Jump to content

PacMan

Contributor
  • Content Count

    827
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

229 Excellent

1 Follower

About PacMan

  • Rank
    Senior Member: Divides Heaven & Earth

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,179 profile views
  1. Sort of. Sometimes they include genealogy, a record of gifts given, and recounting deceased life's events. They also include dedications and prayers of gratitude. So while there are funerary elements, they are quite different than the book of breathings.
  2. As far as the size of the golden plates, by any witness account, there was more than sufficient space to produce the text of the BoM. For example, the Petelia Gold Tablet is a totenpass less than 1.5 inches long. It is really, really small. Yet it produces 12 lines of text of about 10 words each. This is smaller in size but larger in content than a verse in the standard printing of the BoM. If Mormon wanted to make it all fit, he very well could have done so--that's before taking into account that the individual sheets of the tablet were bigger (6x8) than a standard BoM print (double page print is about 5x8), that many languages use much more abbreviated writing styles than English (the whole point of the reformed Egyptian was that it took up less space than Hebrew, which is pretty close to the size of the Greek on the Petelia Gold Tablet), that the chapters did not come with chapter headings, that the footnotes post-dated Mormon by a few years, and that the difference in total thickness of the compilation is 6 inches (golden) to 3/8 (paper). Of course, you could double, triple, octuple, or sixteen-tuple (I don't know the real word) the thickness of our paper and still have sufficient material left over for both the text and the sealed portion (about half of the whole record)--ignoring the fact that the thickness of each golden sheet (according to witness testimony) was only necessarily as thick as parchment. What makes this all the more feasible, is that the translation of the 24 Jaredite plates (from the golden plates) equates to about 15 of the smaller-sized two-page printings of English text. This gives plenty of room for the abridged material, less Moroni's added commentary.
  3. I was not impressed. The explanation falls grossly short of any useful information. For example, the Pyrgi plates in the museum where some are held note some 10,000 Etruscan texts. So how many metal plates have been discovered, where, and what is the content of each? What makes this article fairly useless is how the author picks a few characteristics to compare with the golden plates and then simply assumes those characteristics are dispositive when there’s no reason to believe they are. In fact, most of the records he uses as a baseline are themselves inconsistent with one another. Ultimately, the issue for the Nephites is twofold: (1) does the history support that they knew about writing on metal plates? The answer is an obvious yes. (2) why metal? Well, what other means did they have to write? I remember no account of Nephi being a paper maker. In fact, the earliest amate paper came on the scene 500 years after Lehi left Jersusalem. So if the region (let alone they) didn’t have papyrus or some form of paper, then it wasn’t an option. Stone isn’t a better option (try two-sided printing). While metal work would be difficult, it’s an easy choice if that’s all you’ve got to work with...particularly if the early tradition started by Nephi was simply perpetuated. This article can not be taken seriously. It doesn’t even analyze the dates of the modern discoveries to determine what Joseph did or did not know (because Jospeh didn’t know a whole lot). It’s a hodgepodge amalgamation of others’research with a stunted analysis built to reach a biased conclusion.
  4. That’s my point. The Curly horse is a complete mystery. She should have had a whole section on it.
  5. I am surprised by how little she treats the curly horse. It's probably the best example of pre-Columbian horses.
  6. That’s precisely why I said to start with the text, we need to make assumptions. To assume Matthew, however, was not accurate has more difficulty because there’s nothing upon which to base the assumption.
  7. Thanks, all. What about a hard copy interlinear? I've looked at a lot of options and I'm just not certain of the quality. It looks like there are a lot of Strong knock-offs with quality problems.
  8. Please post recommendations for best interlinear bibles (OT and NT) and commentaries. Thanks.
  9. Robert, you are right in all the above except your conclusion. I find Luke exactly as you say - faith promoting. He tends to hyperbole and accounts for things he did not witness, namely interactions the apostles (he was not one) had with the divine. His accounts are, necessarily, a compilation of other hearsay accounts. Where I think you turn wrong, however, is picking and choosing (as opposed to assuming) between those credible and not credible retellings. I am not suggesting that the hypothesis I am forwarding is a closed case. For all the reasons you mention, it is not. But we have to start with the text. I'm assuming that it is credible. And presuming that Luke is credible in these particular scriptures (which makes sense in Acts because it is possible, if not likely, that Luke was present at Pentecost) then we have something to go off of. Based on the text, I believe there is good reason to conclude that Peter spoke Greek. So you ask, "[W]hy would a Galilean fisherman, who would certainly be fluent in Aramaic, also be fluent in Greek?" First, because Greek was the macro-language of the time. We can't use our American isolationism thinking here. Over the pond, you will frequently find even uneducated bilingual people and speak both a dialect (which, can really be separate languages) and national languages. And that makes sense if Peter was a merchant of sorts, interacting with others. Second, there is good reason to believe, as Fitzmyer points out, that Peter was speaking Greek during Pentecost (again, assuming there is something to the text). Third, the idea (to put words in your mouth) that Peter was some uneducated dope that only spoke Aramaic doesn't hold. Remember, Peter traveled around the Mediterranean. He traveled around the Holy Land, up to Antioch, to Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. So while he was a simple fisherman, he wasn't ignorant. It's similar to Paul (although not exactly). A simple fisherman, yes. But most of these gents were clearly polyglots. It wasn't a function of education. It was a function of life. In fact, I would also argue that given the amount Peter opines on the Old Testament in the early chapters of Acts, I would be surprised if he also didn't at least read Hebrew. That would be more surprising, I think, than speaking Greek. A final consideration - even if Peter did not speak Greek originally, who's to say that he did not learn it over the period in which he was called as Apostle? He had plenty of time to learn. I think the textual evidence suggests, one way or the other, that he did.
  10. And that's where we disagree. I think there's substantial reason to believe Peter spoke Greek given the biblical text - see the first two points of the OP that you haven't treated (skip the third since you obviously disagree, although I'm curious why you don't treat all the evidence; namely that when a word is used in Aramaic, it is used in the Greek NT with a translation--so, why should we assume that a Greek word ("rock") was really Aramaic unless it is also given a translation?). The text gives good reason (apart from the cultural history) to believe that Peter spoke Greek (along, of course, with Aramaic).
  11. Robert, thanks for chiming in. Again, the names of the women have nothing to do with anything. The words of command are, in Mark 5:41 "arise," or in Greek egeiro, meaning to wake or stand. In Act 9:40 "arise," or in Greek, anistemi, meaning to stand or to rise up. My point here is that Peter would have likely used the same word of command as did the Savior--following his example. I think that's human nature. [Watch how someone gives a blessing. Chances are, they use verbiage common to their father, grandfather, etc.] That Peter didn't use the same word suggests that the two spoke in different languages, with Christ's command being in Aramaic then translated into the Greek, and Peter's use in the Greek in the first instance. This is all the more likely given that the location was in Joppa (Jaffa), a coast city with more international influence (and, in contrast to Hebrew or Aramaic words in the NT that are given then translated into Greek in the text, Joppa, the Greek, is given straightway as the name of the location). Is this dispositive? Certainly not. But I think it certainly points to Peter's understanding of Greek. While I understand what you said, I don't understand how you can conclude that that it "[d]oesn't mean that Jesus said it in Greek." Should we be asking whether it doesn't mean that Jesus didn't say it in Greek? There is absolutely no doubt that Jesus spoke Aramaic. But I think it's also safe to say that Christ spoke any language he wanted to speak. So the question is about Peter. As I point out, the textual evidence suggests that Peter spoke something other than Hebrew/Aramaic. And as I have done additional research, it appears that it is more likely than not that Peter spoke Greek--possibly as a first language. If Wikipedia is to be believed, 70% of the 1,600 extant Jewish epitaphs from ancient Palestine dating from 300 B.C. to 500 A.D. are in Greek. So while virtually all natives of Galilee and Judea would have likely spoken Aramaic, Greek was broadly spoken--even among this region of Jews. In fact, if Peter's family were diaspora Jews, resettled in Bethsaida, then Greek would have been his first language. I'm not suggesting that is necessarily the case, but it is certainly possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_of_the_New_Testament In any event, the textual and cultural evidences seems to point that Peter spoke Greek and that there is no reason to believe that the Savior's statement in Matthew 16:18 was in Aramaic. If it was, then we would have expected that Aramaic word to be used with an explanatory line stating, "meaning...." Just as occurred numerous times, such as in Matthew 27:46, or even Mark 5:41 as we have discussed, or John 1:42 as you have noted.
  12. Robert, the key is in the words of command - not the names of the women. As to Matthew, the RCC scriptural claim is that Christ built his church on Peter using a word play. As you know, word “rock” is “petra” in Greek. We LDS, of course, believe the reference to be to revelation — not Peter. Now, I don’t speak Greek. But I speak several other languages. And you’d never refer to a man using a feminine word. In other words, the word “petra” does not refer to Peter. This appears to be the case here. Catholic apologetics have defended this by saying that the word “petra”was but a translation of what Christ said in Aramaic. My point is that there’s no reason to believe that Christ spoke to Peter in Aramaic, as opposed to Greek, particularly where the text supports that Peter did, in fact, speak Greek. So not only did Christ use the word “petra,” but he did not refer to Peter in doing so.
  13. Sorry. The difference is between conveying an idea not explicitly stated (imply) versus a conclusion not explicitly stated (infer). See the example of the statue. It doesn’t fit your explanation. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/infers
  14. Do an Amazon search. A Jesuit Emeritus Professor, I believe.
×
×
  • Create New...