The Limited Geography battle between Mesoamerica and the great lakes regions is an interesting one.

Here's a nice summary of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_geography_model

Just matching geography to any region, with size as a fairly arbitrary consideration, makes for an easy match to many areas on a map. Look at the "narrow neck of land" in the great lakes model map, for a good laugh.

Groups fighting over which region are the basis of fiction makes for entertainment to be sure, but even more, a look at the evidence each offers up shows the integrity (or lack of) they have.

For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_geography_model#Existence_of_ancient_system_of_writing

One of the main reasons Mesoamerica is fondly subscribed is because of the Mayan glyph writing system, developed probably about 300BC. Unfortunately, it is nothing like Egyptian, reformed or otherwise. A writing system in that era is nothing spectacular, so without a link to Egyptian or Hebrew or something similar to what is described in the BoM, it is just another writing system. The mops know this.

The great lakes folks tend to rely for writing system evidence on the Mimac of Canada, which they claim have glyphs that even correlate to Egyptian. Quote:

>> More than one LDS researcher has concluded that various characters from “North America’s first indigenous script” resemble characters believed to have been copied from the Book of Mormon plates. <<

This has been seriously discredited, but they refuse to acknowledge it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi'kmaq_hieroglyphic_writing#The_Fell_hypothesis

Members who study FAIR and other apologetic writing without viewing critical material would not know this. They would just accept that more "than one LDS 'researcher'" had found a writing system that is a great match between Egyptian and Amerindian language. Proof that the BoM is troo.

It seems to me the mops are purposely lying.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2010 12:51PM by Jesus Smith.

Humans with writing systems graffiti everything with it. I am always highly skeptical of isolated finds like this one. So far every example presented to me of an isolated example of a writing system has been proven to be a hoax.

They want to make their ideas real so badly that they ignore the truth.

The invention of writing originated from picture writing. This was true in Egypt, China, etc. America was doing the same, without being influenced from anywhere else.

The apologists from any of the geography camps ignore this natural development in all humans. They can't grasp that people can do things all by themselves.

Meso-American apologists point to the more advanced glyphs and claim proof that old world people must have been the influence.

The Mayan glyphs were simply a development from picture writing. Pictographs throughout North America were symbols associated with human body gestures for communicating ideas.

The common foundation to the Mayan "writing" is found in the Americas.

Scientific knowledge of the above is not new. BYU scholars did not announce it. Garrick Mallery published it in 1886.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IegNAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Pictographs+of+the+North+American+Indians&hl=en&ei=xnr-TJzFNcSYnAfbusG_Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Do you have the link to the 1800s library catalog that contained Niebuhr's travel books? I believe it was you that found a listing in a library that JS or Spalding could have accessed. It seemed to be one of the best nails in the NHM coffin.

http://books.google.com/books?id=K5xAAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=allegheny+college&hl=en&ei=6MxqTMKbKY7UngfL5rSIAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

D'Anville's book on ancient geography is on page 18
Niebuhr is on page 44

Both books were fifty miles away from where the translation was being done.

Thanks, MM.

Take a look at this one. It's from early 1800s, a catalog from the PA hospital in Philly PA. P. 118 lists Niebuhr's travel.

But get this: On page ii, there is a handwritten name. S. Spalding.

http://books.google.com/books?id=YmwpAAAAYAAJ&dq=Pennsylvania%20library%20catalog%20%20Niebuhr%E2%80%99s%20Travels&pg=PR2#v=onepage&q=%20Niebuhr&f=false


Holy Crap!!! Could this be?

This is something that I was thinking about in regards to the original "translation" of the BOM. If the plates (which I understand were not really used) had reformed Egyptian on them then -

A. Why has there never been anything documented anywhere as resembling anything in the Egyptian language on the American continents, much less reformed Egyptian?
B. Why are there no Egyptian culture references in the BOM? Language is a direct link to culture anywhere.
C. When did the Hebrews learn Egyptian?
D. What tools would someone use to inscribe these letters on the plates? Writing these on paper is one thing. Impressing these on plates using 650 BC technology is a whole other problem.

exmo99 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...[snip]...
> C. When did the Hebrews learn Egyptian?

According to the Book of Mormon, the Hebrews kept their sacred history in Egyptian. The Brass Plates were written in Egyptian, "the language of our fathers".

Not many Mormons are aware of this. I think the Brass Plates are a major problem for BoM believers.

See my article on the Brass Plates at http://packham.n4m.org/brassplates.htm

RPackham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> exmo99 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ......
> > C. When did the Hebrews learn Egyptian?
>
> According to the Book of Mormon, the Hebrews kept
> their sacred history in Egyptian. The Brass
> Plates were written in Egyptian, "the language of
> our fathers".
>
> Not many Mormons are aware of this. I think the
> Brass Plates are a major problem for BoM
> believers.
>
> See my article on the Brass Plates at
> http://packham.n4m.org/brassplates.htm


Thanks for the link. That's some good stuff, and obviously well thought out. I'll have to reference it and use it in the future.

RPackham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> exmo99 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ......
> > C. When did the Hebrews learn Egyptian?
>
> According to the Book of Mormon, the Hebrews kept
> their sacred history in Egyptian. The Brass
> Plates were written in Egyptian, "the language of
> our fathers".
>
> Not many Mormons are aware of this. I think the
> Brass Plates are a major problem for BoM
> believers.
>
> See my article on the Brass Plates at
> http://packham.n4m.org/brassplates.htm


Ok, so I've read through your site there a couple time and I'm astounded by the flaws in just the language part.

I think you could expound on your issues section by delving into the material side of the coin if you will. How did they get ahold of brass and call it brass since that term wasn't really used until after the middle ages. Wouldn't the brass break down and become unreadable / brittle / etc over that span of 1400 years? I think there are is a whole slew of metallurgical problems with people from 600 BC - 420 AD 'writing' anything on brass plates or even creating / manufacturing brass. Then again, I'm an engineer by trade, so what do I know....?

how about the BYU idiots like BYU PhD Joe Allen that claim to find chiasmus, a literary device, in glyphs.

the same way an aerospace engineer would look at plans to convert Indian tee pees into space shuttles by *simply* adding a saturn rocket booster, some wiring & a window.

had to do with this...

It's another example of Mormons bringing sex (or its rejection) into everything

;-)