The meaning of the name Mahonri Moriancumer

[LDS Watchman]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I challenge you to show that he knows Hebrew, or that any other examples of his exegesis bear scholarly scrutiny.

I have zero interest in engaging in this exercise. Would be a complete waste of my time.

If you want to know whether or not you are justified in mocking and belittling this man, you'll have to read through some of his translations and commentaries. They're available to read at this website: 

lastdaysunsealed.wordpress.com 

The best works by which to judge him would be his new translations and commentaries of the 12 prophets, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, which he made from Hebrew. 

Edited December 21, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/17/2020 at 12:31 PM, rongo said:

....................................

Do you think the Great Tower and Confusion of Tongues story, as related by the Jaredites (or as related by Moroni) really happened, Robert? 

Yes, after a fashion.  We are not told what all that entailed.  Same for the Flood traditions, many of which are much earlier than the biblical account.  Human accounts of primeval events are not meant to be scientific reports, and no scientists were present to evaluate them.  Instead, what we have are versions of much earlier accounts which have been translated and redacted over long stretches to time.  We are talking thousands of years.

You can see how I deal with the Mesopotamian Flood stories by looking at pages 28-30 of my chapter on Sumero-Akkadian chiasmus online at https://books.google.com/books?id=cyj4DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ViewAPI&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I have zero interest in engaging in this exercise. Would be a complete waste of my time.

If you want to know whether or not you are justified in mocking and belittling this man, you'll have to read through some of his translations and commentaries. They're available to read at this website: 

lastdaysunsealed.wordpress.com 

The best works by which to judge him would be his new translations and commentaries of the 12 prophets, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, which he made from Hebrew. 

The material on him which you have already provided tells me that he hasn't a clue.  I have made that clear, and so has Dan McClellan.  You have no basis on which to judge his performance, so your defense of him has no value.  I suggest that you find a fairminded third-party to evaluate him, since you obviously don't accept any critique from here.  Maybe you could find a local rabbi who would take the time to evaluate his claims.  Anyone can pretend to claim to do a translation-commentary simply by cribbing from already existing translations and being creative.  However, in his case, he hasn't even done that very well.

[LDS Watchman]

24 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Anyone can pretend to claim to do a translation-commentary simply by cribbing from already existing translations and being creative.  However, in his case, he hasn't even done that very well.

Have you looked at any of his translation-commentaries? You couldn't have looked at them in the past few minutes, yet you claim "he hasn't even done that very well."

You must think pretty highly of yourself since you think you can determine that someone's translations and commentaries are "not done very well" without actually reading them. 

But you're right about one thing, I really don't care what you are Dan think at this point. You've both exposed your true colors in my book.

Dan appears to not even believe that the story of the Jaredites happened as recorded in the Book of Mormon, so why the heck would I care what he says about the subject?

And you continue to attack and belittle a man whose work you haven't actually read, so I can't take you seriously either.

Edited December 21, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/20/2020 at 10:06 PM, LDS Watchman said:

Have you looked at any of his translation-commentaries? You couldn't have looked at them in the past few minutes, yet you claim "he hasn't even done that very well."

You must think pretty highly of yourself since you think you can determine that someone's translations and commentaries are "not done very well" without actually reading them. 

But you're right about one thing, I really don't care what you are Dan think at this point. You've both exposed your true colors in my book.

Dan appears to not even believe that the story of the Jaredites happened as recorded in the Book of Mormon, so why the heck would I care what he says about the subject?

And you continue to attack and belittle a man whose work you haven't actually read, so I can't take you seriously either.

The material on him which you have already provided tells me that he hasn't a clue.  I have made that clear, and so has Dan McClellan.  You have no basis on which to judge his performance, so your defense of him has no value.  I suggest that you find a fairminded third-party to evaluate him, since you obviously don't accept any critique from here.  Maybe you could find a local rabbi who would take the time to evaluate his claims.  Anyone can pretend to claim to do a translation-commentary simply by cribbing from already existing translations and being creative.  However, in his case, he hasn't even done that very well -- referring of course to the material which you have cited from him already.

You appear to be deeply fearful of subjecting his ignorant claims to third-party review.  If you have such unalloyed faith in his work (even though you know nothing of scholarship), why would you be so afraid to subject it to scholarly review?

[LDS Watchman]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The material on him which you have already provided tells me that he hasn't a clue. 

I have already stated several times now that his suggested meaning of the name Mahonri Moriancumer is not the best example of his work to judge him by. What he was doing in this instance was suggesting a meaning for a name which we don't even know is spelled correctly and wouldn't have actually been in ancient Hebrew. I believe that this is the one and only time he made such an attempt. It is not reflective of the scope of his work. 

For the last time, the name Mahonri Moriancumer would either be in some variant of ancient Hebrew from hundreds of years before the first ancient Hebrew writtings were recorded, a version of Hebrew that was altered by the Nephites over their 1000 year history, or more than likely both. It would not have been in the ancient Hebrew you and Dan have degrees in.

You and Dan must not know as much about languages as you claim if you don't know that languages change over the course of hundreds of years. 

But go ahead and keep mocking a man whose work you haven't read. 

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You appear to be deeply fearful of subjecting his ignorant claims to third-party review. 

I'm not fearful of having a third party review his work. I literally invited anyone whose interested, including you and Dan to read what he has written. Go ahead and read it and get back to me.

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  If you have such unalloyed faith in his work (even though you know nothing of scholarship), why would you be so afraid to subject it to scholarly review?

I don't have "unalloyed faith in his work." I have found value in his work, but I don't hold him up as someone whose work is above scrutiny. 

You don't know what I do or do not know about scholarship. Apparently you have a real knack for making assumptions. 

Edited December 22, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/22/2020 at 7:53 AM, LDS Watchman said:

I have already stated several times now that his suggested meaning of the name Mahonri Moriancumer is not the best example of his work to judge him by. What he was doing in this instance was suggesting a meaning for a name which we don't even know is spelled correctly and wouldn't have actually been in ancient Hebrew. I believe that this is the one and only time he made such an attempt. It is not reflective of the scope of his work. 

For the last time, the name Mahonri Moriancumer would either be in some variant of ancient Hebrew from hundreds of years before the first ancient Hebrew writtings were recorded, a version of Hebrew that was altered by the Nephites over their 1000 year history, or more than likely both. It would not have been in the ancient Hebrew you and Dan have degrees in.

Classical, biblical Hebrew begins at about the time of King David, and King David himself would have called it "Canaanite."  In fact, the OT never uses the term Hebrew language.  That is a term we now use to describe the Canaanite language used to write the OT.  Moses and Abraham did not speak, read, or write Hebrew.  It did not exist in their time.  So Mahonri Moriancumer should be looked for in East or West Semitic languages, or Sumerian of the 3rd millennium B.C.

On 12/22/2020 at 7:53 AM, LDS Watchman said:

You and Dan must not know as much about languages as you claim if you don't know that languages change over the course of hundreds of years. 

But go ahead and keep mocking a man whose work you haven't read. 

I'm not fearful of having a third party review his work. I literally invited anyone whose interested, including you and Dan to read what he has written. Go ahead and read it and get back to me.

I don't have "unalloyed faith in his work." I have found value in his work, but I don't hold him up as someone whose work is above scrutiny. 

You don't know what I do or do not know about scholarship. Apparently you have a real knack for making assumptions. 

Well, if I'm so wrong, it shouldn't take much time for a local rabbi to review his claims.  Give it a shot and report back to us.

[LDS Watchman]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So Mahonri Moriancumer should be looked for in East or West Semitic languages, or Sumerian of the 3rd millennium B.C.

I disagree. In my opinion, these languages are languages that resulted from the confounding of the single language at the tower of Babel.

I still believe that Hebrew is the closest language to the language of Adam. 

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, if I'm so wrong, it shouldn't take much time for a local rabbi to review his claims.  Give it a shot and report back to us.

I never said you were "so wrong." My point was that you are writing his work off as nonsense without having actually looked at it.

I'm really not that interested in having a local rabbi verify his claims. His interpretations are from an LDS perspective, not a Jewish one. But I suppose a rabbi could at least verify whether or not he is correct on those occasions in which he does explain what words mean in Hebrew. 

If I ever feel inclined to have a rabbi look at his work, I'll report back to you.

In the meantime, here's his translation and commentary of Hosea 1, for you to take a look at.

 

1. The word of God that came to Hosea the son of Beeri in the days of Uziah, Jotham, Ahaz, [and] Hezekiah, the kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam son of Joash, king of Israel.

      The Midrash says there are three ways of expressing prophecy. When the prophet wants to emphasize the giver of the words, it is stated this way. If the emphasis is on the receiver of the prophecy, the prophet, it usually starts with the phrase “the vision of ….” If the object is emphasized something like “the burden of…” is used (Nahum 1:1).

   Hosea mentions that he was the son of Beeri, which is Beerah, a prince of the tribe of Reuben, showing that he was not an Ephraimite, as is sometimes supposed. Beerah was exiled to Assyria in the Assyrian captivity (1 Chronicles 5:6). The use of the father’s name serves several purposes. In the case of a famous father, the son gains honor and recognition as well and shows he is worthy of the heritage. The literal meaning of the father’s name may indicate a specific area of acclaim. For example, Beeri literally means a well of Torah knowledge. The use of the father’s name also helps us avoid confusion with a contemporary also named Hosea. 

   Hosea’s statement that he prophesied during the reigns of Uziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah means he lived a very long time. Uziah reigned for 52 years, Jotham 16, Ahaz 16 and in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign, the northern kingdom was taken into Assyrian captivity. If his ministry covered this period, it lasted 90 years (2 Kings 15:2, 33; 16:2 and 18:10).

   Jeroboam is the only king of Israel mentioned, however. That is due to the fact that the kings of this period were very wicked including Jeroboam. Jeroboam’s one redeeming factor is that he refused to accept Amaziah’s charge of treason against Amos the prophet. Another reason is that Israel had conquered Judah and so for most of Jeroboam’s reign, he was also the suzerain king of Judah. It should be noted that this is Jeroboam II and not the original king of Israel. 

 

2. Start word—God with Hosea: God said to Hosea: Go take a wife for yourself a wife of harlotry and children of harlotry, for the land strays from after God.

   The learned rabbis argued over this verse for years, and it may still continue. Some believed that it was purely metaphorical and others thought it was literal, although the end purpose is the same. 

    The first and most intriguing thing in this verse is the opening line, “Start word.” This is my translation using the exact Hebrew words and order. It sounds a little strange because we do not write or talk this way and in all English translations the supposedly missing words are filled in. It usually goes something like, “the beginning of the word of the Lord to Hosea.” (KJV), or “These are the first words God spoke to Hosea.” This is done by interpolating other words that are not in the original Hebrew text. 

   Hebrew scholars do not read it this way. The words “start word” are both nouns. It does not mean “first word.” If that were the case, “first” would follow “word” in the Hebrew text since adjectives follow the noun in Hebrew. These two nouns form a compound noun called a smeechoot in Hebrew. This is like compound nouns in English such as clothesline, water boy, etc. In English, compound nouns may be combined into a single word or they can be separate words or hyphenated. But in both English and Hebrew, the result is a new noun and new meaning. 

   “Start word,” therefore, does not mean “the first word” nor is it plural. Unfortunately smeechoots are not found in Strong’s or any other concordance except as separate words, which do not capture the compound meaning. 

   Many of the best Jewish rabbinic sages for many centuries have interpreted this compound noun to mean “dialogue” or “conversation.” The second part of the line tells us who is involved in the dialogue: the Lord and Hosea. The use of the word “with” instead of “to” would also seem to indicate that there is a dialogue. The words tichilah diber (start word) means a dialogue that occurs initially between God and Hosea. 

   But the next line is “and the Lord spoke to Hosea…” There is no dialogue here nor does any take place in the rest of the book. Where, then, is the dialogue or conversation? If there was a dialogue, as this seems to indicate, it took place before the Lord begins speaking his monologue, which makes up the book of Hosea. 

   If we were students in a rabbinic yeshiva studying this book, we might be given the assignment to write the initial dialogue. Many students and rabbis have done just that. The dialogue goes something like this: The Lord tells Hosea that he is angry that Israel has become wicked and has fallen away into apostasy. He wants Hosea to go call them to repentance and tell them what is about to happen to them. Hosea is a little hesitant to do so because he knows what happens to prophets in that kingdom. Under the rule of Ahab, Jezebel had many of them put to death in an attempt to kill them all. Obadiah, who was steward to the king, saved one hundred of them. As an alternative, Hosea suggests to the Lord that since he is the God of the whole world, why doesn’t he just choose another people to be his messenger to the world? The Lord asks Hosea if he had an unfaithful wife and children by her, would he still love his wife and children or would he abandon them? The Lord then decides to teach Hosea a lesson both for his unwillingness to go and call this wicked people to repent and to show him how he feels about his own wayward people. Then, “God said to Hosea: Go take for yourself…” and the written portion of the book continues. 

   The next question is whether or not Hosea is really being commanded to marry a prostitute and have children by her and if he did so. Many would say that the Lord would never ask anyone to do such a thing. From our point of view, this is a very strange thing. If one today were to marry a woman of this character, who had not repented, it would prevent the couple from having the marriage performed according to the Lord’s ordinance. This would be contrary to his commandments.                                                   

   One must remember, however, that the Lord sometimes does some different things. In the case of Jonah, for example, a similar situation happened. Jonah did not want to go to Ninevah because he feared that he might be killed if he did. He attempted to run and the Lord brought him back in a very unusual way. If the story is an actual event, then Jonah was trapped in the stomach of a whale for three days. This is an incredible event. Imagine how horrible it would have been for him, that is, if he were conscious. It seems that the Lord was teaching him the same two lessons that he wants Hosea to learn. First, he is God and all powerful. He can cause mighty works and wonders by the sheer power of his words. Second, he wanted to show his reasoning to Jonah and to Hosea. 

  Hosea is here commanded to go find a prostitute and marry her. He is further commanded to have children by this woman. In this situation, any children born to her would be of doubtful fatherhood.

   Nearly all the Talmudic sages interpreted these verses literally. Prophets are called out of the general populace for a special purpose. Many times the Lord has required his servants to do things that are really harmful or demeaning. Such actions are thought to be misiroot nefesh or extreme sacrifice in the divine service. 

   The response of the Lord to Hosea is implied. Since Hosea does not want to go call the Israelites to repentance, the Lord tells him to marry a harlot and have children with her. In that circumstance Hosea would be able to appreciate the situation. 

   Some sages, however, believe this verse to be completely metaphorical. The harlot wife and children represent the wayward and idolatrous Israel. The command to “Go take…” really means go teach. The Hebrew verb kach spelled the same way, also means teach. In the original Bible text, there were no vowel markers. These were added later and in all Hebrew versions, the word is “take.”

   The truth here is that the harlot and her children are certainly a metaphor for apostate Israel whether or not Hosea actually married the harlot Gomer. Since the two words, take and teach, have the same spelling and the same numerical value, according to gemetria, they are equivalent. So the verse has the dual metaphorical and literal meanings. Hosea is told both to take the harlot for a wife and to teach or preach to the people of Israel. 

   This is also implied by the second half of the sentence, “for the land strays from after the Lord.” So the meaning is quite easy. The Lord is telling Hosea to go take a harlot and children of harlotry, which means go teach the people the correct way because they have lapsed into idolatry.

 

3. And he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblain and she conceived and bore him a son. 

   Some may not be familiar with the history of the divided kingdoms because we do not generally spend time studying these things, but a short review is helpful in understanding what is being prophesied in these verses. 

   In about 966 BC, Jeroboam ben Nabot of Ephraim, rebelled against the rule of Rehoboam, the son of Solomon. He was joined by all the remaining tribes except Benjamin and these ten tribes formed the northern kingdom of Israel. About 180 years later, Hosea appears and begins to preach. 

   Jehu became king of Israel about 882. He was promised that four generations of his posterity would sit on the throne of Israel. Joahaz and Joash succeeded him. Jeroboam II was the third generation from Jehu and was the king when Amos was preaching. He became king about 813 BC. Uziah became king of Judah three years later. In about 772, Zechariah, son of Jeroboam became king for six months and Shallum succeeded him but for only a few days. This ended the dynasty of Jehu.

   In about 738, the first stage of the exile of the kingdom of Israel began with the tribe of Naphtali taken by King Tiglath-Pilesser of Assyria.

   In about 730, Shalmanesser began exiling the ten tribes to the east side of the Jordan River. During the next ten years, the exile to the north was completed and by about 720, they were all gone. 

   As the story of Hosea continues, he takes Gomer the daughter of Diblain for a wife. The name Gomer means finish. It is unlikely that this was a real woman because the name is not flattering. It refers to her station in life. Expanded, the title would be, hakol gomerim bah, “they all finish with or in her,” i.e., they finish the sex act and satisfy their desire on her.

   The name of her father adds to this symbology as well. Bat diblain means daughter of a pressed fig. The full meaning here is that she is pressed down by men like a pressed fig. She is available to any man. 

   The double meaning of the symbology is, of course, applied to Israel. The woman is Israel and the name means she will be finished and left like a pressed fig. 

   Gomer bore a son lo (to him). This wording indicates that the son is clearly identified as his own. The implication is that Gomer, for the time being, is faithful to him. This child represents the rule of Jehu and his descendants who ruled after him. Although idolatry was still practiced, Jehu at least tried to get rid of some of it. He succeeded in eliminating the idolatry of Baal, but the other forms were allowed to continue. The son, by his name, is symbolic of the calamity, which is about to occur.

 

4. And the Lord said to him: Call his name Jezreel for I will shortly visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu and I will terminate the monarchy of the house of Israel.

   The Lord commands Hosea to name his first son Jezreel. The name has no connotation of evil or displeasure. The first son represents the kingdom at the time of Jehu’s dynasty, which still had a chance to redeem itself. But the name does signify impending doom. The word is a combination of zaruah and el which means sown by God.

   King Jehu battled Jehoram the son of Ahab in the valley of Jezreel and completely annihilated the posterity of Ahab and eliminated all his priests. In so doing, Jehu was carrying out a righteous act in behalf of the true worship of the Lord. The Lord rewarded Jehu by promising him that four generations of his posterity would sit on the throne of Israel. Unfortunately, Jehu allowed the calf worship at Bethel and Dan to go on (2 Chronicles 9-10). 

   When the Lord says that he will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, it sounds as though the Lord is about to bring vengeance on Jehu’s house because of what they did to Ahab in Jezreel. This is not correct. What he is saying is that Ahab’s family suffered because of their idolatry and now the house of Jehu is following the same idolatry, although not Jehu’s family. Israel has now gone back to the condition at the time of the first Jezreel, and will suffer a similar fate. The phrase “sown by God” implies the scattering. To sow crops, for example, required the seeds to be scattered all over the field. This is precisely what is about to happen to the tribes of the kingdom of Israel. The Lord says he will terminate the monarchy of the house of Israel. The kingdom will cease to exist.

5. And it will be on that day that I will break the bow of Israel in the Valley of Jezreel.

   The bow of Israel is the military might or strength of Israel. This was not entirely accomplished by Assyrian military force. When the Lord said he would terminate the monarchy, the word used is mamlicoot rather than malcoot the normal or usual word for kingdom. Mamlicoot means dynasty and obviously refers to the end of the dynasty of Jehu. After Menachem ascended the throne, all but one of the succeeding kings until the final exile about 50 years later, were not lineal heirs but men who took the throne by force. 

   At the same time as the dynasty of Jehu ended, the power also waned and Israel made an alliance with Assyria. Israel then came under the increasing influence of Assyria until they found themselves vassals of Assyria. By the time they tried to end the alliance, they were too weak to defend their cities. 

   

6. And she conceived and bore a daughter and he said to him: Call her name Lo-ruchama, for I will no longer have mercy [upon] the house of Israel that I should forebear them.

   The woman conceives again and this time has a daughter. This has several symbolic meanings. In the literal sense, Gomer has reverted to her promiscuity and the child may not really be Hosea’s. Under these conditions the daughter is not beloved as a legitimate child would be. The name Lo-ruchama means not beloved.

   After the end of the Jehu dynasty, the kings that follow are weak like women and they suffer defeat at almost every confrontation.

   Shallum was king for only about a month and was succeeded by Menachem. He became a vassal king to Pal, the king of Assyria. Pechamiah ruled two years and was assassinated by Pekah, his own general. During Pekah’s reign, the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pilesser continued to take pieces of the territory of Israel including all the territory belonging to Naphtali and in 738 BC the tribe of Naphtali was taken into captivity. 

   Hosea, son of Elah, came to the throne and was forced to pay tribute to Shalmanesser. He was the last king of Israel and was taken into captivity with the rest of Israel about 720.

   The name “not beloved” indicates the great displeasure of the Lord at this time. He is almost at the point of rejecting the people of Israel. As the kingdom totters and more and more people are carried into captivity, or resettlement as the Assyrians called it, the people are filled with dread. One would expect the people to turn once again to the Lord for deliverance. Instead, they turn more fervently to their pagan false gods for help and deliverance. In their time of deadly peril and need, they spurn the Lord who would gladly save them in favor of their powerless idols.  

   

7. But upon the house of Judah I will have mercy and I will save them by the Lord their God, and I will not save them with the bow, with the sword, with battle, with steeds, or with riders. 

   This book does not talk much about Judah but here the Lord interjects something about that kingdom. Assyria is threatening them also, but the Lord says the kingdom of Judah is going to survive and will receive mercy. The Lord declares that he will save them by miraculous means. At the time of the captivity of Israel, Hezekiah is the king of Judah. He was a very righteous man and a good Davidic king, hence the Davidic covenant is in full force. The terms of the Davidic covenant are basically that if the king is righteous and serves the Lord, and if the people follow the king, the Lord will protect them and fight their battles. This mention of Judah is no doubt here to reinforce this idea for the kingdom of Israel. 

   The story of Judah’s miraculous deliverance from the Assyrians is recounted in 2 Kings 18:35 and in Isaiah chapters 36 and 37. The Assyrians laid siege to Jerusalem after capturing other cities. The Jews were very much afraid but Hezekiah, acting on the advice of Isaiah, rebuked them. 

   As the Assyrians were camped at night before their planned attack, the angel of the Lord went out and slew 185,000 Assyrians. When the Jews arose in the morning, there lay the great Assyrian army, the terror of the world in those days, on the ground. Hezekiah had the great treasure wagons of the Assyrians brought into the city and he became very wealthy.

 

8. And she weaned Lo-ruchama and she conceived and bore a son. And he said: Call his name Lo-ami, for you are not my nation and I will not be yours.

   Lo-ruchama represents the state of the kingdom after the dynasty of Jehu. At some point, near the end of King Hosea’s reign, the die is cast and she is weaned. The counsel stops. The preaching and teaching all stop. When this happens, the second son is born.

   As mentioned above, the kingdom after Jehu’s dynasty was weak and this was characterized by the daughter Lo-ruchama. Near the end of the kingdom, Pekah kills the king and takes over. He is a very powerful king and attempts to restore the power of the kingdom. He fights both the Assyrians and makes an alliance with the king of Syria to invade Judah. He is far too ambitious.

   With the rise of Pekah to rule Israel, the Lord now rejects the kingdom. During the time of Lo-ruchama there was still a chance for the people to repent and return to the Lord. Under Pekah, however, the kingdom is now Lo-ami which means “not my people.” He has rejected this part of Israel and their doom is made certain. 

Edited December 23, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I disagree. In my opinion, these languages are languages that resulted from the confounding of the single language at the tower of Babel.

I still believe that Hebrew is the closest language to the language of Adam. 

You know nothing of the languages involved.  Hebrew is a very late dialect of Canaanite, coming into existence long after Abraham and Moses.

5 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

....................................................

In the meantime, here's his translation and commentary of Hosea 1, for you to take a look at.

1. The word of God that came to Hosea .....................

False translation:  The Hebrew is debar-YHWH "Word of Yahweh (Jehovah)"

5 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

     Hosea’s statement that he prophesied during the reigns of Uziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah means he lived a very long time. Uziah reigned for 52 years, Jotham 16, Ahaz 16 and in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign, the northern kingdom was taken into Assyrian captivity. If his ministry covered this period, it lasted 90 years (2 Kings 15:2, 33; 16:2 and 18:10).

False chronology.  See my better information in my “Book of Mormon Event Structure: Ancient Near East,” JBMS, 5/2 (1996):98-147, online at http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol5/iss2/5/ .

5 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

......................2. Start word—God with Hosea: ........................    The first and most intriguing thing in this verse is the opening line, “Start word.” This is my translation using the exact Hebrew words and order. It sounds a little strange because we do not write or talk this way and in all English translations the supposedly missing words are filled in. It usually goes something like, “the beginning of the word of the Lord to Hosea.” (KJV), or “These are the first words God spoke to Hosea.” This is done by interpolating other words that are not in the original Hebrew text. 

   Hebrew scholars do not read it this way. The words “start word” are both nouns. It does not mean “first word.” If that were the case, “first” would follow “word” in the Hebrew text since adjectives follow the noun in Hebrew.

J. Smith has no idea how to translate Hebrew.  The Hebrew tehilat debar-YHWH be-Hoshea means "Beginning of the word of Yahweh (Jehovah) through Hosea."

5 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

These two nouns form a compound noun called a smeechoot in Hebrew. This is like compound nouns in English such as clothesline, water boy, etc. In English, compound nouns may be combined into a single word or they can be separate words or hyphenated. But in both English and Hebrew, the result is a new noun and new meaning. 

   “Start word,” therefore, does not mean “the first word” nor is it plural. Unfortunately smeechoots are not found in Strong’s or any other concordance except as separate words, which do not capture the compound meaning. 

He does have some idea of what a bound-form (smichut) is in Hebrew.

5 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

 ...................................... Jonah was trapped in the stomach of a whale for three days. .........................

Jona was in the belly of a "great fish" (dag gadol), not a whale -- a whale is a mammal, not a fish.

5 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

.......................................... zaruah and el which means sown by God.

He seems to realize for the first time that Hebrew el means "God."

5 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

........................................................... the kingdom is now Lo-ami which means “not my people.” .............

Here he doesn't realize that the proper transliteration of the Hebrew is Lo-ammi, with double -m-.  He demonstrates no scholarly mien.

[LDS Watchman]

I appreciate you taking the time to take a look at this. 

Unless there are other issues you aren't mentioning, it looks like you actually verified that his work is pretty sound. 

Your criticisms are a whole lot of nothing.

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False translation:  The Hebrew is debar-YHWH "Word of Yahweh (Jehovah)"

It's a complete non-issue that he rendered YHWH as "God." Literally everyone knows YHWH means Jehovah, and so did Robert J Smith. He rendered it "God" because his translation was for a common LDS readership, who don't refer to God as Jehovah. Few English translations  of the Old Testament render YHWH as Jehovah. This doesn't mean all of these translations are "false translations." 

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Hebrew tehilat debar-YHWH be-Hoshea means "Beginning of the word of Yahweh (Jehovah) through Hosea."

Does "tehilat" mean start and "debar" word? Yes or no?

Robert J Smith addressed how the phrase is generally translated. Another complete non-issue.

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jona was in the belly of a "great fish" (dag gadol), not a whale -- a whale is a mammal, not a fish.

This is another complete non-issue. Robert J Smith knew that the words dag gadol mean "great fish," not "whale."

Here is how he translated the account of Jonah being swallowed by a "great fish" or "whale," and also his commentary on the meaning of the word "dag."

17. But the Lord provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights. 

The chapter ends with the Lord providing a great fish that swallowed Jonah and he was inside for three days and three nights. There is no mention of a whale as is often stated to be the fish that swallowed Jonah. The text uses the word dag, which is simply fish.

In the New Testament, the Savior stated that it was a whale that swallowed Jonah, and many scholars believe it was a whale, even though the Hebrew in Jonah says "great fish." So again, this is a complete non-issue.

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

He seems to realize for the first time that Hebrew el means "God."

Nonsense. This is not the "first time he seems to realize that el means God." Literally everyone knows this including Robert J Smith. 

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Here he doesn't realize that the proper transliteration of the Hebrew is Lo-ammi, with double -m-.  He demonstrates no scholarly mien.

Yet another complete non-issue.

First of all, he is writing this for the common man, not as an academic paper. His concern is the correct pronunciation for the lay reader not whether every letter is properly transliterated. 

Secondly, it could just be a typo, like when you accidentally spelled Jonah as "Jona" above. Does the fact that you forgot a silent letter in Jonah mean that you " demonstrate no scholarly mien?"

Edited December 24, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[Raingirl]

4 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I appreciate you taking the time to take a look at this. 

Unless there are other issues you aren't mentioning, it looks like you actually verified that his work is pretty sound. 

Your criticisms are a whole lot of nothing.

It's a complete non-issue that he rendered YHWH as "God." Literally everyone knows YHWH means Jehovah, and so did Robert J Smith. He rendered it "God" because his translation was for a common LDS readership, who don't refer to God as Jehovah. Few English translations  of the Old Testament render YHWH as Jehovah. This doesn't mean all of these translations are "false translations." 

Does "tehilat" mean start and "debar" word? Yes or no?

Robert J Smith addressed how the phrase is generally translated. Another complete non-issue.

This is another complete non-issue. Robert J Smith knew that the words dag gadol mean "great fish," not "whale."

Here is how he translated the account of Jonah being swallowed by a "great fish" or "whale," and also his commentary on the meaning of the word "dag."

17. But the Lord provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights. 

The chapter ends with the Lord providing a great fish that swallowed Jonah and he was inside for three days and three nights. There is no mention of a whale as is often stated to be the fish that swallowed Jonah. The text uses the word dag, which is simply fish.

In the New Testament, the Savior stated that it was a whale that swallowed Jonah, and many scholars believe it was a whale, even though the Hebrew in Jonah says "great fish." So again, this is a complete non-issue.

Nonsense. This is not the "first time he seems to realize that el means God." Literally everyone knows this including Robert J Smith. 

Yet another complete non-issue.

First of all, he is writing this for the common man, not as an academic paper. His concern is the correct pronunciation for the lay reader not whether every letter is properly transliterated. 

Secondly, it could just be a typo, like when you accidentally spelled Jonah as "Jona" above. Does the fact that you forgot a silent letter in Jonah mean that you " demonstrate no scholarly mien?"

Yet another post of yours that clearly demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about Hebrew or translation. 
 

Your obsessive clinging to someone who also clearly doesn’t understand Hebrew is baffling. You really need to set your obsession aside and listen to the experts on this thread. However, you appear to be someone who doesn’t let truth or facts get in the way of your agenda. 

[LDS Watchman]

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Yet another post of yours that clearly demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about Hebrew or translation. 

How so? 

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

You really need to set your obsession aside and listen to the experts on this thread

What obsession do I have? I'm not obsessed with "clinging to someone who clearly doesn't know Hebrew."

Both of the "experts" on this thread have clearly shown that for whatever reason they have an ax to grind. In spite of their best efforts to mock RJS, both of them have actually confirmed that he did know Hebrew. 

Dan clearly doesn't believe the stories in the scriptures literally happened and he refused to make a single concession, even when I made valid counterpoints. 

RFS' criticisms of RJS' translation and commentary on Hosea 1 shows that he is desperately trying to save face for having written RJS off as a joke without having read his work. 

RFS seems like a reasonable person, so I'm hoping he'll acknowledge that he jumped the gun in writing off RJS.

2 hours ago, Raingirl said:

you appear to be someone who doesn’t let truth or facts get in the way of your agenda. 

What agenda do I have? And what "truth" am I not letting get in the away of this supposed "agenda?"

What other posts of mine show that I have this supposed "agenda" and that I won't let the "truth" stand in its way?

Edited December 24, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[Raingirl]

39 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

How so? 

What obsession do I have? I'm not obsessed with "clinging to someone who clearly doesn't know Hebrew."

Both of the "experts" on this thread have clearly shown that for whatever reason they have an ax to grind. In spite of their best efforts to mock RJS, both of them have actually confirmed that he did know Hebrew. 

Dan clearly doesn't believe the stories in the scriptures literally happened and he refused to make a single concession, even when I made valid counterpoints. 

RFS' criticisms of RJS' translation and commentary on Hosea 1 shows that he is desperately trying to save face for having written RJS off as a joke without having read his work. 

RFS seems like a reasonable person, so I'm hoping he'll acknowledge that he jumped the gun in writing off RJS.

What agenda do I have? And what "truth" am I not letting get in the away of this supposed "agenda?"

What other posts of mine show that I have this supposed "agenda" and that I won't let the "truth" stand in its way?

I’m sorry your reading comprehension is so poor. I cannot help you with that. But in addition to your agenda, I guess if you struggle with understanding English, it’s no surprise that you haven’t the slightest grasp of Hebrew, even with the assistance of the experts in this thread. 
 

I was an Orthodox Jew before I joined the church. Hebrew was part of my every day life. The rare times I’ve seen non-Hebrew speakers reject the assistance of those who speak Hebrew is when the non-Hebrew speaker has an agenda to fulfill. It’s almost always been anti-Semites. 
 

My experience with them is the same as with you - it’s a waste of time to engage with them. We could bring a hundred experts to this thread and you’d still slavishly cling to your guru who can’t translate Hebrew worth a damn. 

[LDS Watchman]

12 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

I’m sorry your reading comprehension is so poor. I cannot help you with that. But in addition to your agenda, I guess if you struggle with understanding English, it’s no surprise that you haven’t the slightest grasp of Hebrew

Please CFR, where my "reading comprehension is so poor" and I "struggle with understanding English?"

15 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

The rare times I’ve seen non-Hebrew speakers reject the assistance of those who speak Hebrew is when the non-Hebrew speaker has an agenda to fulfill. It’s almost always been anti-Semites. 

I'm not rejecting the assistance of those who speak Hebrew. I welcome it. Why do you think I read the translations and commentary of RJS, who knows Hebrew?

Are you implying what I think you're implying, which is that I have an anti-Semitic agenda?

If so, that is a horrible baseless accusation. 

20 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

We could bring a hundred experts to this thread and you’d still slavishly cling to your guru who can’t translate Hebrew worth a damn. 

This is another baseless accusation and personal attack.

[rongo]

I am quite taken aback with how some here are have been treating LDS Watchman. Otherwise kind and polite posters (Raingirl and Robert F. Smith) treat him as they wouldn't treat any other poster, even if they were asking the same questions or making the same points. It's weird. I think they would disagree, even markedly, with almost anyone else without being as "mean" about it. Dan McClellan is less of a surprise to me --- he's kind of been that way with other topics and posters, especially when it comes to liberal/conservative stuff or literalist/higher criticism stuff. Which is fine, because that's his area, but goodness gracious, the venom and vitriol towards LDS Watchman is all out of proportion.

The types of conjectures from this Robert J. Smith have been around forever. I remember one from the seventies or eighties (in book form) that proposed things like "light from Jehovah" as the meaning for Liahona, using l' (Hebrew "from") + On (Heliopolis, or city of the sun) + ah (yah, or Jehovah). These types of conjectures are the bread and butter of faithful proposals for names and words in the Book of Abraham, the Book of Mormon, etc., and they are rejected by secular experts in the same way and in the same tone as Watchman is receiving here. e.g., Hermounts --- Hermonthis --- Month, Egyptian god of wild places; Deseret --- dsrt --- red crown with a bee antenna --- honeybee, etc. In fact, our Hebrew experts here display the exact same hatred and reaction towards conjectures they think are absolute nonsense that our critics display towards the very best faithful conjectures we have to offer. I think that's worth thinking about in reacting to posters here who are proposing (or running by) possibilities. 

It reminds me of how Leon Trotsky described Lenin: not content with cutting a man's head off, but he has to hold it up to show everyone that there's nothing inside, too. That describes how I think Watchman is being treated by some here. Disagreeing with him is fine --- more than fine. It's a proud Mormon tradition to vigorously discuss, propose, accept/reject, and amend possibilities. But, please, don't become like our worst critics in doing this. Don't become a Ritner, or a Jenkins, or a Coe about it. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

In fact, our Hebrew experts here display the exact same hatred and reaction towards conjectures

How is over the top criticism helping in this case. Hatred?  Really?  
 

Not seeing it. Frustration sure. 

Edited December 24, 2020 by Calm

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

How is over the top criticism helping in this case. Hatred?  Really?  

Not seeing it. Frustration sure. 

Do you want me to copy and paste a "greatest hits" collection from them in this thread? Do I need to do that? 

How would this compare to what our critics say about Gee, Nibley, etc. in tone, etc.?

[Raingirl]

21 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

Please CFR, where my "reading comprehension is so poor" and I "struggle with understanding English?"

I'm not rejecting the assistance of those who speak Hebrew. I welcome it. Why do you think I read the translations and commentary of RJS, who knows Hebrew?

Are you implying what I think you're implying, which is that I have an anti-Semitic agenda?

If so, that is a horrible baseless accusation. 

This is another baseless accusation and personal attack.

Again, your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. Nowhere in my posts have I stated that you are anti-Semitic. Whether you are or are not, is something I have no knowledge of.

Engaging with you is a waste of time. I would suggest that you follow through with the advice of consulting with a rabbi, but that would be just more wasted effort. 

[LDS Watchman]

3 hours ago, Raingirl said:

Nowhere in my posts have I stated that you are anti-Semitic.

You insinuated that I have an anti-Semitic  agenda. You accused me of having an "agenda" and then when I asked you what that agenda was you spoke of people who do what you are accusing me of of typically having an anti-Semitic agenda.

I don't appreciate your insinuations and mischaracterizations of me. 

Edited December 24, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

I appreciate you taking the time to take a look at this. 

Unless there are other issues you aren't mentioning, it looks like you actually verified that his work is pretty sound. 

Your criticisms are a whole lot of nothing.

It's a complete non-issue that he rendered YHWH as "God." Literally everyone knows YHWH means Jehovah, and so did Robert J Smith. He rendered it "God" because his translation was for a common LDS readership, who don't refer to God as Jehovah. Few English translations  of the Old Testament render YHWH as Jehovah. This doesn't mean all of these translations are "false translations." 

Even the 1611 and modern KJV recognize the difference between YHWH and 'El, and they do so consistently by translating them as "LORD" (in caps) and "God," respectively.  The LDS Church continues that correct translation tradition for the common LDS readership, but J. Smith can't be bothered.  There is no evidence in any of his work of a scholarly mien.  Both you and he seem to think that carelessness is a virtue.

9 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Does "tehilat" mean start and "debar" word? Yes or no?

Robert J Smith addressed how the phrase is generally translated. Another complete non-issue.

This is another complete non-issue. Robert J Smith knew that the words dag gadol mean "great fish," not "whale."

Here is how he translated the account of Jonah being swallowed by a "great fish" or "whale," and also his commentary on the meaning of the word "dag."

He can do whatever he likes, and children do it all the time.  However, that is a prime indicator of his lack of scholarly mien.

9 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

17. But the Lord provided a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights. 

The chapter ends with the Lord providing a great fish that swallowed Jonah and he was inside for three days and three nights. There is no mention of a whale as is often stated to be the fish that swallowed Jonah. The text uses the word dag, which is simply fish.

In the New Testament, the Savior stated that it was a whale that swallowed Jonah, and many scholars believe it was a whale, even though the Hebrew in Jonah says "great fish." So again, this is a complete non-issue.

Jesus did not speak Greek and was surely quoting Jona 2:1 in Hebrew (at Mat 12:40), which does not refer to a cetacean.  The Gospels were written in Greek many decades after the death of Jesus, and they typically quoted the Septuagint Greek translation of the OT in the NT, including any time they quoted Jesus -- who typically spoke in Aramaic, but quoted Scripture in Hebrew.  In this case, the LXX Greek ketous in Jona 2:1 and Mat 12:40 is a reference to an unknown sea monster, not a cetacean in modern biological parlance.

9 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

Nonsense. This is not the "first time he seems to realize that el means God." Literally everyone knows this including Robert J Smith. 

That was the first time in the quote you gave.  A scholar is consistent.  J. Smith is not.

9 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

...................................

First of all, he is writing this for the common man, not as an academic paper. His concern is the correct pronunciation for the lay reader not whether every letter is properly transliterated. 

Secondly, it could just be a typo, like when you accidentally spelled Jonah as "Jona" above. Does the fact that you forgot a silent letter in Jonah mean that you " demonstrate no scholarly mien?"

Actually, Jona is the more correct form of the name, since the final Hebrew heh is vocalic, not consonantal, but that is not a point of contention against J. Smith for me.  He is merely following convention, which is fine.  Since you know nothing of Hebrew, you make a point of it.  In other words, when it matters, J. Smith cannot get it right, and when it doesn't matter, you cannot recognize that.  Knowing the difference is what shows scholarly mien.

If you sincerely want to read a dependable translation-commentary, I would direct you to the Anchor Bible series.  The scholars there never make the horrible mistakes that J. Smith makes.

[LDS Watchman]

Robert F. Smith, your opinion and critism is noted.

The debate has now shifted from whether or not RJS knows any Hebrew or anything about translation to whether or not he exhibits "scholarly mien."

I'm bowing out of this debate. To what degree RJS is or isn't knowledgable in Hebrew or the scriptures is a fruitless debate, which was never the point of this thread. This is not worth another second of my time. 

I hope our next interaction about a different topic will be positive and not contentious. Sorry for my part in the contention. Hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas.

 

Edited December 24, 2020 by LDS Watchman

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, LDS Watchman said:

I hope our next interaction about a different topic will be positive and not contentious. Sorry for my part in the contention. Hope you and yours have a Merry Christmas.

Contending earnestly for or about our faith is what this site is mostly about.  Do you know the dictionary definition(s) of the word "contend".  It isn't necessarily a bad thing and I think all good discussions involve some contention.

Opposition in all things, ya know, and all that involves.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/jude/1?lang=eng

3. Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

 

 

edited to add a scriptural reference 

Edited December 24, 2020 by Ahab

[LDS Watchman]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Contending earnestly for or about our faith is what this site is mostly about.  Do you know the dictionary definition(s) of the word "contend".  It isn't necessarily a bad thing and I think all good discussions involve some contention.

I agree that contention isn't always a bad thing. A lot of good can come through debate. Certainly contending for the truthfulness of our faith is a worthy exercise.

In this case, engaging in a petty argument over the credentials of a deceased scriptorian has no value whatsoever. This is the type of contention that is of the devil in my opinion. 

If people want to laugh at Robert J. Smith or at me for find value in his work, that's up to them. I've made the points I was trying to make. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, LDS Watchman said:

engaging in a petty argument over the credentials of a deceased scriptorian has no value whatsoever.

It is not the lack of credentials that is the issue, but the result of the lack...the poor quality of the scholarship. 

[LDS Watchman]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not the lack of credentials that is the issue, but the result of the lack...the poor quality of the scholarship. 

It's mind boggling to me that you and others here feel the need to attack someone whose work you have not investigated. 

Why does it matter to you what credentials RJS has or doesn't have? Why does it matter to you whether or not his work meets the standards of secular scholarship?

This argument is an absolute waste of time. It's like trying to argue with an Evangelical Christian, who hasn't read more than a handful of verses from the Book of Mormon, about what credentials Joseph Smith had and whether or not his translations and interpretations constitute quality scholarship. 

I've invested a significant amount of time in studying his work and have found thst there is a treasure trove of valuable information contained in his writings. I've made his work available. Read it or don't. But I'm done arguing with people about the validity and quality of work they refuse to look at

I will leave you with a few scriptures to ponder.

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. 

(1 Cor 3:19)

Now ye may suppose that this is foolishness in me; but behold I say unto you, that by small and simple things are great things brought to pass; and small means in many instances doth confound the wise.
And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes; and by very small means the Lord doth confound the wise and bringeth about the salvation of many souls.

(Alma 37:6-7)

For behold, the same that judgeth rashly shall be judged rashly again; for according to his works shall his wages be;

(Mormon 8:19)

O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.

(2 Nephi 9:28)