Robert F. Smith Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 10 hours ago, RevTestament said: 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. I said "fundamentalist" Christian dating, arguing that lack of familiarity with the actual biblical text has led many into falsehood -- for example, that there is a basic and fundamental biblical dating, which there is not. The various Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic versions all disagree -- something the KJV doesn't explain to the unwary. You even take for granted that a Sumerian year is a year, thus missing the point that placing sexigesimal numbers in decimal notation results in a very different year count. That is the problem you face. 10 hours ago, RevTestament said: Next are you going to tell me Ramses II was the pharaoh of the exodus? My specific and systematic views on the Exodus are contained in my “Moses Our Teacher (Moshe Rabbenu),” 2010, version 3, online at https://www.scribd.com/doc/51104640/Moses-Our-Teacher-Moshe-Rabbenu . 10 hours ago, RevTestament said: 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? Genesis is not a professional history text, and a good deal of it need not be taken chronologically. It is filled with liturgy, poetry, and epic, including chiasms which fold back in on themselves, along with duplicate accounts of similar events. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the primeval history was old thousands of years before the Hebrew language existed. And the earliest complete Hebrew text of the Bible we have today is thousands of years after the time of King David. We need to be in awe of the time-depth we face. 3
Johnnie Cake Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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. Well other than the 2 examples I've offered...the other times in the BoM that Joseph uses made up words is with metals, measurements and money...so he is consistent in his use of this writing trope...its the pattern Robert...a writing device...intended to trick the reader into thinking that the origin of the book is ancient. The writer begins with known words common in the era in which the reader would be familiar and then adds the made up words to make the words appear to the reader that they are reading something ancient. The method is intended to supply the familiar items to provide speculative meaning to the unfamiliar one. So we get Oxen, Horse, Cow, Sheep (all common and then Joseph adds his made up words to trick the reader into thinking they are reading an ancient translation per his claim of Curelom and Cumoms He does the same with grains (none of which existed I might add in the Americas in BoM times) and with Metals and with measurements and with the Nephite money system...he starts with known words to set up the reader and then insert the made up word to make the sentence appear ancient and exotic Quote And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed, a fifth part of their gold and of their silver, and a fifth part of their ziff, and of their copper, and of their brass and their iron; and a fifth part of their fatlings; and also a fifth part of all their grain. Its a "tell" left behind by Joseph. He is somewhere (I don't actually believe in an after life) laughing at all of us that we are even having this discussion.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: 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? The entire premise of your augment presupposes that Joseph actually translated something using his "Special Rock" <------This is lunacy...look what we are talking about...Hello McFly This is not how books are written. Humans write books. Thoughts are created within a human mind, formed in to words and in Smiths case, verbally transmitted to his scribe where they were put to paper. This is how books are created. Again Joseph used a prop to make those within his sphere believe he possessed special super powers to translate gold plates that did not exists except within the minds of those who believed in his super powers. Smith was a religious magician Joseph was a genius, and a master at crafting language. Have you read any of his letters to Emma while in the Liberty jail? I'm sure you have...since Brigham Young was so enamored by those letters that he turned them in scripture and put them in the PoGP . Had he lived...I have little doubt that much of the claimed sealed portion of the Book of Mormon would now be in print...oh how I wish we had that....the jewels we would find.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 (edited) Plus one more thought....Apologist want to have it both ways...a Tight Translation when that suits their argument and a Loose Translation when a tight won't work. So Robert Which was it? Cureloms suggest a tight translation...but I'm guessing that you want to have it both ways also...can't wait to hear you tell me how yes it was both a tight and a loose translation. Edited July 6, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
strappinglad Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 16 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Plus one more thought....Apologist want to have it both ways...a Tight Translation when that suits their argument and a Loose Translation when a tight won't work. So Robert Which was it? Cureloms suggest a tight translation...but I'm guessing that you want to have it both ways also...can't wait to hear you tell me how yes it was both a tight and a loose translation. You have the same problem with Joseph. According to critics , Joseph was a genius, except when he wasn't and a dufus except when he wasn't. Goose meet gander. 3
Johnnie Cake Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 (edited) 36 minutes ago, strappinglad said: You have the same problem with Joseph. According to critics , Joseph was a genius, except when he wasn't and a dufus except when he wasn't. Goose meet gander. Well I've never claimed Joseph was anything but a religious genius...so what's your retort? The evidence supports this conclusion. Edited July 6, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
Robert F. Smith Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: The entire premise of your augment presupposes that Joseph actually translated something using his "Special Rock" <------This is lunacy...look what we are talking about...Hello McFly This is not how books are written. Humans write books. Thoughts are created within a human mind, formed in to words and in Smiths case, verbally transmitted to his scribe where they were put to paper. This is how books are created. Again Joseph used a prop to make those within his sphere believe he possessed special super powers to translate gold plates that did not exists except within the minds of those who believed in his super powers. Smith was a religious magician Joseph was a genius, and a master at crafting language. Have you read any of his letters to Emma while in the Liberty jail? I'm sure you have...since Brigham Young was so enamored by those letters that he turned them in scripture and put them in the PoGP . Had he lived...I have little doubt that much of the claimed sealed portion of the Book of Mormon would now be in print...oh how I wish we had that....the jewels we would find. So when Jeremiah spoke the word of the Lord extemporaneously, and his scribe Baruch wrote it down for him, that was automatically (in your view) fake and "lunacy"? And when he stood before King Zedekiah as the king cut each part of Jeremiah's scroll and put it into the fire -- only to have the Lord speak the same words as before and have them written a second time -- that is Jeremiah the "religious magician" with "special super powers" in action? Same as Joseph's inspired letters from Liberty Jail? What is it about the Bible which we find so extraordinary? How could the prophets have been such literary geniuses? "Is that all there is, my friend?" Well then bring out the booze and keep on dancing your silly dance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRZZC-DH7M . 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: The entire premise of your augment presupposes that Joseph actually translated something using his "Special Rock" <------This is lunacy...look what we are talking about...Hello McFly This is not how books are written. Humans write books. Thoughts are created within a human mind, formed in to words and in Smiths case, verbally transmitted to his scribe where they were put to paper. This is how books are created. Again Joseph used a prop to make those within his sphere believe he possessed special super powers to translate gold plates that did not exists except within the minds of those who believed in his super powers. Smith was a religious magician Joseph was a genius, and a master at crafting language. Have you read any of his letters to Emma while in the Liberty jail? I'm sure you have...since Brigham Young was so enamored by those letters that he turned them in scripture and put them in the PoGP . Had he lived...I have little doubt that much of the claimed sealed portion of the Book of Mormon would now be in print...oh how I wish we had that....the jewels we would find. I see that you buy into the false theory of infallible Scripture, straight from God. If you really want to understand the translation question, you will first want to consult the work of Stanford Carmack on the fact that the Book of Mormon is in Early Modern English -- not in a form of English known to Joseph Smith. Then you will want to ask whether any translator can insert accurate meanings of words into a text which he does not understand. You apparently want to have it both ways: You want an infallible text (none exist) by a fallible human (all humans are fallible). Your key fallacy here is the call to perfection. You need to get a book on logic and read it carefully -- especially the chapter on fallacies. You will also want to consult the book by Brant Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (SLC: Kofford Books, 2011). Edited July 6, 2017 by Robert F. Smith 2
Robert F. Smith Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: Well other than the 2 examples I've offered...the other times in the BoM that Joseph uses made up words is with metals, measurements and money...so he is consistent in his use of this writing trope...its the pattern Robert...a writing device...intended to trick the reader into thinking that the origin of the book is ancient. The writer begins with known words common in the era in which the reader would be familiar and then adds the made up words to make the words appear to the reader that they are reading something ancient. I fully discuss the ancient weights & measures system in Alma 11 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 . For you it is just another magician saying "Shazzam." Meanwhile you ignore real scholarship. Pray tell, how do you make up words in an ancient system unknown in 1830? 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: The method is intended to supply the familiar items to provide speculative meaning to the unfamiliar one. So we get Oxen, Horse, Cow, Sheep (all common and then Joseph adds his made up words to trick the reader into thinking they are reading an ancient translation per his claim of Curelom and Cumoms He does the same with grains (none of which existed I might add in the Americas in BoM times) and with Metals and with measurements and with the Nephite money system...he starts with known words to set up the reader and then insert the made up word to make the sentence appear ancient and exotic Its a "tell" left behind by Joseph. He is somewhere (I don't actually believe in an after life) laughing at all of us that we are even having this discussion. A "tell" to someone unfamiliar with the ancient world, yes -- as long as he has a vivid imagination. It helps if you know nothing of the archeology of the New World, and are fully ignorant of the presence of many types of high quality grains, including barley, corn (maize), quinoa, amaranth, etc. That way any false statement seems correct to him -- he has made his ignorance the measure all reality. Instead of scholarship, your apriori beliefs control everything you say. Indeed, the BofM comes up with the most common word for "grain" used in ancient Mesopotamia, sheum (Mosiah 9:9). How is that even possible, since the BofM is all hokum -- according to you. 2
Johnnie Cake Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: So when Jeremiah spoke the word of the Lord extemporaneously, and his scribe Baruch wrote it down for him, that was automatically (in your view) fake and "lunacy"? And when he stood before King Zedekiah as the king cut each part of Jeremiah's scroll and put it into the fire -- only to have the Lord speak the same words as before and have them written a second time -- that is Jeremiah the "religious magician" with "special super powers" in action? Same as Joseph's inspired letters from Liberty Jail? What is it about the Bible which we find so extraordinary? How could the prophets have been such literary geniuses? "Is that all there is, my friend?" Well then bring out the booze and keep on dancing your silly dance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCRZZC-DH7M . I see that you buy into the false theory of infallible Scripture, straight from God. If you really want to understand the translation question, you will first want to consult the work of Stanford Carmack on the fact that the Book of Mormon is in Early Modern English -- not in a form of English known to Joseph Smith. Then you will want to ask whether any translator can insert accurate meanings of words into a text which he does not understand. You apparently want to have it both ways: You want an infallible text (none exist) by a fallible human (all humans are fallible). Your key fallacy here is the call to perfection. You need to get a book on logic and read it carefully -- especially the chapter on fallacies. You will also want to consult the book by Brant Gardner, The Gift and Power: Translating the Book of Mormon (SLC: Kofford Books, 2011). I like you Robert, I like that you engage and actually press your arguments. I am however sensing a more sarcastic tone to your posts then in some of our past engagements. That's fine...perhaps you've lost your patience with me. I do enjoy getting a sense of what makes you believe and tick....and I respect it. Its seems to be grounded in a real honest intellectually based faith...and I can respect it even though I disagree with your conclusions. As far as the Bible is concerned, I also consider it just another man made book that imposes a magical god with special mystery powers and promotes its version of a magical world view...circa BCE. Religion in my mind takes advantage of the human propensity and awareness of feelings and then uses these feelings to manipulate its adherents to interpret those feelings in the manner that promotes a particular brand of religion. Again I believe that Joseph was a master at this manipulation. While I'm familiar with Carmack's Elizabethan ghost translator theory...but I've never read read any of his work....could you suggest a link where I might read more on this...I do find it interesting. With respect to the use of Sheum...is this what you were referring to? Quote [T]he Akkadian word for barley is techinically she. The -um ending is a nominative case marker. In the accusative case the noun would be sheam and in the genitive sheim. (The final m in all three cases, called "mimation," was dropped from the language by the time of Lehi. This is what Sorenson [the LDS scholar Smith is responding to] means when he says "Later, it would have been pronounced and spelled differently.") Although I am no expert in Akkadian, I have read that when an Akkadian noun is the object of a preposition (assheum is in Mosiah 9:9) it takes the genitive case (see here). What we find in the Book of Mormon is the nominative case. Of course, when a word is borrowed from another language, its case endings will often conform to the borrowing language rather than following the rules of the parent language. It is certainly possible that "Reformed Egyptian" rarified the nominative ending and treated it as part of the noun stem. But at the very least, this issue of case endings complicates matters; we are not dealing with a simple one-to-one correspondence as Sorenson's text might suggest. (source) It doesn't seem that the use of Sheum in the BoM is quite the bulls eye Sorenson believed it was... Edited July 6, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
thesometimesaint Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 Joseph Smith found the word in the ever increasing Lending Reading Library of Palmyra of the 1820's. 1
RevTestament Posted July 6, 2017 Author Posted July 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: Well I've never claimed Joseph was anything but a religious genius...so what's your retort? The evidence supports this conclusion. That he was a genius so idiotic as to not realize there were no elephants running around America in 1830, so included them in his book anyway. 1
strappinglad Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: Well I've never claimed Joseph was anything but a religious genius...so what's your retort? The evidence supports this conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retort#/media/File:Alambique_056.jpg Sorry, it's not brass but, whatever !
Robert F. Smith Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: I like you Robert, I like that you engage and actually press your arguments. I am however sensing a more sarcastic tone to your posts then in some of our past engagements. That's fine...perhaps you've lost your patience with me. I do enjoy getting a sense of what makes you believe and tick....and I respect it. Its seems to be grounded in a real honest intellectually based faith...and I can respect it even though I disagree with your conclusions. As far as the Bible is concerned, I also consider it just another man made book that imposes a magical god with special mystery powers and promotes its version of a magical world view...circa BCE. Religion in my mind takes advantage of the human propensity and awareness of feelings and then uses these feelings to manipulate its adherents to interpret those feelings in the manner that promotes a particular brand of religion. Again I believe that Joseph was a master at this manipulation. Moses the manipulator. Hey, Johnnie, at least you're consistent. 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: While I'm familiar with Carmack's Elizabethan ghost translator theory...but I've never read read any of his work....could you suggest a link where I might read more on this...I do find it interesting. Take a gander at Carmack (champatsch) on this board at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68793-kjv-in-the-book-of-mormon/?page=2#comment-1209715457 He also has many articles in Interpreter on this matter. Here's one: Carmack, Stanford, “The More Part of the Book of Mormon Is Early Modern English,” Interpreter, 18 (2016): 33-40, online at http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-more-part-of-the-book-of-mormon-is-early-modern-english/ . 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: .................................................. It doesn't seem that the use of Sheum in the BoM is quite the bulls eye Sorenson believed it was... Since I am the guy who first discovered she'um in the cuneiform sign-list belonging to the wife of the LDS Branch President in Jerusalem in late 1969 (she was studying Akkadian at the Hebrew Univ), let me explain the matter briefly: It is likely that the term was transmitted frozen in early ideogram form to the New World first by the Jaredites,[1] and from them to the Mulekites (Zarahemla), and from them to the Nephites. If these cuneiform signs look like spikelets of grain that is because cuneiform started as picture-writing. [1] Both sheum and Zeram (as Akkadian šeʼum and zērum), and the like, may have been expressed in ideograms frozen since the time of the Jaredites, i.e., the mimation in each case may have been unpronounced and simply a matter of “habitual spellings” by the scribes, as was the case among Canaanite and Egyptian scribes using Akkadian cuneiform (Z. Cochavi-Rainey, Akkadian Dialect of Egyptian Scribes, 37, 74; A. Rainey, Canaanite in the Amarna Tablets, 33). In any case, the Sumerian cuneiform sign ŠE was read as syllabic še from Old Akkadian through Late Babylonian times (Cochavi-Rainey, 21); the Akkadian -um ending is the nominative case ending, likely frozen in that ideographic form; cf. “Faith and Reason 42: Sheum,” FairMormon Blog, April 18, 2015, online at http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/04/18/faith-and-reason-42-sheum/ . Edited July 6, 2017 by Robert F. Smith 1
cinepro Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: I said "fundamentalist" Christian dating, arguing that lack of familiarity with the actual biblical text has led many into falsehood -- for example, that there is a basic and fundamental biblical dating, which there is not. As RevTestament has pointed out, you quickly run into D&C 77 and the revealed age of the temporal Earth: Quote 6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence. This is revelation, given to Joseph Smith in English. The part after that "A" (i.e. the answer) is presumably coming from a supernatural, omniscient being. So before we get to the technical matter of what, exactly, a Curelom might be, we have to lay the groundwork by pointing out that the scriptures teach the temporal age of the Earth is 7,000 years, minus 1,000 years for the millennium. And they teach that the Tower of Babel was a literal, worldwide event in which all the languages of the world were mixed. Because it honestly sounds insane to have someone argue that D&C 77 is wrong, and that the teachings in the Bible and the Book of Mormon about the Tower of Babel are wrong, but the Book of Mormon is true because there appears to be a connection between some of the words and ancient Sumerian.
Robert F. Smith Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 34 minutes ago, cinepro said: As RevTestament has pointed out, you quickly run into D&C 77 and the revealed age of the temporal Earth: This is revelation, given to Joseph Smith in English. The part after that "A" (i.e. the answer) is presumably coming from a supernatural, omniscient being. There are no supernatural, omniscient beings in the Bible. Those are philosophical concepts adopted by apostate christianity long after the Bible -- using words not in the Bible. Quote So before we get to the technical matter of what, exactly, a Curelom might be, we have to lay the groundwork by pointing out that the scriptures teach the temporal age of the Earth is 7,000 years, minus 1,000 years for the millennium. And they teach that the Tower of Babel was a literal, worldwide event in which all the languages of the world were mixed. The time depth mentioned in D&C 77 deals only with an important endowment ceremony which took place in a garden-temple long after the Earth and creatures thereon had been in place for millions of years. Most of what we read in Scriptural texts about that event, and what we perform liturgically are merely symbolic and figurative. We need to accept scholarly conclusions about the garden story: Quote Because it honestly sounds insane to have someone argue that D&C 77 is wrong, and that the teachings in the Bible and the Book of Mormon about the Tower of Babel are wrong, but the Book of Mormon is true because there appears to be a connection between some of the words and ancient Sumerian. Surface impressions do tend to leave us with false negative conclusions, but such a simplistic notion as you suggest here about "a connection between some of the words [in B ofM] and ancient Sumerian" as being definitive is just plain silly. No scholar takes that approach. The matter is a whole lot more complex than that, as I have pointed out repeatedly on this board. Anyone demanding instant, literal answers to questions is bound to be disappointed.
Johnnie Cake Posted July 6, 2017 Posted July 6, 2017 4 hours ago, RevTestament said: That he was a genius so idiotic as to not realize there were no elephants running around America in 1830, so included them in his book anyway. I never claimed he was smart either...just a genius
Honorentheos Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 On 7/5/2017 at 0:27 PM, 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. I know we've had this discussion before, and we went over the amusing but apparently unfortunate note in the BoM's chapter heading that specifically states, "The language of the Jaredites is not confounded at the Tower of Babel". And the text itself uses this phrase - "and whatsoever things transpired among the children of men until that time is had among the Jews" which clearly shows the authors belief the OT is the history of humanity and the so-called great tower is the one the Bible calls the Tower of Babel. So while an apologetic may be the story of the Tower of Babel is based on Jewish mythology around an event that is actually much more compatible with modern historical understandings of history, the author of Ether and the 19th century protestants who had a fundamentalist view regarding Genesis were remarkably on the same wave-length when it comes to human history. Why is that?
Okrahomer Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 40 minutes ago, Honorentheos said: I know we've had this discussion before, and we went over the amusing but apparently unfortunate note in the BoM's chapter heading that specifically states, "The language of the Jaredites is not confounded at the Tower of Babel". And the text itself uses this phrase - "and whatsoever things transpired among the children of men until that time is had among the Jews" which clearly shows the authors belief the OT is the history of humanity and the so-called great tower is the one the Bible calls the Tower of Babel. So while an apologetic may be the story of the Tower of Babel is based on Jewish mythology around an event that is actually much more compatible with modern historical understandings of history, the author of Ether and the 19th century protestants who had a fundamentalist view regarding Genesis were remarkably on the same wave-length when it comes to human history. Why is that? Of course the chapter headings are not part of the scripture; but you knew that already. But regardless, you are ignoring Robert's larger point: If Joseph was just copying from the Bible or merely reflecting the 19th century protestant view of history, why did he not just call it "The Tower of Babel"? For that matter, why did Joseph risk all the ridicule from 19th century protestants in referring to the birthplace of the Savior as "the land of Jerusalem" rather than "Bethlehem"? 1
Honorentheos Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) Well, to take a guess I'd say to sound like a native American. Kinda like, how Omni includes all of the following (pay attention to the language used): 16 And they journeyed in the wilderness, and were brought by the hand of the Lord across the great waters, into the land where Mosiah discovered them; and they had dwelt there from that time forth. 17 And at the time that Mosiah discovered them, they had become exceedingly numerous. Nevertheless, they had had many wars and serious contentions, and had fallen by the sword from time to time; and their language had become corrupted; and they had brought no records with them; and they denied the being of their Creator; and Mosiah, nor the people of Mosiah, could understand them. 18 But it came to pass that Mosiah caused that they should be taught in his language. And it came to pass that after they were taught in the language of Mosiah, Zarahemla gave a genealogy of his fathers, according to his memory; and they are written, but not in these plates. 19 And it came to pass that the people of Zarahemla, and of Mosiah, did unite together; and Mosiah was appointed to be their king. 20 And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God. 21 And they gave an account of one Coriantumr, and the slain of his people. And Coriantumr was discovered by the people of Zarahemla; and he dwelt with them for the space of nine moons. 22 It also spake a few words concerning his fathers. And his first parents came out from the tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people; and the severity of the Lord fell upon them according to his judgments, which are just; and their bones lay scattered in the land northward. Whoever wrote this was clearly placing the Jaredites in the same setting as the Biblical Tower of Babel. But they liked to use phrases like, "nine moons" instead of months and "great waters" rather than oceans. So, yeah context. Edited July 7, 2017 by Honorentheos
The Nehor Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 11 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Well other than the 2 examples I've offered...the other times in the BoM that Joseph uses made up words is with metals, measurements and money...so he is consistent in his use of this writing trope...its the pattern Robert...a writing device...intended to trick the reader into thinking that the origin of the book is ancient. The writer begins with known words common in the era in which the reader would be familiar and then adds the made up words to make the words appear to the reader that they are reading something ancient. The method is intended to supply the familiar items to provide speculative meaning to the unfamiliar one. So we get Oxen, Horse, Cow, Sheep (all common and then Joseph adds his made up words to trick the reader into thinking they are reading an ancient translation per his claim of Curelom and Cumoms He does the same with grains (none of which existed I might add in the Americas in BoM times) and with Metals and with measurements and with the Nephite money system...he starts with known words to set up the reader and then insert the made up word to make the sentence appear ancient and exotic Its a "tell" left behind by Joseph. He is somewhere (I don't actually believe in an after life) laughing at all of us that we are even having this discussion. Of course it is also what would happen if it were authentic. There are some biblical phrases that we have only guesswork as to their meaning. Same with other old texts. Does this "tell" universally discredit them?
Okrahomer Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 OK. I'm trying to understand you here. You're saying Joseph was simultaneously making it Biblical and Indian--or just "Indian"?
Honorentheos Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 13 minutes ago, Okrahomer said: OK. I'm trying to understand you here. You're saying Joseph was simultaneously making it Biblical and Indian--or just "Indian"? How would you describe the early ancestors of the native americans?
Okrahomer Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Honorentheos said: How would you describe the early ancestors of the native americans? It seems a large part of their early ancestors were probably Eurasian. So, I surmise then that your theory of the Book of Mormon is that Joseph concocted a language that would simultaneously "sound" Biblical and Native American. Got it. i think you're trying very hard to eat your pooh-pooh cake and have it too. Edited July 7, 2017 by Okrahomer
Honorentheos Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Okrahomer said: It seems a large part of their early ancestors were probably Eurasian. So, I surmise then that your theory of the Book of Mormon is that Joseph concocted a language that would simultaneously "sound" Biblical and Native American. Got it. i think you're trying very hard to eat your pooh-pooh cake and have it too. Here are your options - Joseph Smith attempted to make the BoM sound like it is scriptural like the Bible and written by people who used phrases that sounds like pidgined English The BoM was written by people who used phrases that sound like pidgined English and God gave this to Joseph Smith to put on paper through whatever process you favor (Joseph = translator, Joseph = transcriber, Joseph = vehicle for 15th c. English translators, etc., etc., etc.) Anyway, the Book of Mormon is clearly referring to the Tower of Babel in it's own text in Omni. The heading in Ether 1 calls it the Tower of Babel as well. The headings aren't scripture? What's the point of having living prophets again? Edited July 7, 2017 by Honorentheos
Robert F. Smith Posted July 7, 2017 Posted July 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Honorentheos said: I know we've had this discussion before, and we went over the amusing but apparently unfortunate note in the BoM's chapter heading that specifically states, "The language of the Jaredites is not confounded at the Tower of Babel". And the text itself uses this phrase - "and whatsoever things transpired among the children of men until that time is had among the Jews" which clearly shows the authors belief the OT is the history of humanity and the so-called great tower is the one the Bible calls the Tower of Babel. So while an apologetic may be the story of the Tower of Babel is based on Jewish mythology around an event that is actually much more compatible with modern historical understandings of history, the author of Ether and the 19th century protestants who had a fundamentalist view regarding Genesis were remarkably on the same wave-length when it comes to human history. Why is that? Seems only natural to me that people with an early 19th century biblical culture might share very similar views, and that such views would continue in that culture on into the 20th century -- all the while various headings have come and gone, the editors (who are not biblical scholars) doing the best they can to summarize the contents. Nothing remarkable here, so move along -- unless you have a substantive observation.
Recommended Posts