lostindc wrote:I am being sarcastic, I do not think it is a poster over here.
But the level of closed mindedness of this person makes you wonder if he is just trolling. If so, bravo, pretty funny.
Given that I don't know the subject of the thread or the content of his posts, I can't comment on his or her closed-mindedness. However, I've been wrong before in thinking some people were trolls. I thought Hammer was for the longest time. Ditto on Paul Ray.
I can comment. Talking to O-brother is like talking to a brick wall:(
Exasperation got the best of me once and so I started a comment to him with "Oh Brother!"...he took offense and demanded an apology. I did not offer one, but in my defense, I also did not demand that he pay me for the brain cells I fried with the endless back and forth he put me through trying to discuss.
I don't think he's trolling, he just isn't interested in allowing anything he reads to change his set in stone position.
Every man is a moon and has a [dark] side which he turns toward nobody; you have to slip around behind if you want to see it. ---Mark Twain
These, and most of the alleged anachronisms for that matter, largely depend on one's assumption of the "tightness" of the translation. Conversion of concepts across languages is not always precise (as anyone who's learned a foreign language can attest). Is there no room in your reading of the book for the notion that these "words" were simply the best available descriptors?
ttribe wrote:These, and most of the alleged anachronisms for that matter, largely depend on one's assumption of the "tightness" of the translation. Conversion of concepts across languages is not always precise (as anyone who's learned a foreign language can attest). Is there no room in your reading of the book for the notion that these "words" were simply the best available descriptors?
If your defense is a tight vs loose translation then how do you explain words like curelom and cumom. These are specific names for animals of which Joseph Smith had no reference for.
Not only that, but the "translation" of the Book of Mormon was not done in the same way a human might translate from one language to another, right? Supposedly God showed Joseph Smith the word in the seer stone. Are you proposing there were multiple ways that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, and the words in the seer stone are simply one way it was done? That perhaps there was another method where God "projected" a scene into Joseph Smith mind and let him describe it to the best of his ability?
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
ttribe wrote:These, and most of the alleged anachronisms for that matter, largely depend on one's assumption of the "tightness" of the translation. Conversion of concepts across languages is not always precise (as anyone who's learned a foreign language can attest). Is there no room in your reading of the book for the notion that these "words" were simply the best available descriptors?
If your defense is a tight vs loose translation then how do you explain words like curelom and cumom. These are specific names for animals of which Joseph Smith had no reference for.
Not only that, but the "translation" of the Book of Mormon was not done in the same way a human might translate from one language to another, right? Supposedly God showed Joseph Smith the word in the seer stone. Are you proposing there were multiple ways that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, and the words in the seer stone are simply one way it was done? That perhaps there was another method where God "projected" a scene into Joseph Smith mind and let him describe it to the best of his ability?
How about Deseret=Honeybee=[no honeybees in the Americas]?
Scottie wrote:If your defense is a tight vs loose translation then how do you explain words like curelom and cumom. These are specific names for animals of which Joseph Smith had no reference for.
This actually seems to work in my favor. There was no frame of reference, so he just got the "words".
Scottie wrote:Not only that, but the "translation" of the Book of Mormon was not done in the same way a human might translate from one language to another, right? Supposedly God showed Joseph Smith the word in the seer stone. Are you proposing there were multiple ways that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, and the words in the seer stone are simply one way it was done? That perhaps there was another method where God "projected" a scene into Joseph Smith mind and let him describe it to the best of his ability?
Actually, the "how" is quite irrelevant. It could just as easily be that God gave Joseph the word "steel" or "horse" because that was the closest approximation. It doesn't require Joseph to interpret anything.
John Larsen wrote:How about Deseret=Honeybee=[no honeybees in the Americas]?
As I recall, Deseret is only mentioned with respect to Jared, et al. and then only in reference to what they put into their vessels. You seem to be assuming successful transportation of the colony, not to mention no events or circumstances under which there was an extinction of that which they brought with them. In short, this is another absence of evidence, evidence of absence problem.