Robert F. Smith Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 In his "Philo: The Jewish Genius of Alexandria," Explorations, 8/1 (1994):2, James Charlesworth said: Quote "In his The Migration of Abraham 47-49 Philo notes that humans speak to each other through impacting the air, by moving 'the organs of mouth and tongue.' In contrast, God's words are 'seen as light is seen.' His proof text was Exodus 20:18 [LXX], 'and all the people saw the voice.' He argues that God does not need to use 'verbs and nouns' but can address the human heart directly. Thus, God's words are seen by 'the eye of the soul'. If God does not need languages, which are made by humans and separate them into linguistic groups, then — as Jews and Christians have always affirmed — God speaks to us directly and in our present situation of need." Is it possible that we should apply this understanding to revelation and inspiration in general? Particularly if we are understanding "translation" in that sense? 2
canard78 Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 On 7 June 2016 at 2:37 AM, Glenn101 said: As to the existence of the plates, there were enough witnesses to their existence to rationally conclude that they did exist. At the very least it's rational to conclude that an item of some sort existed that convinced a handful of close associates that he had plates. Most of those associates had a vested interest in him having plates. Some of the witnesses followed Strang and believed in the credibility of his plates. So yes, it's a probably rational to conclude that something existed. As to whether the conclusion that: a dead Native American appeared to a farm boy in the 1800s and delivered a set of millennia-old gold plates that contained the record of an, as yet, undiscovered nation of Hebrew/Christians, the trace of whom was apparently wiped out, despite a 1000+ year history... is rational... makes me question your understanding of the word rational.
canard78 Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: In his "Philo: The Jewish Genius of Alexandria," Explorations, 8/1 (1994):2, James Charlesworth said: Is it possible that we should apply this understanding to revelation and inspiration in general? Particularly if we are understanding "translation" in that sense? I thought you believed a 16thC scholar translated the Book of Mormon?
Atheist Mormon Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 On 6/6/2016 at 5:33 PM, Johnnie Cake said: This at least is how I, a non-believer, see this subject…How am I wrong? I’m willing to reinterpret my own conclusions but I would need compelling evidence in order to do so. I'm only guessing but I would assume that the majority of the posters here don't believe that Joseph Translated anything...he merely dictated "revelation"...yet he claimed that he translated not received revelation...so how am I to make sense of all of this? You are not wrong...However it is wrong to begin for Mormons to look/focus on the historicity of their claim. The whole Christianity is based on a fable.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 11 hours ago, canard78 said: Quote Robert F. Smith said: In his "Philo: The Jewish Genius of Alexandria," Explorations, 8/1 (1994):2, James Charlesworth said: Quote "In his The Migration of Abraham 47-49 Philo notes that humans speak to each other through impacting the air, by moving 'the organs of mouth and tongue.' In contrast, God's words are 'seen as light is seen.' His proof text was Exodus 20:18 [LXX], 'and all the people saw the voice.' He argues that God does not need to use 'verbs and nouns' but can address the human heart directly. Thus, God's words are seen by 'the eye of the soul'. If God does not need languages, which are made by humans and separate them into linguistic groups, then — as Jews and Christians have always affirmed — God speaks to us directly and in our present situation of need." Is it possible that we should apply this understanding to revelation and inspiration in general? Particularly if we are understanding "translation" in that sense? I thought you believed a 16thC scholar translated the Book of Mormon? I thought we were trying to understand the meaning of the word "translate." Yet, instead of reading what I said, you came up with a non sequitur. By the way, even though it has nothing to do with what I just said above, I did not say that a scholar translated the BofM. It is usually better to actually quote other people, canard. So, in the meantime, try to focus on what they actually say.
coolrok7 Posted June 12, 2016 Posted June 12, 2016 It still is. However the KJV is not nor has it ever been the only version used by the Church members. For reasons of commonality we use the KJV in English speaking countries. We accept the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. The KJV itself was translated from several available text, and was just the agreement of a team of scholars who added words they thought sounded nice. BTW Our name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Not the Mormon Church.” While I’m unable to edit my post now, what I provided initially that you (thesometimesaint) responded to deals with the name of the Church and the KJV version of the Bible used by the Church. My later post dealt with what you responded with. So with that said with the points I Initially made, what would now be your response with the official statement of the First Presidency in the Ensign Church magazine regarding KJV usage in the Church and the quotes concerning the name of the Church, also in the Ensign as well as with the Reader’s Digest insert where “MORMON CHURCH” came from? In addition to this I quoted from Mormon sources concerning the Church’s view about those not of the Mormon faith who are Biblically Christian in belief, while putting those that profess Christian belief in a not so positive light. Your option in how you answer of course. There used to be an option to review before the post gets uploaded which I miss.
rodheadlee Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 22 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Rod, if I stepped out of bounds and offended you by my post, I apologize. It was not my intention to offend you. Ok, I accept. I just thought you wanted to know what makes a believer tick. We don't turn our brains off, we just take the Word of the Lord, when He speaks to us individually, as the truth. If I don't have a witness on a certain subject I will study it out to the best of my ability and then pray about it. If I don't get an answer, I study more and pray more until I get told to an answer or told to leave it be. Communicating with God, through the Holy Spirit can be vocal or visual not just a burning in the bosom. I suppose certain people think you may need an MRI if you are hearing voices but I'm not one of them. I mean just exactly how do you expect God to communicate with you? The translations of the facsimiles as interpreted by non Mormon scholars are not written in stone. There have been some very good scholars come through here pointing out some subtle differences. I cannot remember which facsimile or the scholars name at the moment but a thorough search of the archives could produce some good old discussions. I'm too busy with life right now to put much effort into it. I need to have my home ready to go to sea by October. 3
Johnnie Cake Posted June 13, 2016 Author Posted June 13, 2016 10 minutes ago, rodheadlee said: Ok, I accept. I just thought you wanted to know what makes a believer tick. We don't turn our brains off, we just take the Word of the Lord, when He speaks to us individually, as the truth. If I don't have a witness on a certain subject I will study it out to the best of my ability and then pray about it. If I don't get an answer, I study more and pray more until I get told to an answer or told to leave it be. Communicating with God, through the Holy Spirit can be vocal or visual not just a burning in the bosom. I suppose certain people think you may need an MRI if you are hearing voices but I'm not one of them. I mean just exactly how do you expect God to communicate with you? The translations of the facsimiles as interpreted by non Mormon scholars are not written in stone. There have been some very good scholars come through here pointing out some subtle differences. I cannot remember which facsimile or the scholars name at the moment but a thorough search of the archives could produce some good old discussions. I'm too busy with life right now to put much effort into it. I need to have my home ready to go to sea by October. Thanks for sharing 1
mfbukowski Posted June 13, 2016 Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) 20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: In his "Philo: The Jewish Genius of Alexandria," Explorations, 8/1 (1994):2, James Charlesworth said: Is it possible that we should apply this understanding to revelation and inspiration in general? Particularly if we are understanding "translation" in that sense? Fantastic quote, Robert- thanks for that I had never seen or noticed it before. From your knowledge of Hebrew is this literal, instead of the voice of God being thunder and lightning as it is interpreted? Edited June 13, 2016 by mfbukowski
Robert F. Smith Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 21 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Fantastic quote, Robert- thanks for that I had never seen or noticed it before. From your knowledge of Hebrew is this literal, instead of the voice of God being thunder and lightning as it is interpreted? One can find just such a claim at http://learntorah.blogspot.com/2013/04/torah-is-light-spiritual-illumination.html , but not everyone shares that view. However, that Philo and others take that view may suggest that the tradition of revelation as light is quite old and widely shared. As to Ex 20:18 "saw" in Hebrew, which is interpreted in the LXX translation as "terrified," it is the same set of Hebrew consonants but with differing vowels. Compare Ex 19:20, "Moses spoke, and God answered him in the thunder (literally in a voice)." The storm theophany controls both accounts, there and possibly at I Kings 19:11-12, Quote 11 "behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake: 12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice." 2
mfbukowski Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 58 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: One can find just such a claim at http://learntorah.blogspot.com/2013/04/torah-is-light-spiritual-illumination.html , but not everyone shares that view. However, that Philo and others take that view may suggest that the tradition of revelation as light is quite old and widely shared. As to Ex 20:18 "saw" in Hebrew, which is interpreted in the LXX translation as "terrified," it is the same set of Hebrew consonants but with differing vowels. Compare Ex 19:20, "Moses spoke, and God answered him in the thunder (literally in a voice)." The storm theophany controls both accounts, there and possibly at I Kings 19:11-12, Thanks Bob- VERY interesting stuff!
canard78 Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 On 12 June 2016 at 9:40 PM, Robert F. Smith said: I thought we were trying to understand the meaning of the word "translate." Yet, instead of reading what I said, you came up with a non sequitur. By the way, even though it has nothing to do with what I just said above, I did not say that a scholar translated the BofM. It is usually better to actually quote other people, canard. So, in the meantime, try to focus on what they actually say. You seemed quite happy to raise and discuss this non sequitur back when there was a thread showing how the Book of Mormon contained questionable passages from Isaiah. How was it relevant to the topic there, but not here?
Gray Posted June 14, 2016 Posted June 14, 2016 On 6/12/2016 at 2:36 AM, Robert F. Smith said: In his "Philo: The Jewish Genius of Alexandria," Explorations, 8/1 (1994):2, James Charlesworth said: Is it possible that we should apply this understanding to revelation and inspiration in general? Particularly if we are understanding "translation" in that sense? A fascinating approach, thanks for sharing
Robert F. Smith Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 4 hours ago, canard78 said: You seemed quite happy to raise and discuss this non sequitur back when there was a thread showing how the Book of Mormon contained questionable passages from Isaiah. How was it relevant to the topic there, but not here? Go back and reread it, and you will find the claim being made there that Joseph himself supposedly did the translation. I simply replied that recent scholarship makes it unlikely that Joseph did anything more than read an already available translation off his seerstone in mechanical fashion. No one has a good explanation as to why the Book of Mormon was rendered first in Early Modern English centuries before Joseph Smith, and claiming that a scholar did it is not part of the current scenario. There is as yet no reason to imagine that a scholar needed to do it. A non sequitur comes into play when a reply is irrelevant to the statement actually being made. I did not make that mistake, but you did. That is the difference.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 On 6/12/2016 at 3:02 AM, canard78 said: ......................................................... As to whether the conclusion that: a dead Native American appeared to a farm boy in the 1800s and delivered a set of millennia-old gold plates that contained the record of an, as yet, undiscovered nation of Hebrew/Christians, the trace of whom was apparently wiped out, despite a 1000+ year history... is rational... makes me question your understanding of the word rational. The story about gold plates, a young white boy, and a dead angel has rightly seemed "preposterous" to a number of people, and not without reason, as I observe in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf . 1
James Tunney Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The story about gold plates, a young white boy, and a dead angel has rightly seemed "preposterous" to a number of people, and not without reason, as I observe in my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, August 8, 2014, at the annual FAIRMORMON Conference, Provo, Utah, online at http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/PREPOSTEROUS-BOOK-OF-MORMON.pdf . You cannot disregard history that easily as you attempt to do in the article.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 11 hours ago, James Tunney said: You cannot disregard history that easily as you attempt to do in the article. Not sure what you mean by that. Perhaps you could expand your comment. What sort of history am I supposedly disregarding?
James Tunney Posted June 15, 2016 Posted June 15, 2016 18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Not sure what you mean by that. Perhaps you could expand your comment. What sort of history am I supposedly disregarding? Aren't you trying to minimalize that fact that the coming forth of the book of mormon story is incredibly preposterous? Normally a doubtful story leads one to look at it with skepticism and rightfully so. I think the preposterous beginning kills the rest and should lead one to conclude comparisons are mere coincidences. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 7 hours ago, James Tunney said: Aren't you trying to minimalize that fact that the coming forth of the book of mormon story is incredibly preposterous? Normally a doubtful story leads one to look at it with skepticism and rightfully so. I think the preposterous beginning kills the rest and should lead one to conclude comparisons are mere coincidences. You probably need to read the introductory remarks in my paper on the "Preposterous Book of Mormon," and explain to me why that automatically "kills the rest." I don't follow you on that, as it would mean that I would have to automatically reject the Israelite Exodus, Water from a rock, the Resurrection, and a whole lot else. At one point, C. S. Lewis used to think like that. Then one day he realized that just once it may actually have happened that a god died and rose from the dead. It made a new man of him, James, no matter how preposterous it seemed at first.
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: You probably need to read the introductory remarks in my paper on the "Preposterous Book of Mormon," and explain to me why that automatically "kills the rest." I don't follow you on that, as it would mean that I would have to automatically reject the Israelite Exodus, Water from a rock, the Resurrection, and a whole lot else. At one point, C. S. Lewis used to think like that. Then one day he realized that just once it may actually have happened that a god died and rose from the dead. It made a new man of him, James, no matter how preposterous it seemed at first. He clearly does not understand your argument, which is an excellent one. Edited June 16, 2016 by mfbukowski
James Tunney Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You probably need to read the introductory remarks in my paper on the "Preposterous Book of Mormon," and explain to me why that automatically "kills the rest." I don't follow you on that, as it would mean that I would have to automatically reject the Israelite Exodus, Water from a rock, the Resurrection, and a whole lot else. At one point, C. S. Lewis used to think like that. Then one day he realized that just once it may actually have happened that a god died and rose from the dead. It made a new man of him, James, no matter how preposterous it seemed at first. There isn't any evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt or that the exodus happened. Also, the logistics of moving 600,000 people across the desert for 40 years seem implausible. I think this is a bigger problem for the BofM because it is dependent on these stories. As for the preposterous story of the BofM coming about, even JS backed away from the folk magic origins because it appears preposterous. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 12 hours ago, James Tunney said: There isn't any evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt or that the exodus happened. Also, the logistics of moving 600,000 people across the desert for 40 years seem implausible. I think this is a bigger problem for the BofM because it is dependent on these stories. As for the preposterous story of the BofM coming about, even JS backed away from the folk magic origins because it appears preposterous. You are begging the question, and you may find helpful my “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu . You are clearly unschooled in Near Eastern archeology, including the strong evidence that Hebrews were in fact in Egypt. In like manner, we could simply reject Homeric epic as preposterous and thus reject all of Mycenean culture -- no matter that it actually existed nor that the archeological evidence is decisive. 1
James Tunney Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You are begging the question, and you may find helpful my “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu . You are clearly unschooled in Near Eastern archeology, including the strong evidence that Hebrews were in fact in Egypt. In like manner, we could simply reject Homeric epic as preposterous and thus reject all of Mycenean culture -- no matter that it actually existed nor that the archeological evidence is decisive. I don't know how I'm begging the question here. It seems that most archeologists, except those who have an agenda to prove the bible, haven't found anything to show that the exodus happened. See Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-2126-X.p.99. I know you are vested in a certain conclusion, but that doesn't make it so.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, James Tunney said: I don't know how I'm begging the question here. It seems that most archeologists, except those who have an agenda to prove the bible, haven't found anything to show that the exodus happened. See Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-2126-X.p.99. I know you are vested in a certain conclusion, but that doesn't make it so. Bill Dever is a friend of mine, whose acquaintance I first made at the Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem, when he signed me up for his spring 1970 dig at Tel Gezer. I base my conclusions on the archeological evidence, which you would know had you read my paper on the Exodus question. My agenda is to address the actual evidence, yours is apriori denial. 1
mfbukowski Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: Bill Dever is a friend of mine, whose acquaintance I first made at the Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem, when he signed me up for his spring 1970 dig at Tel Gezer. I base my conclusions on the archeological evidence, which you would know had you read my paper on the Exodus question. My agenda is to address the actual evidence, yours is apriori denial. I think your expertise over Tunney is obvious, and indeed he has preconceived notions based apparently on one article. In case you were not aware, that link requires downloading an app which gives you a free trial for Scribd, and after that expires, 9 dollar a month subscription to read the whole article. It looks like Scribd is trying to become another Kindle.
Recommended Posts