Deborah Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 Do you not agree radical Islamic terrorits experience feelings of confirmations from their God that they should fulfill Jihad in performing terrorist acts?I don't agree. I think they believe because of generations of tradition and because they've never heard anything different and because they are miserable in their lives and think they will get something better.
Nomad Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 Taking the most extreme as an example....Do you not agree radical Islamic terrorits experience feelings of confirmations from their God that they should fulfill Jihad in performing terrorist acts?No, I don't agree. I have seen no evidence at all to support such an argument.It may not be laid out exactly like Alma 32, but do you not agree that there are people feeling what we would term "the spirit" and feeling "God is telling them this is right" in believing things that are "untrue" according to Mormon belief?To my knowledge, Muslims do not believe in personal revelation from God. As I said above, I'm not aware of any other religion that teaches the concept of personal revelation from God as a methodology of obtaining truth. The only place I ever see things said like what you are saying is from ex-mormons on these message boards.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 Taking the most extreme as an example....Do you not agree radical Islamic terrorits experience feelings of confirmations from their God that they should fulfill Jihad in performing terrorist acts?Nope, I dont agree. I see no evidence of this that is even remotely similar to the LDS experience.
Pahoran Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 Taking the most extreme as an example....Do you not agree radical Islamic terrorits experience feelings of confirmations from their God that they should fulfill Jihad in performing terrorist acts?It may not be laid out exactly like Alma 32, but do you not agree that there are people feeling what we would term "the spirit" and feeling "God is telling them this is right" in believing things that are "untrue" according to Mormon belief?No, that is a mere assumption.If your only awareness of religious conviction comes from an LDS paradigm, I suppose it is natural to assume that everyone else is experiencing essentially the same things, just describing them differently. However, as Dan Peterson must get tired of reminding everyone, it is not merely the terminology, but the concept of a personal testimony that is quite foreign to normative Muslim religious life, and virtually unheard of in traditional Islam.When a Muslim terrorist straps on a bomb, he is of course responding to a range of motivations, of which religious conviction probably does not feature highly. (Contrary to what I recently saw an internet atheist assert, "suicide bombing" is not uniquely or even most commonly carried out by religious believers.) Political imperatives, community expectations and personal rage are likely to be foremost.Muslims believe primarily because it is part of their community identity to believe. Individually arriving at a personal conviction that Islam is true -- and by implication at least considering the possiblity that it might not be -- is, to most of them, a rather weird notion.Regards,Pahoran
Brian 2.0 Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 This has gotten way off topic... I've started another thread for this and I'd love to talk about it. But for this thread, I'll quote my questions from the post that derailed everything.If I put that methodology aside and "take if off the scales" if you will, the balances shifts, sometimes dramatically.You say that "it isn't surpising that [my] spiritual belief in the Book of Abraham failed." Would you then agree that if you had to analyze the BoA WITHOUT considering your personal witness, that it would be a difficult thing to believe?Do you agree that not believing the authenticity of the BofA is a reasonable conclusion when you don't have a personal witness of it's truthfulness as part of the evidence?
Robert F. Smith Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) 13. BofA 3:9-10, 16, and fac 2:1 say that Kolob, the greatest of the stars (Heb. Hakokaubeam), signifies "the first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God," that Kolob is "[f]irst in government," and "the last pertaining to the measurement of time," which means "one day to a cubit" (= thousand years in Earth time) in "celestial time," which, according to fac 2:2, 4, is the same time-reckoning as at Oliblish and at God's throne/ residence. Three realms: Where or what are they?Where would one celestial day pass while a thousand years passed here on Earth? What principle would allow time to be so relatively slow there and so fast here? Does physics (astrophysics) know of such a phenomenon? What of the time-dilation principle of Einsteinian mechanics at very high speeds? Anyhow, was time measured in cubits in the ancient Near East? This metaphorical ratio of one to a thousand can be found in Psalm 84:10, "How much better is one day in your Court, than a thousand in the Cemetery!"85 And in Psalm 90:4, "For a thousand years just pass before your eyes like yesterday, like a watch in the night."86 So too in a love song from the Egyptian Papyrus Hunefer, 500:1, "Better indeed is one day in your arms . . . than a hundred thousand [anywhere] on Earth."87 Or in the Egyptian notion that "Eternity is in his sight as a day."88Time measurement differentials have been dealt with separately in my lengthy section on astronomy in my Book of Abraham Commentary (forthcoming), but several points must be mentioned here: The image of the throne of God from which the waters flow (Psalm 46:5, Ezekiel 47, Joel 4:18), or set in the midst of the waters (Ezekiel 28:2; UT 51:IV:21-22), conjures up the well-known motif of Jerusalem as the navel of the world (Judges 9:37, Ezekiel 5:5, 38:12, i.e., the Temple), but also brings in the old suggestion that Kolob was the navel of the universe.89 The ratio of 1,000 to 1 may be dealt with as metaphor (Psalm 84:10, 90:4, Job 9:3, 33:23, etc.; cf. Papyrus Harris 500, 1), and the Egyptian word for “1,000" can also be used to mean “myriad; herd.” Furthermore, one may also account for the time differential via the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction of time in Einsteinian mechanics (the Special Theory of Relativity, perhaps allied with the Aristotelian and Stoic concept of Zeus Ouranios [= Jupiter summus exsuperantissimus]) at the edge of the known universe with the quasars, or in the midst of our own Milky Way Galaxy and within its super-massive Black Hole. Egyptian “astronomy” – if one may speak of such a thing! – has little to offer, and our attention ought to be directed to the use of the cubit as an astronomical measure in Abraham’s Mesopotamia.90If, as Abr 3:1 and fac 3 suggest (and Josephus explicitly says91), Abraham taught astronomy to the Egyptians, what sort of principles would he have taught them along these lines? Since Abraham came from Mesopotamia, and since it is generally agreed that astronomy was most highly developed there and not in Egypt,92 it makes sense to evaluate the BofA in light of such knowledge. Certainly the notion of celestial hierarchies set forth in Abr 3:8-9 is well-suited to Mesopotamian thought.93One of the principles apparently employed by Abraham at BofA 3:6 (“set time”) was the Old Babylonian concept of adannu "set time, appointed time" (ATRA-ḪASĪS W, 5; DT 42), for which the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary discerns two basic applications: (1) "moment in time at end of period," and(2) "a period of time of predetermined length or characterized by a sequence of events," often being used for seasons, cycles, and astronomical periods.94Another concept of prime importance here (BofA 2:1 “one day to a cubit”) is the Mesopotamian "cubit": Sumerian KÙŠ and Akkadian ammatum mean "2̊ of arc; 49.5 - 55 cm (linear cubit)."95 Hebrew 'ammah and Egyptian mḥ (Coptic mah) are the cognate terms which refer only to earth-bound cubit measures. In a cuneiform text from ancient Boghazköy, Anatolia, we read "when the day has 'turned' two cubits."96 Indeed, Marvin A. Powell has noted how the Sumero-Akkadian cubit was used “in the calculation of celestial distances” as late as the Seleucid period.97 He adds that, during the 1st millennium B.C., the Sumero-Akkadian 1/30 cubit measure (šu-si, ubanu “finger” @ about 1⅔ cm) represented 1/5 of the apparent diameter of the sun, corresponding to 5' arc,” and he presented the following data for clarification (see his Table V):98manatur 144 cubits (122 cubits) = 720 sun diameters (12 x 60) = 25,920 še = 360° (12 x 60°) = 4,320 šu-si fingers (12 x 360) ammatu “cubit, sun cubit” = 5 sun diameters = 180 še = 2° 30' arc = 30 fingers ubanu “finger” = 5/30 sun diameter = 6 še = 5' arc = 1 finger In addition, time could be measured in length units so that “12 geodesic bēru (= 360 UŠ)“ could be equated “with 1 solar ≈ sidereal day,” a system of time measurement dating back to at least the Middle Bronze Age (contemporary with Abraham). This method apparently entailed early recognition of the isometric relationship of 12 months of 360 days with 12 bēru of 360 UŠ. Thus, when on the road, travelers could see that when on “a march of 1 bēru” (1800 nindan “rods”), the sun would also move a distance of 1 bēru ≈ 30̊. Indeed, the measures of 1, 3, 6, and 12 bēru correspond to 30̊, 90̊, 180̊, and 360̊.99 A Seleucid text from Uruk (RA 10, 216-218, AO 6476) provides the following equivalents:1001 talent = 12 danna/ bēru on Earth (ina qaqqari) = 648,000 danna/ bēru in Heaven (ina šamê) Such issues must be dealt with, rather than systematically ignored, even if some such lines may only be commentary and clarification to this register. In this case, however, the impact should be startling. For, how could Joseph Smith accurately portray an ancient civilization in such detail?85 Mitchell Dahood, Psalms, II:321, for this translation; cf. Ps 45:6; and Alma 40:8, "All is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto man."86 Dahood, Psalms, II:278.87 "Songs of the City of Memphis," translated by R. O. Faulkner in Simpson, ed., The Literature of Ancient Egypt (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1972), 298.88 Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar, 3rd ed., p. 64, Exercise VI.a.10; cf. Yahuda, Language of the Pentateuch, 269-270, notes 1 & 3, on the Hebrew and Egyptian cognates for "eternity."89 J. E. Hickman, Improvement Era, 19:593-595.90Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, A, part II, 74, i, j, ammatum A2 “cubit; 2̊ of arc.”91 Josephus, Antiquities, I, 7, 2 §158 (quoting Berossus); 8, 2 §§167-168.92 Neugebauer, JNES, IV:8, 11-13, 25; Neugebauer, The Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 2nd ed., 80-144; cf. Saggs, Mesopotamien, 661-671. This applied as well to mathematical sophistication in Old Babylonia and the lack thereof in Egypt (Høyrup, Lengths, 405).93 Neugebauer, Exact Sciences in Antiquity, 2nd ed., 99-100, citing a Cassite period text dealing with 8 celestial spheres: "How far is one god (i.e. star) beyond the other god?"94a-da-nu, UD.BA, CAD "A" I:97-101, citing Bab. 6, 99:9.95CAD, "A" I:74 (i), citing F. X. Kubler, Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, II:547ff., and Thureau-Dangin, Revue d'Assyríologie et d'Archéologie Orientale, 28:23ff.96 UD-MU EGIR-pa 2 AM-MA-TI wa-a-zi, CAD "A" I:74 (j), citing Kammenhuber, Hippologica Hethitica, 270-271: 56 i 49, 92 iii 4, and 100 iv 18.97 Powell, RLA, VII:458, citing JCS, 21 (1969), 201:17-20, adding variously: “Noteworthy is the antiquity and stability of the linkage between the square of the nindan-rod (§I.2h) and the area system as the basis of plane geometrical calculation.” Moreover, “n the Akkad-Ur III period, . . length measures were defined to relate systematically to area, volume, capacity, and perhaps to weight (M. A. Powell, AfO 31 [1984] 46).”98 Powell, RLA, VII:458,461 (Table V), continuing the discussion of celestial distance measures on 462-463.99 Powell, RLA, VII:467.100 Powell, RLA, VII:468, and Table VIII. Edited January 27, 2012 by Robert F. Smith 2
Robert F. Smith Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 14. Olishem, plain of (BofA 1:10), in Egyptian controlled area of NW Syria – Akkadian place-name, Ulisum, in inscriptions of kings Rim Sin and Naram Sin (ca. 2250 B.C.),101 perhaps the same (suggested by an Egyptologist) as the 12th Dynasty Egyptian Execration Texts’ ЗwšЗmm, which has usually been taken to represent Urušalimum (Jerusalem).10215. Singular shaumau “to be high; heavens” ∥raukeeyang (fac 1:12) = Hebrew šammā, šamā (Ps 68:5 archaic singular), “height,” Ugaritic tm (UT 68:4),103 which was taken over as a loan-word into Aramaic as šimme), Akkadian šamû, šamê, šm’ (Akkadian simmelat šamami “the stairway of heaven”),104 Arabic sama’.16. Shinehah105 (BofA 3:13), “the sun” – Egyptian Shinehah could certainly be the “sun,” since it apparently incorporates Egyptian šn(w), the name for the solar “circuit,” and for the old “cartouche” – “emblem of sun’s orbit, which symbolizes eternity”106; + Egyptian nḥḥ “eternity, forever” (with solar determinative ⊙), Coptic eneh “eternity,” šaeneh “forever”; or Egyptian ḥḥ, Coptic hah “million, large number,” which may be related. Used also as a convenient code-word for Kirtland, Ohio, in 1835 D&C 82:12, 117:8, etc.; nḥḥ is “dynamic eternity,” to be differentiated from dt “static eternity.”107101 J. M. Lundquist, "Was Abraham at Ebla?" in R. L. Millet & K. P. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture, 7 vols. (SLC: Randall, 1985), II:233-235; P. Y. Hoskisson, “Where Was Ur of the Chaldees?” in H. D. Peterson & C. D. Tate, eds., Pearl of Great Price: Revelations From God (BYU Religious Studies Center, 1989), 136, n. 44; John Gee, FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, IV (1992), 115, n. 64; Daniel Peterson, Ensign 24/1 (Jan 1994), 17-18, citing I. J. Gelb & B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königs-inschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Christentums (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1990), 255-256; cf. “Inscription of Naram-Sin, the Campaign Against Armanu and Ebla,” in William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger Jr., eds., The Context of Scripture, vol. 2, Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World (Boston: Brill, 2003), 245. The line reads, “From the Bank of the Euphrates until Ulisum.” See also Gee, “Abracadabra, Isaac and Jacob,” 26–27.102 Execration Texts E27-28.103 Dahood, Psalms I, Anchor Bible; A. van Selms, Ugarit-Forschungen, II (1970), 264.104 Lambert & Millard, ATRA-ḪASĪS, III, iii, 8, etc.; Reiner, Linguistic Analysis of Akkadian, 27; JSS, 7 (1962), 174.105 See the explanation of Christopher Smith, “The Inspired Fictionalization of the 1835 United Firm Revelations,” Claremont Journal of Mormon Studies, 1/1 (Apr 2011), 22, 24, and n. 31.106 Budge, Book of the Dead (1913), II:381-382; (Univ. Books, 1960), 259; Budge, The Mummy, 2nd ed., 264; Budge, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, 743-744 (šnw “endless time, eternity”; šnt nt pt “circuit of heaven”; šnw n. tЗ “circuit of the earth”); Nibley long ago noted this use of the šn-sign (private communication).107 James P. Allen, “The Celestial Realm,” in D. Silverman, ed., Ancient Egypt, 131; J. Cooper first pointed this out to me during his Middle Egyptian class at the Claremont Colleges in 1968-1969. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 17. Egyptus (variants Egyptes; Zeptah, Zep-tah), “Egypt” (BofA 1:23,25) – Babylonian syllabic cuneiform Ḫikuptaḥ“Egypt” (Ugaritic Ḥkpt)109 from Egyptian name for Memphis, the old capital of Egypt, Ḥwt-kЗ-Ptaḥ, "House-of-the-Spirit-of-Ptah" (i.e., the Temple of Ptah) ➔ "Egypt/ Aegyptus/ Egyptus" (E-gy-pt; Coptic ekepta), and Greek Αἴγυπτος in Homer as both Nile River and country,110 and in Appollodorus (Bibliotheca, 2:1:4-5), as the eponymous son of Belus & Anchinoe, who first conquers Egypt. Variant Zeptah is clearly Egyptian SЗt-Ptḥ, "Daughter-of-Ptah" (the -t- in SЗt is silent),111 as is Astarte the "Daughter of Ptah" in the Late Egyptian Hieratic story of "Astarte and the Sea,"112 (and which may be later reflected in the name of the Babylonian or Jewish Sibyl Sambethe / Sambathis, the daughter or dau-in-law of Noah, who also came to Egypt after the Flood).113 For vocalization of Zeptah / Egyptus, compare Coptic ekepta, Ptah, and Greek Phtha.114 She is the equivalent of Hathor (Egyptian "House-of-Horus [sky]"), also the daughter of Ptah,115 who is the same constellation as Virgo, which is the first month of the Inundation season (on the Palermo Stone, each king is accompanied by his mother's name and by the measured height of the inundation in September116). For, "when this woman discovered the land it was under water" (Abr 1:24). Hathor is the Eye and Mother of Reʿ, the first king of Egypt (1:25; Book of the Divine Cow), that first king being otherwise known as “Hermes Triplex” in the Corpus Hermeticum, i.e., the first king of Egypt after the Flood117 (Abr 1:23-25).109 Termed arṣ “land” at Baal Cycle, tablet 3, VI:16 (CAT 1.3).110Lexikon der Ägyptologie, I:77, IV:25-26; Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs: An Introduction, 1-2; cf. Budge, Book of the Dead (1895/1967), 490; Rhodes, JSH-TYL, 5.111 Egyptian S(З.t)-ptḥ in Middle Kingdom (H. Ranke, Die ägyptischen Personennamen I.288.22); cf. Phoenician transcription as spt חתפס, and Neo-Babylonian transcription Isi-ip-ta-ḫu (Vittmann, Göttinger Miszellen 70, p. 65), cited in Y. Muchiki, Egyptian Proper Names and Loanwords in North-West Semitic, SBL dissertation series 173 (Atlanta: SBL, 1999), 29.112 "Astarte and Yam" in the Papyrus Amherst (where it is šrit-Ptḥ ) in Pritchard, ed., ANET, 3rd ed., 17-18; Gardiner, Late-Egyptian Stories, 76-81; Gardiner, "The Astarte Papyrus," in Studies Presented to F. Ll. Griffith, 74-85; Lexikon der Ägyptologie, I:500-510. Albright showed how Astarte is the same as Atargatis-Cybele, Qudshu, Baʿalat, Juno, Virgo, etc., in his Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, chapter 3; see also C. H. Gordon in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., Macropaedia 24:91-127; and A. R. Durham, “Zeptah-Egyptus,” Sept 1958; Durham in Christensen, ed., Papers of the Fifteenth Annual Symposium on the Archaeology of the Scriptures, 12-16.113 H. C. Youtie, "Sambathis," Harvard Theological Review, 37:213-217; cf. Charlesworth, OTP, I:318, citing Rosenstiehl & Heinz, "De Sibtu, la reine de Mari, à Sambethe," Revue d'histoire et de philosophie religieuse, 52 (1972), 13-15; Sibylline Oracles, Prologue:33; I:289, III:809,823-827 (J. Charlesworth, OTP, I:317-318, 327, 341, 380; R.H. Charles, APOT, II:392-393), from the oldest and most certainly Jewish section of the Sibylline Oracles.114 Budge, Book of the Dead, 490; Mercer, Pyramid Texts, IV:204.115Lexikon der Ägyptologie, IV:32, citing H. S. Smith, A Visit to Ancient Egypt (Warminster, 1974), p. 11 and n. 44.116 Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, 28, 62-64.117 F. Yates, Giordano Bruno, 48-49, citing L. Thorndike, History of Magic and Experimental Science, II:215,222. 1
wenglund Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) You are correct that I am currently using a different approach to belief than I did when I was a full believer. Believing a personal witness from God of the truthfulness of something is a HUGE thing when balancing the scales to determine whether something is true or not. Personally, I have come to a point where I question the reliablity of the "personal witness" methodology of obtaining truth. It just seems that there are countless people in the world in countless religions using that methodology and coming up with completely different results. If I put that methodology aside and "take if off the scales" if you will that personal witness, the balances shifts, sometimes dramatically.You say that "it isn't surpising that [my] spiritual belief in the Book of Abraham failed." Would you then agree that if you had to analyze the BoA WITHOUT considering your personal witness, that it would be a difficult thing to believe?Do you agree that not believing the authenticity of the BofA is a reasonable conclusion when you don't have a personal witness of it's truthfulness as part of the evidence?There are at least two prongs to God's approach (Moroni 10 and Alma 32). Absent both, there really is no valid or sustainable bases for spiritual faith. For those of you where there is an absence of both in terms of the Book of Abraham, it is reasonable not to believe in its divinity.As for the Book of Abraham's historical authenticity, there is the nagging issue of how Joseph Smith may have known about certain things attested in ancient documents (some of which Robert has presented here) that were not accessable or redily accessible to Joseph Smith in his day, though these things may be insufficient enough so as to reasonably allow people to secularly believe either way.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited January 27, 2012 by wenglund 1
Brian 2.0 Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 There are at least two prongs to God's approach (Moroni 10 and Alma 32). Absent both, there really is no valid or sustainable bases for spiritual faith. For those of you where there is an absence of both in terms of the Book of Abraham, it is reasonable not to believe in its divinity.As for the Book of Abraham's historical authenticity, there is the nagging issue of how Joseph Smith may have known about certain things attested in ancient documents (some of which Robert has presented here) that were not accessable or redily accessible to Joseph Smith in his day, though these things may be insufficient enough so as to reasonably allow people to secularly believe either way.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Thanks Wade. I'm with you 100% on this comment. Especially your comment, "these things may be insufficient enough so as to reasonably allow people to secularly believe either way." It's tiring sometimes to have good meaning defenders point me to those things as if those things alone should be sufficient enough evidence to belive in the authenticity of the BoA, sometimes they even act like I'm stupid or ignorant to those things, and if I knew them then I would believe in it's authenticity. If those things were enough alone then there would be a good number of non-LDS Egyptologists and/or historians that believe in it's authenticity -- which I haven't found to be the case.
Tarski Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 My reasons are the Holy Spirit. As I read it, the Spirit witnesses to me that it is true, in the same way that I get a spiritual witness that the Bible or Book of Mormon is true. I have no answer for the objections that the critics bring.To me the rational and unsurprising conclusion is that this "spiritual witness" thing just fails. It also causes incorrigiblity which makes it dangerous. Just like you can't talk an acid head out of his crazy new age ideas, you can't talk someone who has had a religious epiphany out of their conclusions either. I think the two things are based in similar neurological mechanisms. And idea comes to us clothed in an inappropriate amount of subjective intensity and unusual affect. (affect not effect!)The result is conviction without real evidence or reason.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 This is all good stuff from Bob. I hope the critics are paying attention. But I suspect not.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 To me the rational and unsurprising conclusion is that this "spiritual witness" thing just fails.It also causes incorrigiblity which makes it dangerous. Just like you can't talk an acid head out of his crazy new age ideas, you can't talk someone who has had a religious epiphany out of their conclusions either. I think the two things are based in similar neurological mechanisms. And idea comes to us clothed in an inappropriate amount of subjective intensity and unusual affect. (affect not effect!)The result is conviction without real evidence or reason.Denial of the Holy Spirit is a bummer. 3
Brian 2.0 Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 I personally agree with Tarski, and that debate I started in another thread to not take away from the BoA thread here.I think it's just a matter of setting the terms of the debate and discussion. Believers believe not JUST because of the physical evidence they are presenting. It's that evidence PLUS a spiritual witness. If we can have a discussion on evidence where spiritual witness doesn't come into play, it's might be a different discussion. The pages that Robert Smith is providing here are interesting and should be looked into, but those pages are not the reason Robert Smith believe (I guess I'm assuming). A believers non-physical evidences (spiritual witness) combined with the phsycial evidences provided equal belief.Non-believers need to remember that it's not JUST the physical evidence that makes them believe.Believers need to remember that non-believers are JUST looking at the physical evidence, and as such will probably come to a different conclusion on the evidence.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 I personally agree with Tarski, and that debate I started in another thread to not take away from the BoA thread here.I think it's just a matter of setting the terms of the debate and discussion. Believers believe not JUST because of the physical evidence they are presenting. It's that evidence PLUS a spiritual witness. If we can have a discussion on evidence where spiritual witness doesn't come into play, it's might be a different discussion. The pages that Robert Smith is providing here are interesting and should be looked into, but those pages are not the reason Robert Smith believe (I guess I'm assuming). A believers non-physical evidences (spiritual witness) combined with the phsycial evidences provided equal belief.Non-believers need to remember that it's not JUST the physical evidence that makes them believe.Believers need to remember that non-believers are JUST looking at the physical evidence, and as such will probably come to a different conclusion on the evidence.What is equally (or more) important is that believers don't believe JUST because of the Spirit.
Tarski Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) This is all good stuff from Bob. I hope the critics are paying attention. But I suspect not.I am paying attention and I think it is not good at all. It is manifestly an incoherent pile of tenuous connections and suggestions put forth in an intellectual style similar to what we see done by numerologists and ancient astronaut enthusiasts. Let us look at just one part:Where would one celestial day pass while a thousand years passed here on Earth? What principle would allow time to be so relatively slow there and so fast here? Does physics (astrophysics) know of such a phenomenon? What of the time-dilation principle of Einsteinian mechanics at very high speeds? Anyhow, was time measured in cubits in the ancient Near East?This metaphorical ratio of one to a thousand can be found in Psalm 84:10, "How much better is one day in your Court, than a thousand in the Cemetery!"85 And in Psalm 90:4, "For a thousand years just pass before your eyes like yesterday, like a watch in the night."86 So too in a love song from the Egyptian Papyrus Hunefer, 500:1, "Better indeed is one day in your arms . . . than a hundred thousand [anywhere] on Earth."87 Or in the Egyptian notion that "Eternity is in his sight as a day."88Time measurement differentials have been dealt with separately in my lengthy section on astronomy in my Book of Abraham Commentary (forthcoming), but several points must be mentioned here: The image of the throne of God from which the waters flow (Psalm 46:5, Ezekiel 47, Joel 4:18), or set in the midst of the waters (Ezekiel 28:2; UT 51:IV:21-22), conjures up the well-known motif of Jerusalem as the navel of the world (Judges 9:37, Ezekiel 5:5, 38:12, i.e., the Temple), but also brings in the old suggestion that Kolob was the navel of the universe.89 The ratio of 1,000 to 1 may be dealt with as metaphor (Psalm 84:10, 90:4, Job 9:3, 33:23, etc.; cf. Papyrus Harris 500, 1), and the Egyptian word for “1,000" can also be used to mean “myriad; herd.” Furthermore, one may also account for the time differential via the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction of time in Einsteinian mechanics (the Special Theory of Relativity, perhaps allied with the Aristotelian and Stoic concept of Zeus Ouranios [= Jupiter summus exsuperantissimus]) at the edge of the known universe with the quasars, or in the midst of our own Milky Way Galaxy and within its super-massive Black Hole. Egyptian “astronomy” – if one may speak of such a thing! – has little to offer, and our attention ought to be directed to the use of the cubit as an astronomical measure in Abraham’s Mesopotamia.90This is horrible. Never mind the fact that the some variation of the idea of a thousand years being like a day to the gods who live forever or for long times is so obvious and irresistible that there is nothing surprising about finding such ideas in every culture in every generation. Something like this must occur to a fair number of people while they are still teenagers. I bet I could find a similar idea of comparing time for god with time for mortals in every religion. The reason isn't fascinating or deep. It is inevitable just given that the godd live on while whole generations of humans die. It is like the association of righteousness with cleanliness or the association of black with evil.But the importation of relativity into the discussion really shows misunderstanding. The time dilation effect is one of measurement of time (rather than some rate of flow of time whatever that might mean). It is a symmetric relationship which means that if two observers are employing inertial coordinates connected to their own motion then each will see clocks moving with the other frame as going slower. If this were the source of the thousand day for God thing then what would it mean? The use of inertial spacetime coordinates isn't even mandatory.Well if from our perspective a God's day were like a thousand years then, equally from God's perspective, a human day would be like a thousand years to him.So clearly this notion could not be coordinated with time dilation in special relativity. General relativity isn't going to help either by the way. The appeal to physics in the quote is misguided and clearly meant only to impress the uniformed. The mishmash one gets by throwing in Zeus Ouranios and quasars is just embarrassing. It is a good guess that other topics and references we see in this snow job are just as poorly treated as the part that attempts to recruit physics.*edited for spelling* Edited January 28, 2012 by Tarski 1
asbestosman Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 I get why special relativity won't help, but I'm not sure why General relativity wouldn't.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 It is a good guess that other topics and references we see in this snow job are just as poorly treated as the part that attempts to recruit physics.Well, its certainly a guess.Personally, I think the BOA is describing ancient views of geocentric cosmos, not cosmic reality as conceived by modern astrophysics.
wenglund Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) Thanks Wade. I'm with you 100% on this comment. Especially your comment, "these things may be insufficient enough so as to reasonably allow people to secularly believe either way." It's tiring sometimes to have good meaning defenders point me to those things as if those things alone should be sufficient enough evidence to belive in the authenticity of the BoA, sometimes they even act like I'm stupid or ignorant to those things, and if I knew them then I would believe in it's authenticity. If those things were enough alone then there would be a good number of non-LDS Egyptologists and/or historians that believe in it's authenticity -- which I haven't found to be the case.Unfortunately, there are dogmatists on both sides, but for me life is too short to let that bother me. Anyway, the point that I was attempting to make is that I see people using secular instead of spiritual means to assess the Book of Abraham, when the clear intent of the book is not secular, but spiritual. This strikes me as somewhat disfunctional. To me, it is metaphorically akin, in principle, to assessing Kleenex based on its tensil strength rather than on its absorbancy. But, to each their own.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited January 27, 2012 by wenglund
Brian 2.0 Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Unfortunately, there are dogmatists on both sides, but for me life is too short to let that bother me. Anyway, the point that I was attempting to make is that I see people using secular instead of spiritual means to assess the Book of Abraham, when the clear intent of the book is not secular, but spiritual. This strikes me as somewhat disfunctional. To me, it is metaphorically akin, in principle, to assessing Kleenex based on its tensil strength rather than on its absorbancy. But, to each their own.I think the apologists make the agrument from a secular point because the critics attacked it from a secular point. If no such attacks were made, I don't think apologists would find need to dig up the secular evidences. The harsh critic points out the secular evidence and concludes that it is foolish to belive. The apologist tries to play the secular evidence game, which will probably not provide enough solid conclusions to conclude that it's right, but enough evidence that may leave the door open and that such belief isn't "foolish." Playing the secular evidence game in the BoA has yet to provide enough evidence to get someone to believe in it's authenticty without also having a spiritual witness. But it may provide enough evidence to leave the door open just enough that if someone really wants to and chooses to believe, that they can muster up some evidence to provide as ammo to show from a secular point of view that there is some level of possibility that it could be true. To show that they aren't "foolish."
Tarski Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) I get why special relativity won't help, but I'm not sure why General relativity wouldn't.Try to flesh something out just a little bit and lets seeHere are some things to keep in mind while you do that.1) The proper way to treat space and time in general relativity is to first accept that we are dealing with a set of events -not places and times. Space and time enter when we choose to label these events by way of coordinate systems (locally defined smooth maps into an open subset of R^4)2) Any set of (smooth) coordinates can be used. It is up to us. In one such system time may work one way and in another it may work another and the relation can be nonlinear.3) Spacetime coordinates need not globally defined. In fact it may be impossible so that no single notion of time could apply everywhere (and everywhen) in spacetime.4) Coordinate time is not absolute and as just mentioned no even globally defined. On the other hand, proper time is an invariant of a career (history of a body) in spacetime and so we would all agree anyway --both us and God. Only arbitrary units remain to be chosen.5) Since time is not a universal thing that flows but rather a local aspect of the way we choose to label events, what does it even mean to say that time flows slower for God (or is it the other way around). What exactly is being measured that would be measure as one day for God and 1000 years for us? What interval between what events?A lot is made of the idea that time is slower near the event horizon of a black hole but the real meaning of this is quite subtle. It involves a certain choice of coordinates and then we are only taking about how things are measured in those coordinates--a system that is natural for the situation but not forced on us. But again, even if restrict ourselves to those coordinates (Schwarzschild coordinates) I still done see anything that fits this day to 1000 years things. Besides, is God stuck on the edge of a blackhole.But none of this is needed. The thing about time for God and time for humans is easily explained as a natural intuition about what it would be like to live forever and watch generations come and go. Something of this sort occurs to people all the time and this irresistable idea has floated around in the world for a long time. Is is just an extension of the idea that time flows faster for 60 year olds than it does for 5 year olds. A year goes by fast for me and was an eternity for me when I was 5. "Gee wiz", we think to ourselves "how would it seem if I were ancient like a god?"This isn't a seriously deep or original intuition and the conceptual transgression from subjective time to some kind of objective time is all too easy. How surprising is it that JS incorporated a version of it into his little system of thought and which religion doesn't have at least some version of this idea in its tradition or literature? I am sure Bob can find them if he looks hard enough.Relativity is exactly what undoes the viability of some physically real version this folk intuition since the whole idea of time being an independent reality flowing along at some rate is undermined by any deep understanding of relativity. Space and time are just artifacts of the way we coordinatize spacetime (the set of all events-basically). Edited January 27, 2012 by Tarski
asbestosman Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 Tarski:"5) Since time is not a universal thing that flows but rather a local aspect of the way we choose to label events, what does it even mean to say that time flows slower for God (or is it the other way around). What exactly is being measured that would be measure as one day for God and 1000 years for us? What interval between what events?"I take it to be a comparison of proper time for God vs proper time for us. I think there something to the atomic clock experiments which verify that one clock's time is relatively slower when traveling around the world. I believe other experiments of this nature have been done including how gravity effects the proper time of observers (atomic clocks in experiments).All that said, I don't think the time dilation of general relativity through gravity wells is what the scriptures mean. I think the meaning is closer to the idea of how long God has existed and will continue to exist compared to our finite lives on Earth.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 27, 2012 Posted January 27, 2012 (edited) All that said, I don't think the time dilation of general relativity through gravity wells is what the scriptures mean. I think the meaning is closer to the idea of how long God has existed and will continue to exist compared to our finite lives on Earth.Here is an interesting idea, could it be that, what ever God lives on, one revolution around Kolob is 1000 years? Sometimes I tend to look at thinks simply. And this might be too simplistic. Any way this has been a fun thread to follow. Edited January 27, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Tarski Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 (edited) Tarski:"5) Since time is not a universal thing that flows but rather a local aspect of the way we choose to label events, what does it even mean to say that time flows slower for God (or is it the other way around). What exactly is being measured that would be measure as one day for God and 1000 years for us? What interval between what events?"I take it to be a comparison of proper time for God vs proper time for us. I think there something to the atomic clock experiments which verify that one clock's time is relatively slower when traveling around the world. I believe other experiments of this nature have been done including how gravity effects the proper time of observers (atomic clocks in experiments).All that said, I don't think the time dilation of general relativity through gravity wells is what the scriptures mean. I think the meaning is closer to the idea of how long God has existed and will continue to exist compared to our finite lives on Earth.In order to compare the clocks they have to be syncronized at the begining and then brought back together and this means that at least one of the clocks has to accelerate (non-straight path in spacetime). One clock has to turn around and come back which involves decelerating down and then speeding up. With God and man, who is doing which?Really, it is all about comparing the spacetime interval between two events but along different paths in spacetime. What are the two events in the God/man analogy? Also, which one is the longer path (bigger proper time)? God or man? In other words, do we leave God and then meet him again? Who has aged him or us?If the two paths in spacetime do not start at the same event (nearly) and meet up later then what marks the begining and ending of the paths in question? You see, proper time is analogous to the arclength of a curve in space but applies to histories or worldlines in spacetime. Proper time is a property of a curve segment in spacetime.God has a worldline and so does a single given man. A finite part of either path has a proper time. For a comparison, what portion of God's worldline should we take and what portion of some man's worldline should we take?If we just look at the physics of the two clocks then they will be identical in behavior unless the accelerations breaks one or the other of them or otherwise messes one of them up in function.Note that it is the curvier path that has less proper time! This is due to the reverse triangle inequality for Minkowski geometry.For both man and God, the proper time between two events in our careers depends on how we got from the first event to the second. If next time we just have God take the path that the man took the last time then the roles are reversed. Anyway, what two events are we talking about?Is it just that God accelerates (curves around in spacetime) more than men do?The more he does it, the less ticking his atomic clocks will do and also the less he does himself while we do all sorts of things. That sounds wrong. To get the reverse effect, it would be us that would have to be wildly accelerating all the time.Either way, it seems bad.Where is this godly 1000 to 1 thing in all this? Edited January 28, 2012 by Tarski
asbestosman Posted January 28, 2012 Posted January 28, 2012 The idea I had in mind was something like God living in a gravitational well (maybe even a mobile one). That means we could experience time go by over 1000 times as fast as God which does seem to present the problem of us doing things faster than God. This could be overcome by God simply being so much faster in his own proper time that if we were both in the same proper time He'd be like a gazillion times faster at thinking, moving, etc. Again, I don't think that's what's really going on there, but I thought it's logically possible in the sense that Hilbert's Hotel is.
Recommended Posts