New Testament And Book Of Mormon Parallels (Mark 16:Mormon 9)

[Nevo]

The botched attempts of James Strang to emulate the prophet model is a good example of what a 'man-made' scripture from the earth looks like (and yet, worryingly, many of Joseph's followers bought it). I guess hindsight is always 20:20.

Not so fast. A pretty good case can be made for the antiquity of Strang's scripture too: http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/06/23/the-miraculous-plates-of-voree-examined/

Edited June 11, 2013 by Nevo

[cdowis]

It may not have been solely a product of "his [smith's] imagination" but I see it as certainly the product of "the" imagination, drawn from pre-existing language, phrases, and themes.

Words like sheum, Paanchi, Pahoran, etc. Just remarkable coincidences, I suppose, and we can just ignore them as fragments of his imagination.

[Gervin]

Words like sheum, Paanchi, Pahoran, etc. Just remarkable coincidences, I suppose, and we can just ignore them as fragments of his imagination.

Again, I didn't infer that everything came from Smith's imagination. I believe there were many influences on the text that became the Book of Mormon. With regard to sheum, Paanchi, and Pahoran I'm not clear of any coincidences. Is there a methodology of metathesis you are putting forward for Egyptian-based (or Hebrew) words or names in the Book of Mormon? For instance, is Paanchi supposed to be Piyi, or Piankhi, or Piankhy?

To what degree would you assign as coincidence the presence of these Book of Mormon names

Ogath, Valley of Alma, Angola, Antum, Anti-Anti, Boaz, Comner, Hill Ephraim, Helam, Jacobugath, Jerusalem, Jordan, Kishkumen, Lehi, Manti, Moroni, Minon, Morianton, Moron, Land of Noah, Onidah, Hill Onidah, Omner, Ramah, Waters of Ripliancum, Sidom, Shilom, Land of Midian, and Teancum

to place names in regional proximity to one another in the Canadian, New York and Pennsylvania areas:

Saint Agathe, Alma, Angola, Antrim, Antioch, Boaz, Conner, St. Ephrem, Hellam, Jacobsburg, Jerusalem, Jordan, Kishkiminetas, Lehigh, Mantua, Monroe, Minoa, Moraviantown, Morin, Noah Lakes, Oneida, Oneida Castle, Omer, Rama, Ripple Lake, Sodom, Shiloh, Land of Midian, and Tecumseh/Tenecum?

Coincidence, right?

[cdowis]

Again, I didn't infer that everything came from Smith's imagination. I believe there were many influences on the text that became the Book of Mormon. With regard to sheum, Paanchi, and Pahoran I'm not clear of any coincidences. Is there a methodology of metathesis you are putting forward for Egyptian-based (or Hebrew) words or names in the Book of Mormon? For instance, is Paanchi supposed to be Piyi, or Piankhi, or Piankhy?

To what degree would you assign as coincidence the presence of these Book of Mormon names

Ogath, Valley of Alma, Angola, Antum, Anti-Anti, Boaz, Comner, Hill Ephraim, Helam, Jacobugath, Jerusalem, Jordan, Kishkumen, Lehi, Manti, Moroni, Minon, Morianton, Moron, Land of Noah, Onidah, Hill Onidah, Omner, Ramah, Waters of Ripliancum, Sidom, Shilom, Land of Midian, and Teancum

to place names in regional proximity to one another in the Canadian, New York and Pennsylvania areas:

Saint Agathe, Alma, Angola, Antrim, Antioch, Boaz, Conner, St. Ephrem, Hellam, Jacobsburg, Jerusalem, Jordan, Kishkiminetas, Lehigh, Mantua, Monroe, Minoa, Moraviantown, Morin, Noah Lakes, Oneida, Oneida Castle, Omer, Rama, Ripple Lake, Sodom, Shiloh, Land of Midian, and Tecumseh/Tenecum?

Coincidence, right?

"Sodom"? Ripple Lake..... Noah Lakes??????? Please don't waste our time with your antiMormon baloney.

Have you ever read the Old Testament? No, not coincidence, just the antimormon ignorance of the scriptures that the people in the region were reading in the Bible and using for local names.

Edited June 11, 2013 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

Again, I didn't infer that everything came from Smith's imagination. I believe there were many influences on the text that became the Book of Mormon. With regard to sheum, Paanchi, and Pahoran I'm not clear of any coincidences. Is there a methodology of metathesis you are putting forward for Egyptian-based (or Hebrew) words or names in the Book of Mormon? For instance, is Paanchi supposed to be Piyi, or Piankhi, or Piankhy?

To what degree would you assign as coincidence the presence of these Book of Mormon names

Ogath, Valley of Alma, Angola, Antum, Anti-Anti, Boaz, Comner, Hill Ephraim, Helam, Jacobugath, Jerusalem, Jordan, Kishkumen, Lehi, Manti, Moroni, Minon, Morianton, Moron, Land of Noah, Onidah, Hill Onidah, Omner, Ramah, Waters of Ripliancum, Sidom, Shilom, Land of Midian, and Teancum

to place names in regional proximity to one another in the Canadian, New York and Pennsylvania areas:

Saint Agathe, Alma, Angola, Antrim, Antioch, Boaz, Conner, St. Ephrem, Hellam, Jacobsburg, Jerusalem, Jordan, Kishkiminetas, Lehigh, Mantua, Monroe, Minoa, Moraviantown, Morin, Noah Lakes, Oneida, Oneida Castle, Omer, Rama, Ripple Lake, Sodom, Shiloh, Land of Midian, and Tecumseh/Tenecum?

Coincidence, right?

This is so troubling. I would think if Joseph were making up towns he would not be so obvious. What it appears to be at first, is a joke on the reader, who knows maybe JS was narcissistic. Anyone have an apologists outlook on this, in laymen terms? Edited June 11, 2013 by Tacenda

[Gervin]

"Sodom"? Ripple Lake..... Noah Lakes??????? Please show us that these are names exclusive to the BOM. Please don't waste our time with your antiMormon garbage.

Again, I think you need to read more carefully. I never claimed that these were cities in the BOM. If I'm wasting your time, please don't read or respond to my posts.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Gervin

[Calm]

This is so troubling. I would think if Joseph were making up towns he would not be so obvious. What it appears to be at first, is a joke on the reader, who knows maybe JS was narcissistic. Anyone have an apologists outlook on this, in laymen terms?

http://en.fairmormon...m_North_America

Critics attempt to discredit Joseph even by resorting to suggesting place names that did not exist in his day. They also resort to extremely small, distant sites about which Joseph almost certainly could have had no knowledge.

They also overlook the Biblical source for their American "parallels," which are far more likely and plausible than giving Joseph an encyclopedic knowledge of North American place names. Even if they insist that he forged the Book of Mormon, isn't the Bible a far more likely source for these names than obscure hamlets hundreds of miles away?

Names that didn't exist in Joseph's day

Critics scour modern maps looking for "parallels," and, without realizing it, use some place names that didn't exist at all during the period of time that the Book of Mormon was being translated in 1829. In fact, critics even go so far as to claim that apologists attempt to create doubt about whether or not these communities existed prior to the production of the Book of Mormon. It is not an issue of "creating doubt" however—either a place name existed prior to the production of the Book of Mormon, or it did not.

Ogath supposedly derived from Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts...a place not settled until 1849

The town of Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, Quebec was established by Augustin Norbert Morin and first settled in 1849. ^[2]

Angola supposedly derived from Angola...a place not named such until 1855

This name is identical, and located within New York state. This would seem to be an excellent candidate for the critics' theory. However, the settlement at that site was not named "Angola" until 1855!^[3] The earliest settlers to arrive were in the vicinity located in the Evans Center area. Saw and grist mills along Big Sister Creek were established; and with the blacksmith shops and stores nearby, it soon became the center of most social activities. However, in 1852 the Buffalo and State Line Railroad laid tracks and built a station about a mile south of Evans Center. The railroad proved to be a great boon to the area causing a shift of the center of activities towards "Evans Station," known today as Angola. Over the years many have searched and probed into the past to determine the origin of the name Angola. There have been several versions but the following seems to be the most authentic. In 1820 a mail route was established between Buffalo and Olean, and a post office was opened at Springville. Two years later a post office designated" Angola" was opened at Taylor Hollow near Gowanda. The name may be related to the fact that a majority of the residents in Taylor Hollow were Quakers who being missionary-minded helped to support Angola, Africa, as one of their projects. In 1855 John Andrus, an influential owner in Evans Station, made application to have the "Angola" Post Office transferred...^[4]

There's a chance Joseph could have heard of the little Angola post office, or of the territory of Angola in Africa, but it seems far-fetched to think that modern Angola, New York could have any direct bearing on the Book of Mormon

Teancum supposedly derived from Tecumseh...A place not named until 1912

Tecumseh, the supposed origin of Teancum, requires considerable creativity to even make the words the same. (The critics rely on the fact that words which start with the same letter seem "the same" to us on a cursory glance.) To get Teancum from Tecumseh, one has to take off the last syllable, add "an" after the "Te," and there you have it. Tecumseh = Teancum. Kind of like John = Joshua!

But could Joseph have known about Tecumseh, Ontario? As a prophet of God, yes, but as a plagiarizer, unlikely. Tecumseh, Ontario did not get this name until 1912. As Wikipedia explains: Originally known as Ryegate Postal Station when it was first settled in 1792, Tecumseh was renamed in 1912 after the Shawnee tribe leader of the same name. It was officially incorporated as a town in 1921.^[5]

Desperate to save this idea, other critics have suggested the town of Tecumseh, Michigan instead of the Tecumseh, Ontario, replacing a ridiculous candidate with one that is merely silly (and even further from Joseph Smith than its later Canadian cousin).

A check of the Michigan location reveals that this tiny Western suburb of Detroit had just barely been settled by a tiny handful of people in the late 1820s, but at least there was a village of Tecumseh in 1824. Insignificant and remote for those in Joseph Smith's area, it's hard to imagine Joseph being aware of that village and feeling some need to stick it on a mental map of the Book of Mormon. And while he may well have heard of the Indian warrior Tecumseh, it's still quite a stretch to get Teancum from that name.^[6]

Edited June 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Book of Mormon City Claimed Source

Teancum Tecumseh

Ramah Rama

Moron* Morin*

Ogath Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts

Morianton Moraviantown

Angola Angola

Onidah Oneida

Kishkumen Kiskiminetas

Jacobugath Jacobsburg

Jerusalem Jerusalem

Alma Alma

Land of Lehi-Nephi Lehigh

Shilom Shiloh -- --

Key

• Red = Did not exist in the 1816 to 1830 timeframe
  
• Blue = Biblical name or element
  
• Green = Small, distant and likely unknown to Joseph
  
• Violet = Partial parallel at best given name differences
  
• Black starred (*) = site not yet located on modern map. Has it vanished or is this an error?
  

Edited June 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[cdowis]

OK, so you agree that those names

Again, I think you need to read more carefully. I never claimed that these were cities in the BOM. If I'm wasting your time, please don't read or respond to my posts.

OK, so we agree that these names have absolutely nothing to do with the BOM. I saw a bunch of others, but we will assume that they also have nothing to do with the BOM, just fluffing up your post with random names.

Edited June 11, 2013 by cdowis

[Gervin]

OK, so you agree that those names

OK, so we agree that these names have absolutely nothing to do with the BOM. I guess this was a technique to use random words, to fluff up your post. An attempt to make it more convincing, I suppose.

(Note: I did not say they were city names in the post that you quoted).

You said "city names" then edited your post. Correct?

[cdowis]

You said "city names" then edited your post. Correct?

Yeah, I am constantly updating my post online. A very bad habit, especially in an ongoing conversation.

Anyway, I noticed that you quoted the corrected or updated post. Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully :<)

If you see a post without "edited by...", just wait abit. All of my posts get edited.

Edited June 11, 2013 by cdowis

[Gervin]

Book of Mormon City Claimed Source

Teancum Tecumseh

Ramah Rama

Moron* Morin*

Ogath Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts

Morianton Moraviantown

Angola Angola

Onidah Oneida

Kishkumen Kiskiminetas

Jacobugath Jacobsburg

Jerusalem Jerusalem

Alma Alma

Land of Lehi-Nephi Lehigh

Shilom Shiloh -- --

Key

• Red = Did not exist in the 1816 to 1830 timeframe
  
• Blue = Biblical name or element
  
• Green = Small, distant and likely unknown to Joseph
  
• Violet = Partial parallel at best given name differences
  
• Black starred (*) = site not yet located on modern map. Has it vanished or is this an error?
  

Your list makes two assumptions that were explicity not part of the list I offered; that these were city names and that they had to be known by Joseph Smith.

While Tecumseh was not a place name it certainly was a proper (American Indian) name known in the time period before the Book of Mormon. Rama is a place name in Ontario and a name associated with the Chippewa nation. The Quaker village of Angola was established before the (relocated Taylor Hollow) post office with the name Angola opened in 1855. I would think it strange for a place to take on a name (Angola) as a post drop without that name being established to some degree. Just my own guess. Oneida County was established in 1798 and exists today. Jacobsburg is a town in Ohio (Belmont County), est. in the early 1820s and Jerusalem is a village in Monroe Co., south of Belmont Co., also est. 1820s. Lehigh County, PA, was established in 1682.

I don't think that all of the Book of Mormon proper names were all derived from early-1800 regional place names, or the Bible, or just made-up. I believe it was a combination.

[canard78]

Not so fast. A pretty good case can be made for the antiquity of Strang's scripture too: http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/06/23/the-miraculous-plates-of-voree-examined/

Come on Nevo... That's a windup, right?

[cdowis]

Your list makes two assumptions that were explicity not part of the list I offered; that these were city names and that they had to be known by Joseph Smith.

While Tecumseh was not a place name it certainly was a proper (American Indian) name known in the time period before the Book of Mormon. Rama is a place name in Ontario and a name associated with the Chippewa nation. The Quaker village of Angola was established before the (relocated Taylor Hollow) post office with the name Angola opened in 1855. I would think it strange for a place to take on a name (Angola) as a post drop without that name being established to some degree. Just my own guess. Oneida County was established in 1798 and exists today. Jacobsburg is a town in Ohio (Belmont County), est. in the early 1820s and Jerusalem is a village in Monroe Co., south of Belmont Co., also est. 1820s. Lehigh County, PA, was established in 1682.

I don't think that all of the Book of Mormon proper names were all derived from early-1800 regional place names, or the Bible, or just made-up. I believe it was a combination.

Why not also exclude AmerIndian names as well? If we can have such names as Rome and Athens, thousands of years old, why could not BOM names have survived into modern times. I suggest that the existence of these Amerindian names actually may strengthen the case for the BOM -- unless you are able to prove that they are modern names and not based on ancient traditions.

Edited June 13, 2013 by cdowis

[canard78]

Why not also exclude AmerIndian names as well? If we can have such names as Rome and Athens, thousands of years old, why could not BOM names have survived into modern times. I suggest that the existence of these Amerindian names actually may strengthen the case for the BOM -- unless you are able to prove that they are modern names and not based on ancient traditions.

This is what I sometimes struggle with when others are defending the Book of Mormon. Claim anything as evidence that has a loose fit. Discard anything that stands against it.

It returns to the assumption you start from. If you categorically 'know' (through an unverifiable source) then all other evidence pivots around that.

- The BoM contains an unoriginal section of KJV NT. Therefore, the KJV section must actually be original

- The BoM contains names similar to AmerIndians in Joseph's area. Therefore, the names can not have been his source but instead might be the distorted name handed down from the BoM ancestor.

- Those AmerIndians in Joseph's area show little to no evidence of having descended from people from the Middle East (DNA, language, culture, archaeology). Therefore, the BoM land and people must have been limited to a small mesoamerican geography.

If 'I know it's true by the spirit' is your fulcrum then all other information moves around it. I understand and respect why that is the case. But I struggle to see how it useful to me who does not have the same fulcrum. Instead I'm asking for a discussion of Mark 16/Mormon 9 from a historical perspective.

My question, and origin this thread is based on the fulcrum of 'it may or may not be historically true.' As I've said before, I know it to be a good influence (Alma 32 style), therefore I believe it to be of God. But that doesn't lead me to the historical conclusion others might make. I do not approach this from the point of proving a conclusion but with the hope of reaching one. And both conclusions remain an option.

Edited June 13, 2013 by canard78

[cdowis]

This is what I sometimes struggle with when others are defending the Book of Mormon. Claim anything as evidence that has a loose fit. Discard anything that stands against it.

Yet another profound statement from canard.

As I have previously pointed out, multiple interpretations are often possible. In this case, I am challanging the implied assertion that "JS used names in the BOM that were familiar to him" as evidence of his authorship. You can turn that around to indicate that the BOM is using ancient Amerindian names to show evidence for its antiquity.

It all depends on your assumptions, doesn't it, canard.

It returns to the assumption you start from. If you categorically 'know' (through an unverifiable source) then all other evidence pivots around that.

I am using facts and logic based on my assumptions. You are welcome to attempt to disprove my assumption .

- The BoM contains an unoriginal section of KJV NT. Therefore, the KJV section must actually be original

- The BoM contains names similar to AmerIndians in Joseph's area. Therefore, the names can not have been his source but instead might be the distorted name handed down from the BoM ancestor.

I confront the "only one conclusion can be made" rather than sheepishly accept that juvenile argument.

- Those AmerIndians in Joseph's area show little to no evidence of having descended from people from the Middle East (DNA, language, culture, archaeology). Therefore, the BoM land and people must have been limited to a small mesoamerican geography.

And there is little evidence that the inhabitants of Georgia, USA are direct descendants of Rome and Athens. They do not speak Latin, there is no evidence of early Roman archeology there.

You DO understand that names are not based on DNA but on associations, history and traditions, do you not?

If 'I know it's true by the spirit' is your fulcrum then all other information moves around it. I understand and respect why that is the case. But I struggle to see how it useful to me who does not have the same fulcrum. Instead I'm asking for a discussion of Mark 16/Mormon 9 from a historical perspective.

"The spirit" has nothing to do with my discussion -- just facts and logic. This is the apologetic forum.

Edited June 14, 2013 by cdowis

[canard78]

"The spirit" has nothing to do with my discussion -- just facts and logic. This is the apologetic forum.

I've actually little interest in discussing names like Angola etc. I consider them to be almost certainly coincidences. I replied because your arguments illustrate the influence of a conclusion. You have already stated in this thread that "the tail doesn't wag the dog." That phrase suggests that anything that appears to contradict the Book of Mormon can be dismissed on that basis.

But I'm curious. You've stated so far that the BoM is the standard. You've stated that given it's in the Book of Mormon it must therefore be the actual original words spoken by Jesus. Given Mark 16 matches Mark 9 it therefore suggests that Mark 9 must also contain the original words of Jesus.

So given this is an apologetic forum and given we consider a witness of the spirit to "not be anything to do with the discussion" please be kind enough to revisit the original topic of the discussion and demonstrate the following to me, using only facts and logic:

- That Mark 16 is original

- That Joseph's dictation of Moroni 9 is not quoting/copying from the KJV of the New Testament

- That both passages contain the actual and original words of Jesus at his departure from both sides of the world and that by providence or chance both statements were recorded, copied and translated into the same 16thC English despite the 1000s of miles and 100s of years difference between both record translated from and into.

Facts and logic alone would make me conclude this is not the case. But if you feel it's possible to use facts and logic to conclude the opposite I will welcome every input.

[Questing Beast]

Scripture is purported to be God communicating metaphysically via physical/empirical media. Scripture requires authorship. (At least two books on "Book of Mormon Authorship" have been published.) Joseph Smith signed himself "the author" of the BoM. If literally true, then JS is responsible for the linguistic style of the book and its contents. God is the singular Source of all Existence. JS was the singular "conduit" that the Source communicated through. Therefore all facets, nuances, coincidences, similarities, identical repetitions, shared with the Bible and Native American influences are not "coincidental", but evidence of the Source operating through its "conduit", the author JS.

If the book is "scripture" then something in its contents will speak as such to the reader. There are literally millions of readers of the book that assert it does in fact "speak" to them as scripture. I know that the book is scripture if such a literary form exists at all. If the BoM is not scripture then there is no such thing as scripture....

[cdowis]

I've actually little interest in discussing names like Angola etc. I consider them to be almost certainly coincidences. I replied because your arguments illustrate the influence of a conclusion.

I use the word "assumption". As i see it, a "conclusion" is based on several elements -- logic, data, and assumptions. For example, I assume that a new discovery of data can cause a change in the conclusion.

You have already stated in this thread that "the tail doesn't wag the dog." That phrase suggests that anything that appears to contradict the Book of Mormon can be dismissed on that basis.

Brilliant. What I actually said is that we have to decide which is the dog and which is the tail.

One could equally assert whatever contradicts the consensus opinion of the scholars of the world can be dismissed. Indeed, we can simply ignore it and not even take it into account. "A book delivered by an angel" indeed.

But I'm curious. You've stated so far that the BoM is the standard. You've stated that given it's in the Book of Mormon it must therefore be the actual original words spoken by Jesus. Given Mark 16 matches Mark 9 it therefore suggests that Mark 9 must also contain the original words of Jesus.

OK, we have all three elements -- data, assumption, logic. Change the assumption, and get a different conclusion. Thus the question, which is the dog and which is the tail

So given this is an apologetic forum and given we consider a witness of the spirit to "not be anything to do with the discussion" please be kind enough to revisit the original topic of the discussion and demonstrate the following to me, using only facts and logic:

snip

Huh?

We have have the same facts and logic, only different assumptions.

Facts and logic alone would make me conclude this is not the case. But if you feel it's possible to use facts and logic to conclude the opposite I will welcome every input.

We have come to different conclusions based on the same facts, the same logic (I guess), but different assumptions.

Edited June 14, 2013 by cdowis

[Calm]

And the source of assumptions, cdowis?

[canard78]

Like I've said before, it's a real pain replying when you type inside the 'quote' of my text. If you chop up mine with 'quote' marks then it makes the process a little easier. Especially for those on a phone

I use the word "assumption". As i see it, a "conclusion" is based on several elements -- logic, data, and assumptions. For example, I assume that a new discovery of data can cause a change in the conclusion.

Brilliant. What I actually said is that we have to decide which is the dog and which is the tail.

One could equally assert whatever contradicts the consensus opinion of the scholars of the world can be dismissed. Indeed, we can simply ignore it and not even take it into account. "A book delivered by an angel" indeed.

What are your assumptions? Are they based on a spiritual witness? Do they then have "no place in an apologetic forum?

Your first contribution to this thread was: "The BOM gives us a benchmark to judge the text. The tail does not wag the dog, so we do not judge the BOM by what "many scholars" conclude using the dating process of texts, but vise versa."

Using only facts and logic can you first establish that the BoM is the dog that everything else wags from?

OK, we have all three elements -- data, assumption, logic. Change the assumption, and get a different conclusion. Thus the question, which is the dog and which is the tail

(I said: So given this is an apologetic forum and given we consider a witness of the spirit to "not be anything to do with the discussion" please be kind enough to revisit the original topic of the discussion and demonstrate the following to me, using only facts and logic:

snip

You said:

Huh?

We have have the same facts and logic, only different assumptions.

We have come to different conclusions based on the same facts, the same logic (I guess), but different assumptions.

Like calmoriah asked, where do your assumptions come from? Facts and logic or a spiritual witness.

I do not assume the scholars are right. I do not assume an angel did not visit Joseph. I also do not assume that he did.

What facts and logic do you have that Mark 16 is original? If your only answer is "a book delivered by an angel" then you also need to show two things through facts and logic:

1) An angel visited Joseph Smith and gave him the plates

2) The translation/dictation did not include a process of Joseph using phrases he was familiar with based on having read the KJV bible.

Point 1 can surely only be concluded on faith and the spirit. There is no facts/data/logic that would work for that.

Point 2 is where your arguement could become circular. Many apologists have excused the KJV quotes as being a part of the process. Passages either copied or brought to his memory. But if that's the case, for those passages, the KJV becomes 'the dog' and then you need to explain Mark 16 without using the BoM as evidence.

[Nevo]

. . . Royal Skousen's discovery of the Old and medieval English forms in the BoM. This transcends anything to do with the KJV content in the BoM. Where/how did JS get textual forms not extant in his milieu? From "God", of course. There cannot be any other answer.

That dead language phrases pop up in the BoM out of thin air (for surely "Nephites" did not express themselves as 16th century Englishmen?) just complicates the critics' arguments, in fact renders them impossible. . . . Finding dead language passages from 16th century English rendered virtually as the original meaning intended, is just another way to slap somebody awake with, "This book is not explained by your facile critique, it comes from a Source that you will never fathom". In other words, "God."

As far as I can determine, Skousen has only managed to come up with a half dozen or so non-KJV examples of Early Modern English (dating approximately from 1500 to 1700) in the Book of Mormon after decades of intensive study of the text:

• but if with the meaning "unless, except"
  
• counsel with the meaning "to consult with"
  
• depart with the meaning "to part, divide, separate"
  
• detect with the meaning "to expose"
  
• extinct with the meaning "dead" (used of an individual death)
  

Skousen claims that no "vestiges of their use in the American colonies [have] been found as of yet" (see Skousen, "Archaic Vocabulary"), but this, of course, is not evidence of absence. I think some of these alleged archaisms could be the result of "bad transcriptions/dictations that found their way in," as canard78 suggests—such as the reference in Helaman 8:11 to the waters of the Red Sea "departing" (instead of "parting"). This may be authentically archaic, or it may simply be a transcription error or an idiosyncratic way of saying "parted." One blogger, as recently as 2011, wrote: "God departed the red sea!!! In other words, God made a way in the sea of impossibility!" Another site states: "God made many miracles in front of His people in Egypt, then He departed the red sea in two and they crossed it as if it was a dry land." Presumably Skousen wouldn't argue that these writers were channeling a 16th-century author when they wrote these words.

Was Joseph exposed to any other sources of Early Modern English, apart from the KJV, in his cultural environment? Almost certainly. Archaisms survived in popular works like John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress (1678). They also survived in the everyday speech of Quakers. In this connection, Dallin D. Oaks (remember the "D"!) has written:

Documents from the general time and area of Joseph Smith's boyhood attest to the presence in the local dialect(s) of some linguistic forms that would seem archaic to people today and that are similar to the language of the King James Bible. . . . It is common for rural communities to be conservative in preserving some older forms of speech. Furthermore, some religious groups often deliberately preserve older language forms. By these measures, Palmyra and its surrounding area thus represented a prime region for the presence of many older linguistic forms, because it was not only decidedly rural but contained a substantial number of members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) whose speech, even in normal everyday settings, was highly influenced by older forms of English. . . . Milton V. Backman Jr. showed that of the various religions in the area at the time of Joseph Smith's first vision, the Friends were the most highly represented. And because Joseph Smith hired himself out to farms in the area around his home, it is likely that he encountered a great deal of the "plain" speech that characterized the early Friend communities and which would have had some resemblances to the language of the King James Bible.

— Dallin D. Oaks, "Book of Mormon, language of the translated text of," in Book of Mormon Reference Companion, ed. Dennis L. Largey (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 2003), 118–119.

Finally, I would not rule out coincidence. That said, Skousen's findings are intriguing and it will be interesting to see if further research strengthens or weakens his case.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Nevo

[cdowis]

Like I've said before, it's a real pain replying when you type inside the 'quote' of my text. If you chop up mine with 'quote' marks then it makes the process a little easier. Especially for those on a phone

What are your assumptions? Are they based on a spiritual witness? Do they then have "no place in an apologetic forum?

If you will open a thread in Social Hall, I will be happy to discuss this. In the meantime, I am demonstrating in this forum that conclusions are also based on assumptions.

Your first contribution to this thread was: "The BOM gives us a benchmark to judge the text. The tail does not wag the dog, so we do not judge the BOM by what "many scholars" conclude using the dating process of texts, but vise versa."

Using only facts and logic can you first establish that the BoM is the dog that everything else wags from?

Do I need to repeat myself? Methinks not.

Like calmoriah asked, where do your assumptions come from? Facts and logic or a spiritual witness.

Each person decides their own assumptions, and the source of those assumptions. I am demonstrating that, with the same facts and tools of logic, one can come to different conclusions based on assumptions. In this case, the BOM is the dog, and the consensus of opinion is the tail. I can certainly prove, and have done so, that the consensus of opinion has been proven wrong on occasion.

Now, all those scholars have to do is to prove that the BOM is a fake. But the reality is that they dismiss this book delivered by an angel out of hand.

I do not assume the scholars are right. I do not assume an angel did not visit Joseph. I also do not assume that he did.

What facts and logic do you have that Mark 16 is original? If your only answer is "a book delivered by an angel" then you also need to show two things through facts and logic:

This is truly childish logic. Don't you understand that I do not need to prove an assumption, it is an assumption. It requires no proof.

May I suggest that you take a class in geometry where it is discussed in detail. And different assumptions, lead to different results or systems.

If you want to continue this very silly argument, then it is your burden to disprove it. The only thing you can do with an assumption is to dismiss/ignore it, or to disprove it.

Sigh.

Edited June 16, 2013 by cdowis

[canard78]

Cdowis, your patronising 'sighs' 'huhs?' and accusations of 'silly/juvenile' arguments, coupled with persistence in replying by typing inside my quotes (despite requests not to) makes any kind of dialogue with you difficult.

Feel free to explain your assumptions in the social hall and post a link here. If the only contribution you can make to answering my questions is your assumptions and no additional "facts or logic" then it serves me very little.

[canard78]

As far as I can determine, Skousen has only managed to come up with a half dozen or so non-KJV examples of Early Modern English (dating approximately from 1500 to 1700) in the Book of Mormon after decades of intensive study of the text:

• but if with the meaning "unless, except"
  
• counsel with the meaning "to consult with"
  
• depart with the meaning "to part, divide, separate"
  
• detect with the meaning "to expose"
  
• extinct with the meaning "dead" (used of an individual death)
  

Skousen claims that no "vestiges of their use in the American colonies [have] been found as of yet" (see Skousen, "Archaic Vocabulary"), but this, of course, is not evidence of absence. I think some of these alleged archaisms could be the result of "bad transcriptions/dictations that found their way in," as canard78 suggests—such as the reference in Helaman 8:11 to the waters of the Red Sea "departing" (instead of "parting"). This may be authentically archaic, or it may simply be a transcription error or an idiosyncratic way of saying "parted." One blogger, as recently as 2011, wrote: "God departed the red sea!!! In other words, God made a way in the sea of impossibility!" Another site states: "God made many miracles in front of His people in Egypt, then He departed the red sea in two and they crossed it as if it was a dry land." Presumably Skousen wouldn't argue that these writers were channeling a 16th-century author when they wrote these words.

Was Joseph exposed to any other sources of Early Modern English, apart from the KJV, in his cultural environment? Almost certainly. Archaisms survived in popular works like John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress (1678). They also survived in the everyday speech of Quakers. In this connection, Dallin D. Oaks (remember the "D"!) has written:

Finally, I would not rule out coincidence. That said, Skousen's findings are intriguing and it will be interesting to see if further research strengthens or weakens his case.

Thanks Nevo. Very interesting summary. I've seen this discussed on a couple of threads now. It merits its own thread (but you're welcome to discuss it here if you're not wanting to).