Your scholar misses one of about sixty things that align perfectly, and I stand refuted, LOL maybe in whatever reality you inhabit with this post.
Since nibs relied upon Torczyner's imagination filling in the blanks as facts - still poor scholarship - especially since shirts couldn't seem to do independent study of his own. Here's one -
The whole mulek story allegedly supported by the lackish letters fails miserably with the new translation. Referring to the mulek 'parallel' nibs states "According to the Book of Mormon, eleven years after Lehi left Jerusalem, i.e., 589 [b.c.], a company escaped from the land of Jerusalem bearing with them the youngest son of Zedekiah, the only member of the family not put to death when Jerusalem was taken. From the descendants of these people, arrived in the New World, the Nephites learned that Jerusalem actually did fall as prophesied: "… will you dispute that Jerusalem was destroyed? Will ye say that the sons of Zedekiah were not slain, all except it were Mulek? Yea, and do ye not behold that the seed of Zedekiah are with us, and they were driven out by the land of Jerusalem?" (Helaman 8:21).
In any case, Nibley relates his discussion to the Lachish Letters through the term (nkd) that Torczyner found in III:19-20, "And a letter, which Nedabyahu the nkd of the king had brought to Shallum the son of Yaddua‘ the prophet." Nibley goes into a lengthy discussion of Torczyner’s attempt to translate the phrase, "the grandson of the king." It is now universally accepted that line 19, which Torczyner read as (ndbyhw nkd hmlk; "Nedabyahu the ‘nepos’ of the king") is to be read instead as (Fbyhw ‘bd hmlk; "Tobiah, the servant of the king"). For this see Gibson, pp. 38-39; De Vito, ABD 4:127; Tamara Eskenazi, "Tobiah," in ABD 6:584; and The New Koehler-Baumgartner in English, vol. 2, p. 372. The latter source indicates that the Hebrew for Tobiah is found in the Lachish Letters, and Letter 3:19 is the only possible source for it. Since the reading that Nibley refers to is no longer considered to exist, his long discussion is irrelevant.
Just one of the many refutations noted. Additionally, most of the other so-called parallels (Nibs lists 16, not 60 Du) are already present in the bible - so any bom parallel would easily have been lifted from it, not the lackish letters.
And if you are aware that you are supporting any "scholar" that supports your opinion and tearing down everyone who's research opposes you, then you are a fraud and a lie. (see how easy it is to just plug your name in to your logic and it sounds really bad for you too.
Nice try Du, personal attacks aside, citing a translation that has been proven many times over to be erroneous - and presenting it as the correct translation (as shirts has) is fraudulent and a lie. (I'll cut nibs slack, iirc he died before most of this new research was made available). These are technically proven issues - not personal opinions that you like to make the comparison to.
So I have to accept your "scholars" or I am a liar, fine, only if you have to accept mine, no? Such an attitude is hypocritical.
When my scholars (current scholarship) show that Torczyner's translations and interpretations are not correct, that is not hypocritical - that is recognizing the current state of the scholarship. The translation no longer supports shirts / Nibley - so say it does is not honest (if you want to link that to a lie - be my guest), but it is not hypocritical to show the errors.
Them, take our continuing disagreement over the man made dogma of the Trinity,. . .
LOL, you may disagree - but that doesn't make you correct.
you have never admitted that you have been refuted by the facts in the Catholic encyclopedia. If that does not merit acknowledgment... why should anything you think you have proved.
Ah yes a communique from the land of hypothetical. Imagine, catholic teaching on the Trinity really isn't teaching about the trinity. DU that is so stupid it is unbelievable - almost as unbelievable as when you stated the writers of the CE were forced to write what they didn't believer. Epic fail on your part DU.
orry I did not see this in time to respond, I'm doing this in my spare time, remember? You seem to always be here, I don't know how you do it without being paid to be an anti Mormon.
Yep, watch out for that big boogie man du - the paid antimormon. LOL.
Maybe that payment is direct deposi...
I will look in my magic hat...