huckelberry wrote: It would be entirely appropriate for a translator of that story to use the common English version, alpha and omega as translation of "glip and dot"
This is just as unreasonable as the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 for the names Shulem and Olimlah which are NOT in the hieroglyphic writing. Smith made those names up because he couldn't translate Egyptian and had no idea what the writing said. Smith goofed when he introduced Greek to the Nephites because he didn't understand the consequences of making such a stupid assertion.
Joseph Smith was no translator. Neither is there a king's name in Facsimile No. 3. The Mormon Holy Ghost is dead wrong.
KJV How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
ESV "How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
NLT “How you are fallen from heaven, O shining star, son of the morning! You have been thrown down to the earth, you who destroyed the nations of the world.
Since when is SATAN the king of Babylon? Since when does LUCIFER = SATAN?
Shulem wrote:It's inappropriate for a translator who is supposedly moved by the Holy Ghost to demonstrate inconsistency and ignorance. Saying "senine" out of one side of the mouth and then "Alpha & Omega" out of the other side of the mouth clearly demonstrates fraud by means of the translator and lack of divine assistance. I can easily see Smith and Cowdery patting themselves on the back thinking they got the senine right but in their ignorance failed to make up something for Alpha & Omega. Gotcha! Smith and Cowdery were caught in the act with their hands in the cookie jar.
"demonstrating ignorance" Your argument appears to be based upon thinking that the meaning of Alpha a Omega was unknown to Joseph Smith. I am having difficulty reaching such an unlikely supposition.
Shulem, my belief is that the Book of Mormon was first written in English in the 19th century so I have little invested in this discussion. You mentioned nobody wanted to discuss so I am willing to try a bit but we are in danger of just repeating our different take on a hypothetical translation process.