Re: 5. How did language originate? In the creation of Ancient Genealogies


vctinney@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
V. Chris and Tom Tinney, Sr. wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:

Interesting how you ignore any comment that refutes anything you've
said previously, but blissfully repeat the nonsense further on.

I do not ignore comments. Comments made in reply must
have credible validity. You incorrectly state: [Mr. Smith
(President Joseph Smith, Jr.) wrote the Book of Mormon
before we could read those ancient texts,

So it's your claim that Mr. Smith wrote his texts after 1848 (the
earliest feasible date when we could read some cuneiform documents)?

so naturally his
"history" bears no relation to what was actually recorded
during the three millennia BCE.] Joseph Smith, Jr. states
his record was a translation process,

Translation from what? Did any other person on earth ever see the
alleged "golden plates" that he claimed to have translated from? His
story is so much more easily refuted than those of the prophets who
claimed that they simply repeated the words that God told them (such
as, for instance, Amos and Muhammad).

so it never was a
"book" that "Mr. Smith wrote"; it was a transmission of
ancient records via the translation process.

What "ancient records" are these?

You may
argue that your translation is different than his reported
translation; nevertheless, keep the record accurate.

"My translation" of what??? There are no "originals" to be translated.

"Both the Hebrew, the Samaritan, the Greek writings
current in Palestine during the two centuries before
Christ, and the old Babylonian traditions, assert
a transmission of writings about creation down
from the beginning of time to Enoch and Noah."
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/launchingpad/chapter07.html

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
It's clear that you have no understanding whatsoever of or interest in
the nature or history of human language.

Again, it is clear from my posting and your commentary,
that you are only interested in your viewpoint of the nature
and history of human language, which by very definition,
requires the subject to be limited to records produced by
humans; i.e., the preserved genealogies and associated
documents, rather than modern speculative theories.

You just referred to "Hebrew, Samaritan, and Greek writings current in
Palestine" between 200 and 1 BC. Would you please identify which
"writings" you are referring to?

You just referred to "old Babylonian traditions" (by which I will
presume that you do not mean those referred to with the technical term
Old Babylonian). would you please identify which "traditions" you are
referring to?

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Once again, why are you bragging about being listed in a reference work
whose publisher solicited payment from you to be listed in it?

Who's Who in America,
Millennium Edition [54th] through 2004

Once again, you are not aware of facts, only speculation.
I never had any publisher require my payment for inclusion
in Who's Who in America.

I did not suggest that you did. I notice that you have tacitly dropped
your bragging about "Who's Who in Genealogy (both editions)" or
something like that. I take it that means you _did_ pay to be included
there. I've had my share of solicitations to be included in such
"reference works" if I'll only agree to buy a copy of the finished
work.

I note further that once again, your response is not exactly timely.

I never paid a cent beyond
taking the time to pay postage for a return envelope, so
that I could be in contact with others as a research resource.
RE: Genealogy and Family History Internet Web Directory
Scholarly Family History Mega Site Map
of World Wide Internet Resources
<www.academic-genealogy.com/>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 5. How did language originate? In the creation of Ancient Genealogies
    ... WHERE ARE THESE SUPPOSED "ANCIENT DOCUMENTS" THAT MR. SMITH SUPPOSEDLY ... reported translation; ... in my lifetime, the history of the records under consideration, re: ... Who's Who In Genealogy and Heraldry, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Book Review: Gods Secretaries by Adam Nicholson
    ... This book is history of how the King James Version of the Bible came to ... literally down to the last comma also insist that the KJV is the best ... see how any possible history of the translation could have avoided that ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Godels Incompleteness and Nonmonotonic Logic
    ... I am referring to the two incompleteness theorems ... Godel's second incompleteness theorem refutes Hilbert's goal of ... If you are unwilling to even read a free online translation of Godel's ... provability is not the same as provability, ...
    (comp.lang.prolog)
  • Re: Godels Incompleteness and Nonmonotonic Logic
    ... I am referring to the two incompleteness theorems ... Godel's second incompleteness theorem refutes Hilbert's goal of ... If you are unwilling to even read a free online translation of Godel's ... provability is not the same as provability, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: About the Mormons
    ... >> If it is true that they give precedence to the writings of ... There is a translation that Joseph Smith ... >the idea that we 'give precedence to Joseph Smith over the Bible" is ...
    (uk.religion.christian)