Is "Reformed Egyptian" a real language?

[christmasvalleyfarms]

.".. I believe I have an intellectual responsibility to make sure it's not a false belief. "

Are you 100% sure you CAN be sure? Just a thought!

"...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. "

And that's the respect and decency I appreciated about you! Thanks!

"But what I think we both can agree on is that something is not worth considering if it can be proven false through reason. "

Before I begin let me apologize in advance and say the following is offered in a spirit of exchange of ideas and not at all meant to be defensive or offensive! (I love communication, but there are such limitations to the cyber kind!)

I remember how much I enjoyed my college Humanities class. Just the intellectual exercise - it plain felt good, much the way physical exercise feels good when you get in the groove! I think what I had to come to terms with for myself, at some point, is how addicting that "intellectual adrenaline" can be. It is all too tempting, and all to easy, to work ourselves into a rabid philosophical frenzy that feeds our egos but obscures rather than reveals truth.

For me, Will, I came to see us, as humans, as multi-dimensional. We are not just physical, or just emotional, or just intellectual, or just spiritual beings - we are all of those. And like truth, it does us as beings a disservice to get too caught up in trying to pick us apart in the heights of some reductionist philosophical exhiliration to just the sum of our parts. Or to try to define or explain anything using just one/some of our parts.

Reason is a wonderful thing. But reason necessarily depends upon the only tool we have for manipulating it, which is language. I love language! I have a degree in English and love it when language is used beautifully, and appreciate how it can take us to heaven or hell, move mountains and be wielded with more power and influence than the sword. But I also realize, as I'm sure you do too, that it has its limitations. And it is very subject to misuse, misunderstanding, propagandistic manipulation, and sophistic "sleight of hand". SO. I guess I am trying to say, the long way (!), that I perhaps don't agree with that last statement! As I quote in my testimony on this site, Pascal put it very well: "the heart has its reasons which reason cannot understand" (blame for bad translation solely mine). I think (and I believe if you just watch the news you can see examples of this every day) that people can use their own spin on reason to "prove" any idea false that they disagree with.

SO...I'm just offering the thought that there may be other ways to "prove" a system of belief for yourself than through reason alone, and inviting you to consider that possibility! :) Sorry if that sounds naive and foolish. It's just a fundamental part of my paradigm! Cheers, my friend!

[KosherXMorg]

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.

Apparently I haven't made my point clear enough... I just think the languages are related, I don't care how they are translated, or what some professor has said. Looking at the two texts I think they are related. Nothing more, nothing less.

[prisonchaplain]

What would be the significance of "Reformed Egyptian" never being proven, and of most linguistic anthropologists dismissing it? IMHO, a few LDS, who already have many doubts, may leave the fold. Others will insist it was a language exactly and literally as described in the BoM. Yet others will suggest allegorical understandings, and suggest that Joseph Smith's reference to it was never meant to be taken literally. Perhaps like Young Earth Creationism, vs. Theistic Evolution?

[Will]

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. =)

[Will]

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!

[KosherXMorg]

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 there reasons were. Thanks for the different perspectives!

A Professor?!? :lol::lol:

Who is putting me on such a pedestal?

[KosherXMorg]

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 there reasons were. Thanks for the different perspectives!

I'm a professor of Opinionated Loudmouthedness, that's about it.

[Will]

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. =)

[skalenfehl]

I believe it is or was a written language. I'm sure there are languages that have died that we probably have never heard of or never will, but the people that spoke it knew about it. I once watched a show on the Discovery Channel or a similar channel about the discovery of a very obscure tribe of people deep in some rain forest. Their language was unfamiliar to anybody outside their little village, but there they were.

To Lehi, Nephi and other people of the Book of Mormon it was called Reformed Egyptian by them and used by them. It worked for them. Whatever language we choose to call it or even dismiss it does not invalidate it. It existed for them. Just my two cents.

[Will]

And thanks for those two cents!

[Moksha]

There's a limit to how much you can do before you either lose information or need a ridiculously huge set of characters.

Perhaps we could think of it as the JPEG format of languages. :)

[prisonchaplain]

PrisonChaplain: I agree that not having evidence is not solid proof of non-existence. I was merely curious what people believed and what there reasons were. Thanks for the different perspectives!

Since I'm not LDS, I have nothing invested in the existence of "Reformed Egyptian." I do not know much about linguistic archeology, but understand that most scholars find no evidence it existed. So, for me, it's a non-issue, a non-controversy. It does not matter.

Most committed LDS, I would imagine, believe it existed, and that Joseph Smith translated it. They would find hints of its existance, and would require solid proof it did not exist, before being troubled by the issue.

As I said before, there are others who might be members, but who would take a more "liberal" understanding of the issue.

[Islander]

Archaeologists and linguists rely, primarily, on a theoretical premise or, for lack of a better word, prevailing theories or schools of thought. Because analysis is always an approximation based on "all available acepted evidence" (read consensus) we have to fill the gaps with conjecture. That is why there are diverse theories and opinions on just about every discovery on the 20th century when it comes to the ancient world.

2500 years ago Egyptians were very different (many) people than those that carry the same name today. It was not a neatly packed group of people we assume today. Case in point: Mexico occupies roughly three times the surface of Texas, it has 60 different ethnic groups and almost 300 distinct indigenous dialects. We have no clue as to how they evolved to be so distinct from each other or how they survived in such a small geographical region.

As God revealed to the mind of this young prophet the text of the Book of Mormon, he described in his 19th century unschooled English what he understood to be "reformed Egyptian." I guess the Lord could have said "Near Eastern Semitic and Afro-Asiatic script" or whatever else. Translations are never literal in order to be meaningful. Anyone who speaks more than one language can attest to that. I can handle myself rather well in four of them and certainly testify to that fact.

There is absolutely nobody on the earth today that can dispute with absolute certainty that it is not as the prophet translated it. Many can and do express an opinion on the subject and they are entitled to it. But that is ALL it is, an opinion. The Maya and the Inca lived just 500 years ago and we barely scratched the surface or about 10% of the existing glyphs.

Just a thought.

[Hemidakota]

I believe it is or was a written language. I'm sure there are languages that have died that we probably have never heard of or never will, but the people that spoke it knew about it. I once watched a show on the Discovery Channel or a similar channel about the discovery of a very obscure tribe of people deep in some rain forest. Their language was unfamiliar to anybody outside their little village, but there they were.

To Lehi, Nephi and other people of the Book of Mormon it was called Reformed Egyptian by them and used by them. It worked for them. Whatever language we choose to call it or even dismiss it does not invalidate it. It existed for them. Just my two cents.

If they cannot except such a language as this, how hard will it be when the sealed portion of the plates are opened and translated?

[Hemidakota]

Archaeologists and linguists rely, primarily, on a theoretical premise or, for lack of a better word, prevailing theories or schools of thought. Because analysis is always an approximation based on "all available acepted evidence" (read consensus) we have to fill the gaps with conjecture. That is why there are diverse theories and opinions on just about every discovery on the 20th century when it comes to the ancient world.

More like a perpetual dogma of thinkers. While I was watching the latest History Channel’s Comet striking the so-called earth millions years ago - one starts the theory, others come to add to his assert.

[Vanhin]

Reformed Egyptian is a writing system or script unknown to any other people except the ancient American prophets who were taught the script for the purpose of keeping their sacred record. Even Joseph Smith could not decipher the script without the gift and power of God, by which he translated the Book of Mormon into English using the Latin alphabet.

The original language of the authors of the main record was a form of Hebrew, and they also were literate in a modified Hebrew writing system in addition to Reformed Egyptian. However, those who were charged with keeping the sacred record of their people wrote it in Reformed Egyptian because it took less space. Here's from the record itself:

And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech.

And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in 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 our 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. (Mormon 9:32-34)

But their language and writing systems are real. :)

Sincerely,

Vanhin

[Elphaba]

The Maya and the Inca lived just 500 years ago and we barely scratched the surface or about 10% of the existing glyphs.

About 3/4 of the glyphs have been translated, and I have read the glyphs are being successfully translated exponentially.

Elphaba

[poulsenll]

About 3/4 of the glyphs have been translated, and I have read the glyphs are being successfully translated exponentially.

Elphaba

When less than ten percent of the Mayan sites have been excavated, it seems unlikely that 75 percent of the glyphs have been translated. I will agree that most of the syllabic glyphs have been documnted but just like the 26 letters of the alphabet can be used in millions of words, the maya glyphs can be combined not only as sylables but as rebuses and that still leaves the logographs that are not made up from sylabic glyphs. I attended the Maya glyph workshop at Austin last year and the impression I got was that the work of translation is just beginning on the glyphs that are presently know. Let alone those that have not yet been uncovered.

Larry P

[Moksha]

Would the seer stone work on the remaining Mayan glyphs?

[HiJolly]

Would the seer stone work on the remaining Mayan glyphs?

I'd say that depends on who is using the stone!

HiJolly

[sb42393]

I don't think it has ever existed. There isn't any archaeological proof whatsoever saying it has existed.... Just my opinion.....

[Islander]

I don't think it has ever existed. There isn't any archaeological proof whatsoever saying it has existed.... Just my opinion.....

Psalm 20 in demotic Egyptian. Scholars have also recently deciphered an Aramaic version of Psalm 20:2–6 that was written in demotic Egyptian characters. This is precisely what the Book of Mormon claims existed: a version of the Hebrew scriptures in the Hebrew language, but written using Egyptian characters.

We are not talking about a language here but a script or way to write the same way we do with arabic or Chinese; scribing phonetic pronunciation rather than the original script. In Mexico today there are 280 active languages. None of them has a written alphabet. If we are to save the oral traditions of those people (in their own language) we are going to have to use the Roman alphabet as a script. Further more, depending on who is doing the phonetic translation (English, French, Portuguese or Spanish speaker) you will have a script that has phonetic modifications that will ONLY be understandable to those that speak the language of the translator although they ALL use the same basic alphabet.

In the US today, Muslim converts learn to recite the Qur'an by reading a modified English script. It is neither Arabic nor English. What the prophet Joseph translated as "reform Egyptian" was a modified script. In his a 1820's English he coined the phrase "reformed Egyptian" because that was the reach of his linguistic abilities. He did not have words like: Egyptian hieratic and demotic, Cretan hieroglyphics or Meroitic scripts. As simple as that.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Islander

[Islander]

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.

Correction; it is NOT a language. It is a script or writing system. We must be clear on that. I made a reply about it elsewhere.:)

[Flyonthewall]

I voted that Reformed Egyptian is not a language, but a system of writing. I'll add my 2 cents in here.

I served in Japan on my mission, and there are 3 different writing styles that are used.

Firstly there is the kanji characters. These characters convey an idea, or thought, not a specific word. Their meaning changes with how it is used and conjugated.

Secondly, there is "hiragana", which are more like an alphabet to convey a sound. These are used to spell out phonetically, the kanji characters, and to conjugate them.

Thirdly, there is "katakana", which is like hiragana, in that it conveys sounds, but are used to spell out foreign words.

Now if we, non-Japanese speakers, were to use the Japanese katakana to spell our words out, well, we would have to modify it to get all the sounds we use. In Japanese, there is no "L" sound or "V" sound, and "R" sounds like a spanish "R" rolled once.

So as I see it, it is a writing system "reformed" to fit a language that it wasn't made for.

[skalenfehl]

Here's some interesting commentary:

Where you read 1 Ne 1:1-4, "Yea, I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians."

There are four little colored circle links after the word "Egyptians." Click the second (red) one to open the flash player commentary.

Colonization of the Promised Land