LDS II: The Mormons

[tsig]

I never said the idioms I listed were unique to the BoM. In fact, I made a point of saying that J.S. could have, indeed, extracted them from the Bible.
As I recall, you didn't ask for Hebrew idioms that were unique to the BoM.
I do, however, commend you for your in-depth research.

In order for the BoM to be inspired text the original must have been an inspired text so how do we know that the original was inspired?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I am curious about what Smith's patent aping of the KJV style is supposed to show about "Hebrew idiom", and what significance that has to claims about a book supposedly written in "Reformed Egyptian" and revealed into correct language by divine effect.

One wonders why 'god' did not provide insight into a period-appropriate English idiom...

One also wonders at the places Smith, who did not, in fact, understand Hebrew (and appeared to struggle with KJV-style English "corrected" Hebrew texts before inserting them into his invention.

 

[JaysonR]

Lighten up. I referred to "dishonest" because, in similar cases, it is a favorite characterization of me by a 24/7 poster. No offense intended.

OK, I am not some other poster. I am myself and you are you.
We should treat each other as each of our merits supplies.

It's sound practice to write as "tightly" as possible.

Yes it is.
If you intended a qualifier but did not list it; that changes the point, and also removes the contention you raised from being applicable to the point.

Re. B), the fact that negative impacts occur does not mean they were intentional, just as the fact that friendly fire kills some soldiers in war does not mean they were intentional.

Firstly; it's a bit troubling that your go-to comparison is warfare for a religion, but that's not really the point.

The point still stands that negative impacts were done, and that they were not all unintentional.
That means that there have been and are still negative impacts upon people which are intended as exactly as they are and are by their nature negatively impacting those individuals.

It is not an accident when the organization represses genders, sexual orientations, or race as has been the case in their history.

It is exactly intended that same-sex individuals are negatively impacted, and it was at one point (according to Young) exactly intended for inter-race mixing to be punished.

 

[Slowvehicle]

srFF:

I wonder if you ever intend to explain when you, personally, believe the exciting events told of in the "american chapters" of the BoM are to be supposed to have taken place. I further wonder if you ever intend to explain where you, personally, believe the narrative is to be supposed to have taken place. I also wonder if you ever intend to vouchsafe your own, personal opinion about the date of þͤ Fludde.

Not to mention what a refreshing change it would be if you would address the other questions that have been put to you.

Still waiting for you to provide any actual evidence for the anachronisms and anathesisms of Smith's invention.

 

[Pacal]

Thank you for providing the Hebrew Idiom citations.
I will now review these three citations:


This phrase occurs 74 times in the King James Version of the Christian Bible:
Genesis 38:20
Genesis 49:24
Exodus 4:13
Exodus 16:3
Exodus 35:29
Exodus 38:21
Leviticus 8:36
Leviticus 10:11
Leviticus 16:21
Leviticus 26:46
Numbers 4:37
Numbers 4:45
Numbers 4:49
Numbers 9:23
Numbers 10:13
Numbers 15:23
Numbers 16:40
Numbers 27:23
Numbers 36:13
Joshua 14:2
Joshua 20:2
Joshua 20:9
Joshua 21:2
Joshua 21:8
Joshua 22:9
Judges 3:4
1 Samuel 11:7
1 Samuel 18:25
1 Samuel 27:1
2 Samuel 3:18
2 Samuel 10:2
2 Samuel 11:14
2 Samuel 12:25
2 Samuel 21:22
1 Kings 2:25
1 Kings 8:53
1 Kings 8:56
1 Kings 14:18
1 Kings 16:7
2 Kings 14:25
2 Kings 14:27
1 Chronicles 6:15
1 Chronicles 20:8
1 Chronicles 29:5
1 Chronicles 29:8
2 Chronicles 8:18
2 Chronicles 10:15
2 Chronicles 12:7
2 Chronicles 23:18
2 Chronicles 24:11
2 Chronicles 26:11
2 Chronicles 33:8
2 Chronicles 35:6
Ezra 1:8
Ezra 8:33
Nehemiah 9:14
Job 27:11
Psalm 77:20
Proverbs 26:6
Isaiah 51:18
Jeremiah 19:7
Jeremiah 27:3
Jeremiah 29:3
Jeremiah 38:23
Ezekiel 25:14
Ezekiel 28:10
Ezekiel 30:10
Ezekiel 30:12
Acts 5:12
Acts 7:35
Acts 11:30
Acts 19:11
Acts 22:11
Colossians 4:18


This phrase occurs 26 times in the King James Version of the Christian Bible:
Genesis 23:3
Genesis 43:34
Genesis 47:10
Exodus 4:3
Exodus 13:22
Exodus 14:19
Exodus 23:28
Exodus 23:29
Exodus 23:30
Leviticus 9:24
Leviticus 10:4
Numbers 17:9
Numbers 20:9
Numbers 32:21
Numbers 33:8
Numbers 33:52
Numbers 33:55
Deuteronomy 2:12
Deuteronomy 2:22
Deuteronomy 4:38
Deuteronomy 6:19
Deuteronomy 9:4
Deuteronomy 9:5
Deuteronomy 11:23
Deuteronomy 12:29


This phrase occurs 4 times in the King James Version of the Christian Bible:
2 Chronicles 35:22
2 Chronicles 36:12
Jeremiah 36:4
Jeremiah 36:32




Summary:
None of the cited idioms are unique to the Book of Mormon and incapable of being copied from the King James Version of the Bible - in fact, it is more likely that they were copied from the King James Version of the Bible as the idioms are very like near copies of sections in the King James in some cases.

For example: Nephi 13:24
"And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew ..."

Jeremiah 36:4 KJV
"Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book."


If that is not close enough, there are more exact copies of the phrases such as 1 Nephi 4:28 and Joshua 10:11 as found in the KJV.

Here, you have:
1 Nephi 4:28
"And it came to pass that when Laman saw me he was exceedingly frightened, and also Lemuel and Sam. And they fled from before my presence; for they supposed it was Laban, and that he had slain me and had sought to take away their lives also."

Joshua 10:11 KJV
"And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the Lord cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword."

Now, for comparison; let us take a look at how the actual literal translation of Joshua in the Hebrew is rendered when not translated into King James English.

וַיְהִי בְּנֻסָם מִפְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֵם בְּמוֹרַד בֵּית-חוֹרֹן וַיהוָה הִשְׁלִיךְ עֲלֵיהֶם אֲבָנִים גְּדֹלוֹת מִן-הַשָּׁמַיִם עַד-עֲזֵקָה--וַיָּמֻתוּ: רַבִּים, אֲשֶׁר-מֵתוּ בְּאַבְנֵי הַבָּרָד, מֵאֲשֶׁר הָרְגוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, בֶּחָרֶב.

Reversing the order into English alignment from left to right instead of right to left (as the above is presented) the exactly "literal" phrases are:

and·he-is-becoming in·to-flee-of·them from·faces-of Israel they in·descent-of Beth-Horon and·Yahweh he-flung on·them stones great-ones from the·heavens as-far-as Azekah and·they-are-dying many-ones who they-died in·stones-of the·hail from·whom they-killed sons-of Israel in·the·sword.


So the "literal" ("Literal translations of Hebrew idioms...") Hebrew Idioms are not translated at all.
The "literal" would be "in to flee of them from the face of"; at the very least, it would be something along the lines of "they fled from my face" or "they fled from the face of myself" - at the very least.


The King James has "from before" because it is an English translation OF the Septuagint, and Latin Vulgate as they desired.

For example, if you flip to the Setuagint section of Joshua, you won't find "from before".
ἐν τῷ δὲ φεύγειν αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ προσώπου τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ

Which is using προσώπου, as the Hebrew does. This means "face".

There is no, "from before" in either the Hebrew or Septuagint; that is not the literal Hebrew idiom.
The Hebrew idiom is to refer to the face as that which another leaves, for it is with the face that witness is held, and it is the face in which one can judge.
To remove one's self from the face of another is to hide in shame.
Simplifying the phrase to "from before" does not accurately convey the Hebrew cultural connotation of the idiom.

This is a unique flaw in the rendering of the King James Bible and does not appear in prior Masoretic or Septuagint copies of the Hebrew Bible where employing the same Hebrew idiom.

Fascinating. Thank you for this.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Of course, the naysayers will say that Joseph Smith merely copied the Hebrew idioms from the Bible. That may be, but it is not fair to say that Hebrew idioms are not evident in the Book of Mormon.

...
It just occurred to me--is that where you disagree with conventional scientific-method logic? The average person would say that if there's a mundane explanation, that explanation should be assumed as the correct one unless other evidence comes forth. Are you saying that even if there's a mundane explanation, that explanation should carry no more weight than a supernatural explanation (a divinely inspired translation in this case)?

The highlighted above seems to me like the central question skyrider needs to answer; it would make the discussion a lot clearer to know whether one of the participants is assigning as equal a weight to magical thinking as to the rational kind simply because that's what it takes to maintain his position.

 

[skyrider44]

As I recall, I believe his posts were in response to your question(s) as to how Smith could possibly know these idioms unless the BofM was divinely inspired. So your post was not presented as evidence of the BofM being divine, but only as a chatty statement of no real significance?

I said that Joseph Smith "could have" extracted the Hebrew idioms from the Bible. I don't know that he did so, and I don't think you do, either.

 

[skyrider44]

The highlighted above seems to me like the central question skyrider needs to answer; it would make the discussion a lot clearer to know whether one of the participants is assigning as equal a weight to magical thinking as to the rational kind simply because that's what it takes to maintain his position.

I don't accept the term "magical thinking." Why? Because it forecloses on the existence and realty of divine inspiration.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . The point still stands that negative impacts were done, and that they were not all unintentional.

You cannot prove your statement; it is conjecture on your part.

 

[JaysonR]

I said that Joseph Smith "could have" extracted the Hebrew idioms from the Bible. I don't know that he did so, and I don't think you do, either.

The idioms were from the KJV, no question need be reserved.
Should I continue at further length showing more clear relation between the KJV idioms and BoM idioms?
I had considered the above plenty, but now you propose doubt.
Do we need more?

 

[JaysonR]

You cannot prove your statement; it is conjecture on your part.

Yes I can, and did.
Again, you are an odd LDS.
I live surrounded by four generations of LDS and their wards and not one is found who will not openly admit the follies of their organization.

You stand professing that unintentional negative impacts may happen, that not all impacts are unintentional, but that intentional negative impacts are not evidenced...that is simply incompatible.

I did, however, supply evidence to my claim - even personal evidence.

 

[skyrider44]

You wrote:


You answered:
Which obviates what you, yourself wrote. You concede that Joe simply copied style from the existing bible. No further scope is required.

I asked a question that included curiosity about how J. S. could have known about the Hebrew idioms. I made no statement in that question that said idioms were of his creation.

It is the very fulcrum of your claim to some uniqueness to the BoM that Joe used idioms not available elsewhere. You have conceded that these same idioms were freely available to Joe in extant texts. You have further conceded that Joe could easily have copied same.

The operative words are "could easily have." You don't know that he copied them, but, yes, the evidence is strong that he did so.



Grudgingly. Jayson's erudition has placed you sitting naked at the very apex of an obsidian cone of knowledge and everyone forgot to bring any sort of lube.[/QUOTE]

 

[JaysonR]

I asked a question that included curiosity about how J. S. could have known about the Hebrew idioms.

No. You rhetorically asked as supplied reason for the validity of the BoM by asking how he could have known idioms which some were only understood after his death.
I showed how; copying.

The operative words are "could easily have." You don't know that he copied them, but, yes, the evidence is strong that he did so.

A bit more than strong. He copied.
The possibility of the unique phrases of only the KJV's idioms showing up heavily in the BoM is rather extreme in being clear.

 

[turingtest]

Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
The highlighted above seems to me like the central question skyrider needs to answer; it would make the discussion a lot clearer to know whether one of the participants is assigning as equal a weight to magical thinking as to the rational kind simply because that's what it takes to maintain his position.

I don't accept the term "magical thinking." Why? Because it forecloses on the existence and realty of divine inspiration.

Call it what you like- you still didn't answer the question. As for "the existence and realty of divine inspiration"- that's part of the question, and simply assuming its "realty" is begging it.

 

[Craig4]

I don't accept the term "magical thinking." Why? Because it forecloses on the existence and realty of divine inspiration.

The fact you don't accept it doesn't mean you aren't doing it.

 

[Pup]

I don't accept the term "magical thinking." Why? Because it forecloses on the existence and realty of divine inspiration.

If I'm understanding correctly, that explains a lot.

If you want others to accept divine inspiration as an equally likely explanation with no further evidence, you'll need to limit your argumentation to those who already accept it based on current evidence. There aren't many of those here or in the typical wider scientific community. NOMA seems as close as it gets.

If you want anyone and everyone to accept divine inspiration as an equally likely explanation, you'll need to offer an incredible amount of evidence for it, enough to overturn the modern scientific worldview as we know it. That's probably just not possible for one man to do in one lifetime, as things are today.

But it explains why people aren't just accepting your same basic foundations for argument, and moving on with your chain of logic. They simply don't see the evidence for divine inspiration.

 

[tsig]

I asked a question that included curiosity about how J. S. could have known about the Hebrew idioms. I made no statement in that question that said idioms were of his creation.



The operative words are "could easily have." You don't know that he copied them, but, yes, the evidence is strong that he did so.


Grudgingly. Jayson's erudition has placed you sitting naked at the very apex of an obsidian cone of knowledge and everyone forgot to bring any sort of lube.

[/QUOTE]

He even copied the errors in the KJB.

 

[tsig]

I don't accept the term "magical thinking." Why? Because it forecloses on the existence and realty of divine inspiration.

Isn't it unfair for god to inspire Joe and not all others? Do you think that if I took up money digging and scamming my neighbors out of money I might be worthy of having god make words appear in my hat?

 

[Giordano]

I asked a question that included curiosity about how J. S. could have known about the Hebrew idioms. I made no statement in that question that said idioms were of his creation.



The operative words are "could easily have." You don't know that he copied them, but, yes, the evidence is strong that he did so.



Grudgingly. Jayson's erudition has placed you sitting naked at the very apex of an obsidian cone of knowledge and everyone forgot to bring any sort of lube.

[/QUOTE]
1. Yes, you clearly were stating that JS's use of those idioms could not be explained unless they were revealed by God.

2. The evidence is more than strong: if someone makes a copy of the US Constitution that has 10 typos that are not in the original, and you are looking at a third version of the Constitution, if the third version has precisely the same typos as the copy, then you can only conclude that the third version was made from the copy, and not from the original.

But I applaud your willingness to consider that JS "may" have copied parts of the language of the KJV of the bible. This opens a very deep crack. If the Church apologists and leaders are wrong about the BofM being presented to JS as the words of God on leaves of gold, then perhaps other things that they are told you are wrong also. Think about all of it critically. I am not asking you to trust us (not yet) but only that you should not assume that you can trust all that you have been told by the Church. Scary, yes, but truth often is.

 

[tsig]

1. Yes, you clearly were stating that JS's use of those idioms could not be explained unless they were revealed by God.

2. The evidence is more than strong: if someone makes a copy of the US Constitution that has 10 typos that are not in the original, and you are looking at a third version of the Constitution, if the third version has precisely the same typos as the copy, then you can only conclude that the third version was made from the copy, and not from the original.

But I applaud your willingness to consider that JS "may" have copied parts of the language of the KJV of the bible. This opens a very deep crack. If the Church apologists and leaders are wrong about the BofM being presented to JS as the words of God on leaves of gold, then perhaps other things that they are told you are wrong also. Think about all of it critically. I am not asking you to trust us (not yet) but only that you should not assume that you can trust all that you have been told by the Church. Scary, yes, but truth often is.

Since the plates were not used in the dictation of the book clearly the BoM was not a translation of the plates.