Sargon Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Mormonism Research Minstry recognizes that the actual text of Alma 11 does not mention coins. To this they reply:Finally, we disagree with Dr. Peterson's claim that no variant of the word coin is used in the text. Taking his advice that Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language is perhaps "our best source for the language of Joseph Smith and his contemporaries" (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 5:8 ) we find that under the word "piece" (the word Smith used in Alma 11:4), there are several definitions. However, none of them have any meaning that would fit Alma 11:4 until the eighth definition: "A coin; as a piece of eight." The meaning for "piece" in Joseph Smith's day was coin.This rule is followed in the 1979 Book of Mormon Student Manual - Religion 121-122 when a subheading asks students "How Valuable Were the Nephite Pieces of Money?" Showing that "pieces" meant "coins," the manual presents a chart to show "the relative value of silver and gold coins under the system set up by Mosiah" (p.229). http://www.mrm.org/coinsThey accompany this with a picture of the 1828 dictionary opened to the appropriate page. Thoughts?
Jason Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Are they claiming the Book of Mormon people used pieces of eight?
Nyal Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Are they claiming the Book of Mormon people used pieces of eight?No. They used coins.
cinepro Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 I've never really understood the semantic argument over whether or not Alma 11 is describing "coins".It explicitly states that it is describing units of gold and silver, and these units are uniform so they can be compared relative to one another. So...is the debate over whether or not these "measures" were actually shaped like coins? Or whether they had little pictures of Nephite rulers on them? Obviously, they were in some form that could be easily recognized, and not easily altered. Which is pretty much a definition of a "coin". It wasn't little bags of gold powder, or random lumps of silver. And verse 4 makes reference to the Jewish money system used in Jerusalem, which appears to be coins, so they certainly were familiar with the concept even 500+ years after the Lehites had left (were details of the Jewish monetary system included on the Brass Plates?)
Calm Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Mormonism Research Minstry recognizes that the actual text of Alma 11 does not mention coins. To this they reply:They accompany this with a picture of the 1828 dictionary opened to the appropriate page. Thoughts?Is "a piece of eight" the only usage of "piece" for a coin, or are there others?
Jason Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 "Piece" isn't a variant of the word "coin", even though it might be used to refer to currency, so Dr. Peterson's claim that the text doesn't use a variation of "coin" stands.Joseph may very well have envisioned coins being used when he read about regular bits of gold and silver being exchanged among the Nephites, but that doesn't mean the original text specified coins.They were called pieces of eight, by the way, because people would sometimes cut them into pieces (or "bits") in order to make change, and they were worth 8 reales. A quarter is therefore two bits.
Olavarria Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 "A fragment or part of anything seperated from a whole, in any manner of cutting or splitting, breaking or tearing"Thats definition #1
Connolly Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Surely MRM could have come up with a less sophomoric response to Dr. Peterson. That one is ridiculous (ie, worth of ridicule).
ebeddoulos Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 Money is a concept which makes buying and selling easier. Many things have been used as money from sea shells to huge carved rocks to plastics cards with magnetic strips. But metals have been the most widely accepted medium of exchange; at first in the form of raw metal and later in the form of coins.â??The necessity of some kind of money arose very early in civilization. The division of labor required some measure of value; and commerce took a more convenient, if more complicated, form by making this common measure to serve as a circulating medium. Men decided early that the precious metals formed by far the most convenient material for such a medium, although it is probable that they were first introduced in their gross and unpurified state. Money in ancient times was both uncoined and coined. It is well known that ancient nations that were without coinage weighed the precious metals, a practice represented on the Egyptian monuments, on which gold and silver are shown to have been kept on rings. It is uncertain whether any of these rings had a government stamp to denote their purity of value.â? (Merrill F. Unger, R.K. Harrison, ed., â??The New Ungerâ??s Bible Dictionaryâ?, Chicago: Moody Press, [1985], pg. 844)For example, the base unit of money in modern day Israel is the Shekel but originally the Hebrew word shekel meant weight. It was equal to about 218 grains (15.126 grams) or about the same weight as three United States nickels.â??8255 שׁקל sheqel sheh'-kel From H8254; probably a weight; used as a commercial standard: - shekel.â? (James Strong, â??Strongâ??s Dictionary of the Hebrew Testamentâ?, Nashville: Crusade Bible Publishers, Inc., [no date], pg. 121)The Bible tells us that the third son of David had a lot of hair. In fact Absalomâ??s hair weighed 200 shekels or over 6.6 pounds!â??And when he polled his head, (for it was at every year's end that he polled it: because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he polled it:) he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels after the king's weight.â? (2 Samuel 14:26)The spear head of Goliath the giant weighed 600 shekels or about 20 pounds. â??And the staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam; and his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels of iron: and one bearing a shield went before him.â? â??1 Samuel 17:7)A shekel was used to describe the weight of a daily ration of meat. â??And thy meat which thou shalt eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day: from time to time shalt thou eat it.â? (Ezekiel 4:10)It was also used as a measure of weight for precious metals. When Abraham bought a cave in which to bury his beloved Sarah, he measured out four hundred shekels of silver as payment or about $3,000 at todayâ??s value.â??And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant.â?? (Genesis 23:16)Abraham did not think of the shekel as a coin as it is modern day Israel but rather silver of a certain weight.â??and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver: for in those times money had no mark or stamp upon it to show its value, and therefore was not told by pieces, but weighed, by which its full worth was known; and that Ephron might have his whole and just demand, the silver was weighed to himâ? (John Gill, â??John Gillâ??s Exposition of the Entire Bibleâ?, [1746-1766], vol. 1 of 10)Another example occurred centuries later, when King David bought Ornanâ??s threshing floor. He weighed out 600 shekels of gold as payment. This much gold would be worth about $290,000 today. â??So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.â? (1 Chronicles 21:25)For hundreds of years, from Abraham until the fall of the Davidic Kingdom, precious metals were weighed. Coined money was not used in the Holy Land until the Jews returned after their captivity, well after Lehi left for the Americas. Even then the Jews would wait 400 years after the return until approximately 135 B.C.E before they would have their own coins.â??1. Uncoined money. â?? It is well known that ancient nations that were without a coinage weighed the precious metals ... In the first recorded transaction of commerce, the cave of Machpelah is purchased by Abraham for 400 shekels of silver. The shekel weight of silver was the unit of value through the whole age of Hebrew history, down to the Babylonian captivity.2. Coined money. â?? After the captivity, we have the earliest mention of coined money, in allusion, as might have been expected, to the Persian coinage, the gold daric â?¦ No native Jewish coinage appears to have existed until Antiochus the VII.â? (F.N. Peloubet, D.D., ed., â??Peloubetâ??s Bible Dictionaryâ?, Philadelphia, PA: The John C. Winston Company, [1947], pg 417)The first actual coined money mentioned in the Bible is the Persian daric. The obverse showed the Persian king running with a spear and bow. The reverse side showed only an irregular punch mark where the gold was hammered into the die to indent the obverse impression.Illustration Copyright
cinepro Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 Note: Someone may point out that 1 Chronicles 29:7 mentions derics. Since the deric would not be minted for several centuries, this information was inserted in the text sometime after the return from exile:All of the peoples mentioned in the Book of Mormon had left the Holy Land before Israel had been conquered and carried off into captivity. Therefore, they had no knowledge of coinage.Interesting. Here is the key verse:Alma 11:4 Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah.I'm just wondering what the difference is between a "coin" and a standardized "measure" of metal? Also, note verse:20 Now, it was for the sole purpose to get gain, because they received their wages according to their employ, therefore, they did stir up the people to riotings, and all manner of disturbances and wickedness, that they might have more employ, that they might get money according to the suits which were brought before them; therefore they did stir up the people against Alma and Amulek. (Emphasis added)If a society doesn't have coins or paper bills or unit of currency, how can people desire "money"? If their economy was based on weights of gold and silver, what would the word "money" refer to? Wouldn't someone just desire gold or silver?
Scottie Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 If a society doesn't have coins or paper bills or unit of currency, how can people desire "money"? If their economy was based on weights of gold and silver, what would the word "money" refer to? Wouldn't someone just desire gold or silver?Or "riches".
Sargon Posted July 3, 2009 Author Posted July 3, 2009 If a society doesn't have coins or paper bills or unit of currency, how can people desire "money"? If their economy was based on weights of gold and silver, what would the word "money" refer to? Wouldn't someone just desire gold or silver?If the reformed Egyptian word signified something like, "those items including but not limited to measures of gold and silver which are used among us as a means for purchasing goods and services", then perhaps Joseph just wrote "money". That seems alright to me.
ebeddoulos Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 Hey guys, may I suggest that you read what I post? For example:Money is a concept which makes buying and selling easier. Many things have been used as money from sea shells to huge carved rocks to plastics cards with magnetic strips. But metals have been the most widely accepted medium of exchange; at first in the form of raw metal and later in the form of coins.Money - and riches for that matter - is a concept. It is an intangiable, an idea. Which is why I also said:Many things have been used as money from sea shells to huge carved rocks to plastics cards with magnetic strips. But metals have been the most widely accepted medium of exchange; at first in the form of raw metal and later in the form of coins.The difference between coinage and raw metal is that raw metal has no specified shape or weight or size. It can be as fine as dust or in nuggets of almost any size (See: http://www.geocities.com/mrgoldnugget/ for examples) whose value is "measured" by weight. Both coinage and raw metal have been used as "money". Gold and silver is something you can touch, feel, handle. Money is a concept. My current concept of money is a debit card. Prior to that it was a a 6" x 2" piece of paper called a "Federal Reserve" note and before that a "Silver Certificate." I remember when quarters and dimes were not copper-nickle sandwiches. Going back in time you would find money included not only preciouws metals but also grains as in wheat and corn. Which it just so happens is also "measured" by the Nephites in their discussion of their concept of moneyHere, read this Comparative Chronology of Money. You may pick up on the idea.
krose Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 Hey guys, may I suggest that you read what I post? For example:As for me, I usually just skim very long posts.Did you address Cinepro's question about the practical, functional difference between a "coin" and a "piece" of metal with a name and a standardized value/weight?
hagoth7 Posted July 3, 2009 Posted July 3, 2009 Thoughts?Northern Europe offers a viable answer:Hack silver. From the BBC website:This is what is known as a bullion economy, in which the weight and the purity of the precious metal are what is important, not what form the metal takes. Far and away the most common metal in the economy was silver, although gold was also used. Silver circulated in the form of bars, or ingots, as well as in the form of jewellery and ornaments. Large pieces of jewellery were often chopped up into smaller pieces known as 'hack-silver' to make up the exact weight of silver required.A web search of the term will bring up a pic or two. Gotta scoot.
cinepro Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 Northern Europe offers a viable answer:Hack silver.For me, the key indicator that the metal was more of a "coin" type (distinct shape and markings) is that it had specific names. If they were just carrying around lumps of metal (or bags of dust), then there wouldn't be any reason to give certain measures "names". There would be a unit of weight, and everything would be relative to that measurement. I would go to the market and ask "How much is this banana?", and the grocer would say "6 grams of silver", and then I would have to weigh out 6 grams right there at the market, using his scale.The way the Book of Mormon seems to describe it, they didn't have to weigh the metals every time they were used because they had given different values specific names, and they were presented in ways that were identifiable. As far as I know, the only way to avoid having to weigh the metal at every transaction is to make them into uniquely uniform forms that are not easily copied or altered. I.e: coins. Just read Alma 11 and see how the units are described. They are discussed as if people can easily identify their specific value by sight, without needing to measure them every time.Alma 11:22Behold, here are six onties of silver, and all these will I give thee if thou wilt deny the existence of a Supreme Being.Also notice that he didn't say "All this will I give thee..." They were individually recognizable as onties upon sight.
Nyal Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 For me, the key indicator that the metal was more of a "coin" type (distinct shape and markings) is that it had specific names. If they were just carrying around lumps of metal (or bags of dust), then there wouldn't be any reason to give certain measures "names". There would be a unit of weight, and everything would be relative to that measurement. I would go to the market and ask "How much is this banana?", and the grocer would say "6 grams of silver", and then I would have to weigh out 6 grams right there at the market, using his scale.The way the Book of Mormon seems to describe it, they didn't have to weigh the metals every time they were used because they had given different values specific names, and they were presented in ways that were identifiable. As far as I know, the only way to avoid having to weigh the metal at every transaction is to make them into uniquely uniform forms that are not easily copied or altered. I.e: coins. Just read Alma 11 and see how the units are described. They are discussed as if people can easily identify their specific value by sight, without needing to measure them every time.Also notice that he didn't say "All this will I give thee..." They were individually recognizable as onties upon sight.What if onties is the unit of measure?
Thinking Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 Or whether they had little pictures of Nephite rulers on them?
hagoth7 Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 For me, the key indicator that the metal was more of a "coin" type (distinct shape and markings) is that it had specific names.Methinks you're conflating the name for the measure of grain for the metal itself.If any are interested, here's a preview of a chapter from the Nephites in Europe book which suggests that the Nephite measuring system is still alive and well today.This place really is hard to leave - that'll teach me for dropping in to check a PM.....must...achieve...escape...velocity...Happy 4th everyone - catch u on the flip side.(But to taunt you all yet again, I will celebrate my own independence with a rousing verse of 'O Canada')
LeSellers Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 I will celebrate my own independence with a rousing verse of 'O Canada'Wasn't that Wednesday?Lehi
hagoth7 Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 Wasn't that Wednesday?Just a fun 4th of July taunt for Yanks.
Calm Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 Just a fun 4th of July taunt for Yanks. Besides the first isn't really a celebration of independence, but of confederation which was the uniting of all the provinces into one country.
cinepro Posted July 4, 2009 Posted July 4, 2009 What if onties is the unit of measure?And that's where it all falls apart.If it was units of measure, then you would have the same units for both gold and silver, with an exchange rate between them. A unit of measure is just that: a unit. You don't invent different units for different kinds of metals.Here's how it reads:Alma 115 Now the reckoning is thusâ??a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.6 A senum of silver, an amnor of silver, an ezrom of silver, and an onti of silver.If it were units of measurement, it would make more sense to read like this:Alma 115 Now the reckoning is thusâ??a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.6 A senine of silver, an seon of silver, a shum of silver, and a limnah of silver.6a A senine was ten seons. A seon was ten shums. A shum was ten limnahs. A limnah of gold was worth two limnahs of silver.Now that's a unit of measure.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.