Talk:Adamic language

message: I just added some info about Dee's Adamic language.  Right now it's pretty bare - just cut-and-paste (with some clean-up) from the articles they point back to.  It still needs some dates and references. Kheph777 (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dee's Adamic langauge

message: The glossary and other items not pertinent to the article have been repeatedly reposted here, despite warnings that they do not belong. If it is reposted, it will once again be removed, and I will semi-protect the page to avoid this continuous disruption. This will have the effect of restricting comments here to registered users, and is less desirable than the alternative: that anonymous users practice appropriate restraint. - Nunh-huh 16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the material in question has been repeatedly reposted by unregistered users despite warnings, I have semi-protected the page. This page is for discussion of the article, and not for discussion of the topic in general. - Nunh-huh 19:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll make a suggestion as well: don't misstate the facts. I am encouraging discussion here aimed at improvement of the article. I have no "personal issues".  If anyone re-adds the glossary - which is bizarre screed, not rational discourse - here, it will be removed and that person will be blocked.  Keep your discussion here limited to improving the article. WIkipedia is not going to be the web host for your personal idiosyncratic views. see WP:NOR. - Nunh-huh 23:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Again, you need to actually read WP:NOR.  Speculations and pet theories of Wikipedia editors are not ever going to be part of the encyclopedia. We are interested only in information that can be verified in a reliable source. - Nunh-huh 23:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hoping that I correctly attributed to "It's Snowball" the unsigned comments that appear to have been made by them. I'm trying to figure out who is saying what.jonathon (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: if you think that points that have been blanked were "self-evident", it should be extremely easy for you to provide a large number of sources making them. If nobody has ever made your point before, perhaps it isn't as self-evident as you believe. Again, the internet is wide, and there are many places other than Wikipedia where you can discuss your idea. It is unclear why you chose Wikipedia in particular for posting this: Wikipedia is a very specific project with a very specific aim. You should only be here if you are interested in what Wikipedia is doing. You don't go posting cookie recipes to websites specialized on dog breeding, do you. --dab (𒁳) 08:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has a number of policies and guidelines on how to write an article. The quote you cited comes into play after the three major policy guidelines have been met.jonathon (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It's been considered; it's not cited to a reliable source, and so has no place in the encyclopedia. Since it has no place in the article, it has no place on the talk page. This is Wikipedia policy; if you think otherwise, you misunderstand WIkipedia policy. - Nunh-huh 07:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Your opinion has been noted. If you repost this material here, I will block you. - Nunh-huh 01:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

text: There are a number of issues is ascribing Enochian as the written form of Adamic. The simplest issue to deal with is that the writing direction is opposite that of the earliest known writing systems. Other issues include relationship, or rather lack thereof, between the glyphs used in Enochian, and those of ancient writing system; the fact that it is an alphabet, and not abugida, or abjad, which most early writing systems were --- the exceptions were ideographic. John Dee's reference about a hidden message was to the content of the material he received. Specifically, he thought that the material could be decrypted using two different methods, to provide two different messages.jonathon (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Just FYI, when Dee recorded Enochian script in his journals, it was written from right to left. Writing it left to right was a simplification made by the Golden Dawn, which has nothing to do with how the original transmission was written. Skyerise (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glossary reposting 

message: There was one point not adressed in the article and i'm not sure if it was adressed by dante 
himself. it says how Dante argued that Eve spoke first. it is interesting but not entirely accurate which is why the article should be reveiwed and certain changes made. we read in Gen. 2:19-23 that Adam not only named all the animals before Eve was even created, it also says how Adam named her "woman" because she came from "man".
----  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HAMDMAN (talk • contribs) 18:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my first thought, but irrelevant to the article--the focus of the comment is that Dante said something about Adamic, not whether Dante's arguments were sound.  But yes, according to the Bible, Dante as presented here was wrong.  I think the problem may be in the translation of "mulierum invenitur ante omnes fuisse locutam," since I'm assuming that's saying "the woman is said to have come before all" (out of context)--but not saying anything about her necessarily speaking first.  Maybe Dante's/Eco's Latin is the problem. Googling the phrase brings nothing up but mirrors of this article, so I'm betting it isn't even Dante.  I think, because of the Mormon/NonMormon games, this article is increasingly unsound academically.  On a side note, what's up with the Tamra Jean Braithwaite "source"? --Mrcolj (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Caught it.  The real phrase begins with "mulierEm.note"  Fixing in the article.  Okay, so Eco's Latin is good; Dante's Latin is irrelevant; Dante indeed says that Eve spoke first, and therefore it's Dante's version of or knowledge of the Bible that's the core problem.--Mrcolj (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dante/Eve 

message: Common posters on this page may do well to read the Wikipedia's article on Weasel Words.  This article is full of unsourced "many people believe ______" type statements, especially the LDS section.--Mrcolj (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words

message: The following line from this entry is incorrect:
"In the Pearl of Great Price, a section of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, it refers to "a Book of Remembrance", written in language of Adam.Moses 6:5, 46."
The Pearl of Great Price is not a section of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible, but rather, contains sections of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible.  The part of the Pearl of Great Price titled, in brief, "Abraham" came from a traslation of papyri.
The Wikipedia article "Pearl of Great Price" is acurate.
140.196.24.2 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; fixed as per the Pearl of Great Price article's information. Allens (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 3 January 2012 

message: In the text is: Some think that the "Pay Lay Ale" sentence is derived from the Hebrew phrase "pe le-El", פה לאל 'mouth to God'.
If the zoom is set so that the two Hebrew words must break, then פה is shown first at line's end with לאל beginning the next. This would be correct behavior if the entire sentence was right-to-left (פה at the end of the line, לאל starting the next). But embedded into an English (L2R) sentence reads incorrectly. (לאל פה)
Is this something that can be corrected. Or is it a generic problem inherent in hypertext? Or ...? I don't know much °about these things. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.54.4 (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew not breaking correctly within (L2R) text. Not sure how to report this ... 

message: The Latter-day Saint Endowment prayer circle once included use of the words "Pay Lay Ale",[16] which some adherents believed were Adamic words meaning "Oh God, hear the words of my mouth".
This is not quite accurate. The TEXT of the CEREMONY ITSELF explained that "pay lay ale" meant "Oh God, hear the words of my mouth" prior to the 1990 changes. I heard it myself dozens of times.
173.165.26.38 (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 21 February 2012 

message: There should be an mention and link to this site: 
http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperDetails/sample-of-pure-language-circa-march-1832
A Q&A from Joseph Smith and samples of Adamic language are available on that page.
* Not done.  Your link does not seem to be validly formatted and comes up empty.  Please check it again. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the link a second time. It works fine for me, and the link is to The Joseph Smith Papers material that is notable for Mormonism. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It works now but didn't in September. Anyway I added a mention of it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 13 Sept 2012 

message: Request that the following reference:
:John S. Robertson, "Adamic Language", in Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York: Macmillan) 1:18–19.
...be replaced with this:
:.
Thanks. -- 155.95.90.245 (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --allthefoxes (Talk)  23:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 19 January 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Adamic language. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612023524/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/MStar&CISOPTR=7661&filename=7662.pdf to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/MStar&CISOPTR=7661&filename=7662.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025133000/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=1953&filename=100504_170857_cp342_Va_M230_J82_v02.pdf to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=1953&filename=100504_170857_cp342_Va_M230_J82_v02.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025132953/http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/WomansExp&CISOPTR=6638&filename=6639.pdf to http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/WomansExp&CISOPTR=6638&filename=6639.pdf
*Added  tag to http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/NCMP1820-1846&CISOPTR=10065&filename=5298.pdf
*Added  tag to http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperDetails/sample-of-pure-language-circa-march-1832
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Was Adam's language on earth the same as in the pre-existence? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormon section:  what language does God speak? 

message: Why is this article in the Christianity WikiProject, if the concept derives from the Midrash? Dimadick (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Projects are wierd; sometimes they seem to want to leave their footprints everywhere. But if the article were better (by, like, mentioning Paradise Lost and Milton) it would be less of a mystery, I think. There's a nice article at  which notes in passing and might serve as reference for the current efforts of the LDS Church to downplay the importance of the purported recovery of the Adamic language by Joseph Smith. - Nunh-huh 23:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on a literal reading of Genesis you don't really need Midrash to come upon the idea that there must have been a first language -- Adam naming the animals, Eve naming her children, the Tower of Babel story. And so it wasn't a distinctly Jewish idea, even if the lead makes it look that way. Most Christians, at one point, believed there was an Adamic language. Alephb (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Did they believe that Adam was a real person, instead of a mythological character? Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The demythologization of a "historical Adam" is a fairly recent phenomenon, beginning with new styles of hermaneutics after the Rennaissance, and not becoming predominent until much later. Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976) wrote an essay in 1941 titled "The New Testament and Mythology; The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Preaching" which helped to popularize the notion. The pertinent Christian writers (Dante, Milton, Bunyan) all seem to have thought Adam existed and was actually ancestor of all humans. - Nunh-huh 17:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity 

message: It says, "the first speech act is due to Eve, addressing the serpent, and not to Adam".  What about when Adam said at Genesis 2:23 "And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."  He was probably talking to God or a nearby Angel.  Even if he was talking to himself, God could still hear him, just like when he named all the animals.  It seems that the original language was in part made by Adam, since he created the animal names and the word "woman". 2600:1700:8830:8DF0:E8D1:613C:731F:26C7 (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "the first speech act"