Evidence Case Study

[Ryan Dahle]

On another thread, the question of why some people decline to investigate or engage apologetic evidences related to the historicity of our LDS Restoration texts was addressed. This thread has a different approach. I want to see what reasons are used, by mostly well-informed individuals, to reject prominent apologetic evidences as being valid. By valid, I mean whether or not an evidence logically invites greater belief or confidence in a proposition.

The evidences I want to test potentially support one or both of the following propositions:

1. The Book of Mormon’s own claims about its historical contexts are true, meaning it was written by ancient Hebrews authors who traveled to the Americas and perpetuated elements of the Hebrew literary and religious tradition among their people.
2. Joseph Smith couldn’t have produced the Book of Mormon using his natural ability.

Obviously, both of these propositions are fundamental to LDS truth claims and to the founding story of Mormonism, hence the reason for studying evidences which potentially support them.

I thought about putting a lot more into this opening post but I think this is sufficient for now. I believe everyone would essentially agree that, at its core, good evidence simply provides a valid reason to place greater trust or confidence in something. I am not going to try to quantify the value of any evidence because I think that is a rather fruitless exercise. Most of us don’t think in terms of “this evidences raises my inclination to believe by 20%.” Rather, the degree of merit we place in any given evidence is more intuitive (perhaps something along the lines of very strong, strong, average, weak, or very weak). Similar vague standards of evidence can be found in the legal profession. For instance:

1.       Beyond a reasonable doubt, dispositive, practically certain

2.       Clear and convincing evidence, nearly certain

3.       Competent and substantial evidence, well over half

4.       Preponderance of evidence, more than half, more likely than not

5.       Probable, as in probable cause, substantial possibility

6.       Plausible, reasonably suspected

7.       Material, relevant, merely possible.

See https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=4

I am proposing that the evidences I will present are somewhere in the average to strong range (or in the plausible to competent range, using legal language). So, to be clear, the debate isn’t just about whether something qualifies as evidence, but whether it should have any real bearing on our inclination to believe in the proposition it supports—in other words, whether or not it is good evidence.

What are the criteria for evaluating these evidences? I think that is up for debate. But I would suggest that turning to main-stream scholarship would be a good idea. If the types of evidences under scrutiny are used by other scholars in their respective fields to help answer similar questions about historicity, dating, or forged documents, then that would seem to legitimate their use in Book of Mormon research. I will let the issues of appropriate starting assumptions and methodologies work themselves out in the discussion. I think, though, before presenting my first evidence, as I understand it, I will see how this opening proposal is received. Any thoughts?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

On another thread, the question of why some people decline to investigate or engage apologetic evidences related to the historicity of our LDS Restoration texts was addressed. This thread has a different approach. I want to see what reasons are used, by mostly well-informed individuals, to reject prominent apologetic evidences as being valid. By valid, I mean whether or not an evidence logically invites greater belief or confidence in a proposition.

The evidences I want to test potentially support one or both of the following propositions:

1. The Book of Mormon’s own claims about its historical contexts are true, meaning it was written by ancient Hebrews authors who traveled to the Americas and perpetuated elements of the Hebrew literary and religious tradition among their people.
2. Joseph Smith couldn’t have produced the Book of Mormon using his natural ability.

Obviously, both of these propositions are fundamental to LDS truth claims and to the founding story of Mormonism, hence the reason for studying evidences which potentially support them.

I thought about putting a lot more into this opening post but I think this is sufficient for now. I believe everyone would essentially agree that, at its core, good evidence simply provides a valid reason to place greater trust or confidence in something. I am not going to try to quantify the value of any evidence because I think that is a rather fruitless exercise. Most of us don’t think in terms of “this evidences raises my inclination to believe by 20%.” Rather, the degree of merit we place in any given evidence is more intuitive (perhaps something along the lines of very strong, strong, average, weak, or very weak). Similar vague standards of evidence can be found in the legal profession. For instance:

1.       Beyond a reasonable doubt, dispositive, practically certain

2.       Clear and convincing evidence, nearly certain

3.       Competent and substantial evidence, well over half

4.       Preponderance of evidence, more than half, more likely than not

5.       Probable, as in probable cause, substantial possibility

6.       Plausible, reasonably suspected

7.       Material, relevant, merely possible.

See https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=4

I am proposing that the evidences I will present are somewhere in the average to strong range (or in the plausible to competent range, using legal language). So, to be clear, the debate isn’t just about whether something qualifies as evidence, but whether it should have any real bearing on our inclination to believe in the proposition it supports—in other words, whether or not it is good evidence.

What are the criteria for evaluating these evidences? I think that is up for debate. But I would suggest that turning to main-stream scholarship would be a good idea. If the types of evidences under scrutiny are used by other scholars in their respective fields to help answer similar questions about historicity, dating, or forged documents, then that would seem to legitimate their use in Book of Mormon research. I will let the issues of appropriate starting assumptions and methodologies work themselves out in the discussion. I think, though, before presenting my first evidence, as I understand it, I will see how this opening proposal is received. Any thoughts?

Put the book of Mormon on trial for its historical content or it's origination?

Are it spiritual teachings dependent on whether or not its history is beyond A Reasonable Doubt?

Is that the proper context for judging it's truth?

When we cannot even define "truth"?

This is not at all different from the other thread.

"Truth claims" of LDS believers are contextual and non- falsifiable, I thought we covered that pretty well in the previous thread.

Do we think that it might be wise to accept or at least examine the most popular theory of Truth before we start discussing what is true or not?

Would we have a discussion on Evolution without knowing what most professors think about it?

Most professors of philosophy today when regarding truth claims think in this way:

 

"1. History of Deflationism

The deflationary theory has been one of the most popular approaches to truth in the twentieth century, having received explicit defense by Frege, Ramsey, Ayer, and Quine, as well as sympathetic treatment from many others. (According to Dummett 1959, the view originates with Frege.) The following passages all contain recognizable versions of the doctrine, though they differ on points of detail"

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

 

Edited June 30, 2018 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

1. History of Deflationism

BTW since we're always dancing around these issues you might find Cheryl Misak's "Pragmatism and Deflationism" as a good way at getting how Peirce (and I) relate to all this. She's one of the top contemporary Peirceans and has done really fascinating work bringing his thought into relevance in a more broadly relevant way. (Her book Verificationism: Its History and Prospects is a must read IMO although its more approaching Peirce by way of the verification principle and the history of positivism)

Quoting from a key passage in her paper:

• The deflationist holds (with Peirce) that what there is to say about truth is what there is to say about local inquiries, and (against Peirce) that it follows that we do not aim at truth or that there are no general features which true beliefs have in common. So Peirce, although he travels a fair distance along the same road as the deflationist, eventually parts company with the deflationist in that he thinks that he can say something about the property of truth, generally. (70)

Misak argues that the deflationist think they are paying close attention to practice in their notion of truth but that they have "an impoverished view of practice."

Edited June 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

BTW since we're always dancing around these issues you might find Cheryl Misak's "Pragmatism and Deflationism" as a good way at getting how Peirce (and I) relate to all this. She's one of the top contemporary Peirceans and has done really fascinating work bringing his thought into relevance in a more broadly relevant way. (Her book Verificationism: Its History and Prospects is a must read IMO although its more approaching Peirce by way of the verification principle and the history of positivism)

Quoting from a key passage in her paper:

• The deflationist holds (with Peirce) that what there is to say about truth is what there is to say about local inquiries, and (against Peirce) that it follows that we do not aim at truth or that there are no general features which true beliefs have in common. So Peirce, although he travels a fair distance along the same road as the deflationist, eventually parts company with the deflationist in that he thinks that he can say something about the property of truth, generally. (70)

Misak argues that the deflationist think they are paying close attention to practice in their notion of truth but that they have "an impoverished view of practice."

Thanks, I will check it out

Is there a good summary of what he does say about truth?

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

2. Joseph Smith couldn’t have produced the Book of Mormon using his natural ability.

The fact that the Book of Mormon exists at all is evidence that JS could have produced it using his natural ability.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

The fact that the Book of Mormon exists at all is evidence that JS could have produced it using his natural ability.

Quote

Joseph Smith couldn’t have produced the Book of Mormon using his natural ability.

How could we determine the truth of either of these propositions?  What would define the "truth" of either proposition and what are the criteria by which we would come to a "correct" decision?

[strappinglad]

We need a time and date - coded video of the ' translation ' as it happened. I'm sure there is a copy floating around the seventh heaven somewhere.

[JarMan]

9 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

On another thread, the question of why some people decline to investigate or engage apologetic evidences related to the historicity of our LDS Restoration texts was addressed. This thread has a different approach. I want to see what reasons are used, by mostly well-informed individuals, to reject prominent apologetic evidences as being valid. By valid, I mean whether or not an evidence logically invites greater belief or confidence in a proposition.

The evidences I want to test potentially support one or both of the following propositions:

1. The Book of Mormon’s own claims about its historical contexts are true, meaning it was written by ancient Hebrews authors who traveled to the Americas and perpetuated elements of the Hebrew literary and religious tradition among their people.
2. Joseph Smith couldn’t have produced the Book of Mormon using his natural ability.

Obviously, both of these propositions are fundamental to LDS truth claims and to the founding story of Mormonism, hence the reason for studying evidences which potentially support them.

I thought about putting a lot more into this opening post but I think this is sufficient for now. I believe everyone would essentially agree that, at its core, good evidence simply provides a valid reason to place greater trust or confidence in something. I am not going to try to quantify the value of any evidence because I think that is a rather fruitless exercise. Most of us don’t think in terms of “this evidences raises my inclination to believe by 20%.” Rather, the degree of merit we place in any given evidence is more intuitive (perhaps something along the lines of very strong, strong, average, weak, or very weak). Similar vague standards of evidence can be found in the legal profession. For instance:

1.       Beyond a reasonable doubt, dispositive, practically certain

2.       Clear and convincing evidence, nearly certain

3.       Competent and substantial evidence, well over half

4.       Preponderance of evidence, more than half, more likely than not

5.       Probable, as in probable cause, substantial possibility

6.       Plausible, reasonably suspected

7.       Material, relevant, merely possible.

See https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=4

I am proposing that the evidences I will present are somewhere in the average to strong range (or in the plausible to competent range, using legal language). So, to be clear, the debate isn’t just about whether something qualifies as evidence, but whether it should have any real bearing on our inclination to believe in the proposition it supports—in other words, whether or not it is good evidence.

What are the criteria for evaluating these evidences? I think that is up for debate. But I would suggest that turning to main-stream scholarship would be a good idea. If the types of evidences under scrutiny are used by other scholars in their respective fields to help answer similar questions about historicity, dating, or forged documents, then that would seem to legitimate their use in Book of Mormon research. I will let the issues of appropriate starting assumptions and methodologies work themselves out in the discussion. I think, though, before presenting my first evidence, as I understand it, I will see how this opening proposal is received. Any thoughts?

Your cause is noble but ultimately a losing one. I will agree with you wholeheartedly that Joseph couldn’t have produced the Book of Mormon using his natural ability. But you appear to be affected by confirmation bias in asserting the apologetic explanations for the Book of Mormon are in the average to strong range. At best the apologetic explanations meet a reason to believe standard.

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

On another thread, the question of why some people decline to investigate or engage apologetic evidences related to the historicity of our LDS Restoration texts was addressed. This thread has a different approach. I want to see what reasons are used, by mostly well-informed individuals, to reject prominent apologetic evidences as being valid. By valid, I mean whether or not an evidence logically invites greater belief or confidence in a proposition.

The evidences I want to test potentially support one or both of the following propositions:

1. The Book of Mormon’s own claims about its historical contexts are true, meaning it was written by ancient Hebrews authors who traveled to the Americas and perpetuated elements of the Hebrew literary and religious tradition among their people.
2. Joseph Smith couldn’t have produced the Book of Mormon using his natural ability.

Obviously, both of these propositions are fundamental to LDS truth claims and to the founding story of Mormonism, hence the reason for studying evidences which potentially support them.

I thought about putting a lot more into this opening post but I think this is sufficient for now. I believe everyone would essentially agree that, at its core, good evidence simply provides a valid reason to place greater trust or confidence in something. I am not going to try to quantify the value of any evidence because I think that is a rather fruitless exercise. Most of us don’t think in terms of “this evidences raises my inclination to believe by 20%.” Rather, the degree of merit we place in any given evidence is more intuitive (perhaps something along the lines of very strong, strong, average, weak, or very weak). Similar vague standards of evidence can be found in the legal profession. For instance:

1.       Beyond a reasonable doubt, dispositive, practically certain

2.       Clear and convincing evidence, nearly certain

3.       Competent and substantial evidence, well over half

4.       Preponderance of evidence, more than half, more likely than not

5.       Probable, as in probable cause, substantial possibility

6.       Plausible, reasonably suspected

7.       Material, relevant, merely possible.

See https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1082&index=4

I am proposing that the evidences I will present are somewhere in the average to strong range (or in the plausible to competent range, using legal language). So, to be clear, the debate isn’t just about whether something qualifies as evidence, but whether it should have any real bearing on our inclination to believe in the proposition it supports—in other words, whether or not it is good evidence.

What are the criteria for evaluating these evidences? I think that is up for debate. But I would suggest that turning to main-stream scholarship would be a good idea. If the types of evidences under scrutiny are used by other scholars in their respective fields to help answer similar questions about historicity, dating, or forged documents, then that would seem to legitimate their use in Book of Mormon research. I will let the issues of appropriate starting assumptions and methodologies work themselves out in the discussion. I think, though, before presenting my first evidence, as I understand it, I will see how this opening proposal is received. Any thoughts?

 

10 hours ago, Thinking said:

The fact that the Book of Mormon exists at all is evidence that JS could have produced it using his natural ability.

Although this is a very common proposition, once one really studies the evidence, one begins to realize that the evidence for Joseph Smith's own creation of the Book of Mormon is quite thin, and I believe is outweighed by the literary evidence alone. Joseph Smith was a half-literate farm boy who could barely spell. He definitely was not well-read. How does such a boy write a work complete with numerous Hebraisms such as chiasmi, which were not even known of in New England? Most have probably heard of this argument, but in addition there are many more such as the heavy usage of "it came to pass." Hebrew also makes heavy usage of the conjunctive "and" like is found in the Book of Mormon. Then there are many not commonly recognized - some of which have been "corrected" out of the Book of Mormon to make its awkward reading more palatable in English. The Book of Mormon includes compound and interchangeable prepositions. The repeated use of "in" has been changed to "to" in modern versions of the Book of Mormon. The use of adverbials and colophons in the Book of Mormon is an Hebraic style.

Hebrew use of pronouns is distinct from English. For example Hebrew uses possessive pronouns at the end of a noun. In typical English for example, "they will hear my words" becomes:

"hear the words of me" (Jacob 5:2)

"the Gentiles shall be great in the eyes of me" (2 Nephi 10:8)

"how unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him" (Jacob 4:8)

"they are delivered by the power of him" (2 Nephi 9:25)

There are many more such examples of awkward Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon, even though many have been removed. Then critics criticize the "most correct book" of scripture by saying it has more than 4000 corrections not realizing that many, if not most of these are actually evidences of its Hebraistic style being wiped away. That is significant, or to use Ryan's legal standard, a clear and convincing amount of evidence of the book's original Hebraistic character and origin.

When weighed against the evidence that Joseph Smith authored the book, well because, he musta, because it exists, I believe the evidence is clearly in favor of Hebrew authorship. 

Edited June 30, 2018 by RevTestament

[Thinking]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

How could we determine the truth of either of these propositions?  What would define the "truth" of either proposition and what are the criteria by which we would come to a "correct" decision?

Points 1 & 2 are not in dispute.

1. There is a book called the Book of Mormon that is the foundational book of scripture for the LDS Church.

2. Joseph Smith was involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Point 3 is a very popular apologetic claim.

3. Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon, therefore it must be of divine origin.

There are some problems with this claim.

• False Dichotomy
• Joseph Smith is the person who presented the Book of Mormon to the world so it is possible that he wrote it.
• Considering just the number of grammatical corrections, it is plausible that an uneducated intelligent individual created it.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Joseph Smith was a half-literate farm boy who could barely spell. He definitely was not well-read. How does such a boy write a work complete with numerous Hebraisms such as chiasmi, which were not even known of in New England?

When children learn to talk, they form sentences and begin to communicate. If you ask them what a noun is, will they know? No. They are just imitating what the people around them are saying. By Joseph's own admission, he read the Bible. A person can imitate structure without knowing what it's called.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Points 1 & 2 are not in dispute.

1. There is a book called the Book of Mormon that is the foundational book of scripture for the LDS Church.

2. Joseph Smith was involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Point 3 is a very popular apologetic claim.

3. Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon, therefore it must be of divine origin.

There are some problems with this claim.

• False Dichotomy
• Joseph Smith is the person who presented the Book of Mormon to the world so it is possible that he wrote it.
• Considering just the number of grammatical corrections, it is plausible that an uneducated intelligent individual created it.

You are throwing out in complete sentences. Where is the false dichotomy?

The question was how we show the truth of those propositions. You have simply given arguments in their favor.

The question is about the supernatural abilities of Joseph Smith, and how we could determine if he had any,  not arguments in favor or against them.

My point originally was that both questions are totally unterminable as to their truth.

It's okay I withdraw the question.

Edited June 30, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

BTW since we're always dancing around these issues you might find Cheryl Misak's "Pragmatism and Deflationism" as a good way at getting how Peirce (and I) relate to all this. She's one of the top contemporary Peirceans and has done really fascinating work bringing his thought into relevance in a more broadly relevant way. (Her book Verificationism: Its History and Prospects is a must read IMO although its more approaching Peirce by way of the verification principle and the history of positivism)

Quoting from a key passage in her paper:

• The deflationist holds (with Peirce) that what there is to say about truth is what there is to say about local inquiries, and (against Peirce) that it follows that we do not aim at truth or that there are no general features which true beliefs have in common. So Peirce, although he travels a fair distance along the same road as the deflationist, eventually parts company with the deflationist in that he thinks that he can say something about the property of truth, generally. (70)

Misak argues that the deflationist think they are paying close attention to practice in their notion of truth but that they have "an impoverished view of practice."

Thanks, got a chance to read it.

I think now that Peirce is actually a deflationist but a flawed one.

I'll get into it with you later.

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, Thinking said:

When children learn to talk, they form sentences and begin to communicate. If you ask them what a noun is, will they know? No. They are just imitating what the people around them are saying. By Joseph's own admission, he read the Bible. A person can imitate structure without knowing what it's called.

That is supposition - not evidence. The evidence supports Hebrew authorship.

There are over 15 types of such Hebraisms used consistently in the Book of Mormon. To simply insist that a 20 year old farmboy picked them all up and was able to use them consistently is remotely possible, but is not even a good argument. Much less evidence. Is there any evidence to support your conjecture? Not even the KJV was as awkwardly filled with Hebraisms as the Book of Mormon. So simply alleging that Joseph Smith picked up all these Hebraisms by reading the KJV isn't persuasive. Indeed, some do not appear in the KJV:

The most impressive Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are words that reflect wordplays understandable only in Hebrew and words that are better understood in Hebrew terms than in English due to the range of meaning of the corresponding Hebrew words.⁵⁹ Here are a few examples:

— In Alma 49:4, we read that the Lamanites attempted to “cast their stones and their arrows” at the Nephites atop the wall of the city Ammonihah. Alma 49:22 speaks of “the stones and arrows which were thrown.” While in English, we would appropriately use the verb “throw” for stones, this is not so for arrows, where we would expect “shoot.” But the Hebrew verb yrh, meaning “to throw” or “to cast” (e.g., Exodus 15:4, 25; Joshua 18:6; Job 30:19), also has the meaning of “shoot” for arrows (e.g., Exodus 19:13; 1 Samuel 20:11, 20, 36-37; 2 Kings 13:17; 19:32). Indeed, in 2 Chronicles 26:15, the Hebrew verb (with a variant spelling) is used in the passage rendered “to shoot arrows and great stones” in the King James Version of the Bible.

—In 1 Nephi 1:6, we read that as Lehi “prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him.” The English term “dwelt” normally connotes setting up house or at least staying for a long time, and we would expect to read that the pillar of fire “sat” or “rested” on the rock. Significantly, the Hebrew verb ysb means both “dwell” and “sit.” For example, Jacob’s sons “sat down to eat” (Genesis 37:25), but “Israel dwelt in that land” (Genesis 35:22). The same verb is used in both passages.

—In Helaman 9:6, we read that the Nephite judge had been “stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy.” Critics have contended that this makes no sense in English, since “garb” has the same meaning as “garment” or “clothing.” This idiom is the same as the English “under cloak of secrecy.”⁶⁰ But the Hebrew word beged means both “garment” or “garb” (e.g., Genesis 39:12-13) and “treachery.”⁶¹ This would seem to be a wordplay in the Hebrew original of the Book of Mormon. As for the preposition “by,” in Hebrew its range of meaning includes “in,” “with,” and “by means of.”

—Jacob wrote that Nephi instructed him regarding Nephite sacred preaching, revelations, and prophecies that “I should engraven the heads of them upon these plates” (Jacob 1:4). We really expect something more like “most important” to be used here. Indeed, the Hebrew word for the head of the body is sometimes used to describe things as “chief” (Deuteronomy 33:15; Psalm 137:6; Proverbs 1:21; Amos 6:1) or “precious” (Song of Solomon 4:14; Ezekiel 27:22), which seems to be the sense in which Jacob used the word.

— The land of Jershon has a valid Hebrew etymology, Yershon, meaning “place of inheritance.” Significantly, it appears in passages that employ the words “inherit” (Alma 27:24) and “inheritance” (Alma 27:22; 35:14). The wordplay makes sense only in Hebrew.

From http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2017/05/non-kjv-hebraisms-in-book-of-mormon.html

[Thinking]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Where is the false dichotomy?

The false dichotomy is the premise that if Joseph Smith couldn't have written it by himself, it must have come from divine origins. The premise ignores the possibility that it was a collaborative effort.

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, Thinking said:

The false dichotomy is the premise that if Joseph Smith couldn't have written it by himself, it must have come from divine origins. The premise ignores the possibility that it was a collaborative effort.

You are still  missing the entire point.  My question was not about arguments but how one could determine if the arguments were true or false.

The veiled assertion was that Joseph had divine help.  How  can we determine whether or not that is "true" and what constitutes "truth" in the case of any statements about divinity?

It could have been written by space aliens or an intelligent dinosaur too I suppose if you are throwing out "what if's" but the question is about truth or falsity of the arguments and how the truth or falsity could be established and therefore the relevance of argumentation in the first place!

Again  I should not have brought  it up  and this is my last  comment on this.

 

[strappinglad]

6 hours ago, RevTestament said:

In Alma 49:4, we read that the Lamanites attempted to “cast their stones and their arrows” at the Nephites

A side note: the Mayans had an atlatl which was used to cast or throw an ' arrow ' or dart. No bow required.

 

Edited June 30, 2018 by strappinglad

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

A side note: the Mayans had an atlatl which was used to cast or throw an ' arrow ' or dart. No bow required.

Since the BoM uses both darts and arrows, and does speak of bows, it seems that it is distinguishing between the two. Indeed, the use of arrows by the Lamanites is problematic for the Mesoamerican setting, since it seems the bow and arrow had not reached Mesoamerica by that time. The atlatl was the primary weapon of choice in the Americas at the time. However, the bow and arrow had entered N. America at the time, based upon the arrowheads found there.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 6/29/2018 at 11:05 PM, Thinking said:

The fact that the Book of Mormon exists at all is evidence that JS could have produced it using his natural ability.

Unless we take seriously the claim by champatsch that the EModEnglish nature of the book precludes Joe Smith having anything to do with it, other than dictating and publishing it -- something any talking dog might do.

That also raises the question about "natural ability."  Does natural law permit virtually anything?  Or are there limits?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, strappinglad said:

A side note: the Mayans had an atlatl which was used to cast or throw an ' arrow ' or dart. No bow required.

True, but both could be used.  Note for example the variety of authentic weapons used in this clip from Apocalypto:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM8Fxd9svzA .

 

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

.............................

— In Alma 49:4, we read that the Lamanites attempted to “cast their stones and their arrows” at the Nephites atop the wall of the city Ammonihah. Alma 49:22 speaks of “the stones and arrows which were thrown.” While in English, we would appropriately use the verb “throw” for stones, this is not so for arrows, where we would expect “shoot.” But the Hebrew verb yrh, meaning “to throw” or “to cast” (e.g., Exodus 15:4, 25; Joshua 18:6; Job 30:19), also has the meaning of “shoot” for arrows (e.g., Exodus 19:13; 1 Samuel 20:11, 20, 36-37; 2 Kings 13:17; 19:32). Indeed, in 2 Chronicles 26:15, the Hebrew verb (with a variant spelling) is used in the passage rendered “to shoot arrows and great stones” in the King James Version of the Bible.

Since the Book of Mormon was written in ancient Egyptian, it is worth pointing out that Egyptian wdi, ndi "throw; shoot (arrow); throw down," is equally valid, for the same reasons. 

Quote

—In 1 Nephi 1:6, we read that as Lehi “prayed unto the Lord, there came a pillar of fire and dwelt upon a rock before him.” The English term “dwelt” normally connotes setting up house or at least staying for a long time, and we would expect to read that the pillar of fire “sat” or “rested” on the rock. Significantly, the Hebrew verb ysb means both “dwell” and “sit.” For example, Jacob’s sons “sat down to eat” (Genesis 37:25), but “Israel dwelt in that land” (Genesis 35:22). The same verb is used in both passages.

Egyptian ḥmsi "sit down; dwell," fits equally well.

Quote

—In Helaman 9:6, we read that the Nephite judge had been “stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy.” Critics have contended that this makes no sense in English, since “garb” has the same meaning as “garment” or “clothing.” This idiom is the same as the English “under cloak of secrecy.”60 But the Hebrew word beged means both “garment” or “garb” (e.g., Genesis 39:12-13) and “treachery.”61 This would seem to be a wordplay in the Hebrew original of the Book of Mormon. As for the preposition “by,” in Hebrew its range of meaning includes “in,” “with,” and “by means of.”

The notion of cloak, garb, garment, and treachery in one concept is well paralleled by Egyptian sdb "a garment; fringe of cloth," and sdb, sdb "opposition (verbal); ill will; evil; impediment, obstacle."  Or, alternatively, the Egyptian-Hebrew cognate ḥăbîšā, ḥābaš = Egyptian ḥbs(wt), as in the expression ḥbs rmn "clothe of arm (with arms hidden in clothing); hide, cover up."  The Hebrew is not nearly as effectively as the Egyptian.

Quote

—Jacob wrote that Nephi instructed him regarding Nephite sacred preaching, revelations, and prophecies that “I should engraven the heads of them upon these plates” (Jacob 1:4). We really expect something more like “most important” to be used here. Indeed, the Hebrew word for the head of the body is sometimes used to describe things as “chief” (Deuteronomy 33:15; Psalm 137:6; Proverbs 1:21; Amos 6:1) or “precious” (Song of Solomon 4:14; Ezekiel 27:22), which seems to be the sense in which Jacob used the word.

Egyptian tp "head; chief; best of," is eminently well-suited here.  Certainly works every bit as well, if not better, than the well-known Classical Hebrew word for “head.”

Quote

— The land of Jershon has a valid Hebrew etymology, Yershon, meaning “place of inheritance.” Significantly, it appears in passages that employ the words “inherit” (Alma 27:24) and “inheritance” (Alma 27:22; 35:14). The wordplay makes sense only in Hebrew.

This is a good Hebraism, and Hirsch Miller’s 1922 Hebrew translation of the Book of Mormon properly renders it as yēršôn, and applies the obvious wordplay in verse 24.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, JarMan said:

Your cause is noble but ultimately a losing one. I will agree with you wholeheartedly that Joseph couldn’t have produced the Book of Mormon using his natural ability. But you appear to be affected by confirmation bias in asserting the apologetic explanations for the Book of Mormon are in the average to strong range. At best the apologetic explanations meet a reason to believe standard.

I'm sure that you are not saying that no tests of a questioned document could produce dispositive results.  Perhaps we ought to wait and see what Ryan has to offer.  He might surprise us.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since the Book of Mormon was written in ancient Egyptian, it is worth pointing out that Egyptian wdi, ndi "throw; shoot (arrow); throw down," is equally valid, for the same reasons. 

Egyptian ḥmsi "sit down; dwell," fits equally well.

The notion of cloak, garb, garment, and treachery in one concept is well paralleled by Egyptian sdb "a garment; fringe of cloth," and sdb, sdb "opposition (verbal); ill will; evil; impediment, obstacle."  Or, alternatively, the Egyptian-Hebrew cognate ḥăbîšā, ḥābaš = Egyptian ḥbs(wt), as in the expression ḥbs rmn "clothe of arm (with arms hidden in clothing); hide, cover up."  The Hebrew is not nearly as effectively as the Egyptian.

Egyptian tp "head; chief; best of," is eminently well-suited here.  Certainly works every bit as well, if not better, than the well-known Classical Hebrew word for “head.”

This is a good Hebraism, and Hirsch Miller’s 1922 Hebrew translation of the Book of Mormon properly renders it as yēršôn, and applies the obvious wordplay in verse 24.

While those are good points, I do not believe the words were Egyptian words, although the Hebrew adopted some Egyptian words. I believe the Lehites were using a mostly Egyptian script for their Hebrew words - much like I believe the alphabet was invented - Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols were adopted for sounds and ideas they represented, and eventually formed into Semitic and Hebrew words. As you know the Hebrews also did this in cuneiform script, and later in the Greek script. The Greek was particularly well suited for use in writing Hebrew words. I believe the Greeks merely adopted an alphabet similar to the one invented by the Hebrews. Many people don't recognize that in Lehi's day Judah actually had a lot of contact with the Egyptians and formed alliances against the Assyrians and Babylon. They even built a second temple on Elephantine Island in Egypt for the Hebrew troops stationed there. I did not realize this growing up, and always thought of the Egyptians as the enemies of the Israelites or at least untrustworthy neighbors. But there was a lot of mixture between the two cultures, and a script invented for use by the Lehites  is certainly a continuation of prior practices, but using a mixture of hieratic and other characters. Perhaps they had objections to using Egyptian hieroglyphs due to their connections with Egyptian gods. Do you have any ideas on their invention of yet another script?

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

While those are good points, I do not believe the words were Egyptian words, although the Hebrew adopted some Egyptian words. I believe the Lehites were using a mostly Egyptian script for their Hebrew words - much like I believe the alphabet was invented - Egyptian hieroglyphic symbols were adopted for sounds and ideas they represented, and eventually formed into Semitic and Hebrew words. As you know the Hebrews also did this in cuneiform script, and later in the Greek script. The Greek was particularly well suited for use in writing Hebrew words. I believe the Greeks merely adopted an alphabet similar to the one invented by the Hebrews. Many people don't recognize that in Lehi's day Judah actually had a lot of contact with the Egyptians and formed alliances against the Assyrians and Babylon. They even built a second temple on Elephantine Island in Egypt for the Hebrew troops stationed there. I did not realize this growing up, and always thought of the Egyptians as the enemies of the Israelites or at least untrustworthy neighbors. But there was a lot of mixture between the two cultures, and a script invented for use by the Lehites  is certainly a continuation of prior practices, but using a mixture of hieratic and other characters. Perhaps they had objections to using Egyptian hieroglyphs due to their connections with Egyptian gods. Do you have any ideas on their invention of yet another script?

There are Mormon scholars who share your view that the BofM was written in Hebrew using Egyptian script, but that seems somewhat absurd:  Why not simply write in alphabetic Hebrew, as suggested by Mormon 9:33?  Use of Egyptian ideograms made possible the saving of precious space on the plates (Mormon 9:32-33).  Aside from which the BofM is quite explicit that the records (Bronze Plates) were written in actual Egyptian (Mosiah 1:2-4).  As Hugh Nibley has said, "The language of Lehi's forefathers was a foreign language; and when the Book of Mormon tells us it was the language of the Egyptians, it means what it says."  Nibley, "Lehi in the Desert," part II, Improvement Era, 53/2 (Feb 1950):155 = Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, V:24.  He also said: "people who were not crowded for space would not have continued to write Hebrew in the difficult Egyptian characters for hundreds of years, when all the time they might just as well have been writing in the twenty-two simple and practical characters of the Hebrew alphabet.  Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, 2^nd ed., Collected Works of Hugh Nibley, V:16. Cf. Brant A. Gardner, “Nephi as Scribe,” FARMS Review, 23/1 (2011):45–55, online at  https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1462&index=4 .

We also know that, when the Hebrew Bible has been translated into another language, it has been done wholesale into the other language, as with the Septuagint, the Aramaic Targums, and the Coptic Christian Bible. 

However, it isn't only those claims in the BofM which are relevant, but also the existence of many Egyptianisms which could not exist in Hebrew.  In the case of those Hebraisms listed by you from the work of the late John Tvedtnes, my listing of good Egyptian equivalents only moots the point you made.  Egyptianisms which could not be Hebraisms provide us with a much more powerful diagnostic tool:

1. There is no ancient Hebrew word or phrase appropriate to the expression "make (write) an abridgment" (I Nephi 1:17, Words of Mormon 1:3, Mormon 5:9, Moroni 1:1), although the Egyptian phrase sḥwy p3w n šfdw pn "abridgment of this book" seems suitable, and "to make an abridgment" would simply be irt sḥwy.   The late Hugh Nibley found it a particularly Egyptian concept.   Nibley, BYU Studies, 11/2 (Winter 1971):164.

2. “Ites” in IV Nephi 17 “nor any manner of -ites,” has no known parallel in Hebrew as a single word, but could be represented by the Egyptian determinative sign for “people,” which is not vocalized, but is frequently accompanied by a plural termination -w, as in šЗsw “bedouin” (accompanied by a man & woman over plural signs as the determinative).  It could also serve an ideographic function in this generic case on the Book of Mormon plates.  Here, for example, is the ethnicon "Israelites" from the Merneptah Stele:

3.  Only two words in the entire Book of Mormon contain the double-ff, and both are Zeniffite words:  The personal name Zeniff, and the common noun ziff (Mosiah 7:9, 11:3,8, 25:5).  The single f is the voiceless labiodental fricative sound for non-plosive (no dagesh) Hebrew p.  However, we only see the double-ff in ancient Egyptian, as in Egyptian ˁff, ˁffj “fly (insect).”  A. Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian, 31; R. Faulkner, Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, 42.

4.  Pedro Olavarria and Matthew Bowen have suggested that an excellent Egyptianism can be found in I Nephi 11:25, 15:23-25, where “the rod of iron” is equated with “the word of God” (I Samuel 9:27 Hebrew děbar ʼĕlōhîm)  Just so, Egyptian mdw ntr (Demotic mtw ntr) “word of god, scripture,” uses the word mdw which can mean both “word” and “rod, staff.”  Interestingly, the Hebrew phrase “rod of God” maṭṭē hāʼĕlōhîm occurs at Exodus 4:20 and 17:9 (cf. maṭṭē ʼahărōn Numbers 17:21, 23 = KJV Numbers 17:6, 8; Genesis 38:18, 25), and the Hebrew word for “rod” there, maṭṭē, is cognate with Egyptian mdw “rod, staff.”  However, this pun only works in Egyptian, not Hebrew.  Olavarria on MDDB at http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/52705-zarahemla-revisiting-the-seed-of-compassion ; Bowen at http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/ insights/25/2/S00004-quotWhat_Meaneth_the_Rod_of_Ironquot.html .  Faulkner, Concise Dictonary of Middle Egyptian, 122.

The upshot is that, when Nephi exhorts his brethren to “give heed to the word of God [mdw ntr] and remember to keep his commandments” (I Nephi 15:25), he is not only suggesting that one must give heed to the commandments given in Holy Scripture (mdw ntr) – and making a not very subtle reference to the Brass Plates which contained those very commandments – but also saying that those plates were specifically incised or engraved in Egyptian script (mdw ntr).

5.  Brian Stubbs recently called our attention to a common Middle and Late Egyptian idiom or way of saying “to leave a place or return from”  (r)di sЗ n/r “set my back to”; the pronominal suffix following “back” tells whose back or who is leaving/returning; and n/r “toward/ against.”  In Alma 8:24, Alma writes, “I was about to set my back towards this land forever” (italics added for emphasis), that is, “leave it forever.”  Stubbs, Changes in Languages: From Nephi to Now (Blanding, UT: Four Corners, 2016), 25; Faulkner, CDME, 156,205, citing A. Gardiner, Notes on the Story of Sinuhe, 34-35.

6.  John Gee suggests an instance of haplography in the Book of Mormon attributable specifically to use of the Egyptian preposition n "of, for," at Alma 24:19,

they buried their weapons of peace,

or they buried the weapons of war, for peace.

As Gee points out, the Book of Mormon scribe apparently looked away from the master text for a moment while engraving, then returned and continued copying at the second n, then noted his mistake and immediately corrected it by adding "or they buried the weapons of war for peace."  Gee adds that this would only work in Egyptian where the preposition n can be used as an indirect genitive, and then also meaning "for." (Gee, personal communication, 2010).  This could not happen in Hebrew.

There are many more examples along these and other lines, but you get the picture.

 

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[strappinglad]

We are told that Reformed Egyptian was used to save space. Some have suggested that there were only a few dozen plates with the symbols to cover what now occupies over 500 pages of English print. Has anyone done a heiroglyphic translation of some of the BoM so as to ascertain just how efficient it would be? I realize that no one knows just how the Nephites reformed the script to , what I assume, was a ' shorthand ' type , but some bright person should be able to guess based on what was done by the Egyptians themselves as well as what has been done with other scripts including Gregg .etc.