Page 6 of 9
Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:24 pm
by KevinSim
Chap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:45 am
He represented these texts as being in part the work of the biblical figure Abraham. A series of non-LDS Egyptologists have made plain their view that none of the material Joseph Smith produced bears any relation to
an ancient Egyptian original text.
So Chap, are you saying that the English Joseph Smith produced doesn't resemble the English expert Egyptologists typically produce when they translate typical Egyptian hieroglyphics to English? Is that what you're saying? And therefore what?
Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:26 pm
by KevinSim
Marcus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:39 pm
KevinSim wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:25 pm
And that would be a real tragedy, to have a rigorously fair debate about the merits of cold fusion?
Marcus, you didn't answer my question.
Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:30 pm
by KevinSim
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:50 pm
We need to have a neutral discussion about the Flat Earth theory. A neutral forum needs to be set up, where we can hear all sides and really mull the issue over, and then hopefully after that the National Academy Sciences can make a determination whether or not the earth is flat or not. Until then, we can never really know.
Doc, why did you add the bit about the National Academy of Sciences? My suggestion wouldn't affect how the National Academy of Sciences works at all.
Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:18 pm
by Chap
KevinSim wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:24 pm
Chap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:45 am
He represented these texts as being in part the work of the biblical figure Abraham. A series of non-LDS Egyptologists have made plain their view that none of the material Joseph Smith produced bears any relation to
an ancient Egyptian original text.
So Chap, are you saying that the English Joseph Smith produced doesn't resemble the English expert Egyptologists typically produce when they translate typical Egyptian hieroglyphics to English? Is that what you're saying? And therefore what?
Look, KS: Nowadays, Middle Egyptian in hieroglyphic script is not some kind of mysterious language whose rendering into English is largely conjectural. Basically, we can look at a text, and produce a translation of it. There is no room for saying "Egyptologists understand this text one way, but Joseph Smith understood it differently –who knows who is right?" There is a whole consistent literature out there that makes sense when you have learned how to read it. You can grade a student's work on the basis of whether they translated the Egyptian correctly or not. Here are some online lessons:
https://www.egyptianhieroglyphs.net/egy ... eroglyphs/
If you want to see how simple sentences work, here are some examples:
https://www.egyptianhieroglyphs.net/egy ... /lesson-7/
Looking at the second link, if you did not translate the sentence romanised "ink sš nsw" as something like “I am a royal scribe”, then you just didn't get it right. Just like you would not be right if you looked at the Latin sentence "Arma virumque cano" and translated it as "Behold! A great prophet shall born in upper New York State" instead of "I sing of arms and a man". You'd be just plain wrong.
So, basically it is a simple and objective fact that Joseph Smith did not know how to translate ancient Egyptian.
Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:32 pm
by Marcus
KevinSim wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:26 pm
Marcus wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:39 pm
Marcus, you didn't answer my question.
Yes, I did.
Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 9:40 am
by Dr. Shades
KevinSim wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 5:24 pm
Chap wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:45 am
He represented these texts as being in part the work of the biblical figure Abraham. A series of non-LDS Egyptologists have made plain their view that none of the material Joseph Smith produced bears any relation to
an ancient Egyptian original text.
So Chap, are you saying that the English Joseph Smith produced doesn't resemble the English expert Egyptologists typically produce when they translate typical Egyptian hieroglyphics to English? Is that what you're saying? And therefore what?
No, he's saying that the
meaning that Joseph Smith produced doesn't resemble the
meaning that expert Egyptologists typically produce when they translate typical Egyptian hieroglyphics to English. "And therefore what?" = Joseph Smith was lying about having the gift to translate.
Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel
Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2023 10:33 am
by Physics Guy
Ancient Egyptian is archaic Coptic, and Coptic never quite died as a language. It got displaced by Arabic as a spoken language in the early Middle Ages but it persisted as a language read by scholars into modern times. Hieroglyphics are an ancient writing system for old Coptic, and this writing system did go extinct. Once people realized that the language was an old dialect of Coptic, though, deciphering a strange notation for a known language was an exercise in codebreaking, and it wasn't a fiendishly difficult code, because it wasn't made to be secretive. There's only any doubt about a few obscure details, because once you get the rules right, enormous amounts of well preserved hieroglyphic writing all make perfect sense in ordinary detailed ways, without any of the far-fetched excuse-making that you need to make sense of Bible codes or Nostradamus prophecies. Reading ancient Egyptian is not like reading an alien script, or even like reading scripts in unknown human languages, like
Linear A. Egyptian is a known language.
So it is not at all the case that Joseph Smith's supposedly inspired renderings are alternative interpretations that can legitimately compete with the guesses of secular scholars. It's as if Smith claimed to translate Latin but disagreed wildly with the translations of Latin scholars. It's as if he claimed to multiply two by two, and said the answer was seventeen. There is no other side in a debate, here, that could be presented in a neutral forum. Smith's bogus translation impressed people who didn't know any better but it has absolutely zero validity.
So Owl wrote...and this is what he wrote:
HIPY PAPY BTHETHDTH THUTHDA BTHUTHDY
Pooh looked on admiringly.
"I'm just saying 'A Happy Birthday'," said Owl carelessly.
"It's a nice long one," said Pooh, very much impressed by it.
“Well, actually, of course, I’m saying ‘A Very Happy Birthday with love from Pooh.’ Naturally it takes a good deal of pencil to say a long thing like that.”
“Oh, I see,” said Pooh.
Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2023 1:39 am
by rockslider
[url
https://youtu.be/HSdYZgjFIQo][/url] one of my favorites
Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:47 am
by Chap
The rules of this board say that we must not "post and run", i.e. If you put up a video link you are supposed to give us a few sentences explaining what is in the link and why you think it is worth while looking at it.
The reason for this? There are quite a few people on this board, including myself, who want to be sure that they're not wasting their time by following a link someone else puts up, but also don't wish to miss something important that is relevant to the topic of a thread.
Re: O Come O Come Emmanuel
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2023 4:46 pm
by Jersey Girl
Chap wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:47 am
The rules of this board say that we must not "post and run", i.e. If you put up a video link you are supposed to give us a few sentences explaining what is in the link and why you think it is worth while looking at it.
The reason for this? There are quite a few people on this board, including myself, who want to be sure that they're not wasting their time by following a link someone else puts up, but also don't wish to miss something important that is relevant to the topic of a thread.
Back off, Chap.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1276&p=41751#p41751