Mortal Man Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Okay then, how do you and Matthew Roper think the KJV quotations got into the Book of Mormon?I'm certain Matthew Roper would disagree but I think that Joseph cut and pasted the quotations from his family Bible.
consiglieri Posted February 10, 2009 Author Posted February 10, 2009 And overestimating the value of this consiglieri's find. BTW, he still owes me an explanation for the KJV quotations in the BoM.I hope not to derail the thread with this, but in the interests of fairness will answer your question as best as I am able, Duderino.I think the KJV quotations in the BoM are a puzzle for which I do not have a solution, and by itself constitutes in my mind the single most damning piece of evidence against the Book of Mormon.Hope that helps. All the Best!--Consiglieri
Joseph Antley Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Every author in the world does this but you think Joseph Smith didn't. It might have gone something like this: in the middle of translation, JS exclaims to his helper "Hey, this next part has Lehi saying the words that Alma quotes later on. Lets grab that already-written manuscript and make sure we get it right." So they look, Joseph verifies that it's the same, and voila -- you have Lehi saying exactly what Alma later quotes.The Book of Mormon was written differently than most authors write their books, in that he didn't actually write it -- he orated it. Perhaps I am off base, but I think, considering the amount of material Joseph dictated, that it would be difficult to recall a single obscure statement that he made several months prior.
Mudcat Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Assuming a fiction on the fly position, wouldn't it make sense that if JS was the author of Alma and 1 Nephi that he could have used the exact same 20 words without referring to anything. Perhaps it was just his style of wording, and the duplication was a natural one.
Joseph Antley Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Assuming a fiction on the fly position, wouldn't it make sense that if JS was the author of Alma and 1 Nephi that he could have used the exact same 20 words without referring to anything. Perhaps it was just his style of wording, and the duplication was a natural one.Except, as I've already pointed out, the quote in Alma says he's quoting Lehi.
The Dude Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Except, as I've already pointed out, the quote in Alma says he's quoting Lehi.You say you doubt Joseph's ability to remember...Perhaps I am off base, but I think, considering the amount of material Joseph dictated, that it would be difficult to recall a single obscure statement that he made several months prior.Do you doubt his ability to recall the 20 words? Or do you doubt his ability to recall simple fact that Alma quoted Lehi?I have already suggested scenarios for how he could have memorized the 20 words ahead of time (easily), or else asked his helpers to pull out the already-written manuscript and check the 20 words of Alma to "see if they matched" the 20 words from Lehi. Recalling the 20 words shouldn't be a problem.What about the other problem, of Joseph recalling the fact that Alma quoted Lehi? Maybe, by chance, it seems pretty random to remember the existence of a passage from months before. But in fact we have evidence that Joseph planned for it, having Alma name Lehi as the character he was quoting. Not so random after all!
Mudcat Posted February 10, 2009 Posted February 10, 2009 Except, as I've already pointed out, the quote in Alma says he's quoting Lehi.Hey Joseph,I think I am tracking with you... let me make sure I am following this though.Lehi says something.Alma says Lehi said that same something.Joseph translates that Alma quote of Lehi, before the fact he translated Lehi's quote in Nephi.Have I got that right? I may not be understanding the significance of sequence in the translation correctly. If we were to say it was a fictional work... I know you don't agree with that, but just saying.... couldn't Joseph have remembered what he quoted Lehi as saying in Alma?Mud
Mortal Man Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I think the KJV quotations in the BoM are a puzzle for which I do not have a solution, and by itself constitutes in my mind the single most damning piece of evidence against the Book of Mormon.It's a lot less damning if you go with the loose translation model; e.g., Joseph says, "Hey, this angel is quoting Malachi." So he whips out his KJV and quotes the relevant chapters because that's easier than staring into the hat.
lostindc Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_pl..._from_the_BibleLDS scholar Hugh Nibley wrote the following in response to a letter sent to the editor of the Church News section of the Deseret News. His response was printed in the Church News in 1961:[1][One of the] most devastating argument against the Book of Mormon was that it actually quoted the Bible. The early critics were simply staggered by the incredible stupidity of including large sections of the Bible in a book which they insisted was specifically designed to fool the Bible-reading public. They screamed blasphemy and plagiarism at the top of their lungs, but today any biblical scholar knows that it would be extremely suspicious if a book purporting to be the product of a society of pious emigrants from Jerusalem in ancient times did not quote the Bible. No lengthy religious writing of the Hebrews could conceivably be genuine if it was not full of scriptural quotations....to quote another writer of Christianity Today [magazine],[2] "passages lifted bodily from the King James Version," and that it quotes, not only from the Old Testament, but also the New Testament as well.As to the "passages lifted bodily from the King James Version," we first ask, "How else does one quote scripture if not bodily?" And why should anyone quoting the Bible to American readers of 1830 not follow the only version of the Bible known to them?Actually the Bible passages quoted in the Book of Mormon often differ from the King James Version, but where the latter is correct there is every reason why it should be followed. When Jesus and the Apostles and, for that matter, the Angel Gabriel quote the scriptures in the New Testament, do they recite from some mysterious Urtext? Do they quote the prophets of old in the ultimate original? Do they give their own inspired translations? No, they do not. They quote the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament prepared in the third century B.C. Why so? Because that happened to be the received standard version of the Bible accepted by the readers of the Greek New Testament. When "holy men of God" quote the scriptures it is always in the received standard version of the people they are addressing.We do not claim the King James Version of the Septuagint to be the original scripturesâ??in fact, nobody on earth today knows where the original scriptures are or what they say. Inspired men have in every age have been content to accept the received version of the people among whom they labored, with the Spirit giving correction where correction was necessary.Since the Book of Mormon is a translation, "with all its faults," into English for English-speaking people whose fathers for generations had known no other scriptures but the standard English Bible, it would be both pointless and confusing to present the scriptures to them in any other form, so far as their teachings were correct.What is thought to be a very serious charge against the Book of Mormon today is that it, a book written down long before New Testament times and on the other side of the world, actually quotes the New Testament! True, it is the same Savior speaking in both, and the same Holy Ghost, and so we can expect the same doctrines in the same language.But what about the "Faith, Hope and Charity" passage in Moroni 7:45? Its resemblance to 1 Corinthians 13 is undeniable. This particular passage, recently singled out for attack in Christianity Today, is actually one of those things that turn out to be a striking vindication of the Book of Mormon. For the whole passage, which scholars have labeled "the Hymn to Charity," was shown early in this century by a number of first-rate investigators working independently (A. Harnack, J. Weiss, R. Reizenstein) to have originated not with Paul at all, but to go back to some older but unknown source: Paul is merely quoting from the record.Now it so happens that other Book of Mormon writers were also peculiarly fond of quoting from the record. Captain Moroni, for example, reminds his people of an old tradition about the two garments of Joseph, telling them a detailed story which I have found only in [th' Alabi of Persia,] a thousand-year-old commentary on the Old Testament, a work still untranslated and quite unknown to the world of Joseph Smith. So I find it not a refutation but a confirmation of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon when Paul and Moroni both quote from a once well-known but now lost Hebrew writing.Now as to [the] question, "Why did Joseph Smith, a nineteenth century American farm boy, translate the Book of Mormon into seventeenth century King James English instead of into contemporary language?"The first thing to note is that the "contemporary language" of the country-people of New England 130 years ago was not so far from King James English. Even the New England writers of later generations, like Webster, Melville, and Emerson, lapse into its stately periods and "thees and thous" in their loftier passages.∗ ∗ ∗Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is full of scripture, and for the world of Joseph Smith's day, the King James Version was the Scripture, as we have noted; large sections of the Book of Mormon, therefore, had to be in the language of the King James Versionâ??and what of the rest of it? That is scripture, too.One can think of lots of arguments for using King James English in the Book of Mormon, but the clearest comes out of very recent experience. In the past decade, as you know, certain ancient nonbiblical texts, discovered near the Dead Sea, have been translated by modern, up-to-date American readers. I open at random a contemporary Protestant scholar's modern translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what do I read? "For thine is the battle, and by the strength of thy hand their corpses were scattered without burial. Goliath the Hittite, a mighty man of valor, thou didst deliver into the hand of thy servant David."[3]Obviously the man who wrote this knew the Bible, and we must not forget that ancient scribes were consciously archaic in their writing, so that most of the scriptures were probably in old-fashioned language the day they were written down. To efface that solemn antique style by the latest up-to-date usage is to translate falsely.At any rate, Professor Burrows, in 1955 (not 1835!), falls naturally and without apology into the language of the King James Bible. Or take a modern Jewish scholar who purposely avoids archaisms in his translation of the Scrolls for modern American readers: "All things are inscribed before Thee in a recording script, for every moment of time, for the infinite cycles of years, in their several appointed times. No single thing is hidden, naught missing from Thy presence."[4] Professor Gaster, too, falls under the spell of our religious idiom.By frankly using that idiom, the Book of Mormon avoids the necessity of having to be redone into "modern English" every thirty or forty years. If the plates were being translated for the first time today, it would still be King James English!"ConclusionThe Book of Mormon emulates the language and style of the King James Bible because that is the scriptural style Joseph Smith, translator of the Book of Mormon, was familiar with.Quotations from the Bible in the Book of Mormon are sometimes uncited quotes from Old Testament prophets on the brass plates, similar to the many unattributed Old Testament quotes in the New Testament; others are simply similar phrasing emulated by Joseph Smith during his translation.Critics also fail to mention that even if all the Biblical passages were removed from the Book of Mormon, there would be a great deal of text remaining. Joseph Smith was able to produce long, intricate religious texts without using the Bible; if he was trying to deceive people, why did he "plagiarize" from the one bookâ??the Bibleâ??which his readership was sure to recognize?
consiglieri Posted February 11, 2009 Author Posted February 11, 2009 It's a lot less damning if you go with the loose translation model; e.g., Joseph says, "Hey, this angel is quoting Malachi." So he whips out his KJV and quotes the relevant chapters because that's easier than staring into the hat.That may be true, but it does fly in the face of the testimony of every single witness of the translation process.All the Best!--Consiglieri
talisyn Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 John Welch noted some time back that Alma quotes with precision an entire 20-word passage from Lehi's vision recorded in 1 Nephi 1.This is suggestive on a number of levels:1. It is not likely chance that would account for so exact a matching of words. Whoever was writing the words of Alma was intentionally (and even explicitly) quoting from Lehi's vision, and doing it with exactitude. In other words, Alma was quoting a previously existing text.2. This indicates rather tight control of the translation process, though admittedly there are other indicators of a less tight control.3. If Joseph Smith were writing as Alma, Joseph Smith must have been winnowing back through the manuscript to get the words of Lehi exactly, as it is not likely Joseph Smith got halfway through the Book of Mormon and then quoted this passage with such exactness.4. And yet, the witnesses, including Emma, are clear that Joseph Smith did not use any manuscripts or books in the translation. Indeed, it would likely have struck the participants as somewhat odd had Joseph Smith gone back to page one in order to "translate" a passage from the middle.5. What makes this occurrence even more remarkable is that most scholars are agreed that Joseph Smith commenced his translation of the current Book of Mormon at Mosiah, that being the point to which the lost 116-pages had taken him. Picking up there, he dictated the Book of Mormon through to the end of Moroni, and then commenced with 1 Nephi and translated up (almost) to the point where he had commenced with Mosiah.The wrinkle this produces is that Alma quoted Lehi's words with precision before Lehi's words were even translated as part of the Book of Mormon.Or, as I put it, Alma 36 was translated before 1 Nephi 1.It is a rather strange occurrence.All the Best!--ConsiglieriI really don't see what's so strange about it. Alma had Lehi's words almost 2 eons before Joseph Smith translated the BoM, and probably studied it as much as our general authorities study the scriptures. It isn't any more odd than an apostle quoting Isaiah or Christ Himself. Or am I completely missing your point?
lostindc Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 That may be true, but it does fly in the face of the testimony of every single witness of the translation process.All the Best!--ConsiglieriThere are many factors that can account for the duplicity of some of the Biblical passages in the BOM such as:1. When the publisher edited the BOM for grammar and spelling (recall the errors added by the publisher) he could have just gone to the Bible for the passage.2. Joseph went to the bible and copied it after translation was complete in order for correctness.3. Joseph was directed by God to put the text in the current language just like the Angel Gabriel quotes the scriptures in the New Testament (Greek version, the version of that time).4. Those who edited the BOM for errors, I believe Cowdery and others could have went to the New Testament to verify that the translation was accurate and changed the manuscript.5. Or other reasons, which seem tiresome to list because work has been long and it is only TuesdayI wanted to also mention that not all Biblical passages match the KJV available so it is an overstatement by those that say it is complete duplication
talisyn Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 As the Dude pointed out, the verbatim KJV verses prove conclusively that the Bible was used in the production of the Book of Mormon. This trumps any witness accounts to the contrary. Emma can swear up and down that no Bible was present while Joseph was "translating," but when there are entire chapters of Isaiah, including mistranslations and peculiarities unique to the KJV translation, we can only conclude that Emma was wrong. Wrong, or intentionally fudging the truth in an effort to preemptively refute critics' charges of plagiarism. It would be quite understandable for Emma, Cowdery, or Harris, all of whom believed fervently in the supernatural origins of the BoM, to tell a "white lie" about the use of outside materials in the production of the BoM. The reasoning behind such "truth fudging" could be that they knew the BoM was of divine origin, and they knew that admitting certain things could cast doubt on the divinity thereof. As we all know, some things are true, but not useful.Whatever the situation may have been, the facts demonstrate that the witnesses statements with respect to the production methods of the BoM should be taken with a grain of salt.I'm gonna have to disagree with the conclusions drawn about the KJV and the BoM Isaiah verses. The LDS Church uses the KJV because we believe it is the most correct translation available. If it is the most correct, then it stands to reason that Isaiah's words would be in the brass plates, peculiarities and all.
hagoth7 Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I really don't see what's so strange about it. Alma had Lehi's words almost 2 eons before Joseph Smith translated the BoM, and probably studied it as much as our general authorities study the scriptures. It isn't any more odd than an apostle quoting Isaiah or Christ Himself. Or am I completely missing your point?You're missing consig's point.The gap isn't a problem for the church. On the contrary.
Chris Smith Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Hi Consiglieri,First, let me begin by commending to you Brent's Mosiah Priority essay in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon. It contains many very interesting observations, like this one:[...] early in the [boM] narrative Nephi relates that Lehi (1 Ne. 10:4), an angel (19:8 ), and "the prophets" (2 Ne. 25:19) had all predicted that Jesus would be born 600 years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem. However, subsequent Book of Mormon prophets seem unaware of these extraordinary oracles.At a Nephite revival king Benjamin comments that "the time cometh, and is not far distant … [that the Lord] shall come down from heaven … and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay" (Mosiah 3:5). This comment is surprising since the scriptures he possessed presumably told him this would not occur for over 120 years. [...] Alma sincerely hopes "that it might be in [his] day" (v. 25). His reticence or inability to disclose Jesus' birth date is explicable in his admission, "we know not how soon" [v.25].When Samuel the Lamanite subsequently enters the scene, in contrast to Benjamin's and Alma's imprecision, he boldly specifies "for five years more cometh … then cometh the Son of God" (Hel. 14:2). Absent is any indication that Samuel merely echoes the inspired utterances of his forebears, Lehi and Nephi, or other prophets, including an angel. This particular point is paramount, for the potency of Samuel's oracle lies in its absolute uniqueness. [...]The enveloping is obvious: Lehi and Nephi explicitly preach the date of Jesus' birth; Benjamin and Alma speak only in generalities; Samuel, like Nephi, is explicit. But when we analyze the passages in the order they were dictated, the enveloping pattern is replaced with a linear pattern. Prophets in the earliest part of the dictation lack specific knowledge of Jesus' birth date. However, with Samuel a date of five years is given. At the expiration of the allotted time, the signs appear as prophesied. In this context the narrative explains: (1) that "father Lehi … Nephi … almost all of our fathers … have testified of the coming of Christ" (Hel. 8:22); and (2) that the year Jesus was born "was six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem" (3 Ne. 1:1).Passages such as these paved the way for the next stage of thematic development. What started as an editorial remark that 600 years had elapsed is transformed into a literal prophecy from the lips of Lehi, Nephi, an angel, and unidentified prophets. These prophecies were not dictated until the 600-year date had been firmly established in 3 Nephi.(New Approaches, pp. 416-7.)As for your "quote" from Lehi, I think it's significant that Alma's conversion appears in some respects to be autobiographical (based on the First Vision; see Making of a Prophet, pp. 196-7), and Lehi's visions appear to be modeled to some degree on Joseph Smith Sr.'s dreams. JS Jr. said in an 1835 account of the First Vision that he "saw many angels in this vision," but the comment is not repeated in other accounts. It may be significant, then, that in both Lehi's and Alma's cases we are told that they "thought" they saw angels; is this reflective of Joseph's own uncertainty at this point? There are also similarities between the language here and that of Isaiah 6 (a prophetic commissioning) and Hebrews 12:22 (referring to conversion), the latter of which Joseph quoted in an 1833 letter and asserted his "equal privilege" to experience what the biblical authors experienced. Perhaps Joseph interpreted his own experience through a biblical lens, and used the Book of Mormon as an opportunity to codify that experience in rapturous, pseudo-scriptural language. Just he took his father's dreams to some extent as precedents for his own experience, so he also gave himself ancient precedents in Alma (corresponding to himself) and Lehi (corresponding to his father).All of this is to say that if this language is autobiography in scriptural/poetic language, it may not be surprising that Joseph remembered it well enough to repeat it the same way twice during the Book of Mormon's dictation. He had a personal investment in it.What the other critics in this thread have said is also true; JS could theoretically have looked back at Alma at any time during the dictation process in order to remind himself exactly what had been said there.Best,-Chris
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 It's a lot less damning if you go with the loose translation model; e.g., Joseph says, "Hey, this angel is quoting Malachi." So he whips out his KJV and quotes the relevant chapters because that's easier than staring into the hat.Why does it have to be an either or here? Perhaps it is both. Interesting. I goota agree with Consig here. In some regaurd this does seem to be a potentially daming peice of evidence.I remember John W and my self talking about this some time ago. It made my head itch a little.
LDSMusic483 Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Except, as I've already pointed out, the quote in Alma says he's quoting Lehi.So what if when Alma was recounting the story to his father, Alma Sr., his dad said...Father Lehi said something just like that! Then they go back and look at what Lehi had to say before his (alma jr's) experience is recorded, and thus gets the word for word quote.
consiglieri Posted February 11, 2009 Author Posted February 11, 2009 If we were to say it was a fictional work... I know you don't agree with that, but just saying.... couldn't Joseph have remembered what he quoted Lehi as saying in Alma?Yes, Joseph Smith could have remembered what he quoted Lehi as saying in Alma.And I think that is pretty much what we are left with as far as a naturalistic explanation if we take into account all the evidence.But the odds of Joseph Smith so remembering, and in the context of knocking out 8+ pages a day of Book of Mormon translation, appear to me to be vanishingly small.All the Best!--Consiglieri
The Dude Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 But the odds of Joseph Smith so remembering, and in the context of knocking out 8+ pages a day of Book of Mormon translation, appear to me to be vanishingly small.What are the odds that he planned to have Lehi say those words as soon as he wrote Alma quoting Lehi?Close to certainty, I think.
lostindc Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 What are the odds that he planned to have Lehi say those words as soon as he wrote Alma quoting Lehi?Close to certainty, I think.now, thats not nice
talisyn Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 So what if when Alma was recounting the story to his father, Alma Sr., his dad said...Father Lehi said something just like that! Then they go back and look at what Lehi had to say before his (alma jr's) experience is recorded, and thus gets the word for word quote.I agree. I think people are making this a bigger deal than it really is.
consiglieri Posted February 11, 2009 Author Posted February 11, 2009 What are the odds that he planned to have Lehi say those words as soon as he wrote Alma quoting Lehi?Close to certainty, I think.I think that it must be "close to certainty" in your view, Duder, because you are a very intelligent fellow, have reasonably viewed all the evidence, and have drawn what seems to be the only rational conclusion not consistent with Joseph Smith actually dictating the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.If Joseph Smith were not a prophet of God, I would agree with you that this is pretty much the only other option, and the odds are indeed close to a certainty.But if we were to leave out the possibility that Joseph Smith could have been a prophet of God, and simply look at the proposition on its own terms; that Joseph planned to have Lehi say those words as soon as he wrote (or shouldn't we say "dictated" here?) Alma quoting Lehi; that is a proposition that I think highly unlikely.All the Best!--Consiglieri
The Dude Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 I think that it must be "close to certainty" in your view, Duder, because you are a very intelligent fellow, have reasonably viewed all the evidence, and have drawn what seems to be the only rational conclusion not consistent with Joseph Smith actually dictating the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.If Joseph Smith were not a prophet of God, I would agree with you that this is pretty much the only other option, and the odds are indeed close to a certainty.But if we were to leave out the possibility that Joseph Smith could have been a prophet of God, and simply look at the proposition on its own terms; that Joseph planned to have Lehi say those words as soon as he wrote (or shouldn't we say "dictated" here?) Alma quoting Lehi; that is a proposition that I think highly unlikely.All the Best!--ConsiglieriUh oh, I think you are pulling a switcheroo, Consiglieri.From a number of responses it seems that people are really confused about how this is even significant from the point of view of Joseph as a prophet. I agree with them. If Joseph was a prophet then Alma quoted Lehi and the order of translation doesn't make an ounce of difference. Why even discuss it?OTOH, your question makes a little bit of sense if you are asking critics to account for it if Joseph wasn't a prophet. That seems to be the only interesting way for the question to be asked. And under that assumption it is still not really a big deal for him to do the Alma part, and plan to come back and have Lehi say what Alma said he said. It is near certainty that this was planned, and not some spur-of-the-moment feat of memory. It's like George Lucas filming Star Wars: A New Hope and having Obiwan quote something that Luke's "father" said when he was young. Then when filming the prequels, George Lucas shows the scene where Anikan Skywalker says what Obiwan quoted him as saying. If it was filmed or written out of order that just means the creator planted the quote before original statement instead of presenting it in chronological order. It was planned and the order is no big deal.So, if Joseph was a prophet it is a no-brainer. If Joseph wasn't a prophet it only takes a teensy bit of brains to see what happened.I'd say those KJV quotes are the really strange occurrence.
Jason Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 Uh oh, I think you are pulling a switcheroo, Consiglieri.He's not pulling a switcheroo - this was his argument from the get-go.And Lucas didn't have Obi-Wan quote Anakin and then put Anakin's own words into the prequels.
The Dude Posted February 11, 2009 Posted February 11, 2009 And Lucas didn't have Obi-Wan quote Anakin and then put Anakin's own words into the prequels. But you understand the example, right? 1. A creative author goes in chronological order and has person A make a statement, and much later has person B quote person A. In this case the author has to remember what person A said, or more likely the author looks back at what person A said. Nobody thinks this is a very unlikely proposition.2. A creative author goes out of chronological order and has person B quote person A, then much later he does the "prequel" and has person A make the statement. In this case the author has to remember what person B said, or more likely the author looks back at what person B said. How is this any more unlikely that the first proposition?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.