Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ taught, before His Atonement for our sins: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
After His Atonement for our sins, Jesus Christ taught the Nephites in the land Bountiful: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, One jot or one tittle hath not passed from the from the law, but in me it hath all been fulfilled.
Thus, both the people in Palestine and the people at Boutiful in Mesoamerica knew what jots and tittles were. Yes, they would have been an issue for Book of Mormon authors.
I think what happened is this. All Hebrew scriptures were first written with full vowel markings. As they were accepted by common consent into the expanding canon of scripture, those who recited them would often do so from memory. Because the proper vocalizations were known, copying the Holy Scriptures using consonants only was a short cut that caused no problems until reciters became scarce. Improper vocalizations of the consonants-only copies resulted in various vocalizations, resulting in disputes over which words were intended. Therefore, in the Middle Ages, if you are correct, vowel markings were restored to help stop the spread of improper vocalizations.
Secondly, the wide strokes are not part of ancient Hebrew, again another medieval construction.
But since the people in Palestine and the people at Boutiful in Mesoamerica knew what jots and tittles were, written Hebrew, for ease in reading, would have employed a mixture of wider and narrower strokes.
And what is the point in writing in a language no one could understand?
Moroni explained that:
"And now behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge in the characters, which are called among us reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been suffiently large, we should have written in the Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in out record. But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language, and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof."
John, please do some more detailed research before embarrassing yourself further. The "jot" (Hebrew word "Yodh") is the 10th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It is not a vowel mark John.
Same goes for tittle. Tittle is used by Greek grammarians of the accents and diacritical points. It means the little lines or projections by which the Hebrew letters differ from each other. One example would be the difference between the letter L and I. The difference is only one small mark.
Again, it is not a vowel mark. Therefore the rest of your argument is invalid.
But since the people in Palestine and the people at Boutiful in Mesoamerica knew what jots and tittles were, written Hebrew, for ease in reading, would have employed a mixture of wider and narrower strokes.
John, what peer reviewed papers/journals show the use of the jot and tittle as well as the rest of the hebrew alphabet - or even egypt hieroglyphics - in central america. To save you time you will not find such, because it doesn't exist. So there is absolutely NO way for you to know what mesoamericans 'knew' in that time frame John - because the languages at the time were not related to either hebrew or egyptian.
Godzilla is correct in his explanation of the meaning of 'jot or tittle' but I am going to take the lesson a bit further.
Quoting Matthew 5:18 one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
John, the phrase 'jot or tittle' came into English via William Tyndale's translation of the Bible in 1526. From there it became part of the KJV, which is evidence that the KJV translators used Tyndale's translation in their work. Tyndale, in his translation, did not opt for a literal translation but rather one that his readers (learned men) would understand. It is the 16th century equivalent of a modern English translation versus a literal translation.
The actual Greek translation of Matthew 5:18 is 'not one iota [greek letter] or a-horning' rather than 'jot or tittle'. IOW, Jesus never used the phrase 'jot or tittle', nor would have anyone of the time, for the words were not invented yet. http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testament/matthew/5.html
Furthermore, the use of the phrase in the BoM is proof that it is not what it purports to be, since the phrase in question did not exist at the time.
I also verified Matthew 5:18 in my JST published by Herald House and it also maintains the phrase 'jot or tittle' which is proof that Smith did not receive the translation via revelation or the phrase would have been changed to a 'correct translation'.
Thus, both the people in Palestine and the people at Boutiful in Mesoamerica knew what jots and tittles were.
Sorry, John but they wouldn't have since the terms were not invented yet.
I think what happened is this. All Hebrew scriptures were first written with full vowel markings.
Which is why a basic knowledge of orthography is important. Languages do not 'lose' things like vowel markings. Furthermore tens of thousands of archeological remains and texts prove you wrong. Your theory, while amusing,is completely bogus.
But since the people in Palestine and the people at Boutiful in Mesoamerica knew what jots and tittles were, written Hebrew, for ease in reading, would have employed a mixture of wider and narrower strokes.
John, there are NO EXAMPLES of wide strokes in Hebrew prior to the Middle ages. ALL texts from the time period in question, and later, use narrow marks. A quick glance at any of the DSS texts will prove that. You seem to be grasping at straws.
John, archeology, orthography, textual analysis and the texts themselves all prove that the whole idea of a need or existence of 'reformed Egyptian' in lieu of Hebrew is not only false but ludicrous.
At the time Smith wrote the BoM, Egyptian was just being able to be translated a half a world away, which he would have been unfamiliar with, hence the idea of 'reformed Egyptian'. His knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was non-existent and both prove the Book of Mormon completely false.
By sticking your face in a HAT and NEVER even LOOKING at the 'language'!?
What kind of a believer ARE you??