Difference between revisions of "Book of Mormon/Language/Reformed Egyptian/Egyptian too bulky"

m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-Source(s) of the criticism +{{Criticism source label English}}, -Source(s) of the Criticism +{{Criticism source label English}}, -==Criticism== +=={{Criticism label}}==, -==Response== +=={{Response label}}==, -==Qu)
m (GLSBot: Adding headers to all articles)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
 
{{draft}}
 
{{draft}}
 
{{BoMPortal}}
 
{{BoMPortal}}

Revision as of 23:02, 14 May 2010

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Answers portal
Book of Mormon
GoldPlates1.jpg
Resources.icon.tiny.1.png    RESOURCES

General information:

Book of Mormon & Bible:

Criticisms:

Perspectives.icon.tiny.1.png    PERSPECTIVES
Media.icon.tiny.1.png    MEDIA
Resources.icon.tiny.1.png    OTHER PORTALS
==

Questions

== Critics claim 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

==

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.

==

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.

== Notes ==

  1. [note]  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:

  1. William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 31–35. off-site wiki
  2. 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
  3. 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

Further reading

FairMormon Answers articles

Book of Mormon/Language/Reformed Egyptian/Egyptian too bulky


FairMormon web site

External links

Printed material

  • Carl H. Jones, "The 'Anthon Transcript' and Two Mesoamerican Cylinder Seals," Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historical Archaeology 122 (September 1970): 1–8.
  • Hugh W. Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd edition, (Vol. 7 of the Collected Works of Hugh Nibley), edited by John W. Welch, (Salt Lake City, Utah : Deseret Book Company ; Provo, Utah : Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1988), 149. ISBN 0875791395.GL direct link
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon/Language/Reformed_Egyptian/Egyptian_too_bulky&oldid=72393"