• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Contradictions in the Bible

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
No, Joseph Smith claims to have used a hat, into which he put the "seer stones" and then put his face into the hat so that he could translate the plates from "reformed Egyptian" (no such thing) into the English Book of Mormon.
An extinct language is not necessarily one that never existed. "Reformed Egyptian" was what the people who used the language to write their history called it. It is absolutely impossible for anyone to prove today that it either once existed or else never existed.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
It also illustrates that there are not always easy answers in the scripture, despite claims by many to the contrary and that the scripture is highly subject to numerous interpretations. If you are saying the quality of these interpretations varies, I would agree.
I agree that oftentimes there are not always easy answers. While I believe God's word is consistent and certainly He knows His intended meaning and purpose, humans easily fall short in their interpretations on the more difficult or obscure passages of scripture.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Personally, I don't believe it's okay to make fun of other people's beliefs, period. I just think it's juvenile, tactless and mean. For those of you who don't share my standard of civility, I would at least expect you to actually ridicule what we do believe and not what we don't believe.

I realize that's your opinion. Do you realize that there is probably not a Mormon alive who gives a damn what you think? I'm sure you think Christianity as a whole has "scam" written all over it, too. Or maybe you believe that a man walking on water is more believable than a man who uses seer stones to translate an ancient document. I'm sorry, but I just don't get the rationale behind where you draw the line.

It should be obvious that almost all religions are based upon false stories. After all only one of them can be true at the most, but they all can be wrong. And I disagree, yes most Mormons do not care what others think, but some can reason rationally even with the indoctrination. They do care to learn what is wrong with their religion.

As to the miracles of Jesus they are on the same order as that of the seed stones. The one saving grace for Christianity is that there are some teachings that were quite enlightened for the time. If one throws out the miracles and a lot of the work of Paul one still has a religion that works.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
An extinct language is not necessarily one that never existed. "Reformed Egyptian" was what the people who used the language to write their history called it. It is absolutely impossible for anyone to prove today that it either once existed or else never existed.

Languages, especially written languages, tend to leave evidence of their existence. Also the name "Reformed Egyptian" is one that would have been given to that language by those that study languages. It is not the sort of name adopted by those that speak it. Smith's use of that term implied that it was a real language studied by others, so I am afraid that the claim of "no such language" holds up. Using that terminology places a burden of proof on those that use that terminology.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Languages, especially written languages, tend to leave evidence of their existence. Also the name "Reformed Egyptian" is one that would have been given to that language by those that study languages. It is not the sort of name adopted by those that speak it. Smith's use of that term implied that it was a real language studied by others, so I am afraid that the claim of "no such language" holds up. Using that terminology places a burden of proof on those that use that terminology.
To each his own, SZ. Do you even know the reason for the language being referred to as "Reformed Egyptian"? Do you know anything at all about its supposed origins? If you can two minutes, here's a video that explain it quite concisely.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
To each his own, SZ. Do you even know the reason for the language being referred to as "Reformed Egyptian"? Do you know anything at all about its supposed origins? If you can two minutes, here's a video that explain it quite concisely.

"The Book of Mormon, a work of scripture of the Latter Day Saint movement, describes itself as having a portion originally written in reformed Egyptian characters on plates of metal or "ore" by prophets living in the Western Hemisphere from perhaps as early as the 6th century BC until as late as the 5th century AD. Joseph Smith, the movement's founder, published the Book of Mormon in 1830 as a translation of these golden plates. Scholarly reference works on languages do not, however, acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief. No archaeological, linguistic, or other evidence of the use of Egyptian writing in ancient America has been discovered."
Source: Wikipedia

"References:
Standard language references such as Peter T. Daniels and William Bright, eds., The World's Writing Systems (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996) (990 pages); David Crystal, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (Cambridge University Press, 1997); and Roger D. Woodard, ed., The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages (Cambridge University Press, 2004) (1162 pages) contain no reference to "reformed Egyptian." "Reformed Egyptian" is also ignored in Andrew Robinson, Lost Languages: The Enigma of the World's Undeciphered Scripts (New York: McGraw Hill, 2002), although it is mentioned in Stephen Williams, Fantastic Archaeology: The Wild Side of North American Prehistory (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1991)."
MOREOVER:
"The Book of Mormon uses the term "reformed Egyptian" in only one verse, Mormon 9:32, which says that "the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, [were] handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech" and that "none other people knoweth our language." The book also says that its first author, Nephi, used the "learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Nephi 1:2) to write his record which constitutes the first two books of the Book of Mormon. The abridgment that the Book of Mormon says was prepared by Mormon and Moroni nearly a thousand years later in approximately 380 AD, containing most of the balance of the book, was written in "reformed Egyptian" because it took less space than Hebrew, which Hebrew had also been altered after the people left Jerusalem."
Source: ibid.

AND
"Standard language reference works contain no reference to "reformed Egyptian". No non-Mormon scholars acknowledge the existence of either a "reformed Egyptian" language or a "reformed Egyptian" script as it has been described in Mormon belief. For instance, in 1966, John A. Wilson, professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, wrote, "From time to time there are allegations that picture writing has been found in America . ... In no case has a professional Egyptologist been able to recognize these characters as Egyptian hieroglyphs. From our standpoint there is no such language as 'reformed Egyptian'."Anthropologist Michael D. Coe of Yale University, an expert in pre-Columbian Mesoamerican studies, has written, "Of all the peoples of the pre-Columbian New World, only the ancient Maya had a complete script." Fifteen examples of distinct writing systems have been identified in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, many from a single inscription."
Source: ibid.

.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I saw it. I read it. You didn't demonstrate they were two different people. Now I have doubts you ever will.
He appears to read that he does not fully understand those passages. If he is in fear it is for a good reason. Though I won't do his homework for him so we are stuck waiting for the explanation that is not very likely to come.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
This is reminding me of like a nature film where a bunch of hyaenas are
working to drag down a crippled water buffalo
I long since have had that same feeling, since it is the only way to communicate with creationists, we have little left but the chase.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
He appears to read that he does not fully understand those passages. If he is in fear it is for a good reason. Though I won't do his homework for him so we are stuck waiting for the explanation that is not very likely to come.
I do not see an explanation demonstrating his claim coming anytime at all.
 
Top