Replies

since the Hebrew does have the definite article in that phrase.

"The Hebrew", does have the definitive article in that phrase, you say?

What do you base that assertion upon? Are you fluent in Hebrew?

Or instead, if you are not highly fluent in ancient Hebrew, did you have to take some other route to reach that conclusion? I had to. Thanks for nothing much, other than a few clues which left me then having to go play yet MORE "go fetch" and figure. You could have supplied something more to the point, something we here on this forum (most of us native 'English' speakers) could see and understand, but you did not, leaving it still 'up in the air'.

The link supplied in comment #497 http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0103.htm alone, is insufficient to establish your claim to English speaking persons, fwiw.

For the moment, though it did take more than just a little bit of my time to do so, I'm not willing to provide painstaking detail for why I now (after troublesome investigation) do agree that the following (below italicized) portion of one of daniel1212's comments, is probably not true;

In the Hebrew there is no “the” in “enmity between you and the woman”

I will say, however, that the process of investigating the disagreement was wearing me out.

And so I ask again -- how did you (af_vet_1981) come to the conclusion? Could you SHOW how you came to it?

I must confess, I am not fluent in Hebrew, so; cannot discuss and explain Hebrew language structural usages off the top of my head, but I CAN and did investigate, and spent a lot of time reading up on it enough to bring me to at least *think* I could see what you were talking about.

Are you willing to make it plainer for us here, to show your work, or otherwise explain how it was you determined what logical basis there is for the statement.

OR

were you merely relying upon English language portion of the side-by-side with (allegedly) "Masoretic" text (with JPS 1917 English translation)?

I will say, however, that the process of investigating the disagreement was wearing me out.

See 501 above.

phrase. "The Hebrew", does have the definitive article in that phrase, you say?

Yes, "the woman" is correct according to the Hebrew. The definite article (ha) is right there attached to the noun for woman (isha).

Are you willing to make it plainer for us here, to show your work, or otherwise explain how it was you determined what logical basis there is for the statement.
OR
were you merely relying upon English language portion of the side-by-side with (allegedly) "Masoretic" text (with JPS 1917 English translation)?

It beats the HECK outta what Mormonism passes off onto IT's members!!

The "Caractors" are the only tangible evidence in existence related to Smith's story.

No gold plates, no brass plates, no peep stones, no Urim and Thummim...

only these "Caractors," not a single one of which is in the purported languages.

Smith's translation of the Caractors. According to Martin Harris (Joseph Smith - History, 1:64), "I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated,* and he said they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters."

Speak right up now in all truthfulness. Isn't it revealing how Smith started out making a stab at creating believable "caractors" but quckly gave up and produced nothing but squiggles, ending up wih a series of nothing more than crude little scribbles? Yet Professor Anthon supposedly translated them!

*Harris must have had two or three pieces of paper with him—one with characters and a translation of them (on the same paper or a separate one) and one with untranslated characters—quite likely the "Caractors." Some Mormon "scholars" have gone out on a limb, sawed it off, and knocked themselves out trying to translate from these true Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic characters a segment that would correspond with a verse from 1 Nephi.

Modern-day experts in Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic. In 1829, any knowledge of these languages possessed by U.S. scholars would have been rudimentary at best. Expertise in them has vastly improved since then. So go ahead, do it. Get any modern expert in these languages to identify which of these "Caractors" are Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac and Arabic. Better still, accept the claim of Mormon apologists that Anthon did indeed so testify and that his appraisal of the Caractors was correct. (Op. cit, pp. 73-75)

Save your money! Samples of Assyriac/Aramaic and Arabic writing:

What say you? Which of Smith's "Caractors" resemble the Assyriac and Arabic ones? No need to pay experts for their analysis. A child could accurately check this out. These writing systems have remained constant for well over 3000 years.