Guest Just Curious Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 you would, I suspect, be far less patient with me than I have been with you. Suspicion...wrong...I would be just as patient if not more so....
Guest Just Curious Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 In a discussion between somebody who knows quite a bit about the topic and someone who hasn't read anything about it, the two sides aren't equal. That simply the way it is.To an extent that is correct, however I will stick with my prior assertion that just as easily as saying Zarahemla he could have written Tikal, Copan etc. It is a totally 100% valid point. If you disagree then prove me why it is not valid. The validity lies in that neither word existed when Joseph was writing and one is correct and one is not....the correct one just happens to be the one Joseph did not use!
Daniel Peterson Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 you would, I suspect, be far less patient with me than I have been with you. Suspicion...wrong...I would be just as patient if not more so....Possibly. If so, I can only doff my hat to your superior Christian spirit. I'm just extrapolating from what I've seen of your replies to other people on this board.
Guest Just Curious Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 If so, I can only doff my hat to your superior Christian spirit. Perhaps we could all do with a few less insults
Guest Just Curious Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I'm just extrapolating from what I've seen of your replies to other people on this board. Of course I am treated by others on this board with nothing but the utmost kindest, generosity and am never insulted, called names or ridiculed either...
John Russell Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 JC said:http://www.crt.state.la.us/crt/parks/marksvil/marksvle.htmThis is a weblink for one in Louisiana, which gets quite warm, stays quite humid and gets over 60 inches of rain per year so I don't think it would be considered tropical or semi tropical but the decompostion rate is quite quick...oh yeah the site is from pre BoM times to post BoM times...there is a museum with the artifacts in them there on the site...there are other sites across Louisiana of mounds too this is one of the biggest.Thanks for the URL. You're right about the climate in Louisiana -- it is actually a warm temperate zone, but at times it borders on the subtropical, particularly in the southern edges. I live in the Deep South and am very familiar with the various mounds. The problem with such sites for the purposes of our dicsussion is that the mounds represent a sedentary culture and provide glimpses into a lifestyle at a fixed and developed location. In the case of battlefields that occur during a prolonged and mobile conflict (as that portrayed in the final conflicts of the BOM), there are not relatively permanent structures in which artefacts would be deposited. In the case of the mounds, the mounds themselves provide a storage facility, as well as a visual anchor for further exploration at the location (although some, like the enigmatic Rock Eagle in Georgia, have yielded neither artefacts nor any idea of who built them or why). If we might, I would like to again use the battle of Gettysburg as a model, with about 250,000 combatants on the ground in a brief and mobile conflict. If we lost information about the location of the battle, and if there had been no organized burial of the thousands of dead, and if, in the future, the existing artefacts are lost, what evidence would we have for the actual occurence of the battle in 1500 years? I would submit that it would be a difficult, possibly impossible, task to find the battlefield and verify the magnitude of the battle.Do you know of any substantive battlefield artefacts from the BOM time period?
Daniel Peterson Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 In a discussion between somebody who knows quite a bit about the topic and someone who hasn't read anything about it, the two sides aren't equal. That simply the way it is.To an extent that is correct,To an extent? Okay. Let's discuss the temporal significance of the Arabic perfect verb. Or, perhaps, the role of emanationism in the cosmogony of tenth century Islamic Neoplatonism. Now, granted, the fact that I know a great deal about the former topic, and that my doctoral dissertation was devoted to the latter topic, gives me something of an edge in the conversation. But only a limited edge, only to an extent.I'll allow you the opening statement. however I will stick with my prior assertion that just as easily as saying Zarahemla he could have written Tikal, Copan etc. It is a totally 100% valid point. If you disagree then prove me why it is not valid. The validity lies in that neither word existed when Joseph was writing and one is correct and one is not....the correct one just happens to be the one Joseph did not use!The invalidity lies in the fact that, according to the Book of Mormon, the word Zarahemla did already exist. Specifically and crucially, it was used by the authors of the Book of Mormon. It was the name of the relevant city, and it was written on the plates. Words like Tikal and Copan weren't used by the authors of the Book of Mormon and weren't written on the plates.How in the world is yours "a totally 100% valid point"? I'm unaware of any convincing argument to establish your contention that it is a translator's duty to misrepresent the content of the text he's translating. How much translation have you done?
John Russell Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 JC said:Any of the continuous cultures!!!! The Americas obviously have been populated by cultures for over 10,000 years, if the cultures existed that carried away the artifacts and they kept using them the would have survived somewhat...hey you made the statement not me...Like the Incas, Olmecs, Aztecs, and so forth? The Americas have been populated by cultures for many millenia, but how many of them still exist intact? Can you think of any? Without continuity, why would artefacts of little or no significance to other cultures be preserved? How much of the Mesoamerican metal that the Spaniards "recovered" was retained in its original form to be kept as significant artefacts? Yes, it is conceivable that artefacts "would have survived somewhat", but in what form and to what extent? And divorced from the original location and context, how much insight would they provide into the battlefield we are searching for? I don't presume to know all of the answers, but I think that the "where-are-all-of-the-bodies" line of reasoning is oversimplified and really isn't easily justifiable on archaeological grounds. However, I'm no archaeologist (as I'm sure is obvious....).
T-Shirt Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 you would, I suspect, be far less patient with me than I have been with you. Suspicion...wrong...I would be just as patient if not more so.... Just one example of Just Curious' extreme patience with those who know less than he:Posted on: May 11 2004, 06:35 PM by Just Curious:Once more for the idiot that thinks Adieu is English..it may be used in the English speaking countries but it is FRENCH!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I would know being OF FRENCH ANCESTRY !!!!!!!!!!!!I am particularly impressed by his credentials in the french language.
Guest Just Curious Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 The invalidity lies in the fact that, according to the Book of Mormon, the word Zarahemla did already exist. Specifically and crucially, it was used by the authors of the Book of Mormon. It was the name of the relevant city, and it was written on the plates. Words like Tikal and Copan weren't used by the authors of the Book of Mormon and weren't written on the plates.Actually as I understand it the word Zarahemla is the English translation of the reformed egyptian word. Since the author of the BoM is God and Joseph simply was the translator it is quite easy to see that just as easily as using Zarahemla God could have used Tikal and Copan. The translation is from an unknown ancient language to a known language and Tikal and Copan are no more foreign than Zarahemla in translating as well as being the names of relative ancient cities. Now if we are to apply similar analysis to the BoM we can surely say that horses ( I know we disagree but be patient), cows, oxen, sheep, donkeys must really be horses, cows, oxen, sheep and donkeys because Joseph translated the words to mean exactly what they mean't. If you use the reasoning that Zarahemla means Zarahemla and not something else then you should also apply that same reasoning to every other single word in the BoM or else provide some sort of proof as to which words, verses, or chapters have been mis-interpreted...thank you for allowing me my observations..
Daniel Peterson Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Posted on: May 11 2004, 06:35 PM by Just Curious:Once more for the idiot that thinks Adieu is English..it may be used in the English speaking countries but it is FRENCH!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I would know being OF FRENCH ANCESTRY !!!!!!!!!!!!That's really funny. The word adieu shows up in the Oxford English Dictionary (emphasis mine), and Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, and the Oxford American Dictionary, and Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary of American English. The first attestation in the OED is for 1398. The second is for 1400. Which means that English-speakers have been using the word for more (and maybe for considerably more) than six hundred years.However, it's as if scholarship on English lexicography doesn't exist.it is FRENCH!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I would know being OF FRENCH ANCESTRY !!!!!!!!!!!!
Guest Just Curious Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Like the Incas, Olmecs, Aztecs, and so forth? The Americas have been populated by cultures for many millenia, but how many of them still exist intact? Can you think of any? Without continuity, why would artefacts of little or no significance to other cultures be preserved?Cultures rarely just evaporate...they usually are conquered by other cultures or migrate and become part of other cultures, it is less common for them to just go away rather than migrate or be conquered. When they would be conquered the conquerers would take the "spoils of war" as well as when migrating they certainly would take with them all useful items to use...
Daniel Peterson Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Actually as I understand it the word Zarahemla is the English translation of the reformed egyptian word. On what basis do you claim that??? While adieu is English, Zarahemla isn't English, any more than Beijing or Cairo or Berlin or Tokyo is English.
Guest Just Curious Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 On what basis do you claim that???Is or is not the word Zarahemla the English translation of the reformed egyptian word meaning Zarahemla? Are you trying to say the word Zarahemla is translated literally correct and was pronounced Zarahemla by those speaking reformed egyptian?
Confidential Informant Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 On what basis do you claim that???Is or is not the word Zarahemla the English translation of the reformed egyptian word meaning Zarahemla? Are you trying to say the word Zarahemla is translated literally correct and was pronounced Zarahemla by those speaking reformed egyptian? Gee, I'm still waiting to hear JC defend the Bible now that DNA has shown the the global flood never happened even though Peter the Apostles said it did.What a conundrum.C.I.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Is or is not the word Zarahemla the English translation of the reformed egyptian word meaning Zarahemla?
Guest Just Curious Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Gee, I'm still waiting to hear JC defend the Bible now that DNA has shown the the global flood never happened even though Peter the Apostles said it did.What a conundrum.C.I. CI please show me one single post on here where I said there was a global flood, just one. Please?
T-Shirt Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Gee, I'm still waiting to hear JC defend the Bible now that DNA has shown the the global flood never happened even though Peter the Apostles said it did.What a conundrum.C.I.CI please show me one single post on here where I said there was a global flood, just one. Please? Just Curious,I think that is precisely the point he is making. You might want to reread his argument.T-Shirt
Guest Just Curious Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 I'm saying that, unless you have some actual reason to suggest otherwise, Zarahemla[/] represents a reasonably close facsimile of the word used by the authors of the Book of MormonThank you for your explanation...now let me see if I understand, in my limited wisdom...so in effect wherever we have a word such as say sword, oxen, sea, river, land...those words are the reformed egyptian words translated into english but since there was no english word for Zarahemla, he just translated it as best he could sort of like phonetically is that correct or am I missing something?
Confidential Informant Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Gee, I'm still waiting to hear JC defend the Bible now that DNA has shown the the global flood never happened even though Peter the Apostles said it did.What a conundrum.C.I.CI please show me one single post on here where I said there was a global flood, just one. Please? Ah, what fun!Just Curious, you don't have to have stated it. Are you not a Christian? Is the Bible not your "inspired" source of official doctrine? Peter the Apostle specifically stated that the global flood which left only 8 survivors was the "official" position of that book. Are you asserting that Peter was wrong? But, if Peter was wrong about that and it's okay, then why can't Joseph Smith be wrong about the location of Cumorah, and that be okay also?Why are you allowed to claim that you have never said there was a global flood, specifically disagreeing thw Peter the Apostle, but when Dr. Peterson or Dr. Hamblin state they aren't convinced of Cumorah's location in New York (which doesn not contradict Joseph Smith) you jump all over them as being dishonest? You really don't grasp the contradictory nature of your position, do you?C.I.
Confidential Informant Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Gee, I'm still waiting to hear JC defend the Bible now that DNA has shown the the global flood never happened even though Peter the Apostles said it did.What a conundrum.C.I.CI please show me one single post on here where I said there was a global flood, just one. Please? Just Curious,I think that is precisely the point he is making. You might want to reread his argument.T-Shirt Ah,. thank you T-shirt. Very perceptive.C.I.
Daniel Peterson Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Thank you for your explanation...now let me see if I understand, in my limited wisdom...so in effect wherever we have a word such as say sword, oxen, sea, river, land...those words are the reformed egyptian words translated into english but since there was no english word for Zarahemla, he just translated it as best he could sort of like phonetically is that correct or am I missing something?That's effectively it. It's precisely the same way, when I'm translating Arabic or German or Greek, for example, and I run across references to Damascus or Stuttgart or Athens, I don't try, somehow, to translate the names of those cities.
Guest Just Curious Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Why are you allowed to claim that you have never said there was a global flood, specifically disagreeing thw Peter the Apostle, but when Dr. Peterson or Dr. Hamblin state they aren't convinced of Cumorah's location in New York (which doesn not contradict Joseph Smith) you jump all over them as being dishonest? I will eagerly await your copy of my post where I insinuate or actually accuse Dan or Hamblin of being dishonest...and after you don't find it, I will expect a public apology on this board by you for saying somthing untrue about me !!!
Confidential Informant Posted October 25, 2004 Posted October 25, 2004 Why are you allowed to claim that you have never said there was a global flood, specifically disagreeing thw Peter the Apostle, but when Dr. Peterson or Dr. Hamblin state they aren't convinced of Cumorah's location in New York (which doesn not contradict Joseph Smith) you jump all over them as being dishonest? I will eagerly await your copy of my post where I insinuate or actually accuse Dan or Hamblin of being dishonest...and after you don't find it, I will expect a public apology on this board by you for saying somthing untrue about me !!! Stop trying to change the subject. If I have mischaracterized your attack, I apologize. Now explain how you can disagree with Peter's authoritative assertion of a global flood, the "official" Christian position.C.I.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.