Language challenge for Charles Dowis
Duwayne Anderson
According to the Book of Mormon:
1) In what language were the Brass Plates written?
2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
3) Why was the language of the people of Zarahemla "corrupted?"
4) What preseverd the language of the Nephites?
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
John Manning
Duwayne Anderson wrote:
>
> Charles, I challenge you to answer these questions:
>
> According to the Book of Mormon:
> 1) In what language were the Brass Plates written?
> 2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
> 3) Why was the language of the people of Zarahemla "corrupted?"
> 4) What preseverd the language of the Nephites?
>
> Duwayne Anderson
Don`t hold your breath. The self admitted little fat boy only does
'safe' stuff. Yet he's willing to make a fool of himself by proudly
posting what 'he' considers to be reality to support his insupportable
positions. I've never seen the little coward actually address direct
questions. That in itself expresses his socio-pathological ineptitude
and his weak personal character. He apparently compensates his lack of
personal integrity and spiritual honor with adherence to a like minded
well-established, and equally weak-minded and indoctrinated support
group. I would have expected more from a *saint* from the "one true
church".
John Manning
charles
> Charles, I challenge you to answer these questions:
>
> According to the Book of Mormon:
> 1) In what language were the Brass Plates written?
see below
> 2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
To preserve the language and the word of the Lord
> 3) Why was the language of the people of Zarahemla "corrupted?"
No written records
> 4) What preseverd the language of the Nephites?
The Plates of Brass.
Now, back to question #1. We know that at least part of the plates of
brass were written in Egyptian, and we can infer that other parts were
written in Hebrew. So, the answer is Egyptian and Hebrew.
(Note: part of the book of Daniel was written in Aramaic, and the NT
was written in Greek.)
charles
Continuing with the discussion,
It would seem that the five books of Moses were probably in the
Egyptian language, while the other were in Hebrew. For example, the
plates of brass contained Isaiah, and it is very unlikely that it was
in egyptian. It was most certainly in Hebrew.
Regarding the egyptian language on the plates of brass,
Mosiah 1 [4] For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could
have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children,
except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught
in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these
engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could
teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of
God, even down to this present time.
Thus, Lehi, having a knowledge of both egyptian and obviously Hebrew,
could read the plates.
€ R. L. Measures
<joh...@terra.com.br> wrote:
** let us give thanks for Charles. He's a valuable asset, John.
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures, remove ^ from adr.
Duwayne Anderson
Okay, looks like Charles is going to chicken out, so I'll have to
answer the questions myself. May I assume, Charles, that you are
hiding in the corner of your room, and that you will see the answers
in spite of your failure to respond?
> Charles, I challenge you to answer these questions:
>
> According to the Book of Mormon:
> 1) In what language were the Brass Plates written?
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> 2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
"fathers" for their children.
Now, already we find contradictions and mistakes in the Book of Mormon
because Nephi clearly states that his fathers were from the house of
Israel, in which case their "language" would not have been Egyptian.
So Joseph Smith was having trouble keeping his story straight. As
I'll show later, Smith obviously was trying to weave into his story a
pre-existing excuse for garbledegoop characters that nobody could
read. Egyptian was unreadable when Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, so
it's likely that he used the Egyptian angle as a way of making the
characters in his book unreadable.
> 3) Why was the language of the people of Zarahemla "corrupted?"
Because they brought no records with them. See the reference to 1
Nephi 3:19 above. Notice that the Book of Mormon describes "records"
in the context of providing a means for maintaining the language. One
of the lessons in the Book of Mormon is that the Nephites brought the
Brass Plates, so their language was not corrupted, but the people of
Zarahemla did not bring records, so their language *was* corrupted.
Here's the reference:
"And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become
exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious
contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their
language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with
them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the
people of Mosiah, could understand them." [Omni 1:17]
> 4) What preserved the language of the Nephites?
The records they brought. And the ONLY record that they brought,
that's mentioned in the Book of Mormon, is the Brass Plates.
Furthermore, the story of how they got those Brass Plates is a central
theme in 1 Nephi, with the point made that the plates were necessary
to preserve the language of the people.
Now we come to the really interesting part of the story. The part
where the apologists try to make sense of it all. See, later in the
Book of Mormon it says the Nephites had Hebrew:
"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." [Mormon 9:33]
But where on earth did they get this Hebrew? The Book of Mormon makes
clear that their "language" was based on the "plates of brass," and
the "plates of brass" were written in the "language of the Egyptians."
What's happening in Mormon 9:33 is rather transparent. Joseph Smith
was trying to write into the text a ready-made excuse for all the
mistakes in the Book of Mormon. So he was trying to explain that the
problems were related to the fact that the Book of Mormon was written
in something he invented called "reformed Egyptian." Then he goes on
to make the excuse that, if they had used Hebrew, they would not have
had any mistakes in the Book of Mormon. But Smith lost track of his
story with this excuse, because he had earlier written in the Book of
Mormon very specifically that the brass plates were for the purpose of
preserving the language of the people, and THEY were written in "the
language of the Egyptians."
Smith was tripping all over himself. As is Charles Dowis and the rest
of the LDS apologetic community. See, there isn't a single example of
any ancient American civilization that used Egyptian. Yet that is the
language that the Book of Mormon says was used by a huge civilization
that covered the whole face of the land.
Charles Dowis has tried to argue that the people only used this
language for their scriptures, and that they spoke/wrote some other
language in their everyday lives. Yet (as with so many of Dowis'
arguments) he must deny what the Book of Mormon actually says in order
to advance this argument. The Book of Mormon clearly states that the
brass plates were for preserving the language of the PEOPLE. This was
not the language of Priests, but the language of the PEOPLE.
So here we are, with a clumsy fake called the Book of Mormon, watching
Mormons grind their teeth in frustration as they try in vain to
provide any non-trivial connections between the Book of Mormon and
ancient America.
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> > Charles, I challenge you to answer these questions:
> >
> > According to the Book of Mormon:
> > 1) In what language were the Brass Plates written?
>
> see below
>
> > 2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
>
> To preserve the language and the word of the Lord
Looks like you forgot the full answer and the Book of Mormon
reference. Here, let me help you out:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> > 3) Why was the language of the people of Zarahemla "corrupted?"
>
> No written records
Looks like you forgot the reference. Here, let me help you out:
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
"fathers" for their children.
Now, already we find contradictions and mistakes in the Book of Mormon
because Nephi clearly states that his fathers were from the house of
Israel, in which case their "language" would not have been Egyptian.
So Joseph Smith was having trouble keeping his story straight. As
I'll show later, Smith obviously was trying to weave into his story a
pre-existing excuse for garbledegoop characters that nobody could
read. Egyptian was unreadable when Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, so
it's likely that he used the Egyptian angle as a way of making the
characters in his book unreadable.
> > 4) What preseverd the language of the Nephites?
> The Plates of Brass.
Which were writtin in the "language of the Egyptians."
> Now, back to question #1. We know that at least part of the plates of
> brass were written in Egyptian, and we can infer that other parts were
> written in Hebrew.
No, you can ifer no such thing, which is why you haven't posted a
single reference.
> So, the answer is Egyptian and Hebrew.
The answer is "the language of the Egyptians." Here. Let's quote it
again:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> > Charles, I challenge you to answer these questions:
> >
> > According to the Book of Mormon:
> > 1) In what language were the Brass Plates written?
> > 2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
> > 3) Why was the language of the people of Zarahemla "corrupted?"
> > 4) What preseverd the language of the Nephites?
> >
> > Duwayne Anderson
> >
> > American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
>
> Continuing with the discussion,
Charles means "continuing with his additions to what the Book of
Mormon actually says"
> It would seem that the five books of Moses were probably in the
> Egyptian language, while the other were in Hebrew.
This is a good example of how Charles writes into the Book of Mormon
things that are not there. Notice he hasn't bothered to actually
quote the Book of Mormon, so let's help him out:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> For example, the
> plates of brass contained Isaiah, and it is very unlikely that it was
> in egyptian.
Then it's unlikely that the Book of Mormon is true. The verses in the
Book of Mormon are very clear. In case you forgot to read them, let's
quote them again:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> It was most certainly in Hebrew.
Can't you read, Charles? Lehi was only able to read them because he
understood the language of the Egyptians. Let's quote it one more
time for you:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> Regarding the egyptian language on the plates of brass,
>
> Mosiah 1 [4] For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could
> have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children,
> except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught
> in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these
> engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could
> teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of
> God, even down to this present time.
Finally, Charles reads it. But does he actually understand what he's
reading? Notice, Charles, that it clearly says Lehi was only able to
read the Brass Plates because he was "taught in the language of the
Egyptians."
Not one word there about the Brass Plates having Hebrew. Why do you
need to invent stuff about the Book of Mormon, Charles?
Now, the Book of Mormon clearly states that the Brass Plates, which
were written in "the language of the Egyptians" were so the people
would have their language preserved.
That being the case, I challenge you to provide evidence that the
ancient Americans used the Egyptian language. No more stalling. No
more pretending they used Egyptian only for their scriptures.
> Thus, Lehi, having a knowledge of both egyptian and obviously Hebrew,
> could read the plates.
Notice how Charles keeps adding to the Book of Mormon. It never says
Hebrew was required to read the Brass Plates. But it does say
Egyptian was required. Here, let's quote it one more time:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
Tyler Waite
> bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
> "fathers" for their children.
Ok I'll throw Charles a bone. Joseph (of technicolor dreamcoat fame)
clearly must have known Egyptian. Lehi was a descendant of Joseph.
through Manassa (sp?). Therefore it seems likely that at least one of the
languages of at least one of his "fathers" was Egyptian.
But that still doesn't explain why the purpose of the plates failed
miserably, since there is no evidence of the Egyptian language being
used in the Americas during the period of BoM.
Duwayne Anderson
> > I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
> > bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
> > "fathers" for their children.
>
> Ok I'll throw Charles a bone. Joseph (of technicolor dreamcoat fame)
> clearly must have known Egyptian. Lehi was a descendant of Joseph.
> through Manassa (sp?). Therefore it seems likely that at least one of the
> languages of at least one of his "fathers" was Egyptian.
This isn't about legal technicalities. The phrase "language of the
fathers" is a reference to cultural and historical roots -- it's not
about finding some ancestor somewhere who knew this or that language.
> But that still doesn't explain why the purpose of the plates failed
> miserably, since there is no evidence of the Egyptian language being
> used in the Americas during the period of BoM.
That's right. The Book of Mormon clearly states the following:
1) The Brass Plates were written in the "language of the Egyptians."
2) Lehi and his family took the Brass Plates so they could preserve
the language of the "people."
3) When the people of Zarahemla failed to bring records their
language became corrupted.
So where is this evidence of ancient Americans using Egyptian?
Charles? Can you answer the question?
charles
For those who are reading this discussion with an open mind.
The BOM tells us two things abt the language of the plates of brass --
1. Since Lehi need to know egyptian in order to read the plates, it
was written in egyptian.
2. Since the plates were necessary to "preserve the language", it was
written in Hebrew.
Some people can only see one conclusion --> the bom contradicts
itself. However, with a little bit of thought and common sense,
we can see another possibility. For example,
75% is written in Egyptian -- 5 books of Moses
25% is in Hebrew -- Isaiah, etc.
(or some other combination)
Now, this verse makes perfect sense that Lehi could not have read the
plates without a knowledge of egyptian. And the requirement that it
"preserve the language" is also fulfilled.
The OT, for example, has both Hebrew and Aramaic (part of the book of
Daniel).
Yes it does. It says that it "preserved the language" of Hebrew.
You simply ignore the clear text of the bom to promote your agenda.
But it does say
> Egyptian was required. Here, let's quote it one more time:
>
> "And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
> the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
> that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
> these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
> present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
> possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
> things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
> help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
> Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
> his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
> and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
> time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
>
> These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
> language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
> explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
> because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
Duwayne has a one track mind. It can only conceive of "either/or",
only one possibility.
greg randall
"John Manning" <joh...@terra.com.br> wrote in message
news:3E5ECE7A...@terra.com.br...
Wrote
> Don`t hold your breath. The self admitted little fat boy only does
> 'safe' stuff. Yet he's willing to make a fool of himself by proudly
> posting what 'he' considers to be reality to support his insupportable
> positions. I've never seen the little coward actually address direct
> questions. That in itself expresses his socio-pathological ineptitude
> and his weak personal character. He apparently compensates his lack of
> personal integrity and spiritual honor with adherence to a like minded
> well-established, and equally weak-minded and indoctrinated support
> group. I would have expected more from a *saint* from the "one true
> church".
I noticed you disapeared pretty quick John after charles replied as you said
he would not.
An appology is too much for you too lower youself to is it ? even if you do
not agree with Charles answers.
You really are filled with Hate or anger arnt you, calling someone all the
following in one paragraph
" little coward" " weak-minded" " socio-pathological ineptitude"
"weak personal character"
One thing I was once told which reminds me of you (and me) is " Despite
your transgresions, and your questioning some aspects of the church, HOW
MUCH WORSE WOULD YOU BE IF YOU DID NOT GO"
Greg
Xan Du
"charles" <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e877bb3f.03022...@posting.google.com...
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
news:<a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> snip
>
> For those who are reading this discussion with an open mind.
Charles, if your mind is so open, then why do you reject:
1) Catholic claims of priesthood authority
2) Muslim claims of Qu'ran authenticity
3) Art Bulla's claims of prophetic ability
4) The belief that there are monsters under your bed?
> The BOM tells us two things abt the language of the plates of brass --
>
> 1. Since Lehi need to know egyptian in order to read the plates, it
> was written in egyptian.
>
>
> 2. Since the plates were necessary to "preserve the language", it was
> written in Hebrew.
>
> Some people can only see one conclusion --> the bom contradicts
> itself.
And some people realize that *all* books which claim Divine inspiration have
zero evidence to support their claims, and that the logical and rational
thing to do is to reject all of those claims.
> However, with a little bit of thought and common sense,
> we can see another possibility.
With a little bit of thought and common sense, you too could realize that
Zeus and his fellow Olympians are the only true Gods.
<snip>
> > Notice how Charles keeps adding to the Book of Mormon. It never says
> > Hebrew was required to read the Brass Plates.
>
> Yes it does. It says that it "preserved the language" of Hebrew.
>
> You simply ignore the clear text of the bom to promote your agenda.
That is certainly possible with all of us here on ARM, you not excepted:
q.v. your argument that pre-Columbian amerinds obtained four distinctly
Asian mtDNA haplotypes from the "Jaredites", even though the "plain text" of
the BoM says that only two Jaredite *males* survived the final battle of
their civil war. (This also defies the rules of basic arithmetic, but if
you're going to throw out simple English, why quibble about mathematics?)
So spare us your disingenuous and dishonest lecturings on "plain text" since
it is abundantly obvious that language means to you what you want it to mean
depending upon which ad hoc explaination you're currently deluding yourself
with.
<snip>
> > These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
> > language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
> > explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
> > because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
>
> Duwayne has a one track mind. It can only conceive of "either/or",
> only one possibility.
Charles Dowis has an open mind: it's open to any argument which supports
the validity of the LDS church.
-Xan
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
> snip
>
> For those who are reading this discussion with an open mind.
>
> The BOM tells us two things abt the language of the plates of brass --
>
> 1. Since Lehi need to know egyptian in order to read the plates, it
> was written in egyptian.
That's right, Charles. The Book of Mormon tells us that, as I've said
several times, now. Let's post the reference again. Shall we?
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> 2. Since the plates were necessary to "preserve the language", it was
> written in Hebrew.
Oh, dear. Now Charles is lying. The Book of Mormon does not tell us
the Brass Plates were written in Hebrew at all.
What Charles is doing now is trying to make up additional stories to
cover for a mistake in the Book of Mormon.
> Some people can only see one conclusion --> the bom contradicts
> itself.
Oh, it clearly does that. And it's equally clear that Charles Dowis
is making up stories and telling us the Book of Mormon says things it
does not say because he doesn't want his favorite book of mythology
exposed as a clumsy fraud.
> However, with a little bit of thought and common sense,
> we can see another possibility. For example,
>
>
> 75% is written in Egyptian -- 5 books of Moses
Notice how Charles continues to lie about what the Book of Mormon
says. It never says only 75% was written in Egyptian. It never says
only the 5 books of Moses were written in Egyptian. That is a total
fabrication by Charles.
> 25% is in Hebrew -- Isaiah, etc.
> (or some other combination)
Notice how Charles continues to lie about what the Book of Mormon
says. It never says 25% was written in Hebrew. It simply says that
Lehi could only read it because he knew Egyptian. It didn't say Lehi
could read *PART* of it because he knew Egyptian.
> Now, this verse makes perfect sense that Lehi could not have read the
> plates without a knowledge of egyptian.
Charles is tripping all over himself. The Brass plates could only be
read by someone who knew Egyptian, but now Charles is pretending that
all you needed to know was Hebrew to read 25% of the Brass Plates.
> And the requirement that it
> "preserve the language" is also fulfilled.
See how Charles has to invent and add to the story to cover for its
logical inconsistencies?
<snip>
€ R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "charles" <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:e877bb3f.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
> news:<a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> > snip
> >
> > For those who are reading this discussion with an open mind.
>
> Charles, if your mind is so open, then why do you reject:
>
> 1) Catholic claims of priesthood authority
> 2) Muslim claims of Qu'ran authenticity
> 3) Art Bulla's claims of prophetic ability
> 4) The belief that there are monsters under your bed?
> ...
** 3 seems less likely than 4 , Xan.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> > Notice how Charles keeps adding to the Book of Mormon. It never says
> > Hebrew was required to read the Brass Plates.
>
> Yes it does.
The above statement by Charles Dowis is false, as evidenced by his
failure to provide any reference.
> It says that it "preserved the language" of Hebrew.
The above statement by Charles Dowis is false. In actuality, the Book
of Mormon says:
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
See? The word "Hebrew" isn't in there. But really, folks. This
illustrates how easy it is to get LDS apologists into the corner.
Okay, Charles. I'll trade you queens, but now you are in checkmate.
See, earlier Charles Dowis tried to argue that the ancient Americans
used some other "vernacular," but now we see he's stepped into the
dodo and admitted that the Brass Plates were there for preserving the
language. Whether it was Egyptian or Hebrew really isn't the issue.
What *IS* the issue is that we now have Charles on record admitting
that the language was to be preserved, so NO MORE EXCUSES CHARLES --
WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF THIS HEBREW OR EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE
THAT THE NEPHITES USED.
You really tripped yourself up ths time, Charles. You are a tangle of
contradictions. But it's time to put up or shut up, and you now have
the obligation (if you don't want to look stupid) of putting up the
evidence showing that the ancient Americans used Hebrew.
Waiting .....
Xan Du
"? R. L. Measures" <^2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:^2-0103032...@207.178.185.100...
Based on the evidence, all are equally unlikely.
-Xan
Woody Brison
news:<a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com>...
so NO MORE EXCUSES CHARLES --
> WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF THIS HEBREW OR EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE
> THAT THE NEPHITES USED.
>
> You really tripped yourself up ths time, Charles.
Yes, dowis, how are you going to prove to Duwayne that
Hebrew and Egyptian were real languages?
And you'd better be careful. There was a short story in
one of Hitchcock's anthologies about a guy whose disbelief
and stubborness was so strong he made a mountain disappear.
We'll wake up one morning and Duwayne will have dissolved
the ancient world.
Wood
€ R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "? R. L. Measures" <^2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:^2-0103032...@207.178.185.100...
> > In article <b3r8d0$1pc189$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "charles" <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > > news:e877bb3f.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > > > duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
> > > news:<a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > snip
> > > >
> > > > For those who are reading this discussion with an open mind.
> > >
> > > Charles, if your mind is so open, then why do you reject:
> > >
> > > 1) Catholic claims of priesthood authority
> > > 2) Muslim claims of Qu'ran authenticity
> > > 3) Art Bulla's claims of prophetic ability
> > > 4) The belief that there are monsters under your bed?
> > > ...
> > ** 3 seems less likely than 4 , Xan.
>
> Based on the evidence, all are equally unlikely.
>
** I'd give 3 a small edge.
Dongle
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com...
This is hillarious. This fellow thinks we need proof that Hebrews spoke
Hebrew circa 600 BCE. He also fails to consider that the BOM merely claims
that the brass plates were written using "reformed Egyptian" characters.
Nowhere does it say these characters did not represent Hebrew (like Roman
letters are used to spell "Beijing" or Chinese characters are used to depict
European words). The BOM also explains why reformed Egyptian characters
were used rather than Hebrew ones--they took up less space.
ForWhatItsWorth
"Dongle" <don...@dongle.com> wrote in message
news:vj2dnUaoKtg...@aros.net...
>
> This is hillarious. This fellow thinks we need proof that Hebrews spoke
> Hebrew circa 600 BCE. He also fails to consider that the BOM merely
claims
> that the brass plates were written using "reformed Egyptian" characters.
> Nowhere does it say these characters did not represent Hebrew (like Roman
> letters are used to spell "Beijing" or Chinese characters are used to
depict
> European words). The BOM also explains why reformed Egyptian characters
> were used rather than Hebrew ones--they took up less space.
Please consider the logic involved in that paragraph. The support *for* the
BOM can come only *from* the BOM? That is called "circular reasoning", and
the LDS Church is based on it -- the church is true only because it says it
is. The "Evidence" is a warm fuzzy feeling, and repeated
testimony-shock-therapy sessions... until doubts are drowned, critical
thinking has been either eradicated or hogtied, and slavish devotion to The
Brethren appears to be a virtue.
Mark
Fwiw
>
>
Duwayne Anderson
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote this howler in message
> news:<a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com>...
>
> so NO MORE EXCUSES CHARLES --
> > WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF THIS HEBREW OR EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE
> > THAT THE NEPHITES USED.
> >
> > You really tripped yourself up ths time, Charles.
>
> Yes, dowis, how are you going to prove to Duwayne that
> Hebrew and Egyptian were real languages?
Don't pretend you cannot read, Woody. The request was *never* to show
that Hebrew and Egyptian are "real" languages. Saying so is simply
another example of the intellectual dishonesty used by LDS apologists.
The request, Woody (and this applies to YOU as well as Dowis) is to
provide evidence of the Hebrew and Egyptian languages supposedly used
by the NEPHITES. Note that the Book of Mormon claims the Nephites
were ancient Americans, so your challenge, Woody, is to show that the
ancient Americans used Hebrew and Egyptian.
Of course, your failure to show this (since it isn't true) simply
illustrates that the Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud. Which helps
explains your intellectual dishonesty in pretending the issue is about
the existence of Hebrew and Egyptian. After all, since the Book of
Mormon is a fake, such antics are all you have left.
<snip rest of Woody's clap trap>
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> This is hillarious. This fellow thinks we need proof that Hebrews spoke
> Hebrew circa 600 BCE.
The request was *never* to show that Hebrew and Egyptian are "real"
languages. It was *never* to show that Hebrews spoke Hebrew circa 600
BCE. Good gawd, read the damned posts.
The request, Dongle is to provide evidence of the Hebrew and Egyptian
languages supposedly used by the NEPHITES. Note that the Book of
Mormon claims the Nephites were ancient Americans, so your challenge,
Dongle, is to show that the ancient Americans used Hebrew and
Egyptian.
Of course, your failure to show this (since it isn't true) simply
illustrates that the Book of Mormon is a clumsy fraud. Which helps
explains your intellectual dishonesty in pretending the issue is about
Hebrews using Hebrew circa 600 BCE. After all, since the Book of
Mormon is a fake, such antics are all you have left.
> He also fails to consider that the BOM merely claims
> that the brass plates were written using "reformed Egyptian" characters.
Now Dongle is illustrating his ignorance of the Book of Mormon. Have
you actually *read* the Book of Mormon, Dongle?
It does not say the Brass Plates were written in "reformed Egyptian."
That's what it says about the *gold* plates. Do you know the
difference between the *gold* plates and the *brass* plates, Dongle?
The brass plates were written in the "language of the Egyptians" with
no qualifier of "reformed." It was written specifically to "preserve"
the language of the ancient Americans. Read the goddamned posts in
this thread. All the verses are in there. Of course, the fact that
Smith later described the ancient Americans using Hebrew represents an
internal error.
You are able to understand what an internal error is, aren't you,
Dongle? It's a lack of internal consistency.
As for the gold plates, the Book of Mormon says *those* were written
in what the Nephites called "reformed Egyptian."
Of course, the ancient Americans didn't use Hebrew *OR* Egyptian.
Are you able to understand the nature of the problem now, Dongle, or
should I explain it again? Since you seem unfamiliar with the Book of
Mormon, let me know if you'd like me to quote the relevant verses for
you.
<snip rest of culelessness>
Duwayne Anderson
nature of the problem here, please read the following (posted for
Charles Dowis) and bring yourself up to speed. Then, see if you can
deal with the issues:
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Okay, looks like Charles is going to chicken out, so I'll have to
> answer the questions myself. May I assume, Charles, that you are
> hiding in the corner of your room, and that you will see the answers
> in spite of your failure to respond?
>
> > Charles, I challenge you to answer these questions:
> >
> > According to the Book of Mormon:
> > 1) In what language were the Brass Plates written?
>
> "And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
> the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
> that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
> these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
> present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
> possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
> things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
> help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
> Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
> his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
> and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
> time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
>
> These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
> language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
> explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
> because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
>
> > 2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
>
> "And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
> Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
> of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
>
> I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
> bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
> "fathers" for their children.
>
> Now, already we find contradictions and mistakes in the Book of Mormon
> because Nephi clearly states that his fathers were from the house of
> Israel, in which case their "language" would not have been Egyptian.
> So Joseph Smith was having trouble keeping his story straight. As
> I'll show later, Smith obviously was trying to weave into his story a
> pre-existing excuse for garbledegoop characters that nobody could
> read. Egyptian was unreadable when Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, so
> it's likely that he used the Egyptian angle as a way of making the
> characters in his book unreadable.
>
> > 3) Why was the language of the people of Zarahemla "corrupted?"
>
> preserving the language of the people, and THEY were written in "the
> language of the Egyptians."
>
> Smith was tripping all over himself. As is Charles Dowis and the rest
> of the LDS apologetic community. See, there isn't a single example of
> any ancient American civilization that used Egyptian. Yet that is the
> language that the Book of Mormon says was used by a huge civilization
> that covered the whole face of the land.
>
> Charles Dowis has tried to argue that the people only used this
> language for their scriptures, and that they spoke/wrote some other
> language in their everyday lives. Yet (as with so many of Dowis'
> arguments) he must deny what the Book of Mormon actually says in order
> to advance this argument. The Book of Mormon clearly states that the
> brass plates were for preserving the language of the PEOPLE. This was
> not the language of Priests, but the language of the PEOPLE.
>
> So here we are, with a clumsy fake called the Book of Mormon, watching
> Mormons grind their teeth in frustration as they try in vain to
> provide any non-trivial connections between the Book of Mormon and
> ancient America.
>
>
Duwayne Anderson
nature of the problem here, please read the following (posted for
Charles Dowis) and bring yourself up to speed. Then, see if you can
deal with the issues:
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Okay, looks like Charles is going to chicken out, so I'll have to
> answer the questions myself. May I assume, Charles, that you are
> hiding in the corner of your room, and that you will see the answers
> in spite of your failure to respond?
>
> > Charles, I challenge you to answer these questions:
> >
> > According to the Book of Mormon:
> > 1) In what language were the Brass Plates written?
>
> "And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
> the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
> that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
> these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
> present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
> possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
> things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
> help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
> Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
> his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
> and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
> time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
>
> These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
> language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
> explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
> because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
>
> > 2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
>
> "And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
> Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
> of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
>
> I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
> bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
> "fathers" for their children.
>
> Now, already we find contradictions and mistakes in the Book of Mormon
> because Nephi clearly states that his fathers were from the house of
> Israel, in which case their "language" would not have been Egyptian.
> So Joseph Smith was having trouble keeping his story straight. As
> I'll show later, Smith obviously was trying to weave into his story a
> pre-existing excuse for garbledegoop characters that nobody could
> read. Egyptian was unreadable when Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, so
> it's likely that he used the Egyptian angle as a way of making the
> characters in his book unreadable.
>
> > 3) Why was the language of the people of Zarahemla "corrupted?"
>
> preserving the language of the people, and THEY were written in "the
> language of the Egyptians."
>
> Smith was tripping all over himself. As is Charles Dowis and the rest
> of the LDS apologetic community. See, there isn't a single example of
> any ancient American civilization that used Egyptian. Yet that is the
> language that the Book of Mormon says was used by a huge civilization
> that covered the whole face of the land.
>
> Charles Dowis has tried to argue that the people only used this
> language for their scriptures, and that they spoke/wrote some other
> language in their everyday lives. Yet (as with so many of Dowis'
> arguments) he must deny what the Book of Mormon actually says in order
> to advance this argument. The Book of Mormon clearly states that the
> brass plates were for preserving the language of the PEOPLE. This was
> not the language of Priests, but the language of the PEOPLE.
>
> So here we are, with a clumsy fake called the Book of Mormon, watching
> Mormons grind their teeth in frustration as they try in vain to
> provide any non-trivial connections between the Book of Mormon and
> ancient America.
>
>
Woody Brison
you had a New Year's resolution to type it into every post you
make this year or something?
Lee Paulson
"Woody Brison" <wwbr...@lds.net> wrote in message
news:f36171a3.03030...@posting.google.com...
> You left out "the above statement by ____ is false." I thought
> you had a New Year's resolution to type it into every post you
> make this year or something?
Does that mean you can't address the issues raised by Duwayne?
--
Regards,
Lee, The James, uM & GW
Dongle
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com...
news:<vj2dnUaoKtg...@aros.net>...
>
> <snip>
> > This is hillarious. This fellow thinks we need proof that Hebrews spoke
> > Hebrew circa 600 BCE.
>
> The request was *never* to show that Hebrew and Egyptian are "real"
> languages. It was *never* to show that Hebrews spoke Hebrew circa 600
> BCE. Good gawd, read the damned posts.
>
> The request, Dongle is to provide evidence of the Hebrew and Egyptian
> languages supposedly used by the NEPHITES. Note that the Book of
> Mormon claims the Nephites were ancient Americans, so your challenge,
> Dongle, is to show that the ancient Americans used Hebrew and
> Egyptian.>
Sorry, but that was not the nature of your challenge. Your questions, by
their own terms, was to establish your assertion that the Book of Mormon is
internally inconsistent regarding the language issue. You have not
rehabilitated your assertion.
Dongle
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com...
> nature of the problem here, please read the following (posted for
> Charles Dowis) and bring yourself up to speed. Then, see if you can
> deal with the issues:
>
I understood quite well the nature of your "challenge." It was to prove
your assertion that the book of mormon is internally inconsistent with
regard to language. Quibbling over Egyptian versus remormed Egyptian versus
Hebrews are mere distractions.
Yur assertions regarding language are built on one key assumption that you
have neither espressed clearly nor established with any evidence: that
Egyptian characters (or reformed Egyptian for that matter) could only have
been used to represent the spoken Egyptian language; they couldn't have been
used to represent the spoken Hebrew language.
As proof that your assumption is baseless, one only needs to consider modern
language. English and all other spoken Western European languages (and some
Eastern) are represented by Roman characters. Thus, Roman characters have
served to "preserve our spoken language" (and their are many different
ones). But by your logic, Roman characters could only be used to preserve
the Roman language (i.e., you assert that Egyptian characters could not have
been used to preserve the spoken Hebrew language from corruption, which is a
nonsensical assertion).
Another example are Chinese characters, which have been used for centuries
to represent (and thus "preserve") a substantial portion of the spoken
Japanese language.
Before Cyrillic, Russian and other eastern European languages were spoken
but not represented by Cyrillic characters. Later they were, which proves
that any spoken language can be represented (and thus preserved) using
***any*** set of characters so long as there are persons who can act as
codecs to speak the language represented by the characters.
Back to the drawing board mr. anderson.
Dongle
"ForWhatItsWorth" <fw...@fwiw.com> wrote in message
news:b42cm1$1qleo0$1...@ID-146091.news.dfncis.de...
Mark:
The nature of the problem was not what external proof does or does not exist
for the language issues in the book of mormon. It was that the book of
mormon was itself "internally inconsistent." mr. anderson used those very
words. When someone asserts that a text is internally inconsistent, as mr.
anderson just did, one may (indeed one must) respond to this assertion by
only going to the text itself.
Dongle
Clovis Lark
> Mark:
Indeed one may. BH Roberts, GA himself wrote:
"In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things
the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped
mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard
of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told
by a child, with utter disregard for consistency."
> Dongle
Clovis Lark
"In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things
the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped
mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard
of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told
by a child, with utter disregard for consistency."
BH Roberts
Clovis Lark
This is all a smoke screen akin to pointing out that Verne's Captain
Nemo's voyages are not internally inconsistent...
Duwayne Anderson
> you had a New Year's resolution to type it into every post you
> make this year or something?
Woody, since you are obviously having difficulty understanding the
nature of the problem here, please read the following (posted for
Charles Dowis) and bring yourself up to speed. Then, see if you can
deal with the issues:
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Okay, looks like Charles is going to chicken out, so I'll have to
> answer the questions myself. May I assume, Charles, that you are
> hiding in the corner of your room, and that you will see the answers
> in spite of your failure to respond?
>
> > Charles, I challenge you to answer these questions:
> >
> > According to the Book of Mormon:
> > 1) In what language were the Brass Plates written?
>
> "And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
> the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
> that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
> these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
> present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
> possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
> things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
> help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
> Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
> his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
> and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
> time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
>
> These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
> language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
> explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
> because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
>
> > 2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
>
> "And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
> Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
> of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
>
> preserving the language of the people, and THEY were written in "the
> language of the Egyptians."
>
> Smith was tripping all over himself. As is Charles Dowis and the rest
> of the LDS apologetic community. See, there isn't a single example of
> any ancient American civilization that used Egyptian. Yet that is the
> language that the Book of Mormon says was used by a huge civilization
> that covered the whole face of the land.
>
> Charles Dowis has tried to argue that the people only used this
> language for their scriptures, and that they spoke/wrote some other
> language in their everyday lives. Yet (as with so many of Dowis'
> arguments) he must deny what the Book of Mormon actually says in order
> to advance this argument. The Book of Mormon clearly states that the
> brass plates were for preserving the language of the PEOPLE. This was
> not the language of Priests, but the language of the PEOPLE.
>
> So here we are, with a clumsy fake called the Book of Mormon, watching
> Mormons grind their teeth in frustration as they try in vain to
> provide any non-trivial connections between the Book of Mormon and
> ancient America.
>
>
> Duwayne Anderson
>
> American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dongle" <don...@dongle.com> wrote in message
> news:<vj2dnUaoKtg...@aros.net>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > This is hillarious. This fellow thinks we need proof that Hebrews spoke
> > > Hebrew circa 600 BCE.
> >
> > The request was *never* to show that Hebrew and Egyptian are "real"
> > languages. It was *never* to show that Hebrews spoke Hebrew circa 600
> > BCE. Good gawd, read the damned posts.
> >
> > The request, Dongle is to provide evidence of the Hebrew and Egyptian
> > languages supposedly used by the NEPHITES. Note that the Book of
> > Mormon claims the Nephites were ancient Americans, so your challenge,
> > Dongle, is to show that the ancient Americans used Hebrew and
> > Egyptian.>
>
> Sorry, but that was not the nature of your challenge.
The above statement by Dongle is false. In deed, *THE* challenge for
Mormons is to post any non-trivial evidence for the Book or Mormon.
This is a standing and continual challenge that I've posted for years.
Dongle illustrates the clumsy nature of the Book of Mormon as a fraud
by being unable to step up to the challenge.
> Your questions, by
> their own terms, was to establish your assertion that the Book of Mormon is
> internally inconsistent regarding the language issue.
The Questions and answers illustrate two things:
1) That the Book of Mormon lacks internal consistency.
2) That the languages the Book of Mormon claims were used by the
ancient Americans were not, in fact, used by the ancient Americans.
Since you seem to be in the habit of replying without reading, let me
summarize the language problem again. See if you can deal with these
issues:
According to the Book of Mormon, the Brass Plates were written in
Egyptian:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi brought the Brass Plates with
him to the Promised Land to preserve the language of the people:
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
"fathers" for their children.
Now, already we find contradictions and mistakes in the Book of Mormon
because Nephi clearly states that his fathers were from the house of
Israel, in which case their "language" would not have been Egyptian.
So Joseph Smith was having trouble keeping his story straight. As
I'll show later, Smith obviously was trying to weave into his story a
pre-existing excuse for garbledegoop characters that nobody could
read. Egyptian was unreadable when Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, so
it's likely that he used the Egyptian angle as a way of making the
characters in his book unreadable.
According to the Book of Mormon, the language of the people of
Zarahemla was "corrupted" because they did not bring with them any
records.
See the reference above: Nephi 3:19. Notice that the Book of Mormon
describes "records" in the context of providing a means for
maintaining the language. One of the lessons in the Book of Mormon is
that the Nephites brought the Brass Plates, so their language was not
corrupted, but the people of
Zarahemla did not bring records, so their language *was* corrupted.
Here's the reference:
"And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become
exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious
contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their
language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with
them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the
people of Mosiah, could understand them." [Omni 1:17]
So the thing that "preserved" the language of the Nephites was the
Brass Plates, which were written in Egyptian. The Brass Plates were
the ONLY record that they brought. Furthermore, the story of how they
got those Brass Plates is a central theme in 1 Nephi, with the point
made that the plates were necessary to preserve the language of the
people.
> You have not
> rehabilitated your assertion.
You have nothing but post empty assertions. Deal with the issues.
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > Dongle, since you are obviously having difficulty understanding the
> > nature of the problem here, please read the following (posted for
> > Charles Dowis) and bring yourself up to speed. Then, see if you can
> > deal with the issues:
> >
>
> I understood quite well the nature of your "challenge."
No, it's clear you don't know what the hell you are talking about. If
you did, there'd be none of this crap about ancient Hebrews using
Hebrew.
> It was to prove
> your assertion that the book of mormon is internally inconsistent with
> regard to language.
You have done no such thing. Instead you have snipped the arguments
I've posted and not responded to them at all.
> Quibbling over Egyptian versus remormed Egyptian versus
> Hebrews are mere distractions.
Gawd. Read the Book of Mormon. You don't know what you are talking
about. The Book of Mormon says the ancient Americans had Brass Plates
written in Egyptian, and that these plates were what god used to
preserve the language of the people. So the later discussion about
the ancient Americans using Hebrew is inconsistent with what the Book
of Mormon says.
> Yur assertions regarding language are built on one key assumption that you
> have neither espressed clearly nor established with any evidence: that
> Egyptian characters (or reformed Egyptian for that matter) could only have
> been used to represent the spoken Egyptian language; they couldn't have been
> used to represent the spoken Hebrew language.
Oh, good grief. Read the verses I posted. Here, I'll repeat them for
you. Deal with them this time, instead of snipping them and
pretending you cannot read:
According to the Book of Mormon, the Brass Plates were written in
Egyptian:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi brought the Brass Plates with
him to the Promised Land to preserve the language of the people:
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
"fathers" for their children.
Now, already we find contradictions and mistakes in the Book of Mormon
because Nephi clearly states that his fathers were from the house of
Israel, in which case their "language" would not have been Egyptian.
So Joseph Smith was having trouble keeping his story straight. As
I'll show later, Smith obviously was trying to weave into his story a
pre-existing excuse for garbledegoop characters that nobody could
read. Egyptian was unreadable when Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, so
it's likely that he used the Egyptian angle as a way of making the
characters in his book unreadable.
According to the Book of Mormon, the language of the people of
Zarahemla was "corrupted" because they did not bring with them any
records.
See the reference above: Nephi 3:19. Notice that the Book of Mormon
describes "records" in the context of providing a means for
maintaining the language. One of the lessons in the Book of Mormon is
that the Nephites brought the Brass Plates, so their language was not
corrupted, but the people of
Zarahemla did not bring records, so their language *was* corrupted.
Here's the reference:
"And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become
exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious
contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their
language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with
them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the
people of Mosiah, could understand them." [Omni 1:17]
So the thing that "preserved" the language of the Nephites was the
Brass Plates, which were written in Egyptian. The Brass Plates were
the ONLY record that they brought. Furthermore, the story of how they
> As proof that your assumption is baseless, one only needs to consider modern
> language. English and all other spoken Western European languages (and some
> Eastern) are represented by Roman characters. Thus, Roman characters have
> served to "preserve our spoken language" (and their are many different
> ones).
Egyptian and Hebrew are not related. Having a book in Egyptian would
not "preserve" the Hebrew language. As proof of this, one simply
needs to be slightly smarter than the average rock. Hebrew was known
and spoken when Egyptian was an un-known language.
> But by your logic, Roman characters could only be used to preserve
> the Roman language
Good grief. Are you saying a book written in Egyptian would preserve
the Hebrew language? Are you that hard up?
<snip to end>
Dongle
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com...
> "Dongle" <don...@dongle.com> wrote in message
> > Sorry, but that was not the nature of your challenge.
>
> The above statement by Dongle is false. In deed, *THE* challenge for
> Mormons is to post any non-trivial evidence for the Book or Mormon.
> This is a standing and continual challenge that I've posted for years.
I have never read your other posts. I was responding to this one. What you
are doing now is creating a moving target because your "language challenge"
was shown by me to be nothing more than a trick question drempt up by a
simple minded high school teacher.
Let's not lose focus on this challenge in which you assert that the brass
plates were written in "the Egyptian language", when the book of mormon
makes no such statement, and you assume that Egyptian characters could not
have been used to represent spoken Hebrew.
Dongle
"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:b47r2b$60i$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
Now that's two unproven assertions.
Dongle
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com...
> "Dongle" <don...@dongle.com> wrote in message
news:<qdSdne-5-JK...@aros.net>...
> > I understood quite well the nature of your "challenge."
>
> No, it's clear you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Maybe I don't. Let's let you do the talking. You first said:
"Charles, I challenge you to answer these questions:
According to the Book of Mormon:
1) In what language were the Brass Plates written?
2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
3) Why was the language of the people of Zarahemla "corrupted?"
4) What preseverd the language of the Nephites?"
Then you say
"These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians.""
The book of Mormon never says the Brass plates were written in the language
of the Egyptians. Moreover, you disingenuously quoted from Moroni, which
talks about "reformed Egyptian characters" and never says "language of the
Egyptians". That is found in 1 Nephi, which plainly states that Lehi was
learned in Hebrew AND the language of the Egyptians, and for that reason he
could read the Brass Plates. Therefore, as Charles said, the Brass Plates
contained both Hebrew and Egyptian characters. Funny how you forgot to
mention the part about Lehi being able to read Hebrew as part of why he
could read the brass plates.
Then you assert that the Brass plates couldn't have served to preserve the
Nephites' spoken language, which was Hebrew. But this statement presumes
much. Namely, that Egyptian characters (if the Brass plates actually
contained such though we can infer they were written at least in part in
Hebrew according to 1 Nephi) couldn't have been used to represent spoken
Hebrew. But we know that Roman characters can be used to represent several
different spoken languages, as can Chinese characters. Thus, your
assumption is wildly false.
There, when we let you do the talking we know exactly the smell of smoke you
blow.
Clovis Lark
Clovis Lark
These dancings around a pinhead are irrelevant. The claims of the bom do
not refect reality.
Dongle
"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > The BOM tells us two things abt the language of the plates of brass --
> >
> > 1. Since Lehi need to know egyptian in order to read the plates, it
> > was written in egyptian.
>
> That's right, Charles. The Book of Mormon tells us that, as I've said
> several times, now.
> > 2. Since the plates were necessary to "preserve the language", it was
> > written in Hebrew.
>
> Oh, dear. Now Charles is lying. The Book of Mormon does not tell us
> the Brass Plates were written in Hebrew at all.
The book of mormon doesn't say what the brass plates were written in. The
only clues we have are that Nephi says that Lehi was taught both in Hebrew
and the language of the Egyptians; therefore, he could read the brass
plates.
Many things may be deduced from that statement. One thing that's obviously
clear is that the book of mormon never says the brass plates were written in
egyptian to represent spoken egyptian as Mr. A would have us believe.
Dongle
> Indeed one may. BH Roberts, GA himself wrote:
>
> "In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the things
> the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped
> mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic disregard
> of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale told
> by a child, with utter disregard for consistency."
>
Since BS Roberts was a well-known lush, I wonder if he had just slammed down
a six pack when he wrote that.
Duwayne Anderson
The above statement is false. In fact, this discussion grew out of an
earlier one in which Charles Dowis aka FARMS posted some crap to the
effect that Hebrew styles in the Book of Mormon support the Book of
Mormon's claims.
> It was that the book of
> mormon was itself "internally inconsistent." mr. anderson used those very
> words. When someone asserts that a text is internally inconsistent, as mr.
> anderson just did, one may (indeed one must) respond to this assertion by
> only going to the text itself.
Since you still seem incapable of reading the replies I've posted, let
me summarize the issues for you one more time:
According to the Book of Mormon, the Brass Plates were written in
Egyptian:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi brought the Brass Plates with
him to the Promised Land to preserve the language of the people:
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
preserving the language of the people, and THEY were written in "the
language of the Egyptians."
Smith was tripping all over himself. As is Charles Dowis and the rest
of the LDS apologetic community. See, there isn't a single example of
any ancient American civilization that used Egyptian. Yet that is the
language that the Book of Mormon says was used by a huge civilization
that covered the whole face of the land.
Charles Dowis has tried to argue that the people only used this
language for their scriptures, and that they spoke/wrote some other
language in their everyday lives. Yet (as with so many of Dowis'
arguments) he must deny what the Book of Mormon actually says in order
to advance this argument. The Book of Mormon clearly states that the
brass plates were for preserving the language of the PEOPLE. This was
not the language of Priests, but the language of the PEOPLE.
So here we are, with a clumsy fake called the Book of Mormon, watching
Mormons grind their teeth in frustration as they try in vain to
provide any non-trivial connections between the Book of Mormon and
ancient America.
> You have not
> rehabilitated your assertion.
You have nothing but post empty assertions. Deal with the issues.
Lee Paulson
Nonetheless, let's assume for a moment that Egyptian characters could have
been used to represent Hebrew. Heck, let's assume the BOM folks had Hebrew
AND/OR Egyptian.
Why isn't there any evidence of either Hebrew or Egyptian records in the New
World?
Clovis Lark
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dongle" <don...@dongle.com> wrote in message
> news:<nPqdnbbZO9I...@aros.net>...
>
> > > Sorry, but that was not the nature of your challenge.
> >
> > The above statement by Dongle is false. In deed, *THE* challenge for
> > Mormons is to post any non-trivial evidence for the Book or Mormon.
> > This is a standing and continual challenge that I've posted for years.
>
> I have never read your other posts. I was responding to this one.
Then you should have delt with the issues in that post, instead of
snipping them. I posted for you the issues that were in the posts you
claim you have not read. By now, you've responded to posts with these
issues several times, you simply continue to snip and ignore them.
Here they are again:
> What you
> are doing now is creating a moving target
Oh, good grief, Dongle. Deal with the issues and stop snipping them.
You think everyone else is so dense they cannot see you dancing your
feet away, trying to avoid the issues?
> because your "language challenge"
> was shown by me to be nothing more than a trick question drempt up by a
> simple minded high school teacher.
In your dreams. Tell us again how a book written in Egyptian
"preserved" the Hebrew language.
> Let's not lose focus on this challenge in which you assert that the brass
> plates were written in "the Egyptian language",
The Book of Mormon clearly states that Lehi was able to read the Brass
Plates only because he knew Egyptian. Are you really going to argue
he had to know Egyptian to read a book written in Hebrew?
> when the book of mormon
> makes no such statement,
Let's quote it one more time, just for Dongle:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
> and you assume that Egyptian characters could not
> have been used to represent spoken Hebrew.
Oh, good grief. If ever one wanted an example of the stupidity of LDS
apologetics, this is one of the best.
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dongle" <don...@dongle.com> wrote in message
> news:<qdSdne-5-JK...@aros.net>...
>
> > > I understood quite well the nature of your "challenge."
> >
> > No, it's clear you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
>
> Maybe I don't. Let's let you do the talking. You first said:
>
> "Charles, I challenge you to answer these questions:
>
> According to the Book of Mormon:
> 1) In what language were the Brass Plates written?
> 2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
> 3) Why was the language of the people of Zarahemla "corrupted?"
> 4) What preseverd the language of the Nephites?"
>
> Then you say
>
> "These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
> language of the Egyptians.""
>
> The book of Mormon never says the Brass plates were written in the language
> of the Egyptians.
Notice how Dongle keeps snipping the verse that says it was:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
Notice that the Book of Mormon clearly states that Lehi had to know
Egyptian to read the Brass Plates. Why would Dongle snip this verse
and deny what the Book of Mormon says?
> Moreover, you disingenuously quoted from Moroni, which
> talks about "reformed Egyptian characters" and never says "language of the
> Egyptians".
Notice how Dongle snipped again. Let's look at what the Book of
Mormon says:
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
"fathers" for their children.
The Book of Mormon clearly states that the language that was preserved
was the language on the Brass Plates, and that language was Egyptian.
Not Hebrew.
> That is found in 1 Nephi, which plainly states that Lehi was
> learned in Hebrew AND the language of the Egyptians, and for that reason he
> could read the Brass Plates.
Now Dongle is inventing things. The Book of Mormon does not say the
language that was preserved was what Lehi knew -- it says the language
that was preserved was what was on the Brass Plates -- and that was
Egyptian.
> Therefore, as Charles said, the Brass Plates
> contained both Hebrew and Egyptian characters.
Now Dongle is inventing again. You don't need to know Egyptian to
read Hebrew.
> Funny how you forgot to
> mention the part about Lehi being able to read Hebrew as part of why he
> could read the brass plates.
Now Dongle is lying. I specifically spoke to Dowis' story telling.
> Then you assert that the Brass plates couldn't have served to preserve the
> Nephites' spoken language, which was Hebrew.
Now Dongle is back to inventing. The Book of Mormon specifically
states that the language that was preserved among the Nephites was
what was on the Brass Plates -- and it says Lehi had to know Egyptian
to read the Brass Plates.
> But this statement presumes
> much. Namely, that Egyptian characters (if the Brass plates actually
> contained such though we can infer they were written at least in part in
> Hebrew according to 1 Nephi) couldn't have been used to represent spoken
> Hebrew.
Now Dongle is talking gibberish. The Book of Mormon clearly states
that one had to know Egyptiann to read the Brass Plates, and that the
language that was preserved among the Nephites was the language used
on the Brass Plates.
> But we know that Roman characters can be used to represent several
> different spoken languages, as can Chinese characters. Thus, your
> assumption is wildly false.
Now Dongle is making up stuff. The Book of Mormon does not simply say
the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian characters. Indeed, it does
not say that at all. It DOES say Lehi could read the Brass Plates
because he knew Egyptian.
> There, when we let you do the talking we know exactly the smell of smoke you
> blow.
Oh, we can see who's blowing smoke all right. Keep it up. Make it
abundantly clear just how clumsy a fraud the Book of Mormon really is.
T Waite
> > different spoken languages, as can Chinese characters. Thus, your
> > assumption is wildly false.
Egyptian on metal plates can you please provide us with evidence that
Israelites wrote the scriptures in Egyptian on metal plates? I know
the church has evidence of other civilizations writing on metal plates
but did the House of Israel during and shortly preceding the time of
Lehi ever write the books of Moses on metal plates, preferably brass
plates? I thought the scriptures had to be written on a scroll for
symbolic reasons. For example the Dead Sea SCROLLS!! not the Dead Sea
BRASS PLATES.
Anyone have an estimate on what brass plates containng the OT would
have weighed?
charles
Here is your logic:
Lehi was "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
This knowledge was necessary to "read the engravings".
Therefore/Ergo/One must conclude the the complete/ 100%/ the totality
of the plates of Brass was written in the Egyptian language. (Not one
word, not one letter of Hebrew was found on those plates, nada,
zippo).
Does anyone else besides myself find a problem with that logic?
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Here is your logic:
>
> Lehi was "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> This knowledge was necessary to "read the engravings".
The Book of Mormon says, point blank, that Lehi could read the Brass
Plates only because he understood Egyptian. Clearly, the conclusion
from this is that the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian.
> Therefore/Ergo/One must conclude the the complete/ 100%/ the totality
Charles is now illustrating a common error in reasoning that's used
commonly by many different sorts of fanatics. NOTHING is 100%
Charles? Even your own existence could be just a dream. Arguing that
this or that is not "100%" is simply a form of mental masturbation.
You could use that argument against *anything.*
The issue is what is probable and reasonable. The Book of Mormon
clearly states that Lehi had to know Egyptian to read the Brass
Plates. It says NOTHING about the Brass Plates being written in
Hebrew. The rational conclusion is that they were written in Egyptian
and not Hebrew.
> of the plates of Brass was written in the Egyptian language. (Not one
> word, not one letter of Hebrew was found on those plates, nada,
> zippo).
Now Charles is illustrating yet another error in thinking. The Book
of Mormon states that the Plates were taken, in part, to *preserve*
the language. So "one letter" would hardly do the job. Trying to
argue the extreme, like Charles Dowis does, is yet another indicator
of an extreme fanatic.
Remember, folks. There are TWO issues here that speak to a lack of
internal consitency in the Book of Mormon:
1) The Book of Mormon clearly states that the language preserved
among the ancient Americans was the language of the Brass Plates, and
the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian. That being the case, the
Book of Mormon lacks internal consistency when it *later* -- towards
the end of the book -- describes the ancient Americans using Hebrew.
2) The Book of Mormon makes clear that the Brass Plates were taken to
prevent the language from being *corrupted.* That being the case, the
Book of Mormon lacks internal consitency when it *later* describes the
ancient American language as being unreadable by any other nation.
Here we have two serious problems with lack of internal consistency.
As I and others have pointed out, this is IN ADDITION to the fact that
no ancient American civilizations used Hebrew OR Egyptian. So the
Book of Mormon is inconsistent with itself AND with science.
You can't get much "wronger" than that!
> Does anyone else besides myself find a problem with that logic?
Oh, we can see who's having trouble with logic, all right. Thanks,
Charles, for offering the opportunity to make things just a little bit
clearer.
<snip to end>
Dongle
"charles" <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e877bb3f.03031...@posting.google.com...
> Here is your [Mr. A's] logic:
>
> Lehi was "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> This knowledge was necessary to "read the engravings".
>
> Therefore/Ergo/One must conclude the the complete/ 100%/ the totality
> of the plates of Brass was written in the Egyptian language. (Not one
> word, not one letter of Hebrew was found on those plates, nada,
> zippo).
>
> Does anyone else besides myself find a problem with that logic?
>
>
Mr. A is having a difficult time distinguishing between Egyptian
"characters" and the actual language being represented. It's as if he
thinks that an ability to read "Roman" characters (because one studied
Latin) means that any language written using Roman characters was "Roman" or
Latin. That just ain't so. We know that Roman characters are used to
represent all the Western European languages, which are at least as diverse
as were Egyptian and Hebrew at the time. We also know that Chinese
characters are used to represent far eastern languages other than Chinese.
And yet, Lehi's ability to read Egyptian "characters" is Mr. A's proof text
that the Brass plates were written in the "Egyptian Language". Since the
Brass plates and other records were said to have helped preserve the ability
of the Nephites to speak Hebrew (the native tongue of Lehi and his family),
it does not take rocket science to conclude they must have represented
spoken Hebrew at a certain level.
Dongle
> cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message
news:<e877bb3f.03031...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > Here is your logic:
> >
> > Lehi was "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> > This knowledge was necessary to "read the engravings".
>
> The Book of Mormon says, point blank, that Lehi could read the Brass
> Plates only because he understood Egyptian. Clearly, the conclusion
> from this is that the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian.>
"Egyptian characters" according to the verse you like to quote. Do you know
for a fact that "Egyptian characters" could only be used to represent spoken
Egyptian, not Hebrew? If not, your conclusion is groundless. Gosh, we know
that roman letters can and are used to represent English, so why not
Egyptian characters to represent Hebrew?
ForWhatItsWorth
Interesting.
If I read you correctly, you say it matters not if the Nephites spoke
Hebrew, Egyptian, or Klingon. The characters in use are only the tools
thereof.
Okay. You had 4 to 10 million people, Nephites and Lamanites, speaking
Hebrew, using Egyptian characters. Carving on stone, on metal.
Where's all the residual evidence? I mean, we've found where the Vikings
camped in North America, we've found the Jamestown Colony, and we've
discovered literally tons of material in MesoAmerica.
Where's the Hebrew? Where's the Egyptian?
Mark
Fwiw
>
>
Fastleaf
<snip>
> > > 2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
> >
>
> Looks like you forgot the full answer and the Book of Mormon
> reference. Here, let me help you out:
>
> "And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
> the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
> that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
> these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
> present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
> possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
> things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
> help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
> Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
> his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
> and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
> time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
>
> language of the Egyptians."
It doesn't say that.
> This is clear because the Book of Mormon explains that the *reason* Lehi
> could read the "plates of brass" was because he had been "taught in the
> language of the Egyptians."
Again, it doesn't say that.
1 Nephi 1
2 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.
Notice that not only does it say that his father's language consisted of the
language of the Egyptians, but also that it consisted of the learning of the
Jews. See that? It does not say that his "understanding" or "knowledge"
consisted of the learning of the Jews, but his "language". What does that
mean? Well, Dongle has been trying to tell you, but you don't seem to
understand. They were probably using the Egyptian characters to represent
their Hebrew language.
In eastern Asia it has been normal for other nations to use the Chinese
characters to write with. In Japan for instance, after having solely used
the Chinese characters for a while, created two syllubarys that represented
the sounds that they used. From then on they used the Chinese characters in
conjunction with their syllubarys to modify words like verbs and things like
that. Otherwise they couldn't represent their actual language perfectly. To
this day they use the Chinese characters, but can also write using just the
syllabury.
In Korea it was similar. Having only the Chinese characters at first, they
couldn't really represent their language perfectly, and actually the only
people who could really use them, and therefore write, were the wealthy
aristocrats and people of the higher class who could afford the education.
In the 1440s King Sejong had a phonetic system created, which enabled the
common people to be able to write things by just learning 28 characters(now
there are only 24 in use).
> > > 3) Why was the language of the people of Zarahemla "corrupted?"
> >
> > No written records
>
> Looks like you forgot the reference. Here, let me help you out:
He didn't forget the reference.
> "And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
> Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
> of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
>
> I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
> bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
> "fathers" for their children.
>
> Now, already we find contradictions and mistakes in the Book of Mormon
> because Nephi clearly states that his fathers were from the house of
> Israel, in which case their "language" would not have been Egyptian.
<snip>
It seems you aren't taking into account 1 Nephi 1:2. It seems you've
forgotten about the book of Genesis where Joseph, the son of Jacob(Israel),
was taken to Egypt when he was 17 years old. He was made ruler over the
house of an officer of Pharoah. And then later, when he was 30, was made
ruler over all of Egypt by Pharoah, being second only to him. The Pharoah
told him that all his people would be ruled according to his(Joseph's) word.
Joseph knew the Egyptian language.
Genesis 43
21 And they said one to another, We are verily guilty concerning our
brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when he besought us, and we
would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us.
22 And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not
sin against the child; and ye would not hear? therefore, behold, also his
blood is required.
23 And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by
an interpreter.
And then, when all of Israel moved into Egypt they sojourned in Goshen for
430 years. They must have known some Egyptian as well.
Moses especially, who authored those first 5 books of the Bible, knew
Egyptian.
Acts 7
20 In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in
his father's house three months:
21 And when he was cast out, Pharaoh's daughter took him up, and nourished
him for her own son.
22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty
in words and in deeds.
23 And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his
brethren the children of Israel.
> > > 4) What preseverd the language of the Nephites?
> > The Plates of Brass.
>
> Which were writtin in the "language of the Egyptians."
The Book of Mormon doesn't actually say that.
<snipped the rest>
Clovis Lark
The argument is moot because you cannot demonstrate any document in the
americas containing any egyptian "caractors" no matter the language.
Indeed, the Anthon Transcript shows that no egyptian was involved.
Lee Paulson
So you believe the Egyptian characters were used to represent Hebrew words,
similar to me saying Russia instead of using the Cyrillic alphabet?
Would you please show me one example of this in the Americas from the time
we're talking about? Just one example.
Lee Paulson
"Fastleaf" <fast...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:GDkba.68075$zb.18...@twister.socal.rr.com...
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com...
> > cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message
> > news:<e877bb3f.0302...@posting.google.com>...
> > > duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
> > news:<a42139e3.03022...@posting.google.com>...
> <snip>
> > > > 2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised
Land?
> > >
> > > To preserve the language and the word of the Lord
> >snip
> Notice that not only does it say that his father's language consisted of
the
> language of the Egyptians, but also that it consisted of the learning of
the
> Jews. See that? It does not say that his "understanding" or "knowledge"
> consisted of the learning of the Jews, but his "language". What does that
> mean? Well, Dongle has been trying to tell you, but you don't seem to
> understand. They were probably using the Egyptian characters to represent
> their Hebrew language.
>
> In eastern Asia it has been normal for other nations to use
snip
SO what? Where is a) evidence of Hebrew being written with Egyptian
characters even in the MidEast? b) in the Americas?
This idea of one alphabet being used to represent another language is
sidetracking the discussion. Where's the evidence of any of this happening?
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message
> news:<e877bb3f.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Here is your logic:
> > >
> > > Lehi was "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> > > This knowledge was necessary to "read the engravings".
> >
> > The Book of Mormon says, point blank, that Lehi could read the Brass
> > Plates only because he understood Egyptian. Clearly, the conclusion
> > from this is that the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian.>
>
> "Egyptian characters" according to the verse you like to quote.
False. Dongle, you have consistently snipped the verse and falsely
stated that it talks about "characters." Let's post the verse again:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
Notice that the word "characters" does not appear *ANYWHERE* in this
verse. Why would Dongle, an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, continue to misrepresent what the Book of Mormon
says?
The Book of Mormon is *very* clear. Lehi could read the Brass Plates
because he understood the *LANGUAGE* of the Egyptians. The Brass
Plates were written in the *LANGUAGE* of the Egyptianss.
Remember, folks. There are TWO issues here that speak to a lack of
internal consitency in the Book of Mormon:
1) The Book of Mormon clearly states that the language preserved
among the ancient Americans was the language of the Brass Plates, and
the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian. That being the case, the
Book of Mormon lacks internal consistency when it *later* -- towards
the end of the book -- describes the ancient Americans using Hebrew.
2) The Book of Mormon makes clear that the Brass Plates were taken to
prevent the language from being *corrupted.* That being the case, the
Book of Mormon lacks internal consitency when it *later* describes the
ancient American language as being unreadable by any other nation.
<snip rest of the same>
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Mr. A is having a difficult time distinguishing between Egyptian
> "characters" and the actual language being represented.
Mr. Dongle is having difficulty reading. Stop snipping the verse,
Dongle, and point to the word "character" in the following verse:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
> It's as if he
> thinks that an ability to read "Roman" characters (because one studied
> Latin) means that any language written using Roman characters was "Roman" or
> Latin. That just ain't so.
Now Dongle is illustrating his ability to ignore the rest of what the
Book of Mormon states.
1) The Book of Mormon clearly states that the language preserved
among the ancient Americans was the language of the Brass Plates, and
the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian. That being the case, the
Book of Mormon lacks internal consistency when it *later* -- towards
the end of the book -- describes the ancient Americans using Hebrew.
2) The Book of Mormon makes clear that the Brass Plates were taken to
prevent the language from being *corrupted.* That being the case, the
Book of Mormon lacks internal consitency when it *later* describes the
ancient American language as being unreadable by any other nation.
> We know that Roman characters are used to
> represent all the Western European languages, which are at least as diverse
> as were Egyptian and Hebrew at the time.
Notice how Dongle continues talking to himself -- as if the whole
issue rested on "characters," when the verse from the Book of Mormon
does not even mention them.
One could hardly ask for a better example of how Mormons are able to
stick their heads in the sand in order to believe in the Book of
Mormon -- Dongle doesn't even bother to *read* what he claims to
believe.
<snip rest of the same>
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vheicle.
Fastleaf
news:a42139e3.03031...@posting.google.com...
> "Dongle" <don...@dongle.com> wrote in message
news:<rd-cnYv2v9c...@aros.net>...
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:a42139e3.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > > cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message
> > news:<e877bb3f.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Here is your logic:
> > > >
> > > > Lehi was "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> > > > This knowledge was necessary to "read the engravings".
> > >
> > > The Book of Mormon says, point blank, that Lehi could read the Brass
> > > Plates only because he understood Egyptian. Clearly, the conclusion
> > > from this is that the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian.>
> >
> > "Egyptian characters" according to the verse you like to quote.
> False. Dongle, you have consistently snipped the verse and falsely
> stated that it talks about "characters." Let's post the verse again:
If anyone is stating things falsely it is you.
> "And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
> the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
> that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
> these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
> present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
> possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
> things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
> help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
> Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
> his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
> and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
> time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
>
> Notice that the word "characters" does not appear *ANYWHERE* in this
> verse. Why would Dongle, an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ
> of Latter-day Saints, continue to misrepresent what the Book of Mormon
> says?
Something else that Duwayne has written:
"The Book of Mormon clearly states that Lehi was able to read the Brass
Plates only because he knew Egyptian. Are you really going to argue
he had to know Egyptian to read a book written in Hebrew?"
Notice that Duwayne has asserted, more than once, that the *only* reason
Lehi could read the Brass plates was because he knew Egyptian. Are you
really going to continue arguing that the Book of Mormon says things that it
doesn't actually say? Why do you continue to misrepresent what it says?
The Book of Mormon does not say that it was written in Egyptian. And even
though it says that Lehi could read the plates because he was taught in the
language of the Egyptians, that does not necessitate that they were
completely written in that language, grammer and all, especially when you
consider what 1 Nephi says about Lehi's language. *First of all* that it
consisted of the learning of the Jews, *and then* that it consisted of the
language of the Egyptians. You haven't really said anything about that.
> The Book of Mormon is *very* clear.
Clear, yes. Completely explaining every little detail? No.
> Lehi could read the Brass Plates because he understood the *LANGUAGE* of
> the Egyptians. The Brass Plates were written in the *LANGUAGE* of the
> Egyptianss.
It seems you've reverted your assertion back to a previous form.
> Remember, folks. There are TWO issues here that speak to a lack of
> internal consitency in the Book of Mormon:
>
> 1) The Book of Mormon clearly states that the language preserved
> among the ancient Americans was the language of the Brass Plates, and
> the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian. That being the case, the
> Book of Mormon lacks internal consistency when it *later* -- towards
> the end of the book -- describes the ancient Americans using Hebrew.
What your claiming the Book of Mormon says isn't actually said. You've
snipped out parts of sentences and added them to your own words, and they
end up saying things that aren't actually said in the Book of Mormon.
> 2) The Book of Mormon makes clear that the Brass Plates were taken to
> prevent the language from being *corrupted.* That being the case, the
> Book of Mormon lacks internal consitency when it *later* describes the
> ancient American language as being unreadable by any other nation.
Now that just plain makes absolutely no sense. If your thinking that it's
because of the Jews who remained in Jerusalem after Lehi and his family left
,you should remember that Lehi's family had taken the plates with them.
Therefore, it would have been those remaining Jews whose language would have
been corrupted, or at least changed some, depending on what kind of records,
if any, they had left. And then, remember that in the Americas Moroni hid
those plates up, so the remaining Lamanites who had no access to them
would've had their language corrupted, or changed at least.
If that wasn't what you were think your assertion still makes no sense.
To make it clear to you, if possible, I am not actually saying that the
Brass plates were not written in Egyptian, or even completely in Egyptian. I
am just saying that the Book of Mormon doesn't actually completely explain
the language it was written in. It must have been written in some type of
Egyptian characters. But whether or not they represented Hebrew or actual
Egyptian, I can't tell.
Fastleaf
news:b4kqbq$21kbbp$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de...
Fastleaf
news:b4kqbq$21kbbp$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de...
Well, I think the real point is that the Book of Mormon does not actually
state things that Duwayne says it does. I don't think that we can actually
tell what the complete language of the Brass plates was.
> This idea of one alphabet being used to represent another language is
> sidetracking the discussion.
Not really. As the Book of Mormon doesn't actually completely detail what
the language of the Brass Plates was in the first place, I've just been
trying to show different things that are possible according to what actually
is detailed. I just wish he could see that the things he's asserting are
things that he doesn't actually know are true.
> Where's the evidence of any of this happening?
Evidince? I think there's a lot of evidence.
Japan and Korea are countries that had taken the Chinese characters, and
later, both developed their own phonetic or syllabic characters. The
Japanese characters were adapted from certain Chinese characters, and now
are used in conjuction with them so they can modify words like verbs.
The point is, it's common for nations to adapt ideographic characters from
another language to their own langauge, and later develop their own simpler
written language, as the Japanese, Koreans, and even semites did.
And as Moroni hid up the plates, it's only natural that the language of the
remaining peoples would change.
"According to our palaeographic analyses, the writing system used in the
Maya codices stems from a pictographic writing which, at the time the
codices were written, had developed into a syllabic, almost alphabetical
system that retains a few archaic vestiges of pictograms and even
iconograms."
"Originally, Maya writing was composed of pictograms."
"Where Maya writing is concerned, phonograms seem to have derived from
pictograms, ideograms or iconograms."
"One of the most important events in the process of deciphering Maya writing
has been the discovery of the 'anagram' property. What do we mean by
'anagram' ? Glyphs are composed of one or several separate graphic
elements."
- http://titan.glo.be/~kg000407/writing1.htm
"According to Mendenhall, the thesis that the Canaanite alphabet was derived
from the Egyptian hieroglyphic writing system is too simplistic. The
derivation was indirect in the sense that the designers of the syllabary
were aware of Egyptian and borrowed the pictorial shapes but not the
associated name and sound."
"The purpose of this expositon was to take some of the misplaced mystery out
of the development of the alphabet. The real mystery remains but the pattern
of development from Egyptian to Semitic seems to be understandable."
"Iconic acrophonic alphabets cannot be adapted in the same way that the
Greeks adapted the Semitic script (Cadmean letters). If the goals it to
develop a pictographic alphabet that uses familar words as the bridge
between shape and sound, one is limited in terms of what can be borrowed
from another culture. The sound categories and shapes can be borrowed, but
not the way they fit together. New links have to be forged between the
native language and the shapes to be used for sound signs."
"The Semitic alphabet developers borrowed at least 90% of their sound
categories and 90% of their shapes from the Egyptians. In a number of cases,
they reinterpreted the meaning and reference of the shape. K the symbol for
hill slope becomes the symbol for a hand, *kaf. In well over 50% of the
cases, however, the link between shape and sound was original."
"One must conclude, based on the numbers, that the Semites were as indebted
to the Egyptians as the Greeks were to the Phoenicians."
There's a nice Alphabets Family Tree on this page too.
- http://victorian.fortunecity.com/vangogh/555/Spell/alfabet2.html
"Besides phonograms that stand for two or three consonants, there are also
24 (or 25) signs that represented single ("uniliteral") sounds, the Egyptian
"alphabet." These were originally ideograms also, and some continued to
stand for common words."
- http://www.friesian.com/egypt.htm
Schlockmeister
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > False. Dongle, you have consistently snipped the verse and falsely
> > stated that it talks about "characters." Let's post the verse again:
>
> If anyone is stating things falsely it is you.
>
Looks like Anderson is a selective quoter who hasn't considered Mormon 9:32
regarding "reformed Egyptian characters" that were handed down by the record
keepers starting with Nephi.
Clovis Lark
Who cares? I think we should have hard data. Where are the caractors? I
keep looking at the extant example and seeing nothing to help any
argument:
http://www.utlm.org/images/anthontranscript.jpg
There is nothing egyptian here. There are no egyptian scribblin's among
all the NA records found. So where is the evidence?
charles
Remember, folks. There are TWO issues here that speak to a lack of
internal consitency in the Book of Mormon:
1) The Book of Mormon clearly states that the language preserved
among the ancient Americans was the language of the Brass Plates, and
the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian. That being the case, the
Book of Mormon lacks internal consistency when it *later* -- towards
the end of the book -- describes the ancient Americans using Hebrew.
2) The Book of Mormon makes clear that the Brass Plates were taken to
prevent the language from being *corrupted.* That being the case, the
Book of Mormon lacks internal consitency when it *later* describes the
ancient American language as being unreadable by any other nation.
++++++++
Remember, folks, that Duwayne has refused to consider that the plates
of brass were written in *both* Hebrew and Egyptian. Lehi obviously
knew both languages.
The contradiction is a fragment of his imagination.
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/7/2003 9:38 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <LM-dnXqKifJ...@aros.net>
<chuckle> Hmmm, maybe you're on to something there. Maybe Joseph Smith was
lit up when he dreamed up all his stuff too.
Randy J., trying to remember if Brigham Young's distillery bottled six-packs
back in the 1920's.
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/7/2003 11:24 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <b4aklc$1tr3ko$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de>
Simple: God made all the evidence disappear so that people would accept the
BOM on faith, rather than evidence.
You know, like parents make their kids believe in Santa Claus. He's gotta
remain invisible for you to keep believing in him. If a kid tried to stay
awake in the living room on Christmas Eve hoping to see Santa, he'll be
disappointed, 'cuz Santa will look in his window and see the kid in there
awake, and won't leave him any presents.
So, the lesson here is that kids should go to bed on Christmas Eve, and Mormons
should keep on believing in the BOM, even without a shred of evidence that it's
true.
And they all lived happily ever after.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 3/7/2003 11:54 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <b4amd6$3a2$2...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>
No, I'd rather hear more character assassinations against one of the premier
Mormon apologists in history, from another Mormon apologist.
Randy J.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> > > > The Book of Mormon says, point blank, that Lehi could read the Brass
> > > > Plates only because he understood Egyptian. Clearly, the conclusion
> > > > from this is that the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian.>
> > >
> > > "Egyptian characters" according to the verse you like to quote.
>
> > False. Dongle, you have consistently snipped the verse and falsely
> > stated that it talks about "characters." Let's post the verse again:
>
> If anyone is stating things falsely it is you.
The above statement by Fastleaf is false, as we shall see....
> > "And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
> > the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
> > that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
> > these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
> > present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
> > possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
> > things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
> > help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
> > Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
> > his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
> > and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
> > time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
> >
> > Notice that the word "characters" does not appear *ANYWHERE* in this
> > verse. Why would Dongle, an apologist for the Church of Jesus Christ
> > of Latter-day Saints, continue to misrepresent what the Book of Mormon
> > says?
>
> Something else that Duwayne has written:
> "The Book of Mormon clearly states that Lehi was able to read the Brass
> Plates only because he knew Egyptian.
That's right, Fastleaf. He had to know Egyptian to read the Brass
Plates. Let's quote it one more time for the reading impaired:
"...for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
therefore he could read these engravings..."
Did you see that, Fastleaf? Lehi had to know the "language of the
Egyptians" to read the Brass Plates.
What part about that don't you comprehend?
> Are you really going to argue
> he had to know Egyptian to read a book written in Hebrew?"
It's not *MY* argument. It's what the goddamned Book of Mormon says.
If you think the argument is absurd, then take it up with SMITH. He
wrote it.
> Notice that Duwayne has asserted, more than once, that the *only* reason
> Lehi could read the Brass plates was because he knew Egyptian.
Okay. Fastleaf still can't read. Let's quote it again:
"...for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
therefore he could read these engravings..."
Did you see that, Fastleaf? Lehi had to know the "language of the
Egyptians" to read the Brass Plates.
What part about that don't you comprehend?
> Are you
> really going to continue arguing that the Book of Mormon says things that it
> doesn't actually say?
Oh, we can see who has his head buried in the sand. For Fastleaf, one
more time:
"...for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
therefore he could read these engravings..."
> Why do you continue to misrepresent what it says?
It's a wonder that Mormons can continue to lie about what the Book of
Mormon says, when it's put there, in print, for all to see.
> The Book of Mormon does not say that it was written in Egyptian.
"...for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
therefore he could read these engravings..."
The Book of Mormon clearly states that Lehi had to know the language
of the Egyptians to read the Brass Plates.
> And even
> though it says that Lehi could read the plates because he was taught in the
> language of the Egyptians, that does not necessitate that they were
> completely written in that language,
Oh, sure. Now start your mental masturbation. Fastleaf, complete the
following sentences:
1) Sue had to know French to read the novel. Therefore the novel was
written in what language?
2) Tom had to know Russian to read the novel. Therefore the novel
was written in what language?
Nothing illustrates better the absurdity of the Mormon religion than
these sorts of antics by LDS apologists. The Book of Mormon says Lehi
had to know Egyptian to read the Brass Plates. So what language were
the Brass Plates written in? Why Hebrew, of course! It boggles the
imagination to see the depth of denial that comes with being a true
believer.
> grammer and all, especially when you
> consider what 1 Nephi says about Lehi's language.
That's the POINT. Can you say circular reasoning? The problem is,
the Book of Mormon lacks internal consistency on the matter of
language. Here, let's summarize the issues once more:
1) The Book of Mormon clearly states that the language preserved
among the ancient Americans was the language of the Brass Plates, and
the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian. That being the case, the
Book of Mormon lacks internal consistency when it *later* -- towards
the end of the book -- describes the ancient Americans using Hebrew.
2) The Book of Mormon makes clear that the Brass Plates were taken to
prevent the language from being *corrupted.* That being the case, the
Book of Mormon lacks internal consitency when it *later* describes the
ancient American language as being unreadable by any other nation.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Well, I think the real point is that the Book of Mormon does not actually
> state things that Duwayne says it does.
What a crock. I'm quoting the Book of Mormon, and the Mormons are
snipping the quotes. Now who is not being honest about what it says?
> I don't think that we can actually
> tell what the complete language of the Brass plates was.
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
<snip>
> Not really. As the Book of Mormon doesn't actually completely detail what
> the language of the Brass Plates was in the first place,
"...for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, ...." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> I've just been
> trying to show different things that are possible according to what actually
> is detailed.
You have been busy telling tall tales and imagining things that are
not in there. Just to remind everyone what the issues are, here:
Clovis Lark
Hell, I'm willing to entertain this wild fiction. Bring on the New World
data. I'm ready...
Of course I was ready to read your refutation of Cavalli-Sforza complete
with sampling errors you claimed the average person could discern. When's
that gonna happen, eh? There is a phrase that aunty mormons who've been
exed fling about: "Lying for the lord". I KNOW you don't believe this, so
where are the goods?
> The contradiction is a fragment of his imagination.
Be careful, very careful...
€ R. L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
** sour mash whiskey normally comes in 12-bottle or 24-bottle cases.
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures, remove ^ from adr.
Dongle
> Dongle <don...@dongle.com> wrote:
>
> > "Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> >> Dongle <don...@dongle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:a42139e3.03030...@posting.google.com...
> >> >> "Dongle" <don...@dongle.com> wrote in message
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> > This is hillarious. This fellow thinks we need proof that Hebrews
> > spoke
> >> >> > Hebrew circa 600 BCE.
> >> >>
> >> >> The request was *never* to show that Hebrew and Egyptian are "real"
> >> >> languages. It was *never* to show that Hebrews spoke Hebrew circa
600
> >> >> BCE. Good gawd, read the damned posts.
> >> >>
> >> >> The request, Dongle is to provide evidence of the Hebrew and
Egyptian
> >> >> languages supposedly used by the NEPHITES. Note that the Book of
> >> >> Mormon claims the Nephites were ancient Americans, so your
challenge,
> >> >> Dongle, is to show that the ancient Americans used Hebrew and
> >> >> Egyptian.>
> >>
> >> > Sorry, but that was not the nature of your challenge. Your
questions,
> > by
> >> > their own terms, was to establish your assertion that the Book of
Mormon
> > is
> >> > internally inconsistent regarding the language issue. You have not
> >> > rehabilitated your assertion.
> >>
> >>
> >> "In the first place there is a certain lack of perspective in the
things
> >> the book relates as history that points quite clearly to an undeveloped
> >> mind as their origin. The narrative proceeds in characteristic
disregard
> >> of conditions necessary to its reasonableness, as if it were a tale
told
> >> by a child, with utter disregard for consistency."
> >>
>
> > Now that's two unproven assertions.
>
> Overruling a GA of the church, eh?
Was he speaking as one inspired by the spirit, or one who had imbibed
spirits?
Dongle
> Remember, folks, that Duwayne has refused to consider that the plates
> of brass were written in *both* Hebrew and Egyptian. Lehi obviously
> knew both languages.>
That is the whole crux of the matter. Mr. A's selective understanding of
what he reads is a real impediment. I wonder if he understands anything he
reads.
Dongle
> "Dongle" <don...@dongle.com> wrote in message
news:<CvucnYelwpi...@aros.net>...
>
> <snip>
> > Mr. A is having a difficult time distinguishing between Egyptian
> > "characters" and the actual language being represented.
>
> Mr. Dongle is having difficulty reading.
Apparently you have too. You haven't read, or at least you haven't
understood, the Lehi understood both hebrew and egyptian, both of which
helped him read the brass plates. You also haven't read, or at least you
haven't understood, the reference in Mormon 9:32 to Reformed Egyptian
"characters" that were handed down through the generations.
Finally, your pedantic rants, which remind one of the angry teacher in
Finding Forrester, neatly overlook the fact that all written languages
involve "characters".
Fastleaf
> "Fastleaf" <fast...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<Rppba.75276$aa.20...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
<snip>
>
> The above statement by Fastleaf is false, as we shall see....
We? I sincerely hope that no one aligns themselves with you in this thread
because of the things you've said.
<snip>
> > Something else that Duwayne has written:
> > "The Book of Mormon clearly states that Lehi was able to read the Brass
> > Plates only because he knew Egyptian.
>
> That's right, Fastleaf. He had to know Egyptian to read the Brass
> Plates. Let's quote it one more time for the reading impaired:
Now I know that you either don't know what you're talking about, or are
lying. I wasn't saying that I believe Lehi didn't have to know Egyptian to
read the Brass plates. I was showing that you had said that the *only*
reason he could read the Brass Plates was because he knew Egyptian. The
scripture doesn't actually say that that is the *only* reason he could read
them. It leaves room for further detail.
> "...for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
> therefore he could read these engravings..."
>
> Did you see that, Fastleaf? Lehi had to know the "language of the
> Egyptians" to read the Brass Plates.
I have no problem with that. I'm not sure why you think that I do.
> What part about that don't you comprehend?
Well, none. I understand it.
> > Are you really going to argue
> > he had to know Egyptian to read a book written in Hebrew?"
>
> It's not *MY* argument.
It's what you had wrote. I did not state that Lehi didn't need know Egyptian
in order to read the Brass Plates. What I am trying to get you to see is
that the Book of Mormon does not actually say that the *only* reason Lehi
could read the Brass Plates was because he knew Egyptian. You are not being
truthful about that.
> It's what the goddamned Book of Mormon says. If you think the argument is
> absurd, then take it up with SMITH. He wrote it.
Hmm, you don't quite understand what the problem is yet. And I don't mean to
be offensive, but I don't appreciate your swearing.
> > Notice that Duwayne has asserted, more than once, that the *only* reason
> > Lehi could read the Brass plates was because he knew Egyptian.
>
> Okay. Fastleaf still can't read. Let's quote it again:
I think you're being a little childish.
> "...for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
> therefore he could read these engravings..."
>
> Did you see that, Fastleaf? Lehi had to know the "language of the
> Egyptians" to read the Brass Plates.
Yes, very good! But it does not say that the *only* reason he could read
them was because he had been taught in the language of the Egyptians.
> What part about that don't you comprehend?
You're asking an invalid question.
> > Are you
> > really going to continue arguing that the Book of Mormon says things
that it
> > doesn't actually say?
>
> Oh, we can see who has his head buried in the sand. For Fastleaf, one
> more time:
>
> "...for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
> therefore he could read these engravings..."
>
> > Why do you continue to misrepresent what it says?
>
> It's a wonder that Mormons can continue to lie about what the Book of
> Mormon says, when it's put there, in print, for all to see.
Hmm, a thought occured to me. I wonder if you, in fact, are trying to
deceive people into thinking that I don't actually believe that Lehi could
read the engravings, having been taught in the language of the Egyptians,
when what I'm trying to say is that the Book of Mormon doesn't actually
state that the *only* reason Lehi could read them was because he was taught
in the Language of the Egyptians.
Your skipping things, and adding things, and concluding things that you
can't know to be true, and may possibly know aren't true.
> > The Book of Mormon does not say that it was written in Egyptian.
>
> "...for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
> therefore he could read these engravings..."
The point of that snippet is?...
> The Book of Mormon clearly states that Lehi had to know the language
> of the Egyptians to read the Brass Plates.
Yes, right. But you are falsely stating that it was the *only* reason he
could read them.
> > And even
> > though it says that Lehi could read the plates because he was taught in
the
> > language of the Egyptians, that does not necessitate that they were
> > completely written in that language,
>
> Oh, sure. Now start your mental masturbation. Fastleaf, complete the
> following sentences:
>
> 1) Sue had to know French to read the novel. Therefore the novel was
> written in what language?
>
> 2) Tom had to know Russian to read the novel. Therefore the novel
> was written in what language?
Ahh, I see! You don't actually understand what we have been trying to tell
you.
Let me give you a real example:
Bob had to know Chinese characters to read the novel. Tom had written the
novel in the English language, but used Chinese characters wherever possible
to represent English words. Therefore, the novel was written in what
language?
> Nothing illustrates better the absurdity of the Mormon religion than
> these sorts of antics by LDS apologists. The Book of Mormon says Lehi
> had to know Egyptian to read the Brass Plates. So what language were
> the Brass Plates written in?
You're not understanding. Just because it says that Lehi could read the
plates, having been taught in the language of the Egyptians, does not show
us completely the language of them.
> Why Hebrew, of course! It boggles the imagination to see the depth of
denial
> that comes with being a true believer.
Mr. Duwayne, do you, at the very least, understand that it's possible for a
nation to take the ideograms of another nation to use in their own writings?
It is what is done even today. Japanese makes use of them, with their
writings consisting of their own syllubary characters and the Chinese
ideograms. They are not mutually exclusive. They are used together in the
same writings. Even in the same sentences. In fact, even in the same words.
> > grammer and all, especially when you
> > consider what 1 Nephi says about Lehi's language.
>
> That's the POINT. Can you say circular reasoning? The problem is,
> the Book of Mormon lacks internal consistency on the matter of
> language. Here, let's summarize the issues once more:
Well, your whole argument rests on your assertion of the Book of Mormon says
something that it doesn't actually say. That the *only* reason Lehi could
read the Brass Plates was because he had been taught in the language of the
Egyptians. That is not true. The Book of Mormon does not actually say "only"
anywhere. You, yourself, have added that, and it changes the meaning.
> 1) The Book of Mormon clearly states that the language preserved
> among the ancient Americans was the language of the Brass Plates, and
> the Brass Plates were written in Egyptian. That being the case, the
> Book of Mormon lacks internal consistency when it *later* -- towards
> the end of the book -- describes the ancient Americans using Hebrew.
Let me make it clear for you. The Book of Mormon says that the Language of
Lehi *first of all* consisted of the learning of the Jews, *and then
secondly* of the language of the Egyptians. Then later it says that Lehi
could read them, having been taught in the Language of the Egyptians.
After seeing these things, you have asserted that Lehi could read the Brass
Plates *only* because he knew Egyptian, ignoring that it says his language
*first of all* consisted of the learning of the Jews. Not his
"understanding" or "knowledge", but "language".
Now let me explain Mormon 9:32 plainly for you to understand.
They wrote their record according to their knowledge, according to their
manner of speech, in the reformed Egyptian characters, which were handed
down and altered by them.
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.
So you can say that the reformed Egyptian characters were altered by them
according the the way they spoke. And also, therefore, that they wrote their
record according to their manner of speech, being in the characters that
were altered according to their manner of speech.
It is you who lacks internal consistency when you assert that the Ancient
Americans had not used Hebrew all along.
> 2) The Book of Mormon makes clear that the Brass Plates were taken to
> prevent the language from being *corrupted.* That being the case, the
> Book of Mormon lacks internal consitency when it *later* describes the
> ancient American language as being unreadable by any other nation.
I don't quite understand what your saying here. You need to explain yourself
further.
But let me try. Lehi and his group took the Brass Plates with them to the
Americas. Therefore, the Jews who remained in Jerusalem no longer had them.
Now, which other nation would be able to understand the language of the
Ancient Americans, seeing as they were the only ones with the Brass Plates
to preserve their language?
And then after that even, after 420 AD, Moroni hid the plates up, so that
the remaining Americans did not have the Brass Plates to preserve their
language.
Fastleaf
> "Fastleaf" <fast...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<jlqba.75295$aa.20...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > Well, I think the real point is that the Book of Mormon does not
actually
> > state things that Duwayne says it does.
>
> What a crock. I'm quoting the Book of Mormon, and the Mormons are
> snipping the quotes. Now who is not being honest about what it says?
You are both quoting the Book of Mormon, and creating things that doesn't
actually exist in them.
I see that you've stopped saying that the *only* reason that Lehi could read
the Brass Plates was because he had been taught in the Egyptian language.
Though you still assert the same in less words.
> > I don't think that we can actually
> > tell what the complete language of the Brass plates was.
>
> "And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
> the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
> that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
> these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
> present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
> possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
> things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
> help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
> Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
> his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
> and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
> time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
>
> These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
> language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
> explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
> because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
The verses don't actually state that the Brass plates were written in the
language of the Egyptians, nor do any in the entire book explicitly state
such a thing. There is a verse that shows that they used reformed Egyptian
characters to write things according to their manner of speech though.
> <snip>
> > Not really. As the Book of Mormon doesn't actually completely detail
what
> > the language of the Brass Plates was in the first place,
>
> "...for he having been taught in the language of the
> Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
> his children, ...." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
>
> These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
> language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
> explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
> because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
Again, the verses don't actually state that the Brass Plates were written in
the language of the Egyptians. Nor does it say that *the* reason Lehi could
read the Brass Plates was because he had been taught in the language of the
Egyptians. That is only one reason, "a" reason. There could be more things
that enabled him to read them.
<snip>
Duwayne Anderson
>
> > > The BOM tells us two things abt the language of the plates of brass --
> > >
> > > 1. Since Lehi need to know egyptian in order to read the plates, it
> > > was written in egyptian.
> >
> > That's right, Charles. The Book of Mormon tells us that, as I've said
> > several times, now.
>
>
> > > 2. Since the plates were necessary to "preserve the language", it was
> > > written in Hebrew.
> >
> > Oh, dear. Now Charles is lying. The Book of Mormon does not tell us
> > the Brass Plates were written in Hebrew at all.
>
> The book of mormon doesn't say what the brass plates were written in.
let's quote the Book of Mormon again for Dongle:
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
Let's focus in on just that important part near the end:
"...for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
therefore he could read these engravings.."
Did you catch that, Dongle? Lehi could read the Brass Plates because
he knew the Egytian "language."
Now let's try a few simple questions:
"Sam could read Professor Miller's novel "Dostoevsky and The Idiot"
because he Sam knows Russian."
What language is "Dostoevsky and The Idiot" written in.
No, folks, it's not a trick question. It's written in Russian. But
if you are a Mormon apologist, it must be written in Hebrew!
> The
> only clues we have are that Nephi says that Lehi was taught both in Hebrew
> and the language of the Egyptians; therefore, he could read the brass
> plates.
Notice how Dongle is now lying about what the Book of Mormon says. It
says *NOTHING* about Hebrew being necessary for reading the Brass
Plates. Go ahead. Read it. It's in the quote I posted, right up
there. Dongle ADDED that bit about needing Hebrew to read the Brass
Plates. It doesn't say that at all.
> Many things may be deduced from that statement.
Yeah, like Dongle's overactive imagination.
> One thing that's obviously
> clear is that the book of mormon never says the brass plates were written in
> egyptian to represent spoken egyptian as Mr. A would have us believe.
Let's quote it one more time, so we can see exactly who is speaking
out his butt here:
"...for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
therefore he could read these engravings.."
Duwayne Anderson
Looks like we have yet another Mormon apologist who cannot read. The
following was posted Feb. 28. See if you can deal with the issues
here. You will notice that Mormon 9:32 was part of -- and essential
to -- the original argument that the Book of Mormon is inconsistent.
"And he also taught them concerning the records which were engraven on
the plates of brass, saying: My sons, I would that ye should remember
that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and
these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this
present time, not knowing the mysteries of God. For it were not
possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these
things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the
help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to
his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children,
and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present
time." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
These verses make it clear that the Brass plates were written "in the
language of the Egyptians." This is clear because the Book of Mormon
explains that the *reason* Lehi could read the "plates of brass" was
because he had been "taught in the language of the Egyptians."
> 2) Why did Lehi bring the Brass Plates with him to the Promised Land?
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
"fathers" for their children.
Now, already we find contradictions and mistakes in the Book of Mormon
because Nephi clearly states that his fathers were from the house of
Israel, in which case their "language" would not have been Egyptian.
So Joseph Smith was having trouble keeping his story straight. As
I'll show later, Smith obviously was trying to weave into his story a
pre-existing excuse for garbledegoop characters that nobody could
read. Egyptian was unreadable when Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, so
it's likely that he used the Egyptian angle as a way of making the
characters in his book unreadable.
> 3) Why was the language of the people of Zarahemla "corrupted?"
Because they brought no records with them. See the reference to 1
Nephi 3:19 above. Notice that the Book of Mormon describes "records"
in the context of providing a means for maintaining the language. One
of the lessons in the Book of Mormon is that the Nephites brought the
Brass Plates, so their language was not corrupted, but the people of
Zarahemla did not bring records, so their language *was* corrupted.
Here's the reference:
"And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become
exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious
contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their
language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with
them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the
people of Mosiah, could understand them." [Omni 1:17]
> 4) What preserved the language of the Nephites?
The records they brought. And the ONLY record that they brought,
that's mentioned in the Book of Mormon, is the Brass Plates.
Furthermore, the story of how they got those Brass Plates is a central
theme in 1 Nephi, with the point made that the plates were necessary
to preserve the language of the people.
Now we come to the really interesting part of the story. The part
where the apologists try to make sense of it all. See, later in the
Book of Mormon it says the Nephites had Hebrew:
"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." [Mormon 9:33]
But where on earth did they get this Hebrew? The Book of Mormon makes
clear that their "language" was based on the "plates of brass," and
the "plates of brass" were written in the "language of the Egyptians."
What's happening in Mormon 9:33 is rather transparent. Joseph Smith
was trying to write into the text a ready-made excuse for all the
mistakes in the Book of Mormon. So he was trying to explain that the
problems were related to the fact that the Book of Mormon was written
in something he invented called "reformed Egyptian." Then he goes on
to make the excuse that, if they had used Hebrew, they would not have
had any mistakes in the Book of Mormon. But Smith lost track of his
story with this excuse, because he had earlier written in the Book of
Mormon very specifically that the brass plates were for the purpose of
preserving the language of the people, and THEY were written in "the
language of the Egyptians."
Smith was tripping all over himself. As is Charles Dowis and the rest
of the LDS apologetic community. See, there isn't a single example of
any ancient American civilization that used Egyptian. Yet that is the
language that the Book of Mormon says was used by a huge civilization
that covered the whole face of the land.
Charles Dowis has tried to argue that the people only used this
language for their scriptures, and that they spoke/wrote some other
language in their everyday lives. Yet (as with so many of Dowis'
arguments) he must deny what the Book of Mormon actually says in order
to advance this argument. The Book of Mormon clearly states that the
brass plates were for preserving the language of the PEOPLE. This was
not the language of Priests, but the language of the PEOPLE.
So here we are, with a clumsy fake called the Book of Mormon, watching
Mormons grind their teeth in frustration as they try in vain to
provide any non-trivial connections between the Book of Mormon and
ancient America.
Duwayne Anderson
Charles, there is no obligation to give your story telling and
inventions any consideration at all. Your excuse is not based on what
the Book of Mormon says. It's just you adding stories on top of
stories. Here is what the Book of Mormon says:
"... for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, ..."
[Mosiah 1:3-4]
Where does it say Lehi needed to know Hebrew to read the Brass Plates?
It doesn't! It simply says he needed to know Egyptian. You
*INVENTED* the stuff about Hebrew.
> Lehi obviously
> knew both languages.
Don't pretend not to have seen the other verses I posted, Charles.
Here:
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
"fathers" for their children. The language Lehi spoke was not what
was "preserved." According to the Book of Mormon, the language that
was "preserved" was the language of the Brass Plates. And THAT
language was Egyptian.
> The contradiction is a fragment of his imagination.
Well, we see how Charles keeps telling stories, but he cannot quote
the Book of Mormon. That's for the critics to do. And all the time
he continues to ignore the second contradiction about the Brass Plates
being there to prevent the Nephite language from being corrupted, yet
in the end the Book of Mormon says nobody on earth could read their
language.
Clovis Lark
Hard to say, John. Chances are he was referring to the contents of the
book, something evident to anyone not having to censor their thoughts
before a stake prez...
ForWhatItsWorth
The Brass Plates were written in Klingon characters, but in the Vulcan
language. I know this must be true, because a grand total of zero Klingon
or Vulcan artifacts were ever found on Earth...
It makes zero difference what language or characters the BoM is claimed to
be in. It is as much a work of fiction as the Klingons.
Mark
Fwiw
>
> <snip>
>
>
€ R. L. Measures
wrote:
** isn't that "caractors".
http://WWW.VCNET.COM/measures/HH.BoM'caractors'.JPG
Fastleaf
news:a42139e3.03031...@posting.google.com...
> Charles, there is no obligation to give your story telling and
> inventions any consideration at all. Your excuse is not based on what
> the Book of Mormon says. It's just you adding stories on top of
> stories. Here is what the Book of Mormon says:
>
> "... for he having been taught in the language of the
> Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, ..."
> [Mosiah 1:3-4]
>
> Where does it say Lehi needed to know Hebrew to read the Brass Plates?
> It doesn't! It simply says he needed to know Egyptian. You
> *INVENTED* the stuff about Hebrew.
Lehi had lived in Jerusalem all his days, remember? The inhabitants of
Jerusalem spoke Hebrew, right? How could you possibly think that Lehi did
not know the Hebrew language, especially considering that his language
consisted of the learning of the Jews?
It's assumed that he knew Hebrew, seeing as he came from Jerusalem, and had
even gone forth among the people prophecying of the things he had seen and
heard.
> > Lehi obviously
> > knew both languages.
>
> Don't pretend not to have seen the other verses I posted, Charles.
> Here:
>
> "And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
> Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
> of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
>
> I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
> bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
> "fathers" for their children. The language Lehi spoke was not what
> was "preserved."
Lehi's language *was* the language of his fathers. The language of his
fathers was preserved in the Brass Plates.
> According to the Book of Mormon, the language that
> was "preserved" was the language of the Brass Plates.
That is right.
> And THAT language was Egyptian.
I don't know where you've gotten that from. It certainly is not in the Book
of Mormon, and it is incorrect.
<snip>
Lee Paulson
news:a42139e3.03031...@posting.google.com...
news:<CvucnYelwpi...@aros.net>...
>
> <snip>
> > Mr. A is having a difficult time distinguishing between Egyptian
> > "characters" and the actual language being represented.
>
> Dongle, and point to the word "character" in the following verse:
>
Dongle John Guynn never has read too carefully.
--
Regards,
Lee, The James, uM & GW
Lee Paulson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.0303...@posting.google.com...
> > "Fastleaf" <fast...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:<Rppba.75276$aa.20...@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> <snip>
> > > If anyone is stating things falsely it is you.
> >
> > The above statement by Fastleaf is false, as we shall see....
>
> We? I sincerely hope that no one aligns themselves with you in this thread
> because of the things you've said.
>
> <snip>
> > > Something else that Duwayne has written:
> > > "The Book of Mormon clearly states that Lehi was able to read the
Brass
> > > Plates only because he knew Egyptian.
> >
> > That's right, Fastleaf. He had to know Egyptian to read the Brass
> > Plates. Let's quote it one more time for the reading impaired:
>
> Now I know that you either don't know what you're talking about, or are
> lying. I wasn't saying that I believe Lehi didn't have to know Egyptian to
> read the Brass plates. I was showing that you had said that the *only*
> reason he could read the Brass Plates was because he knew Egyptian. The
> scripture doesn't actually say that that is the *only* reason he could
read
> them. It leaves room for further detail.
>
Fastleaf, why do you suppose it was even relevant that Lehi had to know
Egyptian to read the plates?
> > "...for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
> > therefore he could read these engravings..."
> >
> > Did you see that, Fastleaf? Lehi had to know the "language of the
> > Egyptians" to read the Brass Plates.
>
> I have no problem with that. I'm not sure why you think that I do.
>
> > What part about that don't you comprehend?
>
> Well, none. I understand it.
>
> > > Are you really going to argue
> > > he had to know Egyptian to read a book written in Hebrew?"
> >
> > It's not *MY* argument.
>
> It's what you had wrote. I did not state that Lehi didn't need know
Egyptian
> in order to read the Brass Plates. What I am trying to get you to see is
> that the Book of Mormon does not actually say that the *only* reason Lehi
> could read the Brass Plates was because he knew Egyptian. You are not
being
> truthful about that.
>
Ah. Are you getting at he might have had divine help. Like Joseph did?
snip
Lee Paulson
"Fastleaf" <fast...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jlqba.75295$aa.20...@twister.socal.rr.com...
No, it's not the real point. The BOM says that because Lehi knew the
language of the Egyptians, he could read the plates. Presumably he needed
that knowledge to read the plates. Maybe the plates were written in
intermediate Egyptian. It doesn't make any difference.
The real point is that there is no evidence--not one shred--of Egyptian,
Hebrew, brass plates, or anything else relevant to this passage in the new
world. None.
>
> > This idea of one alphabet being used to represent another language is
> > sidetracking the discussion.
>
> Not really. As the Book of Mormon doesn't actually completely detail what
> the language of the Brass Plates was in the first place, I've just been
> trying to show different things that are possible according to what
actually
> is detailed. I just wish he could see that the things he's asserting are
> things that he doesn't actually know are true.
>
He's only quoting scripture to you. All you've pointed out is that maybe
Lehi knowing Egyptian was part of the process. It doesn't matter.
> > Where's the evidence of any of this happening?
>
> Evidince? I think there's a lot of evidence.
Where is the evidence of Egyptian or Hebrew writing dating from the time of
the BOM in the New World?
>
> Japan and Korea are countries that had taken the Chinese characters, and
> later, both developed their own phonetic or syllabic characters. The
> Japanese characters were adapted from certain Chinese characters, and now
> are used in conjuction with them so they can modify words like verbs.
>
The BOM took place in Japan or China?
> The point is, it's common for nations to adapt ideographic characters from
> another language to their own langauge, and later develop their own
simpler
> written language, as the Japanese, Koreans, and even semites did.
>
Not in the Americas.
> And as Moroni hid up the plates, it's only natural that the language of
the
> remaining peoples would change.
>
> "According to our palaeographic analyses, the writing system used in the
> Maya codices stems from a pictographic writing which, at the time the
> codices were written, had developed into a syllabic, almost alphabetical
> system that retains a few archaic vestiges of pictograms and even
> iconograms."
>
So the BOM populations were Mayan?
> "Originally, Maya writing was composed of pictograms."
>
snip
Fastleaf, it's all very interesting to the Mayan scholars. But unless
you're proposing that the BOM populations were Mayan, or that somehow the
Mayan writing really was Egyptian and Hebrew, it's irrelevant. Language and
writing don't change overnight.
Lee Paulson
Charles, where are the Hebrew and Egyptian artifacts in the Americas to be
found that you are so sure of this?
Lee Paulson
hominem approach. After all, it did gain you great credence in your
previous incarnations in arm.
Lee Paulson
Lee Paulson
news:20030311182330...@mb-mh.aol.com...
Wow! Are you saying there's no Santa Claus? Now do you mean the Santa
Claus who spoke Egyptian or the one who spoke Hebrew but wrote in Egyptian?
Man, I wondered about the lack of reindeer tracks on the roof, but I had
convinced myself pretty well for all these years that Santa's magical powers
erased the tracks as he left.
Now what? Did the Easter Bunny speak Egyptian too?
Clovis Lark
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.03031...@posting.google.com...
>> cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message
>> news:<e877bb3f.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> <snip>
>> Charles, there is no obligation to give your story telling and
>> inventions any consideration at all. Your excuse is not based on what
>> the Book of Mormon says. It's just you adding stories on top of
>> stories. Here is what the Book of Mormon says:
>>
>> "... for he having been taught in the language of the
>> Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, ..."
>> [Mosiah 1:3-4]
>>
>> Where does it say Lehi needed to know Hebrew to read the Brass Plates?
>> It doesn't! It simply says he needed to know Egyptian. You
>> *INVENTED* the stuff about Hebrew.
> Lehi had lived in Jerusalem all his days, remember? The inhabitants of
> Jerusalem spoke Hebrew, right? How could you possibly think that Lehi did
> not know the Hebrew language, especially considering that his language
> consisted of the learning of the Jews?
What about Aramaic? Where's your knowledge of history?
> It's assumed that he knew Hebrew, seeing as he came from Jerusalem, and had
> even gone forth among the people prophecying of the things he had seen and
> heard.
Oh Boy... Another ASSUMPTION. How about a simple fact?
>> > Lehi obviously
>> > knew both languages.
>>
>> Don't pretend not to have seen the other verses I posted, Charles.
>> Here:
>>
>> "And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
>> Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
>> of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
>>
>> I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
>> bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
>> "fathers" for their children. The language Lehi spoke was not what
>> was "preserved."
> Lehi's language *was* the language of his fathers. The language of his
> fathers was preserved in the Brass Plates.
What about his fathers' use of aramaic?
>> According to the Book of Mormon, the language that
>> was "preserved" was the language of the Brass Plates.
> That is right.
>> And THAT language was Egyptian.
> I don't know where you've gotten that from. It certainly is not in the Book
> of Mormon, and it is incorrect.
1 Nephi 1
[2] 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.
[The record is clearly the plates, and "language of the Egyptians" is
needed for those plates]
Mosiah 1
[4] For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered
all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for
the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his
children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so
fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time.
[Lehi is only able to remember things by means of the plates for which he
needs the language of the egyptians to read]
Mormon 9
[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.
["caractors" are reformed egyptian.]
Nephi 1:1, Mosiah 1:4 both state in plain and easy to understand english
that the plates are in egyptian. Mormon adds that the caractors are
bastardized egyptian.
Furthermore, lest there be any doubt, JSjr, who was privy to all the
transmissions from Moroni, spent his whole life claiming special
significance to anything egyptian he encountered. He never once claimed
to be finding hebrew artifacts.
> <snip>
€ R. L. Measures
<fast...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > cdo...@my-deja.com (charles) wrote in message
> > news:<e877bb3f.03031...@posting.google.com>...
> <snip>
> > Charles, there is no obligation to give your story telling and
> > inventions any consideration at all. Your excuse is not based on what
> > the Book of Mormon says. It's just you adding stories on top of
> > stories. Here is what the Book of Mormon says:
> >
> > "... for he having been taught in the language of the
> > Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, ..."
> > [Mosiah 1:3-4]
> >
> > Where does it say Lehi needed to know Hebrew to read the Brass Plates?
> > It doesn't! It simply says he needed to know Egyptian. You
> > *INVENTED* the stuff about Hebrew.
>
> Lehi had lived in Jerusalem all his days, remember? The inhabitants of
> Jerusalem spoke Hebrew, right? How could you possibly think that Lehi did
> not know the Hebrew language, especially considering that his language
> consisted of the learning of the Jews?
> ...
** this snag is no problem as long as one lets the General Authorities do
the thinking for him/her.
€ R. L. Measures
<lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
** Careful reading can cause earthquakes in Deseret.
€ R. L. Measures
<lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
** Perhaps he's got MPD, Lee?
€ R. L. Measures
<lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
** Only wabbits are known to speak.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> > "... for he having been taught in the language of the
> > Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, ..."
> > [Mosiah 1:3-4]
> >
> > Where does it say Lehi needed to know Hebrew to read the Brass Plates?
> > It doesn't! It simply says he needed to know Egyptian. You
> > *INVENTED* the stuff about Hebrew.
>
> Lehi had lived in Jerusalem all his days, remember? The inhabitants of
> Jerusalem spoke Hebrew, right?
And what does that have to do with the Brass Plates, and the Book of
Mormon's clear statement that Lehi could only read them because he
knew Egyptian?
> How could you possibly think that Lehi did
> not know the Hebrew language,
Good gawd, Fastleaf. After all this and you *STILL* have not read the
references? The Book of Mormon says the language that was "preserved"
was on the Brass Plates. And it says you had to know Egyptian to read
the Brass Plates.
This is exactly how the Book of Mormon is so twisted and convoluted in
its descriptions about language. Your confusion and yammering
illustrate it nicely. Here we have a guy who lives in "Jerusalem all
his days" bringing a record that can only be read if you know
Egyptian, so that this Egyptian document can "preserve" the language
of these Hebrew people.
It's all a mass of confusion and contradiciton, and your comments
illustrate that nicely.
> especially considering that his language
> consisted of the learning of the Jews?
Now you are finally beginning to see the mass of contradiction in the
Book of Mormon.
> It's assumed that he knew Hebrew, seeing as he came from Jerusalem, and had
> even gone forth among the people prophecying of the things he had seen and
> heard.
Well, you can assume till the cows come home, and you can add to the
Book of Mormon till your face is covered in mud. But the Book of
Mormon says the Brass Plates "preserved" the language of the people,
and it clearly says you had to know Egyptian to read the Brass Plates.
So once again, you have illustrated nicely the confusion and
contradiction about language in the Book of Mormon.
> > > Lehi obviously
> > > knew both languages.
> >
> > Don't pretend not to have seen the other verses I posted, Charles.
> > Here:
> >
> > "And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
> > Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
> > of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
> >
> > I hardly need to expand on this, do I? One of the stated reasons for
> > bringing the Brass Plates was to "preserve" the language of their
> > "fathers" for their children. The language Lehi spoke was not what
> > was "preserved."
>
> Lehi's language *was* the language of his fathers.
Okay, looks like Fastleaf is still having trouble reading. Pay
attention, Fastleaf. Read 1 Nephi 3:19 again:
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
Now read Mosiah again:
"... for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, ..."
[Mosiah 1:3-4]
These two verses are in *contradiction.* YOU just illustrated it.
YOU said that the language of Lehi's fathers was Hebrew. Yet the Book
of Mormon says the language of Lehi's fathers was preserved by the
Brass Plates, and THOSE were written in Egyptian, because the Book of
Mormon *clearly* states that Lehi had to know Egyptian to read them.
Are you getting the picture now? Can you see the contradiction? Or
is your head still buried in the sand?
Notice, too, that the Book of Mormon talks about THE language of the
Nephites. It uses the *SINGULAR.*
> The language of his
> fathers was preserved in the Brass Plates.
Oh, gawd. One more time for Fastleaf:
Read 1 Nephi 3:19 again:
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
Now read Mosiah again:
"... for he having been taught in the language of the
Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, ..."
[Mosiah 1:3-4]
These two verses are in *contradiction.* YOU just illustrated it.
YOU said that the language of Lehi's fathers was Hebrew. Yet the Book
of Mormon says the language of Lehi's fathers was preserved by the
Brass Plates, and THOSE were written in Egyptian, because the Book of
Mormon *clearly* states that Lehi had to know Egyptian to read them.
Are you getting the picture now? Can you see the contradiction? Or
is your head still buried in the sand?
> > According to the Book of Mormon, the language that
> > was "preserved" was the language of the Brass Plates.
>
> That is right.
>
> > And THAT language was Egyptian.
>
> I don't know where you've gotten that from.
It's from 1 Nephi 3:19. You mean to say you STILL have not read it?
Even after all the times it's been posted? Okay, here it is again.
Pull your head out of the sand long enough to read your own damned
book of scripture:
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
> It certainly is not in the Book
> of Mormon, and it is incorrect.
Now why, if the Book of Mormon is true, would Fastleaf need to lie
about what it says?
Duwayne Anderson
> "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a42139e3.03031...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dongle" <don...@dongle.com> wrote in message
> news:<CvucnYelwpi...@aros.net>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Mr. A is having a difficult time distinguishing between Egyptian
> > > "characters" and the actual language being represented.
> >
> > Mr. Dongle is having difficulty reading.
>
> Apparently you have too. You haven't read, or at least you haven't
> understood, the Lehi understood both hebrew and egyptian,
Looks like Mr. Dongle still has not read the Book of Mormon, or the
verses I posted. The language that was preserved among the Nephites
was what was on the Brass Plates:
"And behold, it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these [Brass
Plates] records, that we may preserve unto our children the language
of our fathers;" [1 Nephi 3:19]
Notice that it uses the *singular.* It says THE language. Not the
languageS.
> both of which
> helped him read the brass plates.
Now Dongle is lying. The Book of Mormon says Lehi needed to know
Egyptian to read the Brass Plates, but it does NOT say he had to know
Hebrew to read the Brass Plates. Once again, here are the Book of
Mormon references that Dongle et. al. keep snipping:
" ... for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
therefore he could read these engravings ..." [Mosiah 1:3-4]
> You also haven't read, or at least you
> haven't understood, the reference in Mormon 9:32 to Reformed Egyptian
> "characters" that were handed down through the generations.
Dongle is lying *again.* In fact, I *quoted* Mormon 9:32 on Feb. 28
as an illustration of the contradiction in the Book of Mormon.
> Finally, your pedantic rants,
Pedantic rants is Mormon speak for:
"you keep quoting the Book of Mormon and I keep snipping the verses
and it's driving me nuts."
> which remind one of the angry teacher in
> Finding Forrester,
Now Dongle is trying on the old ad hominem argument. Can't say I
blame him. He hasn't been able to do much else.
> neatly overlook the fact that all written languages
> involve "characters".
And to finish off, Dongle pulls out the old strawman argument, as if
the idea that "characters" were used is somehow going to pull his
bacon out of the fire.
Dongle
>
>
> No, it's not the real point. The BOM says that because Lehi knew the
> language of the Egyptians, he could read the plates.>
That's not all it says. It also says he was taught in Hebrew, which also
contributed to his ability to read the plates. That's a critical piece of
the puzzle Mr. A would have everyone ignore.
>Presumably he needed
> that knowledge to read the plates. Maybe the plates were written in
> intermediate Egyptian. It doesn't make any difference.>
Maybe not to you, but it makes a big difference to Mr. A, who posed the
pedantic question in the first place trying to paint Charles into a corner.
Seems the only one in the corner now is Mr. A.