OMG!!
Posted on 07/25/2011 10:34:37 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Is that photoshopped? Or was it raining sharks that day?
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ taught, before His Atonement for our sins: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
After His Atonement for our sins, Jesus Christ taught the Nephites in the land Bountiful: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, One jot or one tittle hath not passed from the from the law, but in me it hath all been fulfilled.
Thus, both the people in Palestine and the people at Boutiful in Mesoamerica knew what jots and tittles were. Yes, they would have been an issue for Book of Mormon authors.
I think what happened is this. All Hebrew scriptures were first written with full vowel markings. As they were accepted by common consent into the expanding canon of scripture, those who recited them would often do so from memory. Because the proper vocalizations were known, copying the Holy Scriptures using consonants only was a short cut that caused no problems until reciters became scarce. Improper vocalizations of the consonants-only copies resulted in various vocalizations, resulting in disputes over which words were intended. Therefore, in the Middle Ages, if you are correct, vowel markings were restored to help stop the spread of improper vocalizations.
Secondly, the wide strokes are not part of ancient Hebrew, again another medieval construction.
But since the people in Palestine and the people at Boutiful in Mesoamerica knew what jots and tittles were, written Hebrew, for ease in reading, would have employed a mixture of wider and narrower strokes.
And what is the point in writing in a language no one could understand?
Moroni explained that:
"And now behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge in the characters, which are called among us reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been suffiently large, we should have written in the Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in out record. But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language, and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof."
OMG!!
John, please do some more detailed research before embarrassing yourself further. The "jot" (Hebrew word "Yodh") is the 10th letter of the Hebrew alphabet. It is not a vowel mark John.
Same goes for tittle. Tittle is used by Greek grammarians of the accents and diacritical points. It means the little lines or projections by which the Hebrew letters differ from each other. One example would be the difference between the letter L and I. The difference is only one small mark.
Again, it is not a vowel mark. Therefore the rest of your argument is invalid.
But since the people in Palestine and the people at Boutiful in Mesoamerica knew what jots and tittles were, written Hebrew, for ease in reading, would have employed a mixture of wider and narrower strokes.
John, what peer reviewed papers/journals show the use of the jot and tittle as well as the rest of the hebrew alphabet - or even egypt hieroglyphics - in central america. To save you time you will not find such, because it doesn't exist. So there is absolutely NO way for you to know what mesoamericans 'knew' in that time frame John - because the languages at the time were not related to either hebrew or egyptian.
If Romney is nominated the mainstream media enemies of America in America will dig the source for this fantasy out and splay it all over TV and print.
Which is what we have been saying for the past five years.
The Book of Mormon "Eyewitnesses"
“'Emma said she sat at the same table with Joseph, writing as he dictated, with nothing between them, and the plates wrapped in a linen cloth on the table. When Cowdery took up the job of scribe, he and Joseph translated in the same room where Emma was working. Joseph looked into the seer stone, and the plates lay covered on the table.' (Bushman, 'Rough Stone Rolling,' p.71).
"Emma said she 'felt the plates as they lay on a table' wrapped in a linen tablecloth. She said the plates were pliable like thick paper and that they “would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb” (Bushman, 'Rough Stone Rolling,' p. 70). If that is true, then it is certain that the plates were not made of gold since soft metal pages made of gold would not make such a sound."
When this kind of stuff starts hitting the media, day after day....Romney will be seen as an idiot for believing it.
Landshark ... candygram.
I believe that it is actually a rooftop statue.
I believe that it is actually a rooftop statue.
So long as I knew nothing about mormonism, I had respect for Orrin Hatch. Learning so much about the blasphemies and heresies at the heart of mormonism, I no longer have any respect for him or any other high priest in mormonism.
Well, if you look closely, it is no longer a roof ‘top’ statue since it has broken through the roof and entered the attic region.
Godzilla is correct in his explanation of the meaning of 'jot or tittle' but I am going to take the lesson a bit further.
Quoting Matthew 5:18 one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
John, the phrase 'jot or tittle' came into English via William Tyndale's translation of the Bible in 1526. From there it became part of the KJV, which is evidence that the KJV translators used Tyndale's translation in their work. Tyndale, in his translation, did not opt for a literal translation but rather one that his readers (learned men) would understand. It is the 16th century equivalent of a modern English translation versus a literal translation.
The actual Greek translation of Matthew 5:18 is 'not one iota [greek letter] or a-horning' rather than 'jot or tittle'. IOW, Jesus never used the phrase 'jot or tittle', nor would have anyone of the time, for the words were not invented yet. http://www.qbible.com/greek-new-testament/matthew/5.html
Furthermore, the use of the phrase in the BoM is proof that it is not what it purports to be, since the phrase in question did not exist at the time.
I also verified Matthew 5:18 in my JST published by Herald House and it also maintains the phrase 'jot or tittle' which is proof that Smith did not receive the translation via revelation or the phrase would have been changed to a 'correct translation'.
Thus, both the people in Palestine and the people at Boutiful in Mesoamerica knew what jots and tittles were.
Sorry, John but they wouldn't have since the terms were not invented yet.
I think what happened is this. All Hebrew scriptures were first written with full vowel markings.
Which is why a basic knowledge of orthography is important. Languages do not 'lose' things like vowel markings. Furthermore tens of thousands of archeological remains and texts prove you wrong. Your theory, while amusing,is completely bogus.
But since the people in Palestine and the people at Boutiful in Mesoamerica knew what jots and tittles were, written Hebrew, for ease in reading, would have employed a mixture of wider and narrower strokes.
John, there are NO EXAMPLES of wide strokes in Hebrew prior to the Middle ages. ALL texts from the time period in question, and later, use narrow marks. A quick glance at any of the DSS texts will prove that. You seem to be grasping at straws.
John, archeology, orthography, textual analysis and the texts themselves all prove that the whole idea of a need or existence of 'reformed Egyptian' in lieu of Hebrew is not only false but ludicrous.
At the time Smith wrote the BoM, Egyptian was just being able to be translated a half a world away, which he would have been unfamiliar with, hence the idea of 'reformed Egyptian'. His knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was non-existent and both prove the Book of Mormon completely false.
X
I love it when I can put my training to use. :)
Same goes for tittle. Tittle is used by Greek grammarians of the accents and diacritical points. It means the little lines or projections by which the Hebrew letters differ from each other. One example would be the difference between the letter L and I. The difference is only one small mark.
Again, it is not a vowel mark. Therefore the rest of your argument is invalid.
"Jot and tittle" has a meaning going beyond the meaning of its individual words. It is an expression that means "the least part of". The NIV translates the phrase, "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen." Hebrew vowel markings were sometimes not even written. Yet not writing them has lead to false vocalizations, which has resulted in changes in word meanings.
Even though vowel markings can be less than "the smallest letter" and "the least stroke of a pen", they can determine whether or not the meaning of a scriptural passage can become corrupted.
Therefore, when Jesus referred to the least part of the law and the prophets, which He Himself inspired to be written with their full vowel markings included for clarity, He had to be referring to vowel markings as well.
Are you actually suggesting that Hebrew writing, which can be misinterpreted when bereft of vowel markings, NEVER made use of them until the Middle Ages? If that is your position, please confirm it.
You exude airs like the college professor who teaches his students that the Ohio Decalogue stones are proof of Israelites on this continent 2000 years ago. His little lecture is available on the Internet and has been thoroughly debunked, but he continues to teach the lies to his ignorant students. Sorry, little john, we are not so ignorant as to ignore your foolishness. And just so you realize we do read your drivel before posting, hw about you provide proof that Jesus instruct someone to write down what you characterize. You see, john, when God inspired the recording of the Law and Prophets, He was not acting as Jesus, He was acting as God The Father Almighty, a part of the Trinity. Your false religion separates the Trinity into three separate gods. So your duplicitous deceit is not going to float when you assert ‘when Jesus referred to the least part of the law and the prophets, which He Himself inspired to be written with their full vowel markings’. You cult does not teach that Jesus inspired the writing, it teaches that before god sired the mormonism jesus, the law and prophets were written. When you practice to deceive, john, you must keep all your lies in order or be revealed for what you’re doing, deceiving. Sadly, you’re most obviously deceiving yourself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2753623/posts?page=414#414
The NIV translates the phrase, "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen."
How the NIV translates it is not how it is in the Greek John - that is the deciding point.
Hebrew vowel markings were sometimes not even written.
John, I consider you to be intelligent. This statement fractures that belief to the core. If the marking is not written, it is not a marking John. We are not playing with invisible ink here.
Even though vowel markings can be less than "the smallest letter" and "the least stroke of a pen", they can determine whether or not the meaning of a scriptural passage can become corrupted.
JOhn, you made the claim that jots and tittles were vowel marks. Now you are trying to obfuscate the issue. Particularly when smithian translation techniques consisted of an agate pebble in a hat, to some inspiration for the JST.
Therefore, when Jesus referred to the least part of the law and the prophets, which He Himself inspired to be written with their full vowel markings included for clarity, He had to be referring to vowel markings as well.
As already proven out - those are a later addition. Your train of logic derailed long ago John. Making a big assumption with absolutely no or even false evidence John.
Are you actually suggesting that Hebrew writing, which can be misinterpreted when bereft of vowel markings, NEVER made use of them until the Middle Ages?
It is not just my "position" John, but facts of life from linguists. Vowel markings were not started until AD 600, when the masorites started adding marks because the scattering of the Jews and loss of the close oral traditions were causing the language to be lost.
Again, John, please research before you further ruin what little credibility you have left on this subject.
Hebrew vowel markings were sometimes not even written. Yet not writing them has lead to false vocalizations, which has resulted in changes in word meanings.
Even though vowel markings can be less than “the smallest letter” and “the least stroke of a pen”, they can determine whether or not the meaning of a scriptural passage can become corrupted.
- - - - - -
That is incorrect. The Masorites added the vowel markings because of the diaspora in the Middle ages and the need to clarify pronunciation when reading aloud because of the difficulty in passing it on orally.
However, anyone at the time of Christ and before, would have known the words without vowel markings and anyone with a knowledge of Hebrew beyond first year, can read it correctly without the vowel markings. Vowel markings or lack thereof does not change the meanings of the words in Hebrew. As I posted above, one of our finals was a translation without markings. Hebrew structure is such that a particular form of the word (sans vowels) is recognizable and carries a certain meaning. So your claim that an absence of vowels would have led to meaning changes is errant.
Vowel additions or deletions would not affect the meaning or translation of scripture at all. Modern Hebrew often does not contain the vowel markings yet does not lead to misinterpretation at all.
And yes, Hebrew never had vowel marking until the middle ages and vowels do not affect word meanings or translation. That is fact.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.