RevTestament Posted July 5, 2017 Author Posted July 5, 2017 9 hours ago, Honorentheos said: We also have the advantage of being pretty sure the biblical sources are ancient in origin. The BoM? 19th c. manuscript texts claiming to be ancient that are contradicted by, well, where to begin? Saying there are words in the Bible that we don't know their exact correspondence to some "thing" is categorically different from saying we can't find correspondence between an animal name in the BoM and known animal species. That's a bad argument. Actually not. You're just dragging your preconceptions of the BoM into it - which is not a valid linguistic or textual analysis. Showing that the Bible has words with lost meaning which get passed on in transliterated form is basically exactly what we have in the BoM. 10 hours ago, Honorentheos said: Part of what makes the whole thing feel so imaginary, besides all of the issues with the BoM itself, is the phrase "cureloms and commons". The alliteration of the two words has the feel of someone making something up. That's my contribution to the etymology question. Too many similar sounds in two words without obvious external analogs is evidence for ad libbing. You are simply implying that Joseph Smith just made up these names. Why would he do that when he has recognized English names like elephants, etc? If he wanted someone to believe this book why would he put elephants in at all, when obviously there were no elephants running around in his day? That just makes no sense for someone you believe was trying to fool people, to do. If that were the case Joseph Smith would have made it believable right? Yet, you believe he was an idiot. It is the usual critic game. When something is rare and unusual, they claim that somehow Joseph was brilliant enough to find it in some obscure map rather than believe it. But when it is simple, they do what you are doing here. 1
thesometimesaint Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 12 hours ago, Honorentheos said: A picture is worth a thousand words. So...curelom? Did the hippopotamus exist before the Greeks named it.
Physics Guy Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 8 hours ago, clarkgoble said: I confess this whole thread has me rather confused. Before one can say whether cureloms are imaginary don't you first have to establish what the reference is? Given that there is no description of what a curelom is, that is impossible to do. So all we have are battling conjectures that come out of ones preconceptions. People who already think the Book of Mormon is fiction think cureloms are too. Those who think the Book of Mormon is in some sense historical think cureloms are too. Yet nothing about cureloms moves that discussion at all. It seems at best an issue for Mormons trying to figure out what the text means but completely irrelevant for critics. Am I missing something? I don't think you're missing anything. Cureloms and cumoms are a very lightweight issue for the historicity of the Book of Mormon. If you believe in the Book of Mormon, then it's an interesting exercise to try to figure out what the heck these critters were, but it's still just an academically interesting bit of trivia. If you think the Book of Mormon was made up, then it's an interesting question why an otherwise fairly competent fraudster would deliberately insert a pair of gibberish terms at one point, but it's again just a bit of trivia, because it's only one verse in the whole Book that has this particular kind of glitch, and a one-off fluke like that could have been motivated by anything. The only thing is that the words do sound kind of funny, and no-one knows what they're supposed to mean, and so for skeptics the sight of Mormon scholars solemnly debating their etymology can seem kind of humorous, to the point where cureloms and cumoms are convenient symbols of the general critical view that Mormon apologists are earnestly defending a preposterous hoax. Cureloms and cumoms are critical poster children. It's unfair, because they really aren't important at all either way; but I hope that Mormons can see how the meme can be hard to resist from the skeptical side. Real or imaginary, cureloms and cumoms are funny. And at least they're not another harping on polygamy. That gets old for everyone. 15 hours ago, RevTestament said: i agree that the etymology is weak, hence, no one knows for sure what creature it could be referring to. However, there does seem to be some plausible etymology available. The same is true for the names of some of their crops. However, we do know something about ancient Sumerian, Akkadian and Hebrew, and in a lot of ways their words were invented the same way, so I think it reasonable that we can make some educated guesses. In a lot of ways that's all scholarship is - educated guesses. That is what we are doing with the Hebrew title El Shaddai or even the name of YHWH. However, we have the advantage of the use or context of those titles to help. Nonetheless, this doesn't mean they aren't real Hebrew words which had a meaning to the people at one time. I think it's just worth a bit of clarification about what one thinks one has achieved, since the audience is diverse. If I think you're trying to imply that your etymology is hard evidence for the reality of cureloms and the historicity of the Book of Mormon in general, then I'm going to be pretty critical of your logic. If I think you know very well that you're not proving anything about cureloms being real, but are just trying to solve a little puzzle within the logic of Mormon belief that assumes that they were real, then as far as I'm concerned, more power to you. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 On 7/3/2017 at 4:21 PM, 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've asked a direct question and so I will answer it with a direct answer: Because the book from which they do exist is a work of 19th century fiction, and animals in a work of fiction do not exist in reality. (Is that too harsh?) All the evidence for their non-existence lays in the lack of supporting evidence in the claims of the book from which they only exist. Because the only evidence of their existence is within the pages of a book that .0006 of the worlds population actually believes to be based in truth. What is it about the Book of Mormon that would cause 99.9994% of the world to reject the Book of Mormon's claims? (and to be fair...because I always try to be fair not all of that number have ever heard of or read the book...but that percentage of Believing Mormons never seems to grow as a percentage of world population continues to shrink and lose ground in their effort to convince the world that the book is set in reality...the world rejects that notion just as the world rejects the claims of other works of fiction who desire to be taken as reality) but if one were to extrapolate a percentage from those who actually read the book the overwhelming majority have still rejected its wild claims. For Cureloms to have existed the book would have to be what it claims and since there is no evidence of a Babylonian/ Tower of Babel migration circa 2,200 BCE in submarine dishes nor any other provable Book of Mormon claim...the entire notion of a tower of babel upon which the story is built is a complete fantasy. The story is built upon a universal flood, yet another fantasy. That a claim of Cureloms is also a fantasy is not a real stretch Robert. But believe what you want to...but for cureloms to have existed (the book that they do exist in must also be what it claims) and until that hurdle can be overcome, they remain in the realm of fiction. For those that view the book as scripture, they exist...but for those that view the book as fiction they remain as a curiosity into the mind of its author Joseph Smith.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 Robert if you are actually asking me to produce evidence that would support the non existence of an imaginary creature...well that is just silly...I can not produce evidence for something that never existed. Just saying...
Honorentheos Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 10 hours ago, RevTestament said: Actually not. You're just dragging your preconceptions of the BoM into it - which is not a valid linguistic or textual analysis. Showing that the Bible has words with lost meaning which get passed on in transliterated form is basically exactly what we have in the BoM. You are simply implying that Joseph Smith just made up these names. Why would he do that when he has recognized English names like elephants, etc? If he wanted someone to believe this book why would he put elephants in at all, when obviously there were no elephants running around in his day? That just makes no sense for someone you believe was trying to fool people, to do. If that were the case Joseph Smith would have made it believable right? Yet, you believe he was an idiot. It is the usual critic game. When something is rare and unusual, they claim that somehow Joseph was brilliant enough to find it in some obscure map rather than believe it. But when it is simple, they do what you are doing here. Hmmm...part of my preconceptions include the proposed story is based on a people trying to preserve their language leaving the confusion of the Tower of Babel...so it seems silly to look for language clues just based on the claims of the story itself. But hey, what do I know. I think the entire study of language precludes there having been a tower of babel to begin with so my preconceptions run pretty deep against Jaredites being historical. 1
RevTestament Posted July 5, 2017 Author Posted July 5, 2017 26 minutes ago, Honorentheos said: Hmmm...part of my preconceptions include the proposed story is based on a people trying to preserve their language leaving the confusion of the Tower of Babel...so it seems silly to look for language clues just based on the claims of the story itself. But hey, what do I know. I think the entire study of language precludes there having been a tower of babel to begin with so my preconceptions run pretty deep against Jaredites being historical. The tower of Babel story is simplistic, but is not without historical precedent. Actually, at the time the Sumerians were invaded by another people known to history as the Gutians. Then there was also the Amorites who took the opportunity to come in - it is possible Abraham was an Amorite. So that is now 3 languages foreign to the Sumerians - the Akkadian, the Gutian and the Amorite, and with the exception of one last gasp by Ur was the end of the Sumerian civilization. The Sumerians resented the Gutian rule, and tried to resist their language and culture. Hence, the desire not to have their language "confounded." All completely historical, and archaeological. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Robert if you are actually asking me to produce evidence that would support the non existence of an imaginary creature...well that is just silly...I can not produce evidence for something that never existed. Just saying... Finally a rational statement from you. What took you so long to begin a real discussion? You here agree that you cannot produce evidence for a creature which cannot be defined by you. I already went over this matter when I raised the comparison with the jabberwock, but you didn't get the message then, automatically claiming (with no evidence) that the jabberwock and curelom were in the same fictional category -- missing the point each time that the jabberwock is explicitly and intentionally ficitonal, while the BofM claims the cuerlom to be authentic. Your inability to discern that simple difference speaks volumes, and leads to your deeply prejudicial statements which automatically define both creatures as fictional, without any attempt to deal with the irrational nature of your claims. Like many faithful religious believers, Johnnie, you take such matters solely on faith. For you, the BofM just has to be fictional, even though you have no hard evidence to support that notion.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Honorentheos said: Hmmm...part of my preconceptions include the proposed story is based on a people trying to preserve their language leaving the confusion of the Tower of Babel...so it seems silly to look for language clues just based on the claims of the story itself. But hey, what do I know. I think the entire study of language precludes there having been a tower of babel to begin with so my preconceptions run pretty deep against Jaredites being historical. 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: The tower of Babel story is simplistic, but is not without historical precedent. Actually, at the time the Sumerians were invaded by another people known to history as the Gutians. Then there was also the Amorites who took the opportunity to come in - it is possible Abraham was an Amorite. So that is now 3 languages foreign to the Sumerians - the Akkadian, the Gutian and the Amorite, and with the exception of one last gasp by Ur was the end of the Sumerian civilization. The Sumerians resented the Gutian rule, and tried to resist their language and culture. Hence, the desire not to have their language "confounded." All completely historical, and archaeological. The "Tower of Babel" story is a biblical story. There is only a similar story of the Great Tower in the BofM, and that is a very important difference, because the word "Babel" is a late editorial glosse in the Bible. Highlighting that key difference, scholars speak of the Great Tower story in the BofM, and note that ancient Sumerian myth has the confounding of language episode long before it appears in the Bible. If it is etiological, it is far earlier than the Gutian invasion.
cinepro Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 On 7/2/2017 at 7:42 PM, RevTestament said: From a now closed thread: the etymological definitions for curelom and cumom are “mountain sheep” and “plow beast” Curelom A search for curelom in Sumerian presented a fairly straightforward definitional compound word etymology. It is assumed that the “s” on the end of both cureloms and cumoms is indicative of an English plural and was not part of the original transliterated name. The word kur or kurra, meaning “mountain(s)”, is attested to in Sumerian during the ED IIIa, ED IIIb, Old Akkadian, Lagash II, Ur III, Early Old Babylonian, and Old Babylonian periods (The Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary 2006). This would indicate the presence of this word from 2600 BC to 1600 BC. The word e3-li-um (a form of the word e), meaning “sheep” or "a description of ewes or lambs", is attested to in the ED IIIb period (The Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary 2006). This would indicate the presence of this word from prior to or during 2500 BC to 2230 BC. There is some disagreement among chronological dates for the various periods, so the longest possible chronology was considered for each element of the word. A similar word kura is also found in Sumerian, meaning “a designation of looms” (The Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary 2006), so would be indicative of an animal that provides the source material for weaving. Strictly speaking, based on the etymology of word curelom, meaning “mountain sheep”, the departure of the Jaredites would have been between or prior to 2500 BC and 2230 BC. From Jerry Grovers: SUMERIAN ROOTS of JAREDITE-DERIVED NAMES and TERMINOLOGY in the BOOK of MORMON - perhaps wooly mammoth. The American elephant was actually quite hairy as well, and was a woodland creature significantly different from the African elephant. OK you linguists - I'm counting at least Robert - what would a curelom be in Akkadian or other possible Mesopotamian language? Just so I know where you're coming from, what is the theorized language that the Jaredites would have spoken and written? Quote Ether 1 [33] Which Jared came forth with his brother and their families, with some others and their families, from the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, and swore in his wrath that they should be scattered upon all the face of the earth; and according to the word of the Lord the people were scattered. [34] And the brother of Jared being a large and mighty man, and a man highly favored of the Lord, Jared, his brother, said unto him: Cry unto the Lord, that he will not confound us that we may not understand our words. [35] And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did cry unto the Lord, and the Lord had compassion upon Jared; therefore he did not confound the language of Jared; and Jared and his brother were not confounded. [36] Then Jared said unto his brother: Cry again unto the Lord, and it may be that he will turn away his anger from them who are our friends, that he confound not their language. [37] And it came to pass that the brother of Jared did cry unto the Lord, and the Lord had compassion upon their friends and their families also, that they were not confounded.
RevTestament Posted July 5, 2017 Author Posted July 5, 2017 6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The "Tower of Babel" story is a biblical story. There is only a similar story of the Great Tower in the BofM, and that is a very important difference, because the word "Babel" is a late editorial glosse in the Bible. Highlighting that key difference, scholars speak of the Great Tower story in the BofM, and note that ancient Sumerian myth has the confounding of language episode long before it appears in the Bible. If it is etiological, it is far earlier than the Gutian invasion. If memory serves the Gutian invasion lasted for about 150 years, until Ur was able to rise up, and apparently kick them out. This puts it around 2200 BC. or 2150 BC. The Bible places the flood around 2500 BC and the language confounding after that, so the Gutian invasion fits the Biblical narrative and the BoM narrative very well indeed. Like you, I don't believe in a world-wide flood - it is either a parable like the Garden of Eden or a story meant to teach us something of the order of heaven. However, it could be based on a bad local flood event in the Mesopotamian valley - at least one of which archaeology seems to attest. I have not studied the Sumerian myth to which you refer in detail. Are you speaking of the Epoch of Gilgamesh? or something else? Anyway to try to mix that in would definitely depart from known scripture.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: You've asked a direct question and so I will answer it with a direct answer: You have merely repeated your usual indirect, irrational answer herewith. You have no evidence to support your claims, and you are unable even to cite a reliable article or book which provides that evidence. 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Because the book from which they do exist is a work of 19th century fiction, and animals in a work of fiction do not exist in reality. (Is that too harsh?) All the evidence for their non-existence lays in the lack of supporting evidence in the claims of the book from which they only exist. Because the only evidence of their existence is within the pages of a book that .0006 of the worlds population actually believes to be based in truth. What is it about the Book of Mormon that would cause 99.9994% of the world to reject the Book of Mormon's claims? (and to be fair...because I always try to be fair not all of that number have ever heard of or read the book...but that percentage of Believing Mormons never seems to grow as a percentage of world population continues to shrink and lose ground in their effort to convince the world that the book is set in reality...the world rejects that notion just as the world rejects the claims of other works of fiction who desire to be taken as reality) but if one were to extrapolate a percentage from those who actually read the book the overwhelming majority have still rejected its wild claims. I note your use here of notorious fallacies, such as vox populi vox dei (everybody says so), and circular argument (it is so because it is so), etc. Worse, you invent false statistics to make your fallacious claims. Moreover, it is typically those who claim to be "fair" or honest who are the least likely to do so. You might do yourself a favor by adopting a less irrational and emotional approach, say one based on hard, forensic evidence, and on logical reasoning. 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: For Cureloms to have existed the book would have to be what it claims and since there is no evidence of a Babylonian/ Tower of Babel migration circa 2,200 BCE in submarine dishes nor any other provable Book of Mormon claim...the entire notion of a tower of babel upon which the story is built is a complete fantasy. The story is built upon a universal flood, yet another fantasy. That a claim of Cureloms is also a fantasy is not a real stretch Robert. But believe what you want to...but for cureloms to have existed (the book that they do exist in must also be what it claims) and until that hurdle can be overcome, they remain in the realm of fiction. For those that view the book as scripture, they exist...but for those that view the book as fiction they remain as a curiosity into the mind of its author Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon makes no claim of a "Tower of Babel" migration in "submarine dishes" event ca 2500 BC, although those who don't know how to read carefully frequently make such false claims. In addition, notions of a "universal flood" in the Bible is very likely a misinterpretation by people unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Had you kept up on your reading in recent years, you would be familiar with the fact that Joseph Smith could not be the author or translator of the Book of Mormon -- since it was translated into Early Modern English centuries before Joseph Smith. Sorry, Johnnie, but yours is the fantasy world of the typical fundamentalist "Christian" who has never had a serious thought. 1
RevTestament Posted July 5, 2017 Author Posted July 5, 2017 (edited) 44 minutes ago, cinepro said: Just so I know where you're coming from, what is the theorized language that the Jaredites would have spoken and written? That depends upon interpretation. I interpret the BoM great tower story to be the same as the tower of "Babel" story in the Masoretic text. That means the Jaredites came out of the Mesopotamian valley. I believe they traveled northward through Akkadia and later what became Assyria. This leaves a few possibilities for the Jaredites - I believe they either spoke Sumerian, Akkadian, or Amorite. The text seems to presume they were already there when the language began to be confounded which seems to preclude they spoke the language of a foreign invader, which seems to rule out Gutian and Amorite. That leaves Sumerian or Akkadian. Although Sumerian has its own distinct roots, these two languages eventually began to mix and use roots from one another, adopt names, etc. Anyway, I believe they are the most likely candidates for what language the Jaredites actually spoke, and hence my OP. Oh, and for your other question, cuneiform seems to have been the adopted writing form of the day, and it quickly replaced the early Sumerian writing forms. So cuneiform would be the probable alphabet of the Jaredites. Edited July 5, 2017 by RevTestament
Robert F. Smith Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, RevTestament said: If memory serves the Gutian invasion lasted for about 150 years, until Ur was able to rise up, and apparently kick them out. This puts it around 2200 BC. or 2150 BC. The Bible places the flood around 2500 BC and the language confounding after that, so the Gutian invasion fits the Biblical narrative and the BoM narrative very well indeed. Like you, I don't believe in a world-wide flood - it is either a parable like the Garden of Eden or a story meant to teach us something of the order of heaven. However, it could be based on a bad local flood event in the Mesopotamian valley - at least one of which archaeology seems to attest. I have not studied the Sumerian myth to which you refer in detail. Are you speaking of the Epoch of Gilgamesh? or something else? Anyway to try to mix that in would definitely depart from known scripture. The likeliest date for the Jaredite migration is around 3100 BC, and the Bible does not put the Great Deluge at around 2500 BC. Naturally, those who do not read the Bible carefully do believe that fundamentalist dating is reliable -- not realizing that the versions of the Bible which exist now have differing chronologies, all of which must be recalibrated to align with the sexigesimal Mesopotamian system in the primeval period. I recommend that you begin by reading David Bokovoy's Authoring the OT. I was referring to the Sumerian “Golden Age” passage in which “the whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue (eme-aš-àm) gave praise,” to be followed shortly by the struggle between Enlil and Enki, lord of Eridu, who “changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it, into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.”[1] The primeval biblical stories were already very ancient when they were placed in the Bible. [1] S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, rev. ed. (Harper & Row, 1961/reprint Univ. of Penn. Press, 1972), xiv,107 n. 2. 2
RevTestament Posted July 5, 2017 Author Posted July 5, 2017 3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: The likeliest date for the Jaredite migration is around 3100 BC, and the Bible does not put the Great Deluge at around 2500 BC. Naturally, those who do not read the Bible carefully do believe that fundamentalist dating is reliable -- not realizing that the versions of the Bible which exist now have differing chronologies, all of which must be recalibrated to align with the sexigesimal Mesopotamian system in the primeval period. I recommend that you begin by reading David Bokovoy's Authoring the OT. I was referring to the Sumerian “Golden Age” passage in which “the whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue (eme-aš-àm) gave praise,” to be followed shortly by the struggle between Enlil and Enki, lord of Eridu, who “changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it, into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.”[1] The primeval biblical stories were already very ancient when they were placed in the Bible. [1] S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, rev. ed. (Harper & Row, 1961/reprint Univ. of Penn. Press, 1972), xiv,107 n. 2. Whether it was a sexigesimal dating method or not, the Sumerians still used a year for a year, and seem to have founded the lunar calendar with 12 months. I guess I'll have to read Bokovoy to understand how the date could be so drastically different. I actually believe the fundamental dating is right on par. Next are you going to tell me Ramses II was the pharaoh of the exodus? So in your estimation where does that put the Great Flood? 3500 BC? Then Adam would be like 5000 BC? How do you square that with our D&C and the 7000 year temporal history of the earth assuming you believe we are not well into the millennium yet? 1
Johnnie Cake Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Finally a rational statement from you. What took you so long to begin a real discussion? You here agree that you cannot produce evidence for a creature which cannot be defined by you. I already went over this matter when I raised the comparison with the jabberwock, but you didn't get the message then, automatically claiming (with no evidence) that the jabberwock and curelom were in the same fictional category -- missing the point each time that the jabberwock is explicitly and intentionally ficitonal, while the BofM claims the cuerlom to be authentic. Your inability to discern that simple difference speaks volumes, and leads to your deeply prejudicial statements which automatically define both creatures as fictional, without any attempt to deal with the irrational nature of your claims. Like many faithful religious believers, Johnnie, you take such matters solely on faith. For you, the BofM just has to be fictional, even though you have no hard evidence to support that notion. No I was just attempting to keep it real Robert. But now that you've shifted the discussion to fantasy, I find it interesting that God can give Joseph exact names for people such as Nephi, Mahonri Moriancumer, Alma and Enos. He can provide exact names to cities like Zarahemla...but when he doesn't know the name of an animal like a Taper he calls it a Horse or offers other specific names to mystery animals like oxen, sheep or swine when none existed. He can give a name to his magic ball and call it a Liahona...I'd just like some apologetic consistency in your logic. I know its fashionable to be inconsistent in LDS apologetics and roll out your logic as it suits your argument...but give me a break...can he translate or can't he? Can he name animals or can't he? The fact that he called a taper a horse and some other mystery animal a Curelom and a Cumom...you're asking us to believe that God is inconsistent in his translation process. Joseph can be specific in some things and vague in others? Really? That's your argument? It just seems rather convenient that when it suits LDS apologetics Joseph can be specific and should be believed...but when he's nebulous and wrong he should also be believed...when he has a hit...he is right and when he has a miss and is wrong...well actually the apologist come out of the wood work and give "context" to his misses and he's still right. Um ok If you can't stick to the topic instead of insulting Mormons you need to exit the thread.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 5, 2017 Posted July 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You have merely repeated your usual indirect, irrational answer herewith. You have no evidence to support your claims, and you are unable even to cite a reliable article or book which provides that evidence. I note your use here of notorious fallacies, such as vox populi vox dei (everybody says so), and circular argument (it is so because it is so), etc. Worse, you invent false statistics to make your fallacious claims. Moreover, it is typically those who claim to be "fair" or honest who are the least likely to do so. You might do yourself a favor by adopting a less irrational and emotional approach, say one based on hard, forensic evidence, and on logical reasoning. The Book of Mormon makes no claim of a "Tower of Babel" migration in "submarine dishes" event ca 2500 BC, although those who don't know how to read carefully frequently make such false claims. In addition, notions of a "universal flood" in the Bible is very likely a misinterpretation by people unable to tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Had you kept up on your reading in recent years, you would be familiar with the fact that Joseph Smith could not be the author or translator of the Book of Mormon -- since it was translated into Early Modern English centuries before Joseph Smith. Sorry, Johnnie, but yours is the fantasy world of the typical fundamentalist "Christian" who has never had a serious thought. Oh Brother and now you've introduced the Elizabethan Ghost Writers Theory...will the Apologetic contextualization for the Book of Mormon have no end?
Johnnie Cake Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: No I was just attempting to keep it real Robert. But now that you've shifted the discussion to fantasy, I find it interesting that God can give Joseph exact names for people such as Nephi, Mahonri Moriancumer, Alma and Enos. He can provide exact names to cities like Zarahemla...but when he doesn't know the name of an animal like a Taper he calls it a Horse or offers other specific names to mystery animals like oxen, sheep or swine when none existed. He can give a name to his magic ball and call it a Liahona...I'd just like some apologetic consistency in your logic. I know its fashionable to be inconsistent in LDS apologetics and roll out your logic as it suits your argument...but give me a break...can he translate or can't he? Can he name animals or can't he? The fact that he called a taper a horse and some other mystery animal a Curelom and a Cumom...you're asking us to believe that God is inconsistent in his translation process. Joseph can be specific in some things and vague in others? Really? That's your argument? It just seems rather convenient that when it suits LDS apologetics Joseph can be specific and should be believed...but when he's nebulous and wrong he should also be believed...when he has a hit...he is right and when he has a miss and is wrong...well actually the apologist come out of the wood work and give "context" to his misses and he's still right. Um ok If you can't stick to the topic instead of insulting Mormons you need to exit the thread. Dear Admin. I mean no insult to Mormons. I'm merely pointing out 2 apologetic arguments often used to support BoM truth claims that conflict with each other. In one when a reader encounters a horse in the BoM they suggest that when Joseph wrote horse it was because he was unfamiliar with Tapers so he wrote horse. And now Robert is using just the opposite argument suggesting Joseph knew the animal and named it cureloms. I'm merely asking LDS apologist to be consistent in their apologetic arguments...no disrespect intended...but I am passionate at times
USU78 Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: The likeliest date for the Jaredite migration is around 3100 BC, and the Bible does not put the Great Deluge at around 2500 BC. Naturally, those who do not read the Bible carefully do believe that fundamentalist dating is reliable -- not realizing that the versions of the Bible which exist now have differing chronologies, all of which must be recalibrated to align with the sexigesimal Mesopotamian system in the primeval period. I recommend that you begin by reading David Bokovoy's Authoring the OT. I was referring to the Sumerian “Golden Age” passage in which “the whole universe, the people in unison, to Enlil in one tongue (eme-aš-àm) gave praise,” to be followed shortly by the struggle between Enlil and Enki, lord of Eridu, who “changed the speech in their mouths, put contention into it, into the speech of man that (until then) had been one.”[1] The primeval biblical stories were already very ancient when they were placed in the Bible. [1] S. N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology, rev. ed. (Harper & Row, 1961/reprint Univ. of Penn. Press, 1972), xiv,107 n. 2. This, to me, is at least as impressive as Nahom as evidence in archaeology for the BoM. Why have I never sen this before? Please tell me it's because I'm unread and ignorant, and not that it has been passed over. 1
Johnnie Cake Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 (edited) Also this: Quote When several examples of something are being listed in Speculative Fiction, a couple of them will be from our time (or timeline if it's Alternate History), and the final one will be one from the future (or post-divergence Alternate History). Joseph follows this exact pattern Quote Read these two verses: 18 And also all manner of cattle, of oxen, and cows, and of sheep, and of swine, and of goats, and also many other kinds of animals which were useful for the food of man. 19 And they also had horses, and asses, and there were elephants and cureloms and cumoms; And 9 And we began to till the ground, yea, even with all manner of seeds, with seeds of corn, and of wheat, and of barley, and with neas, and with sheum," Notice the same pattern of using known words to set up the reader and then the zinger made up word to make the passage sound exotic, foreign and ancient. Joseph was quite good with this writing technique http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FamousFamousFictional Edited July 6, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
RevTestament Posted July 6, 2017 Author Posted July 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: Dear Admin. I mean no insult to Mormons. I'm merely pointing out 2 apologetic arguments often used to support BoM truth claims that conflict with each other. In one when a reader encounters a horse in the BoM they suggest that when Joseph wrote horse it was because he was unfamiliar with Tapers so he wrote horse. And now Robert is using just the opposite argument suggesting Joseph knew the animal and named it cureloms. I'm merely asking LDS apologist to be consistent in their apologetic arguments...no disrespect intended...but I am passionate at times I don't know that Robert has ever called a tapir a horse. Maybe he believes that. I'll let him speak for himself, but I know I have not. Nor has anyone else on this thread. So you are just setting up a straw man as far as I am concerned. I have every belief that the BoM horse was an real live horse. Even if one believes the mesoamerican model, which I don't perhaps the best evidence for horse in BoM times comes from Mexican caves which have real honest to goodness horse bones in strata dating close to BoM times - possibly the Mexican horse. So your strawman argument 1. is out of place since no one claimed it. 2. has actual counter physical evidence to debunk it. There is also other evidence for horse in BoM times which I will not discuss now, but has to do with other physical archaeological evidence. So while I realize you are passionate in your anti-BoM and LDS tirades, you miss every time you open your mouth, because you do not know the actual state of the evidence but just swing from the hip in typical anti-LDS fashion. 1
strappinglad Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=akOMKpmX&id=418C362D0C0A30913BBFDDD4FB596BC16BDECADE&thid=OIP.akOMKpmXtlNcl0Fl6G34RAEsCv&q=Megatherium&simid=608052982834531853&selectedIndex=13&ajaxhist=0 Found it ! I didn't know they had cameras way back in Jaredite times.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 4 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: ................................... Joseph follows this exact pattern Notice the same pattern of using known words to set up the reader and then the zinger made up word to make the passage sound exotic, foreign and ancient. Joseph was quite good with this writing technique http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FamousFamousFictional A nice theory, and certainly possible. Now support your pattern analysis with hard evidence. Unless and until that is done, you are just blowing smoke.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Oh Brother and now you've introduced the Elizabethan Ghost Writers Theory...will the Apologetic contextualization for the Book of Mormon have no end? Actually, Johnnie, you need to stop and think: In what way would your "Elizabethan Ghost Writers Theory" favor the Book of Mormon? Doesn't it throw a monkey wrench into the gears of the usual pro- and anti-Mormon approaches? How does it solve any problems for either side?
Robert F. Smith Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: No I was just attempting to keep it real Robert. But now that you've shifted the discussion to fantasy, I find it interesting that God can give Joseph exact names for people such as Nephi, Mahonri Moriancumer, Alma and Enos. He can provide exact names to cities like Zarahemla...but when he doesn't know the name of an animal like a Taper he calls it a Horse or offers other specific names to mystery animals like oxen, sheep or swine when none existed. He can give a name to his magic ball and call it a Liahona...I'd just like some apologetic consistency in your logic. I know its fashionable to be inconsistent in LDS apologetics and roll out your logic as it suits your argument...but give me a break...can he translate or can't he? Can he name animals or can't he? The fact that he called a taper a horse and some other mystery animal a Curelom and a Cumom...you're asking us to believe that God is inconsistent in his translation process. Joseph can be specific in some things and vague in others? Really? That's your argument? It just seems rather convenient that when it suits LDS apologetics Joseph can be specific and should be believed...but when he's nebulous and wrong he should also be believed...when he has a hit...he is right and when he has a miss and is wrong...well actually the apologist come out of the wood work and give "context" to his misses and he's still right. Um ok If you can't stick to the topic instead of insulting Mormons you need to exit the thread. You again miss the point entirely, Johnnie. We can take it completely out of a BofM context and ask simply, What does a translator do when he doesn't know what animal or object is being discussed in the original text? Most translators do the best they can, but the KJV translators (and their predecessors) certainly had occasions when they did not know how to translate this or that animal into an English term, and just did the best they could. Some modern scholars have improved on that, and I purchased a couple of books from the American Bible Society years ago which contained the latest scientific research on specific flora and fauna in the Bible. There have been some real improvements on that in modern Bible translations. Yet you feel free to ridicule that scholarly enterprize. Indeed, your false assumptions go further than that: You declare that BofM horses are tapirs, but there is no evidence to support that notion, except that the Aztecs or Maya called the horses of the Spanish conquerors "tapirs." Just because the post-BofM peoples used such terminology, does not mean that the Book of Mormon should contain tapirs as horses. It is possible, but not necessary. It is very likely that equine horses actuallly existed in the BofM period, and it is also true that American bison, mountain sheep, peccaries, and other animals already existed in the Americas, and could easily be the actual references being given (if it is not merely a formula, in keeping with you pattern theory). The transliteration of names is a tapir of a different color: All a translator needs to do is get the sounds approximately right. Most of your criticisms here would be the sort of nonsense which you would bring to bear against the authenticity of Homeric and Icelandic Epics, for the same reasons. You desperately need to adopt the methods of analysis which can be used to analyze any ancient literature, so that it makes sense in context. You claim to want to be fair, and that is all that one can ask of you. Why don't you give it a shot? Drop your prejudices and apriori notions, and ask the hard questions. Why are you so afraid to do that? 2
Recommended Posts