mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 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"?Not sure who this is addressed to, but when I said this:Edit- and how does one know what the "primary meaning" is for any individual?what I meant was that though meaning is contextually derived, meaning still must be interpreted by an individual- filtered through an individual consciousness which may perceive the context differently.Have you ever heard- "I wasn't responding to what you said I was responding to your tone of voice!" In such a case we have, perhaps, two different people responding to the same words AND context with different understandings of "what was said".But no, I have no idea what "primary meaning" is, and that is what I am trying to get down to the bottom of, because I would like to understand Log better.
Calm Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 Not sure who this is addressed to, but when I said this:to Log since he brought up the phraseBut no, I have no idea what "primary meaning" is, and that is what I am trying to get down to the bottom of, because I would like to understand Log better.I have no idea either. It would seem that in this case the primary meaning of "primary meaning" is not all that obvious.
zerinus Posted June 16, 2012 Author Posted June 16, 2012 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?You guys are making it a lot more complicated than it really is:D&C 133:57 And for this cause, that men might be made partakers of the glories which were to be revealed, the Lord sent forth the fulness of his gospel, his everlasting covenant, reasoning in plainness and simplicity.What God has called simple, let no man make complex.
ANACO Posted June 16, 2012 Posted June 16, 2012 Here's another example from the Book of Mormon that there were no Jaredite survivors other than Coriantumr. The eighth & 21st chapters of Mosiah. The account of the conversation between the Nephite King Limhi in the Land of Nephi with Ammon who had arrived from the Land of Zarahemla. Verse 12:And I say unto thee again: Knowest thou of any one that can translate? For I am desirous that these records should be translated into our language; for, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of a remnant of the people who have been destroyed, from whence these records came; or, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of this very people who have been destroyed; and I am desirous to know the cause of their destruction.Knowledge is the operative word. King Limhi had no knowledge of the land and the people who had been destroyed - discovered by the 43 Nephites sent by King Limhi in search of the Land of Zarahemla.In fact, these 43 thought it was the Land of Zarahemla they had discovered (Mosiah 21:26). So they returned to the Land of Nephi, disappointed.And what did Ammon, from the Land of Zarahemla say in reply? Did Ammon say that he had a knowledge of that people who had been destroyed? No. Why not?So, here are two Nephites, one two generations removed from Zarahemla (Limhi grandson of Zeniff who left Zarahemla) and one from Zarahemla in Limhi's day (Ammon) both of whom had no knowledge of the people who had been destroyed. This is completely contrary to the theory that surviving Jaredites had lived among the Mulekites and later the Nephites - for if so, the people of Zarahemla, being Mulekites and later Nephites who joined them, would already have had a knowledge of the Jaredites and of their destruction. Zeniff should have known this and thus his grandson Limhi and his 43 men would have already known what it was and who the destroyed people had been - but again, they only thought it was the Land of Zarahemla. (Mosiah 21:26) And Ammon from Zarahemla didn't know either.I have more examples if you're interested. But I doubt it, since some of you think I'm a boor because I'm not fluent in Greek and Hebrew. :/
cdowis Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) Sigh.1. Has it occurred to you that the Jaredites likely would have had multiple colonies hundreds or a thousand miles away, past mountains and tropical jungles.For example, the BOM records that Nephi encountered domesticated goats and ox when they first landed (on the other side of the continent), which may refer to such a colony, or some group of "others". Over the centuries these colonists would have no contact with main Jaredite culture, and probably lost all recollection of their past.Thus, there were "genetic" Jaredites, but not associated with them except in the distant past. This scenario resolves all the questions that you posed, including where those domesticated animals came from.2. The large plates, as opposed to the small plates, recorded the history of the Nephites, and would have recorded the details of the "others", rather than the small plates.3. Finally and conclusively, we know that inhabitants lived in this area prior to the landing of Lehi, so it is a proven fact that others were living there.If you want to bury your head in the sand and mumble "The BOM is only fiction" ...... well, whatever floats your boat.II wish you all the best. Edited June 17, 2012 by cdowis
volgadon Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 Here's another example from the Book of Mormon that there were no Jaredite survivors other than Coriantumr. The eighth & 21st chapters of Mosiah. The account of the conversation between the Nephite King Limhi in the Land of Nephi with Ammon who had arrived from the Land of Zarahemla. Verse 12:And I say unto thee again: Knowest thou of any one that can translate? For I am desirous that these records should be translated into our language; for, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of a remnant of the people who have been destroyed, from whence these records came; or, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of this very people who have been destroyed; and I am desirous to know the cause of their destruction.Knowledge is the operative word. King Limhi had no knowledge of the land and the people who had been destroyed - discovered by the 43 Nephites sent by King Limhi in search of the Land of Zarahemla.In fact, these 43 thought it was the Land of Zarahemla they had discovered (Mosiah 21:26). So they returned to the Land of Nephi, disappointed.And what did Ammon, from the Land of Zarahemla say in reply? Did Ammon say that he had a knowledge of that people who had been destroyed? No. Why not?So, here are two Nephites, one two generations removed from Zarahemla (Limhi grandson of Zeniff who left Zarahemla) and one from Zarahemla in Limhi's day (Ammon) both of whom had no knowledge of the people who had been destroyed. This is completely contrary to the theory that surviving Jaredites had lived among the Mulekites and later the Nephites - for if so, the people of Zarahemla, being Mulekites and later Nephites who joined them, would already have had a knowledge of the Jaredites and of their destruction. Zeniff should have known this and thus his grandson Limhi and his 43 men would have already known what it was and who the destroyed people had been - but again, they only thought it was the Land of Zarahemla. (Mosiah 21:26) And Ammon from Zarahemla didn't know either.I have more examples if you're interested. But I doubt it, since some of you think I'm a boor because I'm not fluent in Greek and Hebrew. :/I haven't called you a boor, I've said that a knowledge of Hebrew and Greek would deepen your understanding and appreciation of the scriptures. I wonder, though,have you considered v. 20-23 of Omni? 1
mfbukowski Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) deleted. Edited June 17, 2012 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 What God has called simple, let no man make complex.I could not agree more. So why are you making it so complicated? 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) Here's another example from the Book of Mormon that there were no Jaredite survivors other than Coriantumr.You are confusing the lack of Jaredites in Mulekite territory with the belief that there are "no Jaredite survivors" anywhere. First, Jaredite lands were north of Zarahemla and the Jaredites existed in large numbers there during the early Mulekite period without the Mulekites being aware of them until either Coriantumr wandered into town, or until their bones, weapons, and plates were accidentally discovered. Second, we do not know whether there were Jaredite survivors who later joined with the Nephite-Lamanite culture. In other words, you have overlooked the obvious simultaneous existence of the Jaredites, Mulekites, and Nephites in different areas of one region while completely unaware of each other. Then you have added to that failed assumption the notion that no survivors could later make contact.The eighth & 21st chapters of Mosiah. The account of the conversation between the Nephite King Limhi in the Land of Nephi with Ammon who had arrived from the Land of Zarahemla. Verse 12:And I say unto thee again: Knowest thou of any one that can translate? For I am desirous that these records should be translated into our language; for, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of a remnant of the people who have been destroyed, from whence these records came; or, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of this very people who have been destroyed; and I am desirous to know the cause of their destruction.Knowledge is the operative word. King Limhi had no knowledge of the land and the people who had been destroyed - discovered by the 43 Nephites sent by King Limhi in search of the Land of Zarahemla.In fact, these 43 thought it was the Land of Zarahemla they had discovered (Mosiah 21:26). So they returned to the Land of Nephi, disappointed.And what did Ammon, from the Land of Zarahemla say in reply? Did Ammon say that he had a knowledge of that people who had been destroyed? No. Why not?So, here are two Nephites, one two generations removed from Zarahemla (Limhi grandson of Zeniff who left Zarahemla) and one from Zarahemla in Limhi's day (Ammon) both of whom had no knowledge of the people who had been destroyed. This is completely contrary to the theory that surviving Jaredites had lived among the Mulekites and later the Nephites - for if so, the people of Zarahemla, being Mulekites and later Nephites who joined them, would already have had a knowledge of the Jaredites and of their destruction. Zeniff should have known this and thus his grandson Limhi and his 43 men would have already known what it was and who the destroyed people had been - but again, they only thought it was the Land of Zarahemla. (Mosiah 21:26) And Ammon from Zarahemla didn't know either.I have more examples if you're interested. But I doubt it, since some of you think I'm a boor because I'm not fluent in Greek and Hebrew. :/Your work with these various texts here is interesting and useful, but the delusions of persecution you add don't make any sense to me at all. Defining yourself as a boor after only 7 posts seems a bit premature, and no one expects you to know anything about Hebrew or Greek -- in fact very few on this board have ever studied those subjects. You might be judged here on the basis of the level of coherent thought you can bring to bear on questions of substance, although just seeking answers to legitimate questions is often as good a reason to engage in dialogue here. Edited June 17, 2012 by Robert F. Smith 1
zerinus Posted June 17, 2012 Author Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) Sigh.1. Has it occurred to you that the Jaredites likely would have had multiple colonies hundreds or a thousand miles away, past mountains and tropical jungles.For example, the BOM records that Nephi encountered domesticated goats and ox when they first landed (on the other side of the continent), which may refer to such a colony, or some group of "others". Over the centuries these colonists would have no contact with main Jaredite culture, and probably lost all recollection of their past.Thus, there were "genetic" Jaredites, but not associated with them except in the distant past. This scenario resolves all the questions that you posed, including where those domesticated animals came from.Firstly, the question of domesticated animals has already been answered in post #277 (page 14) in the thread: "LGT and the Lamanites of Ammon's Mission", to which you never replied. Secondly, you are now changing the goal posts. The original argument was that surviving Jaredites had existed and interacted with the Nephites and Mulekits at the point of their arrival, or shortly thereafter. That is the theory that his and my replies were based on. Now you are suggesting that they had survived, but in the form of colonies thousands of miles away which would not have brought them into contact with the Israelites. And pray tell, what is the basis of all this conjecture?2. The large plates, as opposed to the small plates, recorded the history of the Nephites, and would have recorded the details of the "others", rather than the small plates.3. Finally and conclusively, we know that inhabitants lived in this area prior to the landing of Lehi, so it is a proven fact that others were living there.If you want to bury your head in the sand and mumble "The BOM is only fiction" ...... well, whatever floats your boat.IAll kinds of things are possible. The question is whether it happened, and if it did, can we find evidence in the BoM to support it. Edited June 17, 2012 by zerinus
zerinus Posted June 17, 2012 Author Posted June 17, 2012 You are confusing the lack of Jaredites in Mulekite territory with the belief that there are "no Jaredite survivors" anywhere. . . .He is not doing that at all. See my previous reply to cdowis.Your work with these various texts here is interesting and useful, but the delusions of persecution you add don't make any sense to me at all.He is not doing that either. If posts #139 and #152 had been addressed to me, I would have been inclined to give a similar reply.
volgadon Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 He is not doing that either. If posts #139 and #152 had been addressed to me, I would have been inclined to give a similar reply.Wow. I said it was a pity he felt as if there was no point in learning Hebrew, since it helps deepen one's understanding of scripture. That is hardly calling him a boor. 1
zerinus Posted June 17, 2012 Author Posted June 17, 2012 Here's another example from the Book of Mormon that there were no Jaredite survivors other than Coriantumr. The eighth & 21st chapters of Mosiah. The account of the conversation between the Nephite King Limhi in the Land of Nephi with Ammon who had arrived from the Land of Zarahemla. Verse 12:And I say unto thee again: Knowest thou of any one that can translate? For I am desirous that these records should be translated into our language; for, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of a remnant of the people who have been destroyed, from whence these records came; or, perhaps, they will give us a knowledge of this very people who have been destroyed; and I am desirous to know the cause of their destruction.Knowledge is the operative word. King Limhi had no knowledge of the land and the people who had been destroyed - discovered by the 43 Nephites sent by King Limhi in search of the Land of Zarahemla.In fact, these 43 thought it was the Land of Zarahemla they had discovered (Mosiah 21:26). So they returned to the Land of Nephi, disappointed.And what did Ammon, from the Land of Zarahemla say in reply? Did Ammon say that he had a knowledge of that people who had been destroyed? No. Why not?So, here are two Nephites, one two generations removed from Zarahemla (Limhi grandson of Zeniff who left Zarahemla) and one from Zarahemla in Limhi's day (Ammon) both of whom had no knowledge of the people who had been destroyed. This is completely contrary to the theory that surviving Jaredites had lived among the Mulekites and later the Nephites - for if so, the people of Zarahemla, being Mulekites and later Nephites who joined them, would already have had a knowledge of the Jaredites and of their destruction. Zeniff should have known this and thus his grandson Limhi and his 43 men would have already known what it was and who the destroyed people had been - but again, they only thought it was the Land of Zarahemla. (Mosiah 21:26) And Ammon from Zarahemla didn't know either.I have more examples if you're interested. But I doubt it, since some of you think I'm a boor because I'm not fluent in Greek and Hebrew. :/Thank you ANACO, great insight.
volgadon Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 Thank you ANACO, great insight.How do you reconcile it with Amaleki's statement?
zerinus Posted June 17, 2012 Author Posted June 17, 2012 How do you reconcile it with Amaleki's statement?Amaleki's statement about what?
volgadon Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 Amaleki's statement about what?About Mosiah's grandfather translating a Jaredite record which gave an overview of Jaredite origins and their fall, including the general location of their battle. Coriantumr himself was also found. The wording is interesting, as it say the "slain of his people," which could indicate that not everyone was destroyed. Be that as it may, there was knowledge of Jaredites two generations prior to the verses cited by ANACO. 1
zerinus Posted June 17, 2012 Author Posted June 17, 2012 About Mosiah's grandfather translating a Jaredite record which gave an overview of Jaredite origins and their fall, including the general location of their battle. Coriantumr himself was also found. The wording is interesting, as it say the "slain of his people," which could indicate that not everyone was destroyed. Be that as it may, there was knowledge of Jaredites two generations prior to the verses cited by ANACO.You need to give references as he has done, so I know exactly what you are talking about.
volgadon Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 You need to give references as he has done, so I know exactly what you are talking about.See my post #181. 1
zerinus Posted June 17, 2012 Author Posted June 17, 2012 See my post #181.Sorry man, I haven't a clue what you are talking about, and I don't think that you do either.
mfbukowski Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 Sorry man, I haven't a clue what you are talking about, and I don't think that you do either.Uh, that is not a smart assumption.
ksfisher Posted June 17, 2012 Posted June 17, 2012 Sorry man, I haven't a clue what you are talking about, and I don't think that you do either.ANACO is saying that Ammon, from the land of Zarahemla, had no knowledge of the Jaredites.Volgadon is saying, by referencing Omni 1:20-23, that the people of Zarahemla did have knowledge of the Jaredites, as Coriantimur had lived among them.
mfbukowski Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 (edited) ANACO is saying that Ammon, from the land of Zarahemla, had no knowledge of the Jaredites.Volgadon is saying, by referencing Omni 1:20-23, that the people of Zarahemla did have knowledge of the Jaredites, as Coriantimur had lived among them.That is exactly what he said quite clearly in verse 192 Edited June 18, 2012 by mfbukowski
zerinus Posted June 18, 2012 Author Posted June 18, 2012 ANACO is saying that Ammon, from the land of Zarahemla, had no knowledge of the Jaredites.Volgadon is saying, by referencing Omni 1:20-23, that the people of Zarahemla did have knowledge of the Jaredites, as Coriantimur had lived among them.Firstly, volgadon was talking about Amalikiah, not Omni. Secondly, ANACO's observation was correct. The people of Limhi had discovered a land which had been the scene of great destruction, with which the People of Zarahemla apparently were not familiar. If they had been, Limhi would have been too, because his fathers had originated from there. The fact that Mulekites had discovered Coriantumr, and Limhi had discovered a land of great destruction, does not mean that Ammon and Limhi were immediately going to make the connection between the two. They had discovered the ruins of a great civilization, and a set of records from them, and they were just wondering what it all meant. But the main point that ANACO was making was that there is no sign of any surviving Jaredites in any of this, which was a valid point.
ksfisher Posted June 18, 2012 Posted June 18, 2012 Uh, that is not a smart assumption.And post 192 seemed clear to me. Others seemed to have trouble following it.
Recommended Posts