Translation Method

[volgadon]

No. It just means that you need to actually check out a scholarly commentary on it instead of pretending that you did.

Despite your arrogance and false sense of intellectual superiority, you are quite wrong. I'm even willing to lay bets with you that I've been reading scholraly commentaries on the Hebrew Bible years before you have.

[the narrator]

Give me a break...

Not sure what else to say. Every scholarly commentary on Psalm 14 says that it is not about strict atheism, but that it is about rejected the sovereignty/governance of God, evidence by one being an immoral person. If volgodon wants to say that he checked a scholarly commentary, then I must assume that he is either did and is stubbornly denying what he read, or that he just pretended to check a scholarly commentary. My bet is with the latter.

[the narrator]

Despite your arrogance and false sense of intellectual superiority, you are quite wrong.

Actually, I'm right.

I'm even willing to lay bets with you that I've been reading scholraly commentaries on the Hebrew Bible years before you have.

I wouldn't doubt it. What I am doubting is that you have found a scholarly commentary on the Hebrew Bible that claims that Psalm 14 is referring to those who deny the existence of any god.

[volgadon]

Actually, I'm right.

You may be many things, but right isn't one of them. I know your arrogance won't let you accept that people may reach conclusions different to yours, but that is something you need to work out with yourself.

I wouldn't doubt it. What I am doubting is that you have found a scholarly commentary on the Hebrew Bible that claims that Psalm 14 is referring to those who deny the existence of any god.

[volgadon]

Not sure what else to say.

If all you can do is bray, then don't say anything.

Every scholarly commentary on Psalm 14 says that it is not about strict atheism,

Every? Am I to assume that you have read every single scholarly commentary on Psalm 14?

In other words, you are generalising.

but that it is about rejected the sovereignty/governance of God, evidence by one being an immoral person.

It is about rejecting god, part and parcel of that is his suzeraignity. Granted that an anccient atheist and a modern one would express themselves differently, due to the conventions of society, but that is about it.

If volgodon wants to say that he checked a scholarly commentary, then I must assume that he is either did and is stubbornly denying what he read, or that he just pretended to check a scholarly commentary. My bet is with the latter.

Or option #3, yoou are arrogant and ignorant in this assumption. Not only that, but you are stretching my actual words.

[the narrator]

If all you can do is bray, then don't say anything.

Every? Am I to assume that you have read every single scholarly commentary on Psalm 14?

In other words, you are generalising.

It is about rejecting god, part and parcel of that is his suzeraignity.

Granted that an anccient atheist and a modern one would express themselves differently, due to the conventions of society, but that is about it.

Or option #3, yoou are arrogant and ignorant in this assumption. Not only that, but you are stretching my actual words.

Perhaps you have forgotten. The question at the beginning was whether or not the Psalmist was referring to atheists--those who deny the existence of a deity. Is the Psalmist talking about atheists who deny the existence of a god? Yes or No? If you want to change your position, that's totally fine.

[the narrator]

If volgodon wants to say that he checked a scholarly commentary, then I must assume that he is either did and is stubbornly denying what he read, or that he just pretended to check a scholarly commentary. My bet is with the latter.

Or option #3, yoou are arrogant and ignorant in this assumption. Not only that, but you are stretching my actual words.

Here are your actual words:

Pick up a scholarly commentary on the Psalm.

I've done so.

How am I stretching your words?

[volgadon]

Perhaps you have forgotten. The question at the beginning was whether or not the Psalmist was referring to atheists--those who deny the existence of a deity. Is the Psalmist talking about atheists who deny the existence of a god? Yes or No? If you want to change your position, that's totally fine.

You aren't as clever as you think you are, otherwise, you would have realised that when I said stretching my words, it had to do specifically with your falsehood about my reading commentaries. Note I say falsehood and not lie, because a lie would presuppose that you knew anything about me and what I have or have not read. Such is obviously not the case.

You also have yet to say if you have read every single scholarly commentary on Psalm 14, or were just generalising.

I still believe that Psalm 14 is talkig about those who deny the existence of deity. They do so inwardly, nobody was an out and out atheist, but they still deny god, that there is no judgement and no judge, which amounts to much the same thing, sophisticated, metaphysical formulations aside. How many atheists completely deny the existence of any forces? No, they ascribe them to natural sources, which is the same thing we see here, just different terminology.

[volgadon]

Here are your actual words:

How am I stretching your words?

Because you take a very laconic answer, and stretch it to mean that I have read a commentary stating the exact same position you have ascribed to me, that I slavishly parroted it, am incapable of forming my own conclusions from the data and research, etc., etc., etc...

[the narrator]

You aren't as clever as you think you are, otherwise, you would have realised that when I said stretching my words, it had to do specifically with your falsehood about my reading commentaries.

No. It had to do with your claim about reading a scholarly commentary on Psalm 14.

You also have yet to say if you have read every single scholarly commentary on Psalm 14, or were just generalising.

Yes. I was generalizing based on the absence of any scholarly commentaries that suggest Psalm 14 referred to those who deny the existence of a god.

I still believe that Psalm 14 is talkig about those who deny the existence of deity

.

That's fine. I believe that there are invisible ninjas hiding under my bed. Do I have evidence for this? No. Just like you, I'm just going to believe. It's a gut thing.

They do so inwardly, nobody was an out and out atheist

That is what I have been saying the WHOLE time. And you were constantly telling me I was wrong.

...but they still deny god, that there is no judgement and no judge, which amounts to much the same thing,

.

Pragmatically it may amount to the same thing, but it is still not the same thing.

How many atheists completely deny the existence of any forces? No, they ascribe them to natural sources, which is the same thing we see here, just different terminology.

No actually it's quite different. One is denying the rejecting the sovereignty of God in their lives--ie, the sinner. The other is denying the existence of God--ie, an atheist.

[the narrator]

Because you take a very laconic answer, and stretch it to mean that I have read a commentary stating the exact same position you have ascribed to me, that I slavishly parroted it, am incapable of forming my own conclusions from the data and research, etc., etc., etc...

No. I am just saying that you were lying about reading a scholarly commentary on Psalm 14 when you said you did. And you know you were lying, so why don't you just fes up and apologize.

[ttribe]

No. I am just saying that you were lying about reading a scholarly commentary on Psalm 14 when you said you did. And you know you were lying, so why don't you just fes up and apologize.

Oh geez. You seriously need to tone it down.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

By reading books.

Brilliant. Do you have any other wonderful insights or comments that will add to the discussion?

[the narrator]

Oh geez. You seriously need to tone it down.

You're right. Sorry Volgy. I shouldn't accuse you of lying. I just have thin skin and got tired of your constant accusation of me being ignorant.

I should have just recognized that you had moved away from your original position and were actually agreeing with me for the most part (though were still trying to fight me anyways).

[the narrator]

Brilliant. Do you have any other wonderful insights or comments that will add to the discussion?

I believe I already said much more than this.

This was just a sarcastic response to his accusation of ignorance.

[William Schryver]

Yes, our young "scholar" is quite confident of his conclusions. And I've got no problem with that. Confidence is good. And young confidence is consistently entertaining, if not so consistently warranted.

At any rate, his naive belief that men disbelieving in the literal reality of a "god" or "gods" is a relatively "modern" innovation on the human scene should be viewed in light of the fact that he also (apparently) regards as "serious scholarship" Dan Vogel's "theater of the absurd" biography of Joseph Smith. (Incidentally--and since I'm sure Dan will be alerted to this thread, if he hasn't been already--Joseph Smith-The Making of a Prophet is, in my humble judgment, the single most laughably ridiculous biography of an important historical character that I have ever read in over four decades of reading biographies. It is so thoroughly saturated with astonishingly speculative bull**** that, were one to remove all of the blatant conjecture and shameless mind-reading, there wouldn't be enough left to fill one side of a 3"x5" index card. Other than that, it has a nice cover. )

You see, Lloyd, it doesn't require a scholarly tome on the topic to conclude that things such as atheism and universalist longings have always been present, in every generation of mankind, since the very beginning. All that is really required is a little experience and knowledge of human nature.

But, hey--you are certainly free to believe whatever you'd like. Just don't be chagrined that your "scholarly" credibility is pretty much permanently shot to pieces among those of us on this message board who have followed your brief career here. Indeed, it's a good thing you've already found yourself a comfy place at the GSTP. Whereas the inferior minds here at MADB will approach everything you say with justifiable skepticism from this point forward, your new-found friends at the GSTP can be relied upon to shower praise and accolades upon you. In fact, just uncork a good round of Schryver-berating over there and you'll become their instant hero. They're very consistent in that respect. Just ask Zeezrom and lostindc.

OK, I have much better things to do now, so I'll leave you and volgadon (and whoever else is so inclined) to battle it out to the bitter end.

Adieu ... (Hmmm ... did Nephites really say "adieu"? )

[the narrator]

At any rate, his naive belief that men disbelieving in the literal reality of a "god" or "gods" is a relatively "modern" innovation on the human scene should be viewed in light of the fact that he also (apparently) regards as "serious scholarship" Dan Vogel's "theater of the absurd" biography of Joseph Smith.

Actually, I never said anything about Making of a Prophet. In fact, I think the very methodology behind the book is essentially flawed. I was instead referring to Vogel's essay on "Anti-universalist rhetoric in the Book of Mormon"

(Incidentally--and since I'm sure Dan will be alerted to this thread, if he hasn't been already--Joseph Smith-The Making of a Prophet is, in my humble judgment, the single most laughably ridiculous biography of an important historical character that I have ever read in over four decades of reading biographies. It is so thoroughly saturated with astonishingly speculative bull**** that, were one to remove all of the blatant conjecture and shameless mind-reading, there wouldn't be enough left to fill one side of a 3"x5" index card. Other than that, it has a nice cover. )

I wouldn't go as far as you, but I agree with his book being overly-speculative. As I was reading it, I underlined every "perhaps" "possible" "may have" "could have" etc in the book. Needless to say there is one every few lines, often building off of the other until the original is assumed.

However, on the other hand, Vogel has done an astounding depth of research into Joseph's 19th century world and much needs to be credited to him for that. Just a few weeks ago Richard Bushman surprised me with the praise he gave Vogel's research. Also, when I was at the Church History Library last fall, I was surprised to see Making of a Prophet on the recommended reading shelf--though I'm not exactly sure how it got there.

You see, Lloyd, it doesn't require a scholarly tome on the topic to conclude that things such as atheism and universalist longings have always been present, in every generation of mankind, since the very beginning. All that is really required is a little experience and knowledge of human nature.

Except that, as volgadon finally admitted, the denial of God's existence has not always been present. Please find me any credible scholar who agrees with you.

Just don't be chagrined that your "scholarly" credibility is pretty much permanently shot to pieces among those of us on this message board who have followed your brief career here.

HAhahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAAhahaha!

[Benjamin McGuire]

Actually, when referring to Psalm 14, one of the more widely used terms is "practical atheism" (both in scholarly and popular literature). I am curious, how much of this argument here is semantics? Psalm 14:4 seems to me to be asking a rhetorical question - whether evildoers do not think that they do not encounter YHWH when they afflict the poor and righteous people. (The assumed answer to the rhetorical question is a positive one - indeed, they truly think they do not encounter God). And the response (in verses 5 and 6) is that the do in fact unwittingly encounter YHWH among those they oppress, and so their punishment will occur. Now, to what extent this represents atheism is a more difficult question, which is why it is generally termed a practical atheism. This is more than merely suggesting that God is not sovereign. And it seems to be less than a declaration of disbelief in God. It is more a statement of God's non-presence - which comes quite close to a statement of God's non-existence.

[WalkerW]

compelling anachronisms

Could you elaborate? I'm genuinely interested in actual anachronisms rather than the supposed ones always put forth by so often by critics.

[the narrator]

Actually, when referring to Psalm 14, one of the more widely used terms is "practical atheism" (both in scholarly and popular literature). I am curious, how much of this argument here is semantics? Psalm 14:4 seems to me to be asking a rhetorical question - whether evildoers do not think that they do not encounter YHWH when they afflict the poor and righteous people. (The assumed answer to the rhetorical question is a positive one - indeed, they truly think they do not encounter God). And the response (in verses 5 and 6) is that the do in fact unwittingly encounter YHWH among those they oppress, and so their punishment will occur. Now, to what extent this represents atheism is a more difficult question, which is why it is generally termed a practical atheism. This is more than merely suggesting that God is not sovereign. And it seems to be less than a declaration of disbelief in God. It is more a statement of God's non-presence - which comes quite close to a statement of God's non-existence.

I'm mostly fine with this, however my understanding is that the "practical atheism" is specifically about Yahweh and not just a transcendent (or imminent) deity in general. Furthermore, to say that it is simply about non-presence would imply something more along the lines of deism--which still does not seem to fit the text, which would include someone who might affirm Yahweh's existence, but deny that his actions affect Yahweh or cause Yahweh to incur punishment upon him.

Either way, it still, nonetheless does not espouse a strict atheism, which has been my stance all along.

[Benjamin McGuire]

I'm mostly fine with this, however my understanding is that the "practical atheism" is specifically about Yahweh and not just a transcendent (or imminent) deity in general. Furthermore, to say that it is simply about non-presence would imply something more along the lines of deism--which still does not seem to fit the text, which would include someone who might affirm Yahweh's existence, but deny that his actions affect Yahweh or cause Yahweh to incur punishment upon him.

Either way, it still, nonetheless does not espouse a strict atheism, which has been my stance all along.

Now you run into a serious problem. Whether the text itself espouses a strict atheism or not is merely a matter of interpretation. And there is a lot of interpretation which reads it as suggesting a strict atheism. This is in line with other discussions of the topic. We don't have many people claiming to be strict atheists, but we have a fair number of people claiming that others are strict atheists (as a way of discrediting them). And this presupposes the notion of a more strict atheism existed and was known, and the text in Psalm 14 (and 53) can certainly be understood that way, and has been understood that way.

The Book of Mormon text can be interpreted in the same ways that you read Psalm 14.

Ben M.

[the narrator]

Now you run into a serious problem. Whether the text itself espouses a strict atheism or not is merely a matter of interpretation. And there is a lot of interpretation which reads it as suggesting a strict atheism.

Can you point me to a scholarly (and not pastoral) commentary that does this?

We don't have many people claiming to be strict atheists, but we have a fair number of people claiming that others are strict atheists (as a way of discrediting them).

Strict atheists, as in not believe in any gods? Can you show me this as well? I'm not demanding a CFR, but am simply interested in where this is.

The Book of Mormon text can be interpreted in the same ways that you read Psalm 14.

I think I'm fine with that. I'm just not fine with the idea that Korihor was a secular humanist comparative to those in the 20th century.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Can you point me to a scholarly (and not pastoral) commentary that does this?

Isn't this irrelevant? It is a serious question, because the scholarly view and the popular view are often at odds. We aren't talking about what the text actually says so much as how it has been historically interpreted. If all we had was a text without a history of interpretation, your suggestion might have more merit. The historical interpretation is of interest because (at least the way that I read this thread) of the claim that atheism (at least of the sort in the Book of Mormon) can be seen only in light of Joseph Smith's milieu.

Strict atheists, as in not believe in any gods? Can you show me this as well? I'm not demanding a CFR, but am simply interested in where this is.

Sure, a good place to start is The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, which has as its first chapter a history of atheism in antiquity. Included at the beginning is a discussion of Philodemus's (110-35 BC - this dating is rather interesting because it is contemporary with Alma 30, of course) categories of atheists:

1) Those who say that it is unknown whether there are any gods or what they are like;

2) Those who say openly that the gods do not exist;

3) Those who clearly imply it.

This seems to me to be pretty good evidence. I can provide more, and there is quite a bit, particularly in Greek and Roman thought in the 3 or 4 centuries before Christ that discusses this topic.

[the narrator]

Can you point me to a scholarly (and not pastoral) commentary that does this?

Isn't this irrelevant? It is a serious question, because the scholarly view and the popular view are often at odds. We aren't talking about what the text actually says so much as how it has been historically interpreted. If all we had was a text without a history of interpretation, your suggestion might have more merit. The historical interpretation is of interest because (at least the way that I read this thread) of the claim that atheism (at least of the sort in the Book of Mormon) can be seen only in light of Joseph Smith's milieu.

Are you talking about Psalm 14 or the BofM? I'm a bit confused here. If the scholarly and the pastoral/popular views are often at odds, then it would seem to be very relevant.

Sure, a good place to start is The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, which has as its first chapter a history of atheism in antiquity. Included at the beginning is a discussion of Philodemus's (110-35 BC - this dating is rather interesting because it is contemporary with Alma 30, of course) categories of atheists

:

I'm aware that some of the pre-socratics were arguing for a type of material atheism even long before this. The question, however, is if this plays within the worldview of the Psalmist.

[DonBradley]

Well as for me certainly the kind of dual translation methodology discussed in this thread is logically possible perhaps even likely. However as it is applied it does seem at least in my impression as an ad hoc means to have your cake and eat it to. As has been alluded to on this thread far more compelling would be to first arrive at a logical and consistent methodology to determine what is "loose" and what is "tight" apply this methodology to the text and let the chips fall where they may. If it so happens favored apologetic or critical evidences are effected positively/negatively so be it the goal is not to arrive at that methodology that best allows a person to retain preexisting beliefs the goal is to arrive at that methodology that helps to form conclusions that best approximate how the universe really is.

YES!

My own person view is observations that need to be explained are observations determined to be significant by the use of appropriate controls/comparisons.

That is suppose I have observations X, Y and Z i.e.(hebraisms etc. ) and I am arguing these observations are evidence that the BOM is either historical or a 19th century fraud. Then I need to use appropriate control texts to estimate what the "baseline" level of similarity would be. For example say I am arguing the set of parallels is good evidence for historicity. I need to use appropriate control texts like for example pseudo scriptural texts known not to be ancient. In order to estimate what degree of similarity for texts known not to be ancient have with the ANE etc. Then I can start arguing the set of parallels X, Y and Z have much greater similarity with the ANE etc. than the parallels I obtained from my set of control texts. And the same process reversed if I was arguing the BOM is a 19th century fraud.

AMEN!

Uncertain,

There are few posts with which I have ever agreed more than this one. I've been writing about the need for controls, to establish a baseline of expected results, for years, though I have probably not expressed it so well as you have here. I remain unimpressed by Book of Mormon parallels to Meso-American cultures, for instance, because I'm not sure what number and strength of parallels I ought to expect between the Book of Mormon and a culture to which it is clearly unrelated. I would give far more evidentiary weight to such parallels if the Book of Mormon were also assiduously compared to the cultures of Han dynasty China and the 10th century Vikings, cultures to which no one thinks the book is plausibly related. If these comparisons found much greater parallel between the Book of Mormon and the Maya than between the Book of Mormon and such other cultures, then I would accord the former with substantial evidentiary value. Lacking something like this, I have no reason to think that the proferred parallels are anything remarkable.

So, as they say, great minds think alike--and so do ours!

It's always nice to find someone on a resonant frequency.

Don