Replies

And we have people who can translate them without seer stones and they are NOT in “reformed Egyptian”.

It seems that we havew a DOUBTER here!!

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.

***The authenticity of this method of storing records in no way validates the Records found in America,***
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! (Of course they don't dear, no amount of evidence will ever prove anything true if you don't want it to.

I see your sarcasm but at least THESE LEAD plates are in our hot little hands, not like some so-called golden plates.

Really? so you have them personally?

OK, so some guy told you they exist, and you believed him... Got it.

Hey is this guy a christian? Does he even acknowledge Christ as his savior? No? But you believe him, over people who acknowledge Jesus, and are in fact Christians.

And we have people who can translate them without seer stones and they are NOT in “reformed Egyptian”.

So you'll believe a scholar over a man of God? What if they say "the Book of Mormon is true" where does that leave you? What if these documents support the Book of Mormon? Will you throw them under the bus?

As to the translating bit, the Rosetta Stone was not found until 1799, translation started in 1815, so in 1827 when Joseph Smith obtained the plates the Rosetta stone was neither accepted science nor well known.

The fact that the objections to the history and culture, geography and general scholarship of the book of Mormon ignore facts, supporting evidence and archeology are predictable.

My Dad taught me that "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" So I know I'm not going to change your mind with facts.

Just in case anyone does care, A language referred to as reformed Egyptian used in America before Columbus, The Dead Sea Scrolls & Book of Mormon - Parallels The Lachish Letters: Archaeological Bullseye for the Book of Mormon

They actually match up more perfectly than anything in the Bible and outside archaeological discoveries. The Lachish Letters are nigh unto perfect for archaeological proof that Joseph Smith was *not* kidding when he said the BofM was real history.

Lastly, this is what it's like to have a conversation with an anti "Why can't Mormons send flowers?

Not gonna waste any more time on this "Argument" on what is supposed to be a political site, but now has had to be removed from my kids white list.

Delph