Nahom

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:31 pm

Sargon wrote: However, I am not entirely sure that this is the best way to go about our deciding.

I don't think it was a bad approach wrt the first assumption....but I agree it will be seriously lacking wrt some of the others...but I don't know that a better approach exists....and that is a problem for anyone wanting to claim NHM/Nahom to be evidence of the miraculous. W/o a means of proper assessment, I don't see how one can legitimately conclude it is miraculous.

I don't know that we have come up with every option between the two of us,....

I doubt we have...but for the approach, not every option has to be considered....only the ones that should be given significant weight.

How do we know that NHM is the root of the word Nahom? I guess it's just obvious. Kind of like how car and carriage and carry all have the same root. In portuguese those words are carro, caruco, and carregar. All with the same root.

What about FVR and fever? Do favour, fever and fiver all have the same root? earlier you had said:

The fourth option is not altogether problematic, because many possibilities exist that allow for the original name to have been something close to Nahom, such as an Arabic word, and Lehi simply modified it for his tongue.

by this option you are acknowledging that NHM and Nahom need not have the same root....NHM would be from a non-hebrew root and Nahom from a hebrew root. As such it would be merely a coincidence that the non-hebrew NHM was close to the hebrew Nahom, and that the "hebrew Nahom" had a meaning appropriate to the event that occured at the place.

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 9:03 pm

Sargon wrote:Well Nahom certainly is not an english word. The Book of Mormon claims to be the account of a family who speaks hebrew, but wrote the book of mormon in hebrew.

How can they be writing in Hebrew, if they were allegedly using 'reformed Egyptian'?

So when Joseph is translating the egyptian characters on the plate, he is translating hebrew written in egyptian. So Nephi would have written the Hebrew word, in egyptian characters.

So now we have a triple layer of languages:

* Hebrew

* Egyptian

* English

This being the case, you are trying to argue that we can determine Hebrew roots based on our reading of the English transliteration of an Egyptian transliteration of a Hebrew word. This is absurd.

There is no way of knowing whether or not 'Nahom' is an accurate English transliteration of whatever the 'Egytptian' said, no way of knowing what the 'Egyptian' said in the first place, and thus absolutely no way of knowing what the original Hebrew word was, let alone the Hebrew root.

The best we would be able to do is perhaps identify which 'reformed Egyptian' word corresponds to the English 'Nahom', but we could only do that if we actually had an existing corpus and lexicon of 'reformed Egyptian', and the original plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Can you provide that?

For all we know, the 'reformed Egyptian' had 'NYN', or 'NWM', or something else. There's no knowing if it used a consonantal equivalent of the Hebrew 'NHM', and it most certainly did not use the Hebrew characters for 'NHM'.

How do we know that NHM is the root of the word Nahom? I guess it's just obvious. Kind of like how car and carriage and carry all have the same root.

They do not have the same root. Carry is not the root of 'car', and 'car' is not the root of 'carry'. What they share are the first three letters, and that's it. What is the 'root' you think they all share? From what root word are all three of these words derived, in you opinion?

Sargon · Post by **Sargon** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:06 am

Sargon wrote:
Well Nahom certainly is not an english word. The Book of Mormon claims to be the account of a family who speaks hebrew, but wrote the book of mormon in hebrew.

How can they be writing in Hebrew, if they were allegedly using 'reformed Egyptian'?

I apologize, I mistyped. The book was written in reformed egyptian characters, but from a hebrew speaking people.

This being the case, you are trying to argue that we can determine Hebrew roots based on our reading of the English transliteration of an Egyptian transliteration of a Hebrew word. This is absurd.

What you call absurd, I call the hand of God. Actually this isnt all that complex. Egyptian and Hebrew I believe were sister languages, both with Semitic roots, just like Arabic and Aramaic. All are semitic languages. To write in egyptian instead of hebrew characters was not that big of a deal, it was only to save space.

There is no way of knowing whether or not 'Nahom' is an accurate English transliteration of whatever the 'Egytptian' said, no way of knowing what the 'Egyptian' said in the first place, and thus absolutely no way of knowing what the original Hebrew word was, let alone the Hebrew root.

Well we claim that Nahom is an accurate english transliteration of a word in Hebrew or Arabic. Before we only believed that in faith, now we know that NHM is an actual place in Arabia, just like the BoM says. The fact that it was written in egyptian characters is not relevant. We claim that Joseph interpreted by divine inspiration, so his english words should reflect the hebrew words behind the egyptian characters, not the egyptian characters.

How do we know that NHM is the root of the word Nahom? I guess it's just obvious. Kind of like how car and carriage and carry all have the same root.

They do not have the same root. Carry is not the root of 'car', and 'car' is not the root of 'carry'. What they share are the first three letters, and that's it. What is the 'root' you think they all share? From what root word are all three of these words derived, in you opinion?

I confess to not knowing latin. But it does seem obvious to me that these three words all share the same root, whatever that may be(car). If I am incorrect that carry and car do not have the same root, I stand corrected. Remember that this argument is not about car, carriage, and carry, but about roots appearing in different words. If you have a better example please don't hesitate.

tteows wrote:

Quote:
The fourth option is not altogether problematic, because many possibilities exist that allow for the original name to have been something close to Nahom, such as an Arabic word, and Lehi simply modified it for his tongue.

by this option you are acknowledging that NHM and Nahom need not have the same root....NHM would be from a non-hebrew root and Nahom from a hebrew root. As such it would be merely a coincidence that the non-hebrew NHM was close to the hebrew Nahom, and that the "hebrew Nahom" had a meaning appropriate to the event that occured at the place.

Unfortunately I was not clear enough. NHM and Nahom do need to have the same root. The language of the natives at Nahom should have been something akin to Arabic. Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages, along with egyptian and Aramaic. So they would share many of the same roots. Now whether Nahom is the original Arabic name, or if Nahom is the Hebrew name that Lehi gave after hearing the Arabic word that sounded alot like it and had the same root, is another matter.

Sincerely,
Sargon

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:07 pm

Sargon,

I believe Egyptian and Hebrew are both w/i the Afro-Asian family of languages, but that Egyptian is not semitic.

Further, since this thread is about NHM/Nahom and my list of assumptions I thought I might as well post that list here too (and in the process add another assumption to the front end of the list and correct some errors in the initial list). Here is the updated list:

1) that the Lehi group went SSE from Jerusalem to hit the borders of the Red Sea on the east side of Sinai and not west so as to reach the Red Sea at the Gulf of Suez. (The more I hear about JS's assertions that reformed egyptian was the language of the plates, the more I suspect that JS meant the Gulf of Suez as the location)

2)that the place described in the BoM was named by locals and not the Lehi group. The inscription on the altars are not Hebrew....so if Nahom was a Hebrew name...then the LDS would have to concede that it was merely a coincidence. LDS apologists point out that the passage in the BoM is in the passive tense. It reads "the place which was called Nahom". Again, the BoM does not specify who called the place Nahom.....given the various interpretations that LDS apologists allow for the BoM in order to avoid anachronisms, it is somewhat odd that they should derive any conclusion from the usage of the passive tense.

3)assuming #1 and #2 are correct, that Nahom and NHM are connected in that both are derivatives/variants of the same name or that one is a variant of the other. Apparently you are aware of the linguistic debates that exist......and I am no more of a linguistic expert than are you.

4) assuming that the above are correct, that a Nihmite tribe would have a place named Nahom. Certain LDS declare that it only stands to reason that a Nihmite tribe would have a city that is called by a variant of the tribal name. I admit that I don't know to what extent such should stand to reason. How many of the 12 hebrew tribes had such a city? If 10%, 50%, or 90%, to what extent do ancient hebrew tendencies apply to the ancient arabs?

5) assuming the above are correct, that the place/city of Nahom was located near Marib (where the altars were found). The altars merely state that they are donated by a member of a certain tribe. Such does not require the tribe to be located in the immediate area. At most, the tribe in question would need to have some connection with Marib..... such a connection could exist between Marib and a tribe located anywhere along the frankincense trail. A place called Nehem was located in the approximate area in certain 18th/19th century maps. On one hand, the LDS apologists deny that JS ever saw such maps. On the other, if Nehem is to be of any use in locating ancient Nahom, it requires one to assume:
a) that Nahom and Nehem are variants of the same name; and
b) that Nehem is/was located at the same place as ancient Nahom.

6) assuming the above are correct, that the place called Nahom was located at the exact place where the incense trail turned east (traveling from the north). This is of lesser importance (b/c the BoM doesn't ever say how far SSE Nahom was), but the LDS apologists like to point to this in order to claim that (amazingly) JS has the Lehi group following the exact path of the old frankincense trail....which would be a striking coincidence. I don't know that such would be such a striking coincidence. If one is fabricating a story about a group that is told to leave Jerusalem (and eventually sail to a new land leaving from Arabia), and the author of the story has (even) a crude map of Arabia that shows the deserts of Arabia, how else than by traveling SSE and then East is the author going to get the group to a point of departure on the southeast coast of Arabia? Further, I understand that the incense trail often changed its route....in order to avoid taxation from various stops along the way.

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 5:24 pm

Sargon wrote:I apologize, I mistyped. The book was written in reformed egyptian characters, but from a hebrew speaking people.

Is there any evidence of 'reformed Egyptian characters' being used by any Hebrew speaking people from 600BC onwards?

This being the case, you are trying to argue that we can determine Hebrew roots based on our reading of the English transliteration of an Egyptian transliteration of a Hebrew word. This is absurd.
What you call absurd, I call the hand of God.

It is not 'the hand of God'. I am telling you that we cannot determine unknown Hebrew roots based on our reading of the English translation of an unknown Egyptian transliteration of an unknown Hebrew word. We're dealing with at least one language here which no one in the entire world knows how to read, and yet you're claiming you know which phonetic symbols it used to represent certain Hebrew characters.

How about I show you an English word translated from the Greek Septuagint, and you tell me which original Hebrew word it is translating? Can you do that for me?

Actually this isnt all that complex. Egyptian and Hebrew I believe were sister languages, both with Semitic roots, just like Arabic and Aramaic.

No Egyptian and Hebrew are not sister languages, and no they do not have 'Semitic roots'.

Well we claim that Nahom is an accurate english transliteration of a word in Hebrew or Arabic.

Please provide the evidence for this.

Before we only believed that in faith, now we know that NHM is an actual place in Arabia, just like the BoM says.

Let's be clear on this - the Book of Mormon does not say that 'NHM' is an actual place in Arabia. It claims that there was a place called 'Nahom' in Arabia.

The fact that it was written in egyptian characters is not relevant.

It is certainly relevant, because you are making claims for a text which you cannot read, and which no one can prove even exists.

We claim that Joseph interpreted by divine inspiration, so his english words should reflect the hebrew words behind the egyptian characters, not the egyptian characters.

This is bizarre. You've just told me that this is a transliteration, and now you're telling me it's an interpretation? If it's a transliteration, then it is an phonetic representation in English of the Egyptian characters, not Hebrew.

I confess to not knowing latin. But it does seem obvious to me that these three words all share the same root, whatever that may be(car). If I am incorrect that carry and car do not have the same root, I stand corrected.

I took two years of English, two years of Greek, and a year and a half of Latin at university, but you don't need all that to know that 'car', 'carriage' and 'carry' do not have the same 'root'. They share the first three letters, and that's it. There is no root word from which all three are derived. You can see for yourself that 'car' is the shortest of them, which would suggest it has to be the root if they are all derived from the same root, but the word 'car' actually postdates 'carry' and 'carriage', and is nothing more than a contraction of 'carriage'.

Remember that this argument is not about car, carriage, and carry, but about roots appearing in different words. If you have a better example please don't hesitate.

The problem is that you haven't even proved that the same root is appearing in different words. Take tteows' example of FVR - how do you respond to that?

Sargon · Post by **Sargon** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:00 pm

Again, I hope you will remember that I am not schooled in linguistics. If I err please remember that it is an error on my part, and should not be viewed as the best argument made by better trained LDS apologists.

I believe Egyptian and Hebrew are both w/i the Afro-Asian family of languages, but that Egyptian is not semitic.

I apologize, I was mistaken. I incorrectly thought egyptian was related to semitic languages.

Is there any evidence of 'reformed Egyptian characters' being used by any Hebrew speaking people from 600BC onwards?

There are numerous examples of Hebrew or related-to-Hebrew languages written in egyptian characters, "reformed egyptian".
London Magical Papyrus(14th century BC)
Harris Magical Papyrus(13th century BC)
Papyrus Anastasi I(13h century BC)
Ostracon 25759 recto(11th century BC)
There are many others along with these. These are only 4 of 8 mentioned in "Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon", a book by FARMS. Here is a more thourough treatment:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/resp ... yptian.htm

I am telling you that we cannot determine unknown Hebrew roots based on our reading of the English translation of an unknown Egyptian transliteration of an unknown Hebrew word

Actually, Nahom is not an english translation of any Hebrew word. It is merely the Hebrew written in english characters. It is supposed to be pronounced the same or close the same as the hebrew word would have been. Kind of like saying "and his name was Mohammed", when Mohammed was originally written in a different languages with totally different characters. But it is pronounced in much the same way.
As I said earlier, I am no linguistic. But I would imagine that by knowing how the word was pronounced, we can easily reconstruct how it was spelled in the original language.

How about I show you an English word translated from the Greek Septuagint, and you tell me which original Hebrew word it is translating? Can you do that for me?

Im sure that would be possible, if there were a word whose Hebrew pronunciation was preserved in the greek symbols, and whose pronunciation was then preserved in the english characters. I would attempt to offer an example, but I don't dare testing your supreme knowledge of greek. Maybe you could provide an example, perhaps a name of a person or a place?

Nephi wrote that Nahom was "the place which was called Nahom", offering no explanation of the meaning. He also said "the land which we called Bountiful" then explained why they gave that name. Obviously Bountiful is an english word. It is given an english translation for reasons that I do not know. I suppose it could be because it was a name given only by Lehi's family, unlike Nahom. Nahom obviously is not an english word, and its pronunciation would be spelled in a way that equals the NHM found in a region corresponding with the long supposed travel route of the family.

Let's be clear on this - the Book of Mormon does not say that 'NHM' is an actual place in Arabia. It claims that there was a place called 'Nahom' in Arabia.

The Book of Mormon says that a place existed along their path that was called Nahom. Modern scholarship has shown very very compelling evidence that Lehi's family followed an ancient trade route, that crossed much of the arabian peninsula, and that turns east near the region called NHM, just as described in the BoM.

The problem is that you haven't even proved that the same root is appearing in different words. Take tteows' example of FVR - how do you respond to that?

Let it be reminded why we want to show that different words can share the same root. You asked how we know that NHM is the root of Nahom. Some background on this issue: LDS apologists claim that a place called Nahom existed in southern arabia. Modern archaeology has uncovered alters with inscriptions citing a tribe whose name was spelled NHM. Since these ancient semitic languages did not have vowels, the words possibly might be pronounced a number of ways, all bearing the same root, NHM.
I believe that Latin originally had similar characteristics, that some letters held the same symbols. You would be better prepared to to explain that than I.

It is my understanding that NHM would most likely have been pronounced Naham, if the original language was a dialect of Old South Arabian.

I wish you a Merry Christmas. May the Lord bless you with a happy holiday season.

Sargon

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:44 am

Sargon wrote:
Is there any evidence of 'reformed Egyptian characters' being used by any Hebrew speaking people from 600BC onwards?
There are numerous examples of Hebrew or related-to-Hebrew languages written in egyptian characters, "reformed egyptian".
London Magical Papyrus(14th century BC)
Harris Magical Papyrus(13th century BC)
Papyrus Anastasi I(13h century BC)
Ostracon 25759 recto(11th century BC)
There are many others along with these. These are only 4 of 8 mentioned in "Echoes and Evidences of the Book of Mormon", a book by FARMS. Here is a more thourough treatment:
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/resp ... yptian.htm

That was not what I asked for, and the page to which you linked didn't give me what I asked for either. Writing one language in another language is called 'translation'.

The article to which you linked gave examples of how Egyptian has developed over the centuries, as other languages have changed. It gave no examples whatever of the 'reformed Egyptian' allegedly written on the plates (the existence of which the LDS cannot provide any evidence).

It also made a string of factual errors, which I shall describe later (describing the English alphabet as a kind of 'reformed Egyptian' was complete nonsense).

Sargon · Post by **Sargon** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 2:15 pm

You consistently amaze me with your condescending demeanor.

Maybe you didn't understand what reformed egyptian is. It is not a language called Reformed Egyptian. It is egyptian, that had been altered in some way so that it is no longer the same. The evolution of egyptian is exactly that, an altered or reformed version of an earlier form.

Merry Christmas.

Sargon

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 4:42 pm

Sargon wrote:You consistently amaze me with your condescending demeanor.

I'm sorry you considered my post to be condescending. I didn't mean it to come across like that.

Maybe you didn't understand what reformed egyptian is. It is not a language called Reformed Egyptian.

Actually according to the Book of Mormon, it was a language called by the Nephites 'reformed Egyptian. The article to which you linked helpfully quotes them saying that ('the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian'), and then says they didn't mean it, they meant something else.

It is egyptian, that had been altered in some way so that it is no longer the same. The evolution of egyptian is exactly that, an altered or reformed version of an earlier form.

That's great, so please show me examples of the 'reformed Egyptian' which is in the Book of Mormon, in writings other than the Book of Mormon. Epigraphical evidence, papyrological evidence, clay tablets, inscriptions on metal plates, whatever. I just want to see evidence that this was a real language used within the era that the Book of Mormon claims.

I can call Shakesperean English 'reformed English' if I want, but at least I can provide evidence that it exists.

Here's another problem with the article you quoted:

The fact that modern linguists and philologists don't know of a script known as reformed Egyptian is irrelevant, since Mormon tells us that the script was called reformed Egyptian "by us," that is, by the Nephites; they may have been the only people to use that descriptive phrase.

For example, both the terms cuneiform and hieroglyphics are non-Egyptian terms for the scripts of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt.[1] The Mesopotamians did not call their writing system cuneiform, nor did the Egyptians call their writing system hieroglyphics.[2]

Nevertheless, we would not insist that the Mesopotamians and Egyptians never existed because they did not call their writing systems by the same names used by modern historians, philologists, and archaeologists.

This is a very bad example. Sure, the Mesopotamians didn't call their writing system 'cuneiform', and the Egyptians didn't call their writing system 'hieroglphics', but the Nephites did call their writing system 'reformed Egyptian'.

So not only should we find examples of 'reformed Egyptian' being referred to in texts, we should actually find examples of 'reformed Egyptian' being used in texts.

The article also makes another error by implying that critics claim the Nephites didn't exist just because we cannot find references to 'reformed Egyptian' as the name of a language. That is not the argument which is made.

The argument which is made is that if the Nephites did indeed call their language 'reformed Egyptian', then we should find evidence that they did so, and we should also find evidence of their language actually existing in history. Until there is such evidence, it cannot be argued that the language really existed.

Here's another error:

Psalm 20 in demotic Egyptian. Scholars have also recently deciphered an Aramaic version of Psalm 20:2-6 that was written in demotic Egyptian characters.[12] This is precisely what the Book of Mormon claims existed: a version of the Hebrew scriptures in the Hebrew language, but written using Egyptian characters.

That is an example of the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Egyptian. It is not an example of 'a version of the Hebrew Scriptures in the Hebrew language, but written using Egyptian characters', unless it was a direct transliteration (impossible unless Egyptian characters had the same phonemes as Hebrew).

Here's part of Psalm 20:

Psalm 20:
1 May the Lord answer you when you are in trouble; may the God of Jacob make you secure!

Now would you honestly say that is 'a version of the Hebrew Scriptures in the Hebrew language, but written in English characters'? Is that 'reformed Hebrew'?

When you take a text written in one language, and you write it in another language, that is called translation. It is a contradiction in terms to speak of a text being 'written in the Hebrew language, but written in Egyptian characters', unless it's a clumsy way of saying the text has been transliterated (evidence for which would have to be supplied).

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:21 pm

hey Sargon, hope you had a good Christmas....your remarks below are typical of those to which I object (for reasons stated):

Sargon wrote: The Book of Mormon says that a place existed along their path that was called Nahom.

yes, but the BoM does not specify where that path ran...beyond saying that it neared the borders of the Red Sea...which means the path could have been pretty well anywhere in the Sinai or Arabia and perhaps even North east Africa

Modern scholarship has shown very very compelling evidence that Lehi's family followed an ancient trade route, that crossed much of the arabian peninsula, and that turns east near the region called NHM, just as described in the BoM.

Two things. First it is only modern Mormon scholarship that presents this evidence....no non-Mormon scholar thinks the Lehi group made any such journey. Second, I would suggest your use of "very, very compelling" is entirely out of place. The "evidence" requires all of those assumptions that I have listed....so your claim would be akin to the prosecution claiming that the jury should find John Doe guilty of murder b/c if you assume JD was at the scene, assume that he is the "John" named by the victim, assume he had a gun, assume his gun matched the murder weapon, assume he fired his gun at the deceased and assume that the bullet from the gun went through the deceased heart, then JD is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (with the sole piece of actual evidence being that the victim wrote a note, before he died, saying that "John shot me"). The said evidence is only compelling to those who already believe that Mr Doe is the killer and is not at all compelling for those that refuse to make the required and (as yet) unjustified assumptions.

Fortigurn · Post by **Fortigurn** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:10 pm

That is a very good summary, ttoews.

Sargon · Post by **Sargon** » Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:40 pm

Actually according to the Book of Mormon, it was a language called by the Nephites 'reformed Egyptian. The article to which you linked helpfully quotes them saying that ('the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian'), and then says they didn't mean it, they meant something else.

No, actually according to the Book of Mormon, it was not a language called "reformed Egyptian", it was a book written in "the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian". The characters were simply called reformed egyptian, it was not a spoken language. They did not speak egyptian, or any other form of it. It was merely a reformed or altered version of egyptian characters which they used to pen their words on the plates. There can be any number of versions of "reformed egyptian", becuase it depends on how you reform or alter it. The Nephites had their own unique style of egyptian characters, which they changed from the original, no matter how drastically, which they called "reformed egyptian".

That's great, so please show me examples of the 'reformed Egyptian' which is in the Book of Mormon, in writings other than the Book of Mormon. Epigraphical evidence, papyrological evidence, clay tablets, inscriptions on metal plates, whatever. I just want to see evidence that this was a real language used within the era that the Book of Mormon claims

We certainly have evidence of other versions of "reformed egyptian", where the egyptian characters were altered, but we may never know if it is the same reformed egyptian of the Nephites. It would a nice discovery though

.
What the website I provided shows is a list of examples of "reformed egyptian", although they are probably not the same reformed egyptian of the Nephites. What they prove is that civilizations prior to a during the Nephites did in fact alter egyptian characters when devising their own writing system.

Quote:
The fact that modern linguists and philologists don't know of a script known as reformed Egyptian is irrelevant, since Mormon tells us that the script was called reformed Egyptian "by us," that is, by the Nephites; they may have been the only people to use that descriptive phrase.

For example, both the terms cuneiform and hieroglyphics are non-Egyptian terms for the scripts of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt.[1] The Mesopotamians did not call their writing system cuneiform, nor did the Egyptians call their writing system hieroglyphics.[2]

Nevertheless, we would not insist that the Mesopotamians and Egyptians never existed because they did not call their writing systems by the same names used by modern historians, philologists, and archaeologists.

This is a very bad example. Sure, the Mesopotamians didn't call their writing system 'cuneiform', and the Egyptians didn't call their writing system 'hieroglphics', but the Nephites did call their writing system 'reformed Egyptian'.

Actually it is a good example in my opinion. Maybe you didnt understand his point. He is speaking to those who would like to oppose the Book of Mormon by insisting that no language exists today which is called "reformed egyptian". His point is that Mormon called his writing style "reformed egyptian", and so we may not be able to identify what language that was because it no longer carries that name.
If the ancient mesopotamians called their language "reformed vulcan", we would not know that, because today we call it cuneiform. Now, if Mormon had written, "the characters which were called among us "egyptian hieroglyphics", that might be a major problem. The name hieroglyphics was not applied to egyptian characters until much much later.

The argument which is made is that if the Nephites did indeed call their language 'reformed Egyptian', then we should find evidence that they did so, and we should also find evidence of their language actually existing in history. Until there is such evidence, it cannot be argued that the language really existed.

If the nephites did indeed call their language "reformed egyptian", there is a chance that we could find evidence for that, but not likely. We dont know very much about the languages spoken in ancient Central America. You are claiming that our argument for the "reformed egyptian" of the Book of Mormon is invalid because our only evidence for it is the Book of Mormon. I don't know that anyone would disagree with you.
The purpose is not to prove that the Nephites spoke reformed egyptian, or what type of reformed egyptian, but to prove that reformed egyptian in any existence is a real thing.
On the topic of reformed egyptian being used in Psalms 20, I googled it and found this:http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=128

One of these is Papyrus Amherst 63, a document written in Egyptian demotic and dating to the second century B.C.13 The document had, like the Dead Sea Scrolls, been preserved in an earthen jar and was discovered in Thebes, Egypt, during the second half of the nineteenth century. For years, Egyptologists struggled with the text but could make no sense of it. The letters were clear, but they did not form intelligible words. In 1944, Raymond Bowman of the University of Chicago realized that, while the script is Egyptian, the underlying language is Aramaic.14 Bowman managed to translate portions of the text, but it did not become the object of serious study until the 1980s.15 Among the writings included in the religious text is a paganized version of Psalms 20:2—6. Here, then, we have a Bible passage, in its Aramaic translation, written in late Egyptian characters.

Maybe this makes it more clear.

On to tteows remarks.

First it is only modern Mormon scholarship that presents this evidence....no non-Mormon scholar thinks the Lehi group made any such journey.

What Non-Mormon scholar is going to place his career on the line by even caring to prove that the BoM is true? Were a non-Mormon scholar to think that the Lehi group made any such journey, he wouldn't be a very good non-Mormon.
I find your analogy to the John Doe case humorous, and a bit exaggerated. We know that there is not indisputable proof that the Nahom in the Boof of Mormon is NHM is southern arabia. We understand that there is still much to learn on this topic before we can consider it as proof. But we find many uncanny parallels, which cannot be ignored. There will always be critics, a fact of life when religion is involved.
We do not present the NHM evidence as proof of the BoM, and we do not include it in our missionary lessons. It is wholly unimportant to our salvation. But it is a topic that is fun to debate, because the fact is there is evidence for it, if not proof.

Please have a happy New Year.

Sargon

ttoews · Post by **ttoews** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:05 pm

Sargon wrote:What Non-Mormon scholar is going to place his career on the line by even caring to prove that the BoM is true?

not prove, merely present evidence of existence of a place/path taken. We see scholars presenting evidence on the location of Troy and of Jericho and the scholars aren't all greek pagan, Christian or Jewish. The evidence is of a quality that will appeal to people across the boundaries of their religious affiliations.

I find your analogy to the John Doe case humorous, and a bit exaggerated.

I agree it is a bit exaggerated, but from this perspective, when you claim that evidence is "very, very compelling"....it seems to me that you are essentially saying that it is "beyond a reasonable doubt"....and such is out of place when assumptions are involved.

Please have a happy New Year.

ditto