I live near an Apache Native American reservation. I found out that one word has many meanings and the word is pronounced differently to convey which meaning is being used.

For example ( I am using a made up word): Ya Tah Hey.
If pronounced ya TAH hey versus
ya tah HEY it means completely two different things.

The Native Americans did not have words for many things because they had never seen them or the objects disappeared and the word went out of use, as in all languages, even today. That is why the Navajo Code Talkers were so successful. When I hear Apaches talk in Apache an English word is always used because there is no Apache word for it.
The Book of Revelation is a good example. There were no words for some of the things that were seen in visions.

Egyptologists do not know everything, no field of study knows everything.

We even do not have a complete, accurate understanding of history. Pieces are still missing and most likely will never be found. Two people witnessing the same event will tell it differently. Historians fill in the missing pieces with conjecture, their ideas, what others have said or imagined, and so forth. Pieces together as best as possible. People today think we know everything about everything. The thing is…..we don’t know what we don’t know.

I’m sure that might assist you with your cognitive dissonance, but such a statement would be the biggest lie of all.

Here is a good article that discusses the eyewitnesses of the papyri.
http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1092&index=8

Recently, Matt Roper with the Maxwell Institute has discovered several more new witness statements in his research. I don’t think they have been published yet. Hopefully they will be presented at the Fair Conference in August.

This is a good question, but after carefully analyzing the details there are several possible explanations for the Egyptian characters in the margins of the English, not of which are without problems. The way you present it misses problems with that assumption.The biggest problem is that we just don’t have much information about what they were attempting or why. Much research and study still needs to be done. Here are two links to the possible explanations that have thus far been put forth. http://mormonchallenges.org/joseph-smiths-attempt-at-an-egyptian-grammar-book-of-abraham-challenge-4/
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Abraham/Joseph_Smith_Papyri/Kirtland_Egyptian_Papers/Historical_LDS_approaches

The article states the characters around the “Sacrifice of Abraham” vignette are not necessarily related to it. This means we can’t assume those characters are the source of the Book of Abraham.

What about the fact that copies of the Abraham manuscript, as written by Joseph’s scribes, place Egyptian characters in the margin and these characters correspond to characters found in the papyrus? In other words, the beginning of the Book of Abraham corresponds to the beginning of the papyrus, starting after the first vignette, character for character.

How does this fact not show that the found papyrus was the source for the Book of Abraham?