volgadon

Members
  • Posts

    1446
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by volgadon

  1. Baal appears, but not really in the meaning of master, which is what I said. Words evolve over time. I don't believe that Ezra wrote the Torah, in fact even those scholars that believe it a later work don't attribute it to Ezra.
  2. The talmuds are full of such examples. They were a lot more common than double names.
  3. The likeliest possibility is that mahan stems from the same root as moach- brain. This fits in especially well with his reason for boasting, that he has a cunning plan to get what he wants when he wants. In other words, melech hakombinot. =) Baal did not come to mean master until a little later, in the Second Temple period, IIRC.
  4. Nauvoo is the plural of naeh, and is taken from Isaiah 52:7. He should have called the city naavah.
  5. Are you sure? I look at the peshat in the Bible and it means that the place they were camping at was crowded, so they chopped down some trees. I read the talmud quote and it doesn't seem to be talking about persecution, but about bridging gaps and schisms. It continues to say forever let the left arm push away but the right one welcome, and then brings up the unfortunate incident of Yehoshua ben Farhaya who drove away Yeshu the heretic, who became a great idolator. For us LDS it is like the instructions in the D&C to rebuke betimes with sharpness but to show an increase of love afterwards. I agree with you about the field being the world to come, but the talmud quote shouldn't be used in trying to understand Lehi's vision, as the quote is from a time after 3 disastrous revolts, when there was a wide-spread phenomenom of people leaving the land of Israel. R. Yochnan's statm,ent is a bit of positive propoganda and does not necessarily reflect older POVs.
  6. It sounds a lot more like olam (world, but in this case eternity), but with a Teimani ayin. Either that or it is ein-olam.
  7. There was a lot of debate in mishnaic and talmudic times as to just what seeds could or couldn't be mixed. They would not have mixed them anyway, because you would want to know what, where and when you were planting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it did not matter at that early of a stage in jewish history what you did with the seeds before planting them.
  8. In Hebrew there is a chet and there is a chaf. Chaf is guttural, like the ch in German, but chet is a lot softer, almost an 'h' sound. Hanukkah begins with a chet. That being said, most Israelis aren't too careful about pronunciation. I'm guilty of that more often than not.
  9. volgadon

    New Nibley!!!

    Well, that sort of thing isn't uncommon when an academic passes away. Various notes and lectures are gathered together and published. The results sometimes show.
  10. I never implied that he did. There is, however, nothing wrong about fasting and praying together in unity. He would fast and pray for her to recieve the answers she needs, not recieve answers for her.
  11. Seeing as Joseph Smith didn't work on every single verse from Genesis to Revelation (no s), you are right, the book doesn't exist.
  12. I think it skirts dangerously close to that. Even if that is not the case, the theory is founded on shaky grounds. Not every theory is a good theory.
  13. Don't read sections, read the whole thing! Read it once to get an overview. Read it again, going more in-depth. Read it again, it will become clearer.
  14. Didn't I? The Russia Rostov mission, it is in the south and borders on Ukraine.
  15. Seems like they are having trouble again. My mission just had to close several cities because of a missionary shortage. Anyway, the Kiev mission is great. I have many friends there. My first AP is a bishop!
  16. Troy existed, does that mean that Aphrodite and Athena exist and are true gods? The people and places of the Quraan existed, why aren't you a Muslim? Jerusalem, the wilderness, the Red Sea, Arabia and America exist, therefore, by your logic, the BoM must be true. Joseph Smith existed, the places associated with him existed, therefore he must be a true prophet. Do you see how week your arguments are? Biblical archaeology quite frequently contradicts the contents of the Bible. Megiddo, according to archaeological finds, did not have even one stable, let alone 900. There is utterly no evidence for the events of the entire book of Joshua. Did you learn about the Yazids in school? Did you learn about Pugachev's Rebellion, about the Molochans, the Derevlyans, the Lemko and Hutsuls, the Mazurs, the Ismaiylians, the Alawi, the Arizal, the Shabetaens, the Druse, the Shepsug, the Kalmyks, and the list could go on and on. What they don't teach in school literally fills volumes. Why is a man recieving ancient records from an angel of the Lord and translating them through the gift and power of God harder to swallow than someone raising themselves from the dead and living in the heavens? Truth, eternal truth, is not discovered by any other source than God himself. Blessed art thou for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee....
  17. All Origen did was compile the texts side by side. The very fact of there being 4 very different translations alongside the original both in Hebrew and in a Greek transliteration, made it very difficult for private interpretations. That we don't have a complete original is a great loss.
  18. BTW, the ones hiding in France were the most gnostic of the bunch, if it is the Cathars you are refering to.
  19. Bro Rudick, you are way off on that one. The LXX was translated before the birth of Christ. This is an indisputable historical fact, easily verified by Jewish (not Catholic) sources, as well as surviving manuscripts. Far from changing the words of the apostles (an impossibility, as it is an OT translated before they were born) the text is very messianic in nature. This was very displeasing to the pharisees and sages, who commisioned another translation, around 130 AD, which was very literal and tended to follow rabbinical interpretation. Mind you, what any of this has to do with higher criticsm is beyond me. Erasmus most certainly did use the vulgate for his New Testament, a new Latin translation. He included the Greek text alongside, but when he couldn't find several verses in Revelation, he used a vulgate manuscript to render them back into Greek! This 'poison' is what the NT uses for its quotes from the OT.
  20. I fear you are quite wrong on this. The LXX (the Septuagint) predates the apostles. Origen was the foremost Christian scholar and apologetic of his day. he most certainly was not a higher critic. He was a Christian apologetic. Perhaps you were thinking of the Hexapla, which consisted of the OT in Hebrew, a greek transliteration and the four Greek translations of the text, including the Septuagint. This work was invaluable for textual criticsm, as it gave one the original as well as four rather different translations. Origen, though, was born in 185 AD. Most of his views are quite close to the restored gospel. Pamphilus was devoted to collecting the earliest copies of the Bible. He was not a higher critic either. Eusebius was an historian and apologist, not a higher critic. These all concerned themselves with textual (or lower), not higher criticsm. The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the OT for the hellenised Jews of Alexandria, so they would be able to read the scriptures in their own tongue, which was Greek. The Pentateuch (5 books of Moses) was translated in the 3rd century BC and the rest was translated at various times, until the 1st c BC. Fragments have been found which predate the birth of Christ. Aristobulus and Philo, Jewish philosophers and historians who lived before the birth of Christ both mention the Septuagint, and there is another document, the letter of Aristeas, which is just as ancient. This was the OT used by the Jewish diaspora and the early Christians.
  21. Another thought struck me. Whether or not Isaiah meant a virgin birth (which I think he did) it is irelevant. Jews needed at least some basis in the scripture before accepting something new. Matthew chose something that would make it easier for his audience to open their hearts to the message of the gospel.
  22. The LXX was translated before Christ's birth. It is the Bible used in the NT. Has utterly nothing to do with higher criticism, which is a modern academic school of thought.
  23. Higher criticsm can't accept the idea of prophecy, so this is a pretty pedestrian understanding. Internal evidence (chapter 8, I've already provided the references) shows that there is more to Imanuel. Gedalia Alon, in his The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age is of the opinion that the LXX reflected a different collection of scriptures, which was not the one used by the pharisees. To combat its influence they commisioned Aquilas, a proselyte, to translate the OT slavishly into Greek.