Whether the copied characters were relatively Egyptian or not, Anthon could not have known whether the Egyptian translations were correct or not; he didn’t really know it that well. No one really in the US did. The Rosetta Stone was just recently discovered at the time, and much of the learning about it had not hopped the pond. (Not my source, I got this from historian guests on either on Church History Matters podcast or Follow Him Podcast, I can’t remember which.) but otherwise this video is super interesting. Thank you for putting in the time to make it!
Not sure who you heard, but the facts don't really back that argument up. Anthon absolutely had access to everything going on in Europe, and I'll try to back that up. All the relevant scholars had access to the Demotic that was on the Stone by that time. It was the newest, hottest thing, and they'd had more than 6 years to study it before Anthon met Martin Harris. And the characters matched well with Demotic as I prove in this video. Sure, Anthon may have overstated his ability to determine the accuracy of the translation, but he would have certainly recognized the Demotic for being real, and would have known enough to come to his own conclusion that the translations coordinated with what he knew by then. But Martin Harris was no liar, in my book. You're likely referring to Brian Hauglid, an emeritus BYU Professor who has made that claim and has also backtracked on his belief in the authenticity of Joseph Smith's claims about the translation of the Pearl of Great Price. He is one voice, and many other BYU professors strongly disagree with him. The Appeal to Authority logical fallacy is probably the most abused these days, and I hate it. If we can't check things out ourselves, then it's often not science. His claim that learning about the translation of the Rosetta Stone hadn't "hopped the pond" is a really strange one, since a very quick check on newspaper articles in the US at the time prove him obviously wrong. Even the general public had this news within months and there are multiple Newspaper articles in the US that talked about it soon afterward. Charles Anthon was not just studying ancient Greek, he was writing the Greek textbooks for all the other American professors. His expertise in Greek names was world-class. There were no experts in the Ancient Egyptian language at the time, the experts concerned with the Rosetta stone were mostly experts in ancient Greek, since they knew that the Coptic script at the bottom of the stone would be the key to unravelling the mystery. The Rosetta Stone was in Anthon's sweet spot. Twenty years before the Stone was translated, the Maryland Gazette in 1801 (not long after the Stone was discovered) reported that they hadn't identified the Demotic at that point, but "The remaining portion consists of 53 lines in Greek.... One of the members of the French institute, having undertaken to read and explain this part,..." "It will be submitted to the examination of the learned through all Europe." That was more than two decades before the Stone was finally translated by Champollion in late 1822. To think that Anthon wasn't heavily interested and invested in this work and in constant contact with scholars in England on this topic is silly. He was literally at the top of the specific field of study used to break the Rosetta code. Also, Champollion was helped by an earlier breakthrough in 1819 by an Englishman Thomas Young, who was a polymath and also an expert in Greek. It's difficult to imagine or argue that Anthon was in a vacuum and unaware of all this. In the 1820's there was very regular trade and mail between London, Paris, and New York. It only took about 21-29 days for letters and newspapers to cross the Atlantic. The idea that Anthon was isolated from what was happening in Europe, in spite of Newspapers talking about it in the U.S. for two decades doesn't make any sense. Remember, Martin Harris visited Anthon in 1828, six years after it was translated. By then every linguist in America, especially Greek linguists would have had years of experience with the information. Think about Thomas Jefferson's library, deep in rural Virginia far from New York or Annapolis. Yet, his was one of the most up-to-date libraries in the world, and that was in the 1700s when Virginia was still a colony. So, yeah, I reject Hauglid's perspective, especially on that point, and can't help but wonder if he hasn't developed a bit of a personal agenda, seeing that he's intentionally ignoring well established information to shed doubt on Smith's and Martin Harris's character, where it's not necessarily merited.
There is a theory that the Brass Plates were the Pentateuch and subsequent prophecies recorded by the tribes of Joseph, hence the Egyptian script used to record them. This would provide some reasoning for the slight variations in the quoted texts from Isaiah, as well as the addition of prophets not recorded in the Bible (Judah's record).
Interesting point. I failed to point out in the video that the Nephites would have lost their Hebrew MUCH more quickly had it not been for the brass plates, which would have been in Hebrew.
And we might as well add Little Women by Louisa May Alcott because when we make things up, it's better to be entertaining! Not mention that she may have possibly almost have heard about Joseph Smith, which, as we all know, absolutely proves the Book of Mormon.
@@james8996 they did exist and the very first verse in the book proves it. Nephi says he is born of goodly parents and knows the goodness of god. Turns out nfr (no vowels) in Egyptian means good. Joseph Smith made that up. You can keep fighting God but he gave you the book and you will be judged by it whether you read it or not.
Incredibly interesting. Really helped me understand the whole concept of the “learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians,” better than I ever have. Glad I just happened to stumble upon it while I was scrolling through RUclips.
So, if the Demotic matches the Anton manuscript, then we should be able to decipher much, if not most, of the Anton manuscript, right? Im curious which passages of the Book of Mormon it is quoting.
It's a good question, but I don't have any indication that this is the Anthon manuscript. It seems to be more of collection of different characters, so it's hard to say if it would be worth trying to translate.
This is absolutely incredible! Your knowledge base of this information is remarkable and your presentation is top notch. I learned so much and loved it. Thank you so much!!
The Japanese character for "sun" you show is pronounced "hi" or "nichi", the first of two characters used to write Nippon meaning Japan. Or what the Chinese called the origin or land of the rising sun: 日本 Taiyo, also meaning sun and pronounced "taiyoo" is written 太陽...
I don't know much about Arabic script, but I believe it was first only a spoken language, but then as it moved into areas that used alphabets, it would adopt those alphabets to represent its spoken words. Written Arabic continued to develop and adopt new letters as Arabic speakers moved into areas with new alphabets. So that would fit with Demotic, it seems.
Yes, he's done a lot of good work on this, which I discovered after I'd done this video. We used similar tactics, but he's gone more in depth. He's found more hieratic characters than I have. The hieratic I see are more hieratic numerals and the other characters I think are more demotic, which is the later script from Lehi's day. Those who used the demotic script just adopted the numerals from hieratic. Demotic doesn't have its own numbering system.
Thank you for all the time you put in to studying/researching and bringing us these wonderful videos. I really enjoy them…hope you keep them coming and ignore the “nay” sayers your doing a remarkable job🥰
Demotic may have lined up well for Lehi’s timeline, but not for the brass plates. Mosiah 2 shows the use of Egyptian characters of some kind on the brass plates. Using 2 different Egyptian systems would make it much more difficult for their posterity to learn and work with the records.
I think I've been looking at that verse wrong, but you meant Mosiah 1: "4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time." I assumed Laban's plates were Hebrew and that the plates preserved Hebrew among them; but you're right, verse 4 seems to imply that Laban's plates had at least some element of Egyptian. It could have been that they started in Hieratic, because they may have been Joseph's personal record. But it may have also developed into Demotic or Hebrew as new record keepers kept them up to date over time, all the way up to Jeremiah's prophecies. Which meant they were incredibly up to date. It also makes me wonder if Zoram wasn't one of the record keepers, and he, too, would have known the languages and different scripts. That fits in with Sherem possibly being a Zoramite. Because he seemed very educated and fairly devoted to the teachings of the Plates of Laban over the visions of Nephi and Lehi. But it seems clear that Hebrew was preserved among the Nephites more than among the Lamanites and the Mulekites, because they had written records. So, it seems reasonable that the newer entries on the plates of brass contained Hebrew, even if its oldest sections were in old Hieratic and later in Demotic.
The document I show in this video is not the one Harris took to Dr. Anthon. To me, it seems like more of a random sampling of the characters found on the plates. This guys has done a video that goes much more in depth on the characters. You may want to check it out. ruclips.net/video/DppMy1mycKM/видео.html
There is no equalivant character in any Egyptian language to the characters on what is called the book of Mormon characters. In fact those characters can be found in the magus and other magical texts.
You should watch the entire video before attempting to debunk it. It can leave you exposed. You should also familiarize yourself with the Demotic script before pretending to be an authority on ancient Egyptian. At the end of the video, I clearly show that the majority of Joseph Smith Characters match well with the Ancient Egyptian Demotic script. It's an exercise that anyone can duplicate for themselves.
True, but most appeared to have been made up. Some do appear to be like the characters on the Smith's magical/occultic items, which were indeed taken from books of darkmagicks.
Brilliant! Extremely interesting and faith promoting! Have you investigated the grottochronology that Wayne May talks about and makes comparison and parallels of the Algonquin's written language and Bible? I think it was the Melmac tribe? He compares some of those Anthon transcript and they're also quite similar! Great presentation
Thanks, very much! I have seen May talk about that, but I haven't done any personal study into it. You make a good point that the Melmac tribe comparisons provide support for post-Nephite evidence of Smith's characters, while I was focused on pre-Nephite support. Isn't it interesting that the academics, even at BYU, almost seem to be blinded somewhat to the truths that make the most sense in support of the BoM? And since you brought up grottochronology, I realized after I posted that video that the Nephites having the Brass Plates as their basic scripture probably had a lot to do with the fact Moroni could still write in Hebrew a full thousand years later. If the brass plates hadn't been included some Hebrew, their language would have been long gone by that time.
Thanks, you're correct, but so am I. (higher ATtic) is a UK pronunciation. I use the American, which is (hi RAttic) dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/hieratic
You may want to watch an interview I gave last year on Gospel Tangents: Part 1: ruclips.net/video/oDYDp9UYe-M/видео.html Part 2: ruclips.net/video/iAbvbRupGMI/видео.html
That's a valid question and it's been around since the Book of Mormon was published, but it's an argument that has been overtaken by events. There have been multiple studies in recent years revealing that brass was being made unintentionally as far back as 2,000 BC and intentionally being produced and used as far back as 1,000 BC. Here are two of them, but there are others. Christopher P. Thornton, “Of Brass and Bronze in prehistoric Southwest Asia,” in Metals and Mines: Studies in Archaeometallurgy, ed. S. La Niece, D. R. Hook, P. T. Craddock (London: Archetype Publications, 2007) Brass, Zinc and the Beginning of Chemical Industry, P. Craddock Published 1 June 2018
Well when kohen DNA is found in amerids. And structures and swords and breast plates and the infra structure to support such an alleged civilization is found then credible imperial archeological evidence is found then that's a starting point. Until then no evidence for such a civilization does not exist. I could name many more of a myriad of problems with this text , I will just end here, . I await your evidence.
Look up photos of the thin panels of bronze that adorned the alawat gates of Assyria which are in the British museum which are from a contemporary time period …. As far as brass specifically I found the following two references just in a quick google search …. 1. Brass was introduced around 500 BC. Brass is made from an alloy of Copper and Zinc. 2. The history of brass dates back to ancient civilizations, with artifacts found in various regions, including the Middle East and Europe. It is believed that brass was first created around 5000 BCE when metallurgists accidentally mixed copper and zinc ores during the smelting process… it is also listed with the Greeks at 300 BC but it was not widespread in its use till the Roman’s but just because it was not widespread doesn’t mean that it did not exist at all.
Regardless of the timeline of its use an ocean away, we must confess archaeology unfortunately has not verified its use, accidental or otherwise, in the Americas. Possessing the original plates (trusting that they in fact exited physically & not just in the spiritual eyes of the prophet) would help. Archeology, anachronism, & biographical accounts about his life aside, faith in the prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. will continue whether the findings of man support it or not.
Joseph made a mistake when he wrote that the plates were in gold. This made it impossible for him to forge a set. He did this because they were treasures hunters, and he wanted everyone to believe that he finally succeeded in colluding with the spirits of the dead in finding treasure. I think JS made it all up, but since they were into the occult, used blackmagic methods and implements to call up spirits, it is possible that the underworld helped write the books.
Great stuff. Too bad anti "Mormons" will never consider it or anything else. In fact if the gold plates were sitting in a museum right now and made available for scientific examination and evaluation, they would be soundly rejected. I'm still impressed.
Thanks! Proof of spiritual things requires personal revelation. God calls us to reach through the veil to Him to find real truth. It can't be given except by an overt act of will or agency on our behalf. So no video or anything else can substitute for a "desire" to know. But God rewards an initial effort of faith by opening up endless wonders of truth for as long as we're willing to seek it. I'm always hoping my videos serve in some way as an impetus or a reward for active seekers, but they'll never be proof of anything, especially for non-seekers.
Where is the evidence that the plates were written in Hieratic? Anthon said they were a smorgasboard of symbols that were definitely not anything Egyptian. The three sets of extant characters connected to Book of Mormon writings all line up with each other and have nothing to do with anything Egyptian. You can claim they weren't BoM characters, but Cowdrey and Whitmer said as much, and they were supposed to have seen the plates, right? It's a pity God has them stashed away in his attic now so that we can't see them and know plain as day what they actually said. I'm at least sure that no Mesoamerican Hebrew would have ever talked like a 19th-century Protestant evangelist.
If you watched my video until the end, I provide evidence that the characters match up quite well with hieratic numbers and demotic characters. Hieratic and demotic are certainly Egyptian. No, the opposite: I claimed I DIDN'T know exactly where those specific characters came from. There is not one scrap of original source material for the Old or New Testament. It's all later copies. And there are no witnesses who say that they have seen or handled the original source material for the Bible. But the Bible is still true, and you can only know it's true through faith and the Holy Spirit. Should it be any other way? However with the Book of Mormon we have witnesses who did see with their eyes, handle with the hands, including turning the leaves of the gold colored plates. Some of those witnesses left the church and Joseph Smith, but re-affirmed what they saw until their dying day. The Bible doesn't have such witnesses. There are also multiple witnesses who participated in and observed the translation process, and saw that the translation occurred without notes and extremely quickly. But still, the only way to know if the Book of Mormon is true is through faith and the Holy Spirit. Should it be any other way? I don't believe the BoM was written by Meso-American Hebrews. I believe it was written by North American Hebrews. These Hebrews were set apart by God specifically BECAUSE they believed in Christ as prophesied by Isaiah and the other O.T. prophets, while the Judea Hebrews did not. They have visions of Christ and received revelations about his life and his Gospel 600 years before his Birth. They taught the Gospel of Christ, were baptized in His name and lived according to His Gospel which was revealed to them through their prophets. Then the Book for Mormon was translated into the language of the prophet Joseph Smith who was raised a 19th Century American Protestant. Yet somehow there are hundreds of Hebrew evidences in the language of the Book of Mormon such as Chiasmus, and Hebrew phraseology, that Joseph wouldn't have known about. So if you think that language usage disproves the Book of Mormon, then do you agree that the many, many Hebrew usages found in the Book of Mormon prove it? Didn't think so. Proof generally only goes one way for anti-mormons.
@@JJBrown-lw1dv Hebraisms are also in Green Eggs and Ham. The Hebraisms in the BoM are a direct result of the Masoretic texts and not because of the Hebrew language. And how could it sound like Hebrew when it was "reformed Egyptian"? Why didn't reformed Egyptian help Joseph Smith translate the Book of Breathings? Why didn't it warn him not to ban blacks from temples or not to marry Fanny Alger? Why didn't modern prophets figure it out until they were under social pressure to change? sHoUlD iT bE aNy oThEr wAy? You don't know you own history. No one ever touched the plates or saw them. The three witnesses saw them only in hallucination and the eight witnesses were persuaded to say they saw the plates. What they reaffirmed repeatedly is that Joseph Smith was not following the teachings in the BoM, and their testimony rings hollow when they also "testified" of other fake translations and records. I know you think you're clever for that zing at "anti-mormons," but you argue just like a flat-earther does. The "Caractors" line up perfectly with an English cipher and only work as Egyptian if you don't know anything about Egyptian.
@@JJBrown-lw1dv Hebraisms are also in Green Eggs and Ham. The Hebraisms in the BoM are a direct result of the Masoretic texts and not because of the Hebrew language. And how could it sound like Hebrew when it was "reformed Egyptian"? Why didn't reformed Egyptian help Joseph Smith translate the Book of Breathings? Why didn't it warn him not to ban blacks from temples or not to marry Fanny Alger? Why didn't modern prophets figure it out until they were under social pressure to change? sHoUlD iT bE aNy oThEr wAy? I know you think you're clever for that zing at "anti-mormons," but you argue just like a flat-earther does. The "Caractors" line up perfectly with an English cipher and only work as Egyptian if you don't know anything about Egyptian.
@@JJBrown-lw1dv Hebraisms are also in Green Eggs and Ham. The Hebraisms in the BoM are a direct result of the Masoretic texts and not because of the Hebrew language. And how could it sound like Hebrew when it was "reformed Egyptian"? Why didn't reformed Egyptian help Joseph Smith translate the Book of Breathings? Why didn't it warn him not to place temple bans or engage in plural marriage? Why didn't modern prophets figure it out until they were under social pressure to change? sHoUlD iT bE aNy oThEr wAy? I know you think you're clever for that zing at "anti-mormons," but you argue just like a flat-earther does. The "Caractors" line up perfectly with an English cipher and only work as Egyptian if you don't know anything about Egyptian.
Demotic was not an alphabet. It was shorthand (tachygraphie to Champollion), which means that it was logographic, with one sign for example to represent a full word or phrase. There was no Coptic on the Rosetta Stone. It was Greek. The stone includes hieroglyphs, demotic, and Greek. Only the Greek is alphabetic. Anthon was not an Egyptologist. There were no Egyptologists in his day.
Thanks for the technical corrections. I saw a graphic calling the ancient Greek Coptic on the Rosetta Stone, so I went with that, but you're correct. Coptic wasn't developed until later. Demotic is considered logographic, which makes it technically a script. But is was also often transliterated, and had uniliteral signs that could represent sounds and allowed it to be used more like an alphabet than a purely logographic script. It's adaptability is what supports the point I tried to make in the video that Demotic can be adapted to other languages like it was with the Papyrus Amherst 63. I'm no linguist but wiki talks about this characteristic of Demotic: wiki "Like its hieroglyphic predecessor script, Demotic possessed a set of "uniliteral" or "alphabetical" signs that could be used to represent individual phonemes. These are the most common signs in Demotic, making up between one third and one half of all signs in any given text; foreign words are also almost exclusively written with these signs"
@@JJBrown-lw1dvYes. Coptic was spelled with mainly Greek letters, but with a few demotic characters thrown in. Yes, there are some demotic letters which function alphabetically. However, the true value of demotic is that it is shorthand, like Gregg shorthand, in that it can be used to take verbatim dictation. That is what Gregg shorthand was used for by all court reporters in America at one time. Shorthand always features logograms which have one or two squiggles for an entire word or phrase. Reformed Egyptian did that to save space. Only proper names would be spelled out.
Demonic is a perfect fit. He even had occult materials such as a Seer stone to listen to the spirits. But there are many places where other sources were clearly copied or rewritten and put in the style of King James English. So how much was done by Joseph Smith and how much by the spirits of the dead? The Caracters script sample doesn't follow any language construct. They appear to be made up on the spot. The original sources did not exist, and could not have been manufactured because of the claim what it was in gold, and the fake script would have been easily determined.
I am laughing away at this great leap attempt to create a hypothetical connection between Egyptian writing and Nehi and Moroni writing in the Book of Mormon. This playing with some facts in hopes to give some credence to its conclusion fails greatly and proves nothing, but is very entertaining; as it is so loose to support the speaker's endeavor -- poor academic venture by this author. Testifying to the BoM does not by default hold any truth. It is a sad case to declare nonsense to be factual. Sorry, but I am still laughing at this weak proposal. It is like proving Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble were true prehistoric people, because of factual proofs cavemen existed.
Ridicule is no substitute for actual criticism. It's a weak-minded tactic whenever it's used. If you have any substantive claims about any facts I used, I'll consider them. In my video I clearly stated that the connection between the characters and the demotic alphabet don't prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The facts I used were based on well established knowledge of ancient Egyptian and how the Hebrews and others incorporated the Egyptian alphabet in the 650-600 BC time frame.
Doesn't it bother them at all that they have NO source material? No actual Book of Mormon, and NO copies? There is NO source document of the witnesses. The godly thing to conclude is that they are not of God.
@@JJBrown-lw1dv Would you mind providing ANY source material or direct copies of the source material? That way, we can all speak intelligently on the matter? Also, I'd like to see some holy and academic credentials of anyone involved with creating the actual source materials.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Whether the copied characters were relatively Egyptian or not, Anthon could not have known whether the Egyptian translations were correct or not; he didn’t really know it that well. No one really in the US did. The Rosetta Stone was just recently discovered at the time, and much of the learning about it had not hopped the pond. (Not my source, I got this from historian guests on either on Church History Matters podcast or Follow Him Podcast, I can’t remember which.) but otherwise this video is super interesting. Thank you for putting in the time to make it!
Not sure who you heard, but the facts don't really back that argument up. Anthon absolutely had access to everything going on in Europe, and I'll try to back that up. All the relevant scholars had access to the Demotic that was on the Stone by that time. It was the newest, hottest thing, and they'd had more than 6 years to study it before Anthon met Martin Harris. And the characters matched well with Demotic as I prove in this video.
Sure, Anthon may have overstated his ability to determine the accuracy of the translation, but he would have certainly recognized the Demotic for being real, and would have known enough to come to his own conclusion that the translations coordinated with what he knew by then. But Martin Harris was no liar, in my book.
You're likely referring to Brian Hauglid, an emeritus BYU Professor who has made that claim and has also backtracked on his belief in the authenticity of Joseph Smith's claims about the translation of the Pearl of Great Price. He is one voice, and many other BYU professors strongly disagree with him. The Appeal to Authority logical fallacy is probably the most abused these days, and I hate it. If we can't check things out ourselves, then it's often not science.
His claim that learning about the translation of the Rosetta Stone hadn't "hopped the pond" is a really strange one, since a very quick check on newspaper articles in the US at the time prove him obviously wrong. Even the general public had this news within months and there are multiple Newspaper articles in the US that talked about it soon afterward.
Charles Anthon was not just studying ancient Greek, he was writing the Greek textbooks for all the other American professors. His expertise in Greek names was world-class. There were no experts in the Ancient Egyptian language at the time, the experts concerned with the Rosetta stone were mostly experts in ancient Greek, since they knew that the Coptic script at the bottom of the stone would be the key to unravelling the mystery. The Rosetta Stone was in Anthon's sweet spot.
Twenty years before the Stone was translated, the Maryland Gazette in 1801 (not long after the Stone was discovered) reported that they hadn't identified the Demotic at that point, but "The remaining portion consists of 53 lines in Greek.... One of the members of the French institute, having undertaken to read and explain this part,..." "It will be submitted to the examination of the learned through all Europe."
That was more than two decades before the Stone was finally translated by Champollion in late 1822. To think that Anthon wasn't heavily interested and invested in this work and in constant contact with scholars in England on this topic is silly. He was literally at the top of the specific field of study used to break the Rosetta code. Also, Champollion was helped by an earlier breakthrough in 1819 by an Englishman Thomas Young, who was a polymath and also an expert in Greek. It's difficult to imagine or argue that Anthon was in a vacuum and unaware of all this.
In the 1820's there was very regular trade and mail between London, Paris, and New York. It only took about 21-29 days for letters and newspapers to cross the Atlantic. The idea that Anthon was isolated from what was happening in Europe, in spite of Newspapers talking about it in the U.S. for two decades doesn't make any sense.
Remember, Martin Harris visited Anthon in 1828, six years after it was translated. By then every linguist in America, especially Greek linguists would have had years of experience with the information.
Think about Thomas Jefferson's library, deep in rural Virginia far from New York or Annapolis. Yet, his was one of the most up-to-date libraries in the world, and that was in the 1700s when Virginia was still a colony.
So, yeah, I reject Hauglid's perspective, especially on that point, and can't help but wonder if he hasn't developed a bit of a personal agenda, seeing that he's intentionally ignoring well established information to shed doubt on Smith's and Martin Harris's character, where it's not necessarily merited.
There is a theory that the Brass Plates were the Pentateuch and subsequent prophecies recorded by the tribes of Joseph, hence the Egyptian script used to record them. This would provide some reasoning for the slight variations in the quoted texts from Isaiah, as well as the addition of prophets not recorded in the Bible (Judah's record).
Interesting point. I failed to point out in the video that the Nephites would have lost their Hebrew MUCH more quickly had it not been for the brass plates, which would have been in Hebrew.
@@JJBrown-lw1dv you know what I may have misstated the script used but the theory about the delta between the two is correct
I'll have to check it out.@@kz6fittycent
And we might as well add Little Women by Louisa May Alcott because when we make things up, it's better to be entertaining! Not mention that she may have possibly almost have heard about Joseph Smith, which, as we all know, absolutely proves the Book of Mormon.
That’s awesome how you set up how Moroni would have had the incentive to use the alphabet that he did
Thanks
@@james8996 they did exist and the very first verse in the book proves it. Nephi says he is born of goodly parents and knows the goodness of god. Turns out nfr (no vowels) in Egyptian means good. Joseph Smith made that up. You can keep fighting God but he gave you the book and you will be judged by it whether you read it or not.
Incredibly interesting. Really helped me understand the whole concept of the “learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians,” better than I ever have. Glad I just happened to stumble upon it while I was scrolling through RUclips.
Thanks, so much. I don't bother to make a video unless I think I can offer new insights. Really glad you got something out of it.
So, if the Demotic matches the Anton manuscript, then we should be able to decipher much, if not most, of the Anton manuscript, right? Im curious which passages of the Book of Mormon it is quoting.
It's a good question, but I don't have any indication that this is the Anthon manuscript. It seems to be more of collection of different characters, so it's hard to say if it would be worth trying to translate.
This is absolutely incredible! Your knowledge base of this information is remarkable and your presentation is top notch. I learned so much and loved it. Thank you so much!!
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you for your research. I will add it to my repertoire of important information.
Glad it was helpful!
The Japanese character for "sun" you show is pronounced "hi" or "nichi", the first of two characters used to write Nippon meaning Japan. Or what the Chinese called the origin or land of the rising sun: 日本
Taiyo, also meaning sun and pronounced "taiyoo" is written 太陽...
Thanks for the info!
This suggests that arabic script comes from Demotic also. Though changed over time.
I don't know much about Arabic script, but I believe it was first only a spoken language, but then as it moved into areas that used alphabets, it would adopt those alphabets to represent its spoken words. Written Arabic continued to develop and adopt new letters as Arabic speakers moved into areas with new alphabets. So that would fit with Demotic, it seems.
The Jerry Grover translation of the Caractors document with Demotic is extremely compelling.
Yes, he's done a lot of good work on this, which I discovered after I'd done this video. We used similar tactics, but he's gone more in depth. He's found more hieratic characters than I have. The hieratic I see are more hieratic numerals and the other characters I think are more demotic, which is the later script from Lehi's day. Those who used the demotic script just adopted the numerals from hieratic. Demotic doesn't have its own numbering system.
Thank you for all the time you put in to studying/researching and bringing us these wonderful videos. I really enjoy them…hope you keep them coming and ignore the “nay” sayers your doing a remarkable job🥰
You are very welcome
Demotic may have lined up well for Lehi’s timeline, but not for the brass plates. Mosiah 2 shows the use of Egyptian characters of some kind on the brass plates. Using 2 different Egyptian systems would make it much more difficult for their posterity to learn and work with the records.
I think I've been looking at that verse wrong, but you meant Mosiah 1:
"4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time."
I assumed Laban's plates were Hebrew and that the plates preserved Hebrew among them; but you're right, verse 4 seems to imply that Laban's plates had at least some element of Egyptian. It could have been that they started in Hieratic, because they may have been Joseph's personal record. But it may have also developed into Demotic or Hebrew as new record keepers kept them up to date over time, all the way up to Jeremiah's prophecies. Which meant they were incredibly up to date.
It also makes me wonder if Zoram wasn't one of the record keepers, and he, too, would have known the languages and different scripts. That fits in with Sherem possibly being a Zoramite. Because he seemed very educated and fairly devoted to the teachings of the Plates of Laban over the visions of Nephi and Lehi.
But it seems clear that Hebrew was preserved among the Nephites more than among the Lamanites and the Mulekites, because they had written records. So, it seems reasonable that the newer entries on the plates of brass contained Hebrew, even if its oldest sections were in old Hieratic and later in Demotic.
What does the document Joseph copied say? Or are they written at random?
The document I show in this video is not the one Harris took to Dr. Anthon. To me, it seems like more of a random sampling of the characters found on the plates. This guys has done a video that goes much more in depth on the characters. You may want to check it out. ruclips.net/video/DppMy1mycKM/видео.html
Love this so much!
thanks, so much.
There is no equalivant character in any Egyptian language to the characters on what is called the book of Mormon characters. In fact those characters can be found in the magus and other magical texts.
You should watch the entire video before attempting to debunk it. It can leave you exposed.
You should also familiarize yourself with the Demotic script before pretending to be an authority on ancient Egyptian. At the end of the video, I clearly show that the majority of Joseph Smith Characters match well with the Ancient Egyptian Demotic script. It's an exercise that anyone can duplicate for themselves.
Ok, closed-minded closed canon dogmatic Pharisee gatekeeper!
True, but most appeared to have been made up. Some do appear to be like the characters on the Smith's magical/occultic items, which were indeed taken from books of darkmagicks.
@@GregFessia You don't have to be a "closed-minded closed canon dogmatic Pharisee gatekeeper" you know. Have you tried ballet?
So it's a copy of counting bits? Where do any of your phrases (2+ or 1-gap-1) words match up in 1830 BoM? Have you tried yet?
Great work
Thank you so much 😀
That was a really great presentation. Thank you.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very very good I think you're theory is correct . I am impressed and believe you solved for the problem
Thanks so much for watching it and for your comment.
Brilliant! Extremely interesting and faith promoting!
Have you investigated the grottochronology that Wayne May talks about and makes comparison and parallels of the Algonquin's written language and Bible? I think it was the Melmac tribe? He compares some of those Anthon transcript and they're also quite similar!
Great presentation
Thanks, very much! I have seen May talk about that, but I haven't done any personal study into it. You make a good point that the Melmac tribe comparisons provide support for post-Nephite evidence of Smith's characters, while I was focused on pre-Nephite support. Isn't it interesting that the academics, even at BYU, almost seem to be blinded somewhat to the truths that make the most sense in support of the BoM?
And since you brought up grottochronology, I realized after I posted that video that the Nephites having the Brass Plates as their basic scripture probably had a lot to do with the fact Moroni could still write in Hebrew a full thousand years later.
If the brass plates hadn't been included some Hebrew, their language would have been long gone by that time.
@@JJBrown-lw1dv Great point with the brass plates! Like what happened with the Mulekites with their language being corrupted. Omni 1:17.
Higher attic, rather than hi rattic.
Thanks, you're correct, but so am I. (higher ATtic) is a UK pronunciation. I use the American, which is (hi RAttic)
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/hieratic
You may want to watch an interview I gave last year on Gospel Tangents:
Part 1: ruclips.net/video/oDYDp9UYe-M/видео.html
Part 2: ruclips.net/video/iAbvbRupGMI/видео.html
Thank you.
You're welcome! Hope you you heard something new.
Very interesting video.
Glad you enjoyed it
@@JJBrown-lw1dv I can't say that I have ever heard a presentation like that before. It was quite informative.
Awesome video! thanks for sharing
Thanks for watching!
How could brass plates exist long before brass was invented .? Let's talk about the anachronism in the book of Mormon a 19th century text.
That's a valid question and it's been around since the Book of Mormon was published, but it's an argument that has been overtaken by events. There have been multiple studies in recent years revealing that brass was being made unintentionally as far back as 2,000 BC and intentionally being produced and used as far back as 1,000 BC.
Here are two of them, but there are others.
Christopher P. Thornton, “Of Brass and Bronze in prehistoric Southwest Asia,” in Metals and Mines: Studies in Archaeometallurgy, ed. S. La Niece, D. R. Hook, P. T. Craddock (London: Archetype Publications, 2007)
Brass, Zinc and the Beginning of Chemical Industry, P. Craddock
Published 1 June 2018
Well when kohen DNA is found in amerids. And structures and swords and breast plates and the infra structure to support such an alleged civilization is found then credible imperial archeological evidence is found then that's a starting point. Until then no evidence for such a civilization does not exist. I could name many more of a myriad of problems with this text , I will just end here, . I await your evidence.
Look up photos of the thin panels of bronze that adorned the alawat gates of Assyria which are in the British museum which are from a contemporary time period …. As far as brass specifically I found the following two references just in a quick google search …. 1. Brass was introduced around 500 BC. Brass is made from an alloy of Copper and Zinc. 2. The history of brass dates back to ancient civilizations, with artifacts found in various regions, including the Middle East and Europe. It is believed that brass was first created around 5000 BCE when metallurgists accidentally mixed copper and zinc ores during the smelting process… it is also listed with the Greeks at 300 BC but it was not widespread in its use till the Roman’s but just because it was not widespread doesn’t mean that it did not exist at all.
Regardless of the timeline of its use an ocean away, we must confess archaeology unfortunately has not verified its use, accidental or otherwise, in the Americas. Possessing the original plates (trusting that they in fact exited physically & not just in the spiritual eyes of the prophet) would help. Archeology, anachronism, & biographical accounts about his life aside, faith in the prophet Joseph Smith, Jr. will continue whether the findings of man support it or not.
Joseph made a mistake when he wrote that the plates were in gold. This made it impossible for him to forge a set. He did this because they were treasures hunters, and he wanted everyone to believe that he finally succeeded in colluding with the spirits of the dead in finding treasure. I think JS made it all up, but since they were into the occult, used blackmagic methods and implements to call up spirits, it is possible that the underworld helped write the books.
Great stuff. Too bad anti "Mormons" will never consider it or anything else. In fact if the gold plates were sitting in a museum right now and made available for scientific examination and evaluation, they would be soundly rejected.
I'm still impressed.
Thanks! Proof of spiritual things requires personal revelation. God calls us to reach through the veil to Him to find real truth. It can't be given except by an overt act of will or agency on our behalf. So no video or anything else can substitute for a "desire" to know.
But God rewards an initial effort of faith by opening up endless wonders of truth for as long as we're willing to seek it. I'm always hoping my videos serve in some way as an impetus or a reward for active seekers, but they'll never be proof of anything, especially for non-seekers.
Very interesting!
Thanks, so much!
I think you mean demotic not demonic.
Yes. Pretty sure I say Demotic throughout the video. If I said demonic somewhere, that was a verbal typo.
Where is the evidence that the plates were written in Hieratic? Anthon said they were a smorgasboard of symbols that were definitely not anything Egyptian.
The three sets of extant characters connected to Book of Mormon writings all line up with each other and have nothing to do with anything Egyptian.
You can claim they weren't BoM characters, but Cowdrey and Whitmer said as much, and they were supposed to have seen the plates, right? It's a pity God has them stashed away in his attic now so that we can't see them and know plain as day what they actually said. I'm at least sure that no Mesoamerican Hebrew would have ever talked like a 19th-century Protestant evangelist.
If you watched my video until the end, I provide evidence that the characters match up quite well with hieratic numbers and demotic characters. Hieratic and demotic are certainly Egyptian.
No, the opposite: I claimed I DIDN'T know exactly where those specific characters came from.
There is not one scrap of original source material for the Old or New Testament. It's all later copies. And there are no witnesses who say that they have seen or handled the original source material for the Bible. But the Bible is still true, and you can only know it's true through faith and the Holy Spirit. Should it be any other way?
However with the Book of Mormon we have witnesses who did see with their eyes, handle with the hands, including turning the leaves of the gold colored plates. Some of those witnesses left the church and Joseph Smith, but re-affirmed what they saw until their dying day. The Bible doesn't have such witnesses. There are also multiple witnesses who participated in and observed the translation process, and saw that the translation occurred without notes and extremely quickly. But still, the only way to know if the Book of Mormon is true is through faith and the Holy Spirit. Should it be any other way?
I don't believe the BoM was written by Meso-American Hebrews. I believe it was written by North American Hebrews. These Hebrews were set apart by God specifically BECAUSE they believed in Christ as prophesied by Isaiah and the other O.T. prophets, while the Judea Hebrews did not. They have visions of Christ and received revelations about his life and his Gospel 600 years before his Birth. They taught the Gospel of Christ, were baptized in His name and lived according to His Gospel which was revealed to them through their prophets.
Then the Book for Mormon was translated into the language of the prophet Joseph Smith who was raised a 19th Century American Protestant. Yet somehow there are hundreds of Hebrew evidences in the language of the Book of Mormon such as Chiasmus, and Hebrew phraseology, that Joseph wouldn't have known about. So if you think that language usage disproves the Book of Mormon, then do you agree that the many, many Hebrew usages found in the Book of Mormon prove it? Didn't think so. Proof generally only goes one way for anti-mormons.
@@JJBrown-lw1dv Hebraisms are also in Green Eggs and Ham. The Hebraisms in the BoM are a direct result of the Masoretic texts and not because of the Hebrew language. And how could it sound like Hebrew when it was "reformed Egyptian"? Why didn't reformed Egyptian help Joseph Smith translate the Book of Breathings? Why didn't it warn him not to ban blacks from temples or not to marry Fanny Alger? Why didn't modern prophets figure it out until they were under social pressure to change? sHoUlD iT bE aNy oThEr wAy?
You don't know you own history. No one ever touched the plates or saw them. The three witnesses saw them only in hallucination and the eight witnesses were persuaded to say they saw the plates. What they reaffirmed repeatedly is that Joseph Smith was not following the teachings in the BoM, and their testimony rings hollow when they also "testified" of other fake translations and records.
I know you think you're clever for that zing at "anti-mormons," but you argue just like a flat-earther does. The "Caractors" line up perfectly with an English cipher and only work as Egyptian if you don't know anything about Egyptian.
@@JJBrown-lw1dv Hebraisms are also in Green Eggs and Ham. The Hebraisms in the BoM are a direct result of the Masoretic texts and not because of the Hebrew language. And how could it sound like Hebrew when it was "reformed Egyptian"? Why didn't reformed Egyptian help Joseph Smith translate the Book of Breathings? Why didn't it warn him not to ban blacks from temples or not to marry Fanny Alger? Why didn't modern prophets figure it out until they were under social pressure to change? sHoUlD iT bE aNy oThEr wAy?
I know you think you're clever for that zing at "anti-mormons," but you argue just like a flat-earther does. The "Caractors" line up perfectly with an English cipher and only work as Egyptian if you don't know anything about Egyptian.
@@JJBrown-lw1dv Hebraisms are also in Green Eggs and Ham. The Hebraisms in the BoM are a direct result of the Masoretic texts and not because of the Hebrew language. And how could it sound like Hebrew when it was "reformed Egyptian"? Why didn't reformed Egyptian help Joseph Smith translate the Book of Breathings? Why didn't it warn him not to place temple bans or engage in plural marriage? Why didn't modern prophets figure it out until they were under social pressure to change? sHoUlD iT bE aNy oThEr wAy?
I know you think you're clever for that zing at "anti-mormons," but you argue just like a flat-earther does. The "Caractors" line up perfectly with an English cipher and only work as Egyptian if you don't know anything about Egyptian.
Very interesting. Another proof. Thanks
Glad you enjoyed it
Demotic was not an alphabet. It was shorthand (tachygraphie to Champollion), which means that it was logographic, with one sign for example to represent a full word or phrase. There was no Coptic on the Rosetta Stone. It was Greek. The stone includes hieroglyphs, demotic, and Greek. Only the Greek is alphabetic. Anthon was not an Egyptologist. There were no Egyptologists in his day.
Thanks for the technical corrections. I saw a graphic calling the ancient Greek Coptic on the Rosetta Stone, so I went with that, but you're correct. Coptic wasn't developed until later.
Demotic is considered logographic, which makes it technically a script. But is was also often transliterated, and had uniliteral signs that could represent sounds and allowed it to be used more like an alphabet than a purely logographic script. It's adaptability is what supports the point I tried to make in the video that Demotic can be adapted to other languages like it was with the Papyrus Amherst 63.
I'm no linguist but wiki talks about this characteristic of Demotic:
wiki
"Like its hieroglyphic predecessor script, Demotic possessed a set of "uniliteral" or "alphabetical" signs that could be used to represent individual phonemes. These are the most common signs in Demotic, making up between one third and one half of all signs in any given text; foreign words are also almost exclusively written with these signs"
@@JJBrown-lw1dvYes. Coptic was spelled with mainly Greek letters, but with a few demotic characters thrown in. Yes, there are some demotic letters which function alphabetically. However, the true value of demotic is that it is shorthand, like Gregg shorthand, in that it can be used to take verbatim dictation. That is what Gregg shorthand was used for by all court reporters in America at one time. Shorthand always features logograms which have one or two squiggles for an entire word or phrase. Reformed Egyptian did that to save space. Only proper names would be spelled out.
Awesome info. Thanks!
Demonic is a perfect fit. He even had occult materials such as a Seer stone to listen to the spirits. But there are many places where other sources were clearly copied or rewritten and put in the style of King James English. So how much was done by Joseph Smith and how much by the spirits of the dead?
The Caracters script sample doesn't follow any language construct. They appear to be made up on the spot.
The original sources did not exist, and could not have been manufactured because of the claim what it was in gold, and the fake script would have been easily determined.
Hmmmmm. Interesting.
Thanks for watching. Have you seen this one? ruclips.net/video/j6zw-gg-NEM/видео.html
OMG, reality is anathema for the common mormon. The level(s) of cognitive dissonance/confirmation bias is morbidly fascinating.
It’s demonic not demotic.
I am laughing away at this great leap attempt to create a hypothetical connection between Egyptian writing and Nehi and Moroni writing in the Book of Mormon. This playing with some facts in hopes to give some credence to its conclusion fails greatly and proves nothing, but is very entertaining; as it is so loose to support the speaker's endeavor -- poor academic venture by this author. Testifying to the BoM does not by default hold any truth. It is a sad case to declare nonsense to be factual. Sorry, but I am still laughing at this weak proposal. It is like proving Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble were true prehistoric people, because of factual proofs cavemen existed.
Ridicule is no substitute for actual criticism. It's a weak-minded tactic whenever it's used. If you have any substantive claims about any facts I used, I'll consider them. In my video I clearly stated that the connection between the characters and the demotic alphabet don't prove the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The facts I used were based on well established knowledge of ancient Egyptian and how the Hebrews and others incorporated the Egyptian alphabet in the 650-600 BC time frame.
Doesn't it bother them at all that they have NO source material? No actual Book of Mormon, and NO copies? There is NO source document of the witnesses. The godly thing to conclude is that they are not of God.
@@JJBrown-lw1dv Would you mind providing ANY source material or direct copies of the source material? That way, we can all speak intelligently on the matter? Also, I'd like to see some holy and academic credentials of anyone involved with creating the actual source materials.
@@ts-900 Do you believe in the Bible. If so, can you provide any original source material for it? Thanks.
@@ts-900 There is no original source material for the Bible either. Not one scrap.