Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica

Bonnie

Super Member
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
I sent Dr. Luginbill this stuff and asked him to comment on it, since he is an expert in Hebrew and the Bible. He wrote back:

People often claim "Hebraisms" in NT Greek as well. Sometimes that may be true, and it is possible to see different ways that uniquely Hebrew phrases are translated into Greek . . . WHEN we have the Hebrew original being translated (i.e., in a quotation). But to say some phrase in English is reflecting a Hebraism requires us to believe that it is translating Hebrew in the first place. That is only possible in a quotation -- or if we have the original. Otherwise, that is just rife speculation, whatever two languages we are talking about (obviously). So while it's impossible to prove that the BoM could not have been translated from Hebrew (or Swahili) by analyzing the English, it's also not possible to prove from the English diction that it has been translated from Hebrew . . . or not just made up out of thin air.

In Jesus,

Bob L.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
There are all kinds of body armors from various ancient native people around the world.

looking for a better link.
Of course there are. I think the ancient Chinese had padded armor made from cloth. The idea that the wars the Central American Indians fought, the battlements, and body armor they used is evidence for the truth of the BoM is nonsense. And kind of an insult to the intelligence of Native Americans, that they could not come up with body armor and battlements on their own, but had to get it from the descendants of folks supposedly from the Middle East.
 

John t

Super Member
I sent Dr. Luginbill this stuff and asked him to comment on it, since he is an expert in Hebrew and the Bible. He wrote back:

I hope you archived that!

More to the point, have you considered compiling your replies into a book?

I am sure that someone would be interested to have it in print, or an e-book capable of being used in something like Logos Bible software. I recommend the latter because Logos 9 has a very good search engine and has several other excellent sources using original LDS sources in its library, including the one I posted about earlier.

FYI there is a free version of Logos 9 available (limited resources of course) so you don't have to spend the big bucks for some of their package deals
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I hope you archived that!

More to the point, have you considered compiling your replies into a book?

I am sure that someone would be interested to have it in print, or an e-book capable of being used in something like Logos Bible software. I recommend the latter because Logos 9 has a very good search engine and has several other excellent sources using original LDS sources in its library, including the one I posted about earlier.

FYI there is a free version of Logos 9 available (limited resources of course) so you don't have to spend the big bucks for some of their package deals
Thanks, ,John, but Luginbill has archived many of my questions onto his own website, I found out, years ago. I am archiving them, though, and always have, since I first contacted him in 2003. I don't always agree with some of his stuff, like pre-millennialism, but I just use him for translation issues, or history of the church issue. He is very kind and patient as well.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
That’s a good one. I was going to do a search for other native cultures that existed around the same timeframe. And also for ancient groups that would have been the progenitors of the Mayans, but I haven’t had time yet.
Thanks. Here is something from that link:

Presumably, the use of armour extends back beyond historical records, when primitive warriors protected themselves with leather hides and helmets. In the 11th century BCE, Chinese warriors wore armour made of five to seven layers of rhinoceros skin, and ox hides were similarly used by the Mongols in the 13th century CE. Fabric armour too has a long history, with thick, multilayered linen cuirasses (armour covering the body from neck to waist) worn by the Greek heavy infantry of the 5th century BCE and quilted linen coats worn in northern India until the 19th century.


Rashīd al-Dīn: Mongol warriors from History of the World

armour | History, Types, Definition, & Facts | Britannica
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Great link.

Since we know the Mayan ancestors came across from Siberia, I thought it would be interesting to see if the kinds of armor they used could be traced down over the migrations. From what I’ve read so far, in Siberia they used reindeer bones/antlers. As they moved south on this continent, changes were made in clothing, weapons and armor, according to what was available to them, and the weather.

 

Mesenja

Well-known member
Quora

Question Why is 'adieu' in the Book of Mormon

Answer Michael Hickenbotham, former missionary at the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints

The word "adieu" was in common usage at the time Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. His mother and others Joseph Smith knew used it. It is also found in most English dictionaries in Joseph Smith day and today.

Adieu means "I commend you to God,” a quite appropriate scriptural phrase. We should also remember that this was a translation of a reformed Egyptian (Mormon 9:32) equivalent to a Hebrew word used in 544 B.C. The Hebrew word Lehitra'ot has essentially the same meaning as the word "adieu" (Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, p. 163).

Those who criticize Joseph Smith for using a French word must, in fairness,also criticize the King James translators for using French words such as: tache (Exodus 26:6, 11), laver (Exodus 30:18, 28), and bruit (Jeremiah 10:22; Nahum 3:19) which were derived from French words meaning mark, wash, and noise. Should we delete them because they are no longer in current use in the English language today.
 
Last edited:

Bonnie

Super Member
The word "adieu" was in common usage at the time Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. His mother and others Joseph Smith knew used it. It is also found in most English dictionaries in Joseph Smith day and today.

Adieu means "I commend you to God,” a quite appropriate scriptural phrase. We should also remember that this was a translation of a reformed Egyptian (Mormon 9:32) equivalent to a Hebrew word used in 544 B.C. The Hebrew word Lehitra'ot has essentially the same meaning as the word "adieu" (Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, p. 163).

Those who criticize Joseph Smith for using a French word must, in fairness,also criticize the King James translators for using French words such as: tache (Exodus 26:6, 11), laver (Exodus 30:18, 28), and bruit (Jeremiah 10:22; Nahum 3:19) which were derived from French words meaning mark, wash, and noise. Should we delete them because they are no longer in current use in the English language today?

It may have been used in Smith's day, but would it have been used by Jaredites, Nephites, etc. during the BoM times? It is anachronistic. Not the worst part of the BoM, but still pretty silly. Like "okay" or "ciao" in the Bible.
 
Last edited:

Magdalena

Well-known member
Quora

Question
Why is 'adieu' in the Book of Mormon

Answer Michael Hickenbotham, former missionary at the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints

The word "adieu" was in common usage at the time Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. His mother and others Joseph Smith knew used it. It is also found in most English dictionaries in Joseph Smith day and today.

Adieu means "I commend you to God,” a quite appropriate scriptural phrase. We should also remember that this was a translation of a reformed Egyptian (Mormon 9:32) equivalent to a Hebrew word used in 544 B.C. The Hebrew word Lehitra'ot has essentially the same meaning as the word "adieu" (Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Book of Mormon, p. 163).

Those who criticize Joseph Smith for using a French word must, in fairness,also criticize the King James translators for using French words such as: tache (Exodus 26:6, 11), laver (Exodus 30:18, 28), and bruit (Jeremiah 10:22; Nahum 3:19) which were derived from French words meaning mark, wash, and noise. Should we delete them because they are no longer in current use in the English language today.

Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Mormon word for word from ancients plates.

His scribes said he would recite the words that appeared in English on the rock in his hat, and they wouldn’t disappear until they were transcribed correctly.

That would not explain the word adieu.
 

John t

Super Member
Those who criticize Joseph Smith for using a French word must, in fairness,also criticize the King James translators for using French words such as: tache (Exodus 26:6, 11), laver (Exodus 30:18, 28), and bruit (Jeremiah 10:22; Nahum 3:19) which were derived from French words meaning mark, wash, and noise. Should we delete them because they are no longer in current use in the English language today.

Oh. please stop! My stomach muscles are sore from guffawing at your balderdash.

The KJV is simply one version of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts That cannot be said of Smith's work:
Remember this?

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and...blah blah blah​
So you are attempting to state that the Angel moron i actually knew French in 600 BC

Here from Babble.com is something that eviscerates your bogus contention. (The bold face is in the original)

At the end of the 8th century, the Dark Ages spurred an educational decline for the majority of the population — meaning that most people could no longer understand the Latin that clerics spoke. After the Council of Tours in 813, King Charlemagne required that priests give sermons either in the “Roman rustic language” or Theotiscam (a Germanic language) so the common people could understand. This decision marked the first recognition of French (or what would become French) as an oral language. The true birth of the French language, however, took place three decades later.​

Therefore the stuff you put out is simply a continuing monument to your being so desperate as to picking up on something that lacks any common sense, and is utterly contradictory to established history.

Look up "history of French language' if you dare., but you can NEVER establish a connection lasting 1400 years whereby an "angel" used it in a non-existent gold plate

In a nutshell, you are creating (or copying) stupid stuff and trying to fool us into believing it. Don't worry, we won't. But we do appreciate your giving us so many belly laughs.
 
Last edited:

Mesenja

Well-known member
Quora

Question
Why is 'adieu' in the Book of Mormon

Answer Michael Hickenbotham, former missionary at the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints


Those who criticize Joseph Smith for using a French word must, in fairness,also criticize the King James translators for using French words such as: tache (Exodus 26:6, 11), laver (Exodus 30:18, 28), and bruit (Jeremiah 10:22; Nahum 3:19) which were derived from French words meaning mark, wash, and noise. Should we delete them because they are no longer in current use in the English language today.
 

Mesenja

Well-known member
Modern English - Wikipedia

Modern English (sometimes New English or NE (ME) as to Middle English and Old English) is the form of the English language spoken since the Great Vowel Shift in England, which began in the late 14th century and was completed in roughly 1550.
 

Magdalena

Well-known member
Modern English - Wikipedia

Modern English (sometimes New English or NE (ME) as to Middle English and Old English) is the form of the English language spoken since the Great Vowel Shift in England, which began in the late 14th century and was completed in roughly 1550.
How about if you try to use some modern English of your own. I find it impossible to carry on a discussion with just copied material, and no dialogue from you.
 
Top