Magdalena
Well-known member
Nice try.I read what you said what he was referring to. If it's an article you've already posted, then I read it and it doesn't support your claim.
Nice try.I read what you said what he was referring to. If it's an article you've already posted, then I read it and it doesn't support your claim.
Or not (chuckle). Very convincing.Oh brother...
Yes. It could be made up. It could also be what the OP says it is.
This is nonsense. You can take any modern sci fi or fantasy book or movie with made up names and do the same thing, force them into a ancient language. Basically a form a data dredging.Kib Name of the sixth month in the Yucatec Maya calendar.
Shule Name of the sixteenth day of the 260-day calendar in Yucatec.
Akish Close parallel to the Quiche Maya Kaqix (Caquix) of the Popol Vuh. The name combines kaq "red" and qix "feather" and means the scarlet macaw parrot. The x is pronounced as sh in English in Mesoamerican words and names.
Com Tzotzil Maya for "log stool" or "armadillo"
Kish Two meanings for this word are available: (1) "kix" in Yucatec and Chol Maya,meaning "spine," "thorn," and maybe "stingray spine" and (2) "kix" in the Palenque hieroglyphs "feather"
Shiblon The Shib or Xib part of the name is very common in Yucatec Maya--for example,Chak-Xib-Chak,Ek-Xib-Chak,Sak-Xib-Chak, Kan-Xib-Chak,etc.
Hill Shim In Yucatec Maya and other Mayan languages — for example,an ear of corn or kernels of corn is ixim In the Tuxtla Mountains of southern Veracruz,Mexico,one of the mountains is called Cintepec in the Aztec language. Cintepec means "corn hill." The Aztecs lived late in Mesoamerican history and were glossing earlier names with the equivalent in their own language. In Mayan languages,it would be ixim (as mentioned earlier,the x becomes sh in English).
Wilderness of Akish As noted above,Akish is very similar to the Kiche Maya name Kaqix or Caquix. This name refers to the macaw parrot. The Tuxtla Mountains of southern Veracruz were glossed,by the Aztecs as Toztlan,which means the place of the macaw parrots. The Aztec place name glyph also depicts a macaw parrot for these mountains.
Land of Heth A land by the east sea mentioned early in the Jaredite account. The indirect hint for the location of this land centers on the meaning of the letter Heth in Hebrew. The letter Heth relates to the Big Dipper constellation and the number seven. The Popol Vuh account of Wukub Kaqix associates him with the Big Dipper,and his name means "seven macaw" Could this be the land of Heth to the Tuxtla Mountains region of southern Veracruz? Both the Big Dipper constellation and the macaw parrot are tied to Wukub Kaqix. Perhaps the land of Heth and the wilderness of Akish are adjacent to each other.
Of course it is. You're the scholar. We should all listen to you.This is nonsense.
So, Are you saying that Kib isn't the "Name of the sixth month in the Yucatec Maya calendar"? Is that really speculative? Isn't it 100% speculative to say "Joseph got lucky and came up with a word from the time period and culture where his work supposedly covers"?It is 100% speculative.
like the BoM folks were Jews, who over multiple century’s created a huge civilization, and are now said by LDS apologist to mix with other cultures.
I agree. Any etymology would be speculative. We're not using etymology. We're just showing simple facts. Kib, for one, happens to be the name of a month on the Mayan calendar. You know, like when we use April and June for names of people and they also happen to be names of the month on our calendar.etymologies of JAREDITE names must remain more speculative than substantive.
Of course it is. You're the scholar. We should all listen to you.
So, Are you saying that Kib isn't the "Name of the sixth month in the Yucatec Maya calendar"? Is that really speculative? Isn't it 100% speculative to say "Joseph got lucky and came up with a word from the time period and culture where his work supposedly covers"?
![]()
![]()
Great speculation, isn't it? It doesn't matter if it makes sense if such a thing happened. You have two brothers (maybe more) and their wives interfacing with an existing population. I refer you to my analogy of finding a drop of fresh water after it's fallen into the ocean after 1000 years.
I agree. Any etymology would be speculative. We're not using etymology. We're just showing simple facts. Kib, for one, happens to be the name of a month on the Mayan calendar. You know, like when we use April and June for names of people and they also happen to be names of the month on our calendar.![]()
Jaredite PN | 1. | King (Ether 1:31, 32; 7:3) |
If you look through he actually did copy it and gave credit to the author when mod 10 told him he was required to cite his source.![]()
![]()
What makes you think he copied it?
So if you don't believe the Bible what makes you believe that the BoM is true as there are things in the BoM with no evidence of ever having existed. I understand your comment about Moses since there is no corroboration in Ancient Egyptian records. But IF the BoM is true and testifying that Jesus was a real man and uses Biblical verses itself isn't it safe to say that IF you accept the BoM that you should also accept the Bible since the BoM supports it?And anyone could have made up the names in the OT. Like Moses. It's the name of a person that doesn't exist in history. But as long as Joseph Smith is making up names, it seems quite convenient that names he "made up" happen to match names commonly used by the people, now extinct that he knew, supposedly, nothing about...
One has to wonder how many times a person will accidentally get something right before people realize that it wasn't an accident. For our critics, it doesn't matter. For them, the world is chaos and everything is an accident including Adam and Eve eating the apple. Their God has to catch up with us and fix the mistakes we made in his plan. That doesn't sound like an all-knowing God.
Then why did Petersen say they could be tapirs? Could it be, because there were no horses in N. America until the Spaniards brought them, long after the time frame of the BoM?Or horses could be horses.![]()
I believe God knew this would happen. I believe it was expected as part of His plan. I just don't believe Joseph Smith was a real prophet. So I don't believe that Joseph Smith received any revelation from anyone about what Gods full plan is.Yes. Someone did. I did. I draw that conclusion from your beliefs. Adam and Eve screwed up God's plan. He didn't intend for that to happen, according to you all. My statement stands as it is.
You may not know that the Mormon's TESTIMONY supersedes both common sense and established facts from history. Most likely you may not realize that at every testimony meeting, when they gather to share testimonies , everyone giving a testimony that begins by saying like to bear my testimony. I know this church is true."So if you don't believe the Bible what makes you believe that the BoM is true as there are things in the BoM with no evidence of ever having existed.
I am a former member so I am aware of this but BoJ has stated many places that the Bible has untrue Scripture. So if the Book of Mormon substantiates the Bible and is a companion to it why should he believe the BoM either. It's odd to read his statements on how he defines truth. Honestly he doesn't sound like he is a true Mormon either.You may not know that the Mormon's TESTIMONY supersedes both common sense and established facts from history. Most likely you may not realize that at every testimony meeting, when they gather to share testimonies , everyone giving a testimony that begins by saying like to bear my testimony. I know this church is true."
Here is an explanation by a "Seventy"
Bearing Testimony
By Elder Jay E. Jensen
Of the Seventy
I have great appreciation for the power of pure testimony. I continue to examine my own testimony bearing to keep it in line with correct principles taught by the scriptures and by latter-day prophets. I testify that there is a divine power accompanying a declared pure testimony.
That is one reason that they can "get away with" telling us such balderdash. They may as well institutionalize lying as part of their creeds.
The LDS religion is riddled with contradictions such as this. I challenged this same poster recently on it here (first section) but without response. Welcome to the forum "former member"... there are a few of us here. I was raised in the church between the ages of 3 and 11, after which my mom went inactive.I am a former member so I am aware of this but BoJ has stated many places that the Bible has untrue Scripture. So if the Book of Mormon substantiates the Bible and is a companion to it why should he believe the BoM either. It's odd to read his statements on how he defines truth. Honestly he doesn't sound like he is a true Mormon either.
Since I do believe the Bible, what makes you think any of the rest of your question has any meaning whatsoever?So if you don't believe the Bible
Of course, he did. That's not the issue.I believe God knew this would happen.
You're going to have to pick which side of the fence you want to sit on. Statements like that will get you banned from this forum.I believe it was expected as part of His plan.![]()
I never said anything like that. The closest is that some of the scriptures we have has been manipulated by men and is not what the original author intended.I am a former member so I am aware of this but BoJ has stated many places that the Bible has untrue Scripture
You twisted my words. On the one hand we have a book that has been handed down through a church that you all claim is a false church. Men had the scriptures for over a thousand years and that very church, that you claim is wrong, complied the book we now call the Bible and didn't let anyone see any of the original manuscripts. They wouldn't even let non-clergy have a Bible. It was illegal to have a Bible in Italy until 1975. It wasn't enforced, but the law was still there. The point is, the Bible was manhandled through centuries of time with many variations in the copies that were made. Can we really trust that the Bible accurately conveys the message of the original authors? It's impossible to tell without the original manuscripts and we don't have any of them.So if the Book of Mormon substantiates the Bible and is a companion to it why should he believe the BoM either
No they won't BoJ. I believe God knew Adam and Eve were going to partake of the forbidden fruit. I'm not saying I agree that the LDS version of Gods plan is true. I'm saying He had a plan and Adam and Eve transgressing the law was part of His plan.Of course, he did. That's not the issue.
You're going to have to pick which side of the fence you want to sit on. Statements like that will get you banned from this forum.
Which Church are you claiming I said was false other than the Mormon Church??? I never made any claim. I will say that I believe Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses have a false church. Otherwise I think there are decent churches but not any that I would say teach the full truth. But I never made any claim prior to this about which churches I think are false.I never said anything like that. The closest is that some of the scriptures we have has been manipulated by men and is not what the original author intended.
You twisted my words. On the one hand we have a book that has been handed down through a church that you all claim is a false church. Men had the scriptures for over a thousand years and that very church, that you claim is wrong, complied the book we now call the Bible and didn't let anyone see any of the original manuscripts. They wouldn't even let non-clergy have a Bible. It was illegal to have a Bible in Italy until 1975. It wasn't enforced, but the law was still there. The point is, the Bible was manhandled through centuries of time with many variations in the copies that were made. Can we really trust that the Bible accurately conveys the message of the original authors? It's impossible to tell without the original manuscripts and we don't have any of them.
So, how do we know the Bible is true? Well, you all don't and you can see by the many different protestant churches out there, no one agrees on anything (except that the Mormons are wrong... LOL) that comes from the Bible. The best witness for the truthfulness of the Bible would be an original source that hasn't been handed down through the centuries and handled by men and we have that in the Book of Mormon.
I know the Bible is true where it agrees with the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is a witness that the Bible is true.
Inconsistency is a hallmark of all cults. Mormonism is not the exception.I am a former member so I am aware of this but BoJ has stated many places that the Bible has untrue Scripture. So if the Book of Mormon substantiates the Bible and is a companion to it why should he believe the BoM either. It's odd to read his statements on how he defines truth. Honestly he doesn't sound like he is a true Mormon either.
So, how do we know the Bible is true? Well, you all don't and you can see by the many different protestant churches out there, no one agrees on anything (except that the Mormons are wrong... LOL)
that comes from the Bible. The best witness for the truthfulness of the Bible would be an original source that hasn't been handed down through the centuries and handled by men and we have that in the Book of Mormon.
I know the Bible is true where it agrees with the Book of Mormon.