Will

And thanks for those two cents!

Ha! =) I now see my mistake. Hemidakota's first comment on page 5 is what lead me to believe this, but I now see what he was talking about. No offense, but I didn't think you really sounded like a professor. =)

Kosher: sorry to read so much into things. I was told that you were a professor and somewhat of an expert on the subject, which is why I was trying to discuss things in that much detail. I deeply thank you for your answer! PrisonChaplain: I agree that not having evidence is not solid proof of non-existence. I was merely curious what people believed and what their reasons were. Thanks for the different perspectives!

CVF: I think you already know I share the same feeling of mutual respect in this exchange of ideas and thoughts. =) As far as responsible beliefs go ... I feel it would be irresponsible for me to believe that the world is flat. Not that I can't prove that there isn't some sort of illusion going on that only appears to make the earth round, but I would be a fool to ignore such a well-established and well-supported conclusion. I actually agree with all of what you're saying. A religion, like a person, is far more complex than a simple "proof." I feel it should be able to stand up to our questions, but it should be much more than that too. After all, God gave us our minds for a reason! The statement I made was to this end ... that we should not believe in things that we can rule out by reason, not that reason can rule out all the things we believe. And let me reassure you I in no way want to come across like I'm implying that your beliefs are irrational. I'm not a student of language (my formal training is in architecture), but I would almost argue that reason is limited by language rather than aided by it. It's true that we need language to communicate our thoughts, but how often do we not understand what is going through the mind of someone else? Not that I'm going anywhere with this; it's just something you make me think about. =)

Wait a minute ... how condensed IS this language? There's a limit to how much you can do before you either lose information or need a ridiculously huge set of characters. How many plates were there?

Hemi ... sometimes people's claims don't make it past steps 2 and 3 =) CVF ... decency, respect, curiosity an honesty are certainly my aspirations! And if I'm going to call something one of my beliefs, then I believe I have an intellectual responsibility to make sure it's not a false belief. I'm not entirely sure where I stand right now ... somewhere between agnosticism and christianity. I'm not personally 100% convinced that God reveals truths beyond what we can know on our own, but I'm not trying to challenge your beliefs or suggest that you should think the same way as me. But what I think we both can agree on is that something is not worth considering if it can be proven false through reason. And I'm not saying that this is the case of anything that we're considering here, just as a general principle. Thanks for your thoughts, I really appreciate it!

Kosher: After looking into it further, I couldn't find a single credible reference to "Old Negev" as a language outside of the research of BYU (especially to Dr. Harris, the one whose theories were recognized as highly flawed by the BYU review I posted). Again, this alone isn't proof that it is false. But much more so than in philosophy or theology, it's very hard to claim that historical or scientific truth lies within a dissenting minority view. I took a closer look at the "Names of God" page you posted. I couldn't help but notice the supposed translations from "Old Negev" to Hebrew are not consistent. Similar symbols are translated differently, and differing symbols are translated identically. The author doesn't give any mention of translation methodologies or why (s)he thinks that it relates to Hebrew. All this being said, please, PLEASE know that I don't mean this as any sort of personal attack against you our your beliefs. I have no reason to think that you're not a great person and a agreat thinker. I'm just the kind of person who has to make sense of this for myself rather that relying on everything people tell me. Thanks again for all the info you've given me.

Hemi: the one that sent me to the alien abduction website? =) Well, I'm glad you told me! Moksha: I wish they'd do that to English. I might actually read that copy of Joyce's "Ulysses" that has been weighing down my bookshelf for years. =) Willow: so it's a shorthand used by a small group of people and therefore not in widespread use. That sounds fair enough. Thanks.

Well ... thanks for trying.

Oh. I was simply doubting your claim that it had been found in the Americas, and I was focusing on that. I don't have time to research it all right now, but from what you've said it sounds like Old Negev is a pretty widely-accepted thing. I'll check into it later. Thanks again.

I typicall use Windows Live Search ... do you feel that this is significant? I'm happy to consider ideas from any source, though I always look at the credibility. I wouldn't say that BYU is any less "scholarly" than anywhere else. They definitely have an agenda associated with their work, but then everybody does to some degree or another. But the main thing I look for when looking for credibility is peer review and acceptance. In matters I don't have an understanding of, I'm going to be much more likely to believe the consensus of the experts rather than a single person with dissenting views. The BYU article has some interesting Negev scripts about the Jewish people and their God, but it doesn't really relate to the New World. And after a fair bit of research, it seems the "universal ancient language" stuff can all be traced back to a single man: James R. Harris. Harris, a BYU archaeologist, connects glyphs from all over the world in an effort to show that the Jewish people not only visited North and Central America, but Australia as well. However, it would seem that Harris' conclusions have not been accepted as reasonable. In fact, a BYU review of his book gave his research as well as his conclusions extremely harsh criticism: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?filename=MTI3OTY4MTctNC0xLnBkZg==&type=cmV2aWV3

Kosher: thanks for the link, but you'll have to excuse my hesitation to believe information from a radio show about alien abductions, crop circles, and the like. I spent about 30 minutes trying to verify that information from any halfway-scholarly source, but I couldn't. HiJolly: same thing ... any resources that I could look at? Thanks in advance.

Thanks again for all the info, everyone. Kosher ... you have any references I could look at? I've never heard of anything like that.

Jenamarie: thanks for the link. I don't have time to read through all of it right now, but it looks interesting. From a first glance, though, it seems to be more about showing that the possibility exists rather than any evidence for the claim. Thanks again. Loudmouth: I agree with you and with Jenamarie that things can certainly be unfound and that it is indeed foolish to try to prove a negative argument (like there is no extraterrestrial life). That being said, however, a lack of archaeological data isn't meaningless, especially for a civilization so advanced and long-lived. Consider how much we know about the Incas even though they were around for less than 400 years and had no written language. Hemidakota: I'll have to look further into my mesoamerican history. Thanks for the lead.

Oops ... hit 'post' too soon. Does Professor Poulsen answer questions on here? I'd be curious to hear what he has to say.

It's one thing to erase cultural power, traditions, values, and even identity. But to erase all traces of a culture from the earth, especially a culture with over a millenia of history, would be quite a feat, don't you agree?

Migu: no worries =) Lostnfound: I'm working on it. Canuck: thanks for the links, I'll check them out. My co-worker mentioned that some of the translation notes had survived and that they were considered a hoax rather than an actual known language. I'll have to look into it thought. Hemidakota: thanks a ton for the thoughts. I'm curious though, if this was indeed a written language used for an entire millenium, there were undoubtably huge amounts of written material in existence at one time. I was told that not a single piece of archaeological evidence has been found. Is this true?

Thanks.

Thanks, but I wasn't asking whether or not I believe it. =) I mean absolutely zero disrespect to you or anyone else who believes that it is a real language that was used by humanity. I was told of the story just recently by someone who claimed the story was false and that there is zero evidence for the language's existence. Rather than just taking his word for it, I thought I would do some searching on my own. I thought it would be a good idea to go to the source for information rather than just believing what somebody else said.

Do people today believe this?