Anthon Transcript Verified As Reformed Egyptian?

[Calm]

You can find excerpts from 5 books by Deleanu on Scribd, although the complete books are not available from that source. His name is on RateMyTeacher, where he gets a 100% rating, but anyone who has used that site knows that a negative rating can be easily adjusted by going in yourself and "adjusting" your evaluation. The write-up on two of his books say he has studied ancient Hebrew for two decades and studied ancient Chinese for two decades. He has founded his own political party that has successfully contributed to world peace and he has also published two cookbooks.. I don't know about you, but he's definitely my hero.

He may not be the same guy as the teacher.....I did find the glowing terms each of his students used for him sounded like the same sort of thing one found in the book....glowing terms, but vague and short.

 

There is a Robert Daniel Deleanu for example in Iowa City and I think one in Toronto as well.

Edited December 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[maklelan]

He may not be the same guy as the teacher.....I did find the glowing terms each of his students used for him sounded like the same sort of thing one found in the book....glowing terms, but vague and short.

 

There is a Robert Daniel Deleanu for example in Iowa City and I think one in Toronto as well.

 

The (Robert) Daniel Deleanu who authored these books was born in Romania and lives in Toronto.

[Calm]

Thanks...

[teddyaware]

I know little about Egyptian and read two pages of the book. I have learned all I need to know. If the rest of it is a masterpiece I will never know.

Please elaborate.

[J Green]

He is also a recording artist specializing in covers of Eagles tunes in Sanskrit, Egyptian, and other languages. My favorite is his tender version of Desperado:

[Cue music]

Es-peranto, why don't you come to your tenses . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm not "excited" about Mr. Deleanu's books on the Anthon Transcript. I'm simply curious about these books and that's why I posted here in order to learn if any of the knowledgeable participants on this board knew anything about him and his work. His books supposedly verify the authenticity of the writing of ancient appearance found on the Anthon Transcript, and therefore it would seem likely such an "earth shattering revelation" would have come to the attention of some LDS scholars by now. 

 

The fact is that he has somehow produced more than two books based on the Anthon Transcript. So just out of simple curiosity, it would be interesting, at least to me, to know what it is he has to say in those books. I was hoping someone on here might have already read them and knew of his approach and methodology on the subject of Reformed Egyptian.      

I looked at some online preview pages of his decipherment of Reformed Egyptian, but they contained nothing substantive, and a great deal of generic nonsense such as one expects from a student not knowing what else to say at exam time -- and just filling the pages of his blue book with balderdash.

 

I'll try to get access to copies of some of his works at a university library, and evaluate them for myself.  I don't plan on shelling out hard cash for pretentious tripe.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[teddyaware]

I looked at some online preview pages of his decipherment of Reformed Egyptian, but they contained nothing substantive, and a great deal of generic nonsense such as one expects from a student not knowing what else to say at exam time -- and just filling the pages of his blue book with balderdash.

 

I'll try to get access to copies of some of his works at a university library, and evaluate them for myself.  I don't plan on shelling out hard cash for pretentious tripe.

 

Thanks Robert.

 

[Calm]

Kind of you to go to that work, IMO.

[Robert F. Smith]

The (Robert) Daniel Deleanu who authored these books was born in Romania and lives in Toronto.

In such case, he may be a son of the well-known Romanian cardiologist, Dan Deleanu (currently in Bucharest), who also has a strong interest in literature.

[bcuzbcuz]

In such case, he may be a son of the well-known Romanian cardiologist, Dan Deleanu (currently in Bucharest), who also has a strong interest in literature.

One is called Daniel Deleanu PhD and the other is Dr. Dan Deleanu. Whoever or whichever is father / son or sibling, it seems the family had a very short list of names for their offspring.

[maklelan]

So then I've found someone who's read Deleanu's works on Reformed Egyptian? 

 

Do you have any further comments or concerns, or was the goal just to find someone who's read his stuff?

[teddyaware]

Maklelan,

 

Ideally, I was hoping to hear some analysis from someone who's actually read Deleanu's books on Reformed Egyptian and its claimed connections to the Anthon Transcript.
 
I try hard to keep an open mind on things of this nature, knowing full well that Joseph Smith's claims about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon are at least equally improbable in the eyes of the learned scholars of the world. Since Deleanu has produced four volumes and hundreds of pages on the subject of Reformed Egyptian, I hold out the remote possibility that he may be a gifted individual who may have actually discovered a real connection between the Anthon Transcript and Reformed Egyptian, a pursuit many other experts in ancient languages wouldn't even try to tackle for fear of the damage such a serious investigation into the Anthon Transcript might have on their professional reputations and careers. You know, that large and spacious building sort of thing.
 
Bottom line? I don't like to jump to conclusions and it wouldn't surprise me if in the economy of God the Lord once again chose one of the weak things of the world (in this case the scorned Mr. Deleanu) to bring the wisdom of the wise to naught, as working with the weak things of the world seems to be the Lord's frequently chosen modus operandi. In fact, if I had been one disposed to jump to conclusions, I never would have become a Latter-day Saint who has a testimony of the Book of Mormon because Joseph's story on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon appears to be very improbable indeed.

 

Nevertheless, because I actually do have an open mind, it wouldn't surprise me at all if in the end Deleanu's work is found wanting.

Edited December 31, 2013 by teddyaware

[maklelan]

Maklelan,

 

Ideally, I was hoping to hear some analysis from someone who's actually read Deleanu's books on Reformed Egyptian and its claimed connections to the Anthon Transcript.

 

I try hard to keep an open mind on things of this nature, knowing full well that Joseph Smith's claims about the coming forth of the Book of Mormon are at least equally improbable in the eyes of the learned scholars of the world. Since Deleanu has produced four volumes and hundreds of pages on the subject of Reformed Egyptian, I hold out the remote possibility that he may be a gifted individual who may have actually discovered a real connection between the Anthon Transcript and Reformed Egyptian, a pursuit many other experts in ancient languages wouldn't even try to tackle for fear of the damage such a serious investigation into the Anthon Transcript might have on their professional reputations and careers. You know, that large and spacious building sort of thing.

 

Bottom line? I don't like to jump to conclusions and it wouldn't surprise me if in the economy of God the Lord once again chose one of the weak things of the world (in this case the scorned Mr. Deleanu) to bring the wisdom of the wise to naught, as working with the weak things of the world seems to be the Lord's frequently chosen modus operandi. In fact, if I had been one disposed to jump to conclusions, I never would have become a Latter-day Saint who has a testimony of the Book of Mormon because Joseph's story on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon appears to be very improbable indeed.

 

Nevertheless, because I actually do have an open mind, it wouldn't surprise me at all if in the end Deleanu's work is found wanting.

 

Like I said, I've read portions of it. I have no interest in taking the time to analyze his entire argument as it's clearly and unquestionably bogus, but from the segments I have read he is basically building an argument upon pure assertion. This is Reformed Egyptian, and because we know that, we can also conclude X, Y, and Z. He states as much in explaining his methodology as onomasiological, or starting with the meaning of the words and letters and the working backward from there. It presupposes everything it claims to prove, and it masks this fallacy in a dense smokescreen of jargon and philosophizing. I can't find anything that constitutes actual empirical evidence for the connections he draws.

[teddyaware]

Like I said, I've read portions of it. I have no interest in taking the time to analyze his entire argument as it's clearly and unquestionably bogus, but from the segments I have read he is basically building an argument upon pure assertion. This is Reformed Egyptian, and because we know that, we can also conclude X, Y, and Z. He states as much in explaining his methodology as onomasiological, or starting with the meaning of the words and letters and the working backward from there. It presupposes everything it claims to prove, and it masks this fallacy in a dense smokescreen of jargon and philosophizing. I can't find anything that constitutes actual empirical evidence for the connections he draws.

Wouldn't it be interesting if I could contact Mr. Deleanu and see if I could get him to make his own case on this very board? I believe I'll try...

[The Nehor]

Please elaborate.

I agree with Robert. I was an English major. I learned how to write long flowery prose about stuff I barely understood in order to pass a test or write a paper. This guy writes in the same style I then used. He is not very good at it. His text has a 'look at how much I know' feel to it that disguises the fact that he is saying little. When he finds himself in trouble or making insane logical leaps he misuses big words to try to confuse the issue so no one notices that his premises do not support his conclusions.

Wouldn't it be interesting if I could contact Mr. Deleanu and see if I could get him to make his own case on this very board? I believe I'll try...

Please do, I could use a good laugh.

I would also suggest that comparing this guy to Joseph Smith is unwise. Joseph did inspire instant rejection in many circles. This was due to the nature of what he presented. He talked of angels and revelations and books translated through the power of God.

This guy claims to be a scholarly researcher and ignores how this method of discovering truth works. There are talented amateurs out there in many fields and some come up with amazing insights. Most of them collaborate to a degree with others and fact check each other. This guy hides from all that. He has bad credentials, no public face, and sells his wacko theories in overpriced books. He smells like a hack and writes like a hack so he is almost certainly a hack.

[maklelan]

Wouldn't it be interesting if I could contact Mr. Deleanu and see if I could get him to make his own case on this very board? I believe I'll try...

 

That's an awful lot of work for someone who's just exploring possibilities, but if you really think this is going to be edifying in any way, have at it. I would be happy to engage him here. I'd like a word or two with him regarding his rather flippant and naive dismissal of my concerns with the Jordan Lead Codices, anyway. 

[teddyaware]

I agree with Robert. I was an English major. I learned how to write long flowery prose about stuff I barely understood in order to pass a test or write a paper. This guy writes in the same style I then used. He is not very good at it. His text has a 'look at how much I know' feel to it that disguises the fact that he is saying little. When he finds himself in trouble or making insane logical leaps he misuses big words to try to confuse the issue so no one notices that his premises do not support his conclusions.

Please do, I could use a good laugh.

I would also suggest that comparing this guy to Joseph Smith is unwise. Joseph did inspire instant rejection in many circles. This was due to the nature of what he presented. He talked of angels and revelations and books translated through the power of God.

This guy claims to be a scholarly researcher and ignores how this method of discovering truth works. There are talented amateurs out there in many fields and some come up with amazing insights. Most of them collaborate to a degree with others and fact check each other. This guy hides from all that. He has bad credentials, no public face, and sells his wacko theories in overpriced books. He smells like a hack and writes like a hack so he is almost certainly a hack.

 

I'm attempting to locate Mr. Deleanu but not finding success. Thus far he does seem elusive, but I'll persist.

 

For my edification, please quote Deleanu directly and show me a specific example of what you're talking about when you say "he misuses big words." A specific and verifiable example of this misuse will be very helpful as I weigh the information I'm wading through as I try to determine whether or not Deleanus's for real. I must say I find the statement that he has a magna cum laude PhD in Philology without even stating what university he received such an high honor it from does seem rather suspicious.

 

For your information, I wasn't trying to compare Deleanu with Joseph Smith. How could I, as I don't know at this time if Deleanu is for real or not? I was simply saying that the opinions of renowned scholars don't hold as much weight for me as they do for some others. For example, the fact that many learned Egyptologists say the Joseph Smith Papyri, when translated, bear no resemblance at all to the Book of Abraham doesn't at all dissuade me from wholeheartedly believing Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham is real and authentic Holy Scripture. Neither does the fact that many learned types think the uneducated Joseph Smith's story of how he translated the Book of Mormon is a nothing but a ridiculous fairytale dissuade me from knowing the Book of Mormon is true. And I suppose that when the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is translated, the Lord will once again chose some 'uneducated' person to do that work, so as to confound the worldly wise by once again by thrashing the nations with the weak things of the world. 

 

Edited December 31, 2013 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

 

I'm attempting to locate Mr. Deleanu but not finding success. Thus far he does seem elusive, but I'll persist.

 

For my edification, please quote Deleanu directly and show me a specific example of what you're talking about when you say "he misuses big words." A specific and verifiable example of this misuse will be very helpful as I weigh the information I'm wading through as I try to determine whether or not Deleanus's for real. I must say I find the statement that he has a magna cum laude PhD in Philology without even stating what university he received such an high honor it from does seem rather suspicious.

 

For your information, I wasn't trying to compare Deleanu with Joseph Smith. How could I, as I don't know at this time if Deleanu is for real or not? I was simply saying that the opinions of renowned scholars don't hold as much weight for me as they do for some others. For example, the fact that many learned Egyptologists say the Joseph Smith Papyri, when translated, bear no resemblance at all to the Book of Abraham doesn't at all dissuade me from wholeheartedly believing Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham is real and authentic Holy Scripture. Neither does the fact that many learned types think the uneducated Joseph Smith's story of how he translated the Book of Mormon is a nothing but a ridiculous fairytale dissuade me from knowing the Book of Mormon is true. And I suppose that when the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is translated, the Lord will once again chose some 'uneducated' person to do that work, so as to confound the worldly wise by once again by thrashing the nations with the weak things of the world. 

 

 

I honestly don't care enough to go deconstruct his stuff. I will say it is funny that he is using a few characters from a lead fragment of unsubstantiated origin and existence and thinking that this piece from the Old World in 600 BC is going to help him translate something written almost a thousand years later on a separate continent, especially when the authors of the Book of Mormon make it clear that they altered the language considerably.

 

And if Mr. Deleaneu said he had the translation of the sealed portion I would listen politely until he proved himself a fraud. He is not. This is a "show not tell" thing. He tells me by his conclusions that he must be a bright man in his field. He shows me by what he shares that he is sophomoric. He knows just enough to make an idiot out of himself.

 

I also like the back cover of his book where Sarah Israelit-Groll, phd, endorses the book:

 

"The most important breakthrough in the field of Egyptology since that of Champollion.

 

She is real and actually holds that position. She unfortunately died six years before the publishing date of the book so I am not sure how she pulled off this endorsement. So, not just a hack but a fradulent hack.

[teddyaware]

I honestly don't care enough to go deconstruct his stuff. I will say it is funny that he is using a few characters from a lead fragment of unsubstantiated origin and existence and thinking that this piece from the Old World in 600 BC is going to help him translate something written almost a thousand years later on a separate continent, especially when the authors of the Book of Mormon make it clear that they altered the language considerably.

 

And if Mr. Deleaneu said he had the translation of the sealed portion I would listen politely until he proved himself a fraud. He is not. This is a "show not tell" thing. He tells me by his conclusions that he must be a bright man in his field. He shows me by what he shares that he is sophomoric. He knows just enough to make an idiot out of himself.

 

I also like the back cover of his book where Sarah Israelit-Groll, phd, endorses the book:

 

"The most important breakthrough in the field of Egyptology since that of Champollion.

 

She is real and actually holds that position. She unfortunately died six years before the publishing date of the book so I am not sure how she pulled off this endorsement. So, not just a hack but a fradulent hack.

 

1. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but given how you seem to have enough familiarity with Deleanu's work for you to have so easily said that "he misuses big words," it would seem to me that it should be quite easy for you to come up with a single specific example of the thing you say he is guilty of doing. So please post an example of Deleanu's misuse of big words or kindly retract your accusation against him until you do come up with a verifiable example of the misuse. 

 

2. I don't believe a non-member of the LDS Church will be given the responsibility to translate the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, so I don't believe someone like non-member Deleanu would be called upon to do that work. But since the Reformed Egyptian of the Nephites is a lost language, it would seem a Church leader who possessed the needed gifts and powers of God to do the translation would be called upon to do the work. It wouldn't at all surprise me if the Church leader who performs the translation has no previous experience with ancient languages.

 

3. Your citing of Sarah Israelit-Groll's seemingly impossible endorsement of Deleanu's work on Reformed Egyptian is indeed strong evidence that something might actually be amiss. Unless there's actual evidence Israelit-Groll endorsed Deleanu's work on the subject of Reformed Egyptian (not necessarily the published books but his preliminary research conducted prior to publication), that would be devastating to Deleanu's veracity.  

Edited December 31, 2013 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

 

1. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but given how you seem to have enough familiarity with Deleanu's work for you to have so easily said that "he misuses big words," it would seem to me that it should be quite easy for you to come up with a single specific example of the thing you say he is guilty of doing. So please post an example of Deleanu's misuse of big words or kindly retract your accusation against him until you do come up with a verifiable example of the misuse. 

 

2. I don't believe a non-member of the LDS Church will be given the responsibility to translate the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon, so I don't believe someone like non-member Deleanu would be called upon to do that work. But since the Reformed Egyptian of the Nephites is a lost language, it would seem a Church leader who possessed the needed gifts and powers of God to do the translation would be called upon to do the work. It wouldn't at all surprise me if the Church leader who performs the translation has no previous experience with ancient languages.

 

3. Your citing of Sarah Israelit-Groll's seemingly impossible endorsement of Deleanu's work on Reformed Egyptian is indeed strong evidence that something might actually be amiss. Unless there's actual evidence Israelit-Groll endorsed Deleanu's work on the subject of Reformed Egyptian (not necessarily the published books but his preliminary research conducted prior to publication), that would be devastating to Deleanu's veracity.  

 

1. I don't have a ton of familiarity. I read the first four pages. I am not wasting money to read anything beyond the Amazon preview. I do know this guy is either an idiot or a deceiver. Based on the faked attribution I am going to go with the latter. I give the lead carving example as one bit. If you want more read the preview.

 

3. I love how you keep throwing up conditions. We now have to prove that she didn't endorse the preliminary results on her deathbed before this guy is a fraud. Would it help to say that it has been 13 years since the person attributing this published a collaborative work in the field and she was 75 then? Probably retired even then? So this guy got the approval of a retired Egyptologist in her 80s and then sat on the attribution?

 

Furthermore I refuse to believe a work as asinine as that one has preliminary research or that anyone in the field would ruin their professional reputation by endorsing it.

[rick7475]

As a licensed Ontario teacher, I know that the standards for hiring educators at private schools are not the same as the public or Roman Catholic School Boards here.  If Mr. Deleanu does teach at Cambridge Academy in Toronto, if this is the same person as the author in question, he is not a licensed teacher in Ontario, I checked (www.oct.ca). He may have some sort of degree that convinced the board of directors for Cambridge Academy to hire him, He may be a great educator and communicator. However, I do know that Ontario has a massive oversupply of licensed teachers fighting for lower paying jobs at Private Schools, so if he beat them out for a job, he must be pretty convincing.

 

I also write novels for Amazon Kindle as an Indie 'author' (not really), and there are a lot of scams out there.    

 

Just my observations, and I haven't read anything of his.     

Edited January 1, 2014 by rick7475

[mormonnewb]

I was simply saying that the opinions of renowned scholars don't hold as much weight for me as they do for some others. For example, the fact that many learned Egyptologists say the Joseph Smith Papyri, when translated, bear no resemblance at all to the Book of Abraham doesn't at all dissuade me from wholeheartedly believing Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham is real and authentic Holy Scripture. Neither does the fact that many learned types think the uneducated Joseph Smith's story of how he translated the Book of Mormon is a nothing but a ridiculous fairytale dissuade me from knowing the Book of Mormon is true. And I suppose that when the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon is translated, the Lord will once again chose some 'uneducated' person to do that work, so as to confound the worldly wise by once again by thrashing the nations with the weak things of the world.

If the opinions of renowned scholars don't hold weight for you, then why do the opinions of dubious scholars hold weight? You seem to know what you know so why are you looking for scholastic validation at all? Edited December 31, 2013 by mormonnewb

[canard78]

On a slight tangent, a friend mentioned these today saying he was disturbed by how much the original manuscript looks like childish squiggles and distorted English letters.

I mentioned that it's not known for certain that the copy we have today is the actual version copied off the plates by Joseph. I promised him I'd look for other info supporting the transcript.

Any suggestions? (Not the book in this thread!)

[canard78]

We have: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Anthon_transcript

[teddyaware]

If the opinions of renowned scholars don't hold weight for you, then why do the opinions of dubious scholars hold weight? You seem to know what you know so why are you looking for scholastic validation at all?

The opinions of scholars do hold weight with me. But being a Latter-day Saint and knowing that many non-LDS scholars (and perhaps even some nominally LDS scholars) consider the Church's officially declared positions on the provenance for the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham to be nothing more than myths causes me to hold their opinions with more caution and with less weight than others. I believe both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham to be true and historical; and I also believe Joseph Smith's explanations as to how these two books of scripture came forth are true. Additionally, scriptures such as the following give me pause when it comes to overly admiring the wisdom of the learned of the world

"28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

29 But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God." (2 Nephi 9)

Edited January 1, 2014 by teddyaware