FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Difference between revisions of "Book of Mormon/Language/Reformed Egyptian/Egyptian too bulky"
< Book of Mormon | Language | Reformed Egyptian
(m) |
m |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
It is claimed that Egyptian would be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon: | It is claimed that Egyptian would be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon: | ||
| − | :[Egyptian would take] "perhaps four times, or even more than four times, as much room as the English, and it is quite certain that, as the Book of Mormon is 600 pages thick, it would take at least a ''thousand'' plates to hold in the Egyptian language, what is there written." {{io}}{{ | + | :[Egyptian would take] "perhaps four times, or even more than four times, as much room as the English, and it is quite certain that, as the Book of Mormon is 600 pages thick, it would take at least a ''thousand'' plates to hold in the Egyptian language, what is there written." {{io}}<Ref>{{CriticalWork:A Little Talk:1840|pages=1–8}}</ref> |
{{CriticalSources}} | {{CriticalSources}} | ||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Unfortunately for the critics, knowledge of Egyptian was in its infancy. Critics of the era knew little about Egyptian, because ''no one'' knew very much. The critics were probably thinking of Egyptian hieroglyphics. However, the Book of Mormon makes it clear that reformed Egyptian had been adapted by them for concise writing. As discussed in the [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Reformed Egyptian|main article]], variant Old World forms of Egyptian (such as Demotic) were quite compact, and well-suited for writing with space constraints. | Unfortunately for the critics, knowledge of Egyptian was in its infancy. Critics of the era knew little about Egyptian, because ''no one'' knew very much. The critics were probably thinking of Egyptian hieroglyphics. However, the Book of Mormon makes it clear that reformed Egyptian had been adapted by them for concise writing. As discussed in the [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Reformed Egyptian|main article]], variant Old World forms of Egyptian (such as Demotic) were quite compact, and well-suited for writing with space constraints. | ||
| − | =={{Endnotes label}} | + | == == |
| − | + | {{Endnotes label}} | |
| + | <references /> | ||
==Best articles to read next== | ==Best articles to read next== | ||
Revision as of 22:16, 7 June 2014
- REDIRECTTemplate:Test3
Contents
Would Egyptian be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon?
| Answers portal |
| Book of Mormon |
|
 RESOURCES
|
|---|
|
General information: Book of Mormon & Bible: Criticisms: |
 PERSPECTIVES
|
 MEDIA
|
| OTHER PORTALS
|
Questions
It is claimed that Egyptian would be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon:
- [Egyptian would take] "perhaps four times, or even more than four times, as much room as the English, and it is quite certain that, as the Book of Mormon is 600 pages thick, it would take at least a thousand plates to hold in the Egyptian language, what is there written." (italics in original)[1]
To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here
Answer
One hears little of this critique today; linguistic "fact" has caught up with the Book of Mormon, the critics have largely abandoned this approach.
Detailed Analysis
Unfortunately for the critics, knowledge of Egyptian was in its infancy. Critics of the era knew little about Egyptian, because no one knew very much. The critics were probably thinking of Egyptian hieroglyphics. However, the Book of Mormon makes it clear that reformed Egyptian had been adapted by them for concise writing. As discussed in the main article, variant Old World forms of Egyptian (such as Demotic) were quite compact, and well-suited for writing with space constraints.
Notes
- ↑ A Little Talk, Between John Robinson and his Master about Mormonism, Shewing its Origin, Absurdity, and Impiety (Bedford: W. White, 1840), 1–8. off-site
Best articles to read next
The best article(s) to read next on this topic is/are:
- William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 31–35. off-site wiki
- William J. Hamblin, "Review of Archaeology and the Book of Mormon by Jerald and Sandra Tanner," FARMS Review of Books 5/1 (1993): 250–272. off-site
- Stephen D. Ricks and John A. Tvedtnes, "Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996). [156–163] link