plates actually eventually read and studied through the entirety of Nephite History, or eventually was this done only/mainly in Translation? And was the Translation complete? They must have had some form of translation eventually, at least orally. I don't see the entirety of the Nephite people (especially as those labels shifted between different cultures and allegiences) being fluent in scriptural Egyptian, Hebrew, or some Hebryptian Hybrid. When the prophets quoted scripture to the public - Nephite or Lamanite - , were they making up a translation on the spot, or based on their studies of translations and explanations that had been done before? The King Benjamin Translation, so to say?

 

Was Jesus speaking Aramaic when he arrived, and quoted Isaiah and Malachi? When he gave his Sermon at the Temple Mount? Was it Egpytian? Hebrew? Greek? A common Mesoamerican dialect? Was what was stated then translated back into the older Sacred Record Keeping Traditional Language, or recorded as-is?

 

I think the issue of language transmission and determining what the final 4th Century CE 'Reformed Egyptian' label actually refers to - even among Mormon's limited sacred record, is not nearly as clear-cut as it could be, and find the label of 'sheer nonsense' a bit needlessly condescendingly overstating your point, Robert.

Your speculation was that "reformed Egyptian" might "be considered a cypher of sorts," or a "contemporary local writing system," or "something 'Ancient and Hidden'," but "not Egyptian, but only 'called such among us'," because "The text itself shows that we shouldn't expect" "anything like an Old World Egyptian writing system."  Now you add to all that the additional offering that it may have been "Egyptian, Hebrew, or some Hebryptian Hybrid."

 

I call that "sheer nonsense" because it ignores the Book of Mormon text itself, which I summarized for you.  Moreover, when we study the text closely we find that there are noteworthy and frequent Egyptianisms (not available in Hebrew) in the text, which can only be explained if the text comes from an Egyptian Vorlage.  Why is that important?  Because non-Mormon scholars have opined that the so-called "Anthon Transcript" looks to be (as MormonMason agrees) hieratic or a transitional form of hieratic / demotic -- the transition was taking place in Lehi's day.  Indeed, since just such a development in Egyptian demotic took place in Egypt, there is no reason to think it could not have taken place in the New World, hence the reference by Moroni to "reformed Egyptian" and "altered" Hebrew.  Two separate systems, not a hybrid.  Finally, the Brass Plates would always be a control, and could not be read it Classical Egyptian did not continue to be learned by the elite scribes.  This has nothing to do with the hoi polloi.

 

Non-Mormon scholars  such as Anson Rainey also state that professional, Egyptian-speaking Classical Hebrew scribes wrote the hieratic Egyptian found at Tel Arad VII, at Kadesh-Barnea, at Lachish (all contemporary with Lehi),* and in the earlier Samaria Ostraca.**  Non-Mormon Egyptologist Stefan Wimmer suggests that those Classical Hebrew scribes could have been trained in Egypt or by Egyptian scribes brought from Egypt.^#

*  Rainey, "The Saga of Eliashib," Biblical Archaeology Review, 13/2 (Mar-Apr 1987):37, 39; cf. John Thompson, “Lehi and Egypt,” in Welch, Seely, and Seely, eds., Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem (Provo: FARMS, 2004), 267, citing Orly Goldwasser, AAn Egyptian Scribe from Lachish and the Hieratic Tradition of the Hebrew Kingdoms,@ Tel Aviv, 18 (1991):248.

**  Ivan Kaufman, ASamaria Ostraca,@ in D. Freedman ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. (Doubleday, 1992), V:923.

#  Wimmer spoke at BYU, Aug 31, 2012, during the Willes Center Biennial Lectures sponsored by the Maxwell Institute.  See his Palästinisches Hieratisch: Die Zahl- und Sonderzeichen in der althebräischen Schrift, Ägypten und alten Testament 75 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008).

Edited October 6, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Making it up as you go, 'Gangnam style,' is used by LGT Apologists:

"There is considerable ambiguity in the statement that the early Nephites "covered" the face of the land. This looks like standard rhetoric." http://mimobile.byu.edu/?m=5&table=jbms&vol=8&num=1&id=181&q=Stela%205&search_result

Yep. The Book of Mormon is ambiguous because it contradicts with Ancient Mesoamerica. Therefore, The Book of Mormon contains standard rhetoric (in other words, The Book of Mormon is wrong, not the Mesoamerica LGT theory).

This what you learn from LGT Apologists.

Yes, both Bible and Book of Mormon use the same sort of hyperbolic rhetoric used by other ancient documents.  That was standard practice, and does  make for ambiguity.

 

However, most scholars of the ancient world deal with this by reading carefully and by comparing the text with archeological reality.  John L. Sorenson does this systematically with his new book Mormon's Codex (Deseret, 2013), which is just out.   If you get tired of reading apologists and polemicists, you might try reading scholarly books for a change.

[Rob Osborn]

It would be nice if you would study both the Book of Mormon and the facts about the various Amerinds of Mesoamerica.  How else are you going to be able to have anything to compare one with the other?  Since you insist on understanding neither, the result of your lack of concern with factual discussion is the kind of fairyland pastiche one would expect from a sociopath, i.e., one who couldn't care less.

You know what? I have been real nice with you and tried to have an honest discussion here but your lack of professionalism here is starting to really grate on my nerves.

[Rob Osborn]

We know that Maya languages were spoken in the same well-defined area they exist in today.  Not outside.  Most of Mesoamerica was and is non-Mayan.  Olmec influence was once immense, probably due to widespread trade.  And Teotihuacano (Toltec) influence was also tremendous later.  The Maya were just not that influential, even in the Classic period (after the Book of Mormon).  When Cortes arrived, he found the Nahuatl peoples (Aztecs) dominant in most of Mexico, not the Maya.

Maya languages were used only by the Maya peoples.

 

As usual, Rob, you're just making stuff up, rather than dealing with fact.

How can you be so sure? The "Maya" of Cortez' time were not the same culture or people that built and ruled the then deserted ancient ruins.

[Anijen]

The land of Nephi in the land suthward was in Peru. Zarahemla (the city) was in the Magdalena river valley. The narrow neck is Panama, Costa Rica. He hill Cumorah is in New York.

How can you be so sure?

 

That is the same question you have asked Robert F. Smith. We have had an apostle say if any General Authority speaks on the geography of the Book of Mormon it is speculation their own opinion, yet you are neither a general Authority nor are you an expert in Anthropology, finally you do not seem to be an expert either in the Book of Mormon.

 

So I give back to you your own question, If it is opinion and speculation from a General Authority when speaking of geography of the BofM then; how can you be so sure?

Edited October 6, 2013 by Anijen

[Rob Osborn]

How can you be so sure?

 

That is the same question you have asked Robert F. Smith. We have had an apostle say if any General Authority speak on the geography of the Book of Mormon it is speculation their own opinion, yet you are neither a general Authority nor are you an expert in Anthropology, finally you do not seem to be an expert either in the Book of Mormon.

 

So I give back to you your own question, If it is opinion and speculation from a General Authority when speaking of geography of the BofM then; how can you be so sure?

Robert posted his material as "fact", big difference. I always say in context of "I believe", " my opinion", etc...

[Anijen]

Robert posted his material as "fact", big difference. I always say in context of "I believe", " my opinion", etc...

What you are criticizing Robert for you are doing yourself.

 

Your post #201 has no mention of opinion or in no way has a context of your belief of opinion (which you state you always do, perhaps you forgot in this instance)..

 

You are stating it as fact.

 

You are professing beliefs you expect in others in which you do not have yourself.

[Rob Osborn]

What you are criticizing Robert for you are doing yourself.

 

Your post #201 has no mention of opinion or in no way has a context of your belief of opinion (which you state you always do, perhaps you forgot in this instance)..

 

You are stating it as fact.

 

You are professing beliefs you expect in others in which you do not have yourself.

Cursor asked where I might "think" the lands were. I replied to where my thoughts lay.

[rodheadlee]

Hey Rob did you answer my CFR?

[Rob Osborn]

Hey Rob did you answer my CFR?

What was it?

[Anijen]

The land of Nephi in the land suthward was in Peru. Zarahemla (the city) was in the Magdalena river valley. The narrow neck is Panama, Costa Rica. He hill Cumorah is in New York. 

 

 

If you

"always say in context of "I believe", " my opinion",

 

Then why did you not do so when you answered Curser? 

 

Again read your answer to Curser. 

was in Peru

was in the Magdalena river valley

 

I do not see anywhere that expresses that

" I always say in context of "I believe", " my opinion", etc..."   

[rodheadlee]

What was it?

About having a roads to trade between Panama and South America. I've been down there and it's extreme jungle with no roads to this day that run between those countries. Check it out on google map I know sailors making good money running folks to Columbia on their sailboats, because there are no roads. Post 165

Edited October 6, 2013 by rodheadlee

[Rob Osborn]

About having a roads to trade between Panama and South America. I've been down there and it's extreme jungle with no roads to this day that run between those countries. Check it out on google map I know sailors making good money running folks to Columbia on their sailboats, because there are no roads. Post 165

An overland trade route was probable as was trade by the ocean. I referenced a coupke sites a few days ago whose authors believed in overland routes. The Nephites found the narrow neck and land northward in about 120 bc. No mention is made of any earlier date than that. Less than a hundred years later, Hagoth begibs building transport and trade ships to bypass the narrow neck into the land northward. Its highly probable that because of both distance and terrain encountered by Limhis group that Hagoth got smart and offeted an alternate route until the area could be cleared and travel roafs/paths could be constructed. Its actually a pretty sound theory and makes perfect sense.

[Rob Osborn]

If you

Then why did you not do so when you answered Curser? 

 

Again read your answer to Curser. 

 

I do not see anywhere that expresses that

Nothing to debate here. I get tired of splitting hairs on this board.

[cursor]

An overland trade route was probable as was trade by the ocean. I referenced a coupke sites a few days ago whose authors believed in overland routes. The Nephites found the narrow neck and land northward in about 120 bc. No mention is made of any earlier date than that. Less than a hundred years later, Hagoth [begins] building transport and trade ships to bypass the narrow neck into the land northward. Its highly probable that because of both distance and terrain encountered by Limhis group that Hagoth got smart and offeted an alternate route until the area could be cleared and travel roafs/paths could be constructed. Its actually a pretty sound theory and makes perfect sense.

 

Access to the land northward was only difficult (or next to impossible) on the west coast of the narrow neck, where Hagoth built his ships. There is no indication in the source text, by the way, exactly from where folks migrated to "take advantage" of the "opportunity."

[cursor]

Nothing to debate here. I get tired of splitting hairs on this board.

 

I asked for your opinion/perspective. You gave it. I assumed that your submission was your personal opinion. Thanks. 

[Rob Osborn]

Access to the land northward was only difficult (or next to impossible) on the west coast of the narrow neck, where Hagoth built his ships. There is no indication in the source text, by the way, exactly from where folks migrated to "take advantage" of the "opportunity."

We are not sure where Hagoth's ship works were located but most provably in an area of easy access. The text only states it was by the narrow neck.that could be anything from a mile to a hundred miles or more.

[Robert F. Smith]

We are not sure where Hagoth's ship works were located but most provably in an area of easy access. The text only states it was by the narrow neck.that could be anything from a mile to a hundred miles or more.

The only reasonable area is in the two lagoons which function as harbors and have a river coming down from well forested mountains right at the west side of the narrow neck (before modern times, logs were floated downriver).   You might want to consult a map.

[Robert F. Smith]

How can you be so sure? The "Maya" of Cortez' time were not the same culture or people that built and ruled the then deserted ancient ruins.

If you bothered to read books and articles about the Maya, you would understand that the Maya peoples have lived in the same region they do now for thousands of years.  In that time, normal changes in language have taken place (as they do in any language).  You would also understand that disasters have happened in Maya history which led to the abandonment of some major cities, after which the rain forest took over until modern archeologists showed up to excavate them and to disclose some amazing aspects of their history by reading their ancient stelae.  Other areas continued to be actively occupied right down to modern times.

 

The Maya of the time of the Conquista were the same Maya peoples (and their descendants) who had built all those great cities and put up those historical stelae, and who had composed the thousands of books foolishly burned by the Spanish.  The writings of Bishop Diego de Landa gave us many clues on how to decipher Maya hieroglyphs and got his information from Maya priests in Yucatan who could read and write the language quite well.  What is truly astonishing is that you dare to talk about this subject without bothering to study it at all.