[DelphiUser]

U Quoted out of Context: So if the plates existed, they used the more physically compact writing.

U Said: There are no plates, so you are trying to present something that isn't verifiable as fact - assuming that the bom is real. Circular logic at its best.

It's interesting that I can say If you are asserting "X" then ... you will Quote "X" as my position. This explains a lot about your understanding of the scriptures In My post # 1920, I said

The book of Mormon states that they used Egyptian because it was smaller than Hebrew and the plates were hard to write upon (being metal), so either their were characters, and Joseph translated them, so they are the smaller characters, or there were no plates and Joseph made the whole thing up (which is what you keep saying), which is it?

So if the plates existed, they used the more physically compact writing.

It's called Logic, you might want to learn how to use it some time...

If you actually read my post, I am pointing out that the position that "the plates don't exist" and the "they were written with verbose script" are inconsistent arguments for the same person to be making. Instead you try to claim it is my assertion, not the one I am responding to.

This is pathetic, really, it's beneath you, or I thought it was.

[Godzilla]

Your argument was founded on the existance of the plates as the origin of the bom. Without those plates, all else is idle speculation and not evidence. Or perhaps we do have some "evidence". Smith reportedly made a copy of the 'text' found on the plates, and had it reviewed by a local expert - Professor Charles Anthon. The RLDS holds the copy which was handed down to them from David Whitmer. Anthon refuted the notion that the characters were Egyptian in origin.

[Elsie]

It's called Logic, you might want to learn how to use it some time...

It called GUESSING, and you would be wise to admit it.