USU78 Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 30 minutes ago, RevTestament said: He deleted what he had. I won't tell you what it was, because it was top secret! Which brings up an interesting question: if a joke is not accompanied by a smiley/emoji,is it still a joke?
Robert F. Smith Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 5 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said: ............................ They would have been worshippers of Amurru or El Shaddai, "He who dwells on the pure mountain”............................... Actually Shadday is an Amorite dual-form meaning "Twin-Breasts," and is an ancient place-name for the twin mounds of Tell Biʿa (Tell el-Thadyen “Site-of-the-Two-Breasts,” same as Sumerian toponym TUTTUL "Breasts," all referring to the same twin-mountain place in Syria; cf. Hebrew šad "breast"), same as the American use of French derived place-name "Grand-Tetons" in Wyoming. Thus, when Abraham’s God refers to himself as ʾEl-Šadday, “God of Shaddai” (Gen 17:1), the reference is to the God of this particular city or city-state locale in Syria. So G. E. Mendenhall, Ancient Israel’s Faith and History, 117-118; W. F. Albright, “The Names of Shaddai and Abram,” JBL, 54 (1935):192-193. 3
Robert F. Smith Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 41 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Are cureloms imaginary? Simple Answer...YES Just a figment, Johnnie? And you know this how?
Robert F. Smith Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 17 hours ago, RevTestament said: Big, hairy mammoths were apparently very useful - which is apparently why they were hunted to extinction. Domesticated, they would also be very useful as plow animals or dirt movers. A gomphothere creature has been dated to about 5000 BC in S. America. I believe some of the mammoth finds have been dated fairly late. 4000 years ago puts mammoths in the Americas in 2000 BC which is the time of the Jaredites... The Wrangel Island date is approximately 1650 BC, but we also have them on St Paul Island, Alaska, at about 3725 BC. Based upon sedaDNA (sedimentary DNA) from the Stevens Village area of the Yukon River, we also have a date for mammoths at around 5600 BC. Scholars conclude from this that “sedaDNA evidence for mammoth and horse persisting into the Holocene in interior Alaska is incompatible with such rapid extinction and indicates that late-surviving mammoths in the New World were not confined to islands in the Bering Sea.” Indeed, “the duration of human/megafaunal overlap was probably even greater than suggested by our sedaDNA results, raising questions about the mode and tempo of extinction.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091214151946.htm . Whatever the case, it is interesting that only the Jaredites (3100 - 500 BC) mention the presence of elephants. They were presumably gone by Nephite times. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Just a figment, Johnnie? And you know this how? The OP Asked a Question...I simply answered that question honestly. I believe that the word was made up by Joseph Smith. Curelom's as specified in the BoM do not exist in reality...there has never been a Curelom fossel discovered or evidence of anything ever discovered that would make us believe that Curelom's ever existed. In fact the only place that they have ever existed outside of Joseph Smith's imagination is within the pages of the Book of Mormon. Any other answer is just speculation. Just want to give the OP an honest answer. That said, if you have evidence to prove otherwise I would love you to produce it. Edited July 3, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
Johnnie Cake Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 Would Someone please start a thread on Elder Hollands Greatest Missionary Ever Story that Scott Lloyd wrote a story on in the DesNews. I would really like to have this board flesh this story out...I can't start threads due to my limited status...but if I could I would certainly start one on this subject.
pogi Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: The OP Asked a Question...I simply answered that question honestly. I think a more honest answer would be to say "I don't really know for sure." 5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: there has never been a Curelom fossel discovered How do you know that? Maybe they are called by a different name today. 2
pogi Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 6 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Would Someone please start a thread on Elder Hollands Greatest Missionary Ever Story that Scott Lloyd wrote a story on in the DesNews. I would really like to have this board flesh this story out...I can't start threads due to my limited status...but if I could I would certainly start one on this subject. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69204-most-incredible-missionary-story/
Robert F. Smith Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: The OP Asked a Question...I simply answered that question honestly. I believe that the word was made up by Joseph Smith. Curelom's as specified in the BoM do not exist in reality...there has never been a Curelom fossel discovered or evidence of anything ever discovered that would make us believe that Curelom's ever existed. In fact that only place that they have ever existed outside of Joseph Smith's imagination is within the pages of the Book of Mormon. Just want to give the OP an honest answer. That said, if you have evidence to prove otherwise I would love you to produce it. You still haven't answered my question: How do you know that cureloms never existed? What evidence did you call upon? You seem to think that assertion is the same as evidence. How do you exclude something you cannot even define? If you said that Lewis Carroll's jabberwock was a figment, I would agree. Why? Because that is the explicit context and intention of Carroll. If instead, we are reading a historical document of some sort, and it refers to an unknown animal by a strange name (which we may have trouble etymologizing), does that mean the animal is a figment? Of course not. You have taken your apriori belief that the BofM is non-historical and extrapolated from that to declare false any substantive claims about history made by the BofM. Yet, a dispassionate analysis of the BofM calls for a more circumspect analysis -- one based on fact, rather than apriori fancy. You seem to be under the impression that negative assertions need no evidentiary support. I have spoken about this matter in many venues, and have previously cited my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 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 . I do not ask that, like Tertullian, you believe in a religion "because it is absurd," but rather because of good, hard evidence in its favor -- which could not exist if the BofM were not historical. Edited July 4, 2017 by Robert F. Smith 2
Johnnie Cake Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 1 minute ago, pogi said: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69204-most-incredible-missionary-story/ This thread was locked down...last week I believe
Johnnie Cake Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 5 minutes ago, pogi said: I think a more honest answer would be to say "I don't really know for sure." How do you know that? Maybe they are called by a different name today. Naw, not feeling in a "Play Nice Mood" so I'm just gonna shoot straight and tell it like it is...I'm pretty sure Cureloms is just a made up animal
Johnnie Cake Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: You still haven't answered my question: How do you know that cureloms never existed? What evidence did you call upon? You seem to think that assertion is the same as evidence. How do you exclude something you cannot even define? If you said that Lewis Carroll's jabberwock was a figment, I would agree. Why? Because that is the explicit context and intention of Carroll. If instead, we are reading a historical document of some sort, and it refers to an unknown animal by a strange name (which we may have trouble etymologizing), does that mean the animal is a figment? Of course not. You have taken your apriori belief that the BofM is non-historical and extrapolated from that to declare false any substantive claims about history made by the BofM. Yet, a dispassionate analysis of the BofM calls a for more circumspect analysis -- one based on fact, rather than apriori fancy. You seem to be under the impression that negative assertions need no evidentiary support. I have spoken about this matter in many venues, and have previously cited my “The Preposterous Book of Mormon: A Singular Advantage,” lecture, Aug 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 . I do not ask that, like Tertullian, you believe in a religion "because it is absurd," but rather because of good, hard evidence in its favor -- which could not exist if the BofM were not historical. See and I would place a Jabberwock and a Curelom in the same exact category... but to answer your question Robert, cureloms never existed because the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction and fictional animals do not exist in the real world... That said I am more than happy to be convinced otherwise...I just do not see any evidence that a Curelom ever existed...am I being too harsh and honest today...perhaps I am...I just get very tired of this game we seem to play here on MD&D and sometimes we just need a dose of reality to keep it real. Edited July 3, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
pogi Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said: This thread was locked down...last week I believe I guess you missed your chance to convince us that it was made up.
strappinglad Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) It's obvious that because JS did not give a proper Latinized genus species name for curelom , he made up the whole thing. I mean it's OBVIOUS ! Where was it I read that the name ' elephant ' comes from ' Ox of India ' ? Now that is just silly, right? Edited July 3, 2017 by strappinglad
Johnnie Cake Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 1 minute ago, pogi said: I guess you missed your chance to convince us that it was made up. well I don't want to hijack this thread so why not start a new thread...like I said I would really like to flesh out that subject
pogi Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: ...sometime we just need a dose of reality to keep it real. Here is the reality...you wouldn't recognize a curelom if it kicked you in the a**. Honestly, how would you know?
Johnnie Cake Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, pogi said: Here is the reality...you wouldn't recognize a curelom if it kicked you in the a**. Honestly, how would you know? Well now...at least that made me laugh out loud pogi
pogi Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 4 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: well I don't want to hijack this thread so why not start a new thread...like I said I would really like to flesh out that subject Naw, not feeling in a "Play Nice Mood Karma sucks some times! Unless you know the person who "made up" the story, it is a waste of time. 1
RevTestament Posted July 3, 2017 Author Posted July 3, 2017 54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Actually Shadday is an Amorite dual-form meaning "Twin-Breasts," and is an ancient place-name for the twin mounds of Tell Biʿa (Tell el-Thadyen “Site-of-the-Two-Breasts,” same as Sumerian toponym TUTTUL "Breasts," all referring to the same twin-mountain place in Syria; cf. Hebrew šad "breast"), same as the American use of French derived place-name "Grand-Tetons" in Wyoming. Thus, when Abraham’s God refers to himself as ʾEl-Šadday, “God of Shaddai” (Gen 17:1), the reference is to the God of this particular city or city-state locale in Syria. So G. E. Mendenhall, Ancient Israel’s Faith and History, 117-118; W. F. Albright, “The Names of Shaddai and Abram,” JBL, 54 (1935):192-193. That aligns very well with a scriptural analysis of the name as I noted on another thread. Jesus seemed to always teach out of the scriptures, so in John 8:58 He does not seem to be referring to the use of I am in Exodus, but rather to El Shaddai in Gen 17:1, and is the Power who weans us from the breast(Hebrew=shad; dai=enough). The Hebrew transliteration for breast is shad. For "enough" is dai. I realize that Hebrew grammarians won't read Shaddai that way, but some scribe could have easily contracted the sounds that way long ago. This meaning is consistent with what God says He is being for His people here: Genesis 49:25 25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the aAlmighty/El Shaddai, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the bwomb: It is also consistent with other parts of scripture in which the Lord speaks of weaning us from the breasts: Isaiah 28:9 9 Whom shall he teach aknowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that arebweaned from the cmilk, and drawn from the breasts. and Hebrews 5 which also speaks about the oracles and learning to get beyond the milk interpretation of scripture. Suffice it to say as our Mediator Christ is the one who weans us from the breast as we are able to live the meat.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 Belief fascinates me. How y'all can believe that Cureloms were an actual animal that once existed or still exists by some other name in some yet undiscovered location in the America's based solely on the claim of a book is fascinating to me. Belief is such an interesting human phenomenon. Belief is real it exist and yet it can exist on things that have no evidence to support the belief...and perhaps this is why it is so fascinating to me....how is it possible for humans to hold to a belief without there being something real to support those beliefs...
RevTestament Posted July 3, 2017 Author Posted July 3, 2017 18 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: well I don't want to hijack this thread so why not start a new thread...like I said I would really like to flesh out that subject "I believe it is made up" is not fleshing out the subject. You've stated about all you can state from that angle. If all you are going to do is repeatedly state your non-belief, I'll probably get aggravated enough with you to report you. If you have anything to substantiate your claim, like what I posted - an actual etymological basis for the word, now is your time to go for it.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, RevTestament said: "I believe it is made up" is not fleshing out the subject. You've stated about all you can state from that angle. If all you are going to do is repeatedly state your non-belief, I'll probably get aggravated enough with you to report you. If you have anything to substantiate your claim, like what I posted - an actual etymological basis for the word, now is your time to go for it. Ok I'll voluntarily withdraw from this thread...I have nothing to add other than my non-belief in this subject.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 26 minutes ago, RevTestament said: That aligns very well with a scriptural analysis of the name as I noted on another thread. Jesus seemed to always teach out of the scriptures, so in John 8:58 He does not seem to be referring to the use of I am in Exodus, but rather to El Shaddai in Gen 17:1, and is the Power who weans us from the breast(Hebrew=shad; dai=enough). The Hebrew transliteration for breast is shad. For "enough" is dai. I realize that Hebrew grammarians won't read Shaddai that way, but some scribe could have easily contracted the sounds that way long ago. This meaning is consistent with what God says He is being for His people here: Genesis 49:25 25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the aAlmighty/El Shaddai, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the bwomb: It is also consistent with other parts of scripture in which the Lord speaks of weaning us from the breasts: Isaiah 28:9 9 Whom shall he teach aknowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that arebweaned from the cmilk, and drawn from the breasts. and Hebrews 5 which also speaks about the oracles and learning to get beyond the milk interpretation of scripture. Suffice it to say as our Mediator Christ is the one who weans us from the breast as we are able to live the meat. Excellent wordplay (paronomasia), which is quite common in the Bible. However, there is no contraction for Shaddai, but rather just more wordplay. Dai is not a separate word in this case, but only a sound which reminds the reader of it. That is the way folk etymologies are born. Actual etymologies are another matter entirely.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 53 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: See and I would place a Jabberwock and a Curelom in the same exact category... but to answer your question Robert, cureloms never existed because the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction and fictional animals do not exist in the real world... That said I am more than happy to be convinced otherwise...I just do not see any evidence that a Curelom ever existed...am I being too harsh and honest today...perhaps I am...I just get very tired of this game we seem to play here on MD&D and sometimes we just need a dose of reality to keep it real. You still haven't answered my question, and you have largely ignored my comments vitiating what you have said. You speak without any evidence to back up what you say. You make the typical mistake of substituting assertion for evidence. Bald assertions get us nowhere in a real discussion, but they do speak volumes about intolerance and a predilection for apriori thinking. For you it is just a hit-and-run game. Having to deal with reality makes you tired and annoyed, does it? For others of us it is a matter of logic and forensic evidence. Why are you so afraid of that? You need to take more seriously the sage observations made in http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/69215-atheists-not-as-openminded-says-new-study/#comment-1209733799 . 1
Recommended Posts