Was Zeezrom A Collector Of Money Having Numismatic Value?

[CV75]

This is the key

 

No he was not a coin collector.  No coins have ever been recovered in the Americas.  In fact the anti's love to make a big deal about the BOM shpposedly metioning coins and yet none have been found.

 

That's because those were units of weight/volume rather than coins

Yes--the great weight (and especially accompanying volume--who knows what the medium of exchange was--could have been a low-density item like feathers that Amulek's could have used in his pillow factory!)--would have prevented Amulek's ability to quickly run off with the prize, creating more opportunity for disturbance and employ for Zeezrom!

[bcuzbcuz]

Of course, there were people in antiquity who established museums and libraries, just as we do.  You'll find an interesting account of Leonard Woolley finding one at Ur in 1925 at http://io9.com/5805358/the-story-behind-the-worlds-oldest-museum-built-by-a-babylonian-princess-2500-years-ago .  Human behavior hasn't changed in the last 10,000 or so years, and people living in Ur at the time of Nabonidus thought that they were living in modern times, with all the latest conveniences.  They collected antiquities for the same reasons we do. Such concepts are all relative.

Shame that most, if not all of Woolley's finds, that were in the Baghdad Museum have been stolen, looted soon after the fall of Baghdad in 2003.

[prismsplay]

LOL--but Zeezrom wasn't really an atheist (v. 24). And v. 22 seems more like Zeezrom's wager to Almulek, and not a bribe. It was the pre-debate strategy to begin to undermine Amulek's credibility by engaging him in a bet, but Amulek wouldn't have it (v. 23, the temptation being to yield to pride through betting and winning a debate). I think Zeerom's intended line of questioning got disrupted with Amulek's responses, but this was a function of the Spirit overcoming the devices of the devil (whch were never fully revealed since there was no opportunity to show them all off), not superior debating skills. Plus, Zeezrom's whole purpose for the debate was not to win it (he would have retained the prize money anyaway) but to make money by creating disturbances at Amulek's expense--if the Gospel messengers were discredited, people would continue to act in such a way as to continue to give Zeezrom employ (v. 20). A mere debate would have been too honest a way to go!

 

A wager for a debate. I had not considered that. That would eliminate the problem concerning six onties being too small an amount to act as a bribe to a rich man. However, the words recorded sounds more like a bribe. And the debate theory does not explain why Amulek recognized the six onties that Zeezrom was apparently holding in his hand ("Behold, here is six onties of silver") as "of great worth." Right after the apparent bribe, Amulek said "O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me?" Why would a debate be tempting, when the judges of it would be Zeezrom's friends? I still think that the onties had more than face value to them and that Amulek recognized that. Can a collector of old money really be willing to part with such prized possessions? "And now thou hast lied before God unto me, for thou saidest unto me: Behold, these [not just any] six onties - which are of great worth - I will give unto thee - when thou had it in thy heart [as a collector of old money?] to retain them from me."

[CV75]

A wager for a debate. I had not considered that. That would eliminate the problem concerning six onties being too small an amount to act as a bribe to a rich man. However, the words recorded sounds more like a bribe. And the debate theory does not explain why Amulek recognized the six onties that Zeezrom was apparently holding in his hand ("Behold, here is six onties of silver") as "of great worth." Right after the apparent bribe, Amulek said "O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me?" Why would a debate be tempting, when the judges of it would be Zeezrom's friends? I still think that the onties had more than face value to them and that Amulek recognized that. Can a collector of old money really be willing to part with such prized possessions? "And now thou hast lied before God unto me, for thou saidest unto me: Behold, these [not just any] six onties - which are of great worth - I will give unto thee - when thou had it in thy heart [as a collector of old money?] to retain them from me."

I do like the idea of collector’s items. But just for the fun of it:

 

The wording of a bet (paraphrasing): “v. 22. Behold, here are six onties of silver, and all these will I give thee if thou wilt deny [or, if I can make you deny, as a result of the questions I shall ask you from v. 21] the existence of a Supreme Being.”

 

And perhaps it was not so much a debate as a riddle or series of trick questions that would get Amulek to stumble over his wording as if to deny the existence of a Supreme Being.

 

Again, Amulek’s temptation would be to accept the challenge to prove his superiority in not being tricked, or in being able to answer the riddle or trick questions, despite the odds for a fair exchange and judging being against him. Or to be lulled, for the sake of pride, into winning a challenge that he knew would not be honored.

 

And, the six onties of silver could have been the value of six onties of silver of something that required a large weight or volume to equal that value, such as wagonloads of raw materials (cotton) for fabrics and dyes for silks and linens (Alma 4:6), from which an industrious soul like Amulek could turn a much larger profit.

Edited September 17, 2013 by CV75

[Nathair/|\]

Zeezrom used to post here.  If anyone knows how to get ahold of him, maybe we should just ask him.  

[mfbukowski]

As long as the coin itself is made from a valuable metal (or other material) in that society, it doesn't matter what you call it.  It's the metal that gives it value, not the design or name.

Boy are you wrong.

 

$1600 bucks for a copper penny?  http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-S-VDB-Lincoln-Wheat-Cent-Penny-PCGS-AU-55-/200544803472?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item2eb166da90

[prismsplay]

Zeezrom used to post here.  If anyone knows how to get ahold of him, maybe we should just ask him.  

 

After his conversion, Zeezrom may have retained the six onties as a reminder of his wicked pre-conversion days. If so, tell him that we would like to examine those onties. Perhaps we could all meet at the ruins of Ammonihah to view them, near the place where he held the six onties up for Amulek to see. Ask him if Neil Steede is correct in designating the ruins at Tonina as the place where Ammonihah once was. If he is correct, then we might there see some sober reminders of Ammonihah's tragic history. Writes David Brown for the now blind Neil Steede: "In Tonina we find skeletal remains of people who were burned, others whose bones were crushed, and yet others whose bones were marred by cutting utensils. This is entirely consistent with the believers who were burned in an effort to get Alma and Amulek to recant their preaching, crushed bones for the lawyers and others who were caught in the prison collapse when Alma and Amulek walked free, and finally the cut bones for the slaughter that occurred when the Lamanites attacked Ammonihah and completely destroyed everyone in a single event." [quoted from http://www.hillcumorahexpeditionteam.com/files/NewsletterVol7Issue1.pdf]

[Calm]

And perhaps it was not so much a debate as a riddle or series of trick questions that would get Amulek to stumble over his wording as if to deny the existence of a Supreme Being.

Considering how people treat religious debates today, Zeezrom could just have been planning making Amulek look bad and twisting his words to make it appear as he was denying God...as in thinking he had a logical argument he could get Amulek to stipulate to and then show that it resulted in proving that God did not exist.  And he would make his claim more credible by giving the money to Amulek as the loser (even if Amulek didn't see the debate outcome in the same way)...it would a gesture of triumph so to speak.  He could make the claim "who would give up money if they didn't have to, look I am giving money to this man so he must have denied God" or something along those lines.

 

Again, Amulek’s temptation would be to accept the challenge to prove his superiority in not being tricked, or in being able to answer the riddle or trick questions, despite the odds for a fair exchange and judging being against him. Or to be lulled, for the sake of pride, into winning a challenge that he knew would not be honored.

 

I think you are dead on there.

[Robert F. Smith]

LOL--but Zeezrom wasn't really an atheist (v. 24). And v. 22 seems more like Zeezrom's wager to Almulek, and not a bribe. It was the pre-debate strategy to begin to undermine Amulek's credibility by engaging him in a bet, but Amulek wouldn't have it (v. 23, the temptation being to yield to pride through betting and winning a debate). I think Zeerom's intended line of questioning got disrupted with Amulek's responses, but this was a function of the Spirit overcoming the devices of the devil (whch were never fully revealed since there was no opportunity to show them all off), not superior debating skills. Plus, Zeezrom's whole purpose for the debate was not to win it (he would have retained the prize money anyaway) but to make money by creating disturbances at Amulek's expense--if the Gospel messengers were discredited, people would continue to act in such a way as to continue to give Zeezrom employ (v. 20). A mere debate would have been too honest a way to go!

Sounds more like the argument about sophistry in which lawyers are trained to take any position for money, which is what the sophists were accused of doing by Socrates and Plato.  So, if it is a wager, then it is one having to do with the ability to defend a position in forensic debate.  Any position.  Particularly if you're a politician.

[Robert F. Smith]

Shame that most, if not all of Woolley's finds, that were in the Baghdad Museum have been stolen, looted soon after the fall of Baghdad in 2003.

You want to know why?  Bcuz they were following the golden rule:  He who has the gold rules.

[mfbukowski]

I have some onties and oncles too.

[Tacenda]

I have some onties and oncles too.

Love it, love it, love it!:-D

[MormonMason]

I still think that 6 onties was equal to 42 senums:

 

...

In any case, this would have been more than a month's salary for a judge, who would have to work for 42 days (assuming your valuation is correct) to achieve what Zeezrom was offering all at once to Amulek for doing something so easy for many, to deny the existence of God for quick and easy mammon.  This was no minuscule value when you consider that it was a lump sum of 42-days' worth of work.  I wish Mormon had made comparison to the shekel.  It would have been much easier to determine the actual valuation of the money and then convert that in terms of today's wages and precious metals by weight.  In any case, a lump sum of more than a month's wages would be of considerable value to somebody who made considerably less than that.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

Unless the Nephites had gone off the gold and silver standard (and Alma 11 seems pretty clear that they hadn't), standardized weights of gold or silver are coins.  The reason people make coins is to make the standardized "weights" easy to identify for exchange.  It's only when a money is "debased" that the design or name of the coin itself is supposed to carry value.  As long as the coin itself is made from a valuable metal (or other material) in that society, it doesn't matter what you call it.  It's the metal that gives it value, not the design or name.

That might make some sense if the Egyptians and Jews contemporary with Lehi used coins, but we know they didn't.  They used weights made of stone and metal, and used them to weigh out pieces of metal cut from coils and other scrap.

 

The Jewish weights had Egyptian hieratic numbers and other hieratic markings.  Some of the terms used in the Alma 11 account are direct Hebrew (shilum "repayment, recompense"; sean "measure"), or general Semitic (limnah = maneh/mina weight of ancient Near Eastern usage), while others are Egyptian (antion, anti/onti "to buy, sell; tribute, dues"; senine, senum "price," with Egyptian sniw from  the same root being the standard silver unit of value in the 19th & 20th dynasties).

 

What is truly extraordinary about the Nephite system (promulgated by Mosiah II) is that the senine (for one grain-measure) finds its basic equivalence in the "basic module" (Bill Dever) of the Hebrew 8-sheqel weight (91.2 grams) and the Egyptian diban (95 grams).  Moreover, it takes 7 of the sheqels to make a mina/maneh, while it takes 7 senines to make a Nephite limnah.  Finally, this system also matches the Horus-Eye fractions, as you can see in my chart at  http://www.idumea.org/etudes/Ecritures/LM/Poids_mesures.htm .

 

 Single parallels can be dismissed as coincidence, but systematic parallels are not so easily dismissed.

[Robert F. Smith]

In any case, this would have been more than a month's salary for a judge, who would have to work for 42 days (assuming your valuation is correct) to achieve what Zeezrom was offering all at once to Amulek for doing something so easy for many, to deny the existence of God for quick and easy mammon.  This was no minuscule value when you consider that it was a lump sum of 42-days' worth of work.  I wish Mormon had made comparison to the shekel.  It would have been much easier to determine the actual valuation of the money and then convert that in terms of today's wages and precious metals by weight.  In any case, a lump sum of more than a month's wages would be of considerable value to somebody who made considerably less than that.

See the figures in my post #39.  However, bear in mind that market prices are based on supply and demand.

[MormonMason]

See the figures in my post #39.  However, bear in mind that market prices are based on supply and demand.

When I wrote shekel I meant the shekel weight, not the relatively late shekel coin.  As you know, the ancient Israelites weighed out shekels of silver and such.

[Robert F. Smith]

When I wrote shekel I meant the shekel weight, not the relatively late shekel coin.  As you know, the ancient Israelites weighed out shekels of silver and such.

I understood what you meant, and your point was well taken.

[CV75]

Sounds more like the argument about sophistry in which lawyers are trained to take any position for money, which is what the sophists were accused of doing by Socrates and Plato.  So, if it is a wager, then it is one having to do with the ability to defend a position in forensic debate.  Any position.  Particularly if you're a politician.

Cool--so Zeezrom could quite reasonably take an "atheist" position, but only for the sake of the money and not his beliefs (as Amulek seems to allude to in v. 24), and this for the sake of making Amulek look bad for the purpose of protecting or generatig more of his employ.

 

I've wondered what the backstory is--I've imagined that Amulek and Zeezrom had some shared history that would allow this moment to be such a flash-point and evolve to resolution so relatively quickly. Both may have been erstwhile believers who went astray for riches (and Zeezrom knew this about Amulek; Amulek may have even been a top client), and Amulek repented first.

Edited September 17, 2013 by CV75

[CV75]

He could make the claim "who would give up money if they didn't have to, look I am giving money to this man so he must have denied God" or something along those lines.

Yes--and this may have to do with the backstory. Perhaps the six onties had symbolic value where Amulek had perviously given them up to Zeezrom in a lawsuit, or in an over-charge of legal fees, or some other, pervious altercation between them, making the challenge much more personal.

[CV75]

I think you are dead

I'm not dead yet! (Paul is dead...)

[mrmandias]

Agreed.  It's a point that has no particular apologetic or anti-apologetic significance, however.

 

 

And while we're on the subject, if you were to ask me for a chapter in the Book of Mormon that seems most "made up" (i.e a fictional creation of an author instead of a recounting of a dialogue that actually happened between two real people), it would be Alma 11.

 

[mfbukowski]

I'm not dead yet! (Paul is dead...)

Isn't he the only one left alive?

[Calm]

Isn't he the only one left alive?

Ringo is still going.

[Robert F. Smith]

cinepro, on 16 Sept 2013 - 10:04 AM, said:

And while we're on the subject, if you were to ask me for a chapter in the Book of Mormon that seems most "made up" (i.e a fictional creation of an author instead of a recounting of a dialogue that actually happened between two real people), it would be Alma 11.

Agreed.  It's a point that has no particular apologetic or anti-apologetic significance, however.

So you and cinepro are suggesting that we have a kind of parable with metonymic names (of no apologetic or polemic value) surrounding a kernel of actual Nephite weights & measures (which do have apologetic value)?

[CV75]

Isn't he the only one left alive?

Oh that's right... I must have gotten it BACKWARDS