Jump to content

JarMan

Members
  • Content Count

    1,000
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

268 Excellent

1 Follower

About JarMan

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

1,781 profile views
  1. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    I think it depends on what kind of “shorthand” reformed Egyptian is. From what I can gather some shorthand systems were phonetic while others were symbolic with several that were a combination of the two. They were designed in order to record speech in real-time. It sounds to me like reformed Egyptian was designed for a different purpose, which was to save space in writing. This suggests to me it was symbolic in nature. I am surmising that you’re not likely to get a one-to-one correspondence between the original and a symbolic shorthand since the number of symbols would be necessarily limited (wouldn’t they?). I would also think that certain elements of the original language would be lost or obscured in going to symbols. This is outside my experience but I have to think there are real-world examples, particularly with eastern languages, that could inform us on the matter.
  2. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    I haven't had time to really research this, but based on a cursory review of other bible translations you appear to be right that the Coverdale examples mean "was angry with". It occurs to me, though, that this meaning also works just fine in Mosiah 21:6. The Nephites were angry with the king because of the afflictions of the Lamanites who they were supposedly at peace with. In the previous chapter the people captured the Lamanite king and brought him to Limhi and proposed executing him. Realizing the Lamanites had some justification for the war Limhi decided to spare the Lamanite king and return him to his people with a promise of renewed peace. When the peace began to fail perhaps the people blamed Limhi for being too soft on the Lamanites and their king. Maybe if Limhi had shown more toughness the Lamanites wouldn't be so bold as to afflict them as they were. Maybe they should have pursued a decisive victory while they had the upper hand.
  3. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    What’s the most impressive Hebraism in the Book of Mormon that you know of?
  4. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    By writing in a compact form you have a relationship that goes from many to few. And then in the translation to English the relationship is few to many. This bottleneck will cause a loss of information, won’t it? We can be certain we end up with less information (or at least less accurate information) than if there had been a direct Hebrew to English translation.
  5. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    My proposed author did know Hebrew well. Perhaps my hypothesized translator did, too. Maybe one or both of them consciously or subconsciously incorporated Hebraisms into their work. Maybe it was originally written in Hebrew instead of Latin. As speculative as any of that may sound, the other alternative is Hebrew + 1000 years + reformed Egyptian + English translation = Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon. I start to lose faith somewhere in the 1000 years part.
  6. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    It's one thing to postulate a similarity but another to demonstrate it. I've postulated a Latin influence in Helaman 13:10's use of visit and you suggested a Hebrew influence. The challenge for supporting the Hebrew is that we don't know what Hebrew looked like half a world away (where unknown or little known languages would have an influence) 600 or 1,000 years after the last known data points. Throw in the reformed Egyptian intermediary and it becomes a puzzle with most of the pieces missing. With the Latin we can look at Latin to English translations from the same time period and area of the world that I have hypothesized. Following that reasoning I've tracked down all of the uses I could find of the Latin verbs inviso, viso, and visito (all of which can mean both visit and see) in the Clementine Vulgate. I've looked at the Douay Rheims Bible to see how the words were translated by early modern English scholars. So far this has lead to some interesting, but inconclusive results. This exercise could be expanded to other texts that fit the criteria of being early modern English translations of Latin texts in Europe. The point is that unlike Book of Mormon Hebrew, with Renaissance Latin we have relevant data to test. Now to summarize my results. For inviso I found several instances of visit in the DRB but none of see. For viso it was almost always translated as see but never visit. For visito I found several instances of visit and a few like punish. I found a single instance of go see but none of just see. So, except for the single instance of visito = go see I didn't really find what I was looking for. This exercise could be expanded to other works but it's not really something I have time to do.
  7. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    If Hebrew is the original language then there were real Nephites and a real angel Moroni. So a traditional view is a supernatural model right out of the box regardless of how the translation took place. I don't get why King James OT language merits an appeal to Hebrew rather than simply pointing us directly to the King James Bible. Isn't the simplest explanation that the KJB was used in some form in the production of the Book of Mormon? This should be true whether or not we are considering a supernatural model. Here's another possible qualifying murmured with from this source:
  8. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    Mormon's and Moroni's abridgments of the large plates and the plates of Ether occurred after 1,000 years. Nephi and Jacob, on the other hand, would have been native Hebrew speakers. So I would entertain possible Hebraisms on the small plates though I still suspect the Hebrew to Reformed Egyptian to English would have obscured it significantly. The traditional model of the Book of Mormon's production includes angels and seer stones and other supernatural things so I think, by definition, the traditional model is an appeal to the supernatural. I have no problem with a supernatural model by itself. But when a supernatural model is compared to a naturalist model this can be a type of category error, so deciding which is more likely is not really a relevant comparison to make. If I may, I'd like to re-post a question you may not have seen earlier regarding murmur with (non-participatory with). Has Skousen considered murmured with in his analysis? This occurs twice in the Coverdale Bible. 2 Chronicles 16:10 -- "And Osias was wroth, and had a censoure in his hande. But Asa was wroth at ye Seer, and put him in preson: for he murmured with him ouer this thinge." 2 Chronicles 26:19 -- "And whyle he murmured with the prestes, the leprosy spronge out of his foreheade in the presence of the prestes in the house of the LORDE before the altare of incense."
  9. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    My hypothetical translation occurred in about 1650 by someone very well-versed in the KJB. So from my point of view an appeal to Hebrew is unnecessary. And I still don’t understand why we would expect to see Hebraisms. We start with Hebrew, of course. Then we let a thousand years pass. Then we use some sort of shorthand based on Egyptian to convey whatever language has evolved. Then we translate that into English. Seems like too much going on to expect to see recognizable signs of Hebrew on the back end. I’m not sure a naturalistic explanation is ever more speculative than a supernatural one. But let’s put that issue aside for a moment. If we seriously are considering an early modern connection to the Book of Mormon it makes a lot of sense to look at Latin. Virtually any early modern person capable of producing the Book of Mormon would have been schooled in Latin. And while I realize that’s not the only type of early modern connection possible, to me it seems the most obvious.
  10. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    I’ve never understood why, after a thousand years of history, and with the written language being reformed Egyptian, we should be looking at Hebrew. Except for perhaps on the small plates. In doing some more research into Latin I came across the verb inviso meaning both visit and watch over. This verb is found in the Latin Vulgate. In Judges 15:1 it is translated in the KJB as visit and in 2Kings 8:29 it is translated as see. This is the verb I have been looking for. So my new proposal is that inviso was used in the Latin version of Helaman 13:10 (at the end) to mean see. The translator was thinking ahead to the end of the story when he decided to use visit instead of see. The result is a unique English phrase that makes sense if you know that the Lamanites destroy the Nephites. If you don’t already know this, the story is puzzling. You have a Lamanite coming over to the Nephites telling them to repent or God will destroy them. And then unexpectedly and in conflict with his consistent message that God holds the sword of justice he says, oh by the way my people are gonna destroy your people. But the Nephites don’t say, wait a minute, hold the phone…your people are gonna kill our people if we don’t obey your message? The Nephites never mention this. You’d think they’d spend the next 400 years cursing the Lamanites because of this prophecy. If the Nephites only had the expectation that the Lamanites would be bystanders then this problem goes away.
  11. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    The parallel usage I was referencing looks like the following: This is part of the case that visit needs to mean see or something equivalent to behold. I agree that OED 3a seems to be the intended meaning here, though, as long as the word used really is visit. Especially when you put this next to Exodus 20:5 or Exodus 34:7 or Numbers 14:18 or Deuteronomy 5:9 which all say “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation”. But my contention is that the first two visits in Helaman 13:9&10 fit the OT pattern (God is the subject and visit is mentioned before the generations) but the last visit does not fit the pattern. Combine this with the failed parallelism with behold and the unexpected use of non-deity as the subject to a OED 3a use of visit it looks like visit is the wrong word. A word like see would resolve all of my objections. My theory has been that the Latin word viso was used (which can mean either visit or see) but that it was translated as visit when the original author meant see. However, I now see that as less likely than I did before based on a search of the Clementine Vulgate. I could not find a single use of any form of the verb viso in the entire Latin Bible (except in participle form which is identical to the participle forms of video, meaning see). Because I have novice-level Latin I’m not quite sure what to make of this participle form use. I continue to believe there may be a Latin-related explanation to understand this, but I’m not sure now what exactly that explanation is.
  12. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    The obsolete definition come and see doesn’t work well for me. The see works but the come seems unnecessary. But even if we were to grant that this obsolete definition was intended here, we never see visit used with a non-personal object unless God is doing the visiting. Additionally, Helaman 13:10 is a pretty clear example of the use of parallelism where three ideas are each repeated. Come and see doesn’t work as a parallel to behold as well as just see. The thing is, though, that the use of visit your destruction here seems to be intended to mean cause your destruction. It’s a usage similar to what we see throughout the Bible when God is the subject (“visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation”). We see the fourth generation mentioned in Helaman 13:13, as well, so this looks like a case of what I think Skousen calls blending. To me this is possible evidence of translation bias. The translator is used to “visiting the iniquity” in the same sentence as “the fourth generation” so he is pre-disposed to use visiting here. Combine that with the fact the translator already knows the final outcome with the Lamanites destroying the Nephites. In his mind the Lamanites are wielding God’s sword so it makes sense to have non-deity as the subject of the verb visiting when it is being used in a way normally only associated with God. But for the reasons I mentioned earlier I don’t think the original author had the same thing in mind as the translator. He simply meant to say see or behold or observe or some other equivalent word. That’s the cleanest explanation that fits all the data points.
  13. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    It looks like each of us is participating in this thread for different reasons. I'm participating to support the idea that the Book of Mormon has an early modern origin. I've identified Hugo Grotius as potentially being the early modern author. I was discussing his theory of ethical warfare and how I believe it to be reflected in the Book of Mormon. So for this discussion I'm not that interested in debating the merits of Grotius' ethical system or trinitarianism per se. I'm more interested in discussing the evidence for my theory and other matters that hearken to the original subject of the thread. If you are interested in discussing ethics, perhaps you should start a new thread on the subject.
  14. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    The ethical systems I'm comparing are the ethics of war. So things like sexual behavior are not part of my analysis. I think I should try to explain Grotius' system a little better. He lived in a time of tremendous religious strife and religious warfare. Heretics were being burned at the stake and most of Europe was being ravaged by war. The subtext to all of this strife was religious disagreement (though of course there were other political considerations, as well). Grotius wanted to develop a code of conduct in war that everybody could agree to. By identifying "natural law" principles he felt they could be universally accepted--even by those who didn't believe in God. His starting point was that man had an inherent right--a "natural right"-- to defend himself. He may have personally believed this right was from God. But to allow this to be a universal right accepted even by non-believers, he didn't appeal to the divine in order to identify self defense as a natural right. The second principle was the social nature of man. Man was this way by nature. Whether he personally believed God had created man that way or not is beside the point. He simply stated that man was naturally in that state as a principle that he hoped could be universally accepted by both religious and non-religious people. This second principle is important for a couple of reasons. It implies that people will organize themselves into groups for their own mutual benefit--governments, if you will--and that there are thus different ways (some better than others) to accomplish this. Also, people will need to depend on others to help them with the first principle, which is self defense since one person can't effectively do that job on his own. This becomes the foundation of what later thinkers would call social contract theory. By organizing into societies for mutual benefits, particularly self defense, you owe something to that society. You can't simply free-ride on the benefits without contributing anything yourself. An example of this theory applied in Grotius' life is the case of the Anabaptists (whose modern theological descendants include the Mennonites and Amish). Grotius was an admirer of the Anabaptists who he felt were the most Christian people he knew. However, he strongly disagreed with their pacifist views. It sort of broke his heart to be in such strong disagreement with them over this issue. He respected their own personal choice in choosing not to fight but felt pacifism was not a principle that all Christians should adopt. As a compromise he believed that Anabaptists could exist within the larger Christian community as long as they agreed to pay for the costs of their protection. We see these exact principles reflected in the Book of Mormon with the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. They are revered as examples of righteousness. But they also have to pay for the protections provided by the Nephites. This is one of the many examples where Grotius' natural law theory shines through in the Book of Mormon. If Abinadi is to be believed, "God himself" came down in "the form of man" (Mosiah 13:34). This was the heresy charge that led to him being burned at the stake (Mosiah 17:7-8). So God didn't sacrifice his son. He sacrificed himself. Self sacrifice can be a moral act.
  15. JarMan

    Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

    If the Book of Mormon was ancient scripture we would expect the Book of Mormon people to have ancient views. Since they have modern views instead that tells us the Book of Mormon is probably a modern book. I’m suggesting those that authored the OT accounts were trying to justify the immoral behavior of their people by claiming God commanded them to do it. I mentioned two underlying principles of Grotius’ system of ethics. They are that people have a right to defend themselves and that humans are social creatures. He derives everything else from these ideas. No. If God had commanded it God would have been wrong. My view is that God did not command it. It is just a story demonstrating the level of commitment the people were expected to have toward God.
×