Alma 5 vs. Psalm 24

[Bill Hamblin]

Your ancient model says that although the plates did contain original paraphrases by Nephi (600 BC) and Christ (33 AD) (later transcribed onto the golden record by Mormon around 400 AD) Joseph Smith decided not to translate them in the same fashion as he translated the rest of the verses surrounding these paraphrases. Oh no, instead Joseph Smith just borrowed Paul's paraphrase of Deuteronomy from the King James New Testament. And this is not a transparent attempt to evade the need for a serious explanation??

I have made no such argument. You are simply fantasizing here. This is a rather transparent attempt at diversion, to avoid engaging the real evidence and arguments. Why don't you engage the actual arguments that have been made instead?

[Kevin Christensen]

The Achilles heel in all of the "Behold, the decisive anachronism" presentations I have seen is the twin assumptions that the proffered evidence represents completely unoriginal phrase, throught, or image (whether for a New Testament speaker, or Shakespeare, or whomever), and that the phrasing is out of place in Joseph Smith's translation "according to his own language and understanding," which on one occasion (D&C 128), he explained could be "sufficiently plain to serve my purposes as it stands."

The Alma 5 verus Matthew language, for example. In order to see this as a serious problem for Joseph Smith, I'd also have to assume that John the Baptist was the first Israelite prophet to cry repentence, the first to call for evidence of sincere repentence, and the first to equate harvest with judgment, the first to imagine the symbolism in chopping down and burning corrupt trees. To me, however, it all sounds deliberately formulatic on John's part. Everywhere I look in the Old Testament, I find prophets crying repentence. Everywhere in the ancient world, the Harvest is accompanied by significant rituals.

I don't imagine the original could be so far removed that the language, as provided by Alma as an author versed in more extensive Hebrew writings than we have, by Mormon as a post Christian editor, and Joseph Smith as an English speaking, Christian translator, is some how inappropriate.

And furthermore, as Kuhn explains, paradigm choice is not simply about some "key" tidbit, but also involves the need to be comprehensive and coherent overall.

I've seen way way too much in the Book of Mormon text that only emerges in comparisons to the ancient world. And none of the stuff that impressed me, whether from Nibley, Sorenson, Gardner, Peterson, Hamblin, Welch, Anderson, David or Ben, and even the things I've found myself, that never gets so much as a raised eyebrow of acknowlegement, let alone a serious counter-explanation. A few open questions do not justify blanket coverups.

For example, I think that Lehi's Qasida, combined with Nahom and Bountiful, represent a far more significant set of interrelated oddities, and deserve explaination in a 19th Century setting, far more than do a few common place phrases and stereotyped themes.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[The Dude]

We both agree that the King Jamesisms are meaningful and intentional, don't we? You don't seriously think they just happened by chance, or that the parallels are illusory.

Well, yes and no. All writing is obviously intentional. That, in and of itself is rather meaningless however. The question is what is the intention, and here I'm sure we disagree extensively. At any rate, the things we agree about is not the question. The question is what are the criteria by which we can establish intentionality. You haven't provided any.

We disagree about Joseph Smith's intention, but that is background to my response here. To illustrate the meaninglessness of my appeal to coincidence and illusion, you claimed that you could dismiss the King Jamesisms in the same way. But you can't. Obviously the King Jamesisms did not appear by coincidence, and they don't just appear to be parallels to the King James New Testament. They are direct borrowings from the King James text. There is no such link for the Hebraisms. That is a criteria.

You claim that X is intentional and Y is not.

[Bill Hamblin]

Scroll back up to Deuteronomy 18:15,19 --> Acts 3:22,23 --> I Nephi 22:20 --> III Nephi 20:23. You claimed your methodology accomodates King Jamesims, so I want to see you back up that claim instead of giving me a homework assignment.

See new topic on Act 3:22-23

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...st&p=1207999183

[Bill Hamblin]

The King Jamesisms are so obviously quotes from the New Testament and the Hebraisms are nothing like that. ...

Indeed. That's why I said both "subtle" and "inexact" ... I wasn't being redundant.  The Hebraisms are both subtle and inexact and the King Jamesisms are neither and these are criteria for treating them differently.

You have still presented no methodological means by which you can evalute questions of possible ancient elements in the BOM beyond the claim that your position is obvious. I suspect this should tell me I should stop asking.

[Bill Hamblin]

(underline added by The Dude)

QUOTE (Hamblin)

This is a rather transparent attempt at diversion, to avoid engaging the real evidence and arguments. Why don't you engage the actual arguments that have been made instead?

[Dude]

Whatever! Right back at you.

Scroll back up to Deuteronomy 18:15,19 --> Acts 3:22,23 --> I Nephi 22:20 --> III Nephi 20:23. You claimed your methodology accomodates King Jamesims, so I want to see you back up that claim instead of giving me a homework assignment.

I should note that my argument was that your explanation of what the LDS response to Acts 3:22-3 should be was pure invention on your part. I suggested that you engage an actual argument someone has actually made (such as Dan's Asherah) rather than jousting with a non-existent straw-man.