Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica

Markk

Active member
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.
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.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
This is nonsense.
Of course it is. You're the scholar. We should all listen to you.
It is 100% speculative.
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"?
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.
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
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.
etymologies of JAREDITE names must remain more speculative than substantive.
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. ;)
 

Markk

Active 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"?

:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
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 PN1.King (Ether 1:31, 32; 7:3)
Etymology
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
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.
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?
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

John t

Super 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.
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.
 

Fenuay

Well-known member
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.
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
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.
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
I am a former member so I am aware of this but BoJ has stated many places that the Bible has untrue Scripture
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.
So if the Book of Mormon substantiates the Bible and is a companion to it why should he believe the BoM either
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
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.
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
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.
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.
 

John t

Super 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.
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
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)

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.... 🤣🤣🤣

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.

Yet even your OWN Mormon leaders have stated that Alma is wrong!

I know the Bible is true where it agrees with the Book of Mormon.

You mean, you know the Book of Mormon is true where it was PLAGIARIZED from the Bible! 🤣
 
Top