Kozaru Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 I hope you'll be more careful in the future. I, at least, have a very limited sense of humor when it comes to certain matters, particularly where the slurring of something I hold deeply sacred is purely gratuitous and completely irrelevant.I see. Snide comments about a person are fair game. Snide comments about a plagarized ceremony are out of line. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I'll try to live up to the example you set on this board.
Beowulf Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Cute. What looks like an apology is actually yet another slam at what we hold sacred. But I am not offended. Really.I have seen worse slams against our sitting President, masquerading as political bumper stickers, but actually involving crude language and cruder imagery. (sigh)
Daniel Peterson Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 I see. Snide comments about a person are fair game. Snide comments about a plagarized ceremony are out of line. Thank you for clearing that up for me. I'll try to live up to the example you set on this board. You don't see. I didn't expect you to. Feel free to report me to the moderators at any time. I'll feel free to report you, too. It'll be great fun. I'm aware that you don't much care for me. You should be aware that I don't care much about you, one way or the other. As Joseph Campbell used to say, "Follow your own bliss."The fact is that your comment about "circular reasoning" indicated a failure to understand the concept of "circular reasoning." If you think that it's ad hominem to note a misunderstanding when a misunderstanding has occurred, then you don't understand the concept of ad hominem, either.Do you have anything substantive to say?
Kozaru Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Do you have anything substantive to say? Do YOU? We have linguistic experts commenting on Greek and Hebrew, when the subject at had is a book written (supposedly) in Reformed Egyptian. Any speculation as to what the original words were or meant is just that, speculation. Considering the only example we have of JS
Daniel Peterson Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Do you have anything substantive to say? Do YOU? Yes. My citation from Luke 2:1 was substantively relevant, as were my comments about ancient writers not typically meaning world or earth the way we do, in our day of aerial and satellite photography and Rand McNally globes.We have linguistic experts commenting on Greek and Hebrew, when the subject at had is a book written (supposedly) in Reformed Egyptian.
ScriptureLover Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Kozaru -QUOTE (ScriptureLover) The whole World is the Greek (t
Kozaru Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 it's very nice to know when we are correctIndeed. So, you have seen the gold plates and can verify these claims?Or did you mean to say,"It's very nice to have faith and believe we are correct."?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Kozaru,Indeed. So, you have seen the gold plates and can verify these claims?Or did you mean to say,"It's very nice to have faith and believe we are correct."?Do you have anything substantive to say on this matter? Do you have any evidence to present?Do you have any cogent analysis?Do you not realize that asking rhetorical questions and making snide remarks does not constitute an argument of any sort, let alone a cogent one?Do you realize that we have answered all your questions several times, and that repeating an already answered question over and over does not constitute a new argument?Do you understand any of the issues we've raised?
Kozaru Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Kozaru,Indeed. So, you have seen the gold plates and can verify these claims?Or did you mean to say,"It's very nice to have faith and believe we are correct."?Do you have anything substantive to say on this matter? Do you have any evidence to present?Do you have any cogent analysis?Do you not realize that asking rhetorical questions and making snide remarks does not constitute an argument of any sort, let alone a cogent one?Do you realize that we have answered all your questions several times, and that repeating an already answered question over and over does not constitute a new argument?Do you understand any of the issues we've raised? Should I take that as a "no"?
Bill Hamblin Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Should I take that as a "no"?Let me know if you have anything substantive to say. Until then, ZZZZzzzz.
Kozaru Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Should I take that as a "no"?Let me know if you have anything substantive to say. Until then, ZZZZzzzz. Sleep tight. Let me know when you have more than just theories as to what language the plates were written in.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Let me know when you have more than just theories as to what language the plates were written in.Let me know when you have any theory whatsoever.Can you summarize what our position is, what our evidence is for that position, and what are arguments are? From your posts so far, there is no evidence that you have understood.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 By, as it were, "answering" with yet another substance-free question, Professor Hamblin, I believe that Kozaru has actually answered each of your questions. Quite persuasively.I hear that the Home Shopping Network is very interesting.
ScriptureLover Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Daniel Peterson - By, as it were, "answering" with yet another substance-free question, Professor Hamblin, I believe that Kozaru has actually answered each of your questions. Quite persuasively.I question that.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 My Dear Professor PetersonWhat astonishes me about Kozaru's position that we are merely speculating about language in the BOM, is that he can't grasp that Hebrew is one of the languages specifically mentioned in the BOM (1 Nephi 1.2; Morm 9.33)There are at least eight possible semantic domains which should be considered as possibly relevant to the interpretation of the BOM.1- Early Twenty-first century American English--that is to say, our current language through which we read the BOM.2- Early Nineteenth Century American English--that is to say, the language of Joseph Smith3- Early Sixteenth Century Jacobean English--that is to say, the language of the KJV which Joseph read, which is quoted in the BOM, and which informs at least some of the language of the BOM4- The Greek underlying the NT and Septuagint OT.5- The Hebrew underlying the OT, and the claimed language which Lehi and his family would have spoken (1 Nephi 1.2)6- Egyptian, related to the "reformed Egyptian" script (not language) claimed to have been used by the Nephites (Morm 9.32; 1 Nephi 1.2)7- The Nephites own unique language which
Bill Hamblin Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 ScriptureLoverI note that "Just Curious" has abandoned the field. Should we understand this as a tacit concession?Bill
ScriptureLover Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Oh I don't know Bill.........be careful, you might be ad homineminemin him you know.
Bill Hamblin Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 you might be ad homineminemin him you knowAd whomimen?
ScriptureLover Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Hamblin - Ad whomimenYou know..........this sounds similar to some of the Book of Mormon proper names we read about in that text. Could it be that Joseph Smith actualy had the intellectual prowess to pull it off form the dictionary after all? I think that sounds very Nephite.............I mean Kishkumen - ad whomimen.......... the similarity of sound is astonishing is it not?Are you on to something here? Will our dear Professor Peterson get green with envy for such an outstanding contribution to linguistic studies in the Book of Mormon? Shall we not tell him about this just yet until further research can be done?
Daniel Peterson Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 One of my secret hopes was that the dreaded Darth Hamblin would make his appearance here. I'm delighted. He's not as soft and sentimental as I am.
ScriptureLover Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Daniel Peterson - One of my secret hopes was that the dreaded Darth Hamblin would make his appearance here. I'm delighted. He's not as soft and sentimental as I am.{edited} Oh come on Peterson.............
Bill Hamblin Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 One of my secret hopes was that the dreaded Darth Hamblin would make his appearance here.Now I have the Power!
Calm Posted October 19, 2004 Posted October 19, 2004 Alas, I fear we may have another outbreak of that virulent Anti-Mormon contagion, "invincible ignorance."Break out the Hazmat gear.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.