Luke 23 and Latin America (Central and South America)?

[Dravin]

From now on when I make a thread or post, if all you're going to say is negative things do NOT say anything at all.

All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for knowledgeable men (and women) to do nothing. If you spew ignorance such as this thread I will comment and object.

Even when I explain things to people on here they still don't get it.

You haven't explained anything, you've simply asserted that your theory correct. I suspect once you explain it we will get it. Of course what we'll get is not that your theory is correct but further insight into the logical contortions and ignorance upon which your theory is predicated.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Dravin

[Dravin]

So, let me see if I understand - is this your hypothesis?

Is the above quote representative of the point you are trying to argue?

From the OP:

The only way forms of Latin could have traveled to Latin America was if someone migrated who knew the language. Nephi and the others were from Jerusalem so there's a good chance they knew Latin which could be how forms of the Latin language got to Latin America.

He couches it in more uncertainty than my presentation but it boils down to Latin Americans speak Latin languages so it got to them somehow*, that somehow is that Lehi brought it with him. Cut out the middle man and you get Latin Americans speak Latin languages because Lehi brought Latin with him. If I'm mistaken however the OP is invited to restate their thesis in a way that clears up any confusion.

* Which is true of any non-indigenous language but I don't think anyone is objecting to that claim.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Dravin

[Backroads]

From now on when I make a thread or post, if all you're going to say is negative things do NOT say anything at all. Ever since I joined this place I've been criticized on nearly every thread and post I've made whether it be facts being backed up by the scriptures themselves, theories, or even opinions.

You kind of ask for it. Just sayin'. Everytime someone disagrees with you, you throw a hissy fit.

Welcome to adult life. You will be criticized if there is reason to criticize. I dont think anyone has been critical, for the record.

You seem to be wanting people to agree with every thing you say. Sounds like you were spoiled rotten by your parents.

[LDSChristian]

All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for knowledgeable men (and women) to do nothing. If you spew ignorance such as this thread I will comment and object.

You haven't explained anything, you've simply asserted that your theory correct. I suspect once you explain it we will get it. Of course what we'll get is not that your theory is correct but further insight into the logical contortions and ignorance upon which your theory is predicated.

Read the original post. That has the explanation. I'm not the one here spewing out ignorance. If you can't read a simple explanation don't bother commenting. I don't have to acknowledge you anyway regardless of someone being a moderator.

See what I mean? All people do here is criticize others. You call yourself LDS? Real LDS don't put others down. Don't just put one sentence from the original post. Put the whole thing.

Edited February 10, 2011 by LDSChristian

[hyohko]

RE: Dravin - I know, I just wanted him to clarify. I don't think that's going to happen.

This is a good example of the logical fallacy, "Affirming the Consequent."

Modified from Wikipedia (I know, I know):

* Affirming the Consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion.

--->Example:

Argument: A) If people have the flu, they cough.

B )Billy is coughing.

C) Therefore, Billy has the flu.

Problem: Other things, such as asthma, can cause someone to cough.

Argument: A) If it rains, the ground gets wet.

B ) The ground is wet.

C) Therefore it rained.

Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. dew).

Your argument:

A) Nations speak languages passed down from their ancestors.

B ) Latin Americans speak Spanish, a Latin-based language.

C) All of their ancestors spoke Latin-based languages.

This argument is a fallacy. It ignores the fact that nations (and individuals) can learn languages from sources OTHER THAN THEIR PARENTS OR NEAR KINDRED. It is simply bad logic. Sure, modern generations likely learned Spanish/Portuguese from their parents, but what about the natives on Hispaniola when Columbus first arrived? Did they speak Spanish?

Your premise totally ignores the possibility that Latin Americans learned Spanish because the Spanish conquerors came over and enslaved entire nations, forcing them to learn Spanish. It also ignores native tribes in South and Central America who still do not speak Spanish, Portuguese, French, or any other Latin-based language. The old tribal languages, such as Quechua, belong to a completely different family of languages from Latin - they do not resemble each other in grammar, vocabulary, sound, construction, or any other way. These people have been speaking these languages for over a thousand years, well before the arrival of the European Conquistadors.

For your theory to hold any water, you must demonstrate that when Columbus arrived, the people there already spoke some form of Latin. The burden of proof is on you.

In the meantime, have a little light reading for you. I know it is Wikipedia, but check through the page to the source links if you doubt that Native American languages are not Latin-based.

EDIT - This post is not a personal attack, or a criticism of your faith, your character, your standing before God. It is a deconstruction of a bad argument. If you attempt such logic in a College-Level mathematics class, a philosophy class, a history class, or any other academic field in which you have to state an argument and defend it, you will be laughed out of the room. You will receive failing marks for trying to argue on such flimsy, logically fallacious, wholly unsupported-by-the-evidence premises.

Edited February 9, 2011 by hyohko

[MarginOfError]

38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is the King of the Jews.

I've always thought this verse kind of links up the Old World and New World. The main reason is because one of the languages the sign above Christ's head was Latin. Calvary is the Latin alternative word for Golgotha. It comes from the Latin words Calvariae Locus. Latin America, that being Central and South America, contains "daughter" languages of the Latin language. The main ones are Spanish, Portuguese, and French. Calvary was just outside the walls of Jerusalem so there's no doubt people in Jerusalem knew Latin. The only way forms of Latin could have traveled to Latin America was if someone migrated who knew the language. Nephi and the others were from Jerusalem so there's a good chance they knew Latin which could be how forms of the Latin language got to Latin America. So could there possibly be a connection?

But did those "daughter" languages exist before or after Columbus and his contemporaries?

Before.

I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning here at all.

The Romans placed the trilingual sign. Latin was very poorly known in 2nd Temple era Judaea and Galilee. The tiny Roman Jewish community knew it, but most importantly, the Romans did! It was their official language, though Greek was more common in the East. That is the reason why Latin appears. How you are going to tie this to Jerusalem of 586 BC is beyond me. There is absolutely zero chance that Lehi and co. knew Latin.

The reason Central and South America contain Spanish, Portuguese, and French is because those were the nations that conquered South and Central America. There is nothing connecting those or any other Latin language to pre-Columbian America.

Spanish is spoken in areas controlled by Spain, Portuguese in those belonging to Portugal, and French in the area France had. THAT is how they ended up there.

Forms of Latin got to the Americas via 'modern' European colonization, kinda like how English (a Germanic language) got to North America. You don't need some earlier migration (almost 2000 years earlier) of some people who knew proto-German to explain why someone on a Navajo Reservation today speaks English.

And you do realize that when the Spanish/Portuguese/French arrived that the peoples did not speak Spanish/Portuguese/French? The Spanish/Portuguese/French taught it to them. Even if the peoples had somehow been Latin speakers 2000 years before the Spanish/Portuguese/French arrived there is no way that Latin in both (very much isolated from each other) locations would have evolved into the same languages. France and Spain are physically connected to each other and Latin in both locations took divergent paths. So the reason Spanish/Protuguese/French is spoken in various locations in South (and central) America would still be a result of colonization from Europe even if somehow Lehi and Co. brought Latin with them. Making it moot as a evidential point for your 'hypothesis'.

Indeed. The theory being proposed shows a rather stunning ignorance of history (and language).

The Roman Empire began to take hold between 75 - 50 BC. It was firmly entrenched by 20 BC, and so would have been in power in Israel for about 50 years at the time Christ was crucified. In all likelihood, Latin didn't exist in any recognizable form in 600 BC, so the theory being presented is more than a little ridiculous.

This is a prime example of why we need to look beyond the scriptures when we're not looking exclusively for spiritual truths. The scriptures most definitely do not contain the fullness of history. This is the kind of pattern that worries me about other recent threads, where we've taken what we know to exist now and tried to build some bridge back to ancient times. Instead of limiting our knowledge of history to what we already know, we should be trying to expand our knowledge of history to what is available to know.

Latin was the main language of Rome at the time. Rome controlled Jerusalem, and so they included it on the sign. It had nothing to do with the Americas, which had no Latin-based languages until the Spanish and Portuguese arrived 1500 years later.

Most people in Jerusalem at Jesus' death spoke either Aramaic or Greek (the international language). Latin was spoken almost exclusively by the Roman prelate and guards.

Rome was founded approx 753 BC, and would not be a major player for centuries. Odds of the Nephites knowing Latin are next to nil, as it still would have been a new language in Lehi's day. The languages most common in Jerusalem in 600 BC were: Hebrew, Arabic, Egyptian, and Assyrian/Babylonian. Even Greek was not a major language yet, and wouldn't be until Alexander the Great made his foray into the region centuries later during the period of the Second Temple.

Read the original post. That has the explanation. I'm not the one here spewing out ignorance. If you can't read a simple explanation don't bother commenting. I don't have to acknowledge you anyway.

See what I mean? All people do here is criticize others. You call yourself LDS? Real LDS don't put others down. Don't just put one sentence from the original post. Put the whole thing.

So here's the problem you present to us. You present a theory that is so full of holes as to be entirely laughable. Several of us proceeded to point out the holes in your theory and explain why it isn't plausible. Then you complain that you're being treated unfairly. You also claim that we've not read the simple explanation in the original post. I can only ascertain that you feel if we aren't agreeing with you, then we aren't listening to you. In reality, you aren't listening to us. You've got a serious case of know-it-all-itis. You would do well to learn to say, "I was wrong" instead of crying about being shown that you were wrong. It would greatly improve your likability.

[MarginOfError]

RE: Dravin - I know, I just wanted him to clarify. I don't think that's going to happen.

This is a good example of the logical fallacy, "Affirming the Consequent."

You bring up a good point. In his defense, he is employing a logical construction that is technically true. Any conclusion is true when it is based on false assumptions.

The downside to that is, of course, that even though it is technically true, the scientific and mathematical communities reject arguments based on false assumptions for the obvious reason--the assumptions are false and therefore the conclusion has no practical meaning.

[Dravin]

Read the original post. That has the explanation. I'm not the one here spewing out ignorance. If you can't read a simple explanation don't bother commenting. I don't have to acknowledge you anyway.

There is no explanation of how you reached your conclusion. You say A therefore B. You have not explained why therefore B particularly as it relates to numerous objections presented (you did address Backroads but via non-sequitur and assertion ).

See what I mean? All people do here is criticize others. You call yourself LDS? Real LDS don't put others down. Don't just put one sentence from the original post. Put the whole thing.

LDS also value education. In all honesty a milder tone would probably be used if you presented yourself as open to examination of your positions. You don't, so we tend to treat you like a 5 year old insisting that his 3 month old brother, not him, got into the freezer and ate all the popsicles because he's drooling (because he just finished eating all those yummy popsicles).

Edited February 9, 2011 by Dravin

[hyohko]

Yeah, in retrospect, non-sequitur is a better deconstruction.

[Dravin]

Yeah, in retrospect, non-sequitur is a better deconstruction.

Well, non-sequitur is a broad category, quite a few logical fallacies fall under the term considering it essentially means that something doesn't follow. In a sense that's pretty much all logical fallacies.

[Wingnut]

Can we get this thread moved into the General Discussion category? There are some posts that really require the laugh button.

From now on when I make a thread or post, if all you're going to say is negative things do NOT say anything at all.

Too bad you don't really get to decide who can and can't post on "your" threads.

Ever since I joined this place I've been criticized on nearly every thread and post I've made whether it be facts being backed up by the scriptures themselves, theories, or even opinions.

(1) You don't back your statements up with scriptures.

(2) Theories don't prove anything.

(3) Opinions are worthless as evidence.

[Matthew0059]

Maybe this thread should be locked? It's clearly a source of grief for the OP and others are exhibiting annoyance. The original topic has been derailed and deconstructed to the grave. Nothing positive is coming from it.

[LDSChristian]

Can we get this thread moved into the General Discussion category? There are some posts that really require the laugh button.

Too bad you don't really get to decide who can and can't post on "your" threads.

(1) You don't back your statements up with scriptures.

(2) Theories don't prove anything.

(3) Opinions are worthless as evidence.

I've backed my statements numerous times on this site with scriptures. Look them up yourself because I don't feel like going through the site and finding them all for people that have nothing good to say. Theories don't prove things but at least some people can actually come up with theories. I haven't seen anyone else make any good ones. I can't decide who can and can't post on MY threads but I can put you on the ignore list so I do not have to put up with insults from so-called members of the church. If you're a member of the church act like it and show some respect instead of putting down everything someone says. I can't put moderators on my ignore list but I can just ignore them.

Edited February 10, 2011 by LDSChristian

[LDSChristian]

LDS also value education. In all honesty a milder tone would probably be used if you presented yourself as open to examination of your positions. You don't, so we tend to treat you like a 5 year old insisting that his 3 month old brother, not him, got into the freezer and ate all the popsicles because he's drooling (because he just finished eating all those yummy popsicles).

All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for knowledgeable men (and women) to do nothing. If you spew ignorance such as this thread I will comment and object.

You haven't explained anything, you've simply asserted that your theory correct. I suspect once you explain it we will get it. Of course what we'll get is not that your theory is correct but further insight into the logical contortions and ignorance upon which your theory is predicated.

"3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

4. No bickering and nit-picking toward others. Realize that sometimes it is very difficult to be able to express how one feels through written words. Please be courteous and ask for a further explanation, rather then trying to attack and find holes in someone else's post. "

Calling someone stupid or their theories stupid are examples of personal attacks and judgment toward others.

I'm 19 so you'll treat me as I'm 19, not 5. Moderators are supposed to obey the rules too, right?

[Dravin]

Maybe this thread should be locked? It's clearly a source of grief for the OP and others are exhibiting annoyance. The original topic has been derailed and deconstructed to the grave. Nothing positive is coming from it.

Good idea.

[rameumptom]

Yes, it is a good theory. Do I care if someone else thinks it's not? No. Why? Because I know it is a good theory.

The term "theory" means an idea or premise that can be tested. You presented your theory, and it was tested against the history knowledge of those present (I have a Master's degree in history). The evidence showed your theory to not be a good one. Why? Because, to be a good theory means it measures up to the testing.

Flat earth is a theory, but not a good one. Why? Because anyone who has flown around the world knows that you do not fall off the edge of the earth. That the earth is round is shown by how a ship sails off, the last part that disappears over the horizon is the mast. If the earth were flat, you would see the whole thing until it went out of sight.

[rameumptom]

From now on when I make a thread or post, if all you're going to say is negative things do NOT say anything at all. Ever since I joined this place I've been criticized on nearly every thread and post I've made whether it be facts being backed up by the scriptures themselves, theories, or even opinions.

Actually, what good is a forum, if people cannot discuss things? If you fear being peer reviewed, you need to keep your theories to yourself.

Many of us here understand that discussions can be debates. Yes, some get rude, and that isn't called for. Still, there has to be some modicum of understanding, in order for discussion to move forward. You cannot come here and make a statement, then expect everyone to simply agree with it, if their own world view is different.

Logic and reason are being used to explain why your theory is not a good one. Good theories stand up to rigorous testing. Bad theories do not.

Opinions are another thing. You are welcome to your opinion. If you express it here, people are welcome to agree or disagree with it. Again, hopefully with some tact and common courtesy. The key is to try and use this place to learn from others. You may find that a little humility is the beginning of knowledge and learning.

I have my opinions and theories, as well. If I place them out here, I expect them to be questioned. The same goes on at my blog and on other philosophy and religious blogs I'm on, where there is very rigorous debate going on (this is a cake walk here, in comparison). You can't be afraid to have your ideas questioned and debated. That is the place where we learn; it is when we have an idea, and allow others to inspect it thoroughly. Like the rest of us, you must swallow your pride, and allow new ideas and evidence to make you a better person.

Socrates was a great philosopher. His key premise in life is: "I know nothing." He meant this in comparison to all the truths of the universe. He used the Socratic method (questioning ideas) to validate statements made by others. Often they ended up frustrated, when his questioning led them to another conclusion. Yet, the humble used it as a moment of learning.