https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=BenMcGuire 2026-04-04T10:46:01Z Contribuições do utilizador MediaWiki 1.41.0 https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Utilizador:InProgress/Parallels&diff=78478 2010-06-15T18:18:17Z

<p>BenMcGuire: /* Proposed Methodology and Criteria in Dealing with Grunder&#039;s Parallels */</p> <hr /> <div>Notes and methodology for Ben McGuire's parallels project:<br /> <br /> {{nw}}<br /> <br /> == Comments on the Work as a Whole ==<br /> <br /> == Proposed Methodology and Criteria in Dealing with Grunder's Parallels ==<br /> <br /> === Classification of Parallels ===<br /> <br /> Grunder's proposed parallels can be broken down into several basic categories. Some of them are more or less self-explanatory. Others require a bit more information. The proposed system (and this is a tentative proposal at this point) is to break them down in the following fashion.<br /> <br /> A: Parallel texts which are offered as some kind of theme which is generally stated (i.e. Hebrew origins of the American Indians) without providing actual material for comparison. While it probably could be useful to discuss these issues, this is an approach to the parallels themselves, and where Grunder doesn't provide specific text for comparison, this study will generally exclude that example from consideration.<br /> <br /> B: Parallels which seem to be merely accidental or coincidence. This category covers parallels which exist but which don't actually seem to be able to infer some kind of connection for a variety of reasons. In general, these parallels will fail at multiple criteria for identifying valid parallels.<br /> <br /> C: Parallels which exist but which are pervasive in the environment. This category covers parallels that can reflect only a cultural or linguistic influence. In general, these are not specific enough to claim any kind of reliance or even common sources between texts because of pervasiveness in the environment or other concerns. No sense of direction of movement is discernible, and the texts themselves are unrelated except for the notion of coming from a common environment.<br /> <br /> D: Parallels which exist and for which a common source or earlier tradition can be reasonably identified. For these parallels, the notion is that not only is there a valid parallel, but the parallel is such that a real tradition can be seen behind the texts. While a pedigree of the parallels may not be able to be determined, the relationship between the texts can be discussed in meaningful ways.<br /> <br /> E: Parallels which exist and for which a pedigree of sorts can be determined. That is how the texts are related can be fairly closely identified (even if the one is not reliant on the other).<br /> <br /> F: Parallels which exist in which one can be closely tied to the other in a deterministic fashion and the parallel is directional (i.e. one text relies on the other).<br /> <br /> === Criteria for Evaluating Parallels ===<br /> <br /> in progress<br /> <br /> == Commentary on Grunder's Introduction ==<br /> <br /> == Commentary on Grunder's Technical Introduction ==<br /> <br /> == Classification of Parallels ==<br /> <br /> == Discussion of Individual Parallels ==</div>

BenMcGuire https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Utilizador:InProgress/Parallels&diff=78477 2010-06-15T18:02:29Z

<p>BenMcGuire: </p> <hr /> <div>Notes and methodology for Ben McGuire's parallels project:<br /> <br /> {{nw}}<br /> <br /> == Comments on the Work as a Whole ==<br /> <br /> == Proposed Methodology and Criteria in Dealing with Grunder's Parallels ==<br /> <br /> == Commentary on Grunder's Introduction ==<br /> <br /> == Commentary on Grunder's Technical Introduction ==<br /> <br /> == Classification of Parallels ==<br /> <br /> == Discussion of Individual Parallels ==</div>

BenMcGuire https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Predefini%C3%A7%C3%A3o:Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms&diff=6037 2006-09-26T12:24:46Z

<p>BenMcGuire: </p> <hr /> <div>{{editme|url=Template:Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms|before=|after='''''Book of Mormon &quot;Anachronisms&quot;'''''}}<br /> *[[Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms |Anachronisms (general page)]]<br /> *[[%22Adieu%22_in_the_Book_of_Mormon|&quot;Adieu&quot;]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Animals|Animals]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Cement|Cement]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Coins|Coins]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Compass|Compass]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Gadianton_masons|Gadianton Robbers as Masons?]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon geography|Geography]]{{nw}}<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Holy Ghost|Holy Ghost]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Jerusalem_vs_Bethlehem|Jerusalem as site of Jesus' birth]]<br /> *[[Legal codes in Book of Mormon| Legal codes and concepts]]{{nw}}<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Metals|Metals]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Metal plates|Metal Plates]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Names|Names]]{{nw}}<br /> *[[Olive culture in the Book of Mormon|Olive culture]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Plants|Plants]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Red sea versus reed sea| Red Sea vs Reed Sea]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Reformed Egyptian|Reformed Egyptian]]<br /> *[[Satyrs_in_the_Book_of_Mormon|Satyrs]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:serpents and drought|Serpents and drought]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Shiz struggles to breathe|Shiz struggles to breathe]]<br /> *[[Sweat and skin pores]]<br /> *[[Snow in the Book of Mormon|Snow]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Temple in New World|Temple in the New World]]{{nw}}<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Three days of darkness|Three days of darkness]] {{nw}}<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Translation Errors from the KJV|Translation Errors from the KJV]]{{nw}}<br /> *[[Book of Mormon and warfare|Warfare]]{{nw}}<br /> *[[Book of Mormon and windows|Windows]]</div>

BenMcGuire https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Predefini%C3%A7%C3%A3o:Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms&diff=6024 2006-09-26T12:19:56Z

<p>BenMcGuire: </p> <hr /> <div>{{editme|url=Template:Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms|before=|after='''''Book of Mormon &quot;Anachronisms&quot;'''''}}<br /> *[[Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms |Anachronisms (general page)]]<br /> *[[%22Adieu%22_in_the_Book_of_Mormon|&quot;Adieu&quot;]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Animals|Animals]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Cement|Cement]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Coins|Coins]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Compass|Compass]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Gadianton_masons|Gadianton Robbers as Masons?]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon geography|Geography]]{{nw}}<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Holy Ghost|Holy Ghost]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Jerusalem_vs_Bethlehem|Jerusalem as site of Jesus' birth]]<br /> *[[Legal codes in Book of Mormon| Legal codes and concepts]]{{nw}}<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Metals|Metals]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Metal plates|Metal Plates]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Names|Names]]{{nw}}<br /> *[[Olive culture in the Book of Mormon|Olive culture]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Plants|Plants]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Red sea versus reed sea| Red Sea vs Reed Sea]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Reformed Egyptian|Reformed Egyptian]]<br /> *[[Satyrs_in_the_Book_of_Mormon|Satyrs]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:serpents and drought|Serpents and drought]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Shiz struggles to breathe|Shiz struggles to breathe]]<br /> *[[Sweat and skin pores]]<br /> *[[Snow in the Book of Mormon|Snow]]<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Temple in New World|Temple in the New World]]{{nw}}<br /> *[[Book of Mormon anachronisms:Three days of darkness|Three days of darkness]] {{nw}}<br /> *[[Book of Mormon and Translation Errors from the KJV|Book of Mormon and Translation Errors from the KJV]]{{nw}}<br /> *[[Book of Mormon and warfare|Warfare]]{{nw}}<br /> *[[Book of Mormon and windows|Windows]]</div>

BenMcGuire https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Discuss%C3%A3o:Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/Hebraisms/Chiasmus&diff=10686 2005-10-07T11:38:14Z

<p>BenMcGuire: </p> <hr /> <div>The standard format won't work very well for this topic.<br /> <br /> I am preparing draft comments on chiasmus. However, Chiasmus is a theory put forward by the LDS faithful and not by the critics. The critics then try and show that chiasmus is not effective as evidence for the authenticity of the text.<br /> <br /> To this end, chiasmus needs to first be defined, its role in apologetics explored, and then the criticisms and a rebuttle to the criticisms presented.--[[User:BenMcGuire|BenMcGuire]] 07:38, 7 Oct 2005 (EDT)</div>

BenMcGuire https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Discuss%C3%A3o:Nature_of_God/Hinckley_downplaying_the_King_Follett_Discourse&diff=10684 2005-10-07T09:54:02Z

<p>BenMcGuire: /* Couple of things on this topic */</p> <hr /> <div>==Be sure to sign your discussions==<br /> When you leave a post on a talk page, be sure to end it with your signature (the second button from the right on the toolbar, above). That way we all know who's who. --[[User:MikeParker|MikeParker]] 18:35, 6 Oct 2005 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Question==<br /> Would it be appropriate here to bring in Blake Ostler, Stephen Robinson or others who make a distinction between God as Jesus once being man and God the Father as once being man. I think it would be useful to bring up the notion that Mormons accept Jesus as fully God being man.<br /> <br /> == Couple of things on this topic ==<br /> <br /> First - this article doesn't mention at all the fact that there are two very different interpretations of the KFD on the point of nature of God the Father. The first of those two interpretations limits the extent of the impact of the KFD by pointing out that the KFD only asserts that God the Father was a man like Jesus Christ prior to his becoming deity. (This limitation may not be exclusive of the couplet, but it can be - the point being that the interpretation of the KFD ought to be limited to a strict reading of the KFD). The second interpretation is represented by the couplet fairly well.<br /> <br /> The second issue is that this article doesn't mention another fscinating aspect of the KFD which is the fact that we have multiple sources which have been essentially harmonized into the traditional text - but that the individual variants represented in the sources can alter the way that we interpret that text. It might be useful to have an article just on the KFD itself with links to the several sources, which also links to this article. But, this is an important issue in the notion of &quot;Downplaying the King Follett Discourse&quot; since it certainly is used to do this.<br /> <br /> --[[User:BenMcGuire|BenMcGuire]] 05:54, 7 Oct 2005 (EDT)</div>

BenMcGuire https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/respostas/index.php?title=Discuss%C3%A3o:Nature_of_God/Hinckley_downplaying_the_King_Follett_Discourse&diff=975 2005-10-06T14:35:17Z

<p>BenMcGuire: Couple of things on this topic</p> <hr /> <div>Would it be appropriate here to bring in Blake Ostler, Stephen Robinson or others who make a distinction between God as Jesus once being man and God the Father as once being man. I think it would be useful to bring up the notion that Mormons accept Jesus as fully God being man.<br /> <br /> == Couple of things on this topic ==<br /> <br /> First - this article doesn't mention at all the fact that there are two very different interpretations of the KFD on the point of nature of God the Father. The first of those two interpretations limits the extent of the impact of the KFD by pointing out that the KFD only asserts that God the Father was a man like Jesus Christ prior to his becoming deity. (This limitation may not be exclusive of the couplet, but it can be - the point being that the interpretation of the KFD ought to be limited to a strict reading of the KFD). The second interpretation is represented by the couplet fairly well.<br /> <br /> The second issue is that this article doesn't mention another fscinating aspect of the KFD which is the fact that we have multiple sources which have been essentially harmonized into the traditional text - but that the individual variants represented in the sources can alter the way that we interpret that text. It might be useful to have an article just on the KFD itself with links to the several sources, which also links to this article. But, this is an important issue in the notion of &quot;Downplaying the King Follett Discourse&quot; since it certainly is used to do this.</div>

BenMcGuire