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

[LDSChristian]

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?

[Backroads]

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

[LDSChristian]

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

Before. Mayan history teaches white people came way before Columbus did. Mayan temples actually talk of a bearded white God that at one time came out of the heavens and promised to return (2nd Coming).

Book of Mormon Language

The Bearded, White God Is Everywhere—or Is He? - Diane E. Wirth - FARMS Review - Volume 12 - Issue 1

There have been a lot of studies and research and findings that link up ancient Latin American civilizations and what the Book of Mormon speaks of. The links I provided are just a few.

[Backroads]

I still think it's a bit of a stretch to blame the languages of South America on the Nephites. Native languages outside Spanish and Portuguese have no connection to said languages. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

[Matthew0059]

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?

My understanding is that the Spanish, Portuguese, and French spoken in their respective Central- and South-American countries were brought with the original settlers, who spoke those languages.

We know that the Nephites spoke Hebrew and probably Egyptian- but the language spoken by the natives when Colombus and Cortez came on the scene weren't either. Clearly the language degenerated sometime after the destruction of the Nephites- undoubtedly due to the loss of the historical records (which were with Moroni or hidden by him) and the following degradation of the Lamanitish society.

Though, if we believe the preceding narrative, the languages spoken by the natives are descended from Hebrew- so it still connects to the sign over the cross.

[volgadon]

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?

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.

[LocalFarms]

Plus Christ would have spoken to the people of South America in their own language (or that is how they would have heard it, at least).

[Dravin]

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'.

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.

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

Plus Christ would have spoken to the people of South America in their own language (or that is how they would have heard it, at least).

I agree. Christ never spent time during his mortal life in a position to pick up English yet he managed to speak to Joseph Smith just fine.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Dravin

[MarginOfError]

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.

[rameumptom]

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.

[LDSChristian]

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

As usual on here, I can't state a good theory without being criticized. I know history.

[volgadon]

As usual on here, I can't state a good theory without being criticized. I know history.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is not a good theory.

[MarginOfError]

As usual on here, I can't state a good theory without being criticized. I know history.

Your problem was that this wasn't a good theory. It was a terrible one. In fact, it may be one of the worst theories I've heard in years.

[Backroads]

As usual on here, I can't state a good theory without being criticized. I know history.

In some areas, you might know history and be very knowledgeable about it. In others, not so much. Nothing to be ashamed of. It's not a well-thought-out or researched theory; therefore, not a good one. What you could do is show some humility, accept what you have learned from this thread, and add it to your wealth of knowledge.

Playing the victim is not a good reponse. I for one do not react well when people do that.

All that happened was that people disagreed with your theory and explained why. No one was overly rude, everyone was logical and factual.

You have introduced some great topics on this forum. You're excellent for a debate. You bring a lot to the table. Be happy about that.

But learn to relax, learn to, well, learn!, and relax! It's not a big deal!

[volgadon]

There is a simple, reasonable, and fully documented reason for the sign having a Latin inscription.

There is a simple, reasonable, and fully documented reason for Latin. There is nothing connecting either to Lehi.

[Dravin]

Your problem was that this wasn't a good theory. It was a terrible one. In fact, it may be one of the worst theories I've heard in years.

I'm not sure I would say it was the worst but it is up there.

I know history.

You're like the person who tells me X^2 = X + X and insists they know math. He may indeed know math but what just came out of their mouth sure isn't an example of it.

[LDSChristian]

I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is not a good theory.

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.

[LDSChristian]

I'm not sure I would say it was the worst but it is up there.

You're like the person who tells me X^2 = X + X and insists they know math. He may indeed know math but what just came out of their mouth sure isn't an example of it.

Nope, it wouldn't be one of the worst. It's a rather good theory. FYI, I wouldn't recommend using math to try to insult someone who has a 98 average in college level math.

[Backroads]

Whoop-dee-do. 98. I survived Mathematical Theory, 8 credits total, and I'm not bragging. Get over yourself!

Okay, so you have your theory. Please make it work with the fact that it's next-to-impossible for the Nephites to have known Latin. Pleae make it work with the fact that there is NO Latin in ANY South American Native languages.

Because, I'm sorry to say, you are really making yourself look like an idiot.

[Dravin]

Nope, it wouldn't be one of the worst.

Yes it is. Your observation (that Latin Americans speak Latin languages) provides no insight into the validity of your theory (that such is because Latin languages came to the Americas via Lehi and Co.). It's like saying, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen therefore JFK was killed by the Mob. The observation holds true regardless of who killed JFK.

Your theory is prime example of a non-sequitur. Latin American's speak Latin languages therefore Lehi (and/or Co.) spoke Latin and introduced it to the Americas. Your response to Backroads is also a non-sequitur as the existence of legends about white people in Latin American cultures doesn't demonstrate that the speaking of Latin languages pre dates Columbus (actually it doesn't touch the subject at all).

It's a rather good theory. FYI, I wouldn't recommend using math to try to insult someone who has a 98 average in college level math.

What does your math score have anything to do with this? If you think I was trying to insinuate you have poor math skills it's your reading comprehension abilities that are relevant. If you have said scores then you should understand why X^2 = X + X as an identity (there is a solution as a conditional equation) is a problem. What would you do if someone came up to you and said: "I have this algebraic identity! X^2 = X + X. It's good, I know math!"

Edited February 9, 2011 by Dravin

[MarginOfError]

Nope, it wouldn't be one of the worst. It's a rather good theory. FYI, I wouldn't recommend using math to try to insult someone who has a 98 average in college level math.

Define college level math and I might (might) care, but probably not, because clearly you aren't at a level of math to have discussed the structure of logical and providing proof. My guess is you're talking about algebra. Whoop-dee-doo.

[Dravin]

Define college level math and I might (might) care, but probably not, because clearly you aren't at a level of math to have discussed the structure of logical and providing proof. My guess is you're talking about algebra. Whoop-dee-doo.

I wonder if he thought I was trying to claim there was no solution and thus 'insinuating' he doesn't even know basic algebra (or I suppose suggesting I don't know algebra thus making the statement a touch ironic). Probably my mistake for not specifying I was thinking in identities, I'm taking Trig right now and it kinda restructures your brain a bit.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Dravin

[LDSChristian]

Yes it is. Your observation (that Latin Americans speak Latin languages) provides no insight into the validity of your theory (that such is because Latin languages came to the Americas via Lehi and Co.). It's like saying, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen therefore JFK was killed by the Mob. The observation holds true regardless of who killed JFK.

Nope. Sorry. Yes it does show the validity of my theory. Even when I explain things to people on here they still don't get it.

[LDSChristian]

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.

[hyohko]

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

Latin Americans speak Latin languages therefore Lehi (and/or Co.) spoke Latin and introduced it to the Americas.

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

Edited February 9, 2011 by hyohko