Magdalena
Well-known member
Nice try.
Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica
- Thread starter Mesenja
- Start date
Bob Carabbio
Well-known member
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.
It is 100% speculative..especially given the many variables...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. And the ancient writing of the mesoamerica folks were in hieroglyphics.
Etymology
Until possible language affinities for JAREDITE names can be determined, all suggestions for etymologies of JAREDITE names must remain more speculative than substantive. With that caveat, the onomasticon does offer etymologies for some JAREDITE names, especially if it is possible that some JAREDITE names were translated into NEPHITE, or were otherwise related to one or more Semitic languages.
Reynolds, Commentary on the Book of Mormon, VI, p. 46, has suggested, “(Possibly from shaal [šʾl], ‘to ask for, to desire’), meaning a man of prayer.”
One might consider Sumerian ŠU-LÁ (= Akkaidan qiptu) "belief, trust" (CAD Q 260-63; MZ, #567 (p. 370)). This is not known, however, as a name even in Sumerian.
There has been a tendency to connect the JAREDITES with the Olmec. It is not certain what language the Olmec spoke. It was probably not Maya. One might, nonetheless, be tempted to connect this king with Maya xul "carving" (Coe, Reading the Maya Glyphs, 166). Such a reading does not conform to typical Classical Maya naming practices.
SHULE - Book of Mormon Onomasticon
brotherofJared
Well-known member
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.
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.
I am certainly not a scholar BOJ, but I do have e-mail...so , some years ago I e-mailed many actual archeologists at major universities around the USA, that were actually in the field and actually participated in Mesoamerican archeological digs, and teach mesoAmercian archeology at major universities. And to be fair both secular, and LDS archeologists were sent e-mails. I actually received several responses back from the secular scholars, yet every LDS never opined.
I also purchased several LDS scholarly books on the subject, including the JS opus, Mormons Codex. So while I am not a scholar, I am honest enough with my studies to test both side of the argument...have you?
If you would like, I can share my question I asked to every scholar I contacted to, and there responses. Let me know, although I will probably share a few anyways...even though, I have pasted them here on the old forum.
Yes “ Kib” is a name on a calendar ...kind off. It is actually more of a zodiac sign, similar to lets say Leo, or Aquarius. Which in turn demands a lot in that it was a very important “thing” to their culture. So being a good scholar, we would certainly expect to see more of this in the BOM...correct?
Even a LDS scholarly website reads...
KIB
| Jaredite PN | 1. | King (Ether 1:31, 32; 7:3) |
Until possible language affinities for JAREDITE names can be determined, all suggestions for etymologies of JAREDITEnames must remain more speculative than substantive. With that caveat, the onomasticon does offer etymologies for some JAREDITE names, especially if it is possible that some JAREDITE names were translated into NEPHITE, or were otherwise related to one or more Semitic languages.
No etymology is suggested.
See the Hurrian name element kib (and Meroitic kb ( 194).
This simply means yeah, it’s a cool coincidence, but it is just that until more evidences can be produced
Like I said it is just nonsense...you were championing Mound builders a few weeks ago, and now you are taking a Mesoamerican position...are you LGT, or heartland theory, or are you just being speculative with both?
Fenuay
Well-known member
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?
Fenuay
Well-known member
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?
Bonnie
Super Member
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.
Fenuay
Well-known member
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.
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.
Loading…
abn.churchofjesuschrist.org
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.
Fenuay
Well-known member
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.
En Hakkore
Well-known member
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.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
brotherofJared
Well-known member
Since I do believe the Bible, what makes you think any of the rest of your question has any meaning whatsoever?
As I suspected, the rest of your question was irrelevant and meaningless.
brotherofJared
Well-known member
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.I believe it was expected as part of His plan.
brotherofJared
Well-known member
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.
Fenuay
Well-known member
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.
Fenuay
Well-known member
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.
Inconsistency is a hallmark of all cults. Mormonism is not the exception.
When someone, especially a cultist bloviates about contradictions ask them to demonstrate exactly how they believe that specific verses IN CONTEXT constitute an inconsistency. Most often, they will fold in silence. BoJ most likely will not; so push him on that claim.
Please remember that on this Mormonism forum he is not permitted to attack the Bible, according to the rules of this particular forum. You can see them by going to the top of this page, and tapping in the stickies. If he does reply by bashing the Bible, and if you report it, the rule-offending post may be deleted. And if he collects too many deleted posts for offenses, the mods may suspend him--it is all part of the rules of CARM
After you (or someone else replies, you then have the grounds to tell him that his mere opinion is inconsistent with truth. (Gotta be careful not to insult folk.)
Last edited:
Theo1689
Well-known member
Once again, you know Mormonism is bankrupt, and so you run away from trying to defend it, and try to instead attack the Bible (which is shooting yourself in the foot, since the LDS accept the Bible as God's word as well).
But the FACT of the matter is that you are wrong. "The many protestant churches out there" (which are OFF-TOPIC for this forum), are in complete AGREEMENT about what the text of the Bible says.
And in fact, we are even in far more agreement about what the Bible MEANS that you and Aaron are on what MORMON texts mean. SO maybe you should take the beam out of your OWN eye, as they say....
Yet even your OWN Mormon leaders have stated that Alma is wrong!
You mean, you know the Book of Mormon is true where it was PLAGIARIZED from the Bible!