Verily, goodwife, thou speakest truly. An shoulst any poltroon say nay, I shall gladly meet them on the field of honor!
(Of course, dueling is illegal in the USA!)
Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica
- Thread starter Mesenja
- Start date
(Of course, dueling is illegal in the USA!)
Bonnie
Super Member
I thank thee, gallant sir, but I believe thy goodwife, if thou hast one, would have a few thousand words to speak, shouldst thou undertake a duel, and haul thee off by thy ear, for a severe scolding!Verily, goodwife, thou speakest truly. An shoulst any poltroon say nay, I shall gladly meet them on the field of honor!
(Of course, dueling is illegal in the USA!)
Worse than a few thousand words would be the deafening silence!
Bonnie
Super Member
That wouldst come AFTER the deafening silence and a prolonged stay in yon guest bedchamber!
The Hebrew Background of the Book of Mormon,Rediscovering the Book of Mormon
During the years 1968-71, [John A. Tvedtnes] taught Hebrew at the University of Utah. My practice was to ask new students to respond to a questionnaire,giving some idea of their interests and linguistic background. One student wrote that she wanted to study Hebrew in order to prove the Book of Mormon was a fraud. She approached me after class to explain.
When I inquired why she felt the Book of Mormon was fraudulent, she stated that it was full of errors. I asked for an example. She drew my attention to Alma 46:19,where we read,"When Moroni had said these words,he went forth among the people,waving the rent part of his garment in the air." She noted that in the 1830 edition,this read simply "waving the rent of his garment." In English,the rent is the hole in the garment,not the piece torn out of the garment. Therefore,Moroni could not have waved it. This was an error,she contended and adding the "part" later was mere deception.
This was my first introduction to variations in different editions of the Book of Mormon. Without a Hebrew background,I might have been bothered by it. But the explanation was clear when I considered how Mormon would have written that sentence. Hebrew does not have to add the word part to a verbal substantive like rent as English requires. Thus,broken in Hebrew can refer to a broken thing or a broken part,while new can refer to a new thing. In the verse the student cited,rent would mean rent thing or rent part. Thus, the "error" she saw as evidence of fraud was really a Hebraism that was evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
Significantly,the first (1830) edition of the Book of Mormon contains many more Hebraisms than later editions. Later editions, especially in 1837,1840, and 1876,were edited to improve the English in areas where the text appeared to be awkward. Unfortunately,this destroyed some of the evidence for a Hebrew original
During the years 1968-71, [John A. Tvedtnes] taught Hebrew at the University of Utah. My practice was to ask new students to respond to a questionnaire,giving some idea of their interests and linguistic background. One student wrote that she wanted to study Hebrew in order to prove the Book of Mormon was a fraud. She approached me after class to explain.
When I inquired why she felt the Book of Mormon was fraudulent, she stated that it was full of errors. I asked for an example. She drew my attention to Alma 46:19,where we read,"When Moroni had said these words,he went forth among the people,waving the rent part of his garment in the air." She noted that in the 1830 edition,this read simply "waving the rent of his garment." In English,the rent is the hole in the garment,not the piece torn out of the garment. Therefore,Moroni could not have waved it. This was an error,she contended and adding the "part" later was mere deception.
This was my first introduction to variations in different editions of the Book of Mormon. Without a Hebrew background,I might have been bothered by it. But the explanation was clear when I considered how Mormon would have written that sentence. Hebrew does not have to add the word part to a verbal substantive like rent as English requires. Thus,broken in Hebrew can refer to a broken thing or a broken part,while new can refer to a new thing. In the verse the student cited,rent would mean rent thing or rent part. Thus, the "error" she saw as evidence of fraud was really a Hebraism that was evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
Significantly,the first (1830) edition of the Book of Mormon contains many more Hebraisms than later editions. Later editions, especially in 1837,1840, and 1876,were edited to improve the English in areas where the text appeared to be awkward. Unfortunately,this destroyed some of the evidence for a Hebrew original
Last edited:
Well, you said evidence is proof.
So, I guess the Book of Mormon is true.
Yes, evidence is proof, but there has never been any post by you that contains what any honest or truthful person would call evidence or proof that even hints that the BoM is true. The posting history is glaringly clear on that.
EDITED--RULE 12
Last edited by a moderator:
Since the Babylonian Captivity for Israel began 750 BC, and for Judah in 586 BC that is 800 years and 600 years (rounding off) respectively. Thanks for the research.
Wikipedia
Breastplate
A breastplate or chestplate is a device worn over the torso to protect it from injury,as an item of religious significance, or as an item of status. A breastplate is sometimes worn by mythological beings as a distinctive item of clothing.
Ichcahuipilli
The ichcahuipilli, known in Spanish as escaupil[1] was a Mesoamerican military armor, similar to the European gambeson, which was commonly used by the Aztecs and the Tlaxcalans. It was constructed of unspun cotton stitched between two layers of cloth.[2] The name is derived from the Nahuatl words ichcatl "cotton" and huīpīlli "shirt".
The armor was designed primarily to protect the torso of the warrior from obsidian swords,arrows and atlatl darts. It was made of successive layers of packed cotton and cloth,at least one inch thick,which would slow and trap the arrows,rather than divert them,like European plate armour. Because this armor was padded,it protected well against the cutting blows of the macuahuitl and the heavy blows of batons.
For SpikeTV's reality program Deadliest Warrior, a piece of material designated as ichcahuipilli armor was tested against the iron-tipped arrows of the Azande pima and botto. The armor was able to stop the arrows and even ward off some of them. It was later determined that although the arrows penetrated the material, it was minimal enough not to procure any serious injury.
Breastplate
A breastplate or chestplate is a device worn over the torso to protect it from injury,as an item of religious significance, or as an item of status. A breastplate is sometimes worn by mythological beings as a distinctive item of clothing.
Ichcahuipilli
The ichcahuipilli, known in Spanish as escaupil[1] was a Mesoamerican military armor, similar to the European gambeson, which was commonly used by the Aztecs and the Tlaxcalans. It was constructed of unspun cotton stitched between two layers of cloth.[2] The name is derived from the Nahuatl words ichcatl "cotton" and huīpīlli "shirt".
The armor was designed primarily to protect the torso of the warrior from obsidian swords,arrows and atlatl darts. It was made of successive layers of packed cotton and cloth,at least one inch thick,which would slow and trap the arrows,rather than divert them,like European plate armour. Because this armor was padded,it protected well against the cutting blows of the macuahuitl and the heavy blows of batons.
For SpikeTV's reality program Deadliest Warrior, a piece of material designated as ichcahuipilli armor was tested against the iron-tipped arrows of the Azande pima and botto. The armor was able to stop the arrows and even ward off some of them. It was later determined that although the arrows penetrated the material, it was minimal enough not to procure any serious injury.
Last edited:
Good catch on the frequent plagiarism from the poster. No source is cited in the quote, therefore, more plagiarism
Merriam-Webster
ad ho·mi·nem | \ (ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem , -nəm \
Definition of ad hominem (Entry 1 of 2)
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
ad hominem adverb
Definition of ad hominem (Entry 2 of 2)
: in an ad hominem manner
ad ho·mi·nem | \ (ˈ)ad-ˈhä-mə-ˌnem , -nəm \
Definition of ad hominem (Entry 1 of 2)
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
ad hominem adverb
Definition of ad hominem (Entry 2 of 2)
: in an ad hominem manner
The Cracked Planet of Jeff Lindsay
Mesoamerican Fortifications and the Book of MormonIn 1970, researchers from Tulane University discovered a huge defensive fortification at Becan in the Yucatan Peninsula. The center of the site is surrounded by a fortification - a ditch - that is nearly 2 kilometers long and roughly 16 meters wide.
(Aerial photos of Becan sites are available at https://mayaruins.com/becan/aerial1.html and https://mayaruins.com/becan/aerial2.html.)
Dirt had been piled to make a ridge on the inner side of the ditch. This fortification dates to 150 AD to 450 AD,which fits into Book of Mormon times. David Webster of Tulane describes how he thinks the fortification worked:"To throw 'uphill' from the outside is almost impossible. Defenders, possibly screened by a palisade,could have rained long-distance missiles on approaching enemies using spearthrowers and slings." (David L. Webster, Defensive Earthworks at Becan, Campeche, Mexico: Implications for Mayan Warfare ,Tulane University, Middle American Research Institute,Publication 41,1976, p. 108, as cited by John L. Sorensen, Ensign,Sept. 1984,p. 33.)
Compare a Book of Mormon account (Alma 49:18-20) from around 70 B.C. with the description of Dr. Webster above:
18 Now behold, the Lamanites could not get into their forts of security by any other way save by the entrance,because of the highness of the bank which had been thrown up,and the depth of the ditch which had been dug round about,save it were by the entrance.
19 And thus were the Nephites prepared to destroy all such as should attempt to climb up to enter the fort by any other way,by casting over stones and arrows at them.
20 Thus they were prepared,yea, a body of their strongest men,with their swords and their slings,to smite down all who should attempt to come into their place of security by the place of entrance;and thus were they prepared to defend themselves against the Lamanites.
Last edited:
Bonnie
Super Member
You think this is proof??? Laughable! In English, we could also say that someone waved the "rent" in a piece of cloth, meaning the tear or hole. I could take a shirt with a big hole in it, and wave the hole at my husband, to show that the shirt needed to be discarded.
The idea that this change in later editions destroyed the "evidence for a Hebrew original" is silly!
The 1830 edition contained many more examples of bad English grammar, that were later fixed. Since God supposedly showed Smith what to write in his magic hat, then that must mean the Mormon god was ignorant of the basics of good English grammar. Is this what was meant by "Hebraisms"?
Last edited:
Bonnie
Super Member
More baloney. Central American Indians were known to make war against each other a lot, before the Europeans came. This is no evidence for the BoM.
Digging into the Book of Mormon:Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture By John L. Sorenson
(excerpt)
War
A prime example of a topic on which expert views have changed dramatically to be more in agreement with the Book of Mormon is armed conflict. Until recently,the prevailing picture of Mesoamerica was that only peaceful societies existed in the climactic Classic era,exemplified by the spectacular Maya and Teotihuacan ruins dating from about A.D. 300 to 800.
Mayan leaders were supposed to have spent their time peacefully contemplating and worshipping a complex set of gods,gazing at notable art,playing philosophical games with their calendar,and otherwise acting like “the Greeks of the New World.” Only after A.D. 1000 was militarism supposed to have played a role in Mesoamerican history.
In the 1950s and 1960s a few voices—Armillas,Rands,Palerm—urged that this picture must be revised,but nobody listened. The big shift came with the 1970 work by Tulane University at Becan in the Yucatan Peninsula. The center of the site is surrounded by a ditch almost two kilometers in circumference and averaging sixteen meters across. The makers had piled the earth to form a ridge on the inner side of the ditch. David Webster described the military effect of this fortification:
“To throw ‘uphill’ from the outside is almost impossible. Defenders,possibly screened by a palisade,could have rained long-distance missiles on approaching enemies using spearthrowers and slings.”
This sounds almost like a paraphrase of Alma 49:18–20. But the Spanish conqueror Cortez had seen similar sorts of fortified places as he pushed through the forests between Tabasco,Mexico,and Honduras in the 1520s.
Was Becan merely one of those late,insignificant sites dating long after the Book of Mormon? Webster demonstrated that the Becan ditch and wall were constructed between about A.D. 150 and 450,encompassing the time when Mormon and Moroni lived and fought.
Since then a wealth of new supporting data has emerged. More than one hundred fortified sites are now known. Ray Matheny’s work at Edzna revealed a large,moated fortress dating to around the time of Christ. Loma Torremote in the Valley of Mexico was a palisaded hilltop settlement by about 400 B.C. Part of the three kilometers of defensive walls at famous Monte Alban dates before 200 B.C. The core of Los Naranjos in western Honduras was entirely surrounded by a big ditch sometime between 1000 and 500 B.C.
Besides the actual sites,graphic art,remains of weapons,and warrior figurines have been found for many periods. So have stone walls. (Compare Alma 48:8.) And the public skull-rack,(Aztec tzompantli),used at the time of the Conquest by the Aztecs to strike fear into the hearts of potential rebels against their military control,has now been found in the Cuicatlan Valley of Oaxaca dating from before the time of Christ.
Increasingly it is apparent that war practices in use when the Europeans arrived go back to the very early history of Mesoamerica. Yet as late as ten years ago, most of the published descriptions of early life in the area directly contradicted this view. [Note this article was published September 1984]
The intimidating effect of outdated views is shown by a recent incident. One of my former students wrote to me with some concern because his professor at an eastern university had assured him that the bow and arrow,mentioned in several places in the Book of Mormon,was not present in Mesoamerica until A.D. 900. But I could assure him that a potsherd from central Mexico has scratched on it a sketch of a man with such a weapon. The fragment is dated approximately eight hundred years prior to the “recognized” date cited by the professor.
The description of fortifications in Alma 48 through 3 Nephi 3,the frequent battles recorded in the Jaredite and Nephite records,the scale of casualties,many of the tactics and weapons employed,the organizational pattern of the armies,and other information on this topic disclosed in the Book of Mormon now seem entirely plausible in terms of recent developments in our knowledge about Mesoamerica.
(excerpt)
War
A prime example of a topic on which expert views have changed dramatically to be more in agreement with the Book of Mormon is armed conflict. Until recently,the prevailing picture of Mesoamerica was that only peaceful societies existed in the climactic Classic era,exemplified by the spectacular Maya and Teotihuacan ruins dating from about A.D. 300 to 800.
Mayan leaders were supposed to have spent their time peacefully contemplating and worshipping a complex set of gods,gazing at notable art,playing philosophical games with their calendar,and otherwise acting like “the Greeks of the New World.” Only after A.D. 1000 was militarism supposed to have played a role in Mesoamerican history.
In the 1950s and 1960s a few voices—Armillas,Rands,Palerm—urged that this picture must be revised,but nobody listened. The big shift came with the 1970 work by Tulane University at Becan in the Yucatan Peninsula. The center of the site is surrounded by a ditch almost two kilometers in circumference and averaging sixteen meters across. The makers had piled the earth to form a ridge on the inner side of the ditch. David Webster described the military effect of this fortification:
“To throw ‘uphill’ from the outside is almost impossible. Defenders,possibly screened by a palisade,could have rained long-distance missiles on approaching enemies using spearthrowers and slings.”
This sounds almost like a paraphrase of Alma 49:18–20. But the Spanish conqueror Cortez had seen similar sorts of fortified places as he pushed through the forests between Tabasco,Mexico,and Honduras in the 1520s.
Was Becan merely one of those late,insignificant sites dating long after the Book of Mormon? Webster demonstrated that the Becan ditch and wall were constructed between about A.D. 150 and 450,encompassing the time when Mormon and Moroni lived and fought.
Since then a wealth of new supporting data has emerged. More than one hundred fortified sites are now known. Ray Matheny’s work at Edzna revealed a large,moated fortress dating to around the time of Christ. Loma Torremote in the Valley of Mexico was a palisaded hilltop settlement by about 400 B.C. Part of the three kilometers of defensive walls at famous Monte Alban dates before 200 B.C. The core of Los Naranjos in western Honduras was entirely surrounded by a big ditch sometime between 1000 and 500 B.C.
Besides the actual sites,graphic art,remains of weapons,and warrior figurines have been found for many periods. So have stone walls. (Compare Alma 48:8.) And the public skull-rack,(Aztec tzompantli),used at the time of the Conquest by the Aztecs to strike fear into the hearts of potential rebels against their military control,has now been found in the Cuicatlan Valley of Oaxaca dating from before the time of Christ.
Increasingly it is apparent that war practices in use when the Europeans arrived go back to the very early history of Mesoamerica. Yet as late as ten years ago, most of the published descriptions of early life in the area directly contradicted this view. [Note this article was published September 1984]
The intimidating effect of outdated views is shown by a recent incident. One of my former students wrote to me with some concern because his professor at an eastern university had assured him that the bow and arrow,mentioned in several places in the Book of Mormon,was not present in Mesoamerica until A.D. 900. But I could assure him that a potsherd from central Mexico has scratched on it a sketch of a man with such a weapon. The fragment is dated approximately eight hundred years prior to the “recognized” date cited by the professor.
The description of fortifications in Alma 48 through 3 Nephi 3,the frequent battles recorded in the Jaredite and Nephite records,the scale of casualties,many of the tactics and weapons employed,the organizational pattern of the armies,and other information on this topic disclosed in the Book of Mormon now seem entirely plausible in terms of recent developments in our knowledge about Mesoamerica.
Last edited:
Bonnie
Super Member
People all over the world have waged wars on each other since antiquity and it is still going on. So the Mesoamerican natives waging war against each other is nothing new, and hardly proves anything in the BoM. Honestly, Mesenja, you are really getting desperate here. Plus, most of what you have posted here are from pro-Mormon sites or persons. They are going to see stuff in Mesoamerica through Mormon-tinted glasses, in their desperation to try to prove that the stuff in the BoM actually happened.
If folks would like to read about many of the errors and mistakes in the BoM, this is a good place to start:
untitled (apologeticspress.org)
On page 5 under the heading "Errors in Grammar" we find the following:
Sorry for the format; it is written differently in the link. But Smith claimed to get the BoM from God and to write it down exactly as God directed him to, via the spectacles and then by looking in his hat. Read this from page 3 in the link:
So, my purpose in showing this is to show that the first 1830 edition was loaded with grammatical and spelling errors, which were corrected in later editions, and had nothing to do with "Hebraisms" being lost when those errors were corrected. Smith wrote the first edition in just plain bad English grammar and spelling--and they were NOT typesetting errors, as the edition was singularly free from most of those, as the printer noted.
If folks would like to read about many of the errors and mistakes in the BoM, this is a good place to start:
untitled (apologeticspress.org)
On page 5 under the heading "Errors in Grammar" we find the following:
Sorry for the format; it is written differently in the link. But Smith claimed to get the BoM from God and to write it down exactly as God directed him to, via the spectacles and then by looking in his hat. Read this from page 3 in the link:
So, my purpose in showing this is to show that the first 1830 edition was loaded with grammatical and spelling errors, which were corrected in later editions, and had nothing to do with "Hebraisms" being lost when those errors were corrected. Smith wrote the first edition in just plain bad English grammar and spelling--and they were NOT typesetting errors, as the edition was singularly free from most of those, as the printer noted.
Last edited:
Digging into the Book of Mormon:Our Changing Understanding of Ancient America and Its Scripture By John L. Sorenson
Until recently,the prevailing picture of Mesoamerica was that only peaceful societies existed in the climactic Classic era,exemplified by the spectacular Maya and Teotihuacan ruins dating from about A.D. 300 to 800. Only after A.D. 1000 was militarism supposed to have played a role in Mesoamerican history.
Increasingly it is apparent that war practices in use when the Europeans arrived go back to the very early history of Mesoamerica. Yet as late as ten years ago,most of the published descriptions of early life in the area directly contradicted this view. [Note this article was published September 1984]
Until recently,the prevailing picture of Mesoamerica was that only peaceful societies existed in the climactic Classic era,exemplified by the spectacular Maya and Teotihuacan ruins dating from about A.D. 300 to 800. Only after A.D. 1000 was militarism supposed to have played a role in Mesoamerican history.
Increasingly it is apparent that war practices in use when the Europeans arrived go back to the very early history of Mesoamerica. Yet as late as ten years ago,most of the published descriptions of early life in the area directly contradicted this view. [Note this article was published September 1984]
Last edited:
Bonnie
Super Member
Apparently not...
Bonnie
Super Member
Adieu still isn't Hebrew. And we do not use it that much in this country. More people use "ciao."Adieu is a French word meaning "goodbye" that is commonly used in English.
lehitraot
"Goodbye for now, see you again soon" (JPS) "see you later."
lehitraot - Jewish English Lexicon
jel.jewish-languages.org
Do you know what an anachronism is?
Last edited:
Bonnie
Super Member
So? American Indians on their own could not have thought up body armor?