Credibility Of The "Others" Theory In The Book Of Mormon

[Anijen]

One thing to think about and applying some critical thinking; The Lamanites waged war against the Nephites, many verses tell us that the Lamanites came upon "the people of Nephi"

(used 122 times).

The question is if there were no others (no other peoples) then why would the Book of Mormon writers use the term "the people of Nephi"? If there were no others this becomes a redundant term.

Just thinking out loud

Anijen

[volgadon]

And I quoted them exactly as they are written.

The text itself is not in question, the interpretation is.

I have no need to learn Greek or Hebrew.

More the pity. You would only deepen your understanding of the scriptures.

The Lord gave the Book of Mormon in English - the language of today's world - just as Greek and Hebrew were in their day.

Hebrew was hardly the "language of today's world" way back when. Even today, when the BoM is translated into other languages, new layers of meaning uncover themselves.

[Freedom]

Well, I believe the test. It makes it clear that one person is alive writing in a book saying how one other guy is the only one who survived, leaving two people there. Some would read this passage as if it were written in the 21st century, others would read it as if it were written in 200 B.C. I prefer the latter and accept that it cannot possibly be taken literally since there are clearly at least two survivors there.

[zerinus]

I'm sorry, but this is a specious argument. If Ether remained alive after the battle, he survived. His further history doesn't change that.

Surely the person who issued the prophecy, and then was commissioned to survive the events in order to witness the fulfilment of the prophecy, and record the history of it, is himself excluded from that prophecy.

Edited June 16, 2012 by zerinus

[volgadon]

Surely, the person who issued the prophecy, and then was commissioned to survive the events in order to record the history of it, and the fulfilment of the prophecy, is himself excluded from that prophecy.

Why? Where does it indicate this to be the case?

[zerinus]

Why? Where does it indicate this to be the case?

I would consider it a "given," an undeclared but necessary assumption.

[volgadon]

I would consider it a "given," an undeclared but necessary assumption.

This unwarranted assumption is only "necessary" in order to defend an indefensible position. It clearly is not what the text indicates.

[zerinus]

One thing to think about and applying some critical thinking; The Lamanites waged war against the Nephites, many verses tell us that the Lamanites came upon "the people of Nephi"

(used 122 times).

The question is if there were no others (no other peoples) then why would the Book of Mormon writers use the term "the people of Nephi"? If there were no others this becomes a redundant term.

Sure there were others. There was also "the people of the Lamanites". I counted ten instances of that phrase in the Book of Mormon.

[zerinus]

This unwarranted assumption is only "necessary" in order to defend an indefensible position. It clearly is not what the text indicates.

Not so. We will just have to agree to disagree I suppose.

[volgadon]

Not so. We will just have to agree to disagree I suppose.

Or you could attempt to substantiate why you feel it to be a necessary assumption.

[zerinus]

The text itself is not in question, the interpretation is.

He was considering the most obvious meaning of the text, which is not an interpretation. If I said, "I am reading a book," it does not require interpretation to understand that I am reading a book.

More the pity. You would only deepen your understanding of the scriptures.

So you are suggesting that everyone needs to become a Greek and Hebrew scholar in order to understand the Book of Mormon properly? Sorry, I don't buy that. If God thought we needed to know "original languages" in order to understand the Book of Mormon properly, He would have given it to us in Reformed Egyptian.

[zerinus]

Or you could attempt to substantiate why you feel it to be a necessary assumption.

It is understood a priori, meaning independent of experience.

[volgadon]

It is understood a priori, meaning independent of experience.

A priori doesn't mean independent of experience.

[volgadon]

He was considering the most obvious meaning of the text, which is not an interpretation. If I said, "I am reading a book," it does not require interpretation to understand that I am reading a book.

At any level of interaction, reading a text or listening to someone requires interpretation. Are you reading a book in electronic format, are you reading a book bound the usual, Western way, or are you reading a scroll? Are you reading out loud or silently, to yourself?

So you are suggesting that everyone needs to become a Greek and Hebrew scholar in order to understand the Book of Mormon properly? Sorry, I don't buy that. If God thought we needed to know "original languages" in order to understand the Book of Mormon properly, He would have given it to us in Reformed Egyptian.

What I said is that learning Greek and Hebrew deepens one's understanding of the scriptures, something that Joseph Smith understood only too well. Taking an obscurantist position is unfortunate.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm trying to PM you, but your message quota may have been reached, so I can't get through.

Bob

[mfbukowski]

He was considering the most obvious meaning of the text, which is not an interpretation.

That is simply incorrect.. Even letters are symbols on a page which require interpretation.

Language IS interpretation.

http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Linguistic_Construction_of_Reality.html?id=hGEOAAAAQAAJ

[mfbukowski]

A priori doesn't mean independent of experience.

And of course it could not possibly mean that. Nothing that we can speak about is "independent of experience". Just understanding the words requires interpretation and human experiences. Even the principle of equality, which some might think important to defining what is "a prior", and therefore "prior" to the idea of "a priori" is dependent on understanding what equality is, and that can only be derived by experience.

Edited June 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

That is simply incorrect.. Even letters are symbols on a page which require interpretation.

Language IS interpretation.

http://books.google....id=hGEOAAAAQAAJ

The only thing which is not interpretation is data directly experienced. But the primary meanings of the words deployed in a text, spoken communication, or whatnot, ought to be privileged above other interpretations unless and until it becomes obvious from context that literality is not what was meant - ie, things don't function according to the primary meanings.

[mfbukowski]

The only thing which is not interpretation is data directly experienced.

So optical illusions are not "misinterpretations of data"?

As always it comes down to definitions- ie- interpretations.

Edit- and how does one know what the "primary meaning" is for any individual?

Edited June 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

So optical illusions are not "misinterpretations of data"?

Data are not interpretations. The interpretations of the data can certainly be false.

Edit- and how does one know what the "primary meaning" is for any individual?

Don't you know when you're lying?

[mfbukowski]

Data are not interpretations.

I see. And where do these mysterious things come from?

I hope not the senses, because of course then it is your brain which takes those sensations and turns them into "data".

And yes, of course I know when I am lying. The problem is that you don't

Edited June 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

I see. And where do these mysterious things come from?

I hope not the senses, because of course then it is your brain which takes those sensations and turns them into "data".

The brain records the nerve impulses, consciousness interprets them. The nerve impulses, so far as I care for this, are the data.

And yes, of course I know when I am lying.

That's all that's required, then.

[mfbukowski]

The nerve impulses, so far as I care for this, are the data.

So reality is composed of nerve impulses, as uninterpreted by a brain? That would make them a bit hard to talk about, wouldn't it?

Or is "data" different than "reality"?

And of course then we have phantom pain from a severed limb, we have numb fingers due to cold, and dogs noses send nerve impulses below the threshold of our perception- Is any of that "data"?

Of what use is any of this? Where are we going here?

I was simply trying to analyze your statement "Data are not interpretations" while I believe that indeed what we call data is nothing but interpretation- I am trying to see where your point leads us.

As you know, I think about this stuff a lot.

[mfbukowski]

That's all that's required, then.

So let's back up a bit- you are saying that only I can know when I am lying. Ok we agree. I am not sure why you brought it up then, or what point you were trying to make?

What does that have to do with a "primary meaning"? After all that is how we got into it.

Just trying to get to the bottom of this:

The only thing which is not interpretation is data directly experienced. But the primary meanings of the words deployed in a text, spoken communication, or whatnot, ought to be privileged above other interpretations unless and until it becomes obvious from context that literality is not what was meant - ie, things don't function according to the primary meanings.

Edited June 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

primary meanings of the words

How does one determine the "primary meaning"?

If the "primary meaning" is different for different individuals, then how can it be defined as "primary meaning"?

What if the "primary meaning" of a phrase has been determined by the majority of readers of it, but they did not actually understand the meaning of the word----they were using a modern definition for a word in a text from Middle English? Is that still to be considered its "primary meaning" or is the primary meaning of the term how it was mainly used originally?

What happens if an author meant to use a more obscure connotation or definition of a word? Do we still insist that the primary meaning is what most people would define it as?

Translated words---is the primary meaning of them the primary meaning of the word they are translated for or their own primary meaning whatever that is?

Edited June 16, 2012 by calmoriah