mnn727 Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Could be any number of deduced reasons. This thread presents one deduction. Could be Smith, or other co-authors, read the term in another book, or heard it used, and borrowed it for their own novel.Or perhaps Joseph Smith really was translating what Nephi (and others) wrote. 2
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Adieu was in common use among English speakers of the early 1800s, as Bernard Gui, has amply demonstrated elsewhere.Great!
thesometimesaint Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) TSM, my religious tradition is one of hearing the Word, so I have a sense of learning by hearing. I don't hold to an idea that knowledge is only gained from books, and never have. Neither have I. OTOH the Catholics do have a long tradition of setting up schools and universities to not only teach its young people but to have a well educated clergy also. You are claiming that JS could have gained that knowledge from the books you listed. I'm not saying that is impossible, but it is highly improbable given the circumstances of the young JS. Add in that it is also unlikely that the itinerant preachers of his day and location were all that well read either. Edited August 20, 2014 by thesometimesaint 2
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Or perhaps Joseph Smith really was translating what Nephi (and others) wrote.I think "translating" is a loosey goosey sort of thing. (See adieu.)
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Neither have I. OTOH the Catholics do have a long tradition of setting up schools and universities to not only teach its young people but to have a well educated clergy also. You are claiming that JS could have gained that knowledge from the books you listed. I'm not saying that is impossible, but it is high improbable given the circumstances of the young JS. Add in that it is also unlikely that the itinerant preachers of his day and location were all that well read either.I didn't claim he read those books, owned them, or saw them. gotta go, have a mtg
JAHS Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 In regards to the french word Adieu; interesting to note that there are French derived words in the Bible too. "tache"(Ex 26:6), "laver"(Ex 30:18) and "bruit"(Jer 10:22). These words are no longer used by English-speaking people, although they evidently were understandable enough at the time the King James translators elected to use them.
ERayR Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 The way I see it you are doing the imaging and making a life out of the endless thought experiment of the Book of Mormon. Which has no evidence, just what is thought up and labeled golden. When you have something of real evidence, then your arrogant statements might mean something. Insert something here about irony and pots and black kettles.
ERayR Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Thanx to you. Evidence is just evidence. I didn't say they were convincing. For myself I not convinced by the evidence either. Though it is interesting. I've had my own personal testimony of the Truth Claims of the Book of Mormon for 43 years, and counting. For me it was about 53 years ago in Boeing Aircraft Co plant 2 at Seattle Wash. It is sometimes so frustrating when someone asks me to prove it. That is something I can not do. First I have no idea what they will accept as proof and most of the time they don't either. Second they have to find their own proof if they really want it. Edited August 20, 2014 by ERayR
thesometimesaint Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 For me it was about 53 years ago in Boeing Aircraft Co plant 2 at Seattle Wash.. I am a long term convert. My adventure in the Church started when I was 20 at my local college..
ERayR Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 In relation to the OP, who's argument is that Bethlehem is in the land of Jerusalem, as a point of reference to an area rather than an actual reference to the birth-city of Jesus. My argument is that "land of Jerusalem" was already in use to describe the area, in Smith's time (and before). And is therefore not a unique. In essence, I agree with the OP! I disagree that the usage is divinely inspired but rather the usage is something familiar to the time the Book of Mormon was written. I agree with you but as proof for the or against the truth claims of the Book of Mormon it is totally irrelevant either way.
ERayR Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 "Finges" is subjective. A very devout LDS woman, who I admire, once told me that FARMs was "fringey". And to some extent she is absolutely correct.
Pahoran Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Is there not, among Mormon scholars today, those who view the Book of Mormon as a divinely Inspired Fiction. "Some may ask: Why resist applying the Inspired Fiction theory to the Book of Mormon? Why resist the idea that God inspired Joseph Smith to dictate the Book of Mormon to teach us divine truths through the medium of divinely-inspired stories that are equally fictional but no less valuable than the parables of Jesus? Why resist the idea that Lehi, Nephi and others were divinely-inspired characters in a grand divine novel rather than real persons who actually lived in the ancient Americas? Why resist the idea that Joseph mistakenly thought the Book of Mormon was a “translation” of an ancient record written by actual ancient prophets, similar to his mistakenly thinking he was translating the Egyptian papyri in his possession when he received the revelation that is the Book of Abraham?" (from mormonmatters.org) So, I use "novel" and it is unacceptable unless I qualify my usage with "grand divine"? Your complaint is irrelevant. What "complaint?" I wasn't complaining. What is "irrelevant" -- as well as incompetent -- is the opinion of a first-name-only blogger being offered as if it has anything at all to do with my point, which was that there is not one shred of evidence that even one of the people involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon ever, for a nanosecond, thought of it as a "novel." Was "Andrew" one of those people? Somehow I doubt it. And the fact that me makes the same baseless accusation you make doesn't magically give it any basis. Just so you know. Regards, Pahoran Edited August 20, 2014 by Pahoran 3
Scott Lloyd Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Yeah. If anything, I overstated the distance. Traveling six miles south of Salt Lake would put you in South Salt Lake or Murray. A person unacquainted with the area might not even grasp that he had passed the city limits. Edited to add: If Thinking and I are ever on a road trip together, I'll insist on doing the navigating! Having never been to Israel, I let Google find Bethlehem for me, and it found the one in Galilee. I stand corrected. This adds greater significance to the scriptural phrase "Bethlehem of Judea." True.Not that I buy his theory, but here's a guy who posits that the birthplace of Christ actually was Bethlehem of Galilee rather than Bethlehem of Judea. 1
ERayR Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 Not that I buy his theory, but here's a guy who posits that the birthplace of Christ actually was Bethlehem of Galilee rather than Bethlehem of Judea. You mean the whole Christian world may be worshiping the wrong Jesus. Mormons may not be alone. 1
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) What "complaint?" I wasn't complaining.What is "irrelevant" -- as well as incompetent -- is the opinion of a first-name-only blogger being offered as if it has anything at all to do with my point, which was that there is not one shred of evidence that even one of the people involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon ever, for a nanosecond, thought of it as a "novel."Was "Andrew" one of those people? Somehow I doubt it.And the fact that me makes the same baseless accusation you make doesn't magically give it any basis.Just so you know.Regards,PahoranI don't know why I should care. I'm using the term, and I live now. Your assertion that only 19th century terms should be used when discussing the Book of Mormon, is irrelevant. Edited August 20, 2014 by saemo
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I agree with you but as proof for the or against the truth claims of the Book of Mormon it is totally irrelevant either way.I can agree with that.
thesometimesaint Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I don't know why I should care. I'm using the term, and I live now. Your assertion that only 19th century terms should be used when discussing the Book of Mormon, is irrelevant. ???. JS used 19th Century terms. There is no evidence that I know that the use of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" was common in JS day and location.
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 ???. JS used 19th Century terms. There is no evidence that I know that the use of the phrase "land of Jerusalem" was common in JS day and location.Which has what to do with me using the word "novel"?
ERayR Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 I don't know why I should care. I'm using the term, and I live now. Your assertion that only 19th century terms should be used when discussing the Book of Mormon, is irrelevant. Do you mean Joseph Smith was ahead of his times and it now has been found he was using current 21st century terms? Come now.
ERayR Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) Which has what to do with me using the word "novel"? It is rather dismissive and rude to refer to a book held sacred by millions of people as a novel. Even if you don't believe it. Edited August 20, 2014 by ERayR
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 It would be like saying the Qua-ran is a novel. I really don't think anyone that is trying to have a respectful dialogue would do that in good faith. Hopefully you see were we are coming from Saemo.
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 (edited) It is rather dismissive and rude to refer to a book held sacred by millions of people as a novel. Even if you don't believe it.Fair enough. Do you mean Joseph Smith was ahead of his times and it now has been found he was using current 21st century terms? Come now. I said, Smith was using a term from his time. Novel is term I used, and I live now. I never said it was used during Smith's time. And I have never said that Smith used terms outside of his time. The fact is, he consistently uses terms from his time, other than those he borrowed from the KJV, which were in a way common to his time! So yeah, Smith existed in his time and I exist in mine. Edited August 20, 2014 by saemo
saemo Posted August 20, 2014 Posted August 20, 2014 It would be like saying the Qua-ran is a novel. I really don't think anyone that is trying to have a respectful dialogue would do that in good faith. Hopefully you see were we are coming from Saemo.Apt comparison.
teddyaware Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 (edited) Apt comparison. I say that it is not even remotely possible for an uneducated 21 year old farm boy, from a backwater early 19th century western New York State village, to have produced page after miraculous page of the following without the inspiration of God. 15 And upon these I write the things of my soul, and many of the scriptures which are engraven upon the plates of brass. For my soul delighteth in the scriptures, and my heart pondereth them, and writeth them for the learning and the profit of my children. 16 Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the Lord; and my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard. 17 Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, my heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities. 18 I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. 19 And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted. 20 My God hath been my support; he hath led me through mine afflictions in the wilderness; and he hath preserved me upon the waters of the great deep. 21 He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh. 22 He hath confounded mine enemies, unto the causing of them to quake before me. 23 Behold, he hath heard my cry by day, and he hath given me knowledge by visions in the night-time. 24 And by day have I waxed bold in mighty prayer before him; yea, my voice have I sent up on high; and angels came down and ministered unto me. 25 And upon the wings of his Spirit hath my body been carried away upon exceedingly high mountains. And mine eyes have beheld great things, yea, even too great for man; therefore I was bidden that I should not write them. 26 O then, if I have seen so great things, if the Lord in his condescension unto the children of men hath visited men in so much mercy, why should my heart weep and my soul linger in the valley of sorrow, and my flesh waste away, and my strength slacken, because of mine afflictions? 27 And why should I yield to sin, because of my flesh? Yea, why should I give way to temptations, that the evil one have place in my heart to destroy my peace and afflict my soul? Why am I angry because of mine enemy? 28 Awake, my soul! No longer droop in sin. Rejoice, O my heart, and give place no more for the enemy of my soul. 29 Do not anger again because of mine enemies. Do not slacken my strength because of mine afflictions. 30 Rejoice, O my heart, and cry unto the Lord, and say: O Lord, I will praise thee forever; yea, my soul will rejoice in thee, my God, and the rock of my salvation. 31 O Lord, wilt thou redeem my soul? Wilt thou deliver me out of the hands of mine enemies? Wilt thou make me that I may shake at the appearance of sin? 32 May the gates of hell be shut continually before me, because that my heart is broken and my spirit is contrite! O Lord, wilt thou not shut the gates of thy righteousness before me, that I may walk in the path of the low valley, that I may be strict in the plain road! 33 O Lord, wilt thou encircle me around in the robe of thy righteousness! O Lord, wilt thou make a way for mine escape before mine enemies! Wilt thou make my path straight before me! Wilt thou not place a stumbling block in my way—but that thou wouldst clear my way before me, and hedge not up my way, but the ways of mine enemy. 34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm. 35 Yea, I know that God will give liberally to him that asketh. Yea, my God will give me, if I ask not amiss; therefore I will lift up my voice unto thee; yea, I will cry unto thee, my God, the rock of my righteousness. Behold, my voice shall forever ascend up unto thee, my rock and mine everlasting God. Amen. (2 Nephi 4) Edited August 21, 2014 by teddyaware
ERayR Posted August 21, 2014 Posted August 21, 2014 The fact is, he consistently uses terms from his time, other than those he borrowed from the KJV, which were in a way common to his time! So yeah, Smith existed in his time and I exist in mine. And if you were translating something from an other language and another time to an English speaking audience now you would consistently uses terms from your time
Recommended Posts