John Gee, Historian

[_Kishkumen]

I think he sees it as a David and Goliath thing. He doesn't care about Latin, the Vulgate or translations in the KJV. He just likes to hijack threads and get attention.

You're probably right, but this is only the second time I've interacted with Tobin, I think, so sorry if I ruined the thread.

No worries, amice, we could never be angry with you over leviora eius modi.

[_Quasimodo]

I think he sees it as a David and Goliath thing. He doesn't care about Latin, the Vulgate or translations in the KJV. He just likes to hijack threads and get attention.

You're probably right, but this is only the second time I've interacted with Tobin, I think, so sorry if I ruined the thread.

No apology necessary, Symmachus. Most of us have been played that way by Tobin a few times in the past. You did not ruin the thread. The information you were giving was fascinating. The shame was that all that energy and learned wisdom was spent on a troll (one does have to give him credit for being a very good troll).

[_Tobin]

Symmachus,

I think you are missing my point about the use of cognate words within the Old Testament and the fact that language is not static. A truism as you put it. So I'll try yet again to explain what I mean. Cognate words have a common etymological origin and evolve over time. My point isn't about them sharing the same meaning as each other, but to illustrate the point that language evolves over time. A fact that you aren't considering.

What you are doing is you are claiming the understanding of śĕkîyôt needs to be rolled back to a 14th/13th century BC for the correct meaning of the word. I'm saying - not so fast. That is not the understanding that Aquila and Symmachus (among others) clearly had of that Hebrew noun. The mistake you claim they are making is purely an artifact of what you are insisting upon. It isn't that Aquila and Symmachus were ignorant of what śĕkîyôt meant. They were just ignorant of the 14th/13th century BC use. The translation of the word śĕkîyôt at that time WAS pictures (or sights or views), but this is the fact you keep ignoring. Even though you seem to understand that language evolves, you keep insisting that only the 14th/13th century BC understanding is correct.

That is why I keep saying you are being overly simplistic. It wasn't that the translators made a mistake or didn't know what the word meant. It is just that you are insisting they made a mistake because they didn't translate the word śĕkîyôt using the 14th/13th century BC understanding of it.

[_Cicero]

I haven't even read anything of the argument between our amicus Symmachus and Tobin.

Yes, well, after some experience on this site I have learned never to read anything Tobin writes given my tendencies as noted above. Life is too short.

To our amicus Symmachus: De minimis non curat praetor

[Guest]

Yes, well, after some experience on this site I have learned never to read anything Tobin writes given my tendencies as noted above. Life is too short.

If you don't want to participate in this forum, you are welcome to go to the Telestial forum instead*.

* Fixed for Quasi.

[_Quasimodo]

Yes, well, after some experience on this site I have learned never to read anything Tobin writes given my tendencies as noted above. Life is too short.

If you don't want to participate in the forum, you are welcome to leave at any time.

I think you hold an overestimation of your own importance, Tobin. Cicero seems to like to participate here once in a while. I think he was saying that he just doesn't bother reading what you may have written. A wise man.

Isn't it against board rules to disinvite a member?

[_pashaman]

To continue with the evidence against Gee's ridiculous position regarding Joseph Smith's utter ignorance of the Bible, let's look at Joseph Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision, I think this nails the coffin of Gee's apologetic completely:

At about the age of twelve years my mind became seriously imprest with regard to all important concerns for the welfare of my immortal Soul which led me to searching the scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of different denominations led me to marvel excedingly for I discovered that they did not adorn their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divisions the wickedness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the minds of making my mind becoming exceedingly distressed for I become convicted of my sins by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own sins and for the sins of the world for I learned in the scriptures that God was the same yesterday to day and forever that he was no respecter of persons for he was God....

Here Joseph Smith says that he began searching the scriptures at the age of twelve and continued to do so through the age of fifteen. He did so extensively enough to conclude that the world's people were living in a state of sin and that he was too. He did so sufficiently to conclude that no one was following the gospel of Jesus as it was described in the New Testament. In other words, if we are to trust our best, earliest source on Joseph Smith's personal process leading up to the First Vision--which is Joseph Smith himself writing in 1832--then we have to conclude that, whatever others may have believed regarding Joseph's acquaintance with the Bible, Joseph is in his own words telling us about a period of intense study of two or more years in the New Testament and perhaps also the Old.

Whatever Gee is up to, it does not include a responsible handling of this evidence. Maybe he does not know this account of the First Vision?

In any case, Gee is obviously wrong to conclude that Joseph Smith was completely ignorant of the Bible and did not read it before he worked on the JST. The evidence to the contrary is conclusive, in my opinion.

The above quote is all I need to know that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon (perhaps with some help). The entire book is one giant run-on sentence and perfectly matches the above Joseph Smith writing style. My goodness he was a yapper!.

[_EAllusion]

The intense focus on one example of retaining a KJV translation error seems to be missing the extensive list of other examples provided. No doubt Tobin would hoist his flag on each hill to do battle, but the implausibility multiplies with each example. And then you have to further remember that translation errors are only brought up here in the context of showing dependency on the language of the KJV text in the Book of Mormon. The frequent response to Book of Mormon retained translation errors is that Smith short-circuited the revelatory process and just cribbed the KJV when he saw similarity. That response is no-go if you also want to argue that Smith had next to no knowledge of the Bible.

The KJV dependency is apparent for other reasons that don't involve translation error. For get translation errors, italics-driven derivations, etc. It's hard to imagine the level of coincidence you must think is going on wherein the Book of Mormon and KJV consistently engage in the same word choice and grammatical structure independently, especially when the latter's language is archaic to the former. For Gee's argument, that dependence cannot be there, or cannot be a byproduct of the Joseph Smith as translator. That leaves you with hilariously implausible coincidence or nonsensical behavior on the part of God the revelator. Since Gee's religious beliefs already doubtless leaves him comfortable with impenetrably nonsensical behavior on the part of God, that's probably where it goes. But faith doesn't relieve one of the burden of unlikely beliefs. It just renders his worldview unlikely.

[_Symmachus]

Symmachus,

I think you are missing my point about the use of cognate words within the Old Testament and the fact that language is not static. A truism as you put it. So I'll try yet again to explain what I mean. Cognate words have a common etymological origin and evolve over time. My point isn't about them sharing the same meaning as each other, but to illustrate the point that language evolves over time. A fact that you aren't considering.

What you are doing is you are claiming the understanding of śĕkîyôt needs to be rolled back to a 14th/13th century BC for the correct meaning of the word. I'm saying - not so fast. That is not the understanding that Aquila and Symmachus (among others) clearly had of that Hebrew noun. The mistake you claim they are making is purely an artifact of what you are insisting upon. It isn't that Aquila and Symmachus were ignorant of what śĕkîyôt meant. They were just ignorant of the 14th/13th century BC use. The translation of the word śĕkîyôt at that time WAS pictures (or sights or views), but this is the fact you keep ignoring. Even though you seem to understand that language evolves, you keep insisting that only the 14th/13th century BC understanding is correct.

That is why I keep saying you are being overly simplistic. It wasn't that the translators made a mistake or didn't know what the word meant. It is just that you are insisting they made a mistake because they didn't translate the word śĕkîyôt using the 14th/13th century BC understanding of it.

Me:








You:

[_Quasimodo]

Symmachus,

I think you are missing my point about the use of cognate words within the Old Testament and the fact that language is not static. A truism as you put it. So I'll try yet again to explain what I mean. Cognate words have a common etymological origin and evolve over time. My point isn't about them sharing the same meaning as each other, but to illustrate the point that language evolves over time. A fact that you aren't considering.

What you are doing is you are claiming the understanding of śĕkîyôt needs to be rolled back to a 14th/13th century BC for the correct meaning of the word. I'm saying - not so fast. That is not the understanding that Aquila and Symmachus (among others) clearly had of that Hebrew noun. The mistake you claim they are making is purely an artifact of what you are insisting upon. It isn't that Aquila and Symmachus were ignorant of what śĕkîyôt meant. They were just ignorant of the 14th/13th century BC use. The translation of the word śĕkîyôt at that time WAS pictures (or sights or views), but this is the fact you keep ignoring. Even though you seem to understand that language evolves, you keep insisting that only the 14th/13th century BC understanding is correct.

That is why I keep saying you are being overly simplistic. It wasn't that the translators made a mistake or didn't know what the word meant. It is just that you are insisting they made a mistake because they didn't translate the word śĕkîyôt using the 14th/13th century BC understanding of it.

Me:








You:

Perfect!