Reformed Egyptian

[Thetruechurch]

My first post here,

I am a 16 year old, relatively new Latter Day saint living in Sunderland, England. I was only baptized on the 26th June, though despite this I have had an association with the church for years due to close relatives being active members, myself finally making the right decision to follow them.

For the past few months now I have been studying the authenicity of the book of Mormon, to rubbish the claims of it's critics and indeed help provide fundamental evidence to prove that the golden plates were real and hence everything else associated follows.

In particular today I have been doing research on the language that was descripted as "Reformed Egyptian". Many critics have used this as a weapon against the church, however it appears following my recent work and putting pieces of the jigsaw of information surrounding it together. I have managed to prove it is infact a vital piece of evidence onto how the book of Mormon is true. As far as I know no LDS scholar has put this together so far.

This quoted below is what I sent partially via email to my friend in california, who I met whilst he was on his mission a few months back.

The most important part of I've looked over is infact the language of the Golden plates, which Joseph Smith described as "reformed Egyptian". What helped me greatly on my investigations into the authenicity of this language, which could hence prove the golden plates true, was this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Caractors_large.jpg

The above was wrote down by Joseph Smith, and it contained a small transcript of the characters what he saw on the golden plates. Now whilst he never translated what that said, I was reading an essay from a BYU professor that "Reformed Egyptian" was indeed an adjective of the language stated, and not the language in itself. Meaning what the actual language is, can still be debated on.

Now despite reading from another source that this language had no direct resemblence to Hieroglyphics, I didalso read the characters on Joseph Smith's transcript seem to bare a resemblence to some of the later "deformed" languages used by the ancient egyptians as their civilization gained influences from greek and semetic languages. These Egyptian languages were known as "Demotic", "Hieratic" and "Coptic".

The exact transcript language, does not side directly with any of them but incorporates but rather in many ways seems to take some elements from all three. It also contains a couple of ancient hebrew characters funningly enough. Meaning that I come to conclude the language appears to contain a mix between all four, and I can say funningly enough it indeed is a "reformed Egyptian" language exactly as Joseph Smith described. Meaning it almost certainly could be the language that used by the Nephites in their recordings. As languages evolve and variate naturally through different civilizations and groups of people due to different influences and inclusions of dialect, hence this "Nephite Language" which was described as reformed egyptian, has indeed evolved from these late forms of Egyptian I've mentioned combined with an ancient hebrew influence, which occured down to them being jewish basically. Meaning the nephite language was like a hebrew dialect of a form of late egyptian.

This is supported by the fact that Joseph Smith did not have any access at all to any resources on ancient languages such as those. So where possibly could those characters have came from? He wouldn't have known what Coptic, Demotic, Hieratic and ancient hebrew was. So the chances of him pulling accurate characters out of the air, with no backup information in exsistence in the 19th century US countryside, are pretty slim.

Also when I mean "exact" characters I mean "exact", I typed in "ancient semetic languages" on google image search and this chart of ancient semetic languages came up. http://sembase.org/semfont.jpg unusually it contains some of the characters on Joseph Smith's transcript...

Also I read that not even the scholars of the time knew about these variations of Egyptian. Martin Harris did show that piece of paper to a scholar in 1828. The scholar had absolutely no idea whatsoever, and just presumed it was made up because it did not contain any Hieroglyphics. Which was indeed the only documented Egyptian language of the time as Hieratic, Coptic and Demotic were not widely documented until advanced expeditions and research into Egypt undergone in 20th century, and these languages were non-Hieroglyphic.

So I'd say from piecing all my information together, the Nephites language was possibly true, and the golden plates were indeed very real.

My sources of information:

Coptic language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semitic languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demotic_(Egyptian)

Reformed Egyptian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - despite wikipedia being virtually overran by latter day saint critics, this article provided a lot for the work I undertook even if the intended information in there was designed to criticise, it's more supported my claims.

Reformed Egyptian the BYU workers essay on reformed Egyptian

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Caractors_large.jpg as I've already mentioned, the transcript which smith copied off the plates.

http://sembase.org/semfont.jpg as mentioned the chart that contains some of the characters on the transcript above.

Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility though I never stated this in part of my work above, it is worth reading.

Anyway, thought I'd share this good news. I have other vital evidences here that I will post soon enough. Hope this helps. :)

Edited October 6, 2009 by Thetruechurch

[Vort]

It is an interesting topic. However, I would strongly caution against attempting to make any "proofs" of the Book of Mormon. Such an attempt will surely fail; the Lord expects us to exercise faith in him and receive our testimony from his own mouth, rather than dig up a sign that says "Welcome to Zarahemla".

Having noted that caution, I think the subject is fascinating. To the surprise of just about everyone, written Egyptian was found to be a phonetic language. Specifically, the hieroglyphs had a phonetic value, and were used in conjunction with other hieroglyphs that functioned as "logographs" that represented words or ideas (technically, they represent morphemes, or meaningful basal linguistic units). They also used hieroglyphs and marks as determinatives to specify how a word was being used (so, for example, if you wrote the glyphs for "bell" and you also had a god named "Bel", you might want to put a symbol or mark afterward that specified "this is not a deity"). If you gave such a system some thought and greatly restricted the vocabulary allowed, you can see that you might well end up with a tremendously effective shorthand way of writing, highly compact and efficient, if a little short on expressive synonyms. In other words, something remarkably like the text that the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been translated from...

[Thetruechurch]

It is an interesting topic. However, I would strongly caution against attempting to make any "proofs" of the Book of Mormon. Such an attempt will surely fail; the Lord expects us to exercise faith in him and receive our testimony from his own mouth, rather than dig up a sign that says "Welcome to Zarahemla".

Having noted that caution, I think the subject is fascinating. To the surprise of just about everyone, written Egyptian was found to be a phonetic language. Specifically, the hieroglyphs had a phonetic value, and were used in conjunction with other hieroglyphs that functioned as "logographs" that represented words or ideas (technically, they represent morphemes, or meaningful basal linguistic units). They also used hieroglyphs and marks as determinatives to specify how a word was being used (so, for example, if you wrote the glyphs for "bell" and you also had a god named "Bel", you might want to put a symbol or mark afterward that specified "this is not a deity"). If you gave such a system some thought and greatly restricted the vocabulary allowed, you can see that you might well end up with a tremendously effective shorthand way of writing, highly compact and efficient, if a little short on expressive synonyms. In other words, something remarkably like the text that the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been translated from...

I do excercise my faith greatly, and I cannot see how supporting the facts of church history can destroy it, it only increase it. What I have done only gives evidence, not the full "proof". I believe the reason the golden plates were took away and not shown to the whole world, was a test for us to build our faith I guess by not having that full proof, and hence it removed the possibility of us accepting it at face value meaning we would have to build faith upon it and hence show a true test of character to the lord to whom is worthy to him. I see where you are coming from.

The fact that I have the very motivation to conduct research into the church to help support it, indicates I obviously have faith to do so in the first place and I have a substansially high amount of belief and agreement in the church itself. :)

Edited October 6, 2009 by Thetruechurch

[Vort]

If I recall correctly, Coptic was just the Egyptian language represented using Greek letters. This is not an uncommon practice; consider the various ways Japanese is represented in English and other western European languages. It is hardly surprising that Lehi would have considered using Egyptian hieroglyphs to represent Hebrew phonetic values and/or ideas. The "reformed" part of "reformed Egyptian" is an authentic, if obvious, touch; it is unlikely that the Egyptian glyphs and their associated phonetic or conceptual values would fit perfectly into a Hebrew language or thought pattern without some retooling.

[Traveler]

Thetruechurch: I would suggest you study the works of LDS scholar Hugh Nibly.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Thetruechurch, I think you are on the same track as Professor John Gee at Brigham Young University. You should email him with your findings.

Vort mentioned some good points.

[Ophiophagus]

From the words of my favorite movie:

"Proof?"......... "Did you love your Father?" "Excuse me?" "Your Father... Did you love him?" "Yes, very much."............. "Prove it"

Evidence is fun but moot. The proof is putting it to the test and realizing it has worked miracles in your life.

[Justice]

Contact. One of my all-time favorite movies as well.

[Thetruechurch]

Thetruechurch, I think you are on the same track as Professor John Gee at Brigham Young University. You should email him with your findings.

Vort mentioned some good points.

I did just that and gained a response. I think I have been a bit too overpresuming in this, and not conducted enough research to make a full conclusion. Fair enough, he is a qualified academic in a subject, I am but a 16 year old still going through education:

here's the reponse anyway:

Dear Brother Fowdy,

Thank you for your missive. Congratulations on noticing similarities between Egyptian scripts and the so-called Anthon Transcript. It seems to me that you are premature in your declaration of proof. I am at a loss to identify from the material in your link just what you think you have proven. Your proclaimed "proof" proves nothing to me. The real proof would come in being able to read the characters and persuade others that you can read them. Stating that the characters resemble Egyptian and Hebrew is not the same as showing that they do so. And showing the resemblance is not the same as reading them. Reading the characters and translating them and explaining your translation to others is how you prove that the characters are not random marks or characters cut and pasted with intent to deceive.

If I sent you a Demotic document, you may or not be able to show that it is similar to Demotic. But until you can read it, you have not proven that it is Demotic. Remember something that the late Hugh Nibley said about proof: "The two greatest nuisances in the church are (a) those who think they know enough to disprove the claims of Joseph Smith, and (b) those who think they know enough to prove them. Actually, nobody knows nearly enough either to prove or disprove the gospel." It may be possible that you are brighter than Nibley; I do not know you and so I cannot tell. I am willing to guess that at sixteen, you do not know anywhere near as much as Nibley did at fifty when he penned those lines. I urge you to ponder them.

You may or may not find it helpful to search for "Anthon transcript" and "Reformed Egyptian" at Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship - Home but you might find out some of what has already been done on the subject.

John GeeSenior Research FellowWilliam (Bill) Gay Professor of EgyptologyNeal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious ScholarshipBrigham Young University

[BenRaines]

Wow that was nice of him to take the time to respond to a 16 yr old.

Ben Raines

[Vort]

Hope Professor Gee's response doesn't discourage you. Good for you for looking into this stuff. It's very interesting, and can be a fun and informative sidelight, as long as you don't let it take over for your testimony.

Please remember that John Gee is (probably) literally the foremost living expert on Egyptology and Mormonism. When you wrote to him, you went straight to the top, and men at the top tend to be pretty brusque and matter-of-fact. His response was an invitation for you to deepen your knowledge, which is an excellent idea. Keep up the good work.

[Justice]

I love it. I think it's awesome you are doing research and learning, and especially for the right reason... to help another come to Christ.

Keep up the good work and you'll be rewarded one day.

[Hemidakota]

Wow that was nice of him to take the time to respond to a 16 yr old.

Ben Raines

Many of the 'Y' professors will take the time to make contact and usually respond within a day to a week. Nice to see our youth today are truly engaged in a learning of the past.

[Lorenzo]

Vort and John Gee are both right. No one can prove the Book of Mormon is true. You shouldn't waste your time trying to do it.

However, I disagree with the suggestion that I cannot "prove" I love my father.

To paraphrase the scriptures, Show me your works without love, and I will show you my love by my works. It is a mistake to think that "love" is a feeling, period. Love is, like God, not a "being" or "thing", but Deed.

[Thetruechurch]

Hope Professor Gee's response doesn't discourage you. Good for you for looking into this stuff. It's very interesting, and can be a fun and informative sidelight, as long as you don't let it take over for your testimony.

Please remember that John Gee is (probably) literally the foremost living expert on Egyptology and Mormonism. When you wrote to him, you went straight to the top, and men at the top tend to be pretty brusque and matter-of-fact. His response was an invitation for you to deepen your knowledge, which is an excellent idea. Keep up the good work.

It won't, it just means I need to learn to go beyond the surface a bit more when conducting research, I am also extremely grateful that he responded in about a hour of my email. It will also be something great to tell of in Ym's tonight and in my ward on sunday, that I have been in touch with a top professor from BYU in relation to the book of Mormon. Who has enough credibility to have his own wikipedia article:

John Gee - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless of that, I love studying the book of Mormon though whether just in reading it, or researching into it. The feeling it brings just to think of it is so very warming. As stated, there's no solid proof that the golden plates exsisted, but I have such faith that it is true, and I always will.

[deseretgov]

I too notiecd the simliarities between Demotic and Reformed Egyptian. Not necessarily the symbols but the style of writing. Aso the timeline of when Demotic was in use and the time the Lehites left Jerusalem matches.

The biggest problem with trying to figure out reformed egytian is that Refromed Egytian was a made up language. The Lehites made up their own language to keep their records in. So unles you are a Nephite prophet who keeps that sacred records you're probably going to have a hard time reading it.

I've been studying the Caractors and locating repetative symbols within the document. It would be cool if the Caractors document could finally be deciphered.

[Justice]

It is a mistake to think that "love" is a feeling, period. Love is, like God, not a "being" or "thing", but Deed.

Love is a feeling. You don't have to do something for another in order to love them, although love generally does produce kind acts.

However, charity is different. Charity IS love in action. It's the kind of love the Father and Son have and show. :)

[RipplecutBuddha]

I agree with the previous statements;

This is a fascinating issue to study

Continue in your study and you will benefit greatly (especially if you study what Nibley has written)

Don't get frustrated by an inability to prove the BoM true-it cannot be done

Don't worry about the BoM being proven false-it also cannot be done

My own advice for you, whatever your progress is on this matter, never ever loose sight of the importance of your own personal testimony. Too many times I've known people, and good friends that 'study themselves out of the church'. Whatever you think you know, always trust in what God knows, and know that God is always right. You won't be; none of us are.

(currently re-starting my own armchair study of ancient near-eastern languages and writings)

[Thetruechurch]

I agree with the previous statements;

This is a fascinating issue to study

Continue in your study and you will benefit greatly (especially if you study what Nibley has written)

Don't get frustrated by an inability to prove the BoM true-it cannot be done

Don't worry about the BoM being proven false-it also cannot be done

My own advice for you, whatever your progress is on this matter, never ever loose sight of the importance of your own personal testimony. Too many times I've known people, and good friends that 'study themselves out of the church'. Whatever you think you know, always trust in what God knows, and know that God is always right. You won't be; none of us are.

(currently re-starting my own armchair study of ancient near-eastern languages and writings)

Although I have been adviced not to bother to prove it true, I am still eager to conduct research into the Anthon transcript and the reformed Egyptian language.

In relation to the characters on the transcript, I am aiming to conduct an academic in semetic languages. Not to see if they can translate it (as this will prove impossible as) but rather to see if they can make any plausible sense out of it and identify features which show it indeed is a cohent language, and not designed to decieve as John Gee pointed out. I will report back with my new findings later.

[Lorenzo]

Love is a feeling. You don't have to do something for another in order to love them, although love generally does produce kind acts.

However, charity is different. Charity IS love in action. It's the kind of love the Father and Son have and show. :)

The dichotomy of the English words "love" and "charity" are a result of one of the many instances of short-comings of the King James type English of some Bibles. "Love" is as suitable a word to translate the Greek word that is translated by "charity" in the KJV, as is "charity". They are not different in terms of 1 Corinthians 13. Love is not something behind the curtain, in the shadows, or passively watching. That is not love. The seeming difference between "love" and "charity" would be like the difference between "faith" and "works". Neither exists independently of the other. Love is action.