How A Mistake In The Book Of Mormon . . .

[consiglieri]

Alma 13 is a somewhat difficult chapter to read. One reason for that is because there is a verse that is out of place. It is verse 16. Verse 16 should actually come after verse 12. When that change is made, the entire passage reads more smoothly and makes more sense.

This was pointed out a few years back in the following article by Grant Hardy:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=amJtcw==

The interesting part is that the misplacement of this verse is commonly understood to happen in other ancient texts, including the Bible, and results when copying from an original. It most frequently occurs when the last words of a line of text are similar to the last words of another line.

The scribe finishes copying the first line; and then looks back at the original to continue. The mistake occurs when the scribe sees another line with similar words at the end and thinks that this second line is where he left off copying; the scribe then begins copying from this second point instead of the first point.

In this way, a whole section of the text is omitted.

At some point thereafter, the scribe realizes that he has inadvertently omitted some material, but due to the fact that the scribe does not live in an age of word processors (or even erasers!), he can't correct the mistake. Instead, he has to either write the missed text in the margin; or simply put it out of sequence at the point he has realized his omission.

This appears to be what happened in Alma 13.

This would not likely happen if Joseph Smith were dictating this material off the top of his head.

Rather, it is precisely the type of mistake we expect to see when copying from one manuscript to another.

The only reasonable explanation for this misplaced verse in Alma 13, then, is that it is the result of copying the text from one place to another. If Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon, this would appear to be evidence that he was not simply dictating it; but must have been working from a preexisting manuscript, at least at this point in the translation process.

It is not clear how he would be doing this with his face in a hat.

A more likely, though faith-based solution, is that the misplaced verse occurred anciently at some point when this chapter was copied; and perhaps when it was copied on the gold plates.

As Grant Hardy concluded his article:

The writers of the Book of Mormon acknowledged the possibility of human errors in their record; hence the title page warns that â??if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God.â? Iâ??m not sure they realized, however, that some mistakes could actually strengthen the bookâ??s claims to be an ancient written text. !

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[e=mc2]

FUN and interesting! Thanks again Consig...... you seem to be able to put interesting things together for us to learn.

[soren]

Alma 13 is a somewhat difficult chapter to read. One reason for that is because there is a verse that is out of place. It is verse 16. Verse 16 should actually come after verse 12. When that change is made, the entire passage reads more smoothly and makes more sense.

This was pointed out a few years back in the following article by Grant Hardy:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=amJtcw==

The interesting part is that the misplacement of this verse is commonly understood to happen in other ancient texts, including the Bible, and results when copying from an original. It most frequently occurs when the last words of a line of text are similar to the last words of another line.

The scribe finishes copying the first line; and then looks back at the original to continue. The mistake occurs when the scribe sees another line with similar words at the end and thinks that this second line is where he left off copying; the scribe then begins copying from this second point instead of the first point.

In this way, a whole section of the text is omitted.

At some point thereafter, the scribe realizes that he has inadvertently omitted some material, but due to the fact that the scribe does not live in an age of word processors (or even erasers!), he can't correct the mistake. Instead, he has to either write the missed text in the margin; or simply put it out of sequence at the point he has realized his omission.

This appears to be what happened in Alma 13.

This would not likely happen if Joseph Smith were dictating this material off the top of his head.

Rather, it is precisely the type of mistake we expect to see when copying from one manuscript to another.

The only reasonable explanation for this misplaced verse in Alma 13, then, is that it is the result of copying the text from one place to another. If Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon, this would appear to be evidence that he was not simply dictating it; but must have been working from a preexisting manuscript, at least at this point in the translation process.

It is not clear how he would be doing this with his face in a hat.

A more likely, though faith-based solution, is that the misplaced verse occurred anciently at some point when this chapter was copied; and perhaps when it was copied on the gold plates.

As Grant Hardy concluded his article:

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Wouldn't the divinely inspired translation have corrected any such error?

[consiglieri]

Wouldn't the divinely inspired translation have corrected any such error?

Apparently not, which may give us insight into what a "divinely inspired translation" does and does not do.As noted in the article, this misplaced passage is in the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, so it has been there from the beginning.Of related interest is that the second half of Alma 32:30 was left out for precisely the same reason; except that this part was there in the original version, but in subsequent copying/printing, the same type of error resulted in its being omitted completely; until it was finally restored in the 1981 version of the Book of Mormon.All the Best!--Consiglieri

FUN and interesting! Thanks again Consig...... you seem to be able to put interesting things together for us to learn.

I expect to see a new YouTube video coming out in due course!

[soren]

Apparently not, which may give us insight into what a "divinely inspired translation" does and does not do.As noted in the article, this misplaced passage is in the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon, so it has been there from the beginning.

But why suppose it to be an error then at all? I can see that Alma !3:12 seems to be the antedcedent of 13:16, and that 13:17 seems to follow from 13:15, but why conclude that it is a copyist's mistake? I can think of another explanation offhand:

If we postulate for instance that Smith was making it up, it could be that he had privately rehearsed to himself what he was going to say when dictating the text. Yet when he was at work, he ccidentally skipped a pert he had planned to say, and which he liked very much, so he spontaneously doubled back and stated the part he had missed before resuming. The same thing could also have happened if the composition were done impromptu. How often does it happen that we are in conversations about a topic and suddenly realize we have missed an opportunity to make a good point, and so we suddenly double back on ourselves, state the part we missed and then pick up again? In this way, the pattern of error that you attribute to copyist mistakes can also occur in dictation.

As usual, I cannot prove that that is the explanation, but I suggest it as an aternative theory to show that the evidence does not demand your interpretation.

[Urloony]

If we postulate for instance that Smith was making it up, it could be that he had privately rehearsed to himself what he was going to say when dictating the text. Yet when he was at work, he ccidentally skipped a pert he had planned to say, and which he liked very much, so he spontaneously doubled back and stated the part he had missed before resuming. The same thing could also have happened if the composition were done impromptu. How often does it happen that we are in conversations about a topic and suddenly realize we have missed an opportunity to make a good point, and so we suddenly double back on ourselves, state the part we missed and then pick up again? In this way, the pattern of error that you attribute to copyist mistakes can also occur in dictation.

As usual, I cannot prove that that is the explanation, but I suggest it as an aternative theory to show that the evidence does not demand your interpretation.

Are you suggesting that Joseph Smith would stay up late at night and write out the Book of Mormon dreaming it up as he went? Then memorize what he had written and dictate to his scribe for hours on end day after day, week after week, for months? That is completely absurd! It's easier to believe in angels and gold plates than what you've concocted. Ok now you can quote me and ask "why is this absurd?" Go ahead, I dare ya!

[soren]

Are you suggesting that Joseph Smith would stay up late at night and write out the Book of Mormon dreaming it up as he went? Then memorize what he had written and dictate to his scribe for hours on end day after day, week after week, for months? That is completely absurd! It's easier to believe in angels and gold plates than what you've concocted. Ok now you can quote me and ask "why is this absurd?" Go ahead, I dare ya!

That is not what I am suggesting but is an exaggeration of what I meant. I am only saying that it could have been the case that Smith planned out what he was going to say, that he had a road-map in his head as he dictated. Does that mean he stayed up nights writing and trnaslating? Probably not. It only means he could have thought out what he was going to say in advance. I also pointed out that the same kind of thing could happen if he dictated impromptu, since people also double back on themselves when they speak spontaneously. The basic idea is that Smith intended to say one thing, skipped it, doubled back when he noticed the mistake and then picked it where he left off. There is nothing in this kind of error (if it even is an error) that is specific to scribal transmission, and so it does not constitute evidence of any such thing.

[consiglieri]

As usual, I cannot prove that that is the explanation, but I suggest it as an aternative theory to show that the evidence does not demand your interpretation.

And I would hasten to say I have attempted to phrase things a little more tentatively than that the evidence demands this interpretation.

Nevertheless, as shown in the article linked to above, this is something that does commonly happen when copying from one manuscript to another.

In this regard, the fact that the suspect passages in Alma 13 both end with almost identical wording, referring to "the rest of the Lord," does seem to make this explanation preferable.

Hope you are having a fine Sunday!

--Consiglieri

[Urloony]

That is not what I am suggesting but is an exaggeration of what I meant.

I didn't mean to be so over the top, CARM has made me a little crazy.

I am only saying that it could have been the case that Smith planned out what he was going to say, that he had a road-map in his head as he dictated. Does that mean he stayed up nights writing and trnaslating? Probably not. It only means he could have thought out what he was going to say in advance. I also pointed out that the same kind of thing could happen if he dictated impromptu, since people also double back on themselves when they speak spontaneously.

The complexity of the Book of Mormon as well as the testimonies of the scribes and other witnesses seem to contradict this notion. If Joseph were speaking spontaneously without looking up from the hat, he would not have known when scribes had made errors in their writing, which he did, and would repeat words and names with the corrected spelling letter by letter. Furthermore, he would pick up from where he left off in translation without being prompted by the scribe where he had left off.

It seems more likely that the error was committed long before Joseph received the plates.

[MormonMason]

Wouldn't the divinely inspired translation have corrected any such error?

If the writers of the Book of Mormon had thought that divinely assisted translation would have self-corrected the copy in the translation, they would not have been so concerned about errors that could have been made by them, as such examples of such fears can be found in several places in the Book of Mormon.

[Stargazer]

Are you suggesting that Joseph Smith would stay up late at night and write out the Book of Mormon dreaming it up as he went? Then memorize what he had written and dictate to his scribe for hours on end day after day, week after week, for months? That is completely absurd! It's easier to believe in angels and gold plates than what you've concocted. Ok now you can quote me and ask "why is this absurd?" Go ahead, I dare ya!

Absurd? I am sorry to report to you that there is a real case of someone writing an entire book by composing and memorising it in his head during the night and then giving it out during the day to his scribe -- letter by letter! I suggest you read the story of Jean-Dominique Bauby, who wrote the memoir The Butterfly and the Diving Bell after a stroke robbed him of the ability to communicate -- indeed, of the ability to voluntarily move any muscles other than his left eyelid!

Jean-Dominique Bauby (April 23, 1952 â?? March 9, 1997) was a well-known French journalist and author and editor of the French fashion magazine ELLE.

On December 8, 1995 at the age of 43, Bauby suffered a massive stroke. When he woke up twenty days later, he found he was entirely speechless; he could only blink his left eyelid. This rare condition is called Locked-in Syndrome, a condition wherein the mental faculties are intact but the entire body is paralyzed. Bauby also lost 60 pounds in the first 20 weeks after his stroke.

Despite his condition, he wrote the book The Diving Bell and the Butterfly by blinking when the correct letter was reached by a person slowly reciting the alphabet over and over again. Bauby had to compose and edit the book entirely in his head, and convey it one letter at a time. To make dictation more efficient, Bauby had his interlocutor read from a special alphabet which consisted of the letters ordered in accordance with their frequency in the French language. The book was published in France in 1997. Bauby died just ten days later of pneumonia.

So we are again brought to the point of needing a spiritual confirmation -- which I have, btw.

[flameburns623]

Alma 13 is a somewhat difficult chapter to read. One reason for that is because there is a verse that is out of place. It is verse 16. Verse 16 should actually come after verse 12. When that change is made, the entire passage reads more smoothly and makes more sense.

This was pointed out a few years back in the following article by Grant Hardy:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=amJtcw==

The interesting part is that the misplacement of this verse is commonly understood to happen in other ancient texts, including the Bible, and results when copying from an original. It most frequently occurs when the last words of a line of text are similar to the last words of another line.

The scribe finishes copying the first line; and then looks back at the original to continue. The mistake occurs when the scribe sees another line with similar words at the end and thinks that this second line is where he left off copying; the scribe then begins copying from this second point instead of the first point.

In this way, a whole section of the text is omitted.

At some point thereafter, the scribe realizes that he has inadvertently omitted some material, but due to the fact that the scribe does not live in an age of word processors (or even erasers!), he can't correct the mistake. Instead, he has to either write the missed text in the margin; or simply put it out of sequence at the point he has realized his omission.

This appears to be what happened in Alma 13.

This would not likely happen if Joseph Smith were dictating this material off the top of his head.

Rather, it is precisely the type of mistake we expect to see when copying from one manuscript to another.

The only reasonable explanation for this misplaced verse in Alma 13, then, is that it is the result of copying the text from one place to another. If Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon, this would appear to be evidence that he was not simply dictating it; but must have been working from a preexisting manuscript, at least at this point in the translation process.

It is not clear how he would be doing this with his face in a hat.

A more likely, though faith-based solution, is that the misplaced verse occurred anciently at some point when this chapter was copied; and perhaps when it was copied on the gold plates.

As Grant Hardy concluded his article:

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You posted all of this so that I'd have to dig out one of my copies of the BoM and look all this up. Right? 'Fess U!

[MormonMason]

Absurd? I am sorry to report to you that there is a real case of someone writing an entire book by composing and memorising it in his head during the night and then giving it out during the day to his scribe -- letter by letter! I suggest you read the story of Jean-Dominique Bauby, who wrote the memoir The Butterfly and the Diving Bell after a stroke robbed him of the ability to communicate -- indeed, of the ability to voluntarily move any muscles other than his left eyelid!

So we are again brought to the point of needing a spiritual confirmation -- which I have, btw.

But, did Joseph Smith have Locked-in Syndrome? No. To have such a thing happen this way requires a brain injury of substantial kind. There is no evidence of such at this early date.

Please find a healthy individual with such a history of composition to support your point.

[soren]

If the writers of the Book of Mormon had thought that divinely assisted translation would have self-corrected the copy in the translation, they would not have been so concerned about errors that could have been made by them, as such examples of such fears can be found in several places in the Book of Mormon.

Were the BOM authors even aware that the book was going to be translated? Certainly, if it served as scripture for centuries in its original form, that would be adequate reason to care for its transmission, without any reference to later translation.

[soren]

I didn't mean to be so over the top, CARM has made me a little crazy.

The complexity of the Book of Mormon as well as the testimonies of the scribes and other witnesses seem to contradict this notion. If Joseph were speaking spontaneously without looking up from the hat, he would not have known when scribes had made errors in their writing, which he did, and would repeat words and names with the corrected spelling letter by letter. Furthermore, he would pick up from where he left off in translation without being prompted by the scribe where he had left off.

It seems more likely that the error was committed long before Joseph received the plates.

This line of reasoning misses the point of my argument. The issue here is not whether the BOM is true, but whether the apparent transposition of part of the text constitues evidence of scribal error. Whether the BOM is satisfactorily complex is a different question.

The reason that the argument on this thread does not work is because it assumes that because some transposed texts result from scribal error, than any transposed text results from scribal error. This is a faulty leap because transposition is a common accident of the human creative process. I cannot imagine the number of times when I have written something and, in reviewing it found a sentence or even a whole paragraph that was misplaced in much the same way that Alma 13:16 - assuming that it is actually misplaced.

And it is not clear to me that it even is misplaced. I can see why someone would think so, but I believe in giving any text the benefit of the doubt (and that includes the BOM). I think that Alma 13:16 can get the benefit of the doubt as an correct reading. If I thought God brought the BOM into the world, I would hesitate to second-guess the order of its sentences without much clearer proof than has been presented for this example.

[MormonMason]

Were the BOM authors even aware that the book was going to be translated? Certainly, if it served as scripture for centuries in its original form, that would be adequate reason to care for its transmission, without any reference to later translation.

The majority of the Book of Mormon--from Words of Mormon to Moroni--was composed by two people, Mormon and Moroni. Both of them were aware that the record would be translated. Writers of the small plates of Nephi also knew that the record would come forth in the last days. Nephi specifically stated that they would be translated. Mormon joined the small plates of Nephi into his own record, being directed by the Spirit of the Lord to do so.

Nevertheless, Moroni was the most worried about what people would think and the most concerned with potential imperfections in the record.

[soren]

The majority of the Book of Mormon--from Words of Mormon to Moroni--was composed by two people, Mormon and Moroni. Both of them were aware that the record would be translated. Writers of the small plates of Nephi also knew that the record would come forth in the last days. Nephi specifically stated that they would be translated. Mormon joined the small plates of Nephi into his own record, being directed by the Spirit of the Lord to do so.

Nevertheless, Moroni was the most worried about what people would think and the most concerned with potential imperfections in the record.

That improves the case for consiglieri's theory. At least, it provides some theoretical grounds for it. Yet the potential for error in the transmission of the text does not iimply that error did occur. Rather, one might see the authors' concern for the care of the text as a basis for confidence in its transmission.

[Sargon]

After briefly skimming the article (sometimes I'm impatient) I didn't see where the author specified which BoM manuscript or if any manuscript at all was used in his study. Could it simply be a case of Oliver goofing things up when copying the original manuscript down for the printer?

Sargon

[cdowis]

Wouldn't the divinely inspired translation have corrected any such error?

1. It is clear that the "divine translation" made no corrections to the text itself. That is our job to figure it out.

We do not claim inerrancy in the text.

2. "scribal error" As perhaps mentioned already, it is possible that Mormon made the error and was carried over onto the plates themselves.

[Cold Steel]

There are many indications of errors, or editing, in the Book of Mormon. Writing on gold plates, one can't erase what's one's written. How many times do we read "...or in other words...." or other clarifications? On paper, one can do cross outs, but metal plates are another story. Moroni seems not to have written his words on paper before committing them to the plates; however, other authors may have. In one case a reference is made to handwriting on a wall (similar to the biblical account); however, this is a story that's not told in our scriptures. Moroni references it as if everyone should know the story but, of course, they don't. And Moroni also blasted Pahoran for not being loyal and aggressive enough in battle, but he turned out to be wrong. It also plainly illustrates that prophets can make mistakes.

[cinepro]

GOD: Moroni, please come here. I have a job for you.

Moroni: Yes, my Lord. What is they bidding?

G: Do you remember when I had you bury those plates up in the North Land before you ended your mortal sojurn?

M: You mean after the 6,000+ KM hike you made me take? Yeah, I think I can remember that.

G: Good. The time has come for that record to be brought forth among the children of men. This Book is going to be the keystone of the final dispensation of the Gospel, to prepare the world for my Son's return. This will be the most important Book ever given to mankind, and it must be the most correct representation of my Gospel. I have been preparing a prophet to translate the record in the common tongue of the people.

M: That's fantastic. You've been preparing a mortal man to bring forth the record by teaching him the reformed egyptian? And he's saved up enough money to buy the materials he needs?

G: Not quite. He doesn't know anything about reformed egyptian. I've been preparing him the same way I always prepare my prophets: by having him run around at night looking for buried treasure. I also gave him a stone that he thinks shows him stuff. One of these days, he may figure out that he's not ever going to find anything using this method, but he seems very determined. And he's flat broke, so I'm going to use a local farmer to get him some money. I had meant to have you put a litte extra gold in with the plates to finance this project, but I forgot. Unfortuantely, using this farmer is going to require that we lose the first 116 pages of the project, but it's only time and paper.

Anyway, I'm going to need you to do the translation for him. How's your English?

M: I'm a little rusty. I haven't had any lessons since sometime around the 17th century, when Peter and I used to hang out during the attempt to create the KJV of the Bible and laugh at them.

G: That will have to do. You have to figure out a way to get him the plates and stuff. But there's a chance he won't even want to use them. Like I said, he really likes his stone. If that's the case, just let him do the "stone in the hat" thing, and whisper the translation in his ear, or project the words into the stone or something. And he may need some help moving the plates around, so just "slide" them underground, or carry them for him if he needs it.

M: Wait. Remember when I threw out my back after the 23rd day of my journey schlepping those plates, and I asked if you could slide the plates for me, or have an angel or someone carry them for me, and you told me it was against the rules? Were you just making that up?

G: No, of course not. This is totally different. Anyway, just show him the words, and get that Book translated.

M: No problem. This should work out really well, because inscribing those plates was a an absolute pain in the meehor. I think I made a bunch of mistakes, and I know my dad made a bunch of mistakes, because I could hardly read his handscribing.

G: Actually, I'd like the translation to be as accurate to the plates as possible. Don't fix any of your mistakes.

M: Are you serious? So when Lehi showed up and named all those animals totally wrong, you want me to keep the wrong names? And that one verse that my dad screwed up on so it's out of place, you want me to keep it in the wrong place? And all those stories about the huge armies where they were like "rah rah, we have a huge army" but they really didn't, you don't want me to make it a little closer to reality? And you know Nephi put a bunch of stuff in about Adam and Eve and there not being physical death before the fall? Should I straighten that out? And what about Noah's flood; you've still got a bunch of people who think it covered the entire planet (*both God and Moroni giggle and roll their eyes*)

M: And I have to do all this from my celestial memory, since the plates aren't even going to be there to look at?

G: Right. That's it. Just remember exactly how your wrote it, not how it was really happening. Eventually, scientists will figure out the death before the fall and Noah's flood thing, so we don't need to worry about that. I was talking to Nephi, and he is sorry for how he worded his comments, but he is really proud of the time he spent trying to make chiasmus and stuff, so make sure you include that. It's very poetic. Oh, and remember this new prophet's going to lose the first 116 pages, so we'll let him use the plates for that part, and don't try your hardest. Remember how I had you include the small plates? Those are plan B.

M: Ok. So he gets to use the plates for the part that will be thrown out, then I'll be dictating the rest to him? What about when Nephi copied all that Isaiah stuff from the brass plates? The English speakers already have it in their popular KJV Bible, but it's got a lot of mistakes. Should we have Isaiah go and do that part of the translation, since he knows it better than I do?

G: No. Just have them copy it out of their English Bible. It's close enough.

M: Ok.

G: No, wait. Let them make a few changes. So mostly Bible, with some changes.

M: You're sure? I mean, Isaiah is right over there. He would really love to have a chance to correct all those errors.

G: No, this way's better. That way people who already know their Bible won't be too disturbed. It will sound familiar.

M: Ok. With all due respect, this is kind of confusing.

G: I like to call it "Mysterious Ways". It sounds better that way.

[Buckeye]

A little heavy on God getting involved in the details, but on the whole, not half bad.

[Sargon]

Very clever! And amusing to boot.

How much time did you spend on that?

[cinepro]

How much time did you spend on that?

Too much.

Or not enough.

[Sargon]

After briefly skimming the article (sometimes I'm impatient) I didn't see where the author specified which BoM manuscript or if any manuscript at all was used in his study. Could it simply be a case of Oliver goofing things up when copying the original manuscript down for the printer?

Sargon

Just wondering if there was any response to my suggestion.