Sharon's Anti-Mormon "Reformed Egyptian" Article Discussed

I got this off Sharon's site here

I will present her article, then add comments below it.

Sharon's article:

Book of Mormon Evidences? B E W A R E !

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I recently came across an article by Jeff Lindsay (Url below) that presents what sounds like some compelling evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Though I could give a point-by-point critique of it, I won't at this point. Two basic comments should suffice for now.

First, a specific example: Jeff would like us to believe that since there have been artifacts with Hieratic Egyptian on them found by archaeologists, that means "Reformed Egyptian" exists. He doesn't say it in those words, but that is the idea. You figure it out. I don't buy it. When a genuine ancient document is discovered, be it the Book of Mormon or some other item, and it is written in "Reformed Egyptian"...then I will believe the language existed. Hieratic Egyption does not equal Reformed Egyptian - we have samples of both and they are not the same.

Second, the heart of the matter. Jeff states that perhaps the most compelling evidence he has found is that the Book of Mormon's description of the Arabian Peninsula at the time Nephi and his family began their travels fits with the real geography of the time based on recent findings about that area. And I say that this may be true. (I also would suggest all the evidence is not in on the matter of how much info the real author of the Book might have had access to.) But even if he had none on the natural level...that is not the issue.

We are dealing with a book that claims to have been written SUPERNATURALLY. It also claims to be in agreement with the Bible, which indicates that there are two primary sources of power in the supernatural world. So the question is, which source of power wrote the Book of Mormon? The fact is, Satan and his demons would know what the geography of the Arabian peninsula was thousands of years ago. The fact is too, there are other writings of a religious nature written by demons or evil spirits (that judgment call based on Biblical principles and truths). The phenomenon of automatic handwriting existed long ago, and has been expanded in the recent decades by the addition of automatic typing. Check your search engine on line for "The Urantia Book", and you will see a book that is of a religious nature, claims to have come from some beings no longer alive, and yet does not support the Biblical view of Jesus Christ and salvation. I know of a woman (can't remember the last name; first name Marilyn) who wrote some best sellers perhaps in the 70's by means of automatic typing via a "spirit guide." But the themes were new age... UFOs having people in them who want to take over in us, for our own good, but there was no identification of these beings with God or Christ or the Holy Spirit or angels. Sounds like evil spirit control to me...

If Jeff's "evidence" shows anything, it is that we need to BEWARE of this book because it fits the above pattern. See my pages on "Facts and Feelings: Evaluating the Book of Mormon" for a whole LOT of evidence that the book does NOT meet the BIBLICAL tests that we should be applying to it to determine if it is from God. Evil spirits know history; they don't know the future. And I also have on line a list of the prophecies of Joseph Smith that failed.

There are some things in the Book of Mormon that fit with the Bible because I believe the author wanted it to look like the Bible. Satan will tell you 9 truths if he can accomplish his purpose by the 10th (false) statement. And that is the case with the Book of Mormon, and the 10th statement is the LDS plan of salvation. (See my article on Mormons under the Curse of Galatians 1.) When God says, "THIS is the key to the gate of heaven"...and the LDS say, "NO....THIS OTHER KEY is the right one"...there is a major problem. The Bible indicates we enter the presence of God (like the LDS Celestial glory) by GRACE through FAITH in the blood sacrifice of Christ...period. The LDS indicate that it is gained by FAITH in Christ (his ability to help us measure up; not faith in the shed blood as sufficient) plus our works/obedience (and that nullifies the concept of grace). Two opposite plans...no faith in the blood...no grace(undeserved favor). No matter how much truth or good or even supernatural goings on exist in Mormonism, when it comes to eternity, its plan will lead those who follow it to the Lake of Fire.

END OF ARTICLE

Kerry A. Shirts Comments:

Sharon is wrong when she says we do not have samples of "Reformed Egyptian." MANY Egyptologists agree that the Egyptian language has been modified through the ages. W.V. Davies, "Reading the Past: Egyptian Hieroglyphs," Univ. of California Press, 5th print, 1993, pp. 23f shows examples of how Egyptian has certainly been "reformed" through time. Adolf Erman in his text "Life in Ancient Egypt," p. 342 demonstrates that "Reformed Egyptian" is exactly a shortening of the regular Egyptian writing system! See Erman's figure, below.

Note it well that Erman said to increase their speed in writing, the scribes "cut short to a few strokes those words which occurred most frequently." Note the top forms of the various words are in hieroglyphic, while below is a "Reformed" version. E.A.W. Budge in his book "The Rosetta Stone" said that Demotic is "the conventional, abbreviated, and modified form of the Hieratic character..." (p. 41, 173). Sir Alan Gardiner, "Egyptian Grammar," p. 422 notes that "in course of time the two scripts [Hieratic & Hieroglyphic] divurged and developed special orthographic habits of their own...Hieratic...became far more regular and consistent, and invented, in case of need, fashions of spellings suited to itself." That was the idea of the Book of Mormon writers.

What we must understand is that the Nephites themselves were the ones who "reformed" the language to fit THEIR needs on writing on the plates. There is no other people who could read their language. The Nephites "Reformed Egyptian" will not fit ANY other "Reformed Egyptian", though many Egyptologists admit that Egyptian was changed down through the centuries.

Or as William Hamblin has shown in his article here on the Internet:

"Critics who raise the objection seem to be operating under the false impression that reformed Egyptian is used in the Book of Mormon as a proper name. In fact, the word reformed is used in the Book of Mormon in this context as an adjective, meaning "altered, modified, or changed." This is made clear by Mormon, who tells us that "the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, [were] handed down and altered by us" and that "none other people knoweth our language" (Mormon 9:32, 34). First we should emphasize that Mormon is describing Egyptian characters, or what we today would call a script or writing system. It is the form or shape of the characters or symbols that was altered by the Nephites. Nephite reformed Egyptian is thus a unique script. It derived from the Egyptian writing systems but then was modified and adapted to suit Nephite language and writing materials." For his article on the many evidences for "Reformed Egyptian" click here.

Next, Sharon legitimately acknowledges that there might be information from the Arabian penninsula concerning the BofM, and I also agree with her that perhaps all the evidence is not in on what Joseph Smith might have known. However, Eugene England approached this area exactly in his article "Through the Arabian Desert to a Bountiful Land: Could Joseph Smith Have Known the Way?" in Noel B. Reynolds, ed., "Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins," BYU Religious Studies Center, 1982, pp. 144-156, which I have yet to see critics properly address and refute, which after 16 years, leads me to believe that Joseph Smith simply *could not have known enough about Arabia* to concoct the story in the Book of Mormon. Actual expeditions through the Arabian Penninsula have been undertaken and written about by Lynn M. Hilton and Hope A. Hilton, described in their new book of which both Jeff and I have reviewed on our websites, "Discovering Lehi: New evidence of Lehi and Nephi in Arabia," CFI, 1996. The Astons actually discovered the place of Nahom in the Arabian Penninsula and the Hiltons show the map on p. 128 of their text. FARMS has many written reports of this marvelous expedition of the Astons. Until Sharon and critics begin to deal with the evidence we see no reason to accept their tossing it off with a quick flick of their hands as no good. They have evidence to deal with. For more click here

Then Sharon claims that it is the Devil, not God, who inspired the Book of Mormon. The problem is Jesus himself was just so accused of casting out devils by the devil, and Jesus himself said a house divided against itself cannot stand. Why would the devil teach in the Book of Mormon to come unto Christ? Why teach that being baptized in Christ's name is the legitimate way? Why teach of Christ coming to the New World and there set up his Gospel for men to follow here also? Why teach so much about Christ, the devil's worse enemy? Sharon fails to come to grips with this problem, then launches onto Grace and works, etc. which have already been dealt with by other LDS. My concentration comes with the Reformed Egyptian idea, it is historically verified. And the Arabian Penninsula idea, which I also have dealt with as has Jeff Lindsay, but Sharon is simply sidestepping the issues. For more on prayer and grace click here and here.