Joseph Copied Parts Of The Book Of Mormon From The Kjv Bible (Church Source)

[Calm]

That is precisely how Jews describe the operation of the Urim and Thummim.

CFR please.

[Calm]

One thing that we can be assured of is that Joseph Smith knew the Bible.

Not sure what you mean by this. "Knew" as in he was obedient to the laws contained within it (was a good Christian iow) or was directly familiar with the content (was an expert or at least educated in what the Bible said, had spent significant time studying it). If the second, are you speaking about Joseph in regards to all of his life, at the time he was translating the Book of Mormon or sometime later in this life?

If the latter, I would agree. His earlier spiritual experiences led him to immerse himself in the Bible, I believe. However, I also believe that while his Christian environment growing up would have given him some familiarity with Biblical events and teachings, that there was much in the detail he lacked in knowledge as evidenced by Emma's report he was not aware that Jerusalem had walls.

[Ahab]

Merely having a thought does not necessarily put that thought into languages known or unknown.

If the thought goes from one person to another person it does, even if you don't know what to call that type of language.

So in other words, I don't believe in speaking in tongues.

Many people speak with their tongues, though, whether or not you believe in it.

Joseph Smith wrote a document now known as "Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar". Not a single symbol or word matches any known work of actual Egyptian translation. These documents can now be found on church sites listed as "The Kirtland Egyptian Papers".

You seem to be dissing or disregarding a known work of actual Egyptian translation just because you do not accept it as one.

No matter which method used, or tool used, for that matter, a translation must coincide with the document being translated. Anything else is not a translation, but merely a work of independent imagination.

Are you saying you can't imagine a translation that doesn't coincide with your thoughts on what a document is expressing? Why would you think your translation of a document must coincide with someone else's translation of a document? It could be that your translation is faulty and the one you think is faulty is the correct one. Knowing about other people who agree with you and your translation doesn't necessarily prove anything, don't cha know.

[ERayR]

No matter which method used, or tool used, for that matter, a translation must coincide with the document being translated. Anything else is not a translation, but merely a work of independent imagination.

Or a gift from God. Either is possible.

[Calm]

If God inspired JS to correct the mistakes of the Bible in the JST

I think the "if" needs to be demonstrated before one moves on to the "then" part.

Was the JST completely a correction of mistakes in the Bible? Was everything written in the JST direct inspiration? Did it cover all the mistakes present there? Were all "corrections" corrections in the sense that the Bible was wrong or were some of them updates, "course corrections" so to speak? And various other questions that can be asked for what was going on with the JST and what that implies for how LDS currently view the Bible as well as JS's translation methods and how consistently they were applied.

[Nevo]

You seem to be dissing or disregarding a known work of actual Egyptian translation just because you do not accept it as one.

The GAEL is "a known work of actual Egyptian translation"? Hardly.

[Kevin Christensen]

There is wide agreement among NT scholars that the Sermon on the Mount is a literary creation of Matthew, who basically took various unrelated sayings attributed to Jesus (mostly drawn from the sayings source Q) and arranged them in his own composition, supplying his own wording where necessary. On this view, while the historical Jesus probably did say a number of the things that appear in the sermon (or something roughly similar), he never spoke the words of the Sermon on the Mount as a single, unified discourse. The Sermon on the Mount didn't exist in history until Matthew created it.

If you're interested, I'll start a separate thread on this topic. This one is going downhill fast.

Wide agreement does not imply total agreement, nor that the last word has been spoken. There is John Welch's interesting work on The Sermon on the Mount and the Temple, which makes a case for a unified discourse. And he was put on this track by the Book of Mormon.

http://www.amazon.com/Sermon-Society-Testament-Monographs-Edition/dp/B00BUFOIFW/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1369857357&sr=8-7&keywords=The+Sermon+on+the+Mount+and+the+Temple

He points out all sorts of things that the "cobbled together from unrelated sayings by Matthew" paradigm does not anticipate. And Welch's earlier books had pointed out that the variations between the Book of Mormon and KJV are often quite meaningful. And sometimes, not at all meaningful, in the case of Larsen's study.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Calm]

why go through the enormous effort of creating an entire second set of plates out of one of the rarest metals on Earth if they were destroyed?

If you are saying "gold" is one of the rarest metals, it is suggested that the plates were not pure gold. And gold was apparently available enough to be used for less important objects, so why not devote what you have to such a valuable effort?

Plus there seems to be an underlying assumption that the only use of a second set of plates would be for this second translation. There is, imo, no reason to assume this. If the records were in use by the Nephites at the time for their own reasons, having more than one account could be very helpful just as it is helpful these days to have more than one account for any historical information or even scriptural (having "another testament of Christ" is a plus, is it not?)

[Ahab]

The GAEL is "a known work of actual Egyptian translation"? Hardly.

Okay, go get your army of people who agree with you and I'll get my army who agrees with me.

The fact that there are 2 groups of people on opposing sides only shows that both sides are not in agreement with each other.

You can be wrong as long as you want to.

[canard78]

Excellent point in my opinion.

But that still doesn't explain how Mormon's words and Joseph's translation are almost identical to a very much more 'made' made/through the generations process.

If Jesus did actually say those things, but the gospels are fair amount of 'poetic license' or at least condensing it down a bit, how did they find their way so similarly via KJV to the BoM

[Calm]

(Not to mention that this plan requires the Book of Mormon to be finished and published in order to work, and Martin's wife Lucy didn't want him to spend his time and money on the project, so she wanted them to stop working on it, not to finish it and then fail.)

Perhaps the intent was that the threat of such would encourage Joseph to stop working on it....why bother with the whole effort if it was set up for failure from the beginning...blackmail, iow.

When it was seen that it was not going to work, they had other options available to them, the originals were then likely destroyed so as to avoid making trouble for those who had stolen them or perhaps out of sheer frustration or annoyance or a desire to at least deprive Joseph of his work to that extent possible.

Edited May 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

But that still doesn't explain how Mormon's words and Joseph's translation are almost identical to a very much more 'made' made/through the generations process.

If Jesus did actually say those things, but the gospels are fair amount of 'poetic license' or at least condensing it down a bit, how did they find their way so similarly via KJV to the BoM

Still looking even when I've already given you the answer. Oh well. Happy hunting. Look as long as you want to.

[Calm]

If nothing else, this thread points to the fact that it isn't a fact that the book was dictated by the gift and power of God. It is a belief.

Surely anything associated with God is a belief.

[Calm]

The words in the BoM were straight from the Lord's mouth to the prophets ears.

Assumption...and a common one that appears in part to be based on other religious faith's traditional understanding of scripture/revelation as opposed to the LDS experience which defines revelation and scripture as happening over a range of methods.

[Ahab]

If nothing else, this thread points to the fact that it isn't a fact that the book was dictated by the gift and power of God. It is a belief.

I guess that depends on what your translation of the word "fact" is. To me a fact is something that actually happened, regardless of whether or not anyone knows about it or believes it happened. In that light it is a fact, and many people believe it.

Nice try to give the impression that it isn't a fact, though. Better luck next time.

[Nevo]

Okay, go get your army of people who agree with you and I'll get my army who agrees with me. The fact that there are 2 groups of people on opposing sides only shows that both sides are not in agreement with each other. You can be wrong as long as you want to.

Never mind an army, I can't think of one LDS scholar that would agree that the GAEL is "a known work of actual Egyptian translation."

[Ahab]

Never mind an army, I can't think of one LDS scholar that would agree that the GAEL is "a known work of actual Egyptian translation."

What part of this statement would they say is not true, then:

Joseph Smith wrote a document now known as "Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar". Not a single symbol or word matches any known work of actual Egyptian translation. These documents can now be found on church sites listed as "The Kirtland Egyptian Papers".

Maybe we're not thinking about the same thing.

[Gervin]

I guess that depends on what your translation of the word "fact" is. To me a fact is something that actually happened, regardless of whether or not anyone knows about it or believes it happened. In that light it is a fact, and many people believe it.

Nice try to give the impression that it isn't a fact, though. Better luck next time.

In this instance I would define (vs. translate) "fact" as "a piece of information presented as having objective reality."

It may be a fact that many people believe that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, but that does not make the act (of the book coming forth) a fact.

[Gervin]

Surely anything associated with God is a belief.

Of course. That was my point.

[Calm]

The following scriptures seem to agree with me that the large plates of Nephi were created for the express purpose of solving the problem created by the lost 116 pages. In fact I've been taught this was the reason why all my life, haven't you?

And after I had made these plates by way of commandment, I, Nephi, received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, the more plain and precious parts of them, should be written upon these plates; and that the things which were written should be kept for the instruction of my people, who should possess the land, and also for other wise purposes, which purposes are known unto the Lord.

What about this reason?

Edited May 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

In this instance I would define (vs. translate) "fact" as "a piece of information presented as having objective reality."

Presentation isn't the linchpin that makes something a fact. I agree with the rest of your definition/translation, though. A piece of information that has an objective reality. Something that is true, in other words. It doesn't matter if people believe it, or know about it, or present it to others. What matters is whether or not it is true, and if it is true then I refer to as a fact.

It may be a fact that many people believe that the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, but that does not make the act (of the book coming forth) a fact.

What makes it a fact is that it was translated by the gift and power of God. Regardless of whether anyone believes it.

[Johnnie Cake]

But that still doesn't explain how Mormon's words and Joseph's translation are almost identical to a very much more 'made' made/through the generations process.

If Jesus did actually say those things, but the gospels are fair amount of 'poetic license' or at least condensing it down a bit, how did they find their way so similarly via KJV to the BoM

My opinion doesn't count for much....but can we just say it? Joseph copied the the Old and New Testiment and Riffed off of the Old and New Testiment and put it in the Book of Mormon. There its been said...

While I know that Grant Palmer doesn't carry much weight around here...he did a great analysis of the source material for the Book of Mormon and while I won't link to his analysis (the curious can google him) he concluded that over 1/2 of the 2 Nephi was copied from the Bible, 3 Nephi 11-28 were directly copied from the NT His sources account for about 75% of the Book of Mormon

Edited May 29, 2013 by Johnnie Cake

[tagriffy]

But that still doesn't explain how Mormon's words and Joseph's translation are almost identical to a very much more 'made' made/through the generations process.

If Jesus did actually say those things, but the gospels are fair amount of 'poetic license' or at least condensing it down a bit, how did they find their way so similarly via KJV to the BoM

I would say the only way it would make sense was that Joseph KJV and conclude that it points to a more modern origin for the passage.

[Calm]

These additional lines of text were added sometime between the first surviving copies of the Greek texts and publication of the King Jame's Bible. Just who and when and why this text was added in unknown.

Could they not have been in texts that were written prior to the first surviving copies of the Greek texts, but their own copies only having survivals after the earliest of the other versions?

[Calm]

I honestly wish we could just have conversations on this board where ideas could be tested and scrutinized with mutual respect for all participants without the vitriol of personal venom being spewed like confetti falling from a Mexican piñata.

I would suggest to all how would prefer such to remove such commentary as 'I will try to phrase this as kindly as possible' or 'this might get me banned but' (I believe I am paraphrasing you in the first example, but the second example is a generic one). Both imply that one's stance is either naturally so highly critical it will be rejected by those written to or that it is likely that those written to are so uptight and closeminded that they will not respond thoughtfully to the post but rejected it automatically. Other comments anticipating how one's post is going to be perceived besides something like "I hope I am clear enough to be understood" generally also set up a combative environment.

Examples of posts that manage the best of creating an intelligent and thoughtful discussion would be 3DOP, Kevin Christensen, Brant Gardner (you will have to search for his as he hasn't been posting lately), Larry Poulsen, most of Wiki Wonka and Nevo. Mudcat often does personal commentary but it is about his own life and not others, so I would point to him as another fine example. Leaving out all personal commentary as well as choosing neutral terms of description as well as being willing to engage a poster's position rather than dismissing it outright are the essential aspects of dialogue, imo.

Edited May 29, 2013 by calmoriah