the incredible expanding, shrinking, and disappearing Lehites

[Bernard Gui]

Steelyray: So you are claiming that "after the manner of" means "an exact copy of"?

Bernard

[mfbukowski]

On this point, from my Truth and Method essay in FR 16:1

There were no trucks, but there were lorries, no elevators but lifts. There were no french fries, but there were chips (which were also similar to fried potatoes). They had something like potato chips, but only if I asked for crisps. There were no cookies; what they called biscuits resembled cookies but were different from what I thought of as biscuits. And what was it to be cheeky? That sticks in my mind because I had to learn the concept of cheeky from within the culture because it could not be translated precisely from their English to mine.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

As one changes the context, one changes the meaning totally. The context IS the meaning.

While in London, I recall being asked if I wanted an icelolly. I really was not sure until it was described to me. We take the words "icicle" and "lollypop" and combine the last syllable of each word into "popsicle". The British take the first syllable of the same words and come up with "icelolly".

For those who speak Spanish, individual words can vary immensely from one Latin country to another, to the point where perfectly acceptable words in one country become swear words across the border- and some of these nations are not much larger than some of our larger states.

Full translation of virtually any text, including full contexts and nuances of meaning from one language to another, is probably impossible except within very simple concepts. Adding differences between modern cultures and ancient cultures into the mix, one must study the culture extensively to really understand any given text.

[mfbukowski]

Steelyray: So you are claiming that "after the manner of" means "an exact copy of"?

Bernard

Your point is a good one. Clearly, the two phrases have different meanings and to allege that one can be substituted for the other in ANY context is just absurd.

Even if it said that the swords were "like" Nephi's steel sword- it would still be open to interpretation. An axe is "like" a sword in that both are used for cutting.

Again, we have had another critic who is a fundamentalist. That seems to be a nearly universal flaw we see again and again: over-literalism.