cognitiveharmony Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Okay. I've reviewed and am in a better position to comment. The link claims a word or text analysis shows The Book of Mormon borrowed heavily from The Great War Between Britain. Some people are also claiming that The Book of Mormon borrows heavily in terms of theme and specifics, like the Stripling Warriors, the Freemen and Kingmen, The Liahona and others. I can't find where this has been addressed by FAIR or other places. Has this been addressed yet?I don't think they've addressed any of it yet in specifics. I'm sure they will. I would recommend reading the actual book though. http://archive.org/stream/latewarbetweenun00inhunt#page/n5/mode/2up It's very intriguing.
nealr Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Yes, I'd say that a "loose translation" works better, given the language and such, but then that poses problems for proposed Hebraisms and translation issues ("horses," for example).As for the methodology, I'll leave it to someone else and state the obvious: the language and contents in this book are strikingly similar to that of the Book of Mormon. What people do with that is their business. Loose translation can be problematic for Hebraisms, but no for translation issues like "horse." The arguments for such things quite often rest on the premise of a loose translation.
helix Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) Folks - this is lighting up some LDS-related sites: http://askreality.com/hidden-in-plain-sight/#more-56 Seems a cursory textual analysis of works published pre-1830 has yielded some clue as to books that influenced the BOM! Well, that is the argument Chris Johnson is making. But it's a bad one. You can't just go and compare hundreds of pages of one work with 130,000 other works and not expect to find parallels. Anyone familiar with the math behind the birthday paradox knows that comparing such a massive set of items on one side (all the pages in the Book of Mormon) to an even more massive set of items (130,000 other works) is going to find parallels. Even worse, you can't just say "Hey, this book placed #1 on our ranking. It's obviously the source." What if that #1 book didn't exist? Then #2 would have shown up as #1, and they would say "Hey, this book placed #1 on our ranking. It's obviously the source." Unless he hasn't mentioned more to his analysis, it appears all Chris Johnson did is look for matching four word phrases: http://askreality.com/hidden-in-plain-sight/#phrases. Nothing in those 4 word phrases which lends support that the Book of Mormon was the product of one of these other writings. Just that these four word phrases were common at the time, and many people used them. The lesser argument (which Chris Johnson isn't using) is a big step up, but still flawed due to parallelomania. "Hey, the Book of Mormon has a similar sentence patterns and flow compared to these other couple of dozen books, so we can't say the Book of Mormon is unique for its time". No, out of 130,000 compared works, we should expect that to this. Whether Mormons think Joseph Smith was the translater into 19th century English, or nonbelievers think Joseph Smith was a fraud and wrote it in 19th century Enligsh, finding a few dozen with similar 4 word phrases doesn't tell us much. Edited October 21, 2013 by helix 4
EllenMaksoud Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) Is this a smoking gun? Nope, but it does answer a couple of questions I've never sorted out: 1. Why did Joseph Smith mimic language of the KJV? Mitchill says the same thing:2. Why did Joseph Smith send Martin Harris to someone like Samuel Mitchill?The endorsements are clearly Hunt's effort to give the book legitimacy, hence improving its marketability. Hunt is quite wise in getting the endorsement of Mitchill, who was well-known as a sort of human encyclopedia. The endorsement from well-known educator J.W. Picket would get him into the school market, as well. Joseph Smith may have thought that such an endorsement from learned men like Mitchill and Anthon would legitimize the book.Again, it doesn't prove anything, but it does show that the Book of Mormon fits right in with what was going on at the time. And it puts to rest the notion that "and it came to pass" is evidence of ancient Hebrew influence.Well, the language used in the BOM proved at the very least that Joseph Smith was extremely familiar, even intimate, with the Bible. There are very solid principles taught in the BOM. AND, having been an Ev in the past, can say with some authority that there are lots of pastors around that have simply used the Bible to feather their own nests, or prove their own points without regard to the purpose of Heavenly Father in driving the compilation of the Book (The Bible). And, just looking at the history of the church, I am a member, a convert, the Mormons stand head and shoulders above ALL the other churches I have encountered in terms of carrying out the will of Heavenly Father. Edited October 21, 2013 by EllenMaksoud
canard78 Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Well, that is the argument Chris Johnson is making. But it's a bad one. You can't just go and compare hundreds of pages of one work with 130,000 other works and not expect to find parallels. Even worse, you can't just say "Hey, this book placed #1 on our ranking. It's obviously the source." What if that #1 book didn't exist? Then #2 would have shown up as #1, and they would say "Hey, this book placed #1 on our ranking. It's obviously the source." Unless he hasn't mentioned more to his analysis, it appears all Chris Johnson did is look for matching four word phrases: http://askreality.com/hidden-in-plain-sight/#phrases. Nothing in those 4 word phrases which lends support that the Book of Mormon was the product of one of these other writings. Just that these four word phrases were common at the time, and many people used them. The lesser argument (which Chris Johnson isn't using) is a big step up, but still flawed due to parallelomania. "Hey, the Book of Mormon has a similar sentence patterns and flow compared to these other couple of dozen books, so we can't say the Book of Mormon is unique for its time". No, out of 130,000 compared works, we should expect that to this. Whether Mormons think Joseph Smith was the translater into 19th century English, or nonbelievers think Joseph Smith was a fraud and wrote it in 19th century Enligsh, finding a few dozen with similar 4 word phrases doesn't tell us much. Have you read the book? It's not just the fact that there are many "exact phrase" matches - it's that it sounds like you're reading the Book of Mormon. It's a 19th production using KJV Bible English and doing a good job of it. It's not proof - but it's not simply number crunching 130,000 books and ranking them in correlation. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Well, that is the argument Chris Johnson is making. But it's a bad one. You can't just go and compare hundreds of pages of one work with 130,000 other works and not expect to find parallels. Even worse, you can't just say "Hey, this book placed #1 on our ranking. It's obviously the source." What if that #1 book didn't exist? Then #2 would have shown up as #1, and they would say "Hey, this book placed #1 on our ranking. It's obviously the source." Unless he hasn't mentioned more to his analysis, it appears all Chris Johnson did is look for matching four word phrases: http://askreality.com/hidden-in-plain-sight/#phrases. Nothing in those 4 word phrases which lends support that the Book of Mormon was the product of one of these other writings. Just that these four word phrases were common at the time, and many people used them. The lesser argument (which Chris Johnson isn't using) is a big step up, but still flawed due to parallelomania. "Hey, the Book of Mormon has a similar sentence patterns and flow compared to these other couple of dozen books, so we can't say the Book of Mormon is unique for its time". No, out of 130,000 compared works, we should expect that to this. Whether Mormons think Joseph Smith was the translater into 19th century English, or nonbelievers think Joseph Smith was a fraud and wrote it in 19th century Enligsh, finding a few dozen with similar 4 word phrases doesn't tell us much. I've just been going by my reading of the text, which is remarkably similar to the Book of Mormon in style and, in some respects, content. Am I suggesting that the Book of Mormon is a "product" of this book? Nope, but this book helps put the Book of Mormon in context, whether you believe it's inspired scripture or not.
canard78 Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Thanks for answering my question. I was really curious as to how you could arrive at a position such as that. Your answer actually spawns lots of followup questions but out of respect for this thread I'll leave it at that as not to derail it. No worries - it's sparked lots of questions that I've not answered either. I'll see if I can find a thread where I've elaborated on my perspectives and revive it so you can ask more questions (though I'll be away for a few days, so not being rude if I don't get back immediately).
canard78 Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 I'm unphased by multiple instances of "and it came to pass"...Until I see some real similarities like strippling warriors or items of curious workmanship, I'll remain unimpressed. He sets... http://archive.org/stream/latewarbetweenun00inhunt#page/42/mode/2up/search/curious+workmanship He spikes...
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Well, the language used in the BOM proved at the very least that Joseph Smith was extremely familiar, even intimate, with the Bible. There are very solid principles taught in the BOM. AND, having been an Ev in the past, can say with some authority that there are lots of pastors around that have simply used the Bible to feather their own nests, or prove their own points without regard to the purpose of Heavenly Father in driving the compilation of the Book (The Bible). And, just looking at the history of the church, I am a member, a convert, the Mormons stand head and shoulders above ALL the other churches I have encountered in terms of carrying out the will of Heavenly Father. Of course he was familiar with the Bible. No one disputes that. Nor is anyone disputing the values and principles taught in the book. Speaking for myself, I don't think this is a "smoking gun" or "nail in the coffin," as other people think it is. It just puts the book in context, better, IMO. And I'm certainly not making any judgments about the righteousness of Latter-day Saints. 1
nealr Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 As I said in my thread about moundbuilders, you can pretty much find parallels with whatever you wish. What I find interesting here is not so much specific parallels but that the stylistic choices of the Book of Mormon make more sense when you know the context, and Hunt's book, IMO, provides some context. A lot of apologetic effort seems to be expended trying to show that the Book of Mormon is unique for its time and place. That's a difficult case to make.Does any of this have any bearing on the book's spiritual value? Obviously not. But the uniqueness of the Book of Mormon never had anything with its mimicking of the KJV, which is all this seems to do it. Apologists have actually been doing exactly the the opposite in this regard: It is has long been insisted that the the use of KVJ idiom is to be expected given the time and place the translation was produced. This really just provides a rather striking confirmation that the Book of Mormon was translated in the contemporary language of Joseph Smith's day. Not really all that shocking, if you ask me. 4
EllenMaksoud Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 He sets... He spikes... And your point is?
cdowis Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) This whole thing shows why the *noncontextual* wordprint study is more valid than looking for similar words and phrases. Look for the pattern of noncontextual words, such as "and". For example, "having all manner of.....and of gold, and of silver" is not the same thing as "yielding gold and silver". These are very different constructs. What is missing here is giving an analysis of the text in the context of the utter lack of punctuation in the BOM text. "And it came to pass" is an indicator of punctuation -- a period. It is telling the reader, put a period here. What about *and* of gold *and* of silver == why the duplication? Because "and" is being used as a comma. It clearly indicates the lack of punctuation in the text. This does not show up in the analysis of words, but would be a glaring indication in noncontextual word analysis. The noncontextual word "of" which is also repeated may indicate a grammatical construct not found in English. The analysis should focus on those "ordinary" words. Edited October 21, 2013 by cdowis
volgadon Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 But the uniqueness of the Book of Mormon never had anything with its mimicking of the KJV, which is all this seems to do it. Apologists have actually been doing exactly the the opposite in this regard: It is has long been insisted that the the use of KVJ idiom is to be expected given the time and place the translation was produced. This really just provides a rather striking confirmation that the Book of Mormon was translated in the contemporary language of Joseph Smith's day. Not really all that shocking, if you ask me. Neal, I was about to say the same. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 This whole thing shows why the *noncontextual* wordprint study is more valid than looking for similar words and phrases. Look for the pattern of ordinary words. For example, "having all manner of.....and of gold, and of silver" is not the same thing as "yielding gold and silver". These are very different constructs. You get into the trap of saying "Ah ha, there is the words gold and silver in both texts." That's in there, too. http://archive.org/stream/latewarbetweenun00inhunt#page/74/mode/2up/search/manner
volgadon Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Here is a question. Are there any 19th century anti-Mormon sources commenting on the relationship of the BoM to Hunt's work? 2
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 But the uniqueness of the Book of Mormon never had anything with its mimicking of the KJV, which is all this seems to do it. Apologists have actually been doing exactly the the opposite in this regard: It is has long been insisted that the the use of KVJ idiom is to be expected given the time and place the translation was produced. This really just provides a rather striking confirmation that the Book of Mormon was translated in the contemporary language of Joseph Smith's day. Not really all that shocking, if you ask me. I don't think it's shocking, either. But it does give me pause in regards to those who insist on finding "Hebraisms" in the Book of Mormon. For years, I've been told that the repetition of "and it came to pass" is evidence of antiquity. For example: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Evidences/And_it_came_to_pass Clearly this apologetic argument and similar ones don't work very well when you look at the Hunt text. I don't know why I have to say this yet again, but this isn't a nail in any coffin. It just puts the book in context. If anything, it is problematic only for those apologetic arguments that rely on a tight translation.
canard78 Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Look, however, at match #19. I've not read it yet. But presumably the match declines because it has been "altered and adapted." The historical reader [microform] : containing “The late war between the United States and Great Britain, from June, 1812, to February, 1815, written in the ancient historical style” : altered and adapted for use in schools throughout the United States
helix Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 (edited) Have you read the book? It's not just the fact that there are many "exact phrase" matches - it's that it sounds like you're reading the Book of Mormon. It's a 19th production using KJV Bible English and doing a good job of it. It's not proof - but it's not simply number crunching 130,000 books and ranking them in correlation. Yes, I'm flipping through pages. Here's what I see: A story using both 19th century terminology mixed in with King James English that also involves God. The story's contents don't match up with the Book of Mormon. Just the manner of storytelling and pacing *sounds* similar. But that doesn't mean anything to me. As the original results indicate, this book got a 4.235 score. Another got a 3.95 score. Another got a 3.82 score. Another got a 3.8 score. All this does is indicate that the Book of Mormon used similar four-word phrasings common to 19th century America. And given that both this 4.235 book also invokes God into it, and split the phrasings into verses (which the original Book of Mormon did NOT do), it makes the feel even more similar. Out of 130,000 works, they found the closest match in pacing and common phrase usage. But that's the problem with parallelomania. There's a reason why the birthday paradox is called a "paradox". Mathematically we should expect these so-called striking parallels. You're not going to search up 130,000 works for parallels and come up empty handed. Edited October 21, 2013 by helix 1
canard78 Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Look, however, at match #19. Look at 8,9 and 10. I want someone to write a blog saying that actually the Book of Mormon is a copy of the Koran. Much cooler 3
volgadon Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 I've not read it yet. But presumably the match declines because it has been "altered and adapted."The historical reader [microform] : containing “The late war between the United States and Great Britain, from June, 1812, to February, 1815, written in the ancient historical style” : altered and adapted for use in schools throughout the United States That version though was presumably more widespread. 2
canard78 Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 And your point is? Just amused by the two posts. (It's a volleyball move... one person pushes the ball up high in a slow arc so that another person can jump and hit the ball fast over the net making it hard for the other team to return it).
canard78 Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 That version though was presumably more widespread. Presumably?
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 But that's the problem with parallelomania. There's a reason why the birthday paradox is called a "paradox". Mathematically we should expect these so-called striking parallels. You're not going to search up 130,000 works for parallels and come up empty handed. Agreed. You can find parallels with all kinds of things if you want to. I once did a joke post on how the Three Stooges were obviously a product of ancient Mesoamerica. The problem works both ways: here we have a text that is strikingly similar in style and word usage to the Book of Mormon, and that's waved off. But some people have created a cottage industry around finding extremely tenuous parallels between the Book of Mormon and ancient America. If we are going to dismiss the one, it's hard not to dismiss the other. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 21, 2013 Posted October 21, 2013 Just amused by the two posts. (It's a volleyball move... one person pushes the ball up high in a slow arc so that another person can jump and hit the ball fast over the net making it hard for the other team to return it). I think Wm Law's post was a joke, hence my "spike" in response.
Recommended Posts