Anthon Transcript

[MikeWaters]

It seems that one of the best ways to test the veracity of the BoM is to look for a language that seems to be derived from the Anton transcript. There is some doubt as to whether this is in fact what was presented to Anthon, but it very well may be the characters from the plates.

Here is an article talking about efforts so far to link the Anthon manuscript with archeaological records. Evidence is somewhat scant.

The second picture is from a find in Mexico, that the author suggests may be related to the Anthon transcript language. The original archeaological article is here.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

It seems that one of the best ways to test the veracity of the BoM is to look for a language that seems to be derived from the Anton transcript. There is some doubt as to whether this is in fact what was presented to Anthon, but it very well may be the characters from the plates.

Here is an article talking about efforts so far to link the Anthon manuscript with archeaological records. Evidence is somewhat scant.

The second picture is from a find in Mexico, that the author suggests may be related to the Anthon transcript language. The original archeaological article is here.

Mike, they don't look the same to me.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Mike, they don't look the same to me.

when I want opinions that are hopelessly biases, I'll let you know.

and yes, that says a lot, that you are more biased than true believers.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

when I want opinions that are hopelessly biases, I'll let you know.

and yes, that says a lot, that you are more biased than true believers.

Mike, I'm sorry you're so cranky tonight but don't take it out on me. They DON'T LOOK THE SAME. Any objective person would agree. You might as well be posting a picture of an orange and of an apple and asking if these look the same. I'm sure that if I responded and said, "Mike, they don't look alike" I'd get a snarky reply. So be it.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Mike, they don't look the same to me.

As a visual person who teaches typography, typographic design, font design etc. and has studied such subjects for many years, without knowing exactly what I'm looking at, I can see some commonalities between the two.

Do I believe archeaology may evetually produce items that speak to the historacity of the BOM -most certainly; and it will happen Seattle. That being said I have little interest in proving the historacity of the BOM. I have faith in the Lord and trust in his time frame for such things.

[Archaea]

As a wannabe linguist, I see some similiarities in the way linguists see similarities, so I strongly disagree with Seattle.

However, I would need to study them further. Remember the materials are not identical, hence the grafting would necessarily vary. We don't know the time periods of the two items either.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by tooblue

As a visual person who teaches typography, typographic design, font design etc. and has studied such subjects for many years, without knowing exactly what I'm looking at, I can see some commonalities between the two.

Do I believe archeaology may evetually produce items that speak to the historacity of the BOM -most certainly; and it will happen Seattle. That being said I have little interest in proving the historacity of the BOM. I have faith in the Lord and trust in his time frame for such things.

I'm not a writing expert by any stretch of the imagination but here are some of my thoughts looking at the two images ...

1. The prevalence and application of dots above, below and surrounding strokes in each image of the characters is a very strong commonality.

2. The strokes of the characters is very similar, very graphical, a very strong commonality. I think from a visual perspective it's important to note that the image of the transcript shows the characters have obviously been drawn with a quill pen on paper.

Such writing materials result in calligraphic stylization that has been added to the characters on paper. At first glance the calligraphic stylization makes it easy to dismiss the idea that the two sets of characters as similar. One needs to look beyond the calligraphic stylization native to Victorian penmenship and consider the basic bold strokes ... are they similar to those found carved into stone?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by tooblue

I'm not a writing expert by any stretch of the imagination but here are some of my thoughts looking at the two images ...

1. The prevalence and application of dots above, below and surrounding strokes in each image of the characters is a very strong commonality.

2. The strokes of the characters is very similar, very graphical, a very strong commonality. I think from a visual perspective it's important to note that the image of the transcript shows the characters have obviously been drawn with a quill pen on paper.

Such writing materials result in calligraphic stylization that has been added to the characters on paper. At first glance the calligraphic stylization makes it easy to dismiss the idea that the two sets of characters as similar. One needs to look beyond the calligraphic stylization native to Victorian penmenship and consider the basic bold strokes ... are they similar to those found carved into stone?

Of course, Seattle wouldn't see the commoonality between printed Chinese characters and handwritten grass strokes of Chinese calligraphy either.

[All-American]

I'm more inclined to agree with SeattleUte than with Archaea and Tooblue. But I am no expert on the topic.

I suspect that the lower samples won't ultimately cause anybody to leave or join the church.

Moving on.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by All-American

I'm more inclined to agree with SeattleUte than with Archaea and Tooblue. But I am no expert on the topic.

I suspect that the lower samples won't ultimately cause anybody to leave or join the church.

Moving on.

LOL

I guess I should've indicated that I hoped through my post to sound utterly absurd - While I do see similarities, as i have mentioned I really don't know what I'm looking at and the point is neither does Seattle.

Yes, let's move on.