The Book of Mormon

[dan]

Egyptian glyphs have how many characters?
Hebrew has 22 characters and is a concise language.
Choosing to write the plates in any kind of Egyptian would take up more space.
Egyptian characters are not good for conserving space .

In a rectangle originally seven by eight inches in size (now less than six by seven inches as printed), Miller has written legible Hebrew script containing a translation of fourteen pages of the Book of Mormon. Sjodahl estimates that at this density of text, the entire Book of Mormon could be put onto 21 plates having dimensions of seven by eight inches, as Martin Harris estimated the size to be. If there were 50 plates per inch in a 4-inch thick volume, then the one-third of the plates that were unsealed would be about 67.

Jeff Lindsey

It has been empirically proven that writing in Hebrew would require less space than writing in Egyptian Glyphs.


Yeah, that was tough, I`m sweatin` over here.

Took me all of ten minutes and access to a LDS apologetics site to do it.

Whew!!

All you showed was that Hebrew is remarkably translatable from the Book of Mormon. If I haven't already provided this site (I think I have):

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#egyptian

 

[linwood]

All you showed was that Hebrew is remarkably translatable from the Book of Mormon. If I haven't already provided this site (I think I have):

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml#egyptian

I have shown no such thing.
Lindeys citation states that the BoM was translated into Hebrew not from Hebrew not that it matters as anything can be translated into Hebrew.

The point was that when the BoM is written in Hebrew on the same size plates as Smith alleges Mormons book was it can be written in the span of 21 plates.

The BoM was estimated to need about 67 to be written in reformed Egyptian by Lindsey himself.
3 times as many as Hebrew writing would require.

Therefore the apologetic that Reformed Egyptian was used instead of Hebrew in order to conserve space is false.

 

[linwood]

Again, when I have gathered the resources. Perhaps a Hugh Nibley quote will stave off your cynicism about the bow:

I will concede Nibley has an excellent point about the bow.

Now will you please support your statement that flexible steel was available in 600BC?

You can simply retract it if you like and I`ll not say a word concerning the retraction.

"Much to the surprise of archaeologists, one of the earliest civilizations in the Americas already knew how to hammer metals by 1000 B.C.,

I’ve never denied that metals were used or hammered but steel couldn’t simply be hammered in this fashion.

Steel is an alloy and must be smelted and forged.
This technology did not exist in 600BC.
You will not find steel in the reference you quote in any other form than carburized and probably not that form.
Carburized steel is not pliable and really no different than forged iron.

This find provides evidence for the use of steel around 1000 B.C. in Israel.

I can find evidence for steel even earlier in the far west but it is not anything more than carburized steel.

As I’ve already stated carburized steel is not flexible and for all intents and purpose has the same properties as iron.
It is in fact “harder” than iron making it even less flexible.

It was the first step in the evolution of forging fine, flexible, steel .

I can't find the Guatemala one, but here's an El Salvador one:

What you’ve quoted are unsupported statements of LDS members that such an item exists.
It does not say if the item is still around or if it was ever studied.
It doesn’t even say where the photos of it might be found.
It doesn’t state who recovered it
There’s no telling how it got there if it ever really was there at all.
Nobody seems to know where it might be now.


So I’ve got two LDS members telling me they saw an ancient Egyptian artifact in El Salvador that mysteriously dissappeared.

Where is it now?

I find it highly unlikely that an authentic Egyptian relic from 600BC dug in El Salvador would garner no interest from the Archeological community at large but that seems to be what has happened here.

The book View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith (1823, and no relation to Joseph Smith) cites 34 words or sentence fragments that correspond with the Hebrew, including Hallelujah and Jehovah.

I do not have access to this book at the moment and can find nothing truly unbiased about it online.

However, I truly thank you for bringing it to my attention as I had not heard of it before.

It was written by a Dartmouth professor in the 1820`s who laid out the possibilities of Hebrews being the ancestors of the native Americans.

This is some years before J.Smith wrote the BoM.

J.Smiths brother went to Dartmouth at this same time.

This is indeed coincidence.

Thank you much.

I found this info in a review by a lifelong Mormon at Amazon about the book.

This book would be entirely forgotten if it wasn't for one possible modern connection. Although impossible to prove, it is quite likely that the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith read this book or at the least heard its ideas in sermons given by those who read it. As a life-long multigenerational practicing Mormon, I found this book extremely disturbing; a familiar voice from the dust. For a deeper understanding of this problem, one must turn to another book written by an early 20th century Mormon theologian and leader B.H. Roberts, that was never published. I refer to "Studies of the Book of Mormon" edited by Brigham Madsen. Roberts suggests 18 parallels between the Book of Mormon and the View of the Hebrews. He did not complete his work and I think that at least another 20 to 40 parallels could be found.(I don't buy all of Roberts parallels). Much odd Mormon religious vocabulary is in this book and it frankly sounds like numerous sermons I have heard, especially from the High Council. The name Latter-Day Saints is suggested in the View of the Hebrews along with dozens of such haunting terms as washing and annointings, or avenging of blood.

Amazon reviews

Considering the book seems extremely rare and costs $150.00 at Amazon I`ll see if it is in my library next Wednesday.
If not i`ll see if it can be borrowed.

I only wish I`d seen this post earlier as we go to the library every Wednesday and I might very well have been able to have it now.

Thank you again.

 

[dan]

For an excellent argument about whether or not Joseph Smith was influenced by the other Smith's book (as well as many others) go to this site:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb3.shtml#introhttp://www.jefflindsay.com/bme23.shtml

 

[linwood]

For an excellent argument about whether or not Joseph Smith was influenced by the other Smith's book (as well as many others) go to this site:

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_BMProb3.shtml#intro

I`ll have a look tomorrow if I can.

It`s late and I`ve been reading an online version of Ethan Smiths book I found.

http://www.irr.org/MIT/Books/View-Hebrews/viewhe1a.html

I`ll say one thing right now, Joseph Smiths writing is a hell of alot easier on the mind.
Ethan Smith should have been beaten for textural incoherence.

Thanks Dan.


Edit:

Save that link Dan as it has the references you cited in the very first part within the critiques.