I have to commend the persistence One Brow has. He has embraced his views whole heartedly. I think his views are misguided and illogical but I admire his resolve and intelligence.
So I want to talk about the Mormons
- Thread starter franklin
- Start date
I have to commend the persistence One Brow has. He has embraced his views whole heartedly. I think his views are misguided and illogical but I admire his resolve and intelligence.
I have no idea. Are you claiming that, among books claiming to be Scripture and first printed in the US within the general time frame of, say, 1810-1850, that the Book of Mormon contains a significantly higher number of Hebraisms? Or, were you thinking I would compare it to other works that were not scriptural, even after I said that it's being scriptural was a significant factor in it's word usage? To which books would we make a fair comparison?
Is this site reliable?
https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-oliver-cowdery?lang=eng
It says we don't know much about it, except it didn't seem to work. At least Cowdery was good with a diving rod. Otherwise, you might think it was all superstition.
No.
I have no doubt. When was the last time someone in authority told you, or your parents, to "go back to Europe"? Your statement is a great sign you have completely missed the point, in such a profound way that it's difficult to explain it briefly.
What you see as contributing, I see as illuminating.
Don't worry, no one expects you to care. This doesn't affect anyone you care about.
You see focusing on our differences as illuminating. I see it as something that is ultimately irrelevant. You want us to focus on those things that seperate us and I say that as long as we focus on the differences then we will never truly get anywhere.
If you want to make true progress on any sort of divide, wether it be religious bigotry, racism, sexism..., then focus on what brings us together instead of what forces us apart.
Why does a Mormon have to be Momorn and an African American an African America. Can't they just be Americans and that's it?
You have no real clue wether that is true or not.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
Your response to me was pretty heavy on the assumption and toolish besides so get off your high horse. I just pointed that out and that got your panties in a bunch. Whatever.
CONAN
Well-Known Member
Geez, you even assmegged your straw man.
Just answer the questions and stop blaming everyone for your own shortcomings.
Me pointing out that you are a self righteous prick means my panties are in a bunch? K.
So much for asking questions like he wanted.
I don't know what other books you should compare it to, but if imitating Hebrew idioms is something that would happen "automatically", then surely you can find at least one. No?
As to what I am claiming, I said that in my earlier post: when taken as a whole, the nature and extent of Hebrew idioms, language structures, and poetry, are pretty convincing evidence to me of the Hebrew nature of the source text. I'm not saying that it will be convincing evidence to everyone, so it doesn't surprise me at all that it's not convincing to you. But it is to me.
Sure, lds.org is the official LDS church website. Should be reliable. And actually, surprisingly enough you've stumbled across a part of the website I didn't even realize existed (history.lds.org).
That's the main thing, I guess. That's evidence that the nature of the translation process involved the translator himself, which was my previous point. It wasn't just a "magic act" that completely bypassed the translator, which is what you were implying before.
No need to get snippy.