interesting apologetic site

[MikeWaters]

that deals a little bit with "reformed egyptian."

Is there any evidence that JS would have been exposed to the concept of "reformed egyptian"?

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html

[All-American]

Proves nothing, of course. I think the reformed egyptian stuff on that site is as unconvincing as anything on there, if not more so. It's all squiggles to the untrained eye.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

that deals a little bit with "reformed egyptian."

Is there any evidence that JS would have been exposed to the concept of "reformed egyptian"?

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/photo-proofs.html

He might have known about "demotic" Egyptian. The Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799, and the demotic section cracked around 1814. At any rate, Anton's Caracters, if indeed they come from gold BoM plates, would probably be somewhat stylistically different from Rosetta stone demotic, since the Rosetta Stone was inscribed in the late 2nd century BCE.

These websites slay me - not because they are accurate or inaccurate, but mostly how they cherry-pick antiquities to "prove" something. I could come up with a lot of cultural correlations too, if I had two entire continents to sift through, taking what I like and ignoring the rest.

[MikeWaters]

What these sites do is counter blanket dismissals. They aren't meant to prove anything. They suggest that it is not impossible that these things happened.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What these sites do is counter blanket dismissals. They aren't meant to prove anything. They suggest that it is not impossible that these things happened.

Agreed.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

He might have known about "demotic" Egyptian. The Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799, and the demotic section cracked around 1814. At any rate, Anton's Caracters, if indeed they come from gold BoM plates, would probably be somewhat stylistically different from Rosetta stone demotic, since the Rosetta Stone was inscribed in the late 2nd century BCE.

These websites slay me - not because they are accurate or inaccurate, but mostly how they cherry-pick antiquities to "prove" something. I could come up with a lot of cultural correlations too, if I had two entire continents to sift through, taking what I like and ignoring the rest.

They also cherry pick straw men. As if the absence of any "bountiful" spot in the Middle East were a serious argument against the Book of Mormon's legitimacy. Another favorite is to address the criticism regarding usage of adieu. Who TF cares.

Waters, I keep hearing from you and Archea about blanket dismissals, and failure to consider both sides. The problem is there really isn't a shred of evidence to support the Book of Mormon except the kind of irrelevant minutia this site highlights. Reformed Egyptian is a good example. You ask had JS ever "heard" of it. Except for its one time appearance in the Book of Mormon and any elaboration by JS no one has ever heard of it. It doesn't fit coherently into the constellation of ancient languages. It's nonsense. What other side of the argument are we supposed to consider? What the "other side" always boils down to is, (1) how could JS have written such an "amazing book"? and (2) why would he perpetrate this if it wasn't true?

The Book of Abraham provides a perfect example. FARMS criticises Palmer for being "one sided" in not considering FARMS's speculation that JS translated the B of A from a part of the fragment that is still lost, ignoring that "neither the recovered papyri nor the facsimiles published with the Book of Abraham bear any direct connection, either historical or textual, to Abraham," "the Joseph Smith Papyri hav[ing] been determined to be from the late Ptolemaic or early Roman period which is at least 1500 years after Abraham’s lifetime." Wikipedia.

Palmer by the way appears to agree with you that JS was not a knowing fraud. See his use of the allegegory “The Golden Pot” by E. T. A. Hoffmann.

[MikeWaters]

When did I say there was archeaological evidence that supported the BoM?

Belief that the BoM is a historical book, at this point, is purely a matter of faith.