Jump to content

webbles

Members
  • Content Count

    665
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by webbles

  1. 2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

    I raised the questions I did because the claims in the Bible taken at face value don't sync well with Book of Mormon claims.

    As I pointed out above, if you just take the Bible and try to figure out what happened in between the first siege and the second siege, you'll get facts that don't sync together.  One of the more famous "problems" is just a few versus before in 2 Kings 24:8:

    Quote

    Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign

    Compare that with 2 Chronicles 36:9

    Quote

    Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign

     

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  2. 25 minutes ago, Sevenbak said:

    If I'm understanding you right, you're saying that you think Lehi left Jerusalem after it was sacked?  Why do you not think it happened before Nebuchadnezzar?  There were 2 invasions from him, in 597 BC and 587 BC.  Lehi left around 600 BC.   In fact, Jacob sees in vision the destruction of Jerusalem and its inhabitants being carried away captive, after they were in the promised land, years later.   (2 Nephi 6:8)

    Does the references you mentioned happen during the first of 2nd siege from Babylon?  If it was in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, then Jerusalem still had a king (albeit appointed by Nebekenezer).  I'm guessing the sacking you're referring to happened in 587, long after Lehi was gone.  JMHO

    2 Kings 24 is the siege before Zedekiah becomes king.  2 Kings 25 is the siege after Zedekiah becomes king.  So Fair Dinkum is referencing the siege before Lehi left since Lehi left during the reign of Zedekiah.

    • Upvote 1
  3. Nine years later (see 2 Kings 25), Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem and it took 2 years to take the besiege city.  So if only the "poorest sort of people" were left and "all that were strong and apt for war" were taken nine years earlier, I don't see why it would take 2 years to besiege the city.

    In addition, 2 Kings 24:13 says they "carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord" but nine years later, in 2 Kings 25:13-15:

    Quote

    And the pillars of brass that were in the house of the Lord, and the bases, and the brasen sea that was in the house of the Lord, did the Chaldees break in pieces, and carried the brass of them to Babylon.

    14 And the pots, and the shovels, and the snuffers, and the spoons, and all the vessels of brass wherewith they ministered, took they away.

    15 And the firepans, and the bowls, and such things as were of gold, in gold, and of silver, in silver, the captain of the guard took away.

    So, in nine years, they were able to put a lot of treasures back into the temple?

    I think there's a little hyperbole in those two accounts.

    • Upvote 2
  4. 1 hour ago, Rain said:

    Hm interesting. Thanks!

    They put the Bethphage closer to the BYU center.  

    Do we know that the last supper was in Jerusalem or could it have been in Bethany?  

    It's interesting that they put the mount of Olives between Gethsemane and Bethany.  If you go by Matt 26 (I'm going through the gospels one at a time and putting it down in a spreadsheet so I haven't reached the other 3 yet) and the last supper was in Jerusalem then according to this map they left Jerusalem, went past Gethsemane to the Mount of Olives and then back to Gethsemane. 

    I believe Gethsemane is on the slope of the mount of Olives.  So verse 30 has them leaving Jerusalem for the mount of Olives and the place they go to on the mount of Olives is Gethsemane.

  5. 18 minutes ago, Calm said:

    I can't find the scripture about someone coming against three times, we are justified to do....something.  Anyone knows what I am talking about?

    I think you are talking about D&C 98.  Maybe verse 31-32?

     

    Quote

    31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.

    32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy afathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.

     

  6. 1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

    Not at all, but sadly many ex LDS lump them together and turn Atheist. Not that they are bad for doing so..they just go through a tough transition and it messes with you.

    For me, they are the same.  And that is because I believe in the God that is taught by the church.  I've studied and looked at what other churches (including non-Christian and Christian) teach about God and I just can't accept their version of God.  If I ever loose the belief that Joseph Smith is an actual prophet and spoke with God and angels, then I'll also loose the belief in God.  There isn't another version of God that I'm willing to believe in.

  7. 14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

    Glad I don't believe in the doctrines that feel like they separate families. I hope Fiveofclubs, that you don't do anything rash, but love your wife for eternity, because that's exactly where you'll be if you want to! Only about 2% of all humans on the earth will be the only people to live eternally? Because that's how many are members of the church, and even less because not all of them are married in the temple. Do you think God would do that??

    Considering that all children under the age of accountability automatically go to the Celestial Kingdom, and considering that in the past, a lot of kids died young, the percentage of those in the Celestial Kingdom is going to be a lot larger than 2%.  I, personally, think the number is closer to 50% or higher.

    • Like 4
  8. 8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    Ritner compares the same Isis label in Papyrus Tubingen 2016 in his book, Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri (SLC: Signature, 2013), page 173, note 340.  However, the comparative work and translation had already been done for him by Mike Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings (Provo: FARMS, 2002), 24-25.  Most Egyptologists translate while carefully comparing previous work.  Ritner is likely to have taken a careful look at Rhodes.  You'll notice that his book includes detailed comparisons with previous translations.  He need not be accused of deception on that score.

    Dr. Ritner had already translated it in his paper 2 years before Dr. Rhodes did his translation.  Dr. Ritner wrote it in The 'Breathing Permit of Hor’ Thirty-four Years Later which was published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 33, no. 4 (Winter, 2000).  See his translation on page 114 of https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N04_107.pdf.

    • Like 1
  9. 2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

    Sam Brown has notes on each of them in the footnotes of The Translator and the Ghostwriter. Most of them are kind of unorthodox when it comes to spelling but they work. 

    Thank you.  I found it on pages 20-22 of the pdf (page number 45-47 in the document).

    10 out of 17 are basically correct.  Of those correct, 3 of them (Chaldean, Samaritan, and Hebrew) probably come from primers that Joshua Seixas brought to the Hebrew school.  1 of them (the Western Indian) is from the Lenape tribe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape) and Phelps probably picked it up because of missionary contact with a group that had been relocated to Fort Leavenworth.  The other 6 (Greek, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Latin) have only minor issues.

    Of the 7 that are incorrect, 1 is the Egyptian one.  The Turkish one probably references a religious festival which is not what someone would say to the rhetorical question that Phelps posed before writing all of the languages.  Syrian is unknown.  3 (Danish, Saxon, and Sweede) are literal translations of the English words which is what someone who doesn't know the language would do.  Polish is either completely wrong or Phelps used the word for "name" instead of "blessed".

    So, almost half of the languages are incorrect.  If you just look at the dead languages (Chaldean, Samaritan, Hebrew, Latin, Saxon, Syrian, Egyptian), more than half (4 out of 7) are correct.  And if you look at the non dead languages (Greek, French, German, Spanish, Latin, Lenape, Turkish, Danish, Sweede, Polish), 4 out of 10 are incorrect.

    • Like 2
  10. 20 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:
    Were I a Chaldean I would exclaim: Keed’nauh ta-meroon le-hoam olauhayauh dey-shemayauh veh aur’kau lau gnaubadoo yabadoo ma-ar’gnau oomeen tehoat shemayauh alah. (Thus shall ye say unto them: The gods that have not made the heavens and earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.)
    An Egyptian: Su e-eh-ni: (What other persons are those?) A Grecian: Diabolos bassileuei: (The Devil reigns.) A Frenchman: Messieurs sans Dieu, (Gentlemen without God:) A Turk. Ain shems: (The fountain of light.) A German: sie sind unferstandig. (What consummat ignorance!) A Syrian: Zaubol. (Sacrifice!) A Spaniard: ll sabio muda conscio, il nescio no. (A wise man reflects, a fool does not.) A Samaritan: Saunau! (O Stranger!) An Italian: Oh tempa! oh diffidanza! (O the times! o the diffidence!) A Hebrew: Ahtauh ail rauey. (Thou God seest me.) A Dane: Hyad tidende! (What tidings!) A Saxon: Hwaet riht! (What right!) A Sweede: Hyad skilia: (What skill!) A Polander: Nav-yen-shoo bah pon na Jesu Christus; (Blessed be the name of Jesus Christ.) A Western Indian: She-mo-kah she-mo-keh teh ough-ne gah. (The white man, O the white man, he very uncertain.) A Roman: Procul, o procul este profani! (Be off, be off ye profane!) But as I am I will only add: when the wicked rule the people mourn.
     

    Do you know if any one has actually figured out how many of these languages make sense?  I just did a quick Google translate of the English to the supposed language and it looks like many of the translations are wrong.  But I'd love to see if someone has actually tried to match them up.

    Here's each language with what is in the document and the Google Translate of the English text.

    • Chaldean
    • Keed’nauh ta-meroon le-hoam olauhayauh dey-shemayauh veh aur’kau lau gnaubadoo yabadoo ma-ar’gnau oomeen tehoat shemayauh alah (Thus shall ye say unto them: The gods that have not made the heavens and earth, they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.)
    • Not in Google Translate

     

    • Egyptian
    • Su e-eh-ni: (What other persons are those?)
    • Not in Google Translate.

     

    • Greek
    • Diabolos bassileuei: (The Devil reigns.)
    • O diávolos vasilévei

     

    • French:
    • Messieurs sans Dieu, (Gentlemen without God.)
    • Messieurs sans Dieu

     

    • Turkish
    • Ain shems: (The fountain of light.)
    • Işık çeşmesi

     

    • German
    • sie sind unferstandig. (What consummat ignorance!)
    • was für eine vollendete Unwissenheit

     

    • Syrian
    • Zaubol. (Sacrifice!)
    • Not in Google Translate

     

    • Spanish
    • ll sabio muda conscio, il nescio no. (A wise man reflects, a fool does not.)
    • Un sabio reflexiona, un necio no

     

    • Samaritan
    • Saunau! (O Stranger!)
    • Not in Google Translate

     

    • Italian
    • Oh tempa! oh diffidanza! (O the times! o the diffidence!)
    • Oh i tempi! o la diffidenza!

     

    • Hebrew:
    • Ahtauh ail rauey. (Thou God seest me.)
    • אלוהים רואה אותי

     

    • Danish
    • Hyad tidende! (What tidings!)
    • Hvad tidender

     

    • Saxon
    • Hwaet riht! (What right!)
    • Not in Google Translate

     

    • Sweede:
    • Hyad skilia: (What skill!)
    • vad skill (though, Google Translate also says this means 'what difference')

     

    • Polander
    • Nav-yen-shoo bah pon na Jesu Christus; (Blessed be the name of Jesus Christ.)
    • Niech będzie błogosławione imię Jezusa Chrystusa

     

    • Western Indian (I guessed Hindi)
    • She-mo-kah she-mo-keh teh ough-ne gah. (The white man, O the white man, he very uncertain.)
    • saphed aadamee, saphed aadamee par, vah bahut anishchit hai

     

    • Latin
    • Procul, o procul este profani! (Be off, be off ye profane!)
    • Abi, abi ne polluatis
  11. 6 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

    Moroni said "none other people knoweth our language". Unless by "our" he means the few trained scribes that knew reformed egyptian, this sounds to me like all 5th century Nephites spoke a language that nobody else knew. It wasn't Hebrew or Egyptian or Aramaic, Mayan or otherwise. It was unique to the Nephites.

    The 5th century Nephites are basically identical to the 5th century Lamanites and they are basically identical to any other group in the area.  4 Nephi 1:17 has everyone in that area become "one".  So they would all have the same language.  And then 4 Nephi 1:20 has the Lamanites splitting off because of religious differences (roughly 200AD).

    So I read that as talking about people that he's never met, such as people from across the sea.

    • Like 3
  12. 7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

    I'd always assumed that Nephi used the same reformed egyptian as Moroni. Is that not the case? He does say they altered it. But that raises the question if they were altering it, wouldn't they be altering because Mayan influence? 

    I don't see why Nephi and Moroni would have used the same language.  Mormon 9:32 says "called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us,".  I've read that as Mormon saying that it has been altered over the centuries from when they first got it.  It doesn't even say when or where they first got it, so it could have come from Lehi, it could have come from the Mulekites, it could have come from those that were already in the Americas.

    I'm also not exactly sure if Mormon could read the original small plates without the use of the seer stones.  Take English.  Go back 1000 years and you'll get English that looks like

    Beowulf.Kenning.jpg

    That is from Beowulf (the image comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English#/media/File:Beowulf.Kenning.jpg).  I'm a native English speaker but I have no idea how to read that.  According to wikipedia:

    Quote

    A detail of the first page of the Beowulf manuscript, showing the words "ofer hron rade", translated as "over the whale's road (sea)". It is an example of an Old English stylistic device, the kenning.

    So, not only are the characters different from what I would expect (see the 'r') but the actual words don't make any sense ("ofer" maybe is "over" but what is hron or rade?).

    I just don't see how the same language from 1000 years ago could stay the same for that long.  Especially when the Book of Mormon mentions encountering at least two civilizations that had different languages (Mulekites in Omni 1:18 and Lamanites in Mosiah 24:4).

    • Like 3
  13. 3 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

    Reformed egyptian would look semitic + egyptian. There's not much of that if any in the Mayan languages.

    Where does it say that it in the Book of Mormon?  The only verse I know of that uses the term "reformed egyptian" is Mormon 9:32.  That is almost 1,000 years from the time of Lehi.  The likelihood that Mormon's "reformed egyptian" is anything like a semetic + egyptian language feels really small.

  14. 2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

    I've always wondered why, if the Nephites and Maya shared the same space there wasn't more sharing between the two. The benefits of writing in reformed egyptian on metal plates for example. Wheels. Metallurgy. Swords. Building of ships big enough to carry hundreds of people. All the things the Jaredites, Mulekites and Lehites would have known but didn't pass along to the Olmecs and the Maya.

    And then the Nephites never mention the Maya or anything that looks like Mayan artifacts or technology. Wouldn't there be more sharing if they were in the same space for 1000 years?

    Since we only have a bare minimum of the knowledge of what "reformed egyptian" even looks like, why can't "reformed egyptian" be one of the actual languages that has been found in the Americas?

  15. 34 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

    A FB friend who tells me she has done some studied in the languages sent me examples of hypocephalus  which has great similarity to Fac 2 especially figures 5 6 & 7. What looks like the head of a bird is actually the top of the body of a snake with legs. In the attached example both the snake and the seated figure have a penis displayed.

     

    2005-mar-11 472.jpg

    That is a cool picture.  I'm not sure what that has to do with Facsimile 2, though.  Unless you are trying to say that Reuben Hedlock messed up there and that it really should have looked like that?  I'm not sure that is a viable answer since Hedlock did a pretty good job in most of his copying (compare Facsimile 1 with the original).

    In http://www.magicgatebg.com/Books/Joseph Smith Hypocephalus.pdf, Dr. Rhodes notes (starting at bottom of page 11)

    Quote

    Before the god is what appears to be a bird presenting him with a Wedjat-eye, the symbol of all good gifts.76 In other hypocephali it can also be an ape, a snake, or a hawk-headed snake that is presenting the eye. This figure represents Nehebka, a snake god and one of the judges of the dead in the 125th chapter of the Book of the Dead.77 Nehebka was considered to be a provider of life and nourishment78and as such was often shown presenting a pair of jars or a Wedjat-eye. As for the bird found in Facsimile 2, this could symbolize the Ba or soul (which the Egyptians often represented as a bird) presenting the Wedjat-eye to the seated god.

    So, it isn't that odd for different things to be seen in front of the god Min (who is the sitting one).

    • Like 1
  16. 38 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

    Source is anonymous but michael Rhodes can confirm I’m sure

    What can Dr. Rhodes confirm?  That the printing plate originally had a snout or that the printing plate was stolen?  It sounds like he can confirm the later but, based on what you've said, that doesn't mean the former.  Even if the printing plate was stolen, we have the 1842 original printing so it shows us what the original printing plate had.

  17. 8 hours ago, aussieguy55 said:

    Robert Ritner  on MS translated the lines above the "slave"  "" Words spoken by Anubis Lord of Heaven who makes protection foremost of the westerners." 

    The author of the thesis doesn't try to re-translate the words.  He assumes that Dr. Ritner and Dr. Rhodes correctly translated them.  He has their translations on page 40.  It includes Dr. Ritner's 2000 translation (“Recitation by Anubis, who makes protection, foremost of the embalming booth(?).”) and Dr. Rhodes' 2002 translation (“Words spoken by Anubis who makes protection Lord of heaven, Foremost of the Westerners.”).

    He does point out potential issues in their reading.  You can read the potential issues for the Anubis hieroglyphs on page 61-62.  The last sentence in that section is:

    Quote

    Thus, the arms, the presence of determinatives, and absence of the () glyph suggest that this column does not read “Anubis” so easily.

    The thesis also points out other instances where the character doesn't resemble the hieroglyphs.  Here's the entire paragraph from page 93 where he mentions that:

    Quote

    While this is indeed a complex issue, we must remember that the relation between the hieroglyphic captions and the pictures which we assume they describe is not always as straightforward as we would like it to be. For example, Papyrus Rhind 1 and 2 (Edinburgh 908 + 540, and 909) contain several vignettes in which a jackal-headed figure, that we would assume to be Anubis, is sometimes labeled as Thoth, Horus, and even Osiris.53 A text on the wall in the tomb of Ramses VI labels a bearded mummiform figure as “Corpse of Isis,” and a similar figure as “Corpse of Anu(bis),” when we would normally expect Isis to be portrayed as a female, and Anubis as a jackal.54 At the temple of Ramses II at Abydos, the relief of a fully humanoid male is also given the caption “Anubis, Lord of the sacred land.”55 If such a phenomenon could happen on these Theban documents, there is certainly a possibility that the figures in Facsimile No. 3 can be interpreted independent from their hieroglyphic captions as well.

     

    • Like 4
  18. 2 hours ago, Steve Thompson said:

    Anubis is not always drawn with two tall, distinct ears.  It took me 30 sec. to find this example, from a Ptolemaic Period (contemporary with the BB papyrus of Hor) copy of the Book of the Dead.  The figure is labeled as Anubis, so there's no doubt what is depicted.

    image.png.a9f43d1067558aa132d16c4faf414235.png

    The thesis is talking about Book of the Breathings.  You can look in the thesis and see almost all of the Book of Breathings (there is only one missing) and each of them have two ears.

    Edited to add: Here's the quote from the thesis starting at the bottom of page 90:

    Quote

    Furthermore, in the Book of Breathings, Anubis is always drawn with two tall, distinct ears, rather than a single ear. The hieroglyphic writing above Figure 6 is so low that no such ears would have been able to fit without interfering with the text above them.

     

    • Like 3
  19. 17 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

    The plate had been stolen from the church. Snout was removed in church’s possession early in the history

    Michael Rhodes knew it was missing because it was sold in a yard sale to a “gentile” who framed it and put it up on a wall in his basement. A friend/member saw it while visiting and and asked to take it to be examined. FARMS had Mike R. Look at it and he determined it was the actual plate. photos were taken. They were forwarded to the head Church archivist and he noticed the accession number on the back that matched their records. A year or so later they had reacquired the plate. I don't know how it got lost or how it got returned.

    Then why does the 1842 printing not have a snout? https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-abraham-and-facsimiles-1-march-16-may-1842/10.  If the printing plate originally had it and then had it removed, the 1842 printing should have the snout.

    • Like 2
  20. 4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

    Well any plates could do.  If inspired, the plates need not contain the story found in the BoM.  I thought we were disagreeing whether the story in the BoM could be historical if one does not believe in God?  Or am I missing something?  

    No they don't.  They can be considered but also seen, kind of like many apologists do at times with his view, as Joseph didn't really know if it was God or if God was imagined.  Since no God it's likely its imagined even if inspired.  

    That's a lack of imagination it seems to me.  Inspiration need not be limited to coming from God. 

    That's the point.  Anything is possible.  Atheist simply means one is not convinced there is a God.  

    It feels like we aren't talking about the same thing.  My original question is "Can someone believe the Book of Mormon to be historical and also not believe in God or angels?"  That means that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical document that was written by real life humans between 600BC and 400AD.

    I think everyone agrees that Joseph Smith did not have the ability to translate anything like the Book of Mormon?  So, if there isn't a God or angels, then his story is invalid because he couldn't have translated it.  Saying he was "inspired" doesn't help because inspiration wouldn't produce an actual historical document.  If God/angels don't exist, then no one can be inspired to create an actual historical document out of thin air.

    • Like 2
  21. 15 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

    I read that.  I think the case is really weak.  For his two questions, I would say "No" for the first one and a 1 for the second.  Especially since I read his theory.  It makes it even more improbable.

×
×
  • Create New...