The meaning of the name Mahonri Moriancumer

[Nemesis]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

 

So please set the record straight Mr. Language Expert. Do you believe what the prophets of God have written in the scriptures about the great flood and the confounding of the language at the tower of Babel or not?

I would bet the farm that you don't.

Expand  

Lds watchman: we don’t allow this.  Read the board guidelines.  I’d listen to those that are trying to get you to understand our community standards.

Nemesis

[Calm]

2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

It's becoming more and more common for active "faithful" members to not believe that the stories in the scriptures actually happened.

When you  put "faithful" in quotes....not a good approach for this board for someone claiming you aren't commenting on his faithfulness.

Quote

continuing his aggressive attacks, so I'm asking again. 

When you post claims on the board about the meaning of language, it is not an attack to critique them.

Edited December 15, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by mfbukowski

[LDS Watchman]

5 hours ago, Nemesis said:

Lds watchman: we don’t allow this.  Read the board guidelines.  I’d listen to those that are trying to get you to understand our community standards.

Nemesis

My bad. I should have been less aggressive in my question. I got irritated with how aggressively Dan attacked my research on Bible Hub and how rude he's been in general in his comments to me.

[LDS Watchman]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

When you  put "faithful" in quotes....not a good approach for this board for someone claiming you aren't commenting on his faithfulness.

I'm not questioning his "faithfulness." I put faithfulness in quotes not because I'm questioning his "faithfulness," but rather because you used the term "faithfulness" and it's a subjective term. Faithfulness to what? What "faithfulness" of his did you believe I was "attacking?"

Was I "attacking" his "faithfulness" to God, the church, his own principles? I wasn't attacking any of these things.

I'm questioning, not "attacking," his belief that the flood and confounding of the languages actually happened. I want to know where he stands on this, because it's relevant to this discussion. 

We're discussing ancient languages before and after the confounding of the languages at the tower of Babel, which occurred shortly after the flood. Dan claims to be a language expert who helps people better understand the scriptures. Whether or not he believes in the literal confounding of the languages at the tower of Babel is a valid question based on his claims and the nature of what we're discussing.

I should have been kinder in my approach to him, even though he was unkind to me, though. I'll try to be more charitable and Christlike next time.

 

 

[LDS Watchman]

14 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

Depends on the story

Sorry I was so aggressive in my question to you about whether or not you believe that the flood and confounding of the languages at the tower of Babel literally happened. 

I would like to know where you stand on the tower of Babel story though, since this is relevant to this discussion. 

Can you please clarify this?

The Jews claim that Hebrew is the language of creation.  The nature of the Hebrew language, combined with the pre-flood names in the scriptures having Hebrew meaning, suggests to me (and many other people including bible scholars) that the original pre-tower of Babel language was very similar to ancient Hebrew. Yet you claim that Hebrew developed from other ancient Semitic languages (plural), which makes me think you don't believe in the literal confounding of the languages at the tower of Babel. I shouldn't have assumed that you don't however. So can you please clarify your position on this?

Edited December 15, 2020 by LDS Watchman
Typo

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

and many other people including bible scholars) that the original pre-tower of Babel language was very similar to ancient Hebrew.

Could you please cite these Bible scholars?

[Dan McClellan]

14 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

It's entirely relevant.

Do you believe in the universal flood and the confounding of the language at the tower of Babel as described in the scriptures or not?

If not, then you have a major bias, which explains why you are so aggressive in your attacks on this interpretation. 

If you don't believe that these stories really happened, then you have no business "helping people better understand the scriptures."

Bible Hub literally shows that ri means moisture. You know it does. It also literally shows that "on" is the city of the sun. It doesn't matter if this is an Egyptian word or not. The bible was written in Hebrew, therefore "on" is a Hebrew word. 

On is also part of Zion. Now it may be a different on than the one that refers to the city of the sun, but it is nevertheless one of the roots of Zion. Which means that what Robert Smith wrote wasn't complete and utter nonsense.

Your insistance that this is all a bunch of nonsense exposes your bias. 

So please set the record straight Mr. Language Expert. Do you believe what the prophets of God have written in the scriptures about the great flood and the confounding of the language at the tower of Babel or not?

I would bet the farm that you don't.

No, it's not relevant, it's just a poor attempt on your part to use accusations of lack of belief as a rhetorical deflection away from your inability to challenge an expert opinion that you don't like. It's how you salvage some rhetorical points from an argument you know you have lost. Goodbye, "LDS Watchman."

Edited December 15, 2020 by Dan McClellan

[LDS Watchman]

1 minute ago, Dan McClellan said:

No, it's not relevant, it's just a poor attempt on your part to use accusations of lack of belief as a rhetorical deflection away from your inability to challenge an expert opinion that you don't like. It's how you salvage some rhetorical points from an argument you know you have lost.

I'm not accusing you of "lack of belief." The only thing I'm accusing you of is being aggressive and rude in your interactions with me. I'm trying to figure out why you are acting this way and I suspect that there is an underlying reason. 

It's quite common for active faithful members to question whether or not the stories in the scriptures actually happened. 

You claim to be a language expert who helps people better understand the scriptures. Whether or not you believe the story of the confounding of the languages at the tower of Babel is a relevant question. 

And I haven't lost any "argument." This is a discussion not a debate. 

I looked at the Hebrew Lexicon on Bible Hub. Robert J. Smith's interpretation has at least some plausibility and isn't the complete joke you make it out to be, especially considering we don't know precisely what language the Jaredites or the Nephites spoke and wrote in. What Robert J. Smith was doing was not an exact science. 

You know all of this is true. 

 

 

 

 

[LDS Watchman]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

Could you please cite these Bible scholars?

I have neither the time nor the inclination to do your homework for you. You'll have to research this on your own if you don't believe me. A quick google search will verify that there are biblical scholars who believe this, particularly Jewish scholars. 

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I have neither the time nor the inclination to do your homework for you. You'll have to research this on your own if you don't believe me. A quick google search will verify that there are biblical scholars who believe this, particularly Jewish scholars. 

You are mistaken about Dan, and you do not have a clue who you are dealing with here

Dan works for the church in translating scripture.  He IS a scholar of Hebrew and other ancient middle east languages with a Phd

You have no clue and no credibility

[LDS Watchman]

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You are mistaken about Dan

How so?

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Dan works for the church in translating scripture.  He IS a scholar of Hebrew and other ancient middle east languages with a Phd

So I've been told on this thread. 

What's your point?

21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You have no clue and no credibility

Whether or not I have any clue or credibility depends on who you ask.

Do the folks over at Bible Hub whose Hebrew Lexicon I cited from have "no clue and no credibility?"

Do the Jewish Torah scholars who say that Hebrew is the language of creation have "no clue and no credibility" either?

What about Joseph Smith who translated the Book of Mormon, translated the Book of Abraham, revised the Bible, and vouched for the authenticity of the stories in the scriptures, all as an unlearned farm boy? Did he have "no clue and no credibility" compared to the learned scholars who have PhD's in ancient languages or theology?

I'm not comparing myself nor Robert J Smith to Joseph Smith, but my point is that we have to be careful in judging who does and doesn't have a clue or credibility. It's not as simple as following whatever the person with the highest degree in a certain field says. 

Edited December 15, 2020 by LDS Watchman
Corrected typos and for clarification

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I'm trying to figure out why you are acting this way and I suspect that there is an underlying reason. 

Because you are wrong about Hebrew and refuse to accept that?

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I have neither the time nor the inclination to do your homework for you. You'll have to research this on your own if you don't believe me. A quick google search will verify that there are biblical scholars who believe this, particularly Jewish scholars. 

Not allowed on this board.  You make a claim you have to document it or retract it. 
 

This board has a lot of academics and academically inclined on it.  The conversation is meaningless if it pits one speculation against another. Substance adds interest. 
 

Quote

Do the folks over at Bible Hub whose Hebrew Lexicon I cited from have no clue and no credibility?

I know people who cite stuff thinking it supports their view when it does the opposite. Just because you cite someone’s material doesn’t mean they will agree with how you are using it. 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

How so?

So I've been told on this thread. 

What's your point?

Whether or not I have any clue or credibility depends on who you ask.

Do the folks over at Bible Hub whose Hebrew Lexicon I cited from have no clue and no credibility?

Do the Jewish Torah scholars who say that Hebrew is the language of creation have no clue and no credibility either?

What about Joseph Smith who translated the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, revised the Bible, and vouched for the authenticity of the stories in the scriptures, all as an unlearned farm boy. Did he have zero clue and zero credibility compared to the learned scholars who have PhD's in ancient languages or theology?

I'm not comparing myself nor Robert J Smith to Joseph Smith, but my point is that we have to be careful in judging who does and doesn't have a clue or credibility. It's not as simple as following whatever the person with the highest degree in a certain field says. 

Of course I never said that, clearly ignorance in one area can cause cognitive dissonance in another especially where religion is concerned.

This will be my last post to you

The church does not require a literal interpretation of the historical events found in the bible, questions on one's belief in either area are not found in a temple recommend   interview nor baptismal interviews.  To judge one's faithfulness based on their belief in biblical inerrancy is a grave error.

My point is that we have to be careful in judging who does and doesn't have a clue or credibility.  It is not as simple as following whatever the person on a website says, obviously everyone has their own opinion.

Surprisingly not everyone with a website can even present a coherent position.  Church leaders in the past have even said certain historical events mentioned in the bible ARE metaphors or to be taken only figuratively.   Belief that these alleged events must be taken literally is in fact a major reason people leave the church, since a scientific approach is the predominant view of our age.

Historical truth in the scriptures is irrelevant to the spiritual knowledge contained there, and many have a deep testimony of the gospel without believing in scriptural historicity.

As you have said, "we have to be careful in judging who does and doesn't have a clue or credibility" which is exactly my point, so thanks for confirming my point as well.

Have a good life.

 

[LDS Watchman]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Because you are wrong about Hebrew and refuse to accept that?

No, I'm not refusing to accept anything.

I looked it up on Bible Hub. Robert J Smith's interpretation is not completely ludicrous. 

His interpretation of Mahonri appears to have at least some plausibility. His interpretation of Moriancumer appears to be more problematic.

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

 You make a claim you have to document it or retract it. 

 

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know people who cite stuff thinking it supports their view when it does the opposite. Just because you cite someone’s material doesn’t mean they will agree with how you are using it. 

I'm sure the folks over at Bible Hub would not agree with their work being used to support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

This doesn't change the fact that they verified that "mah" means "who?, "on" means "city of the sun", "on" is a root of Zion, "ri" means "moisture", and that "er" has some connection to action or instrumentality.

 

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

This doesn't change the fact that they verified that "mah" means "who?, "on" means "city of the sun", "on" is a root of Zion, "ri" means "moisture", and that "er" has some connection to action or instrumentality.

You asked them this or are you just interpreting the info?  

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

You asked them this or are you just interpreting the info?  

Guess what- this rabbi is saying exactly what Rorty says- language creates reality- ie- the Word

And the Catholic Bishop Barron says the same thing that Rorty the atheist says.

And yes i am interpreting but it's pretty dang close. 

 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Guess what- this rabbi is saying exactly what Rorty says- language creates reality- ie- the Word

And the Catholic Bishop Barron says the same thing that Rorty the atheist says.

And yes i am interpreting but it's pretty dang close. 

 

I am not asking you though about the references you gave, but LDS watchman about his claims that BibleHib verified his interpretations. 
 

I know you are generally careful in making inferences. 

[LDS Watchman]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You asked them this or are you just interpreting the info?  

I looked up "mah," "on," and "ri" in their Hebrew Lexicon and the definitions they provided are the ones I shared. 

You can go to the links I provided and verify this if you want. 

[LDS Watchman]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The church does not require a literal interpretation of the historical events found in the bible, questions on one's belief in either area are not found in a temple recommend   interview nor baptismal interviews.  To judge one's faithfulness based on their belief in biblical inerrancy is a grave error.

I never suggested or even implied that one's faith requires that one believes in the inerrancy of the bible.

Calm suggested that my suspicion that Dan doesn't believe that the flood and confounding of the languages at the tower of Babel as documented in the scriptures (including the Book of Mormon) actually happened means I'm judging or attacking his faithfulness to the church. 

That's not what I'm doing. I'm just trying to figure out where he stands. I was a bit snippy about it because he rubbed me the wrong way, but I wasn't attacking his faithfulness to the church.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Church leaders in the past have even said certain historical events mentioned in the bible ARE metaphors or to be taken only figuratively.

Have they ever said that the flood story or the confounding of the languages at the tower of Babel are just metaphors to only be taken figuratively?

In my opinion taking these stories figuratively undermines the truthfulness claims of the Book of Mormon and other scriptures which describe these events as literal.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Belief that these alleged events must be taken literally is in fact a major reason people leave the church, since a scientific approach is the predominant view of our age.

What do the scriptures say about when the word of God and the "scientific approach" clash?

I also never said that these events "must be taken literally," but in my opinion not taking them literally undermines the truthfulness claims of the church.

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Historical truth in the scriptures is irrelevant to the spiritual knowledge contained there

I strongly disagree

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

many have a deep testimony of the gospel without believing in scriptural historicity.

I never said they didn't 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Have a good life.

You, too.

I have no quarrel with you. Believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

Edited December 15, 2020 by LDS Watchman
To add clarity

[ksfisher]

52 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Have they ever said that the flood story or the confounding of the languages at the tower of Babel are just metaphors to only be taken figuratively?

I think church leaders today wisely stay away from making such statements.  Whether or no the flood or the tower were literal or figurative is not the central message of the gospel.

 

52 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

In my opinion taking these stories figuratively undermines the truthfulness claims of the Book of Mormon and other scriptures which describe these events as literal.

I don't see that they do.  If Lehi or Nephi believed the flood, for example, was literal and it turns out it really wasn't, it doesn't have any effect on the testimony of Christ that they bear.  The verity of the Savior's atonement is the foundation upon which the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon rests.  Things like what a prophet said about Noah or Moses did or a tower are at best secondary (probably tertiary).

Edited December 15, 2020 by ksfisher

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think church leaders today wisely stay away from making such statements.  Whether or not the flood or the tower were literal or figurative is not the central message of the gospel.

I don't see that they do.  If Lehi or Nephi believed the flood, for example, was literal and it turns out it really wasn't, does not have any effect on the testimony of Christ that they bear.  The verity of the Savior's atonement is the foundation upon which the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon rests.  Things like what a prophet said about Noah or Moses did or a tower are at best secondary (probably tertiary).

While the flood or the Tower of Babel are not the central message of the gospel (I agree with you on that), we can't continually move the goal post of historicity until it's meaningless, as some LDS scholars and high-brows seek to do. At the very least, actual Jaredites need to have existed, right (even though their traditions about the Tower may be mythical, for the sake of argument), and have migrated to the New World across the ocean? In my view, even if one seeks to mythologize as much as possible, the Tower of Babel is still a Schwerpunkt for the Book of Mormon. Both the 24 Jaredite plates and Moroni trace the Jaredites back "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 the face of the earth." In fact, if we throw out the detailed negotiations in Ether that describe how Jared and his brother (the subject of this thread) dealt with the confounding and scattering by asking God not to confound their language --- if we toss that aside as silly nonsense --- then there isn't much in the Book of Mormon that couldn't be completely allegorized. 

There are many "rubber hits the road" things for the latter-day Saint restoration to not be just another Protestant branch. Moses needs to be an actual historical prophet, not just a mythological figure, because he appeared and laid hands on Joseph and Oliver in the Kirtland Temple. Ditto for Elijah and Elias, and Peter, James, and John, and Moroni. Trying to disabuse the hayseed rube Mormons among us of things like the Exodus (in favor of centuries-long incursions into Canaan by Semitic tribes who later adopted the mythology of Israelite tribal descent and the Exodus), damages more faith than not, in my experience. I am called on to work with people with CES letter concerns and things like that, and people who are struggling are very much literalist. And trying to help them with "higher criticism" makes it worse and accelerates their disaffection. It reinforces their fear that there is literally nothing behind our truth claims, just vague and subjective feelings of inspiration. 

I think that Mormons are tied to the literalness of the scripture stories, and I embrace that. It gives meaning, real meaning, to things, much more so than scriptures that are inspirational stories only. 

I think the majority of the Church is still very much literal in its interpretation and application of the scriptures, and I think that that's a good thing. I think we've taken a significant step in losing vitality and relevance when we try to divest as much literalness as possible. 

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

While the flood or the Tower of Babel are not the central message of the gospel (I agree with you on that), we can't continually move the goal post of historicity until it's meaningless, as some LDS scholars and high-brows seek to do. At the very least, actual Jaredites need to have existed,

Agreed.  And yes, there do need to be actual Jaredites.  But what the Nephites believed about the Jaredites does not necessarily have to be 100% correct. 

 

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Moses needs to be an actual historical prophet, not just a mythological figure, because he appeared and laid hands on Joseph and Oliver in the Kirtland Temple. Ditto for Elijah and Elias, and Peter, James, and John, and Moroni. Trying to disabuse the hayseed rube Mormons among us of things like the Exodus (in favor of centuries-long incursions into Canaan by Semitic tribes who later adopted the mythology of Israelite tribal descent and the Exodus), damages more faith than not, in my experience. I am called on to work with people with CES letter concerns and things like that, and people who are struggling are very much literalist. And trying to help them with "higher criticism" makes it worse and accelerates their disaffection. It reinforces their fear that there is literally nothing behind our truth claims, just vague and subjective feelings of inspiration. 

Agreed that Moses (and the others) does need to be an actual person.  How else, as you point out, could he appear to Jospeh Smith.  But what others believed about Moses or said Moses did does not necessarily have to be 100% correct.

 

We struggle, as a church, with the history of the restoration, and that happened less than 200 years ago.  Imagine if we were trying to write about events 500 or 1000 years past.

The past will always be fluid.  A present day understanding of what happend in the past will never be set in stone. 

Edited December 15, 2020 by ksfisher

[LDS Watchman]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

2 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Have they ever said that the flood story or the confounding of the languages at the tower of Babel are just metaphors to only be taken figuratively?

I think church leaders today wisely stay away from making such statements. 

Yeah, they certainly wouldn't want to offend anyone. 

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Whether or no the flood or the tower were literal or figurative is not the central message of the gospel.

I never said that it was the "central message of the gospel." However, our church and our scriptures say that these events literally happened. If we take that away, it changes the whole nature of our belief system. 

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

If Lehi or Nephi believed the flood, for example, was literal and it turns out it really wasn't, it doesn't have any effect on the testimony of Christ that they bear. 

I think it does. If we question what they said about the flood, what will we question next?

Was Christ even a real person? Did he perform the miracles they say he did? It's all connected in my opinion.

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The verity of the Savior's atonement is the foundation upon which the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon rests

Indeed, but if we question the accuracy of what the Book of Mormon prophets said about historical events, then the literal atonement of an actual historical Jesus who died on the cross is in question, too.